^flilltitm; %£m CRITICAL REFLECTIONS UPON SOME IMPORTANT MISREPRESENTATIONS CONTAINED IN THE UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. RICHARD LAURENCE, LL. D. HECTOR OF MERSHAM, KENT. OXFORD, '^^^ At the University Press for the Author. Sold by J. Parker, Oxford; and F. C. and J. Rivington, London. 1811. TO JOHN COOKE, D.D, PRESIDENT OF CORPUS CHRISTI COLLEGE IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD, WHOSE UNIFORM INTEGRITY OF CONDUCT, BOTH IN PUBLIC AND IN PRIVATE LIFE, RECEIVES ADDITIONAL LUSTRE FROM THE SUAVITY OF JIIS MANNERS, AND FROM THE BENEVOLENCE OF HIS DISPOSITION, WHOM IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW, AND NOT TO ESTEEM, TO ESTEEM, AND NOT TO VENERATE, THIS CRITICAL PRODUCTION, AS NOT PERHAPS AN UNAPPROPRIATE, ALTHOUGH AN INSIGNIFICANT TESTIMONY OF RESPECT TOWARDS THE GOVERNOR OF THAT COLLEGE, IN WHICH THE AUTHOR WAS EDUCATED, IS FAITHFULLY AND AFFECTIONATELY INSCRIBED, PREFACE. i^ ROM caufes, too unimportant for public enu meration, it happened, that the Author of the following pages pofleffed neither time nor in clination minutely to difcufs the merits or de merits of that Verfion, which is the object of his prefent ftridures, at its firft appearance. Indeed he neglefted the examination of it al together till very lately, when his attention was irrefiftibly attracted to it by the Remarks of Mr. Nares, ably expofing, particularly upon doiSlrinal topics, many of its perverfe inaccu racies and fallacious dedudlions. The fcope of thefe Remarks appeared, it is true, fuffi ciently comprehenlive. Still, however, he con ceived, that certain mifreprefentations of no inconfiderable moment required a more full and diftind, as well as different, refutation ; and fuch a one has he now attempted. It will be feen, that with the theological argument of the New Verfion he has interfered as little as poffible, the fpecific objedt in his view being VI wholly critical. Not indeed that he has com bated every erroneous pofition or incorre6l con clufion which might haVe hh6ti fairly oppofed; but he has contented himfelf with feled;ing a few of thofe which-^-aie. moft prominent and leaft venial. He does not apologize for differing upon points of criticifm, either from the Heterodox, or from the Orthodox. , A critic is of no party; but, folely attached to pliilological truth, cen- fures without referve obliquities of judgment wherisfoever he detefts them, whether ufhered into notice by Trihitariaiis of rank and cha- raifter, or turhed Ibofe upon the world by an anonymous conimittee of obfcure Unitarians. CONTENTS. CHAP. L Introductory Remarks, p. 1. CHAP. II. Authenticity of the two frst Chapters of St. Mat thew, " ., p. 14. CHAP. III. Authenticity of the two first Chapters of St. Luke, p. 51. CHAP. IV. Intermediate State between Death and the Resur rection. Authenticity of Luke xxiii. 43. p. 74. CHAP. V. Perplexing Anomalies in the Theory of Articles, p. 105. CHAP. VI. Existence of an Evil Being. Translation of the words Easrav and AiaSoAof, p. 120. CHAP. VIL Translation of the word AyUxoi, Heb. i. Disputed Books. Griesbach. Conclusion.^ p. I47. CHAP. I. Introdudory Remarks. ' VV HEN a work appears under the fingular title of " The New Teftament in an improved " Verfion, upon the bafis of Archbifhop New- " come's new Tranflation, with a corr'edled " Text, and Notes Critical and Explanatory, " publifhed by a Society for promoting Chrif^ " tian Knowledge and the praftice of Virtue, " by the difiribution of Books ;" it feems natu-^ ral to enquire into the religious perfuafion of the authors. This indeed is not explicitly avow ed either in the Title Page or the Introduftion : but the tranflation itfelf in every part, and the uniform tenor of the notes, fufficiently difplay it. The improved Verfion is nothing more than a new verfion fo improved as to be rendered conformable with the tenets of Unitarianjfm. In proof of this affertion, it is unneceffary to quote more than the following paflage, from the comment on i John i. i. "It is to the un- B *' wearied and fuccefsful labours of this pious " and learned perfon, (the venerable Theophilus " Lindfay,) whofe life and doftrine have ex- " hibited the moft perfeft model in modern ^' times of the purity and fimplicity of apofto- " lical ChrifHanity, in conjunftion with thofe " of his able coadjutors, Jebb, Prieftley, Wake- " field, and others, that the Chriftian world is " indebted for that clear and difcri'minating " light, which has of late years been diffufed " over the obfcurities of the facred Scriptures, " and which promifes, at no very diftant period, " to purify the Chriftian religion from thofe " numerous and enormous corruptions, which " have fo long disfigured its doftrines, and im- " peded its progrefs." Hence the nature of that elucidation, which is diffufed over the ob fcurities of Scripture in this verfion, may be diftinft ly perceived. Nor will the Unitarians, I prefume, difown the produftion ; and if in their juftification they fimply alledge the propriety of their pofleffing a tranflation of the New Teftament, more confo- nant, in their own judgment, with the fenfe of Scripture than that of the Eftablifhment, they certainly advance a pofition which few will be difpofed to controvert. But is it quite confiftent with that open and manly conduft, upon which they peculiarly pride themfelves, to fink their charafteriftical denomination, and fimply to defcribe themfelves as " a Society for the pro- " motion of Chriftian knowledge and the " praftice of virtue by the diftribution of " books ;" who, in order " to fupply the " Englifh reader with a more correft text of *• the New Teftament than has yet appeared^" had fixed its choice and founded its improve ments " upon the excellent tranflation of the *' late moft reverend Dr. William Newcome, *' Archbifhop of Armagh, and Primate of all *' Ireland, a worthy fucceffor of the venerable *' and learned Archbifhop Ufher'';" to enter the combat in difguife, and advance to the attack in an archiepifcopal coat of mail ? And is it true to the extent apparently profeffed both in the Title Page and Introduftion, that Archbifhop Newcome's verfion really forms the groundwork of this ? The tranflators in deed fay, that they have affumed it as a princi ple not to deviate from the Archbifhop's ver fion " but where: it appeared to be neceflary ** to the correftion of error or inaccuracy •* Introduftion, p. 5. *> Ibid. p. 4. B 2 4 " in the text, the language, the conftruftion^ " or the fenfe'." But inftances of fuch an exception unfortunately fo often occur, that there is fcarcely a fingle page without one or more, and not many without numerous de viations from it. Nor are thefe deviations fimply confined to mere verbal errors or in accuracies, but extended to the moft import ant doftrines, fo as uniformly to diveft the Archbifhop's tranflation of every expreflion hoftile to the Unitarian Creed ; deviations, which could not have incidentally taken place, but muft have been originally projefted. For we are exprefsly told, that the defign of the Tranfla tors, as well as of the Society, was, to fupply the Englifh reader with a more correft text of the New Teftament than has yet appeared : as " alfo, by divefting the facred volume of the " technical phrafes of a fyjiematic theology, " which has no foundation in the Scriptures " themfelves, to render the New Teftament " more generally intelligible, or at leaft- to pre- " elude many fources of error; and, by the " affiftance of the notes, to enable the judi^ " cious and attentive reader to underftaiud I s Introdu6kion, p. 4. " Scriptiire phrafeology, and to form a juft " idea of true and uncorrupted Chrifiianity^." What Unitarians mean, when they allude to a Jyjiematic theology, which has no foundation in the Scriptures; and alfo to true and un corrupted Chrijiianity , no man can for a mo ment doubt, who has but flightly glanced his eye upon any of their avowed publica tions. Inflead" therefore of being that which at firft view it may appear to the general reader, a Verfion undertaken from no party motives, and condufted upon no party princi ples, the very reverfe feems to be the faft. The text, from which this tranflation is profeffedly made, is the amended one of Grief- bach 5 a text which is too well known, and too highly refpefted, to require more than a fimple notice of its excellency, and the fu perior correftnefs of which is univerfally ac knowledged. But why in an Englifh tranflation fo long a hiftory is given of the received Greek' text, and its critical improvements, of Greek manufcripts, and of the different editions of the Greek Teftament, it feems difficult to con ' jefture. Could it poffibly be to take the chance d Introduftion, p. 5, 6. B 3 6 of impreffing an idea, that the eftablifhed tranflation, which confeffedly follows the re ceived text, is too corrupt to be ufed as a rule of faith ? This however it would be more eafy to infinuate than to prove. Among the various modes which have been adopted for the' improvement of the received text, attempts, it is obferved, have been made to correft it by critical conjecture. Upon this fub jeft the following remarks occur ; " This is a " remedy which ought never to be applied " but with the utmoft caution, efpecially as " we are furnifhed with fo many helps for cor- " refting the text from manufcripts, verfions, " and ecclefiaftical writers. This caution is " doubly neceffary when the propofed emen- " dation affefts a text which is of great im- " portance in theological controverj'y , as the "Judgment of the critic will naturally be " hiqjjed in favour of his own opinion^. It " ought perhaps to be laid down as a general " rule, that the received text is in no cafe to " be altered by critical or at leaft by theolo- " gical conjefture, how ingenious and plaufi- " ble foever." So far the reafoning is correft, and perfeftly conformable with the eftablifhed maxims of the moft eminent critics : but what follows ? " Neverthelefs (it is added) there is " no reafon why critical conjefture fhould be " entirely excluded from the New Teftament, " any more than from the works of any other " ancient Author ; and fome very plaufible " conjeftures of no inconfiderable importance " have been fuggefted by men of great learn- " ing and fagacity, which, to fay the leaft, merit " very attentive confideration. See particularly ** John i. 1. vi. 4. and Romans ix. 5.^" and a reference is made to Marfh's Michaelis, vol. ii. c. 10. Here is a manifeft qualification of the preceding remark. Whatfoever ambiguity then may be fuppofed to exift in the idea of a general rule, which is univerfal in its applica tion, it is certain that the Authors of the New Verfion only mean, by fo expreffing thernfelves, a rule which is in mojl cafes to be obferved, but which may in J'ome be violated ; and, by way of diftinftly pointing out the nature of their exception, they refer to John i. i. vi. 4. and Romans ix. 5. The fecond reference in deed is not very important ; but the firft and third relate to theological conjeftures, inimical to the doftrine of Chrift's Divinity. The firft e Introduftion, p. i8, 19. B 4 8 confifts in the fubftitution of Qsa for 0«o? in the claufe Kctf Qso? tiv o Aoyof, and the fecond in read ing m 0 for 0 av in the paflage o av stti Tra^vrm Qso?, fo as by this tranfpofition to render its fenfe, " of whom was God, who is over " all ;" necefiarily precluding the interpretation ufually affixed to thefe words. What then is their diftinftion ? The general rule, which in no cafe admits theological conjefture, how inge nious and plaufible foever it be, ought not, it feems, to ftand in the way of any unauthorized emendations of the facred text favourable to the Unitarian hypothefis : but do they mean to extend the fame indulgent exception to Trinitarian criticifms ? Or do they conceive, that it is only the judgment of the Trinitarian critic which is likely to be biaffed by indi vidual opinion ? But, in corrobpr^tion of what they advance, they refer the reader to Marfh's Michaelis, vol. ii. c. X. In this chapter, which is entitled " Con- " jeftural Emendations of the Greek Tefta- " ment," and upon which their whole rpafon-; ing, one might fuppofe, was founded, it is fin gular that Michaelis reprobates, in the ftrong- efl terms, all theological conjefture whatfoever, and that for this obvious reafon ; becaufe " a 9 " Theologian, whofe bufinefs it is to form his " whole fyftem of faith and manners from the " Bible, cannot with propriety affume pre- " vioufly any fyftem of theology, by which " he may regulate the facred text ; but muft " adopt that text which is confirmed by *' original documents, and thence deduce his " theological fyftem^ " Nor is this all. In direft oppofition to the fentiments of thofe who quote him, and in the beginning of that very chapter to which they refer, he thus unequivo cally expreffes himfelf: " It muft bg evident to " every man, that the New Teftament would " be a very uncertain rule of life and manners, " and indeed wholly unfit to be used as a " STANDARD OF Religion, if it wcrc allowable, " as is the pra&ice qf feveral Socinians, to " apply critical conjefture in order to ejlahlijh " the tenets of our own party . For inftance; if, " in order to free ourfelves from a fuperfti- " tious doftrine, on the fuppofition that the " divinity of Chrift is ungrounded, we were at " liberty to change, without any authority, " ©SOS yjv 0 Aoyos, John i. 1 . into Qsa tjv o Aoyof, " and 0 uv STTi Travrav Qeof, Rom. ix.' 5. into av a f Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 413. 10 " «r; TTcLVTuv Qios, the Bible would become fo " very uncertain, that every man might believe " or difbelieve, as beft fuited his own princi- " pless." Could thefe writers have poffibly read the preceding paffage when they made their ap peal to the authority of Michaelis ? If they had, they muft furely have perceived that Michaelis is direftly againft them ; and that the very conjeftural emendations, originally propofed by the Socinian theorifls Crell and Schlichtingig which they particularly notice as fuggefted by men of great learning and fa gacity, and as meriting, to fay the leajl, very at tentive conjideration, he direftly cenfures in the moft pointed terms, and exprefsly brings forward to illuftrate the pofition, that theological con jefture is never admiffible. If, confcious of op- pofing an eftablifhed maxim, which ought in no inftance to be violated, they wifhed to fhelter themfelves from the ftorm of critical reproof, the gabardine of Michaelis was moft unfortunately felefted indeed as a place of refuge. To the paffage which I have juft quoted, 6 Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 387. 11 from the firft feftion of the chapter referred to, I will add one or two more from the laft feftion of the fame chapter, in order to place the opinion of Michaelis in a ftill clearer point of view. " The only plaufible argument " which an advocate for theological conjefture " might ufe, not fo much indeed to convince " himfelf of the jujiice of his caufe, as to per- " plex his opponents, is the following ; namely, " that the New Teftament has been fo cor- " rupted by the ruling party, which calls itfelf *' Orthodox, that the genuine doftrine of " Chrift and his Apoftles is no longer to be *' found in it. But there is not the leaft room " for a fufpicion of this kind, as we have fo " great a number of manufcripts, verfions, " and ecclefiaftical writings, in which the " New Teftament is quoted, of every age and " every country'^." And in proof of his affer- tion, among other things, he remarks, that "the " paflages luhich afforded the mojl perplexity " to the members of the ruling Church are " Jiill extant in manufcripts, verfions, and " editions of the New Teftament ; whereas " the fpurious paffage, i John v. 7. though h Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 418. 12 " the Orthodox feem to think it of the utmoft " importance, has never had the good fortune " to find admittance into any Greek manu- " fcript, or ancient verfion." If the compilers of this Introduftion, who not only in the in ftance before me, but in almoft every page, refer to the writings of Michaelis, will not ad mit the validity of the argument in the pre ceding extrafts, they may perhaps feel the force of the following powerful appeal to Unitarian confiftency : " As critical conjeftures," obferves the fame author, "have been principally made *f by thofe, who, in the language ofthe Church, " are termed Heretics, I will invent one or ¦' two examples of the fame kind in the name " ofthe Orthodox, and afk thofe ofthe oppofite " party, whether they would admit them as " lawful conjeftures. For inftance, fuppofe I " fhould alter on o UaTtip (ah f^eii^av fia sri, John " xiv. 18. to on 0 TTciTyip -f^a s phus N.T. vol. i.p. 346 — 349. and 355 — 370; and alfo by Jones, in the chapter of his work' to which they themfelves refer: and certainly in neither of thefe colleftions does any thing fimilar to what they fay of Jerome appear. That therefore, which has efcaped the diligent inveftigation of Fabricius and Jeremiah Jones, has fcarcely, I prefume, been difcovered by them. Indeed a direft negative may here be^ affumed with the greater confidence, becaufe, as I fhall fubfequently fhew, Jerome himfelf afferted the very reverfe of their pofition. ' The affurance therefore, that thefe chapters were rejefted by the Nazarenes and Ebionites, folely refts upon the authority of Epiphanius,, The words alluded to are thefe : Ovtoi Se aXXa, thefe writers, were it only for the difcovery of that pearl, above all price, according to their eftimation, the genuine Chriftianity of the reputed heretics of antiquity. 