Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

her cautious and general allusion
to the case of Judas: He is repre-
sented not as an example of an un-
worthy communicant, but as an
example of the aggravated guilt and
danger, and punishment of unre-
pented sin as an example which
such as are unworthy to receive the
Lord's Supper will improve, not
by absence from the table which
he never polluted because he never
attended, but by avoiding in a
spirit of sincere and earnest repent-
ance those judicial complications of
sin, which were the consequences
of his impenitence and hardness of
heart,
A. M.

in the blessed Trinity was a doctrine contained, although obscurely, in the Old Testament. But the learned Bishop Horsley has delivered it as his opinion, that by Michael the Archangel in Dan. x. 13. the Messiah himself is meant, in his "character of champion of his faithful people against the violence of the apostate faction and the wiles of the devil." "Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me," are the words in Daniel: Michael was superior to Gabriel, for he comes to help him in the greatest difficulties; "one of the chief Princes, or one of the capital Princes, or one of the Princes, that are the head of all; for this is the full, and not more than the full import of the Hebrew

To the Editor of the Remembrancer. words. Now the princes, that are

Sir,

I KNOW not whether the following remarks on an obscure text, Jude v. 9. will be thought worthy of insertion in your excellent Miscellany.

"Yet Michael the Archangel, when contending with the devil, he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said,

the Lord rebuke thee."

first, or at the head of all, are clearly no other than the three princes in the Godhead. Michael, therefore, is one of them, and which of them, consistence with this description of there can be no doubt. In perfect Michael in the book of Daniel is the action assigned to him in the Apocalypse, in which we find him fighting with the old Serpent, the deceiver of the world, and victorious in the combat. That combat who was to

Here is an allusion to Zech. iii. maintain? in that combat, who was

[blocks in formation]

to be victorious but the seed of the woman ?" Such are the comments of Bishop Horsley. If then the pas sage in Jude be compared with Zech. iii. 1, 2. and Dan. x. 13. as illustrated by these eminent commentators, a very

Prophet Zechariah and the Apostle close parallelism between the may be traced: and could we venture to suppose, that for "the body of Moses," St. Jude originally wrote the body of Joshua, the reference to Zech. iii. 1, 2. would be very precise.

But what interpretation is to be given to the words, "the body of Moses?" The interment of the Jewish lawgiver is mentioned, Deut. xxxiv. 6.

"And he (the Lord) buried him in a valley in the land of Moab over

against Beth-Peor: but no, man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day."

From this passage compared with Jude v. 6. " we may collect," says the learned Dr. Hales, who concurs with Archbishop Tillotson and other divines, “that he was buried by the Ministry of Angels, near the scene of the idolatry of the Israelites; but that the spot was purposely concealed, lest his tomb might also be converted into an object of idolatrous worship among the Israelites, like the brazen serpent." It is very likely then, that St. Jude refers to some traditional report of a contest between Michael and Satan respecting the body of Moses, and that report may have been framed upon the passage in Zechariah already adverted to. The supposition is strengthened by the circumstance, that the Apostle quotes v. 14. the Apocryphal book of Enoch, some account of which is given in the first volume of the Christian Remembrancer. St. Paul also refers to some Jewish record, when he mentions Jannes and Jambres withstanding Moses, names not elsewhere mentioned in Holy Writ. 2 Tim. iii. 8. So curious have been the enquirers, who have exercised their ingenuity on this text of St. Jude, that there have not been wanting those who surmised, that the ground of the contest respecting the body of Moses was, that he had rendered himself unworthy of burial by excessive zeal and precipitance in the transaction recorded, Exod. ii. 11 -15.

The words, "the body of Moses," may, however, be used metaphorically, and Dr. Hammond supposes, that they may refer to the rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem, and the re-establishment of the Jewish reli. gion and laws after the captivity; so that "the body of Moses" may signify the Mosaic institution in the same manner as the body of Christ" is used for the Christian Church, 1 Cor, xii. 27, Eph, iv, 12.

[ocr errors]

I conclude with the the learned Toup's brief hint on a passage in Longinus, “ ὅλον τὸ σωμάτιον δραματικόν

scale. Hesychius, las rò ‘OμÝpe owμalor. Atque huc nescio an referendus D. Judas in Epist, v. 9. Sed de hoc viderint Theologi. (Toup. Long. sect. 9.)

The passage is admitted on all hands to be obscure; the words are introduced by way of illustration in argument; they do not contain any point of doctrine, nor are they likely to be wrested by the perverters of sacred truth: it may, however, be desirable in your Miscellany to present to the Theological Student such explanations, as a comparison of texts and philological researches suggest.

I am, &c.

CLER. GLOC.

To the Editor of the Remembrancer.

