Изображения страниц

not save angels, but saved the human race.* Both doctrines are true. The question is, Which of them is taught in this text?

In view of the following considerations, the mind of the writer settles down confidently in favour of the former of these interpretations, and, of course, in opposition to the latter.

1. The definition of étlaapßávetai. True, this is not decisive. This middle verb, in the New Testament, signifies to take : for what purpose, can only be determined by the connexion. It may be for the purpose of succouring, as in Matt. xiv, 31; or for the purpose of imprisoning, as in Acts xxi, 33; or it may mean take in order to hold or detain for one's self,—i. e., to accomplish one's own ends by the thing taken,—as 1 Tim. vi, 12, 19. It should be remarked, however, that the last-named, or reflexive meaning, is the characteristic meaning of the verb in the middle form. So far, then, as the definition of the word determines anything, it is strongly in favour of the received text.

This view is much confirmed by the parallel passage in Phil. ii, 7: "And took upon him (außúv) the form of a servant.” Here the idea of assumption is undoubted, yet the radical expresses that idea less distinctly than the compound verb.

2. To use this verb here in the sense of taking hold of to save, diverts the mind from the main point in view in this chapter, which is, not the relative nature that Christ saved, but the relative nature which he assumed. The first chapter of 'Hebrews is devoted to the divine, the second to the human nature of Christ. In the latter we are informed that the manhood of Christ was predicted ;t that it was necessary to assume this nature in order to effect the ends of his advent; and particularly that these ends required identity of nature between the Saviour and the saved, "the sanctifier and the sanctified.”ll And now it is in the midst of this train of argument that the sixteenth verse is introduced, and very appropriately, if the sense of the common version is adopted—that Christ took not on him the nature of angels, but of men. Whereas to stop here, and state that Christ saved men in contradistinction to angels, were entirely foreign to the writer's purpose, and interrupts the tenor of remark to lug in a thought which is not suggested either before or afterwards in any part of the epistle.

3. Again, it must be borne in mind that it is of the holy angels They, of course, approve the rendering given in the margin of our English Polyglott, viz., “He taketh not hold of angels, but of the seed of Abraham he taketh hold." † And so, too, in classic Greek,

S Verses 10, 14, 16. | Verses 6, (comp. 9) 12, 13.

| Verses ll, 1,2, 14 15.

that Paul is here speaking. Indeed, the fallen angels, or devils, are never, I think, spoken of in Scripture by the simple appellative, angels. When this term refers to them, there is always some adjunct, or explanatory word, distinctly indicating such reference.*

But, furthermore, evil angels cannot be meant here, because the writer has all along defined himself as speaking of holy angels. He has said much of “angels" in this and the preceding chapter, introducing that term no less than ten times, but in every case referring indisputably to good angels. And now to suppose that, in immediate connexion with all this, the apostle would use the same term in an opposite sense, meaning not good angels but devils, and that, too, without any word or phrase notifying us of such change, is utterly improbable and absurd. But if good angels are meant, then the version we oppose is perfectly nugatory; for then that version makes the apostle say that Christ did not take hold of the holy, unfallen angels to save them; i. e., did not save beings that were never lost, and therefore did not need saving, and indeed could not be saved In other words, it presents Paul as expressing a truism too childish to be uttered by any writer, inspired or uninspired. Whereas, to say that Christ, in his mediatorial work, assumed the human in preference to the angelic nature, and in the same connexion give the reasons for such preference, is to impart edifying and important theological truth.

4. If émihaußáveral here signifies to take hold of in the sense of saving, it makes the seed of Abraham the exclusive objects of that salvation. It excludes Abraham himself from the provisions of mercy! for by no possibility can Abraham be included in the seed of Abraham. But further, Did Christ undertake to save no other people but the Hebrews? Who thinks so ? Isaiah thinks very differently. He says: “It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob. I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth."

