Could he find no reference (at leaft) in his ftudy to St. Bafil? who alfo afferts 8 πρῶτον διανοίγων μήτραν πρωτότοκος ονομάζεται Hamil de Nativ. Dom. But indeed Mr. Jones is not fo negligent a reader. If he is a careless theologian, he is a correct philologer. On another occafion (vol. i. 404) he is able to inform us, that the term gros is not always used in an arithmetical fenfe, to denote priority of number, as when it is oppofed to fecond, third, &c. but often to fignify pre-eminence in point of rank or dignity." At p. 133. vol. ii. on ftill another occafion, Mr. Jones obferves, "Had he employed groS instead of agx, his meaning would then have been ambiguous; as the former is often applied to fignify fuperiority in rank, as well as priority in refpect of time." Perhaps indeed we went too far in judging Mr. Jones to be more incompetent as a theologian than as a philologer, to diftinguish the force of the word eros; for, at p. 174. vol. ii. he obferves that the Apoftles ftyle our Lord the firft-born from the dead, as being the only one, who as yet enjoys that life, &c. but this laft inftance indeed is not fo decifive: we are perfuaded, however, that, with a little more circumfpection, Mr. Jones would not have let fuch a paffage pafs, as that on which we have been commenting. Is Mr. Jones's industry in theological researches to be commended for the following objections to the appearance of the ftar, Matt. ii. 2, 9? "I fhall here only exprefs my regret and aftonishment, that a fiction, which the plaineft obfervations demonftrate to be an impudent and abfurd falfehood, fhould have been incorporated with the pure and fimple religion of Jefus, and thereby expofe it to the contempt and derifion of thinking men. A ftar, which philofophy teaches to be incomparably greater than our world, and to be immensely more diffant than the fun, came, and flood above the top of the houfe where Jefus was born! Whilft a fiction, wild and barefaced as this, is made by fraud and ignorance the foundation of Chriftianity, can we wonder at the prevalence of infidelity?" Are we to fuppofe Mr. J. fo little read in theology as not to know that fome of the ableft commentators have concluded this vifion to have been, not one of thofe remote bodies of the heavenly region to which he alludes, but a luminous meteor floating in the lower atmofphere? We fay fome of the ablest commentators, becaufe Mr. Wakefield (whom Mr. J. profelles to follow, not implicitly, or always, but for the inoit part) admits this interpretation, if we are not greatly mistaken. Nor can fuch commentators, be they who they may, incur any fufpicion in this inftance of putting any force on the language of fcripture, fince Homer himself is allowed by very able critics to have used the word 'As in no higher fenfe. (II. iv.) Does བ་ Does Mr. Jones only "indulge a freedom tempered with due deliberation," when, in order to get rid of the prophecy of Ifaiah relating to the miraculous conception, he dwells upon the ambiguity of the Latin word virgo, and infitts upon it that the Jews," (generally put, and without any qualification) always maintained that the correfpondent Hebrew word fignified in this place not a virgin, but a young woman," whereas no fact is better eftablifhed, nor capable of immediate proof, than that the word was rendered maglivos by the LXX Jews 300 years before Chrift, and veaus, on the contrary, only by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, three apoftates from Christianity? Was it with due deliberation that Mr. Jones, after this omiffion, betrayed his own caufe fo much, as to infift upon it in terms of unbecoming feverity against the believers in this miracle (vol. ii. 87) that had St. Paul any idea of the miraculous conception when he wrote to the Galatians, had he ever meant to infer that Jefus was conceived" without the inftrumentality of a man," inftead of year ix younds, Gal. iv. 4, he muft have put γεννώμενον εκ παρθενί Does not Mr. Jones put fome force upon fcripture when he infifts upon it, that not only the Magi muft have been to the weftward of Jerufalem when they faw the star i avaloλy, but that in fact this points directly to Rome as the fource of this incident, which he had before afferted to be a fabrication of the priefts of Ifis in that metropolis? Does Mr. Jones put no force upon Scripture when he infifts upon it, that the commencement of S. Mark's Gospel is a decifive and explicit contradiction to the fabricated tale of the miraculous birth? Did it never strike Mr. J. that in this place a vytais must rather refer to the predication of the Gofpel, than to the mere annunciation of Chrift's advent; rather to the κήρυμα and miniftry of the Baptift, the βάπτισμα Merolas is a pro auagriv, than to the first "good news" of the Meffiah? For it is upon this Mr. J. depends for the fupport of his hypothefis. If John the Baptift brought the first good tidings," the ftory of the Magi must be falfe. We fhould fcarcely have expected fuch a play upon words in fo grave an argument. Did the commiffion given to the difciples recorded by the fame Evangelift, σε κηρύσσειν τὸ εὐαγέλιον πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει,” chap. xvi, 15, extend only to the mere annunciation of the good news" of our Saviour's being on the earth? Perhaps Mr. Jones was led to indulge in this remark, by way of dif puting the title affumed by the apocryphal writer of the Protevangelion attributed to St. James, in which the miraculous conception is chiefly infifted upon; but as far as this title refers to the first "good tidings" of the Meffiah, there have been very learned critics, of whom, to mention the firft that occurs, the celebrated Glaffius (we remember) is one, who has carried back the true Prot-evangelion to the promise made to Eve, in a treatife exprefsly fo entitled. We apprehend Mr. Jones is not to be commended, either for his industry or deliberation, in putting the construction he does upon a λnwby, vol. i, 336. The deceivers, he fays, were aware that the reader might put the queftion, what end is answered by this strange event? In order to obviate it, they quote from Ifaiah a prediction, which, as is well-known, refers to Hezekiah; and that they might meet the queftion in its full extent, they plunge themselves into an abyss of abfurdity." All this," fay they," was done, that it might be fulfilled." And to the fame purpose speaks St. Mark in regard to the ag Evay, which Mr. J. fo much infifts upon. But laying afide the exaggerated affertion, "that the prediction of Ifaiah is well known to refer to Hezekiah;" and the difficulty the LXX interpreters have thrown in the way of that interpretation, by rendering the Hebrew by by the Greek Пaços, we do not fee how Mr. Jones's remarks would ferve to fet aside the fact. To admit the utmost that he requires, that it is only "what the most intelligent advocates of this wild tale are brought to confefs, a mere accommodation of the prophecy," it is in the very fpirit of all other comparisons made by the facred writers, between the ancient prophecies and the events by which they were fulfilled. It is not fo bungling a contrivance therefore, at all events, as Mr. J. would infinuate. Mr. Wakefield, to whom we think Mr. J. particularly alludes, as one of the moft intelligent advocates of this wild tale," gives a rendering of a manpwon, which would still better have fuited the impoftors (if fuch they were) than even the interpretation of which Mr. J. would make fo much. Mr. W. tranflates it, "fo that it was fulfilled." which, whatever becomes of the prophecy, establishes the fact. We have ftill before us three paffages to notice, which, confidering the learning displayed in this work, we are not at liberty to refer to any want of talents in Mr. Jones, to have interpreted the Greek more correctly. We cannot however help looking upon them as overfights, fcarcely pardonable in a work of this nature. At pp. 490, 491, vol. i, after citing a paffage from Epiphanius, relative to the Nazarene Chriftians in Egypt, he observes that, "in this paffage, two things are worthy of notice: 1. The Nazarene Chriftians in Egypt knew that Jefus was not only educated at Nazareth, but born at that place. They therefore rejected the story, which reprefents him as having received his birth at Bethlehem. 2. Because our Lord was born and educated at Nazareth, they affumed the names of Nazarenes. They therefore diftinguished themfelves by this appellation, in oppofition to thofe that referred his nativity to the town of Bethlehem; that is, they intended, by the very name which they adopted, as the followers of Jefus, to difcourage the ftory of his miraculous birth." We should probably have taken the pains to turn to this teftimony of Epiphanius, againft our Saviour's being born at Bethlehem, had not Mr. Jones himself candidly given us Epiphanius's own words in a note. They are as follow: Troles de αὐτὸν, Ναζάρετ ἐν γατρὶ ἐγκυμονηθένια, καὶ ἐν οἴκῳ Ἰωσὴφ ἀνατραφένια, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐν τῷ εὐαγγέλιῳ Ἰησᾶν τὸν Ναζωραῖον καλεῖσθαι τοῦτο τὸ ὀνόμα ἐπιτιθεασιν αΰτοις. Now here we certainly have the education of our Lord at Nazareth in terms; but we must beg to demur about the birth. We fould apprehend, ἐν γατρὶ ἐγκυμονηθένια only expreffed that he was conceived at Nazareth; and though it is not common to record the place of fuch an event in the hiftory of ordinary perfons, yet, if we turn to St. Luke's narrative of our Lord's birth, we fhall find it preceded by an account of his being conceived at Nazareth; fee ch. i, 26, 27, ch. ii, 4, according with the words (rightly rendered) of Epiphanius. But, fays Mr. Jones, this account of Luke's is an interpolation. Turn then to Mr. Jones himself; on the very page opposite to the conclufions he has drawn above, he himself thus tranflates the words of Epiphanius: " and as they knew he was conceived at Nazareth, and brought up in the house of Jofeph." This, therefore, was fuch an overfight as Mr. Jones ought to thank us for pointing out, and to correct in confequence. The next paffage that occurs is in vol. i, 96-99, in which we have much the fame fault to find with Mr. Jones's management of a citation from Photius. Photius's words are thefe, Speaking of the author of the book, περὶ τῆς τὸ παντὸς αἴλιας, referred by fome (and Mr. Jones among the reft, who draws in Photius whether he will or no) to Jofephus. σε Διεξείσι καὶ περὶ τῆς κοσμογονίας κεφαλαιωδῶς· περὶ μὲν τοῦ χρισοῦ, τοῦ ἀληθινὰ Θεῷ ἡμῶν, ὡς ἔγγισα θεολογεῖ, κλησιν τε αὐτὴν ἀναφθεγγομένος, καὶ τὴν ἐκ πατρὸς ἀφραςον yéveσiv åμ3μπтãs åvaypaQwv." Mr. Jones's tranflation is, "Of the creation of the world he gives but a fummary account; but concerning Chrift, who is truly our God, he speaks in terms very conformable to our theology: he gives him that very name, and unexceptionably defcribes his incomprehenfible defcent from the Father." Without quarrelling with this tranflation, nor even objecting, as we might do, to the evasive rendering of apasòv réveσly, we fhould fcarcely have thought Mr. J. after this, could have afferted, that the errors of this unknown author confisted in not believing We fhould have thought the believing the miraculous birth. expreflion, ὡς ἔγγιςα θεολογεί, had rather referred to points not mentioned, than to thofe fo confpicuoufly brought forward. Neverthelefs, Mr. J. tells us, "that it appears from the words of Photius, that the author, who ever he may have been, was fome Jewish convert, who did not believe the divinity or the fupernatural birth of Jefus. Concerning Chrift, who is truly God, he theologifes very near us-that is, very near those of the orthodox faith. The writer then was not quite orthodox." P.99. What, not when he "unexceptionably defcribed the appas Five in Пalpòs"? We fhould rather think otherwife; that, upon this particular point, he wrote ausulas, orthodoxly. We have only now to refcue the Trinitarians from a heavy charge thrown out against them, in confequence of a paffage the author has occafion to cite from Macarius. The latter, going perhaps a little too far in his interpretation of the dif puted paffage of Jofephus, writes thus: uzpropeï (Iwońnos) Tòr Χρισὸν, τὸν ἀληθίνον Θεον γεγόνεια, ἐνανθρωπησάνια τε, καὶ ςαυρωθένια, καὶ Titḥ Яuèpæ èye¡Ośúla." Upon which, Mr. J. has the following remark: "So induftrious, indeed, have the advocates of the Trinity ever been in its defence, that they have found proof for the divinity in the fufferings of Chrift, and inferred the perfections of God from the infirmities of human nature." 'It is plain here is a total overfight of one word in the Greek of Macarius; ivar@fwanσár, would, we think, fettle the whole point; as it in a great degree includes the miraculous conception and birth. Mr. J. perhaps was not aware of its true force; he was God before the affumption of the manhood, in which manhood he fuffered. We now take our leave of Mr. Jones. We fhall be happy if these animadverfions induce him to be more circumfpect in his future publications. He has not misled us, and we with him not to mislead others. But perhaps all, efpecially young perfons, may not perufe his writings with the fame neceffary referve as we have done. We cannot however conclude, without lamenting this ftrange perverfion of a mind, appa It should be obferved that, in Mr. J.'s tranflation, he puts a full period after "Theology;" where, according to the Greek, he should only put a comma; and inftead of beginning another sentence, it should connect thus, " giving him that very name, &c." rently |