2^ Tim SitLVtwrdi' rsapeiKO'^ebVTSs •j^et^ rovg vA^tt ra Mat- B-aia yevsctXoytctff, ei.p%oi/raM t*iv d^x^v r^oieiG-B-at, eiig T^oetTTCv, MywTSs' on eyevsro (p*i« Moftieim, in his Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, holds him in the raoft fovereign contempt. He fays, " Epiphanius, Bi- *' fhop of Salamis in the ifle of Cyprus, wrote a book " againft all the heretics that had fprung up in the *^ Church until his time. This work has little or no re- " putation, as it is full of inaccuracies and errors, and " difcovers almoft in every page the levity and ignorance " of its author." Vol. i. p. §59. The original Latin is thus expreflTed, " Epiphanius Salaminae in Cypro Epi- " fcopus feftas Chriftianorum jufto perfecutus efl: volu- 27 ever every imputation of the latter kind, let us put the fuppofition, that his affertions are all grounded upon the moft correft knowledge and the minuteft inveftigation ; and what will follow ? Only that, with the fame breath with which he tells us that the Gofpel of the Ebionites contained not the two firft chapters of St. Matthew, he alfo informs us, that it was becaufe they fcrupled not to curtail and muti late the genuine produftion of that Apoftle. The confequence is obvious. But perhaps a diftinftion may be here adopted ; and the firft affertion be termed a matter of faft, the laft *' mine, at variis maculis et erroribus propter auftoris le- " vitatem et ignorantiam iniifto." Hence it appears, that Moftieim confidered the work as abfolutely branded with ignominy. One circumftance indeed alone feems to throw an air of fufpicion over this whole account of the Ebionites; for Epiphanius not only derives the name of the feft from a perfon denominated Ebion, whofe very exiftence is problematical, contrary to the opinion of other writers, who derive it from the Hebrew word }l»3K fignifying poor ; but relates a ftory of Ebion and St. John^ fimilar to what Irenseus, upon the authority of Polycarp, records of Cerinthus and St. John; viz. that the ApoflJe, feeing Ebion in a bath, exclaimed, " Let us depart hence, "left the building fall in, and we ourfelves perifh with " the impious Ebion." §. 33. Will the Unitarians admit the accuracy of this anecdote ? 28 pnlym matter of opinion ; fo that, while one is correft, the other may be inaccurate. I fhall not adduce in reply, as I eafily might, various points of faft advanced by Epiphanius relative to the doftrine of the Ebionites", and then call upon Unitarian confiftency for an implicit reliance upon the fidelity of his ftatements, but produce a point of faft exaftly parallel. Epiphanius diftinftly afferts, that the Ebionites " Will thofe who pronounce the Ebionites to have been the true Hebrew Chriftians, credit the veracity of this Father, when he reprefents them as believing that God committed the government of this world to the De vil, of the world to come to the Chrifi, and that the Chrift, who w,as a celeftial being fuperior to the archangels themfelves, defcended upon and was united to the man Jefus at his baptifm ? And yet, among other abfurdities, this he precifely delivers as their creed : Auo Ss Tjv«f (ruvircoo-jv tx. 0E8 rerayiuevs;, sva fisv nv Xgffov, Ivot 8e rov AiaSoXov. Ka« rov [tsv Xgij-oi/ Ksynart ra fieXXovro; unevo; El^l)^sv«^ rov xAjjgov, Tov Be Aia^oAoy T8T0V 9rs7rfrsuo'3«» rov aioovet, sx itposrmy^S Stj'^ei' tou vxvToxpciTopoi xarei airijiriv kucnspeav aurcov. Kai toutou evsxx IfjO'iiV yeyswij/XEVOV ex (rirspfturo; uvdgog Xsyomi, xai STtiXs^^evrHy xai 870) xxTci exXoyyjv vlov ©ea xXij'&svTa, «ffo rs avaiSiev sis aurov ijxovros Xgifou ev siisi Tregifspaf . Ou (fairxouo'i Ss sx ©sou irargog Buirov ysyswiia-^cu, aWu sxna-^M, coj svx rtov cipya.yk'hMV, f*s«^ov« ?e aura)!/ ovra, aurov 8s xvpisusiv xat a.yys\cov xat 'na.vraiv (mo rou vavroxgaropos b-sttoiij/aevwi', Hseref. 30. §, 16, And in §, 14. their belief is exprefsly faid to have been, that the Chrift was (Tuvaf^svrct, conglutinated with the man Jefus. 20 not only rejefted the two firft chapters of St. Matthew's Gofpel, but alfo the prophetical, writings, and almoft the whole of the Old Teftament, with very little refervation indeed. His words are 5 K^^AafA, Se oy,oXoya I will everf adiiiit the exterrial charafter of the document to ftand as high as the Unitarians themfelves would place it ; and fhall be fatis-; fied to reft my proofs wholly Upon the apo-; cryphal complexion of its internal charafter^ AmOng other paffages of a fufpicious nature? occurs the following: "Behold the mother *' and brethren of Chrift fpake to him ; John " tJie ]BaptiJi baptizes for the remiffon qf Jim ; ^' let us go and be baptized by him. He faid to ,, .? Credibility of the Gofpel Hiftoryi vol. i. pt 185* fed. 1748. _ :j 35 '** them. In what have 1 finned, that I have " any need to go and to be baptized by himf " Unlefs my faying this proceed perhaps from " ignorance ^." Again, in another part, our Saviour fays, " The Holy Ghxjl, my motheir, " took- me by one of my hairs, and led me to " the great mountain Thabbr''." Will it be ^ " Ecce mater Domini et fratres ejus dicebant ei, Jo- " hannes Baptifta baptizat in remiflionem peccatorum ; ep,- " mus et baptizemurab eo. Dixit autem eis, Quid peccavj, *' ut vadam et baptizer ab eo ? nifi forte hoc ipfum, quod " dixi, ignorantia efl." Quotation from Jerome in Johels, ' ibid. §. 15. In another chapter (29th) the fariie author "makes the following comment upon this quotation. *' The meaning of this pafl!age will be beft perceived from " a parallel one in another apocryphal book, entitled, " The Preaching of Peter, in which it was related^ that " Chrift confeffed his fns, and was compelled, contrary to ¦ " his own inclinations, ly his mother Mary to fubmit to ¦ " the baptifm of John," " > ^ Apr I s?M§s ii,s ij liijrrjp f«,8 ro iytov Trveufjun, sv fiia rsov rgj- ^tev ft8, x«; aycsvsyxe fus si; ro opo; ro fi-eya QaSaig. Quotation ' from Origen, ibid, c, 25. §. 4. If certain pafl!ages are to be rejefted upon the credit of this document, why are not .. others to be inferted ? Why, for exarnple, after Matthew xix.,20. in which our Saviour fays to the rich man, " Qo " and fell what thou haft, and give it to the poor, and -" qome and follow me," is not the following reading .Jidded as at leaft probable; " The. rich man hereupon be- " gan to fcratch his head, (fcalpere caput fuum,) and was D 2 36 maintained, that a paffage is to he received into the Canon of Scripture, whieh afferts, that our bleffed Saviour required the baptifm df John for the remiffion of fuch fins as he had ignorantly committed, in direft contradiftioh to the teftimony of St. Paul, that he knew no Jin, 2 Cor. v. 21 ? Or if it be, will not the authenticity of the other quotation at leaft be confidered as dubious, in which the Holy Spirit is exprefsly termed the mother of Chriji, and reprefented, in order to make the tranfac- tion more miraculous, as conveying him to a lofty mountain by one of the hairs of his head ? Can paffages like thefe be fo twifted by the tortuous lubricity of theological comment, as to elude the grafp of indignant criticifm ? But the very commencement itfelf of this fingular produftion, as it is ftated by Epipha nius, fufliciently betrays its illegitimacy. The Tranflators of the New Verfion give us the foi* lowing information : " The Gofpel," they fayi *? of the Ebionites or Hebrews, which did not *• contain the account of the miraculous con- *' ception of Jefus, began in this manner ; It *' dlfpleafed, &c. ?'* See Jones on the "Canon, ibid, §. 5. Doubtlefs the fame document cannot be lef» competent to authorize an addition, than an omiflron. 37 " came to pafs in the days of Herod king qf '* Judea, that John came baptizing with th& " baptifm of repentance in the river Jordan. " See Epiphanius, and Jer, Jones." But in the preceding note they had thus reafoned : " If " it be true, as Luke relates, c. iii. 23- that ** Jefus was entering upon his thirtieth year *' in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, " he muft have been born two years at leaft, " after the death of Herod ; a circumftance " which alone invalidates the whole ftory." Now it is fomething fingular, that, while they objeft to the text of St. Matthew, becaufe it fixes our Saviour's birth in the days of Herod the king, who really died, they add, ttvo years before, they fhould at the fame time contend for the authenticity of a document, which not only fuppofes that Chrift was born in the reign of Herod, but that Herod was ftill living when our Saviour was in his thirtieth year, at the period of the Baptift's public appearance in the difcharge ofhis miffion. Leaving tbem however to vindicate their own confiftency, I Ihall confine myfelf to the fimple flatement of the faft. Epiphanius exprefsly declares, that the Gofpel of the Ebionites began with an account of John's baptizing with the baptifm of re- d3 38: peritance in the days of Herod king of Judea,' tvho, it is agreed on all fides, was dead many yeairs before. If therefore Epiphanius's rela-- tion be true, and this Gofpel began as he de^' fcribeis it, an anachronifm of an extraordinary kind is apparent at its very outfet, which in- ftantly fubverts the foundation of the whole Unitarian argument : and if it be not true/ then the commencement of this Gofpel is ren dered uncertain, and the hypothefis raifed upon it falls to the ground at once of its own accord. Whether his knowledge of this Gof pel were derived from ocular infpeftion Or from vague report, he is admitted to have mif^. reprefented it ; and if he be inaccurate in one point, how can we truft him in another ? It. is of little confequence, whether his mifrepre- fentation arofe from inadvertence, ignorance,? or malice ; for if the faft be fo in one, and that an important inftance, furely it muft render every part of his teftimony fufpicious. In whatfoever point of view therefore we contemplate this document, it betrays evident traces of a fpurious origin. '¦ I have hitherto taken for granted, what the, authors of the New Verfion affirm, that the) Gerinthians and Carpocratians rejefted the two^ sp firft chapters of St. Matthew, with the excep-* tion of the Genealogy ; and that the Ebionites rejefted them altogether, without that excep tion. It may however be queftioned, whe ther this is not more than Epiphanius ftates. He certainly afferts, that the Gofpel of the Ebionites began with an account of John the Baptift, which, as not occurring until the third chapter in the Greek Gofpel, muft of courfe exclude the preceding chapters ; but he does not affert, that the Gofpel of the Gerin thians and Carpocratians began in the fame manner : on the contrary he tells us, that it' commenced with the Genealogy, precifely as the Greek Gofpel commences. The latter feftsjj it is true, ufed a Hebrew Gofpel in many re-; Ipefts fimilar to that of the Ebionites, but evi-? dently not in all, as the difference alluded to indifputably proves. The Gerinthians and Car pocratians therefore, as far as the teftimony of Epiphanius goes, may be fuppofed to have re tained the whole, as well as a part of the dis puted chapters. Indeed, in another place, he exprefsly argues againft the opinions of the Gerinthians, from a paffage in the fame chap-? - ters, fubfequent to the Genealogy, viz. from Mat. i. 18. which he would fcarcely perhaps D 4 40 have done, had not the paffage been received by them as genuine. His words are thefe : Jluf Se ttaXiv aK eXeyx^w^Ai avtuv yi avoia ra Eu*yT yeA<» a-A^as Aery svt og, on evgeB'ti ev yA^pi exao-A, TTPtv JJ. avPehB'eiv Avrag *'. Let us then briefly confider the deduftion of the Unitarians from the premifes which have been ftated. The two firft chapters of St. Matthew, they fay, were not contained in the Hebrew Gofpel of the Ebionites, therefore they are to be rejefted; but a portion of theni, about one fourth of the whole, was found in the Hebrew Gofpel bf the Gerin thians and Carpocratians, therefore this por tion is to be retained, and the remainder only to be rejefted. Is there not however a fallacy in the cOnclufiori thus haftily drawn ? The re jeftion of the three parts in queftion cannot well be made to depend ujpon the credit of the Corinthian and Carpocratian Gofpel, becaufe it is not afferted to have been deficient in thefe refpefts ; it muft folely reft upon that of the Gofpel of the Ebionites. But it muft be ad mitted, that the Gofpel in queftion was but a mutilated copy of St. Matthew at beft, as it (, <= Hasref. 27. §. 7, 41 pofieffed fiot the Genealogy. If therefore its- credit be more than queftionable in the non- admiffion of one, and that a prominent part, how is it to be eftablifhed in the non-admif* fion of the remaining parts ? Would the fame hand, which avowedly cut away the Genea logy, fcruple to remove alfo the account of the miraculous conception, and the other events fubfequently recorded in thefe chapters ? But the authors of the Ne^ Verfion, it may be faid, depend not wholly upon the tefli- mony of Epiphanius. Tbey introduce Jerome alfo as an auxiliary in their caufe, certainly a more correft, more learned, and better in formed writer, who, they obferve, " affures us, ** that the two chapters were wanting in the " copies ufed by the Nazarenes and Ebiqn- " ites." So indeed they obferve ; yet may they be challenged to produce a fingle paffage from the voluminous writings of Jerome, in which any affurance of the kind alluded to is either ex;preffed or implied. On the contrary, it feems not difficult to fhew, that the teftimony of Jerome makes completely againft them. This Father, it fhould be recollefted, tranflated into Greek and Latin the Gofpel of the Naza renes, and muft therefore have been well ac- 4^ ^uairited with its contents. In his CatalOgtie' of Illuftrious Writers he makes the following' allufion to it : " Mihi quoqUe a Nazaraeis, qui ^ in Beroea, urbe Syriae, hoc volumine utun- *' tur, defcribendi facultas fuit ; in quo anim- " advertendum, quod ubicunque Evangelifta, *^ five ex perfona fua, five ex perfona Pomini "Salvatoris Veteris Scripturae teftimoniis uti tur, " non fequatur Septuaginta tranflatorum auc- " tori ta tem, fed Hebraicam ; e quibus ilia duo " funt ExMgypto vocavi Filium meum, et. Quo-' " 7iiam Nazarceus vocabitur. The Nazarasans, " who live in Beroea, a city of Syria, and make " ufe of this volume, granted me the favour of '/ Writing it out ; in which Gofpel there is this " obfervable, that wherever the Evangelift ei- " ther cites himfelf, or introduces our Saviour " as citing any paffage out of the Old Tefta-' "ment, he does not follow the tranflation of " the LXX. but the Hebrew copies, of which- "there are thefe two inftances; viz. that, OuP " of Egypt I have called my Son ; and that, " Hejhall be called a Nazarene *^." Is it not- d Jones on the. Canon, vol. i. part ii. chap. 25. §. 