« PreviousContinue »
nate, but by the Cæsars themselves, into those provinces which were situated on the confines of the empire, and were placed at the emperor's own disposal. Their duties consisted in collecting and remitting tri. bute, in the administration of justice, and the repression of tumults : some of them held independent jurisdictions, while others were subordinate to the proconsul or governor of the nearest province. Thus Judea was annexed to the province of Syria.' Vol. I. pp. 72–73.
There is evidently an inaccuracy in the Author's statement (Vol. 1. p. 39,) that the direct descendants of Abraham, by Isaac and Jacob, without any mixture of Gentile blood or language,
persons ' termed by St. Paul ““ Hebrews of the He• brews.” (Phil. ii. 5.) and “ Israelites” as opposed to the • Hellenistic Jews, or those who, in the dispersion, having lost the knowledge of the Hebrew tongue, used the Septuagint • Greek version of the Old Testament.' A Hellenistic Jew was certainly an Israelite. The Apostle Paul appears to have used the Septuagint version. The terms Hellenistic and Hebrew are clearly opposed to each other, Acts vi, 1, but they are evidently applied to persons who were Israelites. The privileges of the Hebrews of Hebrews' are not, as Mr. Horne supposes, enumerated by St. Paul in his epistle to the Ro
mans,' ch. ix, 4, but the privileges of the Israelites. The Apostle's heaviness and continual sorrow of beart were occasioned by the infidelity of that whole race,-of Hellenistic Jews as well as those to whom that description may not apply.
In his account of Jewish proselytes, Mr. Horne very properly remarks that there does not appear to be any foundation in Scripture for the distinction of proselytes of the gate and proselytes of righteousness, so strongly asserted by some writers, particularly by Lord Barrington and Dr. Benson. But he is not correct in stating, p. 102, that St. Paul expressly prohibited *the continuance of circumcision among those who were of • Jewish origin. The passage to which he refers in proof of this position, 1 Cor. vii. 18, is directly in favour of the contrary opinion. The Apostle prohibited the imposition of the rite only on Gentile converts ; and since it cannot be supposed that he would by his practice contradict his own authoritative declarations, bis circumcising Timothy is an unquestionable proof that he did not expressly prohibit it in the case of persons of Jewish origin who had embraced Christianity. Mr. Horne himselt has l'emparked in another part of his work, that until the abrogation of the canonical law by the destruction of the temple, the Apostles allowed circumcision to be performed by [on] the Jewish converts to Christianity.' See p. 101.
The accounts of the Jewish priests, and their respective functions, of the Synagogue service, of the sacrifices and offerings, and of the sacred festivals, are well executed : in the descrip
tions of the latter we would particularly notice the details respecting the passover, as higbly instructive and creditable to the Author's piety. Ainsworth's learned and interesting notes on Exodus xii, ought to have been included in the references on the last article. The account of the Jewish Sects, p. 165, &c. is concise, yet sufficiently extended to give the reader a clear and satisfactory view of their distinctive peculiarities; and from the details, p. 187, &c. on the Jewish and Roman modes of computing time, he will obtain very important assistance towards the explanation of a multitude of passages in the sacred books. Did our limits allow, there is scarcely a page in the whole of the first part, which might not be quoted in proof of the Author's care to conduct his undertaking in the most respectable manner : --but we must proceed with our analysis.
The second part of this Introduction, which treats of the In. terpretation of Scripture, commences at page 198, and occupies the remaining portion of the first volume. The following excellent remarks taken from the beginning of the chapter on . the Senses of Scripture,' are peculiarly deserving of the serious attention of our readers.
Although in every language there are very many words which admit of several meanings, yet in common parlance there is only one true sense attached to any word ; which sense is indicated by the connexion and series of the discourse, by its subject matter, by the design of the speaker or writer, or by some other adjuncts, unless any ambiguity be purposely intended. That the same usage obtains in the sacred writings there is no doubt whatever. In fact, the perspicuity of the Scriptures requires the unity and simplicity of sense, in order to render intelligible to man the design of their Great Author, which could never be comprehended if a multiplicity of senses were (was) admitted. In all other writings, indeed, besides the Scriptures, before we sit down to study them, we expect to find one single determinate sense and meaning attached to the words ; from which we may be satisfied that we have attained their true meaning, and understood what the authors intended to say. Further, in common life, no prudent and conscientious person, who either commits his sentiments to writing or utters any thing, intends that a diversity of meanings should be attached to what he writés or says : and consequently neither his readers, nor those who hear him, affix to it any other than the true and obvious sense, Now, if such be the practice in all fair and upright intercourse between man and man, is it for a moment to be supposed that God, who has graciously vouchsafed to employ the ministry of men in order to make known his will to mankind, should have departed from this way of simplicity and truth? Few persons, we apprehend, will be found, in this enlightened age, sufficiently hardy to maintain the affirmative.*
**On this subject the reader may consult M. Winterberg's Prolusio de interpretatione unica, unica et certæ persuasionis de doctrina reli
The necessity of urging such considerations as these upon the mind of every reader of the Scriptures, but more especially on those engaged in explaining to others the word of God, is unfortunately but too apparent. That sober and cautious method of proceeding which is adopted uniformly in other cases, where there exists a solicitude to understand the literal and definite meaning of an author, is in this case but too frequently abandoned; the imagination, or rather the fancy, being permitted to indulge without control, its irregular caprices. Thus, passages without number are exhibited as teaching a doctrine, or as bearing a relation to circumstances which were at the greatest possible distance from the mind of the inspired writer, while the real meaning of his words is completely lost sight of. Is it not obvious that in proportion as the fancy is allowed this office of interpreting the Scriptures, their authority is discarded? So long as the meaning of the sacred penmen, in the words and phrases which they have employed, is not, with the reader or with the preacher, the first and direct object of investigation, the proper duty which all persons owe to the Scriptures is neglected. Such directions and cautions as the following, which are explained and illustrated in Mr. Horne's pages, will greatly assist the serious inquirer in his endeavours to investigate the sense of the Scrip
1. The most simple sense is always that which is the genuine meaning. 2. We should be more willing to take a sense from Scripture than to bring one to it. 3. Although the plain, obvious, and literal sense of a passage may not always exhibit the mind of the Holy Spirit, yet it is ordinarily to be preferred to the figurative sepse, and is not to be rashly abandoned, unless absolute and evident necessity require such literal sense to be given up : instances of the exceptions under this last rule are also produced Spiritual interpretation is not abandoned by the Author: he has included under it the allegorical, the typical, and the parabolic senses, and defined it in the following manner :
• Where, besides the direct or immediate signification of a passage, whether literally or figuratively expressed, there is attached to it a more remote or recondite meaning, this is termed the mediate, spiri. tual, or mystical sense :* and this sense is founded not on a transfer of
gionis veritate et amicæ consensionis caussâ, in Velthusen's and · Kuinels Commentationes Theologica, Vol. iv. pp. 420_438.'
*"“ Dicitur mysticus,” says a learned and sensible Roman Catholic writer,“
a rew, claudo ; quia licet non semper fidei mysteria comprehendat, magis tamen occultus et clausus est, quam literalis, qui per verba rite intellecta facilius innotescit." Adami Viser, Hermeneutica Sacra Novi Testamenti, pars ii. pp. 51, 52. See also Jahn's Enchi. ridion Hermeneuticæ Generalis, pp. 41, 42; and Van Mildert's Bampton Lectures, p. 222.'
words from one signification to another, but on the entire application of the matter itself to a different subject. Thus what is related literally of the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham in Gen. xxii. is spiritually understood of Christ.' pp. 201, 202.
Is this example strictly unobjectionable? Mr. Horne might easily, we think, have selected one more appropriate.
The principal arguments usually urged for and against the vowel points, are stated pp. 229—234, and the judgement of the Author is delivered in opposition to their alleged antiquity and authority: a punctist, however, would perhaps hardly be disposed to express his satisfaction with the statement as it regards his side of the question. We were rather surprised in turning over the next leaf, to find Mr. Horne's estimate of Hebrew Lexicons.
. 2. Lexicon with Points.--Stockii Clavis Linguæ Sanctæ Veteris Testamenti, (8vo. Lipsiæ 1753) is a work of great value and highly esteemed, but unfortunately it is very dear. The
The same remark is applicable to Simonis Lexicon Hebraicum et Chaldaicum, by Eichorn, (8vo. 2 vols. Halæ, 1793), and also to Dindorf's Novum Lexicon Linguæ Hebraico-Chaldaicæ, in five parts, forming two large octavo volumes (Lipsiæ, 1801). More cheap, and consequently to be preferred, is Mr. Frey's Hebrew, Latin, and English Dictionary, Svo. 2 vols. in which every Hebrew and Chaldee word is arranged under one alphabet, with the derivatives referred to their proper roots, and the significations are given in Latin and English, according to the best authorities.'
We were surprised at meeting with this comparative estimate of the preceding works; in the first place, because the reason assigned for the preference here given, is not a correct one, each of the other works being considerably cheaper than Mr. Frey's work; and secondly, because each of the preceding Lexicons is in point of utility immensely superior to his. The “Simonis “ Lexicon,” by Eichorn, may be purchased for less then one third of the subscription price of Frey's Dictionary, and the former is beyond all comparison the more valuable publication of the two. As much may be said in favour of the other two works, which are also much less costly than Frey's Dictionary, a work indeed which, were it of the lowest price, we should not wish to see in the hands of a person for whose solid proficiency in Hebrew we bad the least concern.
In the section on the Greek language of the New Testainent pp. 237–247, the reader will find a selection of the most judicious remarks from various authors who have treated on that important .subject, with lists of the principal Oriental and Latin words and phrases used by the writers of the Christian Scriptures. The Cognate languages, damely, the dialects immediately derived from the primitive language, including the Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabie, are very briefly noticed in the subsequent section, and
the uses to which they may be applied for the illustration of the Bible are described. Among these dialects, too little use has, we apprehend, been made of the Chaldee and Syriac, by translators and expositors of the sacred writings, and it is a circumstance which cannot fail to awake surprise, that so many of the Hebrew students should have totally neglected them. This omission has, doubtless, in numerous instances, originated in the difficulty of procuring the necessary means of proceeding in this branch of philological study. The possessor of a Polyglot Bible may indeed with ease lay both the Targums and the Syriac version under contributiou to enrich his Hebrew erudition, but Polyglots are not every man's purchase, “ Non cuivis homini contingit adire Corinthum.' We have not forgotten the service rendered to Biblical literature by Dr. Blayney's publication of the Samaritan Pentateuch in a separate volume of low price ; and we should think that the present professor of Hebrew atOxford, would not go without his reward in the thanks of many à poor but diligent and improving student of the sacred writings, if he were to take upon himself the labour of conducting the Targúm of Onkelos through the press, in a manner similar to the work of his predecessor. The Syriac Bible must probably be sought from another quarter.
· The Cognate languages are of considerable use for illustrating the sacred writings. They confirm by their own authority a Hebrew form of speech, already known to us from some other source : they supply the deficiencies of the Hebrew language, and make us fully acquainted with the force and meaning of obscure words and phrases, of which, otherwise, we must remain ignorant, by restoring the lost roots of words, as well as the primary and secondary meanings of such roots ; by illustrating words whose meaning has hitherto been uncertain, and by unfolding the meanings of other words that are of less frequent occurrence, or are only once found in the Scriptures. Further, the Cognate languages are the most successful if not the only means of leading us to understand the meaning of phrases or idiomatical combinations of words found in the Bible, and the meaning of which cannot be determined by it, but which, being agreeable to the genius of the original languages, are preserved in books written in them. Lastly, the knowledge and diligent comparison of the Cognate dialects with the Hebrew will also materially contribute to illustrate its analogy and structure.' Vol. I. p. 250.
The account of the ancient versions of the Old Testament, extending from p. 254 to p. 296, and that of the ancient versions of the New Testament, from p. 296 to p. 306, are drawn up with considerable skill, and will put the reader who is not yet initiated into that part of Biblical learning, in possession of a body of interesting information. In these accounts, a critical History of the Septuagint, and of the Biblical labours of Origen given at some