Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

3 There were four seals in the sanctuary, and on them was inscribed: The Calf; The Male; The Goat; The Sacrifice of the Sinner. Ben Asai says, There are five, and they are inscribed in the Syriac language: The Calf; The Male; The Goat; The Sin-offering of the Poor; and the Sin-offering of the Rich. The Calf was offered with the drink-offerings of the herd, great or small, male or female. [(*) The Goat was offered with the drink-offerings of the sheep, great or small, male or female ;] except with those of the rams. The Male was offered with the drink-offerings of the rams alone. The Sin-offering was offered with the drink-offerings of the three animals offered by lepers.

4. Whoever was desirous of procuring drink-offerings went to Johanan, who presided over the seals, and gave him the money, and received from him a seal. He then went to Achia, who presided over the drink-offerings, and gave him the seal and received from him the drink-offerings. In the evening they met together, and Achia produced the seals, and received in their stead the money. And if there were more than necessary, the overplus belonged to the sanctuary; but if there were any deficiency, Johanan made it up from his own house, because the sanctuary was to have the upper hand.

5. If any one has lost his seal, they wait for his finding it until the evening. If they find any thing for him (†) which is the same as his seal, they give him what he wants. But if not, they do not give him any thing. And the name of the day is marked upon the seals, to avoid any deception.

6. There were two chambers in the sanctuary: the one, the chamber of the Secret Alms; the other, the chamber of the Vessels. The chamber of the Secret was that in which they who feared sin gave their alms in secret; and the poor, the sons of good men, were supported from that given in secret. The chamber of the Vessels was that in which every one cast whatsoever vessels he offered as a free gift. And once in thirty days the treasurers open it, and whatever vessels they find in it proper

*The passage between [ ] is omitted in the edition of this tract published by Otho, and in the splendid edition by Surenhusius. It is found however in that by Manasseh Ben Israel, with points; Amsterdam,

1646.

That is, if the keeper of the seals finds the exact price of a drinkoffering, for which the keeper of the drink-offerings can produce no check,

for

for the service of the Temple, they let them remain; and the residue are sold, and the money arising from them comes into the chamber for the service of the Temple.

REMARKS ON THE SECOND BOOK OF ESDRAS. (Continued from Vol. X. page 428.)

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S

SIR,

Sh

MAGAZINE.

T. Ambrose affords another remarkable testimony to the authenticity of 2d Esdras in his commentary on Luke i. 31. viz. " Dominus noster Jesus nominatus est antequam natus, cui non angelus, sed pater nomen imposuit. Revelabitur enim, inquit, Filius meus Jesus cum iis, qui cum eo judicabuntur, qui relicti sunt in annis quadringentis. Et erit post annos hos, et morietur Filius meus Christus et convertetur sæculum. (2 Esd. vii. 28) Vides angelos quæ audiverint, non quæ usurpaverint, nunciare." St. Cyprian perhaps alludes to the same passage of Esdras, in the latter part of his treatise de Idolorum Vanitate. "Nec non Deus ante prædixerat fore ut vergente sæculo, et mundi fine jam proximo, ex omni gente, et populo, et loco, cultores sibi allegeret Deus multo fideliores." St. Ambrose has likewise quoted, as Scripture, 2 Esd. x. 6-11, and x. 15, 16, and x. 20-24. (Ambrosii Oratio de Morte Fratris). Calmet, in his valuable dissertation on this book, prefixed to his Commentary on the canonical book of Ezra, asserts that St. Ambrose has also quoted 2 Esdras in proof of the spiritual nature of the soul. He adds that St. Ambrose always speaks of the author of the book in question as inspired.

Vigilantius is the next witness in favour of this book, and his authority ought to be of great weight with Protestants, (see Dr. Allix's History of the Albigenses, p.34.) To 2 Esdras, ch. vii. 39-44, in all probability Vigilantius appealed for proof, that prayers ought not to be offered up for the dead, in opposition to the doctrine of St. Jerome. The answer of St. Jerome was as follows;

[ocr errors]

Tu, vigilans, dormis, et dormiens scribis, es proponis mihi librum apocryphum, qui sub nomine Esdræ, a te, et similibus tui legitur; ubi scriptum est quòd post mortem nullus pro aliis audeat deprecari; quem ego librum nunquam legi. Quid enim necesse est in manus sumere quod ecclesia non recipit? In commentariolo tuo, quasi pro te faciens, de Solomone sumis testimonium, quod Solomon omnino non scripsit : ut qui habes alterum Esdram, habeas et Solomonem alterum : et,si tibi placuerit, legi to fictas revelationes omnium patriarcharum et prophetarum." Also in his preface to the canonical Ezra, he says, " Nec quinquam moveat quod unus a nobis editus liber est nec, apocryphorum tertii et quarti delectetur, quia et apud Hebræos, Ezra, Neemiæque sermones in unum volumen coarctantur; et quæ non habentur apud illos, nec de viginti quatuor senibus, sunt procul abjicienda."

Formidable as this testimony of St. Jerome at first sight may appear, it will lose much of it's force when we take into consideration; 1. That St. Jerome never read the book. 2. That the, book was appealed to in opposi tion to the errors of St. Jerome. 3. That the testimony of St. Jerome, who lived at the close of the fourth century is of small weight, when compared with that of the earlier fathers, who uniformly received this book as authentic, though not as canonical. Michalis in estimating the proofs for the authenticity of the Apocalypse does not condescend to examine any witnesses after Eusebius. 4. St. Jerome gives us his reason for rejecting this book, which is such as we are able now exactly to appreciate; and his reason was, that the book was not one of the twenty-four canonical books, existing in Hebrew. (Lardner's Credibility, vol. v. p. 17-24.) Consequently his objections were not made against this book in particular, except when it was particularly alledged against him; but they were made against every one of the Apocryphal books, which he consistently declined to publish. Thus his argument proved too much. For he seems to have asserted, that all the apocryphal books were absolute forgeries. "He condemns (says Lardner) all sorts of apocryphal books in general, published with the names of Solomon or Ezra, or any of the Patriarchs or Prophets." Calmet is of opinion too, that though St. Jerome was virulent against this book in one place, he seemed to respect it in another; for he does not deny that Esdras was the restorer of the Scriptures (Hieron. adv. Helvid.) For, as Calmet obVol. XI. Churchm. Mag. for July 1806. D serves,

serves, the opinion of the fathers concerning the anni hilation and restitution of the Scriptures, could be borrowed from no other source than this book, and conse quently the fathers generally received this book as authentic. To this it may be added, that they particularly notice that Esdras was inspired for this purpose, alluding most probably to 2. Esdras, xiv. 40. Calmet, however, questions whether the author of the Synopsis attributed to Athanasius, did not derive his opinion from another source. I rather think, that he considered the account of Esdras as figurative and meant to explain it. For the opinions of the Jews on this subject see Culmet, ibid. 6. We learn from St. Bernard, that St. Jerome's authority had not prevented the Latin Church from receiving this book as authentic.

I shall now pass on to St. Augustine. He seems to have held the same opinion as St. Jerome concerning apocryphal books, and his opinion may receive the same answer. (See Lardner, ibid. vol. v. p. 90.)

I have now exhibited the most important and unquestionable testimonies of the fathers, and I shall only observe, that several more testimonies, if necessary, might be added to the above. Calmet will direct the reader, if he wishes, to several passages in Tertullian and Cyprian, in which this book is alluded to; but I believe that suf fficient proofs have been brought from the fathers, that, upon the ground of external evidence, this book may be considered as authentic. I will, however, bring down my testimonies to the present time. Calmet lays great stress upon an argument against the book drawn from the rejection of it in the east during the middle ages. Nicephorus indeed adopted the opinion of St. Jerome, as it seems; but Suidas held a very different opinion, as may be seen in his Lexicon under the article Esdras.

At the time of the Reformation we shall find, as Mr. Lee in his valuable essay on this book, asserts, that Leo Jude made a version of it, and that the Hebrew origiual was said to be then known, (see Hoffmanni Lexicon art. Esdras. The Church of England received, and still receives the book as authentic though not as canonical, and has appointed it to be read for example of life, and instruction of manners, upon the authority, strange to say! of it's inconsistent adversary, St. Jerome. And this treatment of the book by our church is the more observable, because it is of such a nature that it must either be

of

of extraordinary importance, or be a gross and most per. nicious forgery. Since the Reformation, the authenticity of the book has been confirmed by the discovery of an Arabic manuscript which may be found translated atthe end of Whiston's Primitive Christianity. The Arabic manuscript omits the two first and the two last chapters, and in many respects differs from the Latin. Fabricius, in his Codex Apocryphus, N. T. says, "Cæterum Joh. Gregorius in præfatione ad observationes sacras affirmat librum 4tum Esdræ aliam longè meriturum fidem ac dignitatem, si legatur Arabicè; quod enigma explicat his verbis, Visio Esdræ non habet autoritatem nisi Latina versiones, que ad nullum exemplar originale est examinata; et interpolari quædam potuerunt, cum sit liber non canonicus sed apocryphus. Sed hoc non est libro adeo improbandum. Exemplar originale scimus, quodcunque fuerit pro deperdito concedi, sed versio Arabica extat. Primus (liber) est quartus apocryphus, sed a locis suspectis liber. Nulla hic mentio bestiarum Henoch et Leviathan, aut divisionis ætatis in xii partes. Habeo cur credam hoc exemplar libri esse maximé omnium authenticum." Fabricius adds, Fabricius adds, " Opere pretium esset cum hoc Arabico codice ab iis qui possunt conferri MS. tum codicem libri IV. Esdræ Latinum ab editis plu rimum differentem cujus meminerunt_Benedictini in præfatione ad librum Ambrosii de Bono Mortis.

I am, Sir,

Your obedient humble Servant,

JUVENIS.

ON DR. PRIESTLEY'S EPITAPH.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S

SIR,

TH

MAGAZINE.

HE Unitarians of Birmingham have lately set up a tablet in their conventicle to the memory of the noted Dr. Priestley, who formerly officiated among them. Upon this tablet is an inscription, setting forth, among other things, that the monument has been erected by the doctor's affectionate congregation, in testimony of

D2

their

« AnteriorContinuar »