Изображения страниц

2. The pronoun rendered myself, should rather be referred to the principal verb nuxorem as its nominative, than attached, as it is in the translation, to the infinitive ervai, which follows it.

3. The doctor observes, what will be familiar to every reader of Homer, that, though suxoj a means to wish, or pray for, it also means to glory, to profess, or avono, as something on which a man values himself. The great father of profane poetry constantly makes his heroes, and the various persons whom he introduces, suxsoduErvas, boast or declare themselves to be the sons of certain parents, or the natives of certain countries.

Thus, then, Dr. Bandinel would render the passage in its present connexion, including it in a parenthesis, as a very natural and forcible aggravation of the poignancy of the apostle's feelings for his brethren; namely, that he himself had once been all that they nowo were, and which he now perceived to be nothing short of being an accursed outcast from Christ, their long looked-for Redeemer, and from all the blessings of his salvation, though he, too, like them, had been so blinded as even to glory in that his sad state.

But how will the connexion agree with this interpretation ? This is a very important question, and the doctor has not overlooked it; he maintains that the contexture of the apostle's discourse is improved by such a mode of rendering as he has proposed. As the passage at present stands, there seems to be an air of inconsequence about it. The apostle's anguish of mind is set forth with peculiar care and prominence; but the objects of it, though fully noticed, are noticed only indirectlynot in connexion with his sorrow, but only with the wish, which he could find in his heart to form, of being himself accursed. But if the words are inclosed in a parenthesis, all flows on naturally and smoothly: “I have great heaviness, and continual sorrow in my heart—for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh." The parenthesis intervenes, and, in the most delicate and tender manner possible, points out the cause of his distress on their account, not by naming them as accursed from Christ, but only by naming the apostle himself as having been so, and therefore being capable of appreciating and deeply compassionating the misery of their state, who, it is implied, were now so situate. They might “glory” in holding no communion with Jesus, but this was in fact to be accursed outcasts from Christ (the Messiah) himself and all his blessings.

Thus, then, the passage will read : “I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart (for I myself once was, and even gloried in being, an accursed outcast from Christ) on account of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh."



187. “I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius, lest any should


that I had baptized in mine own name."-Ver. 14, 15. . According to this mode of translating, the apostle would not baptize any others, for fear it should be said that he baptized into his own name, that is, into his particular faith. This obscurity would vanish, however, if the words iva in TIS EITN, were translated, so that no one can say.

188. “For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God," &c. Ver. 21.

There is much diversity of opinion among the commentators as to the meaning of the phrase, “the wisdom of God,” in this passage, which is certainly difficult of interpretation. It seems evident that it cannot refer either to that perfection of the Divine Being so called, or to that wisdom among men which had God for its author : in neither of these senses would it suit the apostle's argument. We think, therefore, with Lightfoot, that there is an allusion to the distinction which the heathen philosophers had made between oogia ons QUOEWS, wisdom about natural things, that is, philosophy; and copia Tou tou, wisdom about God, that is, divinity. The meaning will then be, that the world, in its divinity, could not, by wisdom, know God :-a truth too familiar to every person conversant with history to need proof or illustration here.


189. “And did all drink the same spiritual drink : for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them: and that rock was Christ.”—Ver. 4.

" And they were supplied with drink from the spiritual rock which followed them, even Christ." Such, says Mr. Bloomfield, is the literal sense of the passage ; but it has perplexed the commentators not a little to show what is meant by spiritual rock which followed them. To remove the difficulty, some take it to denote, literally, the water thus miraculously drawn from the rock, which was conveyed miraculously through the desert. But this is embarrassed with many difficulties. It has been objected that there is no evidence of the fact, and water could not, in those parched countries, be preserved potable so long, without a perpetual miracle ; neither is it certain that axon, will admit the sense conveyed. Yet this seems to be proved from Ælian* (cited by Wets.) xai ollu και ύδως ήκολούθει το έκ τού Χυάσπου ; and so Judith xiii. 2. Nevertheless, on account of the above and other objections to which this interpretation is liable (which may be seen in Wolf), it seems to be untenable.

Others are of opinion, that the apostle has reference to some rabbinical stories, which relate that after the water had first flowed from the rock, it perpetually followed them afterwards through the desert. The rabbinical passages containing this notion may be seen in Wetstein and Schoettgen. But this is liable to numerous objections ;I and why embarrass ourselves unnecessarily with Jewish fables? Crellius, indeed, argues that “the water must have flowed with them, or other water must have been supplied by a new miracle; which, had it been the case, would have been recorded." That, however, does not follow : and besides, we know that it was obtained in time of need, and divinely furnished to them.

