תמונות בעמוד
PDF
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

“To the way of the Gentiles go not off,
“And to a city of the Samaritans go
not in,
“But proceed rather to the lost sheep
of the house of Israel.
St. Matt. x. 5, 6.

“This is a gradation in the scale of national and religious proximity: the Gentiles, the Samaritans, Israel. In the remaining terms, there is a correspondent progress: the way or road to foreign counties; a city of the Samaritans; the house of Israel, a phrase conveying the notion of howe: go not off, go not from Palestine towards other nations: go not in to a city of the Samaritans, though in your progresses between Judea and Galilee, you must pass by the walls of many Samaritan cities: but however great your fatigue, and want of refreshment, F: rather not merely to the house of Israel, but to the lost sheep of that house. Thus by a beautiful gradation the Apostles are brought from the indefiniteness of a road leading to countries remote from their own, and people differing from themselves inhabits, in language, and in faith, to the homefelt individual and endearing relation*hip of their own countrymen, children of the same covenant of promise, and additionally recommended to their tender comPassion as morally lost.” P. 314.

2. The Epanados or introverted parallelism.

“The Epamados is literally a going kick; speaking first to the second of two "jects proposed, or if the subjects be more than two, resuming them precisely * the inverted order, speaking first to the *t, and last to the first." P. 335. “To ov, xonorotarz

{4 Kal arorogia, Osov'

to "Boku row, rigorras, arorepias'

Eri 3, zi, xonarornra.
REMEMBRANCEF, No. 29.

“Behold therefore the gentleness, And the severity of God: Towards those indeed who have fallen, severity, But towards thee, gentleness.” Rom. xi. 22. “ Gentleness at the beginning; at the close gentleness; this espanados speaks for itself.” P. 34?.

3. The Euphemism.

“In a former section, the following observation of Bengel on 8t. Matt. vii. 24. was quoted: “Salutaria Deus ad se refert; mala a se removet.” This benevolent decorum, as I there observed, may be accounted a kind of Euphemism, and may be exemplified from other parts of the New Testament:” P. 363.

“El 3, 0.2a, § Oso, toğaoğa, rmy opyvy “Kao yopical ro ovnarow avrov, “Holyxov is roxan waxposukia “2xivn opyn; warnprawswa. “; aroslav; “Kao wa yopian toy waavtor to: 3oëns actoroty Earl oxivn sasovo & orton rouaou, so 36%ar. But what if God willing to manifest his wrath, And to make known his power, Hath endured with much long-suffering The vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction? And that he may make known the riches of his glory “On the vessels of mercy, whom he hath before prepared for glory? Rom. ix. 22, 23.

4.

“This passage is in many respects parallel with the last example (Matt. xxv. 34-41.) and as such it has been adduced by some commentators. The vessels of mercy are prepared by God for glory : the vessels of wrath are fitted (it is not said by God) for destruction. S. Chrysostom in loc. says: warnpriapirov sig a Traxstay, Tours arr; roy armstowevor, six00sy, worrow, was rap' sayrov “fitted for destruction, that is the person fitted from within (domestically and by himself.)" The entire observations of this father in this passage (Op. tom. ix. p. 616. edit. Montf.) may be read with advantage.— "warnpriapoiwa, to arrasasia, qui suam sibi permiciam contrahunt, accipiendum enim warnpriaposva, voce media, s, reciprocà, ut Actor. xiii. 48.’ Rosenmuller in loc.. So the English translation of 1729, “that had been working out their own destruction.” If xarnfrewswa be taken as the passive voice it means “fitted by their own wickedness' or perhaps with Wolfius we may

Q q

understand several concurrent causes : “Man himself, the devil, the world, bad example, inveterate habits, &c.'.... “Respecting the phrases xztofriousna. sk awwassa, and & Toonrolazzi, is 30&ay, I would observe that they are more than simply antithetical: preservation or deliverance would have been a sufficient counterpoise for destruction: but the predispositions of God are indefinitely bountiful: HE PRE PAREs for Glony.” P. 869.

In Matt. x. 33. the Euphemism is most properly avoided, and its avoidance is one among many presumptive proofs of the accuracy with which the Evangelists have recorded our Lord's discourses.

4. Coordinate reasons independently assigned.

“It sometimes happens in the parallelisms of the New Testament that a precept is delivered, an assertion made, or a principle laid down, coordinate reasons for which are independently assigned, without any repetition of the common antecedent, and without any other indication of continued reference to the original proposition, than the repeated insertion of some causative particle, a TAP for instance, or OTI, a FOR or a BECAUSE.

“. This peculiarity of construction has not altogether escaped the notice of commentators; but I am not aware that it has ever been closely examined, or systematically exemplified. A few instances of it therefore drawn together and observed upon, may, I trust, be of some use to those students who are desirous in reading Scripture to trace with accuracy the connections and dependencies of the sacred text.” P. 375.

