Imágenes de páginas

are sorry to see the negative errors, the defects, of the original, left in statu quo. We are sorry, not because the few omissions sensibly detract from the practical utility of this little volume, or render it pernicious; but because it sets the author's sentiments on some important points in a questionable light, or rather darkness. We shall not go into a discussion of the principles involved, nor inquire how far Professor Gibbs's views are variant from our own. We need scarcely state it as our doctrine, that if Christianity is the religion of both Testaments, there must be Hebrew words and phrases which imply their identity in this respect; that if the testimony of Jesus is indeed the spirit of prophecy, if Moses and the Psalmists did indeed write of him, it is inconceivable that every word in the Old Testament can be fully explained without á syllable of reference to him, or what he taught. This we maintain upon “philological principle.” Lexicographers acknowledge themselves bound to resort to every method of eliciting the true sense and the full sense of the language. Hence ihe appeal to analogy, to contexts, to the usus loquendi, and to critical authority. Now in carrying out this principle, we think it not unreasonable to allow the Saviour and inspired apostles, at least as high a place, among interpreters of Scripture, as the Talmudists and Rabbins. Maintaining, as we do, upon divine authority, that Christ was not unknown to the believing “elders,” but that all who of old were justified, were justified by faith, we cannot suppose that he is never mentioned in the very record upon which their faith was founded, or only mentioned év å vigyuatı. We do not say that Professor Gibbs maintains this, but we do say that he has not made the contrary apparent, and has let slip opportunities of stating his dissent upon this point from Gesenius. We have as yet seen nothing in his Manual to which that

learned infidel' might not subscribe. The most conscientious Jew might use it without scruple. Now this is what we stumble at. It is not because Professor Gibbs thinks thus or thus, that we are startled, but because he thinks precisely as Gesenius does, so far as we can discover what he ihinks at all. We do not mean, of course, that he goes as far, but that he goes no further. He has nothing to add, though he finds much to reject. Now it is so very rare for two accomplished critics to agree in all points of interpretation, even when in doctrine they are only not unanimous, that we cannot but marvel at this coincidence of judgment between a Trinitarian and a German


Deist. Be it remembered, that we now refer simply to what appears upon the face of the record. It may be, that Professor Gibbs has reached the same conclusions by legitimate deduction. It may be, that he believes on philological principle, that SPIRIT OF God was never meant to convey to the pious Jew the remotest intimation of any thing more than “the lifegiving breath or power of God in men and animals, which moved over the chaos at the creation, and operates through the universe, and produces whatever is noble and good in man, by making him wise, and leading him to virtue, and by guiding him generally; but that it is especially applied to extraordinary powers and gifts.” (Manual, p. 200.) ) It may be that his own researches have convinced him that Son Of God is only applied to angels or inferior gods,” or “to servants and worshippers of God," "to kings and magistrates,” as such, (p. 12) for this is no new doctrine. It may be, that, aside from all example and authority, he thinks it proper to explain the word Messiah without even hinting at the coincidence between that term and Christ, and indeed to exclude from his volume all allusions to the existence of a later and a better dispensation. All this, we say, may be the fair result of personal inquiry, and as such it calls for refutation, not for censure or complaint. But what surprises us is the appearance of uniform agreement with Gesenius, and the fact that some of the definitions upon these important points are taken unaltered from articles, the object of which is to explain away the inspiration of the Scriptures and the truths of revelation. Can the detached parts of a rotten system be so uniformly sound? We have not forgotten, in the course of our remarks, that sentence of the preface, which informs the reader, that "the plan of this work excludes all supposititious meanings resting only on inference and analogy." This explanation might have satisfied us, had we not perceived that some meanings are excluded as “supposititious," which to us seem direct and as clear as noon-day, while others are inserted which are not even founded upon inference and analogy, but rest on mere conjecture. The only reason that we can assign for the distinction is, that Gesenius rejects the former and admits the latter. His inconsistency can be explained on other principles than those of mere philology: Of the omission, we have already given specimens. of the unauthorized insertions (unauthorized, we mean, by the rule laid down in the preface) an instance may be found upon the last page of the book. SHIPS of Tarshish, literally means ships either bound or belonging to Tarshish. We are told, however, that the phrase denotes large merchant ships bound on long voyages (perhaps distinguished by their construction from the common Phænician ships) even though they were sent to other countries than Tarshish." Is this self-evident? It is worth while just to trace the operation of the principle in this case, and the more as it has no bearing upon controverted doctrines. Professor Gibbs's definition we have given above, and are entitled to conclude, on the strength of his assertion in the preface, that it rests on other grounds than those of inference and analogy. On turning to Gesenius, we find this significant expression in a parenthesis, “wie Indienfahrer oder Grönlandsfahrer in der heutigen Schiffersprache.” What is this but analogy, remote analogy? We also read that this interpretation, so familiar to Gesenius, was wholly unknown to the author of the Chronicles! What is this but conjecture, sheer conjecture? Is the conjecture of Gesenius to outweigh the authority of Christ and his apostles? Is the analogy of modern sea-slang a safer guide than the ANALOGY OF FAITH? We do not dispute the ingenuity or truth of this interpretation, nor object to the means by which it has been reached. But if there may be deflexions from a philological principle, why not deflect upon the side of truth as well as that of falsehood? Why should Gesenius and Professor Gibbs, at variance as they are in theological opinion, break their own rules in perpetual unison?

