in which he very gravely, but consistently prefaces his nonsense with a blunder. "There are two or three solitary passages in the Jewish writings which have been adduced to prove the divinity of Christ." The theme of our author is accordingly answerable to its exordium. One of the first passages on which he alights, is Gen. i. 26., in which we are accordingly informed, that Moses," holds forth the Almighty communing with his own attributes, or with himself,-as, a king with his ministers." To this very profound observation, which would be scarcely paralleled in St. Luke's or Bedlam, at full moon, we have indeed very little to reply. The whole weight of sustaining this fundamental position, that "Christianity, as the soul of Judaism, does not comprehend the doctrines of the divinity, the miraculous birth and the atonement of Christ;" our author now rests upon a single text. It has been rather cruel thus to disappoint our hopes, when we were led to expect something, which proceeding from such a hand, must be at least novel and edifying, on the subject of our favourite texts, Is. vii. 14. fiii. 7, &c. and their appurtenances, Matt. i. 23. Act. viii. 32. 1 Pet. ii. 21, &c. But to compensate for the disappomtment we are kindly favoured with an improved version and comment upon Is. ix. 6. The former we shall lay before the reader as we find it, that no ray of the light which beams from this luminous detecter of error and fraud, may be lost in transmission. "The common version," says our author," is an egregious misrepresentation of the original, and runs thus: His name shall be called wonderful, counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting father, the prince of peace." "ch. ix. 6. The true meaning, as it appears to me, is the following: "He shall be called by a wonderful name, Prince of Peace." P. 91, 92. This correction is supported, by the literal force of the ori ginal; by the translations of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and the Septuagint; and by a negative argument deducible from the silence of the primitive fathers, who have "never cited this passage in proof of the divinity of Christ." P. 92, 98. Had the description of the external testimony been such as it is here represented, in which, however, our author, consistent throughout, has taken a true poetical licence; "Atque ita mentitur, sic veris falsa remiscet It could not have much weight in deciding the contested point. The object with which Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, those Hebrew apostates, in whose society our author is ever proud to be found, formed their versions is notorious *. To expect any application of this passage to the Messiah, from them, seems to be just as wise as to imagine it would receive a direct application to our Lord, by the chief Rabbi, who now presides in the London Synagogue of Polish Jews. Of the version of the Septuagint we shall give a good account: on ascending from Father Montfaucon's edition of the Hexapla, to his authorities, it will probably lead us to a conclusion, of which his learned transcriber is little aware. And if our perspicacious commentator had but looked to the context of the prophet, it would possibly have shaken his confidence in the justness of his translation, as fully as it does ours. Is. ib. 7. "Of the in. crease of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David and his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth even for ever." These perplexing words, we conceive, form rather a better comment upon the disputed terms, the mighty God and everlasting Father,' than upon his improvement, "Father of the future age," and they directly apply those solemn titles, not to God the Father but to God the Son. But our cause admits of being placed in a different posture of defence. From the regular order in which our critic has distributed the several commas of his version, it would appear that he had religiously adhered † to the sixquergix of the sacred text. But the reverse of this supposition is precisely the fact. And on reuniting the disjointed members of the prophet, they directly evince the violence which is done to the passage in his transla tion, and demonstrate that the common version is both natural and true. We subjoin the original according to the revisal of Dr. Kennicot, together with the accurate version of Bishop Lowth. ויקרא שמו פלא יועץ אל גבור אבי עד שר שלום " Quod * S. Hier. Præf. in Job. Tom. I. col. 798. ed. Bened. si apud Græcos, post LXX editionem, jam Christi Evangelio coruscante, Judæus Aquila, Symmachus et Theodotio, Judaïzantes hæreteci sunt recepti, qui multa mysteria Salvatoris subdola interpretatione celarunt," &c. Conf. S. Iren. adv. Hær. Lib. III. cap. xxi. p. 215. + On the accuracy with which the xuría of the Prophetical writings was preserved: vid. S. Hier. Præf. in Lam. Hierem. z 2 And And his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The nouns are here naturally put in apposition; a change in the construction being properly introduced by a change in the verse. And this assumption is supported by the authority of every version of the disputed passage; whether made by heterodox or orthodox, by Christian or Jew. However they vary in translating the terms, they never render them in regimen, but in apposition. But to support our author's predilection for the former construction, which closes one verse must be forced down into another to govern 8. Nor is this all; but admitting that these terms occurred in the same -are simi יועץ אל גבור and אבי עד שר שלום verse, his notion that lar phrases is a false assumption. For is not only disjointed from the antecedent pr by an attraction to the subsequent with which it unquestionably agrees; but so closely are the terms obw nw, and a connected, that they are generally united by the tie Maccaph; the latter even written in many manuscripts as one word. As the authorised version is the more natural, and is supported by the context, and as it is consequently that which would most obviously strike a translator, it is confirmed by the best authorities. Not only the Chaldee Paraphrase, but the vulgar text of the Greek, Latin, and Syriack versions †, correspond with the common translation. These authorities are of the greatest weight, as they were not merely made from the original Hebrew, but all, excepting the Latin Vulgate, made by the Jews. The Septuagint is indeed challenged by our author, as not merely neutral, but opposed to the authorised text. Had he known, however, any thing more of Father Montfaucon's Hexapla, than the solitary verse which he has quoted; he would not have left us to inform him that there were several * Vid. Montf. Hexapł. Orig. in loc. cit. Tom. II. p. 105. Vid Walt. Polygl. in loc. cit. We add the particular phrases, which correspond with our authorised version, in understanding the disputed text of the Divinity of the Messiah. Et vocabitur ואתקרי שמיה-אלהא גברא קים עלמיא .Targ. Jonath nomen ejus-Deus fortis, permanens in æternum. Vers. Vulg. Syr. jas bajajo. Et vocatum est nomen ejus-Deus seculorum fortissimus. Vers. Vulg. Græc. » naλeita: · ὄνομα αὐτῇ.—Θεὸς ἰσχυρός. Vers. Vulg. Lat. Et vocabitur noen ejus,-Deus, fortis. edition editions of the Septuagint; and that the passage on which he' has blundered is nothing more than an extract from the printed Septuagint of Sixtus V. Though the pure text of that primitive version, is conceived to exist in no manuscript which is now extant; the reading of the disputed passage is preserved by Eusebius and Procopius. As ill fortune would have it, they, however, agree in representing the reading, which our " ardent and patient enquirer" has, with equal learning and modesty, rejected as as "absurd, false, and an egregious misrepresentation," the identical reading of the version to which he appeals *. True it is, that Eusebius states that a variation existed in the text of the Septuagint; and one of the readings which he mentions is accordingly found in the Vatican MS., the other in the Complutensian Codex. But when we refer these texts to their proper authors, this difficulty directly disappears. Of the different texts which existed in Eusebius's age, the principal were the Byzantine and Palestine editions; but it is easy to prove that the reading of the Complutensian Codex belongs to the former, and that of the Roman edition to the latter. For (1.) The reading of the Roman edition occurs in the Codex Marchalianus, which certainly retains the Palestine text. (2.) It is adopted, not only by Eusebius in his Commentary on Isaiah, but by S. Basil, and S. Cyril, who cer tainly followed the Palestine edition §. On the other hand, (1.) the reading of the Complutensian Codex occurs in the greater number of MSS. and is loose and paraphrastic, which are sure indications of the vulgar or Byzantine text. (2.) It occurs in the Apostolical * Euseb. Dem. Evang. Lib. VII. cap. i. p. 336. övoμa eivai déγεται, κατὰ μὲν τὰς Εβδομήκοντα, • Μεγάλης βελῆς "Αγγελος καὶ ὥς τινα τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἔχει· ο θαυματὸς Σύμβολος, Θεὸς ἰσχυρός. Procop. in Is. p. 149. d. ed. Curter. Par. 1580, συμφωνως γὰρ πάνες, τὸ παρὰ τοῖς ἑβδομήκοντα ο Θεός, ἔδωκαν ἰσχυρὸς οἱ δὲ ἑβδομήκοντα τοῖς θεοπρεπῶς περὶ αὐτῷ λεγομένοις ἐνατενίσαντες, τὸ παρὰ τοῖς Εβραιοῖς ΗΛ,ΘΕΟΝ ἐρμηνευσαν. Vid. Supr. n. *. Vid. Procop. ubi supr. p. 148. conf. Præf. p. xix. sqq. Vid. Euseb. in Is. ap. Montfauc. Nov. Collect. Patr. Tom. II. p. 390. e. S. Basil. adv. Eun. Lib. I. Tom. II. p. 56. d. ed. Par. 1518. Cyr. Alex. Com. in Joan. Tom. IV. p. 964. ed. Par. 1638. Conf. Griesb. Proleg. in Nov. Test. p. lxxiv. Schol. in Septuag. Sixt. V. p. 600 ed. Rom. " In plerisque vero libris post Μεγάλης βολής "Αγγελος, hæc sequuntur θαυμαςός Σύμ Δήλος Θεὸς ἰσχυρός. Oeds ioxugós. Conf. Griesb. Præf, in Nov. Test. p. lxxv. constitutions, Constitutions, and interpolated epistles of St. Ignatius*, which were sophisticated, when the Byzantine text was in use. Now, when it is remembered, that the Palestine text was revised by Eusebius, and that the disputed passage, as applying the term Father to the Son, afforded some countenance to the Sabellians who confounded the Persons; it may be possibly suspected that the immediate author of this variation in that edition was the Palestine reviser, who was the avowed adversary of the Sabelliaus. Thus also we directly account for the peculiar readings of the Philoxenian Syriac, of the Roman Arabic, and of one of St. Jerome's Latin versions, which differ from our authorised text; for these versions were not only made from the Greek, but from that edition, which was revised by Eusebius; and are thus not entitled to the smallest attention. These considerations will, we trust, leave our author very little reason to triumph in the result of his appeal to the testimony of the antient versions; as leaving us in full possession of the vulgar edition of the Septuagint. With respect to his fortunate guess that the received interpretation was unknown to the Primitive Fathers; it evinces his very accurate acquaintance with their writings. It not only occurs in St. Irenæus, Clemens Alexandrinus, the Apostolical Constitutions, and revised Epistles of St. Ignatius; but is expressly appealed to by Eusebius, and Jerome, by Theodorit and Procopius Gazæus. These, it must be confessed, are exquisite specimens of that accuracy of research, by which our author has undertaken to overturn the common testimony of the early ecclesiastical writers. Let us even admit that the reading which he gratuitously be stows on the Septuagint ¶, exclusively belonged to that text; we might even thence derive an indirect yet decisive argument in favour of the authorised version. It must be obvious to any *Constit. Apost. Lib. V. cap. xvi. Ignat. Epist. interp. ap. Patr. Apost. Tom. II. pp. 105. 134. 151. 324. + Vid. Brit. Crit. Vol. I. p 191. sqq. New Series. + Vid. Septuag. Sixt, V. ubi, supr. conf. S. Hier. in Is, Tom. IV, p. 34. ed. Vict, Vid. supr. n. *. conf. S. Iren. adv, Hær. Lib. IV. cap. xxxiii. § 11. p. 273. Clem. Alex. Pæd. Lib. I. cap. v. p. 112. 1. 14. Vid. Euseb. et Procop. ub. supr. p. 341. n, . Conf. Theod. in Is. Tom. II. p. 44. a. b. ed. Par. 1642. S. Hier. in Is. Tom. IV, p. 34. g. η Καὶ καλεῖται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῷ μεγάλης βυλῆς ἄγγελος, ἄξω γὰρ εἰρήνην ἐπὶ τὰς ἄρχοντας καὶ ὑγίειαν αὐτῷ. e. Cod. Vat. The latter part of this version is obviously not adopted from the Hebrew Prin ושלמא יסני עלנא ceps pacis; but from the Targum of Jonathan nova cujus pax multiplicabitur super nos in diebus ejus. obeserver |