« PoprzedniaDalej »
they act wisely, for it would lead to dangerous heresies to supa pose any thing which may not have taken place in persons sufa. fering under extreme agony of mind. Though we must allow that no forrow was like unto his sorrow," yet we have no reason to imagine that the effećts of it on his human body, were either different in kind, or peculiar to himself. The examples, however, which are brought forward, are, I am, inclined to imagine, relations of what has happened to perfons of a diseased habit of body. But if we take them for granted, the question is, not whether such things have ever happened, but whether they have happened in such a case, that is, whether any agony or distress of mind, could have occasioned it in one in a sound state of health. There is in. deed, an expression in the Litany, which seems to favoúr the common opinion, but surely every interpretation in our Liturgy is not an object of faith. Besides, the word inight have been intended to give a stronger idea of the intensity of the agony, and thus have been the innocent occasion of the opinion which it seems to favour. Again, supposing it a really bloody sweat, the forcing of the blood out of the capillary arteries, would, I think, hardly acoount for it, nor if it had been this, which would only have spread a kind of bloody dew over the skin, would the inspired witness have made ufe of fo ftrong an expreffion as ωσει θρομβοι αιματος
though the agony and the heat of the climate might well have produced great drops of sweat, which the inspired writer might compare for size to great drops of blood. The word does not imply a coagulated mass of blood, but of bitu. men, &c. - (See Parkhurst in Ogou os.) The woei must stand - here on the same fooring as in other parts of scripture, as in the famous passage woki Tigisegay. And if this does not actu. ally mean a dove, but the descending of the Spirit “as it were" a dove, so neither are these to be supposed drops of blood, but " as it were” drops of blood. As I know but very little of anatomy, I should wish to submit this either to the ingenious Cephas, or to any of your correspondents who, like the great Paley, have looked into the most convincing natural proofs of a divinity, of which it may be said, that whoever fixes his knowledge on these principles, has built his house on a rock, which the Atheist may endeavour in vain to oyerturn.
Your obedient servant,
IRCASTRENSIS. P.S.' As I have touched on the subject of insult offered to our Saviour, it may not be ill-timed to enquire of some of VOL. XIV.
your Chm. Mag. May 1808..
your readers what has been done on the case of the Reštor of Cold Norton's visitation sermon. It will be a disgrace to oħr church if he is suffered to retain his preferment without á public recantation of the exploded principles which he ráked together from Hobbes and Bolingbroke.*
* Our Correspondent will find an answer to this Enquiry in the present number. ED. .
PRONUNCIATION OF SCRIPTURE WORDS.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S
MAGAZINE. SIR, W ILL you give me leave' to consult you on the pro
VV nunciation of certain words in the scriptures, and to beg your opinion, or that of any of your correspondents, - how far custom should be attended to with regard to proper rates, how a man ought’to act in reading proper names, so as to avoid a seeming ignorance of the originals, or the charge of being a filly and pertinacious opposer of common usages, whose great power in language every one of your readers will be ready to confess.
names. Our English language, in words in general, by an alteration in the accent, has made many syllables short, which are long in the languages from which they are derived, so that here at least, custom must be allowed to be the norma loquendi. How far custom ought to prevail in proper names, is the chief question, for even here it must have its weight. Every one knows what strange liberties the French have taken with the most celebrated names of antiquity, and even among ourselves, I believe few perfons would venture to speak of the city Roma, the poet Horatius Flaccus, or Virgilius Maro, though there can be no reason why we should call one man by the cognomen, as Cicero and Cæfar, others merely by the nomen, as Virgil and Horace, and those too, shortened by two syllables. In the same manner, any one would feel a tenderness in saying that the fhips touch at St. Hělěna, or in reading of a woman of Samaria, though the word is both, long in the penultimate in the Greek, and marked so in the Latin by the accurate Labbe. Undoubtedly, no Englishman could say that Marcus Tullius was a famous orātor, or that there was a book published in London called an encyclopædia. I should wish to know therefore, for the advantage of myself and my brother cu.
I am, Sir,
your obedient servant, May 7, 1808.
ON THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES..
(Continued from page 260.)
clearly this--that the Eleven Apostles were com-
Several years before the conversion of Cornelius, St. Paul, by his own account and by St. Luke's, appears to have been converted, For, by his own account, it was, at least, three
years when he first went up to Jerusalem after his conyer. sion. From Jerusalem he retired to Tarsus.'" Then, says St. Luke, the churches had rest throughout all Judæa, and Galilee and Samaria, and were multiplied.” And, he fur. ther says, as Peter passed through all of them, he also came to Lydda, Saron and Joppa:-and at Joppa, he tarried many days with one Simon a tanner, where he was sent for by Cornelius.
By this then, it appears pretty clearly, that the conversion of Cornelius happened several years after that of Paul. But.. though this appears to be so very clear, it may not be amiss to spend a little time in inquiring how long the interval between their conversions is likely to have been.--But as this cannot be done satisfactorily without previously inquiring when, it is most likely, the martyrdom of Stephen happened, let us in the firft place, bestow a little attention upon this point.
Many learned divines have thought that the death of Stephen happened a little more than a year after the ascenfion. The very learned Michaelis, (aj however, says that “ St. Stephen hardly suffered martyrdom before Pilate was recalled from the government of Judæa, for under Pilate the Jews had not the power of inflicting capital punishments. If this be true, says he, Saul's conversion must have happened likewise after Pilate's recall. But how long after that, whether in 38 as some say, I cannot determine.""After having said this, he adds “ neither date agrees with the epistle to the Galatians”-or rather perhaps, he should have said, If Stephen was stoned after Pilate's recall, and Saul was converted in 38, in all probability, he could not, for reasons which are obvious, and which will be presently produced, have returned to Jerusalem till 42. And there. fore Cornelius must, by St. Luke's account, have been con. verted no one knows how long after that, ,
. . · His equally learned annorator, (b) after having taken for granted that the Jews certainly had not the power of stoning blafphemers under Pilate, and observed that Pilate was recalled early in the year 37, fays-“ It is not improbable that the Sanhedrin obtained from his successor a privilege which they did not enjoy under the government of Pilate: and if they did, they of course, took the earliest opportunity
Penedes be true, power of int Judæa, for et
of making use of it. Consequently the death of Ste, phen, St. Paul's persecution of the Christians, and his subsequent conversion, could not have happened before that year (37): and therefore the journey to Jerusalem, men tioned Gal. i. 18. which was, at least three years later (and may, by his own account, have been five) could not have happened before the year 40.”
It is observable that both these learned professors, after having taken for granted that the Jews were not per. mitted to stone blasphemers under Pilate, fpeak hypotheti. cally of their having obtained permission to do it under Marcellus. Professor Michaelis says “ If this be true." Professor Marsh " It is not improbable that the Sanhedrin, &c."-But what reason have we to think that Stephen must have been stoned after Caiaphas had been deposed by Vitel. lius in the year 35? We know he said to the Sanhedrin, “ Ye have been now the betrayers and the murderers of the just One.” With whatever appearance of truth he could have said this in the pontisičate of Theophilus, the second High priest after Caiaphas, with much greater, it must be allowed, he would have said it as long as Caiaphas was · president of the Sanhedrin. But the Jews, it seems, had not. the power of stoning blafphemers under Pilate,--and therefore, not within two years after the deposition of Caiphas. '' Marcellus, his successor, it seems, was better affe&ted to. wards the Jews, and had authority to restore to them the privilege of which they had been deprived. But from whom did Marcellus obtain this authority? He is said to have been appointed by Vitellius, -and Vitellius, we are told, when he deposed Caiaphas two years before, was so well pleased with the people of Jerusalem as to remit to them the whole duty of the fruits that were set to fale: and to have put all the pontifical habits, which used to be kept by a Roman officer in the fortress Antonia, into the possession of the high priests to be kept by them. Afterwards at the request of the Samaritans he sent Pilate to Rome to answer their accusation.—Now as Pilate appears to have been so entirely under the controul of the proconsul of Syria, is it at all likely that he would have presumed to take an ancient privilege of the first importance from the Jews-at least without being authorised to do so by his superior ? And if he was so authorised, it seems likely, as Vitellius granted such favour to the Jews, that he would have restored this privilege above any other. And, as we know that Vitellius, about the time that he appointed Mar