her cautious and general allusion in the blessed Trinity was a doctrine to the case of Judas: He is repre- contained, although obscurely, in sented not as an example of an an- the Old Testament. But the learned wortly communicant, but as an Bishop Horsley has delivered it as example of the aggravated guilt and his opinion, that by Michael the danger, and punishment of unre- Archangel in Dan. X. 13, the Mes. pented sin: as an example which siah himself is meant, in his “ chasuch as are unworthy to receive the racter of champion of his faitliful Lord's Supper will improve, not people against the violence of the by absence from the table which apostate faction and the wiles of the he never polluted because he never devil." Michael, one of the chief attended,' but by avoiding in a princes, came to help me," are the spirit of sincere and earnest repent- words in Daniel: Michael was suance those judicial complications of perior to Gabriel, for he comes to sin, which were the consequences help him in the greatest difficulties ; of his impenitence and hardness of “one of the chief Princes, or one heart.

A. M. 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

first, or at the head of all, are clearly no other than the three princes in

the Godhead. Michael, therefore, I KNOW not whether the following is one of them, and which of them, remarks on an obscure text, Jude v. there can be no doubt. lo perfect 9. will be thought worthy of inser- consistence with this description of tion in your excellent Miscellany.

Michael in the book of Daniel is the “ Yet Michael the Archangel, when action assigned to him in the Apocontending with the devil, he disputed calypse, in which we find him fightabout the body of Moses, durst not bringing with the old Serpent, the deceiver against him a railing accusation, but said, of the world, and victorious in the the Lord rebuke thee."

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

to be victorious but the seed of the And he shewed me Joshua the High- woman?” Such are the comments Priest standing before the angel of the of Bishop Horsley. If then the pasLord, and Satan standing at his right hand sage in Jude be compared with Zech. to resist him. And the Lord said unto ii. 1, 2. and Dan. X. 13. as illustrated Satan, the Lord rebuke thee, O Satan: by these eminent commentators, a even the Lord, that hath chosen Jerusalem

very close parallelism between the rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked Prophet Zechariah and the Apostle out of the fire prin

may be traced: and could we venThe angel of the Lord, before ture to suppose, that for “ the body whom Joshua stood, and the Lord, of Moses," St. Jude originally wrote who spake unto Satan, are one and the body of Joshua, the

reference to the same, namely, the Logos, the Zech. iii. 1, 2. would be very presecond person of the Trinity, men- cise. tioned Zech. i. 11, and it is well re But what interpretation is to be marked by Lowth, that by the words, given to the words, “ the body of “ the Lord rebuke thee,” God the Moses?" The interment of the Jew. Father, the first person of the Tri- ish lawgiver is mentioned, Deut. nity is indicated; so that the text xxxiv. 6. is parallel with Gen. xix. 24. and “ And he (the Lord) buried bim proves, that a distinction of persons in a valley in the land of Moab over

1, 2.

against Beth-Peor : but no man I conclude with the the learned knoweth of bis sepulchre unto this Toup's brief bint on a passage in day."

Longinus, « όλον το σωμάτιoν δραματικόν From this passage compared with 'misnoalo. Hesychius, places só Opópu Jude v. 6.“ we may

collect,” says owuálıor. Atque huc nescio an rethe learned Dr. Hales, who concurs ferendus D. Judas in Epist, v. 9. with Archbishop Tillotson and other Sed de hoc viderint Theologi. (Toup, divines, “ that he was buried by the Long. sect. 9.) Ministry of Angels, near the scene The passage is admitted on all of the idolatry nf the Israelites; but hands to be obscure; the words are that the spot was purposely con- introduced by way of illustration in cealed, lest his tomb might also be argument; they do not contain any converted into an object of idolatrous point of doctrine, nor are they likely worship among the Israelites, like to be wrested by the perverters of the brazen serpent.” It is very likely sacred truth: it may, however, be then, that St. Jude refers to some desirable in your Miscellany to pretraditional report of a contest be- sent to the Theological Student such tween Michael and Satan respecting explanations, as a comparison of the body of Moses, and that report texts and philological researches may have been framed upon the suggest. passage in Zechariah already ad.

I am, &c. verted to. The supposition is

CLER. Gloc. strengthened by the circumstance, that the Apostle quotes v. 14. the Apocryphal book of Enoch, some account of which is given in the first To the Editor of the Remembrancer. volume of the Christian Remem.

