Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

it proved in the following Treatise of the Christian Sacrifice, ch. 9.

Yea, Tertullian (io whose time, which was within 200 years after Christ, some will scarcely believe that Christians had any such places as Churches at all), if I understand him, intimates as much in his Lib. de Oratione, c. 12., where, reprehending the irreverent gesture of some in sitting at the time of prayer in the Church, Si quidem,' saith he, irreverens est assidere sub conspectu contraque conspectum ejus, quem cum marime reverearis ac venereris, quanto magis sub

conspectu Dei vivi, Angelo adhuc orationis adstante, factum illud irreligiosissimum est; nisi exprobramus Deo, quod nos oratio fatigaverit?' • If it be an irreverent thing to sit in the sight and before him, whom thou in a special manner honourest and reverencest, how much more is it an act most irreligious to doe it in the presence of the living God, the Angel of Prayer yet standing by; unless we upbraid God, that we have wearied ourselves with praying ? Mark, (* In the presence of the living God, the Angel of Prayer standing by,') that is, in the presence of the living God, specified by his Angel; the latter being an explanation of the former. It is like unto that in this chapter of my text, “Say not thou before the Angel, It was an errour,' yet I believe not borrowed thence; forasmuch as the Septuagint, whose translation Tertullian was onely acquainted with, and everywhere follows, have no mention of Angel in that place, but of God, rendring it, M) einys ago a poúrou ToŨ @cũ, Say not before the presence of God:' which shews how they under: stood it.

I cite the passages of these Fathers thus at large, lest I might to some seem to broach a novelty. And though some of those of St. Chrysostome be hyperbolically expressed; yet for the main and substance of what he intended, I believe it to be true, and ground my belief upon the authority of St. Paul before alledged, Aid Tous 'Ayyérous, 'Because of the Angels.' If any shall say, whatsoever were then, they will not believe there is any such kind of presence in our Churches now, I must tell them, if it be so, it is because of our irreverent and unseemly behaviour in them, which makes those blessed Spirits loath our company. For though they be invisible and incorporeal creatures, yet can they not look into our hearts, (that is God their Master's prerogative,) but are witnesses of our outward behaviour and action onely; and it was a case of external decorum, wherein the Apostle mentions this presence of theirs for a motive or reason : For this cause ought a woman to have

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

a covering on her head, because of the Angels. For they love not to behold anything that is uncomely and unbeseeming, but fly from it; and if we lose their conipany, the best members of our congregation are wanting.

“ Thus you have heard what is the dignity and prerogative of God's House. Who now, that considers and believes this (and there was a time when it was believed), will not say with the Patriarch Jacob, when he saw the Angels ascending and descending at Bethel, Quam reverenda sunt hæc loca? How reverend are these places! For every place, where the name of God is recorded, is Bethel, where the Angels of God are ascending and descending, that is, God in a special manner present and meeting with men. How reverent should our manner be at our coming into them?”~Joseph Mede's Works,

p. 343.

From the subjoined passage it will be seen by the reader, that Valckenaer agrees with D. Heinsius and Joseph Mede as to the interpretation of the words, Δια τους Αγγέλους, but had not the same clear perception with the former as to the other words in the sentence.

'Οφείλει η γυνή εξουσίαν έχειν] Hec non videntur commiodum sensum admittere prout vulgantur scripta. Qui nihil in his LL. mutatum volunt, per gouo lav velamen intelligunt. Sed nemo hactenus docuit, quo pacto velamen dici possit écuria. Jac. itaque Gothofredus, Ictus, suspicabatur bic Lat. vocem latere goußiav, exuviam. Sed nec Latini sic umquam velamen dixere. Magnifice quidem Virg. quam velut vestem serpens deponit exuvias vocavit. Sed quid illud ad Pauli vocem? Rejecit itaque recte conjecturam istam Salmas. Ep. de Coma p. 694. Hujus amicus et admirator, Alex. Morus, una litera rejecta scr. putabat çoucía, ut mulier per appositionem dicatur potestas viri, quæ debuerit habere in capite, xáauunc nempe. Sed neque çovoia usquam his in LL. sic adhibetur, neque altera phrasis istum sensum adınittit. Nuperrime Criticus ingeniosissimus Jo. Toupius, Anglus, Emendationes egregias dedit in Suidam: in his P. I, p. 21 captavit occasionem hujus quoque loci corrigendi emendatione, ut ipse quidem ait, certissima. Corrigit ille eleganter sane, Οφείλει η γυνή έξιούσα έχειν επί της κεφαλής, oportet mulieren, quum prodit in publicum, veluto esse capite. Sed ista et. conjectura nihil minus est, quam certa. 1o. enim diverse sunt phrases κατά κεφαλής έχειν $ 4. et hoc και επί της κεφαλής fxelv, nisi statuamus articulum hic temere adjectum. 2o. mirificum hoc esset uno loco rarioris verbi Eerdei participiuni a P. positum, qui ne semel quidem verbum illud usurpavit. Lucas

quidem in Actis adhibuit, sed, Judæis Alexandrinis insolitum, nusquam occurrit in Versione Gr. Fæderis antiqui. 3o. 'EEvora simpliciter ita positum, ut crederemus significare in publicum prodeuntem, exemplis debuerat e similibus Scriptoribus firmari. Sed ne unicum quidem protulit Toup. Quid itaque hoc de loco statuendum videbitur? Vix quidem quidquam relinqueretur nodosi, si cum Viro D.' statueremus voculam oux excidisse, et scripsisse Paulum, Δια τούτο ουκ οφείλει η γυνή εξουσίαν έχειν επί tñs xeparñs. ut sensus sit plane diversus, Non debet uxor habere 8. exercere in maritum potestatem, s. non debet uxor esse imperiosa. Dixerat enim P. § 3. virum esse caput uxoris Hic itaque per caput mulieris Virum intelligamus. Distant utique xedano et ή κεφαλή. illud est caput proprie sic dictum, sed ή κεφαλή hac in orationis sede certum quoddam caput designat, atque adeo Virum, vel Maritum, Paulo supra sic dictum.”2Valck. Scholl. in N. T. 2, 273.

While I consider the meaning of the passage in question to have been clearly ascertained by D. Heinsius wholly, and by J. Mede in part, without any alteration of the sacred text, I think it right to notice such opinions, as I may meet with, respecting it, and I shall therefore cite the following:

Uxores Hebræis olim contectas foris ivisse, præter ceteros locus Num. 5, 18. indicat, dum adulterii suspecta coram Domino velato et postea detecto capite sistitur.- Similem in modum

6

!Hermannum significat Venema, cujus conjecturam hanc inter cæteras commemoravit Jo. H. Verschuir in Opusc. post. 398. Apparet illam egregie placuisse Valckenario: cui tamen aliquando subnata videtur fuisse suspicio, num forte scripserit P. οφείλει η γυνή καυσίαν έχειν επί της κεparñs. Cæteris enim, quæ nunc edimus, hæc superscripserat V. 3.

Kavola, Etym. Ms. loti xáa upepice sepaañs. Memorat Eust. ad Il. B. p. 193, (17.) Od. A. p. 30,[50.] Adde Etym. M. edit. 487,51.' Speciem haberet conjectura, si probari posset, vocem Kavola pro tegumento capitis, etiam a mulieribus usurpato, a Macedonibus transiisse ad Alexandrinos; ab his autem pervenisse ad Judæos. Verum deest auctoritas.”

2 “ Eruot forsan, qui scire desiderent, quo sensu Noster ultima ceperit commatis 10 verba, 'Aid trùs åyyédous. In horum gratiam depromo, quæ inveni in Autographis:- Etiam Angelorum quæ hic fit mentio, vehementer centenos exercuit.-Credo Angelos, s. Spiritus bonos, intelligi, quos Fidelium cætibus interesse antiquissima fuit Christianorum primo sæculo opinio. His, utpote administris, usum in Ecclesia administranda Deum, Viri et. crediderunt Apostolici, quod liquet ex ult. $ Cap. I. Ep. ad Hebr.' Ego, in tanta opinionum diversitate, quum sublato § 10 nihil ad sensum deesse videam, nondum muto sententiam, quam proponere ausus sum in Dissert. de Glossis N. T. p. 66., nimirum serioris esse ævi additamentum, quod acutissimos et. Interpretes in hunc usque diem frustra exercuerit

Susanna xatuxexalupenévn, tecta, comparet coram Judicibus, quod tamen peplum lascivi detrahi jubent, 'Exé sur av ávaxaduφθήναι αυτήν ην γαρ κατακεκαλυμμένη. Ηuc pertinet illud, quod Apostolus 1 Cor. 11, 10. Tyv & gouo lav in capite femineo gestandam commendat. Est autem εξουσίαν έχειν επί της κεφαλής nihil aliud quam Velamen capitis gestare, siquidem Apostolus opponit ακατακαλύπτω τη κεφαλή et εξουσίαν έχειν επί της κεφαλής. . Quapropter, missis aliorum opinionibus, tu é goucía per velamen interpretor. Est enim in dicto Paulino perwujíc rei signatæ, &govoía, potestas, quam habet maritus in uxorem suam, pouitur pro signo, velamine, quod vetustissimis temporibus usitatum significavit, feminas sub fide et potestate maritorum esse. Nam cum Apostolus ex gente Hebræa esset oriundus, non potuit non respexisse ad Hebræorua 7177 a 777, extendit, expandit, dominatus est, et sic écouo ia eodem significatu, quo Hebræum 7777, tam pro defensione quam potestate, accipi potest, licet Hottingerus Goodwinum Mos. et Aar. 6, 4, 19. p. 899. eo castiget. Sed egit de égourią JCtus, Jac. Godofredi. Cf. Misna tit. Cethuboth c. 7. Gem. Babyl. ibid. fol. 72. a. Hieros, ad tit. Gittim c. 9. fol. 50. col. 4. Selden. Ux. Hebr. 3, 17. D. Geier. de Luct. Hebr. 2, 4."--M. S. Fr. Bucheri Antiquitates Hebr. et Gr. Selectæ s. De Velatis Hebr. ac Gr. Feminis Budissä 17 17. 12o. p. 78.

