clusion of the answer of Glaucus to Diomede, who had demanded to know who he was,-whether he was a god or man.-Ibid. 123, 128, 142. To this Glaucus replies :— 145. Τυδείδη μεγαθυμε, τη γενεην έρεείνεις ; Οἵη περ φύλλων γενεη, τοιηδε καὶ ανδρων. Φυλλα τα μεν τ' ανεμος χαμάδις χεει, ἄλλα δε θ' ύλη Ως ανδρων γενεη, ᾗ μενφύει, ἡ δ' απολήγει. Εἰ δ ̓ εθελεις καὶ ταυτα δαημεναι, οφρ' ευ ειδης He then traces his genealogy from Sisyphus, the son of olus, through Glaucus, Bellerophon, and Hippolochus; and concludes,— Ταυτης τοι γενεης τε και αίματος ευχομαι ειναι. Thus he informs Diomede that he was yevens avèpwv,—a man; and that he might be the better assured of it, οφρ' ευ ειδης ἡμετέρην γενεην, he proves to him his descent from Sisyphus, ὅ κέρδιστος γενετ' ανδρων, line 153; being αίματος Σισύφοιο, he was γενεης ανδρων. This is the application and force of yɛvens in the line which "H." has adduced; and it evidently gives no authority for his interpretation. Glaucus himself has described the meaning in which he used it; and the line, ὡς ανδρων γενεη, ἡ μεν φύει, ἡ δ' απολήγει, which so beautifully expresses Solomon's pathetic and simple declaration, γενεα πορεύεται, και γενεα έρχεται, Eccl. i. 4, is decisive. And yet, if we were even to admit that this beautiful passage from line 145 to 151, did not determine the sense of yɛvens in the 211th line, it cannot be maintained that the word has in this latter place the meaning of tribe or nation, or of family or kindred, in such an extent as would be applicable to Luke, xxi. 32, &c. Taking the word with its connexion merely from the 151st line, it would not signify more than parentage, genealogy, or family, in nearly its most limited sense. It is therefore, I conceive, abundantly manifest, that is not any sufficient authority whatever for taking yɛvea, in Luke, xxi. 32, &c., in any of the senses given under Schleusner's second class. We will inquire what authority there is for taking it to signify "a generation of contemporary men." 1. The New-Testament writers never use it in any other sense, unless it be in the kindred and almost identical sense, derived from it, of "the space of time occupied by a generation of contemporary men." 2. Our blessed Lord never elsewhere either uses the word in any form but in the sense of a contemporary generation, or uses the expression, yɛvea aurn, but to signify the generation of his own contemporaries. 3. In the sense of " a generation of contemporary men," the passage will have a definite, intelligible, and consistent meaning,-I mean in a critical point of view; the consistency of this meaning with fact being reserved for future notice. 4. It cannot be taken in any other sense, those above noticed at length being destitute of authority here, and the others, as given by Schleusner, being inapplicable, except perhaps that of " the space of time occupied by a generation of contemporary men," which would come to the same thing. Having thus disposed of the leading and direct critical objection of "H.," I shall now briefly notice the elucidation of "G. F." This writer thinks that the whole difficulty is produced by a false translation of yɛvŋraι, which, he says, ought to be translated, not "fulfilled," but "commence," or "begin to take place." And he supports this by the following reasons-1. That " he cannot find it to be used in the sense of fulfilled, either by the writers of the New Testament or Septuagint." 2. That it " is by no author used to denote the final and complete accomplishment of a prophecy embracing all the circumstances that are described, but the beginning." 3. That St. Luke, in i. 20, "did use the word in a sense to denote the commencement of a prophecy."* To this I answer:-1. That the word "fulfil," is used in our Bible, not only to express the accomplishment of a prophecy, but as synonymous with "do;" of which this very text, as it is given in St. Mark, is an instance. It is there read, "till all these things be done;" but in the two other evangelists, "till all these things be fulfilled." And yevηraι is often used in that sense of "be fulfilled," which is synony. mous with "be done," or "have come to pass," &c. 2. It is not to be expected that yɛvnraι should be "used to denote the final and complete accomplishment of a prophecy; though yɛvnoɛra is once used in that sense, 1 Cor. xv. 54, "Then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory," TOTE Yεvnσεται ὁ λογος ὁ γεγραμμενος. And in another place it is used to denote the performance of every "jot and tittle of the law." (Matt. v. 18.) When the accomplishment of a prophecy or of the law is spoken of, Anрow, or TEλEw, is the proper word; but when the performance of the things prophesied of, or required in the law, is spoken of, yiroμai is the proper word. And when the things prophesied or required are done, γενηται: the prophecy or the law is fulfilled, επληρώθη. This is the distinction between γινομαι and πληροw or τελεω : and it is plainly pointed out in the passage from St. Luke, i., to which "G. F." refers, where the angel says, εση σιωπων-αχρι ἧς ἡμέρας γενηται ταυτα, ανθ' ὧν ουκ επίστευσαι τοις λόγοις μου, οιτινες πληρωθησονται, using γενηται with ταυτα, the things spoken of, and applying πληρωθησονται το λόγοι. This distinction is also as strikingly and clearly marked in Matt. v. 17, 18, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil (aλa λnpwoα). Verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (anavтa yɛvηtai). And our blessed Lord does not say, in Luke, xxi., &c., "This generation shall not pass away, till this prophecy be fulfilled," but ɛwç av тavra, or, as * Brit. Mag. No. xxxiv. pp. 391, 392. "till all these things it is in the other evangelists, παντα ταυτα, γενηται, be done, or have come to pass." 3. That the argument of "G. F.,” from Luke, i. 20, would require that the dumbness of Zacharias should have ceased at the conception of John, for that was the commencement of the accomplishment of the prophecy; whereas he continued dumb until after the birth of the child, the rejoicing of the neighbourhood, and the circumcision and naming of the child. These things were done, or came to pass, eyevɛto: and these are the things to which the angel referred, when he said, αχρι ης ημερας γενηται ταύτα, had informed Zacharias that his "prayer was heard;-that Elizabeth The angel should bear him a son ;—that he should call his name John ;-that he should have joy and gladness;-and that many should rejoice at his birth. And the other things mentioned by the angel are mentioned as the reasons of that rejoicing of many, and are not included in his γενηται ταυτα. 4. That if" G. F." will take the concordances of Trommius and Schmidt, and proceed to apply his meaning of "commence" or "begin to take place" to yevra in the different places where it occurs, he will soon be convinced, with every other Greek scholar, that his theory is altogether untenable. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, PAULUS SENESCHALLUS, INTERCOURSE BETWEEN THE EASTERN CHURCHES AND SIR,-If "D." will turn to Skinner's History of the Church of Scotland, vol. ii. pp. 634-639, he will find a solution for the mystery of the letter from the Eastern Patriarchs to the Catholics of Britain, to which he called our attention in the last. Those catholics were not, as he conjectures, Romanists, but Nonjurors, between whom and the Eastern churches a treaty of union was in agitation from 1716 to 1725, under the express approval of the Czar Peter, and through the medium of Arsenius, Metropolitan of Thebais, who was in London. The last communication which was received from the East is dated 1723, and is signed, among others, by three of the patriarchs, (Jeremias of Constantinople, Athanasius of Antioch, and Chrysanthus of Jerusalem,) whose names are appended to the inscription which "D." has cited. The papers are stated to have been deposited in Lambeth. The subject is well worthy attention at the present time, when it seems not improbable that some opening may be afforded for renewing communications with our eastern brethren in the faith. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, ALPHA. PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN PARIS, FOR CELEBRATING THE WORSHIP OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND IN THE FRENCH LANGUAGE. SIR,-On the cover of the British Magazine for August I saw a notice signed by Mr. Gourrier, relative to a proposed chapel or church to be erected in Paris under the above designation. The persons for whose use it is designed are stated to be partly Anglo-Gallicans, the result of mixed marriages, and partly native French. As episcopacy without a bishop is something like lucus, a non lucendo,' and only calculated to throw ridicule upon the subject, I am anxious to know under what bishop the proposed church and its minister are intended to be placed? I see the names of several most respectable clergymen of the church of England mentioned as "cordially recommending" the proposed scheme. Perhaps one of them will be so good as to inform your readers upon this point, as no bishop's name appears upon the paper. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, A PRESBYTER OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH. [BISHOP TAYLOR'S] CONTEMPLATIONS ON THE STATE OF MAN. SIR, Will you allow me to thank your correspondent "Mr. Marriott," in your November No., p. 533–4, for his obliging offer of the MS. in his possession, which he supposes to be the original draught of the Contemplations on the State of Man." I hope to avail myself of his offer to inspect it, when I am able to come to town; but it can hardly be the original he supposes, inasmuch as "Mr. Marriott" states its date to be 1693, and the Contemplations first came out, according to Bishop Heber, in 1684. May I at the same time make one or two additions and corrections to my former letter on this singular treatise? 1. "Echebar, who reigned in Mogor," I find from Purchas' Pilgrimage, (book v. chap. vi.) where his name and title are similarly spelt, to be the same with Akbar, the third of the Mogul dynasty 1555-1605. The "king of Narsinga," or Bisnagar, is also exhibited with all his titles by Purchas, (Ibid. chap. xi.) by whom he is called Vencapatadinus Ragiu Devamaganus Ragel;" from which array of sonorous words I am unable to extract his true oriental designation. Purchas, who wrote before Sir Thomas Roe's embassy to Selim Jehangire, the successor of Akbar, in 1614, refers for his information about these Eastern princes chiefly to Spanish and Portuguese missionaries and voyagers, whose mode of spelling he follows. But it is singular that an English writer should adopt it nearly a century later, when our settlements at Surat and Bombay, and Dryden's "Aureng Zebe," had made the name of " the Great Mogul" familiar to English ears. The book to which the author of the Contemplations refers, in a note appended to this part of his treatise, is "Jarrici Thesaurus Rerum Indicarum," printed at Cologne in 1614-16. Pierre du Jarric was a French jesuit, who published his work first in French at Bordeaux, 1608. The Latin translation was made by Martino Martinez, a Spanish jesuit, author of "El Atlante Chinico," and other works on the jesuit mission in China, published in the early part of the seventeenth century. This reference may help to fix the date of the treatise; and possibly, if any of your readers know where to have access to the work of Jarric, it may further illustrate this part of it. It is remarkable that of four modern authorities, the only moderu authorities referred to in this singular treatise, three at least are jesuits : Christopher Clavius, "the mathematician," p. 484, who is said to have been employed by Gregory XIII. in the reformation of the calendar; Leonard Lessius, p. 515; and the work of Du Jarric or Martinez just mentioned. Who is meant by the fourth, "Jo. Gaiter in Peregrino," p. 491, I am not yet able to discover. 2. I was mistaken in saying that Jeremy Taylor has no mention of the doctrine of guardian angels. In the Epistle Dedicatory to his Discourse on Confirmation, vol. xi. p. 225, he speaks of it as a pious supposition held by some wise and good men, but on which he gives no decided opinion of his own. 3. "The sensitive knowledge of the humanity of Christ," p. 505, seems to be a notion closely connected with the doctrine of transubstantiation. See the close of Massillon's sermon "Sur les Dispositions à la Communion." 4. The four gifts of glory" to the bodies of saints, p. 478, and 507, 8-viz., clarity, agility, subtilty, and impassibility, are often mentioned in Romish hagiography: e. g., the jesuit Eusebio Nieremberg speaks of Loyola as having enjoyed these gifts before his translation. 5. There is a singular scholastic phrase, p. 465, of the Deity "making choice of one amongst an infinity of men possible." I have seen it debated in a treatise by a Spanish jesuit, whether the Deity is subject to possibility, like the creatures, or independent of it! But such notions or questions are remote enough from the character of English theology. 6. "The city of Quinsay, which contained fourscore millions of souls," p. 421, calls forth no suspicions from Bishop Heber. I should guess, not that we should read "myriads," as Heber proposes, but that the writer, copying from some Italian or Spanish missionary, mistranslated the numeral "millares" for "millones. But possibly he might have found what he writes. There is a famous story of the city of Grand Paytiti in South America, which was said to have been of some such dimensions; it contained many thousands of Christian converts, streets paved with gold, &c.; being all the while as real as Cuckoo-cloud-land. In short, this treatise appears to me to be of no English original. The language is often defective; the allusions to manners and customs are of other countries. I am confirmed in my supposition that the author is a Romanist, by the opinion of one of the ablest living judges; and I think it very possible that the original may be shortly discovered. From the strong resemblance to the "Hell Opened" of the jesuit Pinamonti, as given in your Magazine for December, 1836, it VOL. XIV.-Oct. 1838. 31 |