SIR, brancer. $t. Paul also refers to some Jewish record, when he men- When I first took up my pep to options Jannes and Jambres withstand- pose the authenticity of the Heaing Moses, names not elsewhere venly Witnesses, I was perfectly mentioned in Holy Writ. 2 Tim. iii. aware of going to place myself in 8. So curious have been the en. the situation of one, who, having quirers, who have exercised their once planted his foot on a nest of ingenuity on this text of St. Jude, wasps, must either be prepared to that there have not been wanting crụsh the whole swarm, or instantly those who surmised, that the ground expect to be stung to the quick. of the contest respecting the body This opening remark will apply in a of Moses was, that he had rendered high degree to the petalance and himself unworthy of burial by exces- flippancy of your angry correspon, sive zeal and precipitance in the dent, who has become my second transaction recorded, Exod. ii. 11 antagonist; and who, it seems, has -15.

the honour to subscribe himself, The words, "the body of Moses," Fred. Nolan. But, though I can may, however, be used metaphori- readily imagine Mr. Nolan to be cally, and Dr. Hammond supposes, both a scholar and a gentleman; it that they may refer to the rebuilding would be acting with great insinceof the temple at Jerusalem, and the rity on my part, were I for a moment re-establishment of the Jewish reli. to admit, that I thought him comgion and laws after the captivity; petent either to establish the authenso that “the body of Moses" may ticity of the disputed verse, or to signify the Mosaic institution in the disprove any one of my principal same manner as “the body of positions ; for as to the commission Christ” is used for the Christian of a mistake, since I do not profess Church, 1 Cor, xii. 27. Eph, iv, 12. to be infallible, so I shall always be

most ready to retract an error, when than 10 prevent such smatterers in once pointed out to me and suffi- theological science as himself from ciently detected.

impudently imposing on the ChrisIt had been my original wish, with tiau world for Scripture that which whatever opponent I might be is not Scripture; and from further brought in contact, to argue the alleging, as the language of St. question in a wild and dispassionate John, what by nineteen-twentieths nianner; but Mr. Nolan, from the of the learned at this day is known ainpotency of his temper, 'has left to be a palpably convicted and un. me no other alternative than to treat questionable interpolation. him as a peevish and virulent assail. But to descend to the conflict. ant; and to scourge him with that In the prelude to his first attack, it triple lash, which I cannot but see, is highly amusing to see with what was intended for my own back. In admirable art he has endeavoured to his first onset, I am directly charged throw dust into the eyes of your with having stoleń my display of readers by premising, that to whatlearning from Griesbach; as being ever account the testimony of other ignorant of the state of the Arian churches may be turned, in the controversy; and as having obtruded classification of manuscripts, their myself into the present contest from evidence on any contested doctrinal no other motive than to make a shew point is wholly undeserving of creof my reading. To these unman. dit: and that the principle which nerly reflections I shall, for the pre- gives weight to that testimony, as sent, reply, that in the existing stage far as it rests on the assumption, of the controversy of the Heavenly that the Witnesses are ancient and Witnesses, I am very sure, I shall separate, supplies every person who be easily pardoued by the learned is but moderately versed in the hisreader for any statement' which I tory of the Sacred Text, with meet may seem immediately to have taken subject of derision. This I plainly from Griesbach; whilst my oppo. perceive is the only answer which pent, on the other hand, will be as 'we are likely to receive to that posiseverely censured for not having tive testimony against the disputed made it his particular business to passage, arising from its non-exist

answer the stubborn objections of ence in all the ancient versions. But that celebrated critic, instead of bol. I shall not allow our modest critic stering up for arguments the fig- to drop his courtesy, and to retire ments of his own brain; arguments iu this manner. That the ancient which have already failed, and must versions, either in the decision of of necessity fail to make the least any docirinal point, or in the eluciimpression on the well.informed dation of any difficult and obscure mind ! That as to my knowledge of original text, are not an infallible the state of the questiou between guide; is a truth of which none of the heretics and the orthodox, how- your readers, I should think, can ever little that may be, it probably need to be informed. The 'tenour

be thought, by some at least, of my complaint, however, has noto be equal to that of my antagonist: thing to do with the illustration of but whether or not, the issue of the an obscure passage, or with the depresent contest will, ere long, de. cision of a doctrinal point; but contermine, on which side of the two cerns the absence of a whole verse; combatants the victory preponde a verse, too, coniprised in such easy rates.. That with respect to my and fanıiliar terms, that, had it been motive for stepping forward in the in the Greek originals from which existing dispule, I can : conscien- those ancient versions were first tiously assure your correspondent, made, it must have been understood that I had no other design wliatever and translated in all to the very same

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]


purport. Moreover, as to any tri- less than six different places of the vial argument deducible from the context of Facundus, and that, too, artificial classification of the manu. in every manuscript of his works, scripts, I am fully prepared to the eightlı verse is quoted with the evince, from the intrinsic evidence words, In terra; which, according of the versions themselves, that they to my owu principles of criticism, is must have been made from various to be accounted for only on the 'supmanuscripts; or, to express myself position, that its autithesis, In cælo, more agreeably to the style of mo was in the verse preceding. But it dern criticism, from manuscripts of has been already denied by Griesdistinct and different classes. Here, bach, that this spurious addition to then, I plant my standard; and call the eighth verse occurs any where on my opponent to dispute the ground in the context of Facundus, save with me. The strength of my posi. ouły in the text which is cited from itiva is simply this, that at the seve St. Jobu, lle devies, that Facundus ral periods of time in which those takes any notice of these two words, ancient versions were first made from or makes the least allusion to them the Greek, the passage of the Hea- in any of his accompanying reinarks; venly Witnesses did not exist in any an occurrence which could scarcely of the Greek manuscripts; and, have happened, had they really been a consequently, never had existed part of the original quotation; and, there at any time previous; a pretiy therefore, we are authorised to inlarge pill for those to swallow who fer, that they are copied from the maintain its authenticity: and, if Vulgate. Indeed, I certainly did Mr. Nolan should be resolved to expect, that whoever night lay hold close his eyes to the overwhelming of this circumstance in favour of the force of this argument; there is no disputed passage, would come preother cure for his obstinacy than that pared with something like an answer ridicule and contempt to which the to the fair and reasonable suspicions pertinacity of his opinion must in. of the German critic. His account evitably expose him.

of the tirst and only edition of FaIn one place, indeed, he speaks cundus is, that it was printed from of granting me every thing that I a manuscript copy in the Vatican, ean desire, on points which no per- which had been used by Baronius: son now is disposed to contest. But and, though my opponent talks of if he would come to a fair and ho- this addition being found in every nourable balancing of the vouchers manuscript of that author; I strongly for and against bis Heavenly Wit- suspect, notwithstanding the swagDesses ; and should permit me to ger of his tone, that he has neither take to myself my just portion of seen nor heard of any

other manuthe heap.; if I grant him a drachm, script, nor inspected any other copy I must for that drache demand to of Facundus than that to which nyself a whole pound of the evi- Griesbach had access; if he liave, dence : and when that is done, I let him in a scholar-like manner promust further require of him to desist duce his vouchers, and he shall have from publishing to the world, that the full benefit of this circumstance in the just and even scales bis solis in support of his falsified text. tary drachm is as heavy as my pound; But whatever may be the result of or that his evidence for, is as weighty further researches into manuscripts, as mine against, the Heavenly Wit- it is not the absence of the spurious Desses.

part of the eighth verse; but the · I now proceed to meet his first accommodation and applicatiɔn of charge on one of my posts, the tes- this very verse to the Three Persons timony of Facundus. To this evi- of the Godhead, on which I claim dence pyopponent objects, that in no the testimony of Facundus, as to



tally destructive of the authenticity what process of induction I infer, of the Heavenly Witnesses. In his that, because the verse is not in his explication of the terms he evidently works, it was not in his Bible; that follows St. Austin; making the Spirit in the printed copies and manuscripts to stand for the Father, the Blood of Eucherius, the disputed verse for the Son, and the Water for the actually appears; and that, if it be Holy Ghost. But according to the absent in other copies where it ought general principles of interpretation, to be present, or if the eighth verse we are always at liberty to substi- be any where defectively written, tute ibe interpretation itself for the the author must be reconciled to words interpreted, without detriment himself before any advantage can be to the context. Let us then apply derived from his testimony. this rule to the case before us; and Now I have already observed, read the seventh with the eighth what cannot be contradicted, that verse according to the gloss of Fa- Eucberius is one of those Fathers cundus. “ For there are Three who who expound the eighth verse of the bear record in Heaven, the Father, Trinity in Unity; and if my oppothe Word, and the Holy Spirit ; and nent cannot yet perceive by what these three are And there method of induction, I hence infer, are three who bear record on earth, that the seventh verse was not in his the Father, the Son, and the Bible; as he seeins so mortal an Holy Spirit; and these Three are enemy to repetition, I must request One." Here we should have two him to read over again what I bare verses, the one an exact repetition stated of Facundus. But to go to of the other, containing the same the bottom of the question concernterms of Father, Son, and Spirit; ing the discrepancy of the published the same predicates of testimony and copies of the Liber Formularum of 'unity; and differing in nothing ex- Eucherius, I must again bring forcepi in the circumstance of place ward the critical Griesbach, whose where the testimony is given ; a inost information is, that the gross interunscriptural and damnable distinc- polation of those editions of the tion, wholly abhorrent from the style author which contain the Heavenly of the prophets and evangelists, Witnesses, is proved not only from who no where speak of God Al the contradictory manner in which mighty bearing testimony either in the verse itself is cited ; but likeheaven or in hell; but only on the wise from the two first and different earth and amongst men, whose in- editions in which the verse is omitted. terest it is to hear and obey it. There To corroborate his charge more does not exist, I am confident, one strongly, he cites an interesting Bober and judicious critic, who would statement from Oudinus, who havso far insult the understanding of ing alluded to a similar complaint our African prelate, as to deem himn made by Sixtus Senensis; of the capable of putting into the mouth many gross interpolations in this of an Apostle such unintelligible and work of Eucherius, proceeds to obimpious jargon as this; and, there. serve, that on comparing the first fore, I shall here draw the certain edition (which wants the verse) with conclusion, that whoever with Fa- such and such manuscripts, he discundus, Eucherius, and Augustinus, covered, that the first edition was expounds the eighth verse of the conformable to those manuscripts Trinity in Unity, at the saine time which were above six hundred or supphes evidence destructive of the seven hundred years old; but that seventh.

the second edition of the same work To the argument which I had de (which contains the verse) was about duced from Eucherius my antagonist twice as large, having innumerable replies, that he cannot perceive by interpolations from later authors,

« ForrigeFortsett »