Bloomfield evidently feels this difficulty, and hence adds hastily that “the spiritual seed of Abraham” (Gentile converts) as well as the "natural seed”


be included. This is an unadvised remark; for although it is true, as this writer observes, that "seed of Abraham" is used in each of these senses, yet it is certainly never used in both senses at the same time. This would be to confound things that are different. It would place all Jews, as such, in the same

Rom. viii, 38 and 1 Cor. vi, 3 constitute no exception to this remark; the TEPLOTÚOELG show distinctly that wicked angels are meant.

† This would violate the first and plainest principle of Hermaneutics, viz., that no word or phrase can have but one meaning in one and the same place.

saving relations to God with truly converted Gentile Christians, which nobody believes.

Under the pressure of the same difficulty, Dr. Clarke is driven to explain ofréqua 'ABpaájl as signifying "the human creature," "man," in the widest sense of that term; i.e. all mankind! But this phrase is never so used in the Bible, and cannot be so long as language continues to have any definite sense.

But, on the other hand, if we give to étiaußáveta the sense of the received version, then we can render σπέρμα 'Αβραάμ in its plain, natural meaning, as referring to Christ's human nature; for of that “seed,” “according to the flesh, Christ came.” This reference of the phrase is not only authorized, but required by the inspired word; for it not only foretells that Christ shall possess human nature, but also, in the very language under consideration, that he shall be onéqua 'ABpaápborn of the lineage of that holy patriarch.* Indeed, we have little doubt but that Paul had the original promise in Genesis before his mind, and borrowed his terms from it, as he had just quoted a series of other prophecies, all foretelling that Messiah would be presented in human form. And we are strengthened in this view from the fact that επιλ αμβάνεται is not used in the aorist, , or historic tense, but in the present, just as ¿TaLO Xúveral had been used in verse 11: as though he had said, “ According to Scripture prophecy, he taketh not on him the nature of angels, but he taketh on him the seed of Abraham."

And it is a circumstance not a little remarkable, that both Clarke and Barnes, after rejecting this sense of the place, do nevertheless avail themselves of it in their notes, and superadd it to the other sense! This is certainly a marvellous way of annotation, to make the same words, and in the same place, teach two distinct doctrines, having no necessary connexion, and that, too, when one of them had just been expressly rejected! We will not believe they wrote with so little sense of responsibility, but rather infer that so obvious is the sense here advocated, that these writers, even after arguing against it, could still not leave the passage, with any satisfaction to themselves, without allowing it, though at the expense of their own consistency, to speak out its own true and native meaning.


Comp. Gen. xxii, 18 (Sept.) with Gal. iii, 16.


(1.) M. Guizot seems to be gathering up the odds and ends of his literary products. One of these is Shakspeare and His Times.(New-York: Harper and Brothers, 1852; 12mo., pp. 360.) This essay appeared for the first time as an introduction to the French edition of Shakspeare's complete works, published at Paris in 1821. It consists of a preliminary essay on Dramatic Literature, with a brief sketch of Shakspeare and his Times, followed by special criticisms upon six of the tragedies, ten historical dramas, and three comedies. M. Guizot sees clearly whatever he does see, and expresses himself with even more than the ordinary French perspicuity. Yet his narrative abounds in inaccuracies, and his criticism in ineptitudes. “ Shakspeare,” he says, “cannot be translated into French.” He might have added, that Shakspeare cannot be fully appreciated by a Frenchman, even though that Frenchman be M. Guizot.A field in which the writer is far more at home is opened in “ Corneille and His Times, by M. Guizot,” (Harpers; 12mo., pp. 395;) which is a still older composition, published for the first time in 1813, forty years ago. The book, though not rewritten, has been changed a good deal from its early form. “ So many years, and such years,” says M. Guizot, “ develop in the mind entirely new views upon all subjects—upon literature as well as life; and no one is ignorant of the discoveries we may make by changing our horizon without changing our ideas.” An additional feature of this volume is the fact that a third part of it was written by Madame Guizot.