IIowoko, to orano, cor was 0-pies,' ‘OTI wabi, wra row Bifida, 'OTI orpa on 30 figuo; two y”. “Put forth thy sickle and reap, “For the season of reaping is come * For the harvest of the earth is ripe. Rev. xiv. 15.“The last two lines are by no means wonymous: the reasons assigned for reaping are distinct and progressive, 1. The proper season for reaping is come: 2, The entire harvest, the harvest of the earth is ripe, is dried up or withered, and therefore demands the sickle." P. 387.

5...The Sorites.

“ In a former section there occurred a specimen, four lines of which much resemble a logical sorites, the predicate of each

preceding line becoming the subject of the line next in order.” “ In him life was: And the life was the light of men, And the light shineth in darkness, And the darkness did not comprehend it." St. John i. 4, 5.

That the merits of this volume cannot be appreciated without an attentive perusal, will now be admitted by every reader, who has observed the method in which the theory is constructed. 1. The fact is proved, that parallelism of various kinds is the distinguishing character of the poetry of the Old Testament. 2. It is shewn that in quotations more or less simple, which occur in the New Testament, this distinguishing parallelism is scrupulously retained; and from extracts progressively lengthened the same character is traced in the original writings of the Evangelists and Apostles: and lastly it is shewn that other distinguishing figures of Hebrew poetry, also prevail in the New Testament. Having carefully established these points, and generally by examples quite unexceptionable, the author is privileged to take a wider field, and to assume a more decided character: and the reader will not now be of fended in learning, that in Mr. Jebb's judgment, the three hymns of the Virgin, of Zacharias, and of Symon, are Hebrew poems. The first is considered as a personal thanksgiving, for personal blessings, founded on the model of the personal hymn of Hannah: the second as a national hymn for national benefits, , and therefore adapted to the National Liturgy, or the Psalms: the third is founded upon grounds of Catholic joy, and collected from the Catholic promises of Isaiah. We will exhibit the hymn of Zacharias as arranged and translated by Mr. Jebb, with the introductory comment.

“The dramatic or dialogue form, which pervades the Book of Psalms, admits of considerable variety; its leading characteristic, however, is an alternate succession of parts, adapted to the purpose of alternate recitation, by two semi-choruses

in the Jewish worship. With this character of composition Zacharias must have been familiar, both as a pious and literate Jew, much conversant with the devotional lyric poetry of his country, and as an officiating priest, accustomed to bear his part in the choral service of the temple. And it appears to me that the true meaning, and even the grammatical construction of this hymn cannot be satisfactorily elucidated without resorting to the conclusion, that it was composed in that alternate form so familiar to his mind, and so deeply associated in his heart, with all lis inost cheerfill and most sacred recollections. I suppose therefore that the hymn of Zacharias opens with a poem or grand chorus, declaratory of its general subject contained in the first line: and then immediately subdivides itself into two semichoruses, resembling those distributed between the officiating priests and Levites in the temple service. I further suppose, that each part or semichorus forms in itself a distinct continuous sense, incommiscible with the sense of the alternate or responsive strains of the other part or semichorus: insomuch that by reading the whole ode as one undivided poem, neither the meaning nor the grammar of it can be rightly comprehended; while by uniting the scattered part of each semichorus taken separately from the other, so as to form two distinct consecutive divitions of the poem, the sense of each will be distinctly apparent, and the grammatical construction of the whole will be freed from every embarrassment. Nor should it be omitted, that such alterations of sense are frequent in Hebrew poetry. ... I will now produce the hymn distributed on the principle just laid down, and I shall then endeavour to establish by suitable observations, the propriety and advantage of this distribution. “ St. Luke i. 67–79. “And Zacharias his father was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, say

ing, * Chorus. “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel! 1. * Semichorus. “For he hath visited (his people.) “ 2. Semichorus. “And he hath effected redemption for his people. “ 1. Semichorus. “And he hath raised up an horn of salvation for us In the house of David his servant. ** 2. Semichorus. “As he promised by the mouth of the saints His prophets from the beginning;

* 1. Semichorus. * Salvation from our enemies Even from the liand of all who hate us. * 2. Semichorus. “To perform mercy toward our fathers, And to remember his holy covenant, The oath which he sware unto Abraham our father Of giving us without fear delivered from the hands of our enemies. To serve him in holiness and righteousness Before him all the days of our life. “ 1. Semichorus. “And thou, babe, shalt be called a prophet of the most High, For thou shalt go before the face of the Lord To prepare his ways: * 2. Semichorus. “Of giving knowledge of salvation to his people, By renuission of their sins; * 1. Semichorus. “Through the tender mercy of our God, Whereby the dawning from on high hath visited us, To shine on those who sit down in darkness, and the shadow of death. “ 2. Semichorus. “Of guiding our feet in the way of peace.”

The reader by combining the separate parts of each semichorus, and by referring to the Greek Testament, will perceive that by this distribution, the continuity of the sense is preserved, and various difficulties of ihe original construction are removed. He will also perceive that this arrangement of the hymn does not very materially differ from the amoebaean form in which it is printed in our Liturgy, and recited in our Churches, and that the alternate recitation, rather illustrates than obscures, rather consolidates than distracts the true sense and meaning.

That the appearance of Mr. Jebb's book will expose it to many objections, and that the novelty of his plan will excite many, prejudices there can be no doubt: but most of these prejudices and exceptions will be obviated by a candid perusal of the whole volume. When the surprize of a first introduction is overcome, it will be found to contain nothing to perplex or disturb the

reader's faith: the scepticism, the levity, the presumption and generalizing philosophism of the German divines (and the extravagant temerity of Wakefield) are frequently and justly reproved, and while their merits are candidly stated, and recommended to the use of the experienced and practical theologian, the attention of the novice is directed to the purer and sounder writings of the English school, and he is advised not to neglect Parkhurst, or to be misled by the fashionable authority of Schleusner and Spohn. Even the corrections of Griesbach are upon occasion disputed, and the author in some few instances endeawours to rectify or establish the received text, on the ground of the parallelism, by which in concurrence with other evidence a text may be supported, but which alone would not warrant any alteration, for in the Hebrew poetry there is no metre to assist the amendment, and indeed by the fanciful and fluctuating systems of the choric metres, it is more easy to vary the arrangement of a line, than to establish the authenticity of a word. But these are incidental matters, unconnected with the principal argument, of which the most distinguishing character is the new distribution of many passages of the New Testament, from which the author labours, not to introduce any new interpretations, but to throw additional light on former expositions, ancient and modern, to place in the clearest view the antitheses and comparisons which abound in the Scriptures, and to shew, what a Christian will always delight to contemplate, their uniform harmony and consistency. The chief tendency of the work is to delight, to recreate and instruct the Christian scholar, who is required to bring to the study of it, not extensive information on the subject of which it treats, which at present is extremely limited, but a mind imbued with a love of sacred literature, and sufficiently accomplished to relish and enjoy its va:

[ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

and most exalted of those who refused to take the oath of allegiance to King William. But this is all that the generality of our countrymen know respecting Sancroft; unless they happen to recollect the invidious remarks which are scattered here and there in Bishop Burnet's Own Times, and which prove him to have been neither an impartial nor an infallible historian. That he should dislike and undervalue Sancroft was natural and excuseable. And if the expression of these feelings had been confined to pamphlets written for the passing hour, or had been qualified upon more mature reflection by an admission of the Archbishop's merits, it would not have affected the character of the celebrated writer from whom it proceeds. But Burnet reviewed and completed his history in old age, and almost in retirement, when passion and prejudice might have been expected to subside, and he ought to have perceived and acknowledged the merits of a prelate, who had been dead nearly twenty years, and who had died in obscurity and almost in poverty, rather than disobey the dictate of his conscience. No such acknowledgment is to be found. The Nonjurors are always described as looking to the restoration of King James; and this expectation, and not conscience, is represented as the source of their conduct. Sancroft is even charged with an undue desire to accumulate a fortune for his nephews; and this charge which might have been believed at the time that it was written, but had been effectually disproved before Burnet reviewed his history, is suffered to remain, and to disgrace not its object but its author. Without the least inclination therefore to assent to the exaggerated criticisms of Swift, we must still pronounce the ishop an unfair and partial writer; and rejoice that the fame of San‘soft has found in Dr. D'Oyly a "indicator, to whom the public will

listen with attention, and who cannot fail to make good his cause. Nor is it the character and conduct of Archbishop Sancroft alone, which our historians have induced the public to neglect or undervalue. The entire body of the Church of England, comprising not merely the clergy, but a large proportion of the laity also, had a share both in the revolution and in the events which preceded and followed it, that has never been duly appreciated by our popular writers. Hume confines himself to a detail of the facts, and to an occasional sneer at the interested motives and inconsistent conduct of the clergy. Rapin is more impartial ; but his remarks are few, and he pinned his faith too exclusively on the Whigs. Burnet omits no opportunity of stigmatizing and misrepresenting that large part of the Church from which he differed, and other writers are rather to be considered as materials for the historian, and as sources of information to the inquisitive, than as possessing any influence over the public mind. A life of Sancroft affords the means of entering upon this neglected subject ; and though we doubt whether Dr. D'Oyly has availed himself of it as extensivel as he might have done, yet his wor is well calculated to awaken curiosity; and he has pointed out the sources from which the necessary information may be derived. The history of the Nonjurors deserves to be rescued from obscurity. Their ranks contained many of our most eminent divines: their controversies were carried on with piety, with learning, with eloquence, with logic, and with wit: and the names of Kenn and Kettlewell, of Hickes and Collier, of Leslie and Nelson, can never be forgotten by the Church of England. These celebrated men were encountered by opponents of no ordinary stamp. Their political principles were directed not only against the republican systems of Milton and Sydney, but likewise

« הקודםהמשך »