« PreviousContinue »
nishes a clear and forcible argument in favour of bis interpretation of the preceding verses." And yet this is a 'small thing in thy sight, () Lord Jehovah! Thou speakest with regard to the family of thy servant even to a long futurity: and this is the law of The Man (0787, the Adam, i. e. the new federal chief; i Cor. xv. 45.] O Lord Jehovah.” We still more regret the absence of any notice of the prophetic " last words of David,” in 2 Sam. xxiii. which Dr. Kennicott has so
Dr. H. tak restored and illustiii, which brine prophetic - Jaki
Dr. H. takes high ground in uniformly rendering the con. stantly recurring expression in the Old Testament, as the word of Jehovah,” by the ORACLE of the Lord ; and applying it to the personal and eternal Logos. We wish he had brought together his reasons in a condensed form, so as to have satisfied us of the propriety of this canon of criticism, before its ap. plication was regularly assumed. The following passage is the nearest approach to such evidence that we have found, except one in Vol. 1. p. 317, which is rather a statement, than a proof, of jhe position. .
• It [1 Kings xix. 9.] demonstrates the personality of the Oracle of THE LORD, who seems to have appeared in a human form at first to Elijah, and afterwards in glory; and also the propriety of rendering DABAR LAHoh, not " the word of the Lord," as in the English Bible, which is frequently confounded with the wrilten word, but the ORACLÉ OF THE LORD, as expressly rendered by St. Paul in this place, ó Xpruce Titmos, the ORACLE, Rom. xi. 4. whom he elsewhere calls the SPEAKER, ó sarūv, Heb. xii. 25. because hancur de Fúpata TOŬ , “ he speaketh the oracles of God," John iii. 34. And so should the synonymous terms, á Aéyos, John i. 1. &c. é sóyos toữ @saữ, Rev. xix. 11. &c. Przece @soữ, Heb. xi. 3. (taken from the usual renderings of Dabar lahoh throughout the Septuagint version) be translated the ORACLE, &c. p. 426.
Dr. H. seems not to have considered that xpnuatiouds, like all verbal substantives of the same derivation, (from the preterperfect passive) must have a passive signification, and cannot be applied to an agent without violating the analogy of language. This support of his position seems, therefore, to fail; and, if we had other and sufficient evidence of the position itself, we should still object to the using of the term Oracle for the purpose of Dr. H. It denotes the matter delivered as a divine message, or the place in which it is delivered ; but it cannot properly signify the speaker. :
Dr. Hales is singular, and, we fear, unfortunate in rendering 1998, (Adonai) “THE REGENT,” as he uniformly does. He refers, indeed, to one of his former works, in which, he says,
* Vide the passage at length in Eclectic Rev, Vol. II. Part I. p. 12.
he has • shewn the propriety of this translation ; but this is not dealing handsomely with the purchasers of these heavy quarto volumes, of whom few can be presumed to be in possession of the Dissertations referred to.
He concurs with some of the ancients in considering the Orebin, who sustained Elijah when he concealed himself from the wrath of the impious Ahab, as being the natives of the country, and not “ ravens,” according to the general supposition. We have no objection to this gloss, on the principle pleaded by Dr. H. (nec Deus intersit; &c.); but it would have been sarisfactory if he had answered the arguments of the sagacious Bochart, in defence of the common interpretation.
We are gratified with the observations of our author on the history of Cyrus the great, confirming the reasonings of our learned countryman, Hutchinson, in support of the credibility of the leading facts in the Cyropædia, and the improbability of the narrative given by Herodotus. At the same time we must remark, that this circumstance ought not to be turned to the account of those who have charged the father of history with malignity and designed falsehood. He lived too near thie period of the Persian war to gain information unaltered by Grecian animosity. But Xenophon's opportunities, in the service of the younger Cyrus, were in the highest degree favourable to the collection of accurate materials. .
Io his illustration of the prophecy of Haggai, ch. ii. 6-9. Dr. H. justly reproves the modern and disgraceful facility of relinquishing important interpretations of passages, however well supported, in favour of some novel gloss of far less evi. dence, but fashionable, because it is anti-evangelical, and because it yields a sense perfectly nugatory to any purpose of doctrine or religious practice. On an instance of this kind in Archbishop Newcome's Minor Prophets, our learned author observes:
• There seems to be an alarming propensity in some modern expositors of 'scripture, to relinquish evidence the most tenable, on the first suspicion of its authenticity; either through indolence, because they will not search the scriptures thoroughly; or through an affectation of candour, and freedom from prejudice. Such weak and injudicious concessions from the friends of religion, are more injurious and mischievous than the open attacks of its enemies: the pestilence that walketh in darkness is more for.' midable than the arrow that flieth in the noon day.' p. 516. .
To the criticispi and interpretation of the NEW TESTAMENT, Dr. H. has paid distinguished attention. His observations are often judicious and useful; but sometimes they disappoint us by the omission of subjects reasonably to be expected, and too generally they tire by their prolixity.
In treating on the origin of the first three Gospels, he supports the opinion of Griesbach and Townson, that Mark compiled his gospel from those of Matthew and Luke, with the exception of about four-and-twenty verses, wbich contain facts not recorded by either of his predecessors, but illustrative of the general subject. p. 667. With the utmost respect for
names of such anthority, we fear that the requisites of the · case are not answered by this hypothesis, though it is less ob
jectionable than the unsatisfactory and too complex one of Professor Marsh. It is not sufficient to account for the verbal coincidences: the verbal differences, also, in the relation of the same fact or discourse, must be provided with a solution. In an inquiry of so much doubtfulness, and yet interesting to the Christian as well as the scholar, we shall be excused if we propose a theory, which, in our judgement, possesses more ad. vantages and fewer embarrassments than any other with which we are acquainted. It appears to avoid the charge of derogating from the sacred character and inspiration of the evangelists; it demands no violent conjectures, but only such suppo. sitions as few will deny to be in a high degree probable; and it seems sufficient to account for all the phenomena.
The great objects of the apostles, in their official labours, were, first, to convert men to the faith and obedience of Christ; and, next, to inform and edify those who were, from time to time, converted. In discharging the duties of the second class, the apostles would be solicitous to communicate, as the converts were deeply concerned to know, all suitable details relative to the actions and discourses of the Lord Jesus, We have a clear, though quite incidental, proof of the circulation of such information, in an instance not recorded by any one of the evangelists, in Acts xx. 35. The relations thus given would be of various matter, according to the topic of immediate instruction; and they would comprehend one or more anecdotes or discourses, as the judgement of the inspired relator might dictate the propriety of selection. We need not remark on the value of such relations, from those who had been “the eye witnesses and attendants of the Word," and who had the promise of his unerring Spirit to “ bring all things to their remembrance. Within the confines of Judea, the apostles would usually deliver their discourses in SyroChaldaic, the current language: in other places they commonJy spoke the Alexandrian Greek.
It is not probable that any of the apostles, during the first few years of their labours, would commit to writing any large, accounts. But they might, on request, write down such or such a particular relation or discourse of their Divine Master. Or some one of their hearers or disciples wrote those re.' lations from their mouths. In each of the communities of Christian converts which they formed, it may be presumed that one person, at least, was competent to do this. The revision of the particular apostle from whose dictation the record had been written, would be solicited, whenever opportunity permitted. Thus a number of detached portions, some very brief, and others longer, some in Syro-Chaldaic, but most of them in Greek, would obtain justly the credit of apostolic sanction; and would be preserved, read, copied, and reverenced accordingly.
The application of this hypothesis is easy. To the evangelists, Mark and Luke, who were not apostles, they were invaluable. It may be presumed that they would diligently collect them, that they were able fully to appreciate their authority, and that they would introduce into their respective narratives those which they knew to be of indubitable authenticity. Some of these fragments might have been inserted by St. Matthew himself in his original gospel; or some of them might be select extracts from his work, or Greek translations of them. It is evident that a large part of the gospel of Luke consists of detached anecdotes, not even connected by a succession in the order of time, and it may be inquired whether the 'Amounuoveu Ma TOO TW STOCTówv, mentioned by Justin Martyr, were not fragments of this valuable and authentic description. :
From the whole, we venture to suppose, that, where we find continued verbal agreements in the three, or in two, of these sacred writers, there we are reading an apostolic Greek fragment, which each possessed, and faithfully inserted; and that, where the coincidences are not verbal, but lie in the order of clauses and sentences, each evangelist had before him a copy of the same Syro. Chaldaic fragment, and that be translated it for himself.
We have looked in vain for a solution of the difficulty in Luke iii. 1. relative to the year of Tiberius; and yet such a subject was certainly more to be expected in this chronologi, cal work than the theological criticism with which it is filled, The history of the woman taken in adultery, and the doxology in Matt. vi. 13. are largely commented on, but without any notice of the question upon the genuineness of those pas sages. The passage in the copies of Josephus, usually called his testimony concerning Christ, is zealously maintained to be genuine, but with no force of argument that we can discover, and without even an attempt to remove the weighty objections against it. Dr. H. contends, that external baptism is regeneration; but, from a variety of better sentiments avowed in his work, we hope that he sincerely believes, and practically enjoys, the renewing and purifying influences of the Holy Spirit.
Iu his interpretation of the prophecies yet to be accomplished, our author finds matter for the most melancholy forebodings. We cannot help supposing that he is unacquainted with those more encouraging signs of the times which cast many beams of light across the gloom of national difficulties; or that, from some unworthy prejudices, he is unwilling duly to appreciate them. He anticipates the deepest depression of the pure religion of Christ, and the triumph of infidelity, popery, and persecution ; and he terrifies himself with the picture of the British empire, and its now free and favoured metropolis being the seat of the last and most dreadful persecution. The subject is too serious to be trifled with ; but we can scarcely forbid a smile in discovering that the most dismal presages of our hastening woes are drawn,-not from the profligacy and immorality of the high and the low ranks of our countrymen ;, not from the guilt of the blood of millions sacri. ficed at the shrine of war; not from the prostitution of holy institutions, not from the number (we thank God that we hope it is daily diminishing, and the opposite class increasing) of clergymen who deny and revile, under pretence of refuting, the doctrines to which they have solemnly subseribed; not from the ignorance of the poor who perish for lack of knowledge ; not from the perversion, by scandalous peculation, of the noble provisions made by parliament for the instruction of the benighted and superstitious population of Ireland ;-not from such causes as these does Dr. H. sound his alarm,but on account of the spoliation of church lands at the Reforma. tion, the alienation of tythes in some instances, and a composition for them in others, the increase of itinerant and lay preachers, the admission of papists in Ireland to the elective franchise, and, as the last and most terrible calamity of all, the removal (should it ever take place) of all penalties and disabilities from those whose consciences or whose prejudices will not allow them to conform to the church by law established !
. . . . - Dr. H. concludes the present portion of his work by a la- • boured attempt to maintain the doctrine of the Chiliasts, of a “ first resurrection” of the martyrs and other saints, and their exercising a visible and earthly reign with Christ, as their secular Monarch, for a thousand generations (as our author conceives) previous to the final and universal judgement. To this sentiment, though a favourite with many, we cannot but entertain objections. The fons erroris, in the case, seems to be an unchristian opinion on the nature of true glory. Men, too much attached to the splendour of wordly greatness, have seen little to attract them in the beauties of holiness, the glories of à general conversion of mankind to the knowledge and prac