These things are individually slight, but they have a tendency-remote it may be, yet direct-iowards the fatal error of believing, not because a thing is true, but because it is asserted, and of suffering the acknowledged merits of a school or system to protect its vices. All that we ask is, that this hackneyed charge against the use of creeds and articles, may be applied, with even-handed justice, to philological principles and modes of exegesis. Let every Christian scholar ask and answer for himself, whether the Synod of Dort and the Westminster Assembly were not quite as trustworthy as the Ordo Theologicus of Goettingen or Halle; whether Augustine and Calvin ought not to have as fair play as Eichhorn and Gesenius; and whether, if after abjuring all idolatrous dependence upon fathers and reformers, we should fill their empty niches with the rationalists, and pyrrhonists, and pantheists,

of Germany, our last state might not possibly be worse than the first.

We need scarcely add, that our remarks derive whatever weight they may possess, from their applicability to future works, of which we look for more than one from the same authoritative quarter. There is one thing which we wish to see Professor Gibbs at work upon-an original and independent lexicon, upon the larger scale. Original, we mean, in reference to matters, upon which he is as competent to legislate as Gesenius himself; independent, as to form, plan, manner, and disputed points. The public would be glad to hear such scholars speaking in their own voice, and uniting firm consistency of doctrinal belief with a becoming deference for critical authority. We do neither say nor think that these are not united in Professor Gibbs; but we do say that the fact is not apparent in his writings. We are therefore the more impatient for a work which shall distinctly tell us what so competent a judge does, or does not, himself believe. We wish it for the sake of his testimony in behalf of truth, and for the sake of those whose first impressions, as to some important principles of biblical philology, may be derived from him.

The work before us we can honestly commend, both to students and to scholars. To the former it is almost indispensable; to the latter it must needs be very welcome. Aside from the faults which we have shown it to have in common with its celebrated model, the one merely formal, the other merely negative, and affecting scarcely half a dozen articles, the plan is a good one and admirably executed. This, we believe, is the first specimen of Hebrew printing from the New Haven press. May the streams of this fountain be perennial, copious, and, above all, pure!


Review of The New Divinity Tried;" or, An Examina

tion of the Rev. Mr. Rand's Strictures on a Sermon delivered by the Rev. C. J. Finney, on making a new Heart. Boston. Pierce & Butler, 1832. pp. 44.

We learn from this pamphlet, that the Rev. Mr. Finney delivered, sometime last autumn, a sermon on making a new heart, founded on Ezek. xviii. 13. The Rev. Mr. Rand, being one of his auditors, took notes of the discourse, which he published, attended with a series of strictures, in a periodi. cal work of which he is the editor. As these notes, in the judgment of Mr. Finney's friends, presented an imperfect view of his sermon, one of their number obtained the outline used by the preacher himself, and sent the requisite corrections to Mr. Rand, who availed himself of the aid thus afforded. The notes and strictures were afterwards published in a pamphlet form under the title, “The New Divinity Tried.” It is the review of this pamphlet, by an anonymous writer, of which we propose to give a short notice.

We are not prepared to justify the course pursued by Mr. Rand, in thus bringing Mr. Finney before the public without his knowledge or consent. The considerations which evince the general impropriety of such a step are obvious, and are forcibly stated in the Review. That there may be cases in which the evil produced by a popular preacher constantly presenting erroneous views in his discourses, is so serious, that the usual etiquette of literary proceedings should be sacrificed in order to counteract its influence, we do not doubt. Nor do we question that Mr. Rand felt the present to be such a case. As the publication has not only been made, but noticed by the friends and advocates of Mr. Finney, there can be no impropriety in our calling the attention of our readers, for a few moments, to the contents of this Review. It is an elaborate production, distinguished both by acuteness and research, and pervaded by a tone of moderation. These are its favourable characteristics. On the other hand, it is lamentably deficient in open, manly discussion. Instead of a clear and bold statement of the distinguishing principles of the New Divinity, and a frank avowal of dissent from the Old Divinity of New Eng

« AnteriorContinuar »