13,^ See alfo Michaelis's Introduftion, vol. iii. part i. p. 166, 7 ; and Marfli's Notes, part ii. p, 130, i. I have omitted the other proofs advanced by Michaelis, and more ably, urged 43 hence evident^ that. the fecond of thefe dif puted chapters at leaft, where thefe paffages occur, was contained in the Gofpel of the Na zarenes, which both Jerome and Eufebius re prefent as the Gofpel alfo of the Ebionites ^ ? What then becomes of the fuppofed aflurance of Jerome ? And what credit is due to the af fertions of thofe, who are too indolent, for I by his Annotator, becaufe the fingle proof referred to feems perfeftly fatisfaftory. I fliall however add here the conclu fion of Dr. Marfli : " It appears," he remarks, " from Notes " IO, II. to this feftion, that the Hebrew Gofpel ufed by ** the Nazarenes contained, at leaft, the fecond chapter of "^ St. Matthew. We muft conclude therefore, from the " connexion of the fubjeft, that it contained likewife the " eight Iqji verfes of the fiiji chapter, which arefo clofely , " conneSied with the fecond chapter, thaf no J'eparation can <' well take place. The only doubt therefore is, whether "it contained the Genealogy, Matt. i. i — 17." Ibid. p. 137. « I have confidered the fame Gofpel according to the, Hebrews, as ufed both by the Nazarenes and Ebionites. Many critics have indeed furmifed, that feme little dif- fdrence exifted between the refpeftive copies of thefe' fefts; but as this furmife principally refts on the credit of' Epiphanius's quotations, I have omitted to notice it, par-. ticularly as the teftimony of Eufebius and Jerome is di reft to the point, and as the Authors of the New Verfion themfelves identify the Gofpel of the Nazarenes with that of the Ebionites, 44 cannot fuppofe them too ignorant, to examine the authorities, to which they appeal for the truth of their ftatements ? Still however they may remark, unwil ling to abandon the accuracy of Epiphanius, that fomething perhaps may be difcovered in the extrafts from the Gofpel of the Ebion ites, furnifhed by other writers, to corro borate the general credit of his teftimony. But, unfortunately, here again the faft is com pletely on the other fide ; and fomething may be found not to corroborate, but to invalidate his teftimony. In the very paffage where he fpeaks of the commencement of this Gofpel, he adds the following quotation : " HA3-e kai Iti- " crovg KAI eQATrncrB'tj wro tov IuavvoV kai as Avri^ev " ATo Ta vSatos, timyf\TAV ol apAvot, kai etSe to Tlvevfia, *' TOU ©eev T-o Ayiov ev eiSu "Trepit^e^Ag x*t£Ai9"sooti$- KAt " eto^xB'aa-tig eig autov. K*< i eysvero eK Ta apAva " Myaa-A' Xv f^aet 6 vlos o AyATnjrog, sv vo;, Luke iv. 38. ^i/x.tova rov ZijXwt1)v, ibid. Si- jticovM rov xaXoojtisvov Z))XceTt]t», Luke vi. i_§. "Eysvsro sv t«i; ijix-spai; 'tiptoes ra /SanXEWj t»is ioulsuoii, ibid< ^ysviro sv rai; fjHspous^Hpaiie ta /Sao-iXecof Tijj laSaiaj, Luke i. 5. fiawrio-fia ji*6Tavoi«f; ibid. BaTrrio-ftot j«,st«voi«j, Luke iii. 3. The fame expreflion is alfo foUnd in Mark i. 4. The parentage of John the BAptift is likewife given, which no one of the fevangelifts records, except St, Luke* %ij jiia st 6 vio; 0 tuya- ^Toj, SV (TOI yjvhxriig,.a.nd to Wetftein in Luc, xvi. 23, whofe " numerous and injvaluable notes," as the Authors of the New Verfion themfelves conceive, " fupply an inexhauftible fund of " theological and critical information «." Both fupport their opinion by refpeftable references. Wetftein obferves generally, " Vox Graeca ctSyiSt " cui refpondet Hebrasa blKty, et Latina infe^ ** rorum, denotat ilium locum communem, in " quem recipiuntur omnes hominum vita func- " torum ammcB. NunquoM vero fignificat aut " fepulthrum aut coelum." I rather fufpe6fe that thefe Authors had perufed the note of Wetftein alluded to, becaufe, in their tranfla tion of the very text upon which this com ment is given,, they render ibSrig " the unfeen "Jiate.*' Be this however as it may, I Ihall, e introduftion, p. ai. 1 truft, be excufed if I prefer, in the inftance before me, the opinion of fuch able critics and philologifis as Schleufner and Wetftein, fup ported by numerous and- refpeftable authori ties, to that of a whble committee of Unitarian Tranflatorsj who either cannot or will not, on the other fide, adduce any authority whatfo* ever. But, on tlie controverted topic of an inter mediate ftate between death and the refUrrec- tion, there exifts a paffage in St. Luke, which, without a little expofltory ftraining, or a dif- avowal of its legitimacy, feems completely at War with tbe Unitarian hypothefis. It is Luke xxiii. 43. "And Jefus faid to him. Verily 1 " fay unto thee. To-day fhalt thou be with me " in Paradife''." An attempt indeed was made, at a very early period, by fome who difliked the doftrine which this text evidently contains, to get rid of the Jbffenfive pofition by a novel punftuation. Inftead of pUtting^ the comma before the word a-njAe^ov, to-day, they propofed to place it after it, and then to read, " Verily I lay unto thee this day. Thou fhalt be with u ^ Wolfii Curse Phllologlcse, vol. 1. p. 766. fcoecheri Ana- ]a»fta, p. 983, and Hackfpan in loc. > 82: " me in Paradife;" a very bungling amdunfa-^ tisfaftory artifice. It was neverthelefs at one periodi adopted by the Sociniansy whpfe Ger man tranflation of the New Teftament was in the verfe under; confideration carefully, thus pointed. , .But fo manifeft a ,4iflefc^tion of fenfe and language was not. likely to prove, Jong fafhionable. We therefore find the new Tranf-, lators purfuing a different apd a bolder line of conduft. They in the firft, place endeavour to explain away its obvious meaning, .by remark-; ing, that, when Chrift fays to, the pjenitent ma-* lefaftor, " To-day thou fhalt be with 'me in *' Paradife," he only meant, "in the fl^te of f the virtuous dead, who, though in their "graves, are alive ^o; Goe? ;'''r and 'alfo by re- ferringr to their comment upotl. Luke xx. 38^ where we are told, that all live to God, becaufe he " regards; the future refurreftion; as if it " were prefent." Will thefe refined reafbners however^permit me to afk them, by what harfh .epithet: they would oharafterize the con duft of that man, who fhould announce tq them a bleffing of the firft; importance as. ac tually to take place on that very day, which he at the fame time knew \vpuld not happen U7itil a difiant period, under the defpicable fubter^' 83 fuge, that thjfere, is ho diftinftion -of time with God, becaufe " one day i$ with him as a thou" " fand years, and a tb»oufand years, as one " day?" Really, with all their contempt for ancient and eftablifhed opinion, they muft have a-ftrange conception indeed of the popular in-, teljeft, if they can perfuade, themfelves, that thi;s flimfy fort of new fumpfimus Will. ever fu- perfede what they may fcornfully contemplate iiS the olSkniumpfimus. "<:<¦ 11 Confcious perhapsof this circumftailce, they then proceed a ftep fa4-ther,, and boldly propofe at once the rejeftion,iof the verfe altogether, having previoufly taken care to mark it in the text by italics, as one of doubtful authority. Their ground of fufpicion is thus ftated :_ " This *' verfe," they fay, " was wanting in the eo- " pies of Marcion, and other reputed heretics, ''and in fome of the older copies in the time f' of Origen ; nor is it cited either by Jufiin, " Irenceus, or TertuUian, though the two for- '¦ mer have quoted , almoft every text in Luke " which relates to the crucifixion, and Ter- " tullian wrote concerning the intermediate *'Jlate." ;. The firft part of their argument, that " the "verfe was wanting in .the copies of Marcion, G2 84 "and other reputed^ heretics t a.n6:in Ibrae of " the older copies in the time of Origen," feemfi to have been borrowed from Griefbach, who, without attempting to diflodge the verfe from the text, or in any way to mark it as fufpi cious, fimply makes the following obfervation ; "= (the fign of deficiency) Marcion ap» " Epiph. Manichaei ap. Chryf. Aliqui ap» '^Orig." Upon the illegitimacy of Marcion's Gofpel I have already been fufficiently diffufe, as Well as upon the inconfiftency of thofe, who, in order to get rid of fome offenfive, or to fup port fome favourite text, at one time admit, and at another difcard, the authority of that fpurious produftion at pleafure. It feems there fore only neceffary to refer to what I have previoufly adduced upon this fubjeft ; at the fame time however reminding them, that when they attempt to cut out what th^y may conceive to be the cancerous excrefcences of Scripture, if they with to prevent a felf injury, they will find it wifdom to abftain from the double-edged knife of Marcion. But it feems that the verfe in queftion was alfo Wanting in the copies of '^ other reputed " heretics" What may be the exaft prepon- 85 derance of heretical authority againft the uni form teftimony of antiquity in their judgment, I cannot pretend to determine ; it certainly feems confiderable ; and yet how is this com patible with the importance which they annex to the laborious collations of Manufcripts, Ver fions, and Fathers ? While moft men conceive, that, in proportion to the number of fuch at- teftations in favour ofa particular reading, the greater appears to be the probability of its ge- nuinenefs, will they adopt an inverfe mode of calculation ? Or will they contend, that a iingle grain"" of reputed herefy outweighs, in point of credit, a whole ton of orthodoxy ? And who are the reputed heretics here alluded to ? As they have not condefcended to give their names, we are left to conjefture. The extraft however from Griefbach will enable us per haps to guefs, that they mean the Manichceans. But what poffible reafon can be affigned for fuppreffing the name of thefe heretics ? I can not fuppofe that they had examined the au thority of Griefbach; and, finding him in accurate in his ftatement, yet ftill refolving to take the chance of heretical fufpicion, pre ferred the uncertainty of a general allufion to the precifion of a particular defcription of perfons, by wgy of avoiding the probability n a 8(5 .of deteftion. They rather perhaps adopted the mode in queftion, becaufe they appre hended that the very term Manichceans, to -the credit of whofe fuppofed copies an appeal muft have been made, might have produced in .the reader's, mind an inconvenient affociation of ideas. That however which I do not af- -cribe to them, a diftruft in the accuracy of -Griefbach, I confider myfelf as a fufficient ground for rejefting this part of the teftimony altogether. To the exertions of that laborious critic biblical literature, I am fully cbnvinced, is highly indebted; nor do I hefitate to join with them in denominating his edition of the New Teftament^ a work " of unrivalled excellence " and importance," and in regarding it as not the leaft of his merits, that he contrived " to " comprefs a great mafs of critical information " iqto as narrow a Compafs as poffible, , in ," order to bring it within the reach of thofe, ." who could not afford either the time, the ," labour, or the expenfe, which would be pe- -" ceffary tp colleft it from thofe numerous and " expenfive volumes in which it was diffufeds," At the fame time, however, I hold it requifite \' ¦ i Introduftion, p. 24. 87 not to take too much from any critic upori truft, particularly from one, whofe great merit confifts in the compreffion of more bulky ma terials. Compreflion, we know, neceffarily in cludes fome fort of omiffion, and omiffions too often give rifeto erroneous conceptions. Be fides, may not the very compreffor, by too hafiily adopting a general conclufion, without fufficiently examining the particular premifes, occafionally err himfelf, and confequently mif^ lead others ? This, I contend, is precifely the cafe with Griefbach, in the text under confidera^ tion. Griefbach, in the fhort note given above, manifeftly borrows from Wetftein, intending tb give the fame references as that critic, but to fupprefs the quotations themfelves. Wetftein ftates, that this verfe was wanting iri Marcion's Gofpel according to Epiphanius, and to Origen on John, p. 421. " — (Wetftein's fign of defi- " ciency,) Marcion ap. Epiphanium, et Ori- *' genem in Joh. p. 42 1 ," and quotes the paffage frpm Origen. -He then adds, without any fign prefixed, " Chryfoftomus T. V. f. Ol MAvtxAiot ^' eTTihA^ofjtevoi ra roTra rari^ (pAcriv, et-rsv o Kvpiog, A^t\v " K. T. A. aKav AvnSoa-ig tiSij yeyove rav Aya&av, kai " zsepi-fli^ *l AVA<; Airig' — « yAP *\v cu^atuv AVA! ovSe^ru, kai rrifjispov, ovK e^Ai a;uftATUt ^otTTov AVATAo-tg. AfA evoii(rATS TO ^x^'ev,. n SevTiPor avTo zjaXiv tiveiv AVAyK^i ; */*>;v, Afjutiv Keya cot, oTiftt^ pov fAST sjjt,a EffT) ev TU zSApASeia-u. sirviXB'sv av, ^riv, tig TOV TSAPASeiirov o AsyT^Jf ov fierA tov trufJiATog. irug yA^, OTTOre HK STA^ TO (TUfAA AVTOV , OvSe StShV^Vj, KAI Kovig eyevero ; kai aSAf^a ¦ et^rfrAt, on AV£Tri Paris, 1731. Art, Sermo in Genefim. 7. The following is the tranflation of Montfaucon : " Ifte locurh hunc arri- " pientes aiunt : Dixit Chriftus, ' Amen, amen, dico tibi, " hodie mecum^ eiis in paradifo.' Igitur jam fa£ta eft bo- *' nbrum retributio, et fuperflua erit refurreftio. Si enim " illo die latro bona recepit, corpus autem ejus nondum " ad hunc ufque diem refurrexit, non erit deinceps corpo- " rum refurreftio, Numquid intellexiftis, quod diximus, " an vero iterum illud dici necefl!e eft ? ' Amen, amen, dico *' tibi, hodie mecum eris in paradifo.' IngreflTus eft igitur, " inquit, in paradifum latro non cum corpore. Quo enim " pafto cum fepultum non eflTet corpus ejus, neque diflTo.: " lutum, et in cineres redaftum ? Neque diftum ufquam " fuit, refiifcitatum ilium k Chrifto fuifle. Quod fi latro- " nem introduxit, et abfque corpore bonis potitus eft, ma- " nifeftum eft corporis refurreftionem non efl!e. Nam fi '* corporis eflTet refurreftio, non dixiflfet, ' Hodie mecum then was the argument of the Manichsans ; from which it appears, that, inftead of rejefting this text, they highly appreciated it, and even grounded upon it a favourite doftrine, that there would be no refurredlion of the body, but that, when we died, every thing material in our nature perifhed everlaftingly. In fur ther proof alfo that tbis feft acknowledged its legitimacy, I might refer to a paffage in Au- guftin, in which Fauftus the Manichaean is thus introduced exprefsly quoting it : " Neque ^' enim quia et latronem quendam de cruce li- ** beravit idem nofter Dominus, et ipj'o eodem " die fecum Juturum dixit eum in paradifo pa- " tris fuij quifquam inviderit, aut inhumanU^ *¦' adeo effe„,potell, ut hoc ei difpliceat tantsfe " benignitatis officium. Sed tamea non idcirco '^ eris in paradifo,' fed in tempore confummationis, quando " refurreftio corporuni erit. Ouod fi jam latronem in- " troduxit, corpus autem ejus foris corruptiim remanfit, " plane liquet corporum refurreftionem non efl!e, Atque ^' haec qiiidem illi." How widely thefe repi^ted heretics, differed in opinion from the Unitarians ! The Manichaeans believed thatthe foul furvived the body, and that the body dfed never to exift again. The Unitarians maintain the reverfe of both propofitions. For an account of the diftinftion between paradife and heaven, fee Wetftein's note on this text. 91 ,\\\\\T'<' dicimus et latronum vitas ac mores nobis pro- " babiles effe debere, quia Jefus latroni indul- " gentium dederit K" It is evident therefore that Griefbach com- pletely mifreprefents the faft, when he afferts, ,. ,. ,. , , ,f that the Manichasansdifowned the verfe in quef- tion. Whether, glancing his eye curforily over the partial quotation of Wetftein, and forgetting .the tenets of the feft, he conceived that the ; ;; ; ;¦ Manichaeaus difclaimed the verfe altogether, becaufe it feemed inconfiftent with the doe- trine of a corporeal refurreftion, or whether he fpared himfelf the trouble of confidering .the quotation at all, is not very important. It is certain that he erred, drawing into the yor- :tex of his error writers, who repofe an implicit ^confidence in the accuracy of his ftatements.. But to proceed ; we are alfo told, that this verfe was wanting " in fome of the older co- " pies in the time of Origen." Is not this however advancing one ftep, at leaft, further than the pofition of Griefljach, who only re- , marks, that fome perfons rejefted it according to Origen, Aliqui apud Originem ? Upon what ground then refts the affertion, not that fome . » Contra Fauftum Manichseum, vol. vi, lib. xxxiii. p«r49o. •Ed. 15.69, . -. ¦¦¦• ¦ . _.•;..- • ;•,,,. 92 perfons difowned it, but that it was wanting in fome of the older copies, in the time of that Father ? And does not Griefbach too go a little "beyond his predeceflbr Wetftein, in reprefent- jng the aliqui, the fome perfons alluded to by Origen, as diftinft from the Marcionites fpokfen of by Epiphanius? The words of Wetftein are thefe: " — Marcion apud Epiphanium et Orige- *' nem in Joh. p. 421." Surely the rejeftion here noted, upon the teftimony of Epiphanius and Origen, is precifely one and the fame; viz-. that by Marcion, and not by two different fefts. Nor is this all. As the new Tranflators mif- conceive Griefbach, and Griefbach mifcon^ ceives Wetflein, fo Wetftein alfo mifconceives Origen, and makes for him a declaration which he never meant. The affertion of Origen, fo ftrangely miftaken, is comprifed in the follow ing fhort extraft from his Commentary oil John, as given by Wetftein himfelf : Oirra Ss ¦BTApA^e nvAg ag Arvi^pavov to et^tifievov, are ToXfitlrai AVTOvg v7rovov\irai, frpo But, concealing the fecret motive, they may urge in their defence, that the phrafe " in a " beginning" would be an obfcure fort of exr preffibn, while the other, " a God," is fufli ciently intelligible. This is true ; but it only ferves to fhew, at the very outfet, the general inapplicability of their favourite rule. That the phrafe " a God" is fufficiently intelligible cannot indeed be difputed ; yet may the rule itfelf be juftly controverted, which uniformly fupplies the abfence of the Greek Article by the Englifh indefinite Article. For if we pror ceed with a confiftent tranflation of the fame word ©sog, in the fame chapter of St. John, we Ihall find it neceflary either immediately to abandon the rule altogether, or to reprefent the Evangelift as eftablifhing a plurality of Gods. When, for example, in v. 6. it is faid; " there was a man fent from God, via^a ©ea," if we tranflate this " from a God ;" when alfo in V. 13. the faithful are defcribed as childreia 108 jof God,'TeKVA©ea, if we tranflate this "children ." of a God j" and when in v^ 1 8. it is affirmed, ;that " no man hais at any time feen God^ ©gef," if we render this too "a God," fhall we not introduce the Evangelift as countenancing the opinion, that there are more Gods than one? To avoid fo manifeft an. abfurdity, as well as impiety, we here find the Unitarians departing -from their own principle, and tranflating ©Eur, in all thefe inftances, God, without an Article. Ls not this a fpecimen of .polemical legerde- imain rather than of rational criticifm, which jconjures up a little convenient Article fori particular deception, and then inftanlly, in, a tfubfequent difplay of fkill, commands its ab-^ fence ? u To what fubterfuge can they fly in order \o efcape the imputation of inferring a pla- Tafity of gods? A is an article which evi dently relates to number, as the French un. And thus perhaps they themfelves intend it fhould be taken, when they put into the mouth of the Centurion the words, " Truly this ," was a fon of a God ;" Matt, xxvii. 54; be-* caufe the Centurion may be fuppofed to have been an heathen. But how will they explain J ¦ confiftently with the doftrine, pf the Divia® 109 Unity, the following declaration, which they* aferibe to our Saviour ; " God is not a God of " the dead, but ofthe living ?" Matt. xxii. 32. Were we correftly to exprefs the propofition ,- that the Gentiles, and not the Jews, acknow-^ ledge the meffiahfhip of our bleffed Lord, in-' iiead of faying, that Chrift is not a Chrift,' fliould we not rather fay, that Chrift is not th& Chrift of the Jews, but of the Gentiles ? Or^ to ufe a more familiar illuftration, were we, when alluding to the hands in which the fo* vereignty of this kingdom is lodged, to de fcribe an exalted individual, not as "the," but as " a King of England;" would it not imply,' that England is governed by more kings thah' one ? It is impoffible however for a moment to fupipofe,i;hat they mean to infinuate a poly-' theifm abhorrent from their creed, particularly' when we refleft, that their creed unfformly* rules the text, and not the text their creed. Had they indeed purfued their own rule, as cotifiilency required, in every inftance, nu merous abfurdities would have arifen,. againft' which common fenfe muft have inftantly re-' volted. I fhall inftance one out of many..' Our §aviour fays, in reply to the Tempter, " It is "; writtei); Man fh^ll not live by bread alone,- no " but by every word li^hich proceedeth from' *^. the lAouth of God, Sia 'rofAATog ©sa," Matt. iv» 4. Now thefe words, up6n the principle of fupplying our Article a, whenever the Greek Articld is omitted, fhould have been tranflated, "from a iuouth of a God;" a phrafe whicli would have implied, not only that there are more gods than one, but that every god has more mouths than one ; and thus would they have reprefented our blefled Saviour as teach ing a polytheifm, not 'Iefs wild and grofsthan the polytheifm of India. : If I am afked, " What line then would you V purfue ? Would you, when you tranflate a " Greek noun without the Article, rejeft the " ufe of the Englifh Article a, and admit tliat " of the Englifh Article the, or would you '* tranflate it in Englifh, as in Greek, without " any Article at all ? " My anfwer is, that in every inftance of the kind, we fliould commit ourfelves to the guidance, not of a fuppofed infallible canon, but of common fenfe and thfr Context. On different occafions different modes of tranflation muft be adopted : and inftances may be quoted in which all three modes occur in the fame paffage. Thus, 'Eyevero- avB-^uttos ctr^irAhfjksvoe TTA^A ©sa' ovof^et, Awa luAvvng, John-i. Ill 6. when fully and correftly rendered, will be; " There was a man fent from God ; the name " of whom (or the name to him) was John." Is it poffible for any Tranflator, how much foever influenced by a bigoted attachment to felf opinion, and by a fond affeftation of fin gular theory, to contend, that the words avS'^w, TTcg, ©eof, and ovojaa, in this verfe, all without the Article, are all to be tranflated in one and the fame way ? But it may perhaps be faid, if fuch uncer tainty exifts on thefe occafions, how are we to afcertain the precife import of a Greek noun fo circumftanced ? This queftion however is eafily anfwered by afking another. How do we afcertain the precife import of a Latin noun under fimilar circumftances ? The Latin noun, it is plaiUj muft be ufed, not occafionally, but always, without an Article, becaufe the LatiQ language has none ; yet we contrive to fettfe what we conceive to be its genuine fenfe in all cafes, without ftumbling upon any difficulty of this defcription. Why fhould more perplexity arife in the Greek language ? Whatfoever pointed peculiarity of meaning ^he prefence of the Greek A,rticle may be fup-^ pofed fometimes to indicate, no uniform ana* 112 logy of conftruftion, I prefutiie, can be argued from its abfence. Its elfipfes are perpetual; and a thoufand inftances may be adduced, in which neither**^ its ^ oiniffion, nor its addition, appears to create the flighteft difference. It is not however my intention, nor does the fubjeft re quire me, to enter into an elaborate difcuffiori Upon its philological importance or infignifi- cance. Nothing perhaps is more difficult than to define the exaft nature and legitimate ufe" of Articles in a living lainguage, as they fre quently give birth to anomalies wjiich depend Upon an ufage, bidding defiance to the fhackles of fyftem? And if this' be the cafe in a fiving language, in a dead one the diiiculty muft be incalculably augmented. I fhall' neverthelefs venture to confider a little more minutely, yet as briefly as I can, the queftion of the corre^ ipondence between the Englifh and Greek modes of expreffing nouns, in Order to point out the impoffibility of reftrifting that corre- fpondence by any rule or rules univerfally ap- In Englifh there are evidently three diftinft tnodes of expreffing nouns ; one, without an Article, abfolutely, another, with the Article d* which refers to number, indefinitely; and a 113 Lthird> with the Article the, definitely. An in- Hanceof all three modes occurs in the ufe ofthe word light ; of the firft, when God faid, " Let " there be light," Gen. i. 3; of the fecond, when the Meffiah is declared to be " a light to " lighten the Gentiles," Luke ii. 32 ; and of the third, when our Saviour terms himfelf " Jlie " light ofthe world," John vui. 1 2. So alfo the Word fin in the following paffages: " All un- " righteoufnefs is fin," John v. 1 7 ; " There is a " fin unto death," ib. l6; " Rebellion is as the *' fin of witchcraft," 1 Sam, xv, 23. Few nouns however admit the three modes; moft only the two latter ; and fome the laft alone ; as' the noun fun, which is always denominated the fun ; for although it may be femetimes ufed with the Article a prefixed, yet it can then ¦only be taken hypotheti cally with reference to •other funs, which we conceive to exift in the -boundlefs expanfe of creation. If we fancy that in this diverfity we ftill perceive fomething of invariable fyftem, that fancy, as we proceed, muft foon forfake us, when we turn to the perplexing anomalies in troduced by the caprice of ufage. A man, fov inftance, and a horfe, are both indeed to be confidered as belonging to one genus, yiz. ani- I 114 mal; yet we ufe the word man abfolutely, in order to denote the fpecies, as " God made " man," while it would be incorreft to ufe, the other word in the fame manner. How too fliall we account for the following peculiarities ? We never fay a thunder, but always thunder; while, on the contrary, we never fay hurricane, but always an hurricane ; fo that of two nouns apparently fimilar, one is found tO be deficient in the fecond, and the other in the firft mode of expreffion. An ellipfis likewife of the Article the fre quently occurs, for which we can feldom af fign a fatisfaftory reafon. We may indeed fometimes attribute it to colloquial brevity, as when " the houfe top" is ufed for the top of the houfey and when " horfe-hdir" is ufed for the hair of the horfe : but how fhall we ac- acount for it on more important occafions, as when earth is put for the earth which we in habit, and not for the mere element fo deno minated ? For although we cannot in the fenfe alluded to correftly term God the Creator of earth, yet may we term him the Creator of heaven and earth; and we alfo daily pray, that his will may be done in or on earth. Upon what principle is this variety to be explainedi 115 And, if no happy twift of logical dexterity can wreath ftragglers of this nature into the fantaftical chaplet of our fyftem, what fuccefs can we promife ourfelves with others ftill more rambling and perverfe ? We apply, for example, the terms heaven and fky fynonymoufly to de- fignate the vaulted expanfe above our heads ; yet we exprefs them differently, for we ufe the for mer always without, but the latter always with, the definite Article. Again, before the name of that which poffeffes an exiftence unlike to all others, and whicb is of fo peculiar a nature as not to admit the idea of number, it is ufual to place the definite Article, as the fun, the moon, and the world. And to what other clafs can the word God, as fignifying the one fupreme and felf-exifting Being, be properly affigned ? Yet we do not, under this applica tion of the term, fay, the God, as we fay the fun, definitely, but God, abfolutely. It feems then, that, in explanation of fuch in congruities, we muft have recourfe, not to any infallible code of philological' laws, but to an ufage difdainful of all reftriftion. Nor is even this principle to be confidered as uniform in its operation, and conftant in its charafter. Fickle, fluftuating, unftable, it fubverts and re- I 2 11(5 \eftablifhes, erefts and demolifhes, at pleafiire, : ahd fometimes abandons even its own innova,- -tions. A ftyje of expreffion to Which we are not habituated we are apt to pronounce ab horrent from the genius of our language ; but that fuppofed genius, particularly in the cafe befpre us, too often mocks defcription : when we attempt to feize and examine it, it affumeiS ,ib fhadowy and flitting a form as to elude our grafp. To what, for example, but to the flux of fafhion, and the caprice of ufage, can we aferibe the various modes of expreffion adopted in the different tranflations of the tenth verfe of the thirty-fecond Pfalm ? The Commoii- Prayer-Book Verfion renders it thus : " Be ye " not like to horfe and mule, which have no " underftanding, whofe mouths muft be held " with bit and bridle." The Bible Verfioq thus : " Be ye not as the horfe and the mule, " which have no underftanding, whofe mouth " muft be held in with bit and bridle." Wc here perceive, in the firft inftance, a total omif fion of the definite and indefinite Articles; then fubfequently a reftoration of the former, but not of the latter ; while, in the prefent day, propriety would require a reftoTation of both : for inftead of " whofe mouth muft be held in 117 •* with bit and bridle," we fhould now rathe^ fay, " whofe mouth inuft be held in with a *' bit and a bridle." Nor, in proof that ouf idea of correftnefs depends more upon habit than fyftem, ought the provincialifm of counci ties to be overlooked : for, to an ear familiar only with the dialeft of Cumberland, the per petual infertion of Articles does not found Iefs harfh and uncouth than the perpetual omif fion of them to a more polifhed ear. If therefore the Englifh language be in its ufe of Articles fo irregular, how are we pre cifely to point out, and to reftrain by certain unerring laws, its correfpondence in this refpeft with the Greek language ? It is well known, that in Greek there is only one Article, which is in general correftly tranflated by our defi nite Article the ; yet on fome occafions muft we tranflate it indefinitely, and on others ab folutely. With regard to its indefinite accep tation, fliould a prejudice for fyftem induce us to fufpeft the meaning of to e^og, Matt, v. l. and Tfl wAow)/, Matt. ix. 1, we mufl furely ren der TO fAoSiov, Matt. V. 15. a meafure ;oStSA(rKA?\.eg^ John iii. lo. a teacher; tov avB-^uttov, John vu. 5l. a (or, as the New Verfion has it, any) man; and to -^svSog, John viii. 44. a lie. Nor I 3 118 will the abfolute fenfe in which the noun con nefted with it is occafionally taken, appear doubtful, when we obferve, that tjji/ SiKAioa-uvtiv^ Matt. V. 6. can only fignify righteoufnefs, not ihe or a righteoufnefs ; *i %Aptg KAt ri A^fiB-siA, John i. 1 7. grace and truths and ex. ra B-AVAra eig Tijv '(u*iv, John V. 24. from death to life. I ufe the ftrong terms mii/l and can without fear of contradiftion, becaufe the New Verfion itfelf fanftions their application. But further, as a Greek noun with the Ar ticle muft be varioufly rendered, fo alfb, as I have already remarked, without the Article, muft it be underftood fometimes definitely, fometimes indefinitely, and fometimes abfo-i lutely. Having previoufly however adverted to thefe points, I fhall not fruitlefsly multiply examples, only fubjoining, with refpeft to the firft mode of expreffion alluded to, a fingle paffage, which, even if it ftood alone, would, I conceive, prove decifive upon the fubjeft. St, John fays, upA tiv*ug SeKATfi, c. iv. 6. Would it not be nonfenfe to tranflate this " an hour" inftead of " the hour was about the tenth ?" When thefe different circumftances are con templated ; when we confider that in our own language the addition or omiffion of an Article 119 is often attributable to no other caufe than to the predominance of a paramount ufage; when we perceive fimilar irregularities to exift in the Greek language ; and the correfpondence be tween both to be regulated by no fixed and determinate principles ; who will boaft of re ducing to the fubjeftion of rule forms of ex preffion fuperior to all rule ? We are indeed too apt, on every occafion, to reprefent pleonafms and ellipfes as fyftematical ornaments, inftead of what they often are, unfyftema tical ble- mifhes, of language ; and to dream of inde- fcribable elegancies, where little perhaps is really difcoverable except the negligence of habit, or the peculiarity of cuftom : but as well may we attempt to chain the wind, as to reftrift diverfity of ufage in the redundance or fuppreffion of Articles, by any thing like an invariable uniformity of conftruftion. 1 4 120 CHAP. VI. Exiftence qf an Evil Being. Tranflation qf the words Xc^tav and AiA^oAog. Another effort to regulate Scripture by the ftandard of Unitarian faith occurs in the fingular mode of occafionally tranflaring the words 'Satav and AtASoAog, not as proper namesy but as nouns appellative. They are therefore thus rendered in the following paffages : " Get " thee behind me, thou adverfary, Matt. xvi. 23. " Have I not chofen you twelve? And yet one " of you is a falfe accufer, John vi. 7 1 : There " hath been given to me a thorn in the flefh, " an angel-adverfary to buffet me, 2 Cor. xii. 7. " Give not advantage to the fiand£.rer,^^hef. " iv. 28. Left the adverfary fhould gain ad- " vantage over us ; for we are not ignorant of *• his devices, 2 Cor. ii. 1 1 . Have been taken " captive by the accufer, 2 Tim. ii. 26." The objeft propofed by this tranflation, and explicitly avowed in various explanatory notes, introduced at almoft every poffible opportu nity, evidently is, to exclude from the Chrif- 121 tian creed, in conformity with the fentimenti^ of the Unitarian fchool, the doftrine of an evil Being fuperior to man. They think it, I prefume, irrational to fuppofe, that a Being of this defcription exifts, becaufe fuch an ex iftence falls not immediately under the cog nizance of the human faculties ; and what they do not think it rational to conceive, they will not allow to be contained in holy Scrip ture. Hence they tell us more than once» that the term devil means only " the principle " of evil perfonified," Matt. xiu. 3 g. John viiiw 44. 1 John iii. 8. To enter into a philofophical difcuffion of this fubjeft would be foreign to my defign, as twell as irrelevant to the true point which can be correftly faid to be in controverfy. The point in difpute is rather a queftion of faft than one of philofophy : it is fimply, whether Jeiwifh opinions and Jewifh phrafeology will warrant us in concluding, that by the expref fions tATAv and AtA^oAog our Saviour and his Apoftles meant a real perfon, or merely a per fonified quality. Truths univerfally admitted require no formal definition ; they are ufually introduced in the way of allufion, and in moft inftances are 122 folely deducible from fome opinion ftated, or from fome faft recorded, by inference. If then the exiftence of an evil fpirit be no where direftly afferted in the Old Teftament, we muft not on that account imagine, that it is not ex prefsly implied there; for a fimilar remark may be made refpefting the doftrine of a fu ture ftate; and yetare we forbidden by Chrift himfelf to deny that it is there diftinftly taught. Matt. xxii. 32. : In the book of Job, a book to which critics coincide in imputing the higheft antiquity S an a CarpzoviuSj if not the laft, doubtlefs not the leaft, of biblical critics, gives the following opinion, as the refult of his reflexions upon the fubjeft of its antiquity : " Sic " divinus jam ante Mofen extabat Jobi liber poeticus, ad " inftruftionem fidelium leftus quidem, et aflervatus, fed « Canonico nondum a^ueixurt infignis. Poftquam autem " divinis aufpiciis Mofis opera condendi Canonis facri " faftum eflet initium, diu poft, circa Samuelis fort6 aeta- " tem, ejufdemque ni fallor manu, divini numinis juflii, " canonicis ille libris additus et ad latus Arcae in Sanc- " tuario public^ repofitus videtur, cum Prologo ac Epilogo *' hiftorico dsonvsugcog ornaflet auxifletque ilium Samuel, " ut quae fermonum k Jobo exaratorum occafio, quis " fcopus, quis hiftoriae nexus, quae rerum geftarum feries, " et cataftrophe fuerit, ad communem Ecclefias omnium *' temporum notitiam et edificationem, ad oculum paterdt. *' Ut adeo gemihum agnofcat ]ihQr fcriptorem, Johum, qu$ 123 evil Being, under the defignation of Satan, is direftly noticed as appearing in the divine pre fence, and as obtaining permiffion to attack the integrity of Job by the fevereft temporal infliftions. This charafter, it is true, is con fidered by fome as merely ideal, as nothing more than an elegant embellifhment of a fub- lime poem. Thofe, however, who thus confider it, do not perhaps fufficiently refleft, that poets are not philofophers ; that the celeftial Beings ufually defcribed by them are not the fole creatures of their own imagination, but fuch as are to be found in the popular creed of their times ; and that the gods of Homer and Virgil, not Iefs than the angels and devils of Milton, were fuppofed to exift in nature. Befides, if we are at liberty to prefume that Satan is an ideal charafter, are we not at equal liberty to *' fui parte metro eft adftriftus, et Samuelem, quod ad ca- " pita priora duo, et poftremum, attinet. Ad Samuelem " vero ei de caufi referre malui, quod loquendi modus, in *' priore Samuelis libro adhibitus, ex afle illi refpondet, " quo profaica in libro Jobi capita perfonant. Tam plane " tam perfpicue tam pure utrobiquefermofe habet Ebrceus, " tam ordinate porro, ac JiiccinSe, narrationis feries ut " ovum vix ovo fimilius videatur." Introduftio ad Lib. Poet.Bibl.p.58. Ed. 1731. 124 J>refiime the fame of the other party in the dialogue, even of God himfelf ? > But, in truth, it is impoffible for the cha* rafter of Satan to be here contemplated as a mere poetical embellifhment ; and that for the plaineft of all reafons ; becaufe the chapters in which it is introduced contain nothing bear ing the flighteft refemblance to poetry. The two firft chapters of Job are manifeftly pro- faical, and are expreffed after the manner of the fimpleft and pureft narrative. No metrical Compofition occurs until the third chapter, and then commences a ftyle wholly diffimilar to the preceding, not only as being poetical, but as appearing, in the judgment of the beft cri-t tics, to be replete with Arabifms, and an ob* folete Hebrew phrafeology anterior to the times of Mofes. Since therefore the prepara tory narrative, in which alone any mention is made of Satan, is perfeftly profaical, and be- fpeaks a different author, as well as a later pe riod, it is abfurd to throw out crude conjee* tures about poetical imagery, where neither metre nor poetry exifts. With the paffage alluded to in Job may be compared another in l Kings xxii. 19. in which the prophet Michaiah defcribes aft 125 almoft fimilar tranfaftion in almoft fimilar terms. The hofts of heaven are reprefented in both inftances aa fianding in the prefence of .God, and a particular fpirit is noticed as intror ducing himfelf into the angefical affembly, and as counfelling, and fubfequently executing, evU againft an individual among men. This fpirit is in Job denominated \lD1ffT] the Satan, a word ufually confidered as derived from a root fignifying to hate or oppofe ; in the hook of Kings he is denominated r\T\H the Jpirit ; the fprmer being a defignation taken from the malignity of his difpofition, the latter one taken from the immortality of his nature. That the prophet Michaiah meant by the ex preffion rrnn a fuperior Being of a particular defcription, feems evident from the demon- ftrative prefix n ; and as a fuperior Being ofa particular defcription is direftly pointed out, is not his identity with the Satan of Job appa rent from the nature of his counfel and agency, from his becoming " a lying fpirit" nptr nn in the mouths of the prophets of Ahab, to lead that prince on to deftruftion ? Although we were to admit that the infpired writers might in neither inftance intend to reprefent the ce- leflial council as an aftual occurrence, adopting 125 the form of dialogue, that prominent feature of all oriental compofition, becaufe it was the moft ufual and moft impreffive ; yet would it be one thing to fuppofe the dialogue, and an other to fuppofe the charafters, to which it is afcribed, fiftitious. Nor does it appear more reafonable to make a partial feleftion among thofe charafters at pleafure ; to confider God and the angels as real beings, and Satan, the principal agent in both tranfaftions, as an ima- ;ginary one ; to introduce the Deify himfelf converfing with an abfolute non-entity. Be fides, even in the boldeft ftyle of profopopceia, it would be anomalous, becaufe it would be unintelligible, to affix any other denomination to the thing or quality perfonified, than its true and appropriate one. Thus had Solomon, in his elegant perfonification of wifdom, (Pro verbs viii.) fubflituted for wifdom the term friendfhip, becaufe wifdom is friendly to the beft interefts of man ; or, what would have been ftill more obfcure, the term friend; would not his allufion have been utterly incompre- henfible ? And yet muft we fay, according to what Unitarians confider as the only rational expofition of the paffage, that the author of the two firft chapters of Job, when he wiflied 127 to perfonify evil, fufficiently marked his mean ing by adopting the expreffion ]C3K^n the enemy, folely becaufe evil is inimical to man. To the preceding quotations from Job and Kings may be fubjoined another of a fimilar import. It is this : " And he fhewed me Jo- " fhua the high-prieft ftanding before the an- " gel of the Lord, and Satan pt^n ftanding at " his right hand to refifi him, ]i\D^b. And " the Lord faid unto Satan, The Lord rebuke " thee, O Satan." Zech. iii. i, 2. Here fome have conjeftured, that the word Satan means only thofe adverfaries who oppofed the high- prieft in the rebuilding of the temple, after the return of the Ifraelites from captivity. It is remarkable, however, that St. Jude gives the precife form of reproof mentioned by Zecha riah on this occafion ; " The Lord rebuke thee," as one ufed by Michael the archangel in a con tention with fomething more than a mere hu man adverfary. Indeed moft commentators are difpofed to think, that St. Jude alludes to this very paffage in Zechariah ; and much in genuity has been exhibited ^ in reconciling the b Certainly not the leaft ingenious conjefture on this fKbjeft ig that of Stofch, which Schleufner gives in the 128 texts. But for my prefent purpofe it is not tperhaps material. If St. Jude really alludes to it, the meaning of the word Satan, at leaft as he underftood it, will be evident. If he does not, but refers to another author and a different tranfaftion, this, inftead of diminifh- ing, will be only adding to, the teftimony ; for even apocryphal teftimony, in corroborating the ufual acceptation of a particular phrafe, muft be deemed admiffible. If therefore the ftyle of the angelical reproof be the fame in Zechariah, in St. Jude, and in a preceding apo cryphal author, and if the party reproved be ; following terms : " Jude 9. ad quem locum tamen aliam *' eamque ingeniofam conjefturam protulit Stofch in Ar- *' chseol. CEconom. N. T. p. 41, qui o-wjxa Mwua-sa)? reddit "fervum Mofis, ipfumque adeo pontificem maximum J9- *'fuam intelligit, fimulque monet o-»ju,a in notione-TBaw- *' cipiiffervi, etiam honoratiori fenfu adhiberi de militibus " cujufcunque ordinis." Lexic. Art. o-eufta. For the accep tation of (r«)/i*« in the fenfe of a fervant, fee Wetftein in Apoc. xviii, 13. Schoetgen, in his Horae Talmud, vol. i. p, 1080, offers another conjefture. He confiders o-»|«,« Meeutrswj as a He- , braifm, meaning only Mofes himfelf : but he does not make out his point. In Rabbinical Hebrew indeed £3U is ufed reciprocally, but always, I conceive, with a prono minal affix, and not in conftru£Uon with another fub ftantive. i2g in each inftance defcribed under the fame ap- pellationj will it not follow, that in each in ftance alfo the fame charafter is defignated ? So general indeed was the perfuafion among the Jews of this reproof being uttered to an infernal fpirit, that in the Talmud we find the repetition of the very words alluded to pro pofed as the moft effeftual proteftion againft the attacks of Satan. The fuperftitious Tal- mudifts'^ caution their timid difciple, a warn ing faid to have been given by Sammael, who is elfewhere termed Satan, the angel of death, not to ftand in the way of a female proceffion returning from a funeral, " becaufe," faith the- angel of death, " becaufe I, with fword in hand, " leap exulting before it, and I poffefs the do- " minion of torture. Kil IpI'D 'JNtT 'JflD '•' "jin"? r\'W\ ^b ty'1 n'l »mm p'jsb. But if," continues the Gemara, " the meeting be un- " avoidable, what is his remedy ? Let him re- " cede fome paces from the fpot. If a river " be near, let him ford it ; or if a road in an- "- other direftion, let him proceed that way ; '^ or if a wall, let him ftand behind it. But if c Ordo CD'j?"it Codex niD"a cap. vii. Gemara. Barto- loccii Bib. Rabbin, v. iii. p. 369. A paflage of a fimilar tendency is alfo quoted by Wagenfeil in his ^ota, p. 484.. K 130 *' no retreat appear, then let him turn his face " and exdaim, ' The Lord faid to Satan, The, " Lord rebuke thee, Satan ; and the danger " fliall depart from him." Would you then, perhaps the Unitarians will fay, with that contempt which generallj charafterizes the conceit of fuperior wifdom, would you then revive the obfolete extrava gance of Rabbinical reverie? Certainly not. But my argument furely will not fuffer by the proof, that the Jews themfelves, who mani feftly could not have been influenced by Chrif tian expofitions, have always underftood the text of Zechariah precifely as I do, and pre cifely indeed as the generality of Chriftians. have always done. To eftabfifh the faft is one thing; but to approve of every abfurdity which. a fuperftitious imagination may deduce from it^ is clearly another. In addition alfo to what has been faid, it may be remarked, that the expreffion \opT^, with the demonftrative n prefixed;, occurs but twice in the Old Teftament, in Job and in Ze« charjah ; and that in both cafes the Being fa denominated appears in the prefence of, and is addreffed by, God himfelf. Is it not there for* highly improbable, that the fame expref- 131 fion, thus diftinguifhed, fhould, in the firft in ftance, fignify the perfonification of an a.bftraft idea, that of evil; and in the fecond, a mere human being P Were the foregoing obfervations infufficient' to prove the ancient belief in a fuperior order of evil fpirits, an additional argument might be brought from Deuter. xxxii. 17, where it is faid, " They facrified to devils, Dnty, not to " God." For it feems indifputable, that the word Dnty, whatfoever difference of opinion may be entertained refpefting its derivation, mUft mean detefted objefts of heathen worfhip,' which were fuppofed to poffefs a real exiftence, becaufe it is tranflated AAtfjuoviA, not only in the Septuagint, but by the author of the apocry phal book Baruch, c. iv. 7, and by the Apoftle Paul, 1 Cor. X. 20 ; and the fpi ritual nature alfo of the Aai^ovia is ftrongly afferted both in the Apocrypha and in the New Teftament. Apocryphal teftimony indeed is inadmiffible in fettling a point of doftrine ; but it may at leaft be received in determining the currency of an opinion. It fhould be therefore noticed, that in the Wifdom of Solomon the fall of man is direftly imputed to the envy of the de vil : " For God created man to be immortal, K2 132 "and made him to be, an image of his owri " eternity ; neverthelefs through envy of th& '¦ devil, (pB-ovu AiA^oXa, came death into the " world, and they who hold to his fide, tl tij^. *• eKeiva f^eptSog evrsg, do find it." c. ii. 23, 24. Is not the perfonality of the Devil, AiAQoXog, here pointed out in terms, the meaning of which it is impoffible to miftake ?. Having thus confidered the principal traces of the. fubjeft before me difcoverable in the Old Teftament, I fhall now turn to the New. The authors of this Verfion affirm, that the word Satan, whatfoever might have been the Vulgar opinion, certainly, in the contemplation of Chrift and his Apoftles, indicated not a real but a fiftitious being. It is natural however to afk, upon what proof do they ground their argument, that the private Opinion of our Saviour was in direft oppofition to his public teftimony ; that when he fpoke of Satan he meant by that expreffion no more than a fymbolical exiftence^ the mere perfonification of an abftraft quality ? They will perhaps anfwer, upon the prefumption that he could not, confiftently with reafon, have meant otherwife. But why fhould it be- deemed irrational to conceive, that intelleftual 133 beings ofa fuperior order may have tranigreffed the laws of their Creator, as well as thofe of an inferior order ; • that there fhould be bad angels as well as bad men ? And what is this rule of human reafon, from which revelation itfelf muft never be fuppofed to fwerve ? If they will liften to a critic of charafter, whofe occafional aberrations from received opinion at leaft muft recommend him to their efteem, he will tell them, that " what we call reafon, *' and by which we would new model the " Bible," (he is fpeaking of theological conjec ture in the emendation of the text,) " is fre- *' quently nothing more thsm fome fafhionable " fyftem of philofophy, which lafts only for a " time, and appears fo abfurd to thofe who '.' live in later ages, that they find it diflicult to " comprehend how rational beings can have " adopted fuch ridiculous notions ^." And he inftances the example of the Gnoftics. In the days of Gnofticifm indeed every thing was fpi- ritualized, and credulity carried to an extreme one way ; but now, it feems, every thing is to be materialized, and incredufity pufhed to an extreme the other. Truth, "^ however, I am d Michaelis's Introduftion, vol. ii, parti. p..4i5^v k3 134 perfuaded, may ftill be found in the middle fyftem ; in a fyftem equally remote from the fantaftical reveries of the Gnoftics, and from the negative hypothefes of the Unitarians. But let us more attentively confider the proofs of this fuppofed Chriftian philofophy. , We muft underftand then, that a profeffed ob jeft of our Saviour's miffion was to abolifh the fuperftitious doftrine of evil fpirits ; to eradi cate from the popular mind the ideal empire of darknefs. Conceiving this therefore to have been an objeft of his miffion, how, we may afk, did he effeft it ? Was it, as in the cafe of Pharifaical foperftition, by attacking the offen five creed in bold and difdainful language, and in terms expofing it, without referve, to merited contempt and infamy ? Indifputably not. But, ©n the other hand, by adopting it on every oc cafion as his own, by temporizing with his hearers, by foftering their prejudices even to iatiety, and by ultimately leaving them to cor reft their own errors ! Surely if fuch were our Saviour's objeft, his mode of accomplifliing that objeft was rather fingular «. Nor fhould e See Mr. John Jones's " Illuftrations of the four Gof- « pels," p. 172,173. 135 it bc {<3Tgotten, that the Unitarians, on other occafions, withhold at pleafure their belief in every thing which is not exprefsly and re peatedly declared : yet on this ocCafion would they wifh us to believe that which is not de clared at all ; which is folely deducible from an affumed paramount rule of reafon, and from principles of fcriptural interpretation tOo refined for vulgar comprehenfion. If it were one avowed objeft of our Sa viour's miffion to annihilate the received doc trine of an evil Being, we might conjefture, that fome very early indication of it would appear in the Evangelical hiftory. But, on the con trary, we are informed, that at the very com mencement of his miniftry he was " led up of " the Spirit into the wildernefs to be tempted •• by the devil," Matt. iv. l ; and this is ftated with various particulars of the event, without the flighteft collateral or ulterior explanation. The authors of the New Verfion indeed fay, *' This form of expreffion (viz. * Jefus was led • up by the Spirit') denotes that the hiftorian " is about to defcribe a vifionary fcene, and " not a real event." And fo faid Farmer be fore them. But what is the reply of another favourite writer of the fame fchool ? " When K4 136 " this is the cafe," obferves Mr. John Jones, " it " is always declared that the fcene is vifionary, " and not real. ***** Do the Evangelifls . " then fay, that the temptations of Chrift, or " the fcenes which he faw, were a vifion f Not " a word, nor the flighteft intimation of the *' kind is given by them ; and there is as good "teafon for fuppofing that he was baptized, " or announced by a voice from heaven as the " Son of God, in a vifion, as for thinking he "was tempted in a vifion," p. 630. Again, " With the New Teftament in our hands, we " feel ourfelves furrounded with the mild and " benignant fplendour of truth and reality ; " but this critic (viz. Farmer) would envelope " our hemifphere in gloom at the moment the " Sun of righteoufnefs fheds his pureft, fereneft " rays on our horizon ; and with prepofierous " qfficioufnefs would refleft on our path the " livid light of a midnight taper, when the Son " of God himfelf ftands before us clothed with " the luminary of dkj." p. 632. It feems, then, that it muft not be a vifion. Still however, al though " we feel ourfelves furrounded with the " mild and benignant fplendour of truth and " reality," it may only be, according to the fe- cpnd hypothefis of our Tranflators, " a figura- 137 *' tive defcription ofthe train of thoughts which " paffed through the mind of Jefus." And this is the opinion of Mr. Cappe, and Mr. John Jones himfelf. I fhall not however wafte my time in attempting to fplit the hair of reality between writers whofe only difference of opi nion feems to be, that, wh'de one reprefents our Saviour as forefeeing, in a vifion at Naza reth, the future fcene ofhis fufferings, and, " in " order to qualify him for death, as dreaming " that he fhould die," the other reprefents him as forefeeing the fame fcene with his eyes open in the wildernefs; but fhall pafs on to other confiderations, fimply noticing " the con- " firmation (as it is termed) of his interpreta- " tion," given by Mr. John Jones, who, with out any particular comment, refers for this purpofe to a well known allegory of Xeno phon, denominated " the Choice of Hercules ;" and adds, that " nothing in all antiquity can " be found more fimilar to the temptation of ". our Lord, both in fentiment and language ! " p. 633. To examine therefore with a little more ac curacy this new idea, that the affertion of an affirmative is fometimes the moft effeftual mode of proving a negative, when our bleffed 138 Saviour, certainly not at the moment very an xious to avoid " alienating and inflaming his *' countrymen ^ ," thus addreffes the Jews ; " Te are of your father the devil, and the luft» *' of your father ye will do : he was a mur- " derer from the beginning, and abode not in *• the truth," John viii. 44, is it poffible to conceive, that he was playing with their pre judices, and merely alluded to a perfonified quality P When likewife, in his defcription of the day of judgment, he ufes the terms " ever- " lafting fire, prepared for the devil and his ati- " gels/' Matt. xxv. 41. can we, confiftently with common fenfe, fuppofe that^ by the words the devil and his angels, he meant and wifhed his hearers to underftand him as meaning no thing more than metaphorical exiftences ? If it be neverthelefs ftill infifted, that, when fpeak ing to the people at large, he had a purpofe to anfwer in humouring popular prejudice by the adoption of popular language, it will fcarcely, I prefume, be argued, that he had any purpofe to ferve in adopting a fimilar language when ad- dreffing his own difciples. And yet we find him frequent in the ufe of it. To them he fays, even * lUuftrations ofthe four Gofpels,; p. 171. 139 m explanation of a parable, " The enemy "that fowed the tares is the devil," Matt, xiu* 39 : a moft fingular affertion indeed by way of proving the non-exiftence of fuch a being. When alfo they tell him, that " even the de- " vils, Aaij4,ovia, are fubjeft to him," Luke x. 17. inftead of correfting their error, if error he conceived it to be, he replies, " I beheld Satan *' like lightning fall from heaven," In another place, addreffing himfelf to Peter, he exclaims, " Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath defired to " have you," Luke xxii, 31. And even after his refurreftion, when he appeared in a vifion to St. Paul, he calls him " to turn men from *f darknefs to light, and from the power of Sa- " tan unto God," Afts xxvi. 18. Nor are the Apoftles, in their Epiftles both to Jews and Gentiles, more fcrupulous in the free ufe of language, which, if they had not learned, they at leaft had heard, from their di vine Mafter g. To reconcile their phrafeology to the Unitarian hypothefis is a tafk which no t See John xiii 2. Afts xiii. 10. Rom. xvi. 20, i Cor. V. 5, vii, 5, 2Cor, ii, II, xi, 14, xii. 7. Ephef. iv. 27. vi. II. I Thefl". ii. 18. 2 Thefl". ii. 9. i Tim. i. 20. iii. 6, 7. V. Ij. 2 Tim. ii, 26. Heb. ii. 14. James iv. 7. i Pet. V. 8. » Pet. ii. 4. Jude 6. 140 effort and ftraining will ever fatisfaftorily ac- complifh. One would conceive that, when St. Paul fpeaks of " delivering fuch a one to " Satan," l Cor. v. 15. and of " Satan's tranf- " forming himfelf into an angel of light,"^ 2 Cor. xi. 14. he meant the fame perfon. But our new Interpreters tell us, that in the firft inftance Satan is to be confidered as a fort of ideal fovereign over an ideal kingdom of dark nefs: in the latter, as a falfe Apoftle, the lead ing adverfary of St. Paul. I fhall quote the laft paffage. Speaking of falfe teachers, St. Paul obferves, that " they transform themfelves into. " the Apoftles of Chrift, And no wOnder: for *' /Safow alfo transformeth himfelf into an angel " of light. It is therefore no great thing if his- 'i minifters alfo transform themfelves as minif- " ters of righteoufnefs," What can poffibly; be more fimple in its import ? This however is to be thus perplexed ; As the leading adver fary of St. Paul, denominated Satan, trans forms himfelf into an angel of light ; that is, " arrogates to himfelf the charafter of a mef- " fenger from God;" fo aXfo the minifters of this adverfary transform themfelves into the minifters of righteoufnefs, that is, " pretend ta " be the Apofiles of the MeJfiah." But where. 141 do W6 find any mention of this leading adver fary, who arrogated to himfelf the charafter 6f an angel, (for the words angel of light can not, I maintain, be lowered into the direft fenfe of a mere meffenger from God, fuch as were all the prophets,) and who, in purfuance of his divine miffion, had his appropriate mi nifters, StAKovotf Did St. Paul ever term his fel low labourers in the Gofpel his minifters P The minifters of Satan contrafted with the minifters of Chrift is fufficiently intelligible. But where is the contraft in oppofing the minifters of a falfe apoftle to the minifters of Chrift, unlefs we can alfo fuppofe a contraft in the princi ples ; viz. between the falfe apoftle himfelf and our Saviour ? Befides, the word Satan is Hebrew, not Greek; and as being therefore in all probability only known to the Corinthians in a peculiar fenfe, was fcarcely ufed by St,. Paul to exprefs the general idea of ari adver fary. But a flill more fingular expofition occurs in a comment, which they adopt from another writer, upon a paflage Of St. Jude. In order to point out the dreadful judgments of God againft the difobedient, the Apoftle inftances, the punifhment of the fallen angels, the de- U2 ftruftion of the world by water in the days of Noah, and the overthrow of Sodom and Go- morrha by fire from heaven. The cafe of the fallen angels he thus defcribes: " The angela *' who kept not their firft eftate, but left their " own habitation, he hath referved in eternal " chains to the judgment of the great day," ver. 4. In explanation of this the following paraphrafe is given : " The meffengers who " watched not duly over their own principa- " Uty, but deferted their proper habitation, he " kept with perpetual chains under darknefs; " {punifhed them with judicial blindnefs Of " mind) nnto the judgment ofa great day, i. e. " when they were deftroyed by a plague. Al- ** luding to the falfehood and punifhment of " the fpies. Numb, xiv. 36, 37 !" Were we however difpofed to try the experiment of con verting the word angels into meffengers, and to confider thefe as the fpies fent out by Mofes and the Ifraelites to inveftigate the land of Canaan, what poffible fenfe can be made of the crime imputed to them ; viz. " that they watch- " ed not duly over their own principality?'* Nor can thofe with any propriety be faid to have " deferted their proper habitation," *toA<- •ffQVTAg TO eavTuv oiK^fipiov, who had no proper 143 habitation to defert. BefideS, could we fup pofe that the phrafe, "judgment of the greaf " day," is fynonymous with that of defiruBixm by the plague, ftill would it require the talent of (Edipus himfelf in the folution of metapho rical eenigma to demonftrate how the words, " he kept in eternal chains under darknefs," SstrfJLoig AiStgtg vtto ^o(pov.TeTr\^iiiKev, can poffibly mean, he punifhed with judicial blindnefs of mind; particularly as St. Peter, who adduces the fame example, adds the participle TA^A^ua-At, a-et^Ati ^B^a TAPTApatTAg zsApsSuKsv, " having cqfl them " dmvn to hell, he delivered them into chains " of darknefs," 2 Pet, ii. 4. And with what propriety can judicial blindnefs of mind, the aft, I prefume, of forming an erroneous judg ment of the promifed land, which confti tuted the crime of the fpies, be termed their punifh ment ? On the whole then; if the exiftence ofa fpi- ritual enemy to man, under the denomination of Satan, is difcoverable in the Scriptures of the Old Teftament; if this were confeffedly the popular creed at the period of the promulga tion of Chriftianity.; if our Saviour himfelf adopted it as his own creed without any ulte rior explanation^ not only when pubUcly ad- 144 dfeffing the people, but alfo when privately* converfing with his own difciples ; and if the Apoftles likewife expreffed themfelyes in fimi lar language, it feems reafonable to conclude, that Satan is defcribed .as a real, and not as a" fiftitious being. ' That tranflation therefore of the word Xatav cannot be correft, which, by rendering it adverfary, deprives it of the pecu liar fenfe which was ufually affixed to it. It^ admits indeed in Hebrew as well the general fenfe of adverfary or accufer, as the particular fenfe of a fallen angel. But it fhould be re collefted, that the queftion turns upon its meaning in the Greek, and not in the Hebrew Scriptures. Had the Apoftles intended to ex prefs the general idea of an adverfary, they would doubtlefs have ufed AvnStKog,. or fome other equivalent Greek expreffion ; becaufe- otherwife they would have been unintelligible to thofe, for whofe inftruftion they wrote. Satan, as a term appropriated to an evil Being of a fuperior nature, could only be underftood, we may prefume, by the Greeks as it ftill is by- us in Englifh : but had St. Luke, for example, inftead of ag yAp vTTAyetg fA,sTA Ta AVTiStKa a-asw ap~ XovTA, C, xii. 58. written ug yAp wrAyetg jasIa ra 2*- TAVA (ra STT Apx, it is obvious that they would inculcate the fame opinion on their heathen converts, and would confequently explain to them the meaning' of that term ; but if they did not believe in it, no poffible neceffity could arife for their explain ing it at all. Would they not rather have ab- ftained from every allufion to it, than have run the rifk of appearing to countenance a creed which they difclaimed ; and this folely for the puerile pleafure of fporting with a tortured me taphor ? That they proceeded ftill further, and previoufly explained the general meaning of a certain Hebrew expreffion, without any par ticular objeft of the kind alluded to in view, is forely a pofition which fliould fhock even the conjeftural credulity of the new fchool. 147 CHAP. VII. Trafiflation qf the word AyfsXog, Heb. i. Dif puted books. Griefbach. Conclufion. Although the Tranflators take every pof fible opportunity to reprefent a belief in the exiftence of fallen angels as irrational, and therefore unfcriptural, they do not altogether deny the exiftence of angels themfelves. This they feem to admit ; yet, as the word ayfe^og means both a meffenger and an angel, they fometimes attempt, for certain theological pur pofes, to give it the former in preference to tfie latter figpification, in direft oppofition to the contex;t, When St. Stephen ftates the law to have been received " by the miniftry of an- " gels," we are informed in a note, that " thunder, lightning, and tempeft, may be " called angels, like the plague of Egypt, " Pfalm Ixxviii. 49 ; and the burning wind, " Ifaiah xxxvii. 36^';" or that thefe angels may ^ But the illilftrations here adduced are defeftive in proof. The evil angels, or angels infliStifig evils, men- L 2 148 only mean " Mofes, Aaron, Jofhua, and a fiid^ " ceffion of authorized prophets and meffen-^ " gers qf God." But a more ftriking inftance of their perverting the obvious import of this word occurs in feveral paffages of the firft chapter of the Hebrews, in which they uni formly tranflate it meffenger; and it is this tranflation which I propofe particularly to con fider. Their objeft is fufficiently evident. Through out the whole of the chapter in queftion the tioned Pfalm Ixxviii. 49. ought rather perhaps to be taken literally, in allufion to Exodus xii. 23. wrhere the n*nifDn the deftroyer (tov oXo^psuovra. in the Septuagint) is introduced as only permitted to ftrike the firft-born of the Egyptians ; and this fenfe, it fliould be remarked, is evi dently given to the phrafe in the Greek Verfion of Sym- machus, who renders it ayJeAwi/ xaxsvtcoi', angels qffliMing them with evils. See alfo 2 Sam.- xxiv. 17. in which Da vid is ftated to have feen the angel who fmote the people with peftilence. With refpeft to the paflage in Ifaiah, that which is termed a burning wind is exprefsly ftated in the text to have been the angel of the Lord, who is repre fented as having gone out (h^-) and fmitten in the camp of the Afl!yrians a hundred fourfcore and five thoufand. Why muft we attribute to natural caufes alone what is plainly defcribed in Scripture as effefted by the agency of fupernatural beings ? It cannot be becaufe we difbelieve the exiftence of fuch beings. 149 fuperiority of Chrift to the angels is too dif tinftly afferted to be explained away. In imi tation therefore of Wakefield, they endeavour to get rid of the difficulty at once (a difficulty which might otherwife prove a ftumbling- block to their creed) by rendering AyfeXot mef fengers, and by giving us at the fame time to underftand, that the meffengers alluded to are the prophets of the Old Teftament. The au thority of Wakefield I admit to be refpeftable; a writer certainly of claffical tafte, and of ele gant attainments, but by no means ranking high on the lift of biblical critics ; whofe tranf lation of the New Teftamient is, like theirs, deeply tinftured by his creed, and whofe pro feffed attachment to truth and candour was too often biaffed by prejudice, and difgraced by farcafm. Thofe however who boaft the habit, and experience the pride, of diffent, will not, I prefume, expeft others to adopt, without ex amination, the opinion of any man whatfo ever ; particularly an opinion, the credit of which, unfupported both by reafoning and precedent, folely refts upon the critical acumen of Wakefield. In the two firft chapters of this Epiftle the word Ayfe?\.oi occurs no Iefs than nine times ; in L 3 150 the firft fix of which it is tranflated meffengers, but in the remaining three, angels. This in- correftnefs of ftyle, however, it is obferved, to which the ambiguity of the wor4 gives rife, is not uncommon in the facred writers, but no parallel cafe fpecifically in point, or indeed any at all, is alleged in proof of the affertion. Surely this, as Mr. Nares juftly remarks, " is an " extraordinary mode of reconciling matters ; " for it is not the Apoftle, but the Editors " themfelves, who give thefe different fenfes " to the term angel, and then cenfure the fa- " cred writers for an incorreBnefs qffiyle^." I fhall not, I truft, be accufed of miftating their argument, if I reduce it to this fimple af fertion ; that, as the word angel is fometimes ufed in the Old Teftament to denote a prophet, fo alfo is the fame fignification to be annexe4 to it in the particular paflage under confidera tion. The term indeed is doubtlefs applied to the prophets in fome, but not in many paflages of the Old Teftament ; yet ought we to remark, that it is never fo applied without a pronoun, or a genitive cafe connefted with it, indicative of i Remarks, p. ng. 161 him whofe meffengers they were. Often how ever it ftands alone, and is then only ufed to de- fignate thofe fuperior beings, of whom it is tl^e fole charafteriftical appellation, to whom it is exclufively a name deferiptive, fpecific, and ap propriate. Thus, to quote one out of mapy in ftances, it is faid, 1 Kings xix. 5. that, when Elijah, flying from the vengeance of Jezebel, and exhaufted with fatigue, lay under a juniper tree, an a^i^e/'jN'jD touched him, and faid, Arife and eatw Here we perceive the term occurring alone, without even the prefix (or definite arti cle) n, and diftinftly pointing out a being, well known under that particular denomination. But the conftruftion is wholly diffimilar when it is applied to the prophets: for then we read, " The Lord fent to them by his mefl[engers, " * * * but they mocked the meffengers qf " God, 2 Chron, xxxvi. 15, l6; The Lord, " who performeth the counfel of his mefjen- " gers, Ifaiah xliv. 26 ; Then fpake Haggai the " Lords meffenger. Hag, i. 1 3 ; He is the mef- " fenger of the Lord of Hqfts, Malachi ii, 7 ; " And I will fend my mefl!enger, Malachi iii. i :" and thefe are the only texts in which it is to be found in the latter fignification. The rea fon of the«difference I apprehend to be obvious. L 4 152 In the firft cafe, it is fufficiently declarative of its own meaning ; but in the laft, not being fo declarative, it requires fome adjunft to deter mine the precife fenfe of its fynonymous ap plication. Had Haggai, for inftadee, defcribed himfelf as a meffenger, inftead of the Lord's meflfenger, would not the phrafeology have been incomplete, if not unintelligible ? In oppofition however to every liegitimate principle of conftruftion, thefe Tranflators con tend with Wakefield, that when the Son is defcribed, Heb. i. 4. as " being made fo much " better than the angels, K^et-fluv tuv dyfehuv, as " he hath by inheritance obtained a more ex- ^' cellent name than they;," the expreffion tuv AyfeXuv fignifies not the angels, but " the pro- " phets, who are mentioned in the firft verfel" Yet that Aykxog generally means angel, in the ufual acceptation of the term, they feem them felves to admit, becaufe they thus tranflate it fixty-three out of feventy -four times'^, in which ^ I have obferved it in the following texts; Matt. iv. ii. xiii. 39, 49- xxvi. 53. Mark i. 13. Luke xvi. 22. John v. 4. xii. 29, Afts vi. 15. vii. 35, 38. xii. 8, 9, 10. xxiii. 8, Rom. vii;. 38. i Cor, iv. 9. xi. iq, xiii, i. Gal. iii. 19, Col. ii. 18. I Tim. iii. 16, Heb. i. 4, 5, 6, 7, 13. ii. 2, 5, 7} 9> 16, xii, 22, xiii, 2. i Pet, i. 12. iii, 22, 2 Pet. ii, 4^ 153 it occurs unconnefted with every other word capable of determining its precife fenfe. And of the eleven inftances, in which they render it meffenger, fix will be found in the very paf fages under confideration. This circumftance alone furely proves on which fide the general prefumption of its import lies. But I maintain that the word AyfeXot muft here neceffarily mean angels, a clafs of beings to whom it is peculiarly appropriated, becaufe, although the prophets may be defcribed, as I have already pointed out, under the title of "the meffengers of God," they cannot be cor reftly termed " the meffengers." We readily comprehend how they are faid to be the mef fengers o/" Got/, in common with others; but we do not well underftand how they can be de nominated the meffengers emphatically and ex clufively. I may likewife remark, that they II, Rev, i, 20, vii. i, 2, 11. viii. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. ix. i, 11. X. I, 5, 7j 8. xi. 15. xiv. 6, 8, 9, 10, 15, 17, 18, 19. xv. 1, 6, 7, 8. xvi. I, 3, 5. xviii. i, xix. 17. xxi. 9, 12. It is tranflated mejfenger, 1 Cor. xi. 10. Gal. iii. 19. I Tim. iii. 16. Heb. i. 4, 5, 6, 7, 13. ii. 2. xiii. 2. i Pet. iii. 22 : and we are told that in Gal. iii. 19, the rnejfengers mean officers, that is, Priefis and Levites ; in i Tim. iii, 16. the Apoftles ; and in Heb. i. 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, ii. 2. the Prophets of the Old Teftament. 154 are called the fervants, as well as the meffen gers, of God, and even that more frequently I, But fhould we not condemn the phrafeology as ftrangely incorreft, which, when it is meant to affert the fuperiority of Chrift over the pro phets, fhould fimply reprefent him as fuperior to thefervants P To take off, however, as much as poffible from the manifeft incongruity of the expref fion, and to introduce a fort of reference to the prophets incidentally mentioned in the firft verfe, as the agents by whom God had for merly revealed his will to mankind, the Tranf lators adopt the Verfion of Wakefield, and render tuv Aykhuv, which does not occur till the fourth verfe, " thofe meffengers." It raay appear too harfh to denominate this a perver fion of the facred text; but it muft be ad mitted to be an unauthorized addition of a not infignificant pronoun ™, for the exprefs pur- • The phrafes my, his, or thy fervants the prophets, occur no Iefs than fixteen times in the Old, and twice in the New Teftament; 2 Kings ix. 7. xvii. 13, 23. xxi. 10. xxiv. 2. Ezra ix. 11. Jerem. vii. 2J. xxv. 4. xxvi. 5. xxix. 19. xxxv. 15. Ezek. xxxviii. 17. Dan. ix. 6, 10. Araos iii. 7. Zech. i. 6. Revelations x. 7. xi. 18. I" The Article 6 in Greek is indeed fometimes ufed em-^ 155 pofe of fupporting a favourite expofition. Yet, if we even conceded to them all the advantage to be derived from fuch a tranflation, (a con- ceffion which, as in a fimilar cafe, they would not be difpofed to grant ; fo in this, I prefume, they will not expeft to receive,) ftill would it be impoffible for them to eftabfifh the propriety of a phrafe, which, in fpite of all their efforts, could not but remain a palpable folecifm. Nor are we folely left to conjefture refpeft ing the true import of the word AylsKoi ; for the context diftinftly furnifhes us with a clue to its meaning. We fubfequently read, *' Of " his angels he faith. Who maketh his angels " fpirits, and his minifters a flame of fire," ver. 7 ; and again, " Are they not all mini- " tiering fpirits, fent forth to minifter for them "who fhall be heirs of falvation?" ver. 14. n^og rag ti^tsXag hsJn, 'O Trotav Tag Ayfe?\,ag Avra Trvev- phaticaUy, as 0 ¦ftpofryni; si co, John i. ii ; but fo alio is the Er^lifli Article the, as " Art thou the prophet ?" which is the reading of the New Verfion. Muft it not therefore be as incorreft to confufe the Englifh Article the with the pronoun this or that, as it would be to confufe the Greek Article 6 with the pronoun sTOf or sxsivof ? Of this the nevir Tranflators themfelves feemed aware when they rendered 0 wfiofi]T))j not that, but the prophet. 156 fjutxA, KAt TS^s- hetra^ovg autov zsv^og- (pAoy*. * * * * Oy%< tSAVTeg skti XetTapyiKA isvevy/ATA, etg StAKoviAv 'A7ro7e^o[A,evA, StA rag y,eKMvTAg KXfi^ovof^etv :?3 'jt:; C3io iNn33» cu'SN^an &c. rw)) -iDXJty li'N bw \m'i Vis"? n'm»a \nw•2^ " The an- " gels who were created on the fecond day, when they " are fent by his word, become fpirits ; and when they " minifter before him, become fiery, (rx h'^ of fire) as it " is written. He made his angels fpirits, and his minifters 159 With refpeft to the latter part of tbe de fcription, in which the AyteKot are faid to be miniftering fpirits, Xstra^fiKA ¦^vsv[aaIa, one might have conceived this to be a difcriminating cha- rafteriftic of the angelical nature impoffible to be miftaken. But the Tranflators of the New Verfion, it feems, think differently, and render the word fervants. Here however they " a flaming fire." Four clafles of miniftering angels 'OxVd mttTi are then defcribed as praifing him, who alone is holy and blefl!ed, and furrounding the throne of his glory. Some critics have conceived, that the isvsu^ara mnn fpirits, mentioned in the firft part of the verfe in queftion, mean the Cherubim, and the fiery minifters in the fecond part the Seraphim. The very name feraph fufliciently elucidates the latter conjefture. And the former perhaps may be corroborated by the following remark of Drufius : " Ignorarl videor, cur nomen mafculinum Cherubim 70 " viri, Aq. et alii interpretes Graeci genere neutro ra Xs- « qs^^^l. tranfhiliflTent. * * * Ego arbitror ra XspuStiJu com- " pendio dici pro eo, quod eft ra msupkara XepeSipi,, i. e, "Jpiritus, qui Cherubim nuncupantur." Obferv. Sac. lib. x. c. 21. It fliould likewife be particularly obferved, that the word itvsuftM occurs in other paflages of the New Tefta ment more than three hundred and fifty times ; and yet is capable only in one inftance, viz. John iii. 8, (an inftance however difputed by Wakefield himfelf) of being tranf lated ivind. The term generally ufed for wind is, as I have remarked above, uvsim)}. i6o do not, as in other inftances, reft upon the prop either of the Primate's or of Wake field's Verfion, but boldly venture at a little criticifm of their own. They tell us in a note, that the phrafe is a Hebraifm ; a conve nient fort of term equally calculated for the difplay of knowledge, and the concealment of ignorance. They fay, " The word fpirit is a " Hebraifm to exprefs a perfon's felf, v. g. " 1 Cor. ii. 11. the fpirit of a man is a man, " is a man himfelf; the fpirit of GOd is God " himfelf, 2 Tim. iv. 22. The Lord Jefus Chrift " be with thy fpirit, i. e. with thee." But how do they prove the fuppofed Hebraifm ? Inftead of pointing out thofe paffages where the correfponding term rrn is thus ufed in the Old Teftament, they merely produce two texts from the New, in which they ftate ¦avev/^A it felf to bear the alleged fignification. But if they could demonftrate fo peculiar an accepta tion of the word in Greek, this would not con ftitute it an Hebraifm. I have examined Vor- ftius, Olearius, and other champions of He- braifms, to afcertain, if poffible, the grounds of their affertion, but in vain. It feems not however very material, vv^he- ther the phrafe be an Hebraifm, or not, if we I6l can but fettle its genuine import. If I under ftand them correftly, they contend that the term vsvevfA,A, in the paffages referred to, is put, not for the fpirit aloUe, but by fynecdoche for the whole man. This, I prefume, is all they mean, when they fay, " that the fpirit ofa man " is a man, is a man himfelf ;" for I cannot conceive them to infinuate here the exiftence of a reciprocal, abhorrent from oriental ufage P^ and inapplicable to the objeft in view. Taking it then as an inftance of fynecdoche, and that the fpirit of a man, in the firft paffage quoted, means only the man, we muft underftand the verfe thus : " What man knoweth the things " of a man, but the man which is in him P" Without being faftidious however upon the fingularity of fuch a mode of expreffion, I pre fume that the words to ev amu, which is in him, plainly indicate, that -Trvev^A, with which they are connefted, is taken in the fenfe of fpirit, its ufual acceptation. Nor, in the fecond paf fage quoted, is there the flighteft ground for fuppofing that it bears a different meaning, [yM in Arabic, t»Laj in Syriae, and CDKj; in Rabbinical Hebrew, which are ufed as reciprocals, do not govern the fubftantive to which th^ relate, but conftantly afliime a pronoun affix. See Differtation ori the Logos, p, lo, u, M 1 62 The phrafe, " with thy fpirit," cannot, I appre hend, be confidered as fynonymous with " with " thee," becaufe it ha^ an, appropriate appli cation to the context, which the oiber phrafe has not ; for the grace of Chrift is only com- municabjie to the J'ptrit or foul of man. The pronoun thee, therefore, which implies the whole individual, cannot be correftly fubfti- tvited for thy fpirit, which implies only a pe culiar part of that individual. To be fenfible of this, we need only turn to another epiftle ofthe fame Apoftle, where we fhall find a diftinftion of the kind indifputable. " I know," he elfe where remarks, " that in me, that is, in my " fiefh, ev T*i a-ApKt fiov, dwelleth no, good," Ro mans vii. 18. It is impoffible, I conceive, to doubt of his intending here to qualify the ge neral expreffion, in me, by the particular limi tation which inftantly follows; "that is, in. " my Jlejh." Ought we not then to under ftand the word msvfiA in an equally reftrifted fenfe, when under a fimilar conftruftion ? But what, to fift the queflSori a little more accurately, is really meant by this propofed inftance of fynecdoche ? Are we, wheii.it i§ rcr. cor4ed, that "Chrift was led,up.%.#Ae Spirit^" Matt, iv. 1. to fuppofe that Chrift was led up 163 by himfelf; or, when it is faid, that " God is i. " fpirit," John iv. 24. to underftand the text as implying, that God is himfelf P It may per haps be replied, that the cafes are widely dif ferent, becaufe the term fpirit in i Cor. ii. 11. and 2 Tim, iv. 22. is connefted with the ge nitive cafe of a noun, or pronoun, denoting a perfon, to which perfon alone it relates ; but it is not fo in thefe texts. I admit the juftice Of the remark ; but ftill I afk. How then, upOn' this very principle, ean the fuppofed fynec doche be applicable to Heb. i. 14. the parti" cular text in view ? Infiead of being here joined to a genitive cafe expreffive of a perfon, it is folely connefted with art adjeftive, decla rative of nothing but a mere quality. Had A«- tk^yt^di, TrvevfiAiAheen Ksuapyuv'-Trvsvfi'AtA, it might haVe been poffible to have dreamt of a fynec- dbihef but one;y\^ould have imagined, that, as the wdrds'^ftsthd, the v^ry dream of fo inappli- cdtilek- trope muft have bden precluded- ' Bttt' whatfoever nifeaniitig we may affix to the words' K^a^ytkA' msiijXAi' a, it is plain, from thfe tenfeof the'Verb in the fame fenttence, that flify wiere nbf meant to be applicable to the ancient prophets. Had the writer intended thefe words^'fo to* be^' inftead of " .^re they M 2 l64 " not,'* he would doubtlefs have faid, " WerS " they not all miniftering fpirits, fent forth to " minifter for them who fhall be heirs of fal- " vation ?" and that for this obvious reafon; becaufe the prophets alluded to were dead fome ages before the author of the Epiftle was born. If however, on the other hand, we apply the words in queftion to the angels/ every thing then becomes inftantly clear and confiftent. Perhaps alfo it may not be unim portant to add, as the writer appears, from in ternal evidence, to have been himfelf of the Hebrew natipn, and as thofe whom he ad dreffed indifputably were, that in the Talmud, and other Rabbinical compofitions, the epithet minijlering perpetually recurs in connexion with the term angels^ as one deferiptive of their peculiar office. It is unneceffary to quote inftances of a phrafeology, which he who runs may read : " Nihil in feriptis Rabbinicis fre- " quentius eft hac locutione, quod angeli di- " cuntur rritSTI '>'2Vi^'l2 angeli minifleriales, adeo, " ut non opus fit loca quaedam adfcribere i." I have omitted, as fuperfluous, to notice an argument on this topic deducible from the ^ Schoettgen Hotai Heb. in loc. 165 contraft drawn between the Son and the Ayts- Kot; but I cannot help alluding to one paflage, from the fingularity of the tranflation : " To " which of thofe meffengers," it is faid, " fpake " God at any time. Thou art my Son, this day " I have adopted thee ?" This is an extraft from the fecond Pfalm, which neverthelefs they elfewhere tranflate, " Thou art my Son, ' " this day I have begotten thee." Afts jciii. 33, Why this change in the tranflation ? And what authority have they for rendering i*?' in the Hebrew, and ysvvAu in the Greek, to adopt P I may perhaps be told, that there is a meta phorical as well as natural filiation, and that the Pfalm referred to evinces a metaphorical filiation to have been intended, becaufe in its primary fenfe it mufl be confidered as appli cable to David, and to Chrifi only in its fe- eondary fenfe. But this expedient will by no means anfwer the end propofed, becaufe by the adoption of it we reprefent the writer of the Epiftle as advancing an argument which carries with it its own refutation. For when, from a confident prefumption that the queftion is unanfwerable, he afks, " To which of thofe " meffengers,^ i. e. prophets, fpake God at any " time. Thou art my Son, this day have I be^' M 3 166 " gotten thee ?" may we not inftantly reply, The prophet David P '' I Jt would be foreign to my purpofe, if not unimportant to the particular point at iffue, were I to, enter into the long agitated contro verfy refpefting the author of this Epiftle. It feems admitted on all fides, that it was com pofed at the apoftolical period, and may there fore, I prefume, be taken as evidence, upon general topics at leaft, of the ' fentiments then entertai ned by orthodox Chriftians. The Tranf lators themfelves, in c. ii. 8. give what they deem " a prefumptive proof, that it was either " written by St. Paul, or by fome perfon, per- " haps Barnabas, or Luke, who was an affociate " with him, and familiarly acquainted with the f' Apoftle's ftyle of thinking and reafoning;" al though they fubfequently reprefent this as very uncertain. Lardner, after a full difcuffion of the fubjeft, concludes in favour of the proba bility, that St. Paul was the author of it ; and Sykes ftren.uoufly contends, for the fame pofi- tiiQ-M* I omit the imention of other critics, from a perfuafion, that the opinion of all, when added to the weight of that advanced by Lardner aod by Sykes, can only prove, in the judgme^nt of Unitarians, light as atoms of duft 167 on the preponderating balance, Although, therefore, we cannot pofitively, we may at leaft; I truft, prefumptively, aferibe it to St. Paul. Having alluded to the uncertainty which has been fappofed to exift refpefting the au thor of the Epiftle to the Hebrews, I fhall flightly notice fome little inconfiftency to be found in the account given of the other books of the New Teftament, which have not been at all tirnes, and in all countries, ackiiow- ledged as works indifptitably of apoftolical compofition. Thefe are, the Epiftle of St. James, the fecond of St. Peter, the fecond and third of St. John, the Epiftle of Jude, and the Revelation ; which are reprefented as books, " whofe genuinenefs was difputed by the early " Chriftian writers." And yet we are after wards informed, that the Epiftle of St. James " is not unworthy of the Apofile, to whom it " is generally afcribed ;" that the fecond and third Epifiles of St. John fo much refemble the firft in fubjeft and language, as not to leave " a doubt of their having the fame author ; " and that the Revelation canriot be read by any intelligent Or candid perfon, " without his be- " ing convinced, that, confidering the age in M 4 168 " which it appeared, none but a perfon di- " vinely injpired could have written it." No thing therefore remains abfolutely to be dif- carded, except the fecond of St. Peter, and the unfortunate Epiftle Of St. Jude, neither of which are admiffible under the friendly fhel ter of the Unitarian wing. By thefe reflexions, however, I am far from meaning to cenfore thp Tranflators for their laudable attempt at '" "¦ Why is fo marked an exception made of St. Peter's fecond Epiftle, and the Epiftle of St. Jude ? I,ardner, af ter a detailed examination of the arguments alleged againft their authenticity, concludes ftrongly in favour of it. Of St. Peter's two Epiftles he fays, ^' If we confult f them, and endeavour to form a judgment by internal f evidence, I fuppofe it will appear very probable, that ?' both are of the fame author. And it may feem fome- *f what ftrange, that any of the ancients hefitated about " it, who had the two Epiftles before them. * * * I con- *' elude therefore, that the two Epiftles generally afcribed ," to the Apoftle Peter are indeed his. * * * * Certainly " thefe Epiftles, and the difcourfes of Peter recorded in " the Afts, together vvith the effefts of them, ^re monu- " ments of a divine infpiration." Hiftory of the Apoftles and EvangeUfts, chap. 19, Of the Epiftle of St. Jude he fays, " T have been thus prolix in rehearfing the paffages " of Clement ; fpr they appear to me to be a fufficient f' proof of the antiquity and genuinneffe of this Epiftle; " or that it was writ by Jude, one of Chrift's twelve Apo- ff files." Ibid, chap, 20. Such was the opinion of Lardner. 169 even partially refcuing from fufpicion the con troverted books ; the fole objeft which I have in view being fimply to note, with what fa cility and prompt decifion they here, as elfe where, repudiate or verify, fubvert or reefta- blifli, the generally received canon of Scrip ture at pleafure. Before I conclude my remarks upon this produftion, I fliall flightly advert to a circum ftance incidentally alluded to in another place, viz, that it is not what it profeffes to be, a tranflation fcrupuloufly adhering to the text of Griefoach, " the moft correft which has " hitherto been publifhed^;" but one, in fome inftances, made from a text which exifts no where but in the imagination of the Tranfla tors ; who, although they generally indeed fol- The Tranflators however, although in points of this na ture they feem principally to build their faith upon his critical deduftions, choofe to think differently. With refpeft indeed to the firji and third chapters of St, Peter's difputed Epiftle, they exprefs themfelves rather doubt fully; but the fecond chapter they condemn without re ferve, printing it in italics. And yet Lardner, as we have feen, maintained the divine authority of the whole, and Michaelis ftates what he terms " pofitive grounds for be- " lieving it genuine." Introd. vol. iv. p. 350, &c. ^ Introd, p, 8. 170 low Griefoach, yet occafionally innovate even on his innovations. In the courfe of my re flexions I have pointed out many paffages of confiderable length undifputed by him, the authenticity of which they reprefent as ex tremely dubious. Nor is this all. For, com pletely in the teeth of an intimation formally given, that " the words, which^ in the judg- " ment of Griefoach fhould probably, though " not certainly, be expunged, are included in " brackets'," they fometimes take the liberty themfelves of expunging words of this defcrip tion upon the fuperior decifion of their own judgment". Timid, cautious, circumfpeftive, Griefoach weighed over and over again, with anxious folicitude, the credit of a textual varia tion, experience having taught him wifdom ; for he candidly confeffes, that in his firft edi tion he had admitted feveral readings into the text, which in his fecond, uncorroborated by more feefent epilations, he felt himfelf under the neceffity of removing to the margin : " Non- " nullas leftiones, quae olim in margine inte- " riore fuiffent repofittae, jam, plurium teftium t Explanation of marks,, Introd. p. 33, " See Mark ii. 26. v. 15. Luke ix. ^6, iri " auftoritate confirmatas, in textum recepi ; " fed contra etiam alias, quibus in textu Olira " locum fuum aflignaffem, nunc, teftibus nuper " produftis nil novi preefidii afferentibus, in " marginem amandavi^." But they, Iefs exaft and more intrepid, in paffages where he could only difcover the appearance of a probable, de termine the exiftence of a certain, omiflion ; and by an eafy dafo of the pen obliterate them altogether. On one occafion indeed they hazard a bolder ftep; and, where Griefoach adopts, without ob fervation, the common reading, they, upon the fole authority 'of the Cambridge manufcript 7, * Prolegomena, p. 85. y It would be too widely dfeffing from my fubjeft to diJfcufe here the authority of the Cambridge manu fcript, which has already been fufficiently proJific in dif- cuflions of this nature ; nor indeed is it neeeflasry, as no biblical critic of eminence (fox I do not fo eftiaiate the late Archbifhop Newcome) wojdd dream of altering the fftsred text, upon the fingfe credit of this manufcript. I will, however, extraft a pal&ge or two from Mill and Michaelis, declarative of their re^eftive judgilaei^s upon it : " Hujus certe," obferves Mill, " de quo agimas, " Graeca quod attinet, vix dici poteft, quam Jiipra.omnem " modum in iis digerendjs licenter fe gefferit, ac plane Iqf- " civierit inteispolator, quifquis ille. In animo ipfi fuifle ". prima ironte credideris, uon quidem^ textum iUtai exhi^ 172 venture upon a little interpolation, which di reftly converts an affirmative into a negative bere, quem ediderant ipfi Evangeliftae, fed obfervato duntaxat S. Textus ordine et hiftoria, fingula Evangelia- abfolutiora et pleniora reddere. Hue enim faciunt in-. tromifl"se in cujufque Evangelii textum particulse variae, integrseque periodi reliquorum : hue tranfpofita in uno- quoque plurima, ob hiftorias claritatem : hue traduftae ex Evangeliis et Apocryphis vsptxoirat : hue interpola- tiones aliae innumeree. Verum et in aliam plane fen-^ tentiam pertrahunt nonnuUa. Vocabula pro genuinis alia, neutiquam criiJMvrtKXTspa, adeoque ad hiftorise cla-r ritatem ac ubertatem nihil conferentia : mutationes nu- merorum, cafuum, generum, temporum, paffim factse abfque omni caufa : tranfpofitiones infinitae, quarum nulla idonea ratio vel fingi poterit: contrafta denique plurima, et excifae hic inde partes, et quidem tots fen tentiae, quje mirifice ad hiftorias Evangelicae integritatem faciunt. Neutiquam enim hujufmodi praetermiferil% cui conftitutum fuerit ex unoquoque Evangeliorum confi- cere integram hiftoriam Evangelicam, et quafl Diatefla- ron. Imo vero certum illud unum, Digeftorem hujus textus, in hifce libris Evangeliorum et aftuum graflfa- tum fuiflTe pro arbitrio; addidifle, fuftuliflfe, mutafle, plan^ uti ferebat animus ; multoque, ut verbo dicam, labore illud egiflfe, ut textus ipforum Evangeliftarum, magni fui parte, in alium quendam transformatus ince- deret." Prolegomena, p. 132. Wetftein and others confidered it as nothing more than a Greek tranflation from fome old Latin manufcript ; and Storr pointed out its fingular coincidence with, the Syriae Verfion, by which 173 fentence. It is recorded of St. John, who vi- fited, with St. Peter, the fepulchre of our Lord, he conceived it to have been correfted. It is in oppofi tion to thefe opinions that Michaelis makes the follow ing reflexions. " After a due confideration of all thefe « cu-ciunftances, we fliall hardly conclude, that a Greek- « Latin MS, written in the weft of Europe, where Latin « only was fpoken, has been altered from the Syriae : and « the natural inference to be deduced is, that its readings " are /or the moft part genuine, and of courfe preferable " to thofe of modem manufcripts. On the other hand, " I will not deny, that feveral appear to he faulty, being " either fcholia, or a fubftitution of an eafy for a difficult " reading, or the refuk of an alteration made to remove "fome unfavourable doSirine. * * * * The refult of the " preceding remarks is, that the MS, in queftion cannot " poflibly have been altered from the Latin, according to " the charge which has been ufually laid againft it. The " tranfcriber appears to have afted like a critic, to have " correfted the text firom the beft help which he could " procure, to have derived affiftance fi-om many ancient ** MSS, fome of which perhaps had admitted fcholia into " the text, and at times to have ventured a critical con- fjedure." Vol, ii. p. 232. 235. Contemplating therefore this manufcript in the moft favourable point of view, we muft admit, that liberties were taken in the conftruftion of its text, which render its fincerity dubious. Indeed Dr. Kipling, in his printed edition of it, makes the fol- iovwng candid confeflion : " Notiffimum eft Bezse Codicis *.' textum non modo fcholiis hic illic fcedari, verum etiam "fpuriis quibufdam amplificari pericopis." Prsef. p. 5. 174 when Mary Magdalene had communicati^d to them her fufpicions refpefting the removal of the body, that, after he had infpefted the fe pulchre, " he faw and believed." Now thisI paflage, in direft contradiftioh to every* other manufcript, they render, " he fa w and believed •' not," adding the following note from New- come; " So the Cambridge MS. in the Greek, " but not in the Latin, tranflation of it. The " following verfe affigns a reafon for the un- " belief of St. John and St. Peter." The pre cife value of this fort of half authority, con- tradifted by its other half, for the manufcript in queftion contains a Latin, as well as' a Greek text, it is for them to calculate and' explain ; but as the- confiftency ofthe narrative is urged by way of proving the neceffity of their inter polation, I cannot heljp remarking, that the common fenfe of the context, by which alone, I appi^ehend, the confiftency of the narrative can be preferved, requires no- fuch addition, Tlie point applicable to the credence of the Apofile was, not the refurreftiott of our Sa- viQur>,for nothing upon that head had yet been furmifed>, but evidently the report of Mary IVfegdalene, that the body haDd"ibeen ftoknf away; When therefbire * Sti Jbhn* was-'in- 175 formed of the circumftance, and, examining' the fepulchre, perceived the Unen clothes, which had wrapped* the body, lying on the ground, and the napkin, which had been bound about the head, folded together in a place by itfelf, can we poffibly conjefture that he be lieved not P Upon the whole then, it is, I prefume, in controvertible,, that they have not uniformly adhered to the text of Griefoach. I do not in deed difpute their right to deviate from the judgment of that, or any other critic ; but I complain of their holding out falfe colours to the public. If they flattered themfelves that they poffeffed talents capable of improving " the moft correft text of .the original which " has hitherto been publiffied," they were doubtlefs at liberty t9 have made the experi ment; but they ffiould have Undertaken the tafk openly and undifguiffedly. Were they ap- prehenfive, that in fuch a cafe their compe tency might have bteen queftibned; and their prefumption Cenfored ? Nor can I take a final leave of the fobjeft, without again alluding to another deception prMfed upon the geriell-al' reader; Frdm the flyle of the title-page, the prolegomenal parade 17^ ofthe Introduftion, and the perpetual attempt at manufcript erudition in the notes, he is naturally induced to confider the Verfion as one condufted upon principles rigidly critical, while, in truth, it is nothing more than a mere patchwork tranflation, folely manufaftured to promote the caufe of Unitarianifm. When a paffage occurs, which in its obvious fenfe threatens fatality to the Unitarian Creed, its fting is inftantly and ingenioufly extrafted ; what expofition the language of Scripture can, not what it ought to bear, becomes the objeft of inveftigation ; and the context is twifted into fubferviency to the glofs, and not the glofs made confiftent with the context. The Tranflators indeed unrefervedly confefs, that they have ftudied " to preclude many fources " of error, by divefting the facred volume of the " technical phrafes of a fyftematic theology ;" but they forget to add, that it was only in or der to fuperfede one fyftem by another. If a claufe admits the flighteft pliability of mean ing, every nerve is ft rai ned to give it a peculiar direftion. Inftead of enquiring, witH Chriftian fimplicity, what really are, they prefume with philofophical arrogance upon what mufi be, the doftrines of Scripture ; and fubftitute the 177 deduftions of reafon for the diftates of revela tion. Averfe from eftabliffied opinion, fond of novelty, and vain of fingularity, they pride themfelves upon a fort of mental infulation, and become captivated at every magic touch with the effluent brilliance of their own in- telleft. The profound refearches of the moft diftinguiffied commentators and philologifts they either flight or defpife, unlefs convertible by a little dexterity of application to the ag grandizement of fome favourite theory ; and fatiate us with the flimfy refinements and loofe lucubrations of Lindfey, or of Prieftley. Immoderately attached to particular doftrines, and deeply prejudiced againft all others, they modify every expreffion in the text, and every expofition in the notes, to a fenfe fome times direftly favourable, but never even in direftly unfavourable, to Unitarianifm ; fo that in reality, always" indifferent, though appa rently fometimes anxious, refpefting the true philological import of fcriptural language, and ever reftlefs with the gad-fly of theological conceit, they prove themfelves to be wholly incapacitated, from a defeft, if not of talent, certainly of temper, for the patient tafk of cri tical rumination. Sold'by J. Parker, Oxford; and ly Mejfrs Rivington, St. Paul's Church Yard, London. I. On Singularity and Excefs in Philological Literature: a Ser mon, preached before the Unlverfity of Oxford, at St. Mary's, oa Sunday April 19, 1807. By Richard Laurence, LL.D. price IS 6d. 2, A Differtation on the Logos of St. John, comprehending the fubftance of Sermons preached before the Univerfity of Ox ford. By the fame, price gs. 2. The Metaphorical Character of the Apoftolical Style, and the predominant Opinion of the Apoftolical iEra, as elucidating the Doftrine of Atonement : a Sermon, preached at the Vi- fitation of his Grace the Archbifliop of Canterbury, June 39, 1810. By the fame, price is 6d. Alfo, Critical Remarks on detached paffages of the Nev7 Teftament, particularly the Revelation of St. Johri. By the late French Laurence, LL.D. M. P. &c. price 6s.