« AnteriorContinuar »
directs the same treatment of all who have been favourers of heretics, &c. Canon xi, specifies particularly notaries. Canon xii. says, “ Idem de medicis," &c.; and canon xiii. goes on to a general statement, that persons suspected in certain cases shall be put out of all public office, if they have any, and deemed incapable of holding any.*
This seems to me quite plain; and then comes the council of Albi, a few years after, adding to the council of Thoulouse, which had (as I understand it) forbidden that heretics or suspected persons should practise medicine, this further precaution, that no physician (suspected or not) should be allowed to practise in a suspected part of the country, unless personally approved by the bishop of the diocese. It is true that the word “addentes" is not decisive, because they might have added what was unconnected, or even contradictory, to any canon of any former council; but one does not see why they should refer to the canon of the council of Thoulouse, and merely call their own decree an addition, unless they were adding something to the same purport.
As to the argument that it would be superfluous to forbid that persons suspected of heresy should practise medicine because it was necessary to hunt after them in caverns and other places of concealment,” I really hardly know how to reply to it, because it implies such a very different view, from that which I hold, of the state of things in that part of the country in the year 1229. That convicted hæretici et credentes often hid themselves where they best could, and had to be searched for, is clear enough; but that there were plenty of diffamati, infamati, and suspicione notati, at large, is evident. Nay, the xviith canon, of which Mr. Evans gives the title, proves more than this by prohibiting all prelates, barons, knights, and lords of the soil, from appointing the hæretici and credentes as bailiffs and stewards. Is this more consistent with their lurking in caves than their professing to act as medical advisers in order to gain private access to the sick? But the canon goes on to direct that they should not only abstain from thus employing the hæretici et credentes, but that they should not take into their service even suspected persons—“ Nec eos, aut etiam, aliquos diffamatos de hæresi.
These were a perfectly distinct class, and the next canon goes on to define them: “Illos autem debent pro diffamatis habere, contra quos publica fama clamat, vel de quorum diffamatione apud bonos et graves coram episcopo loci legitime constiterit.” On the other hand, (however strange it may seem to some modern protestants, who can, perhaps, form no idea of any difference between suspicion and execution, the viiith canon had decreed, “ Lest, however, the innocent should be punished as guilty, or heretical pravity should be imputed to any persons by the calumny of others, we decree that no one shall be punished as a credens or hæreticus, unless he shall have been adjudged to be a credens or hæreticus by the bishop of the place, or some ecclesiastical person having authority.”
With regard to the language, I apprehend that the phraseology which Mr. Evans adduces cannot possibly be any evidence respecting that of the “ monkish writers” (if they were monkish) who set down
* Conc., tom. xi., p. i. col. 679.
the decrees of the council of Thoulouse more than three centuries before even Gregory XIV. was born; but, to say the truth, having given the opinion of four writers, with whose knowledge of the ecclesiastical Latin of the thirteenth century I should not venture to compare my own, and some of whom I may, without offence, suppose to be as good judges of the meaning, if not of the most correct way of expressing it, as Mr. Evans, it seems to me unnecessary to enter into the argument; the rather because I have not at hand the book from which Mr. Evans quotes, and cannot help feeling some doubt whether Carena (if he is cited correctly) has not made a mistake.
I am, dear Sir, yours very faithfully, S. R. MAITLAND.
Sir,-By inserting the following questions in the British Magazine you will very greatly oblige your most obedient servant, Davus.
1. Is any portion of Archbishop Laud's intended version of the liturgy into Greek now extant ?--Did it furnish a basis for Dean Duport's ?
2. Is the Salisbury Psalter the same as the Roman Vulgate, or does it, like the old Gallican, more nearly resemble Jerome's correction of the “ Latin translation of the LXXII ?"
3. Is the psalter printed in the authorized Latin Vulgate, with Jerome's preface, his new version from the Hebrew, or his emendation of the old Italic, (or Latin translation of the Septuagint version)? And is that—i. e., the Latin Bible version—the version used in the Romish services, universally, (or Milan only excepted)?
4. What text is followed in the psalter of the Greek church?--the Alexandrian ?
5. Was there ever any authorized copy of the Latin liturgy directed to be used in those parts of Ireland where the natives understood no English ?
6. Who was the translator of the Latin liturgy edited by Dr. Harwood, and published by Bent in 1785, and republished by Bent in 1820, (Editio Sexta)?
7. And who was the translator of that published by Mr. Bagster in 18232
8. Are either, or both of these two, reprints of those published about 1720 and 1725 (I think), the one printed by Bowyer, and the other edited by Mr. Parsel?
A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament. By Edward Robiuson,
D.D., late Prof. Extraord. of Sac. Lit. in the Theol. Sem., Andover. A new and improved edition, revised by A. Negris, and by the Rev. John Duncan,
M.A., of Milton Church, Glasgow. Edinburgh : Clark. 8vo. pp. 874. The appearance of a new lexicon to the Greek Testament, whencesoever or from whomsoever it comes, must ever be a subject of interest, and even solicitude, to every true member of the catholic church. A lexicon, as constituting the supreme authority in all doubtful matters to pine-tenths of those who dabble in ancient or foreign languages, must ever be a most effective promoter of truth or falsehood. A lexicon to the Old or New Testament must, if unsound, be the most pernicious, insidious, and irresistible preacher of error. Commentaries come, more or less, even to the most unthinking, as mere vehicles of human opinion. Lexicons are by most people supposed to give the true and indisputable sense of the words. But, besides this point of interest, common to all lexicons, Robinson's Greek Lexicon to the New Testament has several others peculiar to itself. Dr. Robinson was late prof. extraord, in the theological seminary of Andover, which is a sort of laboratory for the dilution of German theological drugs, so as to fit them for the American and English market. Dr. Robinson himself spent a considerable time in Germany attending the lectures of Gesenius and other German divines; his lexicon may therefore be supposed to contain the cream of German criticism, philology, and divinity; and besides all this, England and Scotland have furnished, almost simultaneously, each an edition of his lexicon. Whether, therefore, this lexicon is such as can be safely recommended to students, becomes a most important question. It is well known that a large class of German divines reject altogether the idea of a revealed religion, and that therefore all their commentaries, lexicons, &c., are so many direct attacks on the Christian faith. If, therefore, Dr. Robinson has in any degree imbibed their opinions, his lexicon must be just in that proportion a dangerous book. Whether he has or has not, may be collected from the following specimens.
First, Dr. Robinson speaks of the doctrines and representations of the sacred scriptures as the mere opinions or dogmas of Hebrew or Jewish theology.
In the article Aluu he says“ The Jews regarded the blood as the seat and principle of life ; hence they were to offer it in sacrifice to God, but were forbidden to eat it. Levit. xvii. 10–14; Col. ij. 17; Gen. ix. 4, &c."
Here he makes the declaration about blood a Jewish opinion, and this opinion again the cause of the prohibition to eat it, and he confirms his assertion by referring to several passages of the Bible as to a sort of storehouse of Jewish opinions. Whereas the passages to which he refers represent the prohibition as a direct command of God, given to mankind, long before the existence of the Jews, immediately after the deluge, and enforced again in the law of Moses with the most awful sanctions.
In the article Aaquóvrov, he represents all that is related in the New Testament as matter of real history as the merest matter of opinion :
“In the New Testament, in the Jewish sense, a demon ; i.e., an evil spirit, devil, subject to Satan; Matt. ix. 34, al. A fallen angel, see in 'Ayye.is, and i. q. võua arádaptov, Luke, viji. 29; coll. v. 30, al. These spirits were suPPOSED to wander in desert and desolate places; see the Sep'. transl. of Isaiah, xiii. 21; xxxiv. 14; Baruch, iv. 35; comp. Matt. xii. 43; and also to dwell in the atmo. sphere, Origen, Exhort, ad Mart. $ 45, sq. id. c. Cels. 8. 29. sq. Athenay. Apol. p. 29, comp. Ephes. ii. 2. They were thought to have the power of working miracles, but not for good, Rev. xvi. 14, coll. John, x. 21; to be hostile to mankind, John, viii. 44; to utter the heathen oracles, Acts, xvi. 17; and to lurk in the idols of the heathen, which are hence called Saluóvia, devils, 1 Cor. x. 20 bis, 21 bis, Rev. ix. 20. comp. Sept. Deut. xxxii. 17; Psalm, xci. 6; cvi. 37; Baruch, iv. 7. They are spokEN OF as the authors of evil to mankind, both moral, 1 Tim. iv. 1 ; James, ii. 19; comp. Eph. vi. 12; and also physical, viz., by entering into a person, thus rendering him a demoniac, and afflicting him with various diseases, &c. See in Δαιμονίζομαι.”