SIR,

WHEN I first took up my pen to oppose the authenticity of the Heavenly Witnesses, I was perfectly aware of going to place myself in the situation of one, who, having once planted his foot on a nest of wasps, must either be prepared to crush the whole swarm, or instantly expect to be stung to the quick. This opening remark will apply in a high degree to the petulance and flippancy of your angry correspondent, who has become my second antagonist; and who, it seems, has the honour to subscribe himself, Fred. Nolan. But, though I can readily imagine Mr. Nolan to be both a scholar and a gentleman; it would be acting with great insincerity on my part, were I for a moment to admit, that I thought him competent either to establish the authenticity of the disputed verse, or to disprove any one of my principal positions; for as to the commission of a mistake, since I do not profess to be infallible, so I shall always be

most ready to retract an error, when once pointed out to me and sufficiently detected.

It had been my original wish, with whatever opponent I might be brought in contact, to argue the question in a mild and dispassionate manner; but Mr. Nolan, from the impotency of his temper, has left me no other alternative than to treat him as a peevish and virulent assailant; and to scourge him with that triple lash, which I cannot but see, was intended for my own back. In his first onset, I am directly charged with having stolen my display of learning from Griesbach; as being ignorant of the state of the Arian controversy; and as having obtruded myself into the present contest from no other motive than to make a shew of my reading. To these unmannerly reflections I shall, for the present, reply, that in the existing stage of the controversy of the Heavenly Witnesses, I am very sure, I shall be easily pardoned by the learned reader for any statement which I may seem immediately to have taken from Griesbach; whilst my oppopent, on the other hand, will be as severely censured for not having made it his particular business to answer the stubborn objections of that celebrated critic, instead of bol. stering up for arguments the fig ments of his own brain; arguments which have already failed, and must of necessity fail to make the least impression on the well-informed mind! That as to my knowledge of the state of the question between the heretics and the orthodox, how ever little that may be, it probably may be thought, by some at least, to be equal to that of my antagonist: but whether or not, the issue of the present contest will, ere long, determine, on which side of the two combatants the victory preponde rates. That with respect to my motive for stepping forward in the existing dispute, I can conscientiously assure your correspondent, that I had no other design whatever

than to prevent such smatterers in theological science as himself from impudently imposing on the Christian world for Scripture that which is not Scripture; and from further alleging, as the language of St. John, what by nineteen-twentieths of the learned at this day is known to be a palpably convicted and unquestionable interpolation.

But to descend to the conflict. In the prelude to his first attack, it is highly amusing to see with what admirable art he has endeavoured to throw dust into the eyes of your readers by premising, that to whatever account the testimony of other churches may be turned, in the classification of manuscripts, their evidence on any contested doctrinal point is wholly undeserving of credit: and that the principle which gives weight to that testimony, as far as it rests on the assumption, that the Witnesses are ancient and separate, supplies every person who is but moderately versed in the history of the Sacred Text, with meet subject of derision. This I plainly perceive is the only answer which we are likely to receive to that positive testimony against the disputed passage, arising from its non-existence in all the ancient versions. But I shall not allow our modest critic to drop his courtesy, and to retire in this manner. That the ancient versions, either in the decision of any doctrinal point, or in the eluci dation of any difficult and obscure original text, are not an infallible guide; is a truth of which none of your readers, I should think, can need to be informed. The tenour of my complaint, however, has nothing to do with the illustration of an obscure passage, or with the decision of a doctrinal point; but concerns the absence of a whole verse; a verse, too, comprised in such easy and familiar terms, that, had it been in the Greek originals from which those ancient versions were ́ first made, it must have been understood and translated in all to the very same

purport. Moreover, as to any trivial argument deducible, from the artificial classification of the manu scripts, I am fully prepared to evince, from the intrinsic evidence of the versions themselves, that they must have been made from various manuscripts; or, to express myself more agreeably to the style of modern criticism, from manuscripts of distinct and different classes. Here, then, I plant my standard; and call on my opponent to dispute the ground with me. The strength of my posi. tion is simply this, that at the several periods of time in which those ancient versions were first made from the Greek, the passage of the Heavenly Witnesses did not exist in any of the Greek manuscripts; and, consequently, never had existed there at any time previous; a pretty large pill for those to swallow who maintain its authenticity: and, if Mr. Nolan should be resolved to close his eyes to the overwhelming force of this argument; there is no other cure for his obstinacy than that ridicule and contempt to which the pertinacity of his opinion must in. evitably expose him.

In one place, indeed, he speaks of granting me every thing that I can desire, on points which no person now is disposed to contest. But if he would come to a fair and honourable balancing of the vouchers for and against his Heavenly Witnesses; and should permit me to take to myself my just portion of the heap; if I grant him a drachm, I must for that drachm demand to myself a whole pound of the evidence and when that is done, I must further require of him to desist from publishing to the world, that in the just and even scales bis soli tary drachm is as heavy as my pound; or that his evidence for, is as weighty as mine against, the Heavenly Wit

nesses.

