other hand, in the apostle we have no mention of the pestilence and the burning plague, to be inflicted, according to the prophet, upon Death and Hell by God the Saviour. It may seem that the resemblance between the words of the apostle and the text of the prophet, upon this comparison, turns out to be so very general as to leave room to doubt whether so much as an allusion was intended. But I am persuaded that an allusion was intended; and my persuasin rests principally upon these two reasons :—

"I. It is hardly to be conceived that, when the apostle's discourse led him to refer to prophecies of the final abolition of Death and Hell, this passage of the prophet Hosea should not come to his mind, which, for the boldness of its imagery, is far more striking than the passage of Isaiah which he cites; which for that very reason perhaps he cites in preference, as being more explicit and perspicuous, because less figured and adorned.

"2. Notwithstanding that a general resemblance only is to be found between the apostle's words and the general text, these words of the apostle are an exact literal rendering in Greek of the Syriac version of that Hebrew text; except that the words 'sting' and 'victory' in the apostle have changed places.

"I cannot close this long note without briefly animadverting on the plausible but fallacious doctrine of sanction, supposed to be given to the ancient versions of the Old Testament by the citation of particular passages of them in the New. And with respect to the Septuagint in particular, in behalf of which this sanction is most frequently pleaded, I observe that what is generally assumed on this subject is not true, viz., that the citations of texts of the Old Testament in the New are always from this version. This assumption, I say, is not invariably true. The instances in which it fails are many. I have mentioned one very remarkable instance, and I could produce many more.

"I say, secondly, upon the same principle that a citation

of the Old Testament by the inspired writers of the New, according to that particular version, is to be taken as a sanction of the version; (upon the same principle) the citation of a text not in the words of the LXX, more particularly in words that give a sense directly opposite to their sense, is a reprobation of the version. And since the inspired writers of the New Testament cite some passages according to the LXX, and some not according to the LXX, it follows, that they sanction the version in some passages and reprobate the version in others. And neither the sanction nor the reprobation must be extended farther than to the particular texts cited. In the texts not cited, we have no judgment of the inspired writers of the New Testament upon the merits of the version. And as these uncited texts make certainly the far greater part of the whole book, I shall contradict no apostle or inspired writer, if I assert, as I do, of the Septuagint generally, that ancient, respectable, useful, and valuable as it is, and in many parts excellent, it is not, upon the whole, to be put in competition, for verbal accuracy, either with our own public translation or with the Vulgate.

"But, thirdly, I go further. I contend, that even with respect to the particular passages cited in the New Testament, according to the version of the LXX, we are not always to conclude, that the citation implies the citer's approbation of the verbal accuracy of the translation, even in the instance of the passage cited. This will indeed be a just conclusion, if a faithful representation of the phraseology of the original be requisite for the purpose of the citer. But if the general meaning of the passage cited is sufficient, which, for the most part, is the case, no sanction of any thing more than the general meaning, which is often very inadequately given in a very loose, and, with respect to words, even an erroneous translation, can be inferred from the citation. For it certainly became the wisdom of the apostles to cite the Old Testament according to the versions

most in use and credit in their time, however defective in verbal accuracy, provided they found in them the general meaning, except indeed in those few cases in which their argument turned upon the wording of the original. It was no part of the duty of holy apostles and inspired preachers, to edit or correct translations of the Old Testament, or to give critical notes upon the extant versions."

Comment. on

Hos. in loc.

HEB.

DAN. XII. 2.

ENG. VERS.

And many of them that sleep

in the dust of the earth shall וְרַבִּים מִפְּשֵׁנֵי אַדְמַת־עָפָר awake ; some to everlasting יָקִיצוּ אֵלֶּה לְחַיֵּי עוֹלָם וְאֵלֶּה .everlasting contempt לַחֲרָפוֹת לְדַרְאוֹן עוֹלָם:

and to shame and

This brief passage contains, more emphatically perhaps than any other in the Old Testament, the germ of the resurrection doctrine. It is incessantly referred to by the Rabbinical writers who have treated of the subject, and has exercised a controlling influence on the literal statements of Christ and the apostles. It becomes, therefore, a matter of the utmost moment to determine, if possible, its true sense. The question how far it implies the idea of a corporeal resurrection will naturally be resolved by the results of such an inquiry. The difficulties are confessedly great which attend a proper solution, and the issue may still leave some points. more or less doubtful.

No progress can be made in the investigation without first fixing, by careful exegesis, the exact import of the text. The following may serve as a literal version: "And many of the sleepers of the dust of the ground shall awake—these to everlasting life, and those to shame and everlasting contempt." But this still comes short of presenting to the English reader the precise shade of meaning conveyed by the words, as it does not express the true nature of the distinction in the lot of the two classes which we think to be inti

mated by the original. According to the established rendering both classes awake, and this distinction is consequent upon their awaking. The one class awakes to life and honor, the other to shame and dishonor. It is greatly to be questioned whether this is sustained by the true construction of the Hebrew. That, we believe, makes the distinction to consist in the lot of those who awake to life, and those who do not awake at all. In the outset all are represented as sleeping: out of these all a portion