According to this doctrine, our Lord, when he spoke of the evil spirit wandering in dry places, and of the devil as a murderer; and St. Paul, when he speaks of the prince of the power of the air," and of the heathen“ worshipping devils," and of the doctrines of devils," and of our contending with “principalities and powers;" and St. James, when he says "the devils believe and tremble;" and St. John, when he speaks of the devils “working miracles;" and the evangelists, when they record the cure of demoniacs; were all speaking of what was supposed, or thought, or spoken of, amongst the Jews, but not of any realities. Dr. Robinson does not dare to say that there are no demons or devils; that would have shocked the weak minds of the Americans and English, who are still, in such matters, a century behind the Germans. But he delicately brings the mind of the reader to the same conclusion, by telling him that all that is said of them in the New Testament is a Jewish supposition and Jewish phraseology. The inevitable corollary to be drawn by any one who can reason is, that there are no demons—and that the New Testament writers are not to be regarded as the communicators of a divine revelation, but the mere propagators of the prejudices and superstitions of their times.
But Dr. Robinson refers us to the verb Aaipoviçouac for further instruction; and this article also deserves otice, because it contains one of the additions made by one of the Edinburgh editors, who, as we are told in the prefatory notice,“ besides other improvements, has also inserted many valuable additions, both critical and theological. These, to distinguish them from the original matter, he has for the most part inserted between brackets [ ].”
“Aaipovi oual—to have a demon-i. e., to be afflicted, vexed, possessed, with an evil spirit; to be a demoniac, Matt. iv. 24; viii. 16, 28, 33; ix. 32, &c. It is much disputed, whether the writers of the New Testament used this word to denote the actual presence of evil spirits in the persons afflicted, or whether they employed it only in compliance with the popular usage and belief: just as we now use the word lunatic without assenting to the old opinion of the influence of the moon. A serious difficulty in the way of this latter supposition is, that the demoniacs everywhere at once address Jesus as the Messiah ; c. 9, Matt. viii. 29 ; Mark, i. 24 ; v. 27; Luke, iv. 34; viii. 28. [The difficulties, indeed, are so many and strong as to render the opinion utterly untenable.]"
Now, could the man who penned this article have a particle, not of faith in, but of reverence for, the gospels? The evangelists relate again. und again cases of demoniacal possession; they say distinctly that certain persons were possessed of a devil, and that our Lord had power over the devils. Our Lord himself says, "I cast out devils." And yet Dr. Robinson tells us that, whether these narratives contain facts, whether our Lord spake truth, or whether he and the evangelists were imposing upon the ignorance of the superstitious Jews, has been a matter of great dispute; and the only difficulty which he thinks it needful to mention, as standing in the way of this latter supposition is, that the demoniacs address Jesus as the Messiah, If that difficulty can be got over, the stigma of falsehood and imposture cast upon the characters of the New Testament writers and our Lord, and the overthrow of the catholic faith, is of no consequence at all. If Dr. Robinson had not wished to insinuate the same spirit of disputation into the minds of students, why did he mention it at all ? at least, why did he not mention it in the strongest terms of reprobation, as the off. spring of deists, infidels, and rationalists, men who, for the sake of filthy lucre, profess to be teachers of Christianity, whilst their real object is to overthrow the faith of Christ? The Rev. J. Duncan thought this a little too bad, and therefore has added the few words in brackets, declaring that the opinion is utterly untenable. But what is gained by this addition ? Will the record of Mr. Duncan's opinion neutralize the great authority which he has given to the American professor's opinions by introducing the lexicon to the British public as worthy of a second and independent edition in Scotland, as if the English edition could not accomplish a sufficient quantum of mischief? But after all Mr. Duncan's protest does not touch the question. For if it be granted that the difficulties are so many and great as to make the opinion untenable, it will follow, not that the facts are trae, but only that the New Testament writers did believe in the existence of demons; for, according to the following article, as we have just shewn, all that is recorded concerning them is only a Jewish superstition.
That this is Dr. Robinson's real opinion will be further evident from what he says in the article Διάβολος :
“With the art. Ò diáßolos, the devil, i. e. the accuser, by way of eminence, i. q. Tote ο σατανάς, Satan, the prince of the fallen angels, ο άρχων των δαιμονίων, Matt. ix. 34. According to the later Hebrews, he acts as the accuser and calumniator of men before God, Job, i. 7, 12; Zech. iii. 1, 2; coll. Rev. xii. 9, 10; seduces them to sin, 1 Chr. xxi. 1 ; and is the author of evil both physical and moral, by which the human race is afflicted; see in Aaipoviov b. In the New Testament, • cáßolog appears as the constant enemy of God, of Christ, of the divine kingdom, of the followers of Christ, and of all truth; full of falsehood and malice, and exciting and seducing to evil in every possible way."
This article is almost a transcript of Gesenius's article 19 in his Hebrew Lexicon, except that it is a little diluted, to make it suitable for weak stomachs. Gesenius says
“With the article TAVOI, the adversary by way of eininence, the Satan, an evil angel of the later Jewish mythology, who excites men to evil (1 Chron. xii. 1, com