I now proceed to meet his first charge on one of my posts, the testimony of Facundus. To this evidence my opponent objects, that in no +

less than six different places of the context of Facundus, and that, too, in every manuscript of his works, the eighth verse is quoted with the words, In terra; which, according to my own principles of criticism, is to be accounted for only on the sup position, that its antithesis, In cœlo, was in the verse preceding. But it has been already denied by Griesbach, that this spurious addition to the eighth verse occurs any where in the context of Facundus, save only in the text which is cited from St. John. He denies, that Facundus takes any notice of these two words, or makes the least allusion to them in any of his accompanying remarks; an occurrence which could scarcely have happened, had they really been a part of the original quotation; and, therefore, we are authorised to infer, that they are copied from the Vulgate. Indeed, I certainly did expect, that whoever might lay hold of this circumstance in favour of the disputed passage, would come prepared with something like an answer to the fair and reasonable suspicions of the German critic, His account of the first and only edition of Facundus is, that it was printed from a manuscript copy in the Vatican, which had been used by Baronius: and, though my opponent talks of this addition being found in every manuscript of that author; I strongly suspect, notwithstanding the swagger of his tone, that he has neither seen nor heard of any other manuscript, nor inspected any other copy of Facundus than that to which Griesbach had access; if he have, let him in a scholar-like manner produce his vouchers, and he shall have the full benefit of this circumstance in support of his falsified text.

[ocr errors]

But whatever may be the result of further researches into manuscripts, it is not the absence of the spurious part of the eighth verse; but the accommodation and application of this very verse to the Three Persons of the Godhead, on which I claim. the testimony of Facundus, as to

tally destructive of the authenticity of the Heavenly Witnesses. In his explication of the terms he evidently follows St. Austin; making the Spirit to stand for the Father, the Blood for the Son, and the Water for the Holy Ghost. But according to the general principles of interpretation, we are always at liberty to substitute the interpretation itself for the words interpreted, without detriment to the context. Let us then apply this rule to the case before us; and read the seventh with the eighth verse according to the gloss of Facundus. "For there are Three who bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three who bear record on earth, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and these Three are One." Here we should have two verses, the one an exact repetition of the other, containing the same terms of Father, Son, and Spirit; the same predicates of testimony and unity; and differing in nothing except in the circumstance of place where the testimony is given ; a most unscriptural and damnable distinction, wholly abhorrent from the style of the prophets and evangelists, who no where speak of God Almighty bearing testimony either in heaven or in hell; but only on the earth and amongst men, whose interest it is to hear and obey it. There does not exist, I am confident, one Bober and judicious critic, who would so far insult the understanding of our African prelate, as to deem him capable of putting into the mouth of an Apostle such unintelligible and impious jargon as this; and, there fore, I shall here draw the certain conclusion, that whoever with Facundus, Eucherius, and Augustinus, expounds the eighth verse of the Trinity in Unity, at the same time supplies evidence destructive of the seventh.

To the argument which I had deduced from Eucherius my antagonist replies, that he cannot perceive by

what process of induction I infer, that. because the verse is not in his works, it was not in his Bible; that in the printed copies and manuscripts of Eucherius, the disputed verse actually appears; and that, if it be absent in other copies where it ought to be present, or if the eighth verse be any where defectively written, the author must be reconciled to himself before any advantage can be derived from his testimony.

Now I have already observed, what cannot be contradicted, that Eucherius is one of those Fathers who expound the eighth verse of the Trinity in Unity; and if my opponent cannot yet perceive by what method of induction, I hence infer, that the seventh verse was not in his Bible; as he seems so mortal an enemy to repetition, I must request him to read over again what I have stated of Facundus. But to go to the bottom of the question concerning the discrepancy of the published copies of the Liber Formularum of Eucherius, I must again bring forward the critical Griesbach, whose information is, that the gross interpolation of those editions of the author which contain the Heavenly Witnesses, is proved not only from the contradictory manner in which the verse itself is cited; but likewise from the two first and different editions in which the verse is omitted. To corroborate his charge more strongly, he cites an interesting statement from Oudinus, who haying alluded to a similar complaint made by Sixtus Senensis, of the many gross interpolations in this work of Eucherius, proceeds to observe, that on comparing the first edition (which wants the verse) with such and such manuscripts, he discovered, that the first edition was conformable to those manuscripts which were above six hundred or seven hundred years old; but that the second edition of the same work (which contains the verse) was about twice as large, having innumerable interpolations from later authors,

« ForrigeFortsett »