Caput feminæ in subjectionis et defensionis signum velabant, quod vel ipsa notio ToŰ 99%, in lingua Arabica, debilis fuit, significantis, ac vis toŨ T177 a 777, subjecit, dominatus est, (Ps. 144, 2. etc., vide Schindl. Ler. p. 1698.,) innuit, quamvis, 7'77 expandendi notionem retinere posse, non dubitemus. Etenim illi, qui rem expandendo tuetur, et protectionem s. defensionem et potestatem s. dominium, utrumque, tribuimus, ut adeo mulier velaminis intuitu subjectionis pariter ac tutela memoriam habere possit. Quæ cum ita sint, Hottingerus frustra Goodwinum castigat, eo sc., quod 7777 cum gourią facere idem, atque a 777, dominari, deflexum esse putet. Sic enim egregie explicatur phrasis, εξουσίαν έχειν επί της κεφαλής, et vestium alas super sponsam expandendi antiquitas, de qua copiose jam est dictum. "Nimirum mos fiebat 1. in signum, respectu mariti, potestatis, dominii, respectu autem feminæ, subjectionis, (en có 777, dominari; 2. in signum defensionis, dum uxoris causam maritus agere tenebatur, (en tò 777, expandere.) Prius illud Tossan. Num. 5, 18. pulcre explicat. "Ea de re Apostolus 1 Cor. 11, 10,

Eouglav in capite femineo gestandam commendat, quæ verba ibidem D. Luiherus, nec male, transfert.”- Idem ibid. p. 150.

VOL. XXX. CI. JI. NO. LX. 2 A

Angelici hæretici temporibus Severi Imp. et Victoris i Rom. Pont. Angeiici vocabantur, eo quod Angelos indebito honore et superstitioso cultu prosequerentur. Eorum scripta pro sua secta perierunt. Angeli ab Ethnicis Romanis et Græcis Genii et Demones appellabantur. Santque nonnulli Critici inter Christianos adeo superstitiosi puræ, ut ajunt, Latinitatis sectatores, qui pro Angelo Genium scribere malunt, merito a Mureto notati. De Angelis bonis et malis, seu Dæmonibus, seu Geniis, ut ipsis placet, beneficis et maleficis, superioribus et inferioribus, plura Philosophi Platonici, qui etiam, ut Peripatetici, et multi ex Christianis Angelos, Intelligentins appellant. Videtur, ex antiquissima traditione, Angelos sive Genios tutores et custodes hominum, belluarum, elementorum, astrorum, et plantarum Ethnicis notos fuisse. De Genio Socratis vide Apul., qui de Genio s. Damonio Socrutis scripsit. Vide etiam Diog. 1. in Socratis Vita, qui narrat ejus dictum de spiritu, quem habebat, quique ei futura prædicebat.”—Matthæi Aimerichii Specimen veteris Romanæ Litterature deperdita vei adhuc latentis, Ferrariæ 1784. 4to. Vol. 1. p. 24. Thetford, November, 1824.

E. H. BARKER.

REMARKS ON A PASSAGE OF

POLYÆNUS.

THAT

any commentator has fully or satisfactorily explained a very curious passage which occurs in the fourth book of Polyænus's Stratagems (cap. iii. Ş. S2.), I have not hitherto been able to ascertain. It is true, such an explanation could scarcely be expected from a mere Hellenist; it must come from the pen of one who is at the same time an antiquary and an orientalist; and we may regret that the learned Hyde, Reland, or Jones, did not take into consideration this interesting passage, which informs us, that Alexander found in the palace of the Persian kings (probably the stupendous edifice at Persepolis), a brazen column, exhibiting among various laws and ordinances inscribed on it by command of Cyrus, the statement of those different articles, and the vast quantities or numbers of them, consumed every day at that illustrious' monarch's dinner and supper. Of

« ZurückWeiter »