Upon the whole, the best founded interpretation Mr. B. thinks to be that of Calvin, and others, who understand the pivov &x mérgas, not of a natural rock, “ tanquam causa materialis (to use the words of Wolf) ex qua," but a spiritual rock, “ tanquam causa efficiens, a qua illa aqua et potatio profecta sit.”

This signification of éx is found in Matt. i. 20; John vi. 25, xvii. 3; Rom. xi. 36. And for examples of this signification Rosenmüller refers to Matt. xxi. 25; John i. 13; Rom. v. 16. “Here, therefore," Wolf observes, “ Christ, who with his omnipotent and gracious presence attended the Israelites, is represented as the author and fountain of the miraculously produced water.' And Krause remarks: “ This signal goodness of God was shown to them in the same manner on other occasions (compare Exod. xvii. 9; Numb. xx. 10); so that the water never failed them, but as it were, followed them. Hence by the usus loquendi, either popular or poetical, this rock might be represented axonouncai, for åxoyoudsiv signifies sequi, comitari.” This interpretation is, moreover, confirmed by the Greek commentators.

But if this interpretation be true, it requires that we should depart from the sense usually given to the words ń od gérga ñ o Xgrorós, “ This rock signified Christ," and, with the ancient commentators and many modern ones, understand Christ himself, who, according to the opinions of the Jews, invisibly accompanied the Israelites through the desert ;|| or suppose a metonymy, with this sense : " That rock, from which the water flowed, was a sign and indication of the Messiah present and assisting." This interpretation is supported by the authority of the ancient commentators.


190. “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.”—Ver. 10.

No passage in the sacred writings, perhaps, has given rise to so many conjectures and explanations as this verse. Merely to detail these would occupy by far more space than we can appropriate to the subject, and we must therefore refer such of our readers as desire an acquaintance with them to the commentators, particularly Dr. A. Clarke, Slade, and Mr. Bloomfield. Upon a passage so very obscure, and which has baffled the learning and ingenuity of most of the critics, some of whom have ingenuously acknowledged that they could not understand it, it will not be expected that we should speak with confidence; we will therefore only say, that of the numerous interpretations which have been given of the word isouria, porcer, we prefer that of Bishop Pearce, who understands it to be used by a common metonymy for its sign or token, which was a covering or ceil.

* Var. Hist., 12, 40.

See Wolf.

+ See Sbuckford; Wall, in his Crit. Not. 1, 106; and Macknight. || See the Targum on Isai. xvi. 1.

$ Blooinfield, in loco.



191. "Do ye think that the Scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? But he giveth more grace : wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.”—Ver. 5, 6.

This passage is very obscure, and has baffled the skill of every critic who has yet encountered it. One great difficulty is, that the words to which ń nga pol neyer belong, are not found in Scripture (though many commentators refer to Gen. vi. 3, 5, viii. 21; Numb. xi. 29; Prov. xxi. 10); to avoid which, some understand them interrogatively, taking the first clause as a general intimation of the infallibility of God; i. e., “Do ye think that the Scripture can speak falsely? or does the Spirit which dwelleth in us incline us to vehement envy and rage ?" The best commentators are agreed that yzaprt must refer to some passage of Scripture ; and Semler and Knatchbull fix on some apocryphal book, as Test. Simeonis, sect. 3, which treats of the baleful effects of envy. But the two passages have nothing common between them but the subject ; and to suppose an apocryphal book referred to as a passage of Scripture, says Mr. Bloomfield, is not to be thought of. Mr. Slade treats the words agos poóvovxáguv as parenthetical ; and he translates thus: “Think ye that the Scripture saith falsely (the Spirit that hath taken up his abode in us, resisteth and subdueth the feelings of envy, and gives us a more abundant supply of grace) ? wherefore this Scripture saith, “God resisteth,' &c." Or thus : “Does the Spirit, which has taken up his abode in us,

lust unto envy; yea, rather, it gives us more grace.” The latter mode is greatly preferable : indeed, the former (founded on a criticism of Schleusner) can by no means be admitted, as devoid of authority, and contrary to all analogy. One thing seems clear, that the words in question are the words of St. James, and that they must be divided into two clauses, each interrogative. As to the expedient of a parenthesis, suggested by Mr. Slade, it seems to be not only too arbitrary, but rather to tend to break

up the construction, and yet more obscure the sense. Mr. Bloomfield gives the preference to the first mentioned interpretation, which is ably supported hy Benson, who paraphrases thus: “Do you think the Scripture speaketh in vain, or without a very good reason, when it condemns such a worldly temper? No, that you cannot rationally suppose. Do you imagine that the Spirit of God, which dwelleth in us Christians, leadeth us to covetousness, pride, or envy? No, by no means. On the contrary, unto such as follow his guidance and direction, and excel in love, humility, and moderation, as to the things of this world, he showeth greater favour. Wherefore, the Scripture saith," &c. But perhaps no commentator has so happily and so briefly expressed the sense as the venerable Bishop Hall, ap. D'Oyley and Mant, as follows : “This the Scripture beateth upon every where; and do ye think it speaketh thus in vain ? Certainly every word thereof is to excellent purpose, and shall be verified upon us. Doth, then, that Spirit of God, which we profess to have dwelling in us, lust after envy, and envy the good things of others ? Surely not : so far is he from that, as that he giveth more grace where he hath given some already."*




" By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison."-Ver. 19.

Perhaps few passages in the New Testament have been more tortured than this, for the purpose of diverting the words from their plain and obvious meaning, lest it should be thought to countenance the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory. But the dread of consequences should not deter the commentator from his obvious duty, which is merely to exhibit or expound the sense of Scripture, and not to build up or demolish a system of divinity. It would be a waste of time to examine the various interpretations which have been offered of these words, but it may not be superfluous to ask the reader-since it may have the effect of guarding him against so common an evil in interpretation—whether he can conceive that (apart from all theological prepossessions) the following is the real sense of the apostle in this and the following verse : “ The inhabitants of the antediluvian world; who, having been disobedient, and convicted of the most flagrant transgressions against God, were sentenced by his just law to destruction. But their punishment was delayed, to see if they would repent; and the long-suffering of God waited one hundred and twenty years, which were granted to them for this purpose ; during which time, as criminals tried and convicted, they are represented as being in prison, detained under the arrest of divine justice, which waited either for their repentance, or the expiration of the respite, that the punishment pronounced might be inflicted ?" Away with such methods of treating the word of God, to which not only popish doctrines, but many other doctrines, also, might be easily traced up. Let the words of Peter be understood in their literal and obvious meaning, and we shall not be a whit the nearer to purgatory than we were before. Bishop Horsley has expounded what we believe to be the real sense of this important passage, and to his very interesting and able sermon we would refer the reader. After having fixed the exact meaning of the terms employed by the apostle, and shown that by the word Tveva in the preceding verse, and by which [rather, in which] our Saviour is here said to have preached to the spirits in prison, we cannot, if the construction of the passage be regarded, understand the Holy Spirit, but the human soul of Christ, which was quickened or preserved against the stroke of death by which his body had fallen, he proceeds to state what he conceives to be the design of Christ in visiting the abode of departed spirits, and also the substance of his announcement to them. The souls in custody, he remarks, were those “which sometime were disobedient," an expression which implies that they were recovered from that disobedience, and, before their death, had been brought to repentance and faith in the Redeemer to come. To such souls Christ went and preached. But what did he preach to them, and what could be the end of his preaching? Certainly he preached neither repentance nor faith ; for the preaching of either comes too late to the departed soul. These souls had believed and repented, or they had not been, as the bishop observes, in that part of the nether regions which the soul of the Redeemer visited. Nor was the end of his preaching any liberation of them from purgatorial pains, of which the Scriptures know nothing. But if he went to proclaim to them the glad tidings that he had actually offered the sacrifice of their redemption, and was about to appear before the Father as their intercessor, in the merit of his own blood, this, says Bishop Horsley, was a preaching fit to be addressed to departed souls, and would give new animation and assurance to their hope of the consummation, in due season, of their bliss; and this, it may be presumed, was the end of his preaching.

193. “The like figure whereunto, even baptism, doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."-Ver. 21.

Wesley better translates this verse : “ The antitype whereof, baptism, now saveth us (not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ;" that is, he well observes, through the water of baptism we are saved from the sin which overwhelms the world as a flood; not, indeed, the bare outward sign, but the inward grace; a divine consciousness, that both our persons and our actions are accepted through him who died and rose again for us.

No. III.




§ 1. Polyglott Bibles.

BIBLIA SACRA POLYGLOTTA, complectentia Vetus Testamentum, Hebraico, Græco, et Latino

idiomate ; Novum Testamentum Græcum et Latinum ; et Vocabularium Hebraicum et Chaldaicum Veteris Testamenti, cum Grammaticâ Hebraicâ, necnon Dictionario Græco : Studio, Operâ, et Impensis Cardinalis Francisci Ximenez de Cisneros. Compluti, 1514-1517: 6 vols., folio.

This great and valuable work was begun and carried through the press at the expense of Cardinal Ximenes, whom it is said to have cost about 50,000 ducats. The various texts are thus disposed : the Hebrew, Latin, and Greek, in three distinct columns, and the Chaldee paraphrase, with a Latin interpretation, at the bottom of each page. The margin is filled with the Hebrew and Chaldee radicals. Various disputes have arisen as to the authenticity of the MSS. consulted in forming this edition : it has been asserted that the Hebrew text has suffered from the capriciousness of the editors, and that the Greek text was frequently interpolated according to the Latin Vulgate, which emendations could not be found in Greek MSS. In addition to this charge, may be added, that of altering the Greek according to the Hebrew. But both these accusations have been proved to be groundless by Michaëlis (Orientalische und exeget. Bibliot., vol. ix., p. 162, and xii., 120); and Eichhorn (Einleitung ins N. Test., vol. i., p. 351).

The learned Cæsar de Missy charges the editors with having antedated the New Testament, jealously aspiring to appear as earlier editors of so notable a work than Erasmus, whose edition was published in the beginning of 1516. Mr. de Missy has not, however, supported his assertions with any conclusive arguments; we, therefore, incline to think, with Mr. Dibdin, that he was mistaken in his conjectures. Cardinal Ximenes, whose favorite object was the completion of this Polyglott, did not live long after it was finished. He died in 1517, leaving behind him an unblemished character and an unspotted reputation. He was one of those great men who appear, as comets, but for a time; and he was one of the very few whose memory has been cherished and revered by all parties and all nations. Six hundred copies of his Polyglott were struck off on paper: it was not published until 1522, at the price of six dollars and a half-a large sum at that time. A copy is now worth from £30 to £60, according to its condition. Only three copies are known upon vellum; that belonging to Pinelli, said to be Cardinal Ximenes's own copy, was sold to M'Carthy for £483; and, at his sale, produced 16,000 francs. Another copy on vellum is in the Royal Library at Madrid, and the third at Turin. The British Museum has a copy on paper, as also the following colleges: CAMBRIDGE, the Public University Library, Trinity, King's, Queen's, and Corpus Christi :Oxford, All Souls, Queen's, St. John's, and the Bodleian ; Sion College Library also possesses a copy.-Crit. BIB. BIBLIA SACRA POLYGLOTTA, Philippi II. Hispaniarum Regis jussu edita ac impressa ; curâ

Benedicti Ariæ Montani. Antuerpiæ Plantinus, 1569–1572. 8 vols., folio.

This splendid work, generally known as the Antwerp, Spanish, or Royal Polyglott, was edited by Arias Montanus, and printed by the celebrated Plantin, at the instigation and expense of Philip II. of Spain, as the title indicates; it contains the whole of the Complutensian edition, besides a Chaldee paraphrase of part of the Old Testament, which Cardinal Ximenes did not introduce in his edition, for particular reasons yet unknown, but deposited the MSS. in the theological library at Complutum. The New Testament has the Syriac Version, and the Latin translation of Santes Pagninus, corrected by Arias Montanus. The volumes were published at different periods; the first five comprising the sacred text, and the last three a large number of philological and other tracts. As there were only 500 copies of the work struck off, it is rare, and proportionately dear. A good copy is worth from fourteen to eighteen guineas. BIBLIA SACRA POLYGLOTTA, Studio Guy Michaëlis Le Jay, Parisiis, apud Antonium Vitray,

1628_1645. 10 vols. fol. max.

This is, without question, the most splendid Polyglott extant, and utterly ruined its disinterested patron. Ít comprises all that is in the Complutension and Antwerp Polyglotts, with the addition of à Syriac and Arabic Version of the greater part of the Old, and of the entire New Testament. It contains also the Samaritan Pentateuch, with a translation of it into the Samaritan language. There

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »