Page images

writings on all sorts of Subjects. So that modern Critics (in the foremost rank of whom will always stand the incomparable BENTLEY) had by long application to them, through their various and progressive refinements and de pravations from age to age, acquired a certain sagacity, in passing a tolerable judgment concerning the time of the Writer, by his style and manner. Now Pedantry, which is the ape of Criticism, would mimic the same talent of discernment, in the narrowest and most barren of all Languages; little subject to change, both from the com mon genius of the East, and from the peculiar situation of a sequestered People. Of this Language, long since become a dead one, the only remains are in one small Volume; the contents of which, had not Providence been mercifully pleased to secure, while the Tongue was yet living, by a translation into Greek, the HEBREW VERITY, transmitted to us in the manner it was found in the most ancient MSS. where no vowel-points are used, nor space left to distinguish one word from another, and where a great number of terms occur only once, would at this day be a mere arbitrary CIPHER, which every Rabbinical or Cabalistic juggler might make the key of his unrevealed Mysteries." Idem accidit etiam Mahometanis (says Abraham Ekell.) ante inventa ab Ali Abnaditalebo puncta vocalia: Tanta enim legentium erat dissentio, ut nisi Othomanni coërcita fuisset authoritate, et determinata lectio punctis, quæ Ali excogitaverat, JAM DE ALCORANO ACTUM ESSET." And if this had been the case of the Arabic of the Alcoran, a copious and a living language, what had become of the Hebrew of the Bible? a very narrow and a dead one. Of which an ancient Jewish Grammarian gives this character: "Lingua ista [Arabica] elegans est, et longe lateque scriptis dilatata, et qui eam loquitur nulla dictione deficit: Lingua vero sancta pauca est præ illa, cum illius nihil extet nisi quod in Libris Scripturæ reperitur, nec suppeditet omnes dictiones loquendi necessarias." Yet this is the language whose peculiarities

[ocr errors]


of style and composition, correspondent to every age and time, the Professor seems to think, may be as easily distinguished as those of the Greek or Latin Classics. So much for the Author of The Divine Legation and indeed too much, had not Mr. LOCKE's defence been involved in his that excellent person having declared (speaking of the words of Job, that Idolatry was an iniquity to be punished by the Judge) "THIS PLACE ALONE, WERE THERE NO OTHER, is sufficient to confirm their opi"nion who conclude that book to be writ by a JEw.”


From The Divine Legation, the learned Professor turns again to the Examiner, who seems to sit heavy on his stomach.-This excellent Writer desired to know of the learned, Where they could find a civil or religious Constitution out of Judea, which declared that the Children should suffer for the crime of their Parents. To which the Professor replies in these very words-In præsens Horatiano illo versiculo contentus abito Examinatorum omnium CANDIDISSIMUS-For the present, let this MOST CANDID of all Examiners go about his busi·ness, and be thankful for this scrap of Horace,


"Delicta majorum immeritus lues,


This is true Poetical payment: He is called upon for his reckoning, and he discharges it with an old Song. But the Examiner is not a man to take rhime for reason. He asked for an old system of Laws; and the contemptuous Professor gives him an old Ballad: But a little more civility at parting had not been amiss; for he, who did not spare the Bishop, would certainly demolish the Professor, should he take it into his head to examine the Prælections as he hath done the Sermons.







P. 7..[A]

R. STEBBING, in what he calls Considerations on the command to offer up Isaac, hath attempted to discredit the account here given of the Command: And previously assures his reader, that if any thing can hinder the ill effects which my interpretation must have upon Religion, it must be his exposing the absurdity of the conceit. This is confidently said. But what then? He can prove it. So it is to be hoped. If not --- However, let us give him a fair hearing.-He criticises this observation on the word DAY, in the following manner:

[ocr errors]

Really, Sir, I see no manner of consequence in this reasoning. That Christ's day had reference to his *6 office, as Redeemer, I grant. The day of Christ de"notes the time when Christ should come, i. e. when "He should come, who was to be such by office and

[ocr errors]

employment. But why it must import also that when "Christ came he should be offered up a Sacrifice, I do "not in the least apprehend: Because I can very easily "understand that Abraham might have been informed "that Christ was to come, without being informed that he was to lay down his life as a Sacrifice. If Abraham

[ocr errors]

saw that a time would come when one of his sons "should take away the curse, he saw Christ's day." [Consid. p. 139.] At first setting out (for I reckon for nothing this blundering, before he knew where he was,

into a Socinian comment, the thing he most abhors) the Reader sees he grants the point I contend for--That Christ's DAY (says he) has reference to his office as Redeemer, I grant. Yet the very next words employed to explain his meaning, contradict it;--The Day of Christ denotes the TIME when Christ should come. All the sense therefore, I can make of his concession, when joined to his explanation of it, amounts to this-Christ's day has reference to his OFFICE:-No, not to his Office, but to his TIME. He sets off well: but he improves as he goes along—But why it must import ALSO that when Christ came he should be offered up as a Sacrifice, I do not in the least apprehend. Nor I, neither, I assure him. Had I said, that the word Day, in the text, imported the time, I could as little apprehend as he does, how that which imports time, imports ALSO the thing done in time. Let him take this nonsense therefore to himself. I argued in a plain manner thus,-When the word Day is used to express, in general, the period of any one's existence, then it denotes time; when, to express his peculiar office and employment, then it denotes, not the time, but that circumstance of life characteristic of such office and employment; or the things done in time. DAY, in the text, is used to express Christ's peculiar office and employment. Therefore-But what follows is still better. His want of apprehension, it seems, is founded in this, that he can easily understand, that Abraham might have been informed that Christ was to come; without being informed that he was to lay down his life as a Sacrifice. Yes, and so could I likewise; or I had never been at the pains of making the criticism on the word Day: which takes its force from this very truth, that Abraham might have been informed of one without the other. And, therefore, to prove he was informed of that other, I produced the text in question, which afforded the occasion of the criticism. He goes on,-If Abraham saw, that a time would come when one of his seed should take away the curse, he saw


Christ's DAY. Without doubt he did. Because it is agreed, that Day may signify either time, or circumstance of action. But what is this to the purpose? The question is not whether the word may not, when used indefinitely, signify time; but whether it signifies time in this text. I have shewn it does not. And what has been said to prove it does? Why that it may do so in another place, In a word, all he here says, proceeds on a total inapprehension of the drift and purpose of the argument.

P. 8. [B] Daubuz on the Revelations, p. 251; printed in the year 1720. To this reasoning, Dr. Stebbing replies as follows: "You are not more successful in your "next point, Abraham rejoiced to see my Day, and he saw

[ocr errors]



[ocr errors]

it, and was glad, ἵνα ΙΔΗ τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ἐμὴν καὶ ΕΙΔΕ "This (say you) evidently shews it [the revelation] to "have been made by relation in words, but by representa"tion in actions." How so? The reason follows. The verb “w is frequently used in the New Testament in its proper signification, to see sensibly. -In the New Testament, do you say? Yes, Sir, and in every Greek "book you ever read in your life. life. What you SHOULD "have said is, that it is so used here; and I suppose you "would have said so, if you had known how to have "proved it." [Consid. pp. 139, 140.]

The reason follows (says he.) Where? In my book indeed, but not in his imperfect quotation from it; which breaks off before he comes to my reason. One who knew him not so well as I do, would suspect this was done to serve a purpose. No such matter; 'twas pure hap-hazard. He mistook the introduction of my argument for the argument itself. The argument itself, which he omits in the quotation, (and which was all I wanted, for the proof of my point,) was, That the verb whether used literally or figuratively, always denotes à full intuition. And this argument, I intrdouced in the following manner, The verb dw is frequently used in the



« PreviousContinue »