(2.) The recent issues of Bohn's Libraries are, if possible, better chosen than usual. Among them are “ The Moral and Historical Works of Lord Bacon," (12mo., pp. 504;) including the Essays, Apophthegms, Wisdom of the Ancients, New Atlantis, and Life of Henry the Seventh. A volume is to follow containing a complete translation of the De Augmentis, and the Novum Organum.The Life and Correspondence of John Foster,” vol. i, (12mo., pp. 488,) is a new edition of a book too well known to need further comment. In the Classical Library we have The Greek Anthology literally translated into English Prose;" (12mo., pp. 516.) The translation is mainly from the hand of Mr. Burges; but metrical versions by Bland, Merivale, and others, are added. The volume gives everything that can be needed by English readers. We have also The Olynthiac, and other Public Orations of Demosthenes, translated by C. R. KENNEDY,” (12mo., pp. 312.)— The Illustrated Library affords us a new edition of Maxwell's “ Victories of Wellington and the British Armies, (12mo., pp. 528,)—a badly written book, but full of interest and incident. The last volume of the Scientific Library is a reprint of Whewell's Bridgewater treatise—“ Astronomy and General Physics, considered with reference to Natural Theology,(12mo., pp. 328.) An ample supply of all these Libraries is kept on hand by Messrs. Bangs, Brother & Co., 13 Park-Row. (3.) We have before spoken of Madame Ida PFEIFFER's adventurous journeys in nearly all strange lands. Her first impulse to travel led her to the Holy Land; and we have now an English translation of the record of her journey, under the title “ Visit to the Holy Land, Egypt, and Italy;" (London: Ingham & Co.; New-York: Bangs, Brother & Co., 1852; 12mo., pp. 336 ;) which has reached a third edition in England. Like the “ Voyage to Iceland,” the work is a simple and unadorned relation of facts, candid, sensible, and interesting throughout. It is beautifully printed, and illustrated by cight tinted engravings.

(4.) The controversy with Rome is to be waged anew; and, as a controversy, it must be waged chiefly in England and America. The Inquisition is one of the “institutions" of Rome. The theory of the Romish Church, as boldly avowed by its own writers in this country, the theory of persecution.

They tell us, without reserve, that religious liberty, so called, will exist, even in America, only so long as Romanism is subordinate to Protestantism. We are fairly warned. With such avowals, it behooves us to inquire, at least, with what sort of rule we are threatened in the day when Romanism shall prevail; even though we may put that epoch off to the Greek Calends. Every source of information, then, as to the claims, pretensions, and usages of Rome, should be diligently searched. And we are glad to know that this work is going on. More books, and better books, on the Romish controversy, have appeared in England in the last five years than in fifty before. One of the best of those prepared for popular use is The Brand of Dominic: or, Inquisition at Rome, Supreme and Universal ; by Rev. William H. RULE.” (New-York: Carlton & Phillips, 1852 ; 12mo., pp. 392.) The design of the work is to give an authenticated statement of the establishment and progress of the Inquisitiòn. For this purpose the author has recourse, not to the popular histories of the Inquisition—not to the many volumes of stories, of doubtful authenticity—but to sources acknowledged as authoritative by Romanists themselves. In every instance, he tells us, he has “ used these authorities for himself.” The work, then, is historical rather than polemical, and for that very reason it is the more trustworthy and valuable. The author writes with remarkable calmness and deliberation; and while, of course, he does not attempt to extenuate the enormities of the Inquisition, or to mitigate the just abhorrence in which the tribunal is held throughout the civilized world, he does not, at least consciously, exaggerate any of its crimes. No exaggeration, indeed, is needed to give effect to a simple statement of the terrible truth. He tells us how the Inquisition began, what it was in the days of its pride and power, and what it is now. For, to use his own language, the Inquisition is not to be spoken of “as an obsolete barbarism, or as a something that cannot any longer exist. It is a permanent, active, and vigorous institution of the Church of Rome. While the papacy survives, the Inquisition must live; for the spirit of it is not that of the middle age, but of the Chu itself. Many orders have risen and fallen again within the bosom of that Church, because their interests were local, or because, like some of the military societies, they were not so constituted as possibly to be permanent. And special enterprises, like the

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »