« PreviousContinue »
tuary, of the father of the Baptist, certainly highly respected by him? It was connected with his own earliest history, and was still in the lively remembrance of his contemporaries.
The striking designation of place in the gospels, above noticed, finds also its satisfactory explanation, when compared with the account in the Protevangelium Jacobi. In chapter 24 of this work, it is stated, that the priests had found the blood of Zacharias παρά το θυσιαστήριου κυρίου. We might be in doubt, whether the altar of incense or the altar of burntoffering is here meant, as however in chapter 23, we read : αίμα εκχύνεις παρά (εις) τα πρόθυρα του ναού κυριού, the altar of burnt-offering must be understood, which is known to have been in the court of the priests : so that the designation of place in the Protevangelium agrees exactly with that in the gospels.*
As all the difficulties which stand in the way of the other expositions of this passage, disappear before the interpretation here recommended, so also there would be no reason to doubt the entire correctness of the account of Matthew. For although neither in the canonical nor apocryphal gospels is it mentioned, that the father of the Baptist was a son of Barachias, it certainly cannot be concluded, from this circumstance, that Matthew's account is not according to truth. On the contrary, it is rather inferable, even from our passage, that the father of this Zacharias was called Barachias.
It only remains for us to consider more particularly the
* The reading in the Protevangelium : pregi co brácpayua špovsúdn Zaxagias, found in the text, as given by Thilo, seems to be a corruption from the reading of other codices : aspi Tò dámauua, which is confirmed by Eustathius-compare Thilo as above quoted, p. 267. n.; for so diápgayua is, according to Zonaras, of like signification with sò jsdótoryov, which separates the court of the Gentiles from the court of the Israelites, and immediately after passing over the latter, one came into the court of the priests, at the duoiadrigoon—comp. Winer, bibl. Realw. ΙΙ. p. 675.-Moreover περί το διάφραγμα does not accord with the other designations of place above quoted. On the other hand, the reading megi sò diáwavua contains a very suitable designation of time, and seems to be a corruption only because the unusual word diapaupa was not understood.
parallel passage in Luke 11 : 50, 51, which seems, at first view, to be opposed to our exposition, but in fact contains a confirmation of it. Luke has not given the name of Zacharias' father, and hence many interpreters have concluded that the words viou Bapaxiou in Matthew are an interpolation. But the state of the case differs in respect to Luke and Matthew. Luke, for instance, in the beginning of his gospel, had particularly spoken of Zacharias as the father of John the Baptist ; he must therefore presume that his readers, on the mention of Zacharias again in chapter 11: 51, would think of no other person than the Zacharias already known to them, and consequently he subjoins no more exact designation of him. Whether the Lord himself, in his discourse, added or expressed the father's name, whether therefore Matthew or Luke is the more correct, it will be difficult ever to determine. It must suffice us to have pointed out, in the gospels themselves, the ground of this difference; and even from this source there seems to arise an argument of some weight for the jusiness of our view about Zacharias.
Another objection which might be raised against our view, out of the passage in Luke, is likewise shown to be unsupported. From the words çò aiua návswv Tūv a goonsãv v. 50, it is concluded that the Zacharias here mentioned must also have been a prophet. This is certainly true, but does not militate against our interpretation. For just as Abel, in a large sense, is enumerated among the prophets-compare Olshausen and De Weite—so can our Zacharias be also reckoned, of whom Luke, 1: 67, expressly says : xai Zaxagias ο πατήρ αυτου επλήσθη πνεύματος αγίου και επροφήτευσεν. Ιn Like 1: 6, also, he is called a dixalos, which exactly corresponds with the aiua dixasov of Matthew. But that the discourse here relales only, as De Welte thinks, to the occurrence recorded in the Old Testament, is an affirmation intended to favor his own interpretation. Indeed, the father of the Baptist was himself also a pious man under the Old Testament.
If, finally, it be asserted against our exposition, that those apocryphal accounts of ihe murder of Zacharias are adduced merely to illustrate the passage in Matthew, and especially the difficult words vioo Bagaziou, the assertion is altogether devoid of proof. In opposition to it, there is the authority of Origen, who would scarcely have given credit to a mere fable, and the antiquity of the Protevangelium Jacobi, which existed at a time when such inventions to favor the canonical gospels were perhaps scarcely thought of. Besides, the inventor, if his design had been to solve that difficulty, would scarcely have oinitted to designate the Zacharias mentioned by him, as a son of Barachias.
With this view of the matter, we cannot, with modern interpreters, attribute a slip of the memory to the evangelist, as long as a way is open for his justification, which presents so few difficulties.
Review of SCHMUCKER'S MENTAL PHILOSOPHY.
By Rev. C. P. Krauth, D. D. President of Pennsylvania College, and Professor of Intellectual
and Moral Science, Gettysburg, Pa.
Psychology, or Elements of a new System of Mental Phi
losophy, on the busis of Consciousness and Common Sense. Designed for Colleges and Academies. By s. S. Schmucker, D. D., Professor of Christian Theology in the Theological Seminary, Gettysburg. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1842. pp. 227.
It may be regarded as interesting to all who believe knowledge to be progressive, and that it is the duty of every generation to make some contribution to its increase, that there have appeared in this country recently, several works on the philosophy of mind. Ignorance and prejudice have manifested great distrust of this species of investigation. The opinion has been hastily assumed, either that ihe mind is too far removed from our reach to admit of examination, or that, after the researches which have been made, it can hardly be expected to yield any valuable additional results. Sympathy with such an opinion could not justify itself by any thing like adequate views of the phenomena of mind, or of the means in our possession, of inspecting and describing them. The more extensive our acquaintance with the results of the labor of eminent metaphysicians throughout the world in ancient times and in modern, the deeper will be our conviction
that their praiseworthy and toilsome studies, though they have conferred rich benefits upon all succeeding ages, have not accomplished every thing, but have left a terra incognita which makes ample room for the investigations of others. The translation of Cousin in this country and the metaphysical treatises of Professor Upham, the Psychology of the lamented President of Marshall College, Dr. Rauch, and now, the Mental Philosophy of Dr. Schmucker, may be regarded as convincing evidence both that the science of mind admits of additional elucidation, and that there is a demand for it. It is creditable to our country, and its literature, that so much has been done in this department, and done so well.
Much was anticipated, when, in the forthcoming Psychology of Dr. Rauch, a promise was given, that the metaphysics of the English Language should be incorporated with the German. Many, who had received but vague rumors concerning the metaphysical principles adopted in that land of profound learning, and deep research-Germany-who desired, to be initiated through the medium of our vernacular idiom, and by one who had rendered himself familiar with our modes of thinking and speaking on these subjects, into the explanation of the human mind, as given by Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Heinroth, Schubert, and others, hailed with joy the appearance of that work, a year or two since. How much was accomplished towards gratifying these desires, and what position the author will take amongst our metaphysicians, it is not our province now to deterinine. It may not be improper, however, to express the opinion, that reither they who have been lavish in their praises, nor they who have been heated in their condemnation of the work, have bit upon the proper medium. The Psychology of Dr. Schmucker comes before us, too, with peculiar pretensions, and raises in consequence of them, peculiar expectations. It may be asserted, that a system of metaphysics could appear under no more auspicious banner than that which is hung out by this. It professes to be the product not of the study of the patriarchs of the science, but of original examination of the mind, or, to express it in the wonted phraseology of the craft, the exercise of consciousness in regard to the author's mental operations. The propriety and the value of this method all the initiated will concede. Its difficulty has deterred many from undertaking it, and but few comparatively have pushed it to any great extent. But notwithstanding the magnitude of the undertaking, our author has, during years of patient study, ventured independently to analyze his own mental processes. The history of his procedure, and the classification of our mental actions are here given us.
Such a contribution, from such a mind, ought to be regarded as a present of no inconsiderable value.
The matter is viewed by us in this light. There are yet, after ages of study, dark places in the human mind. These are to be illuminated, not by compiling systems from Locke, and Reid, and Stewart, and Brown; not by new arrangements of old matter; not by additional beautiful illustrations of known truths, but by repairing to the mind itself, catching up and detaining its fleeting operations, and making them the subjects of thorough investigation. The author of this book, in the true spirit of the Baconian philosophy, discards for the time, the labors of others, and engages in proper efforts of induction, to obtain firmer footing. In pursuing this course he has not failed. Those who read his book, and we venture to predict that it will be extensively read, will not fail to perceive that he has planted his standard in advance of his predecessors. He takes his place among original aud independent thinkers, and deserves to be enrolled an honor which we would not allow to the mere compiler, or teacher of mental philosophy-among metaphysicians; with such men as Kant, Heinroth, Schubert in Germany, Locke, Reid, Stewart and Brown, in Great Britain.
His position may be ascertained by the following extracts from his preface. “About sixteen years ago, having been called to take charge of a Theological Seminary, he felt it a duty to devote particular attention to his instructions in this department, and formed a resolution, which has doubtless had, some influence on this system. He had considerable acquaintance with the patriarchs of British Metaphysics, Locke, Reid, Stewart, and Brown, as well as some few German authors; but neither of them seemed to present an entirely natural and satisfactory exhibition of his own mental phe
He then resolved to study exclusively his own mind, and for ten years, he read no book on this subject. During this period, he spent much of his time in the examination of his own menial phenomena ; and having travelled over the whole ground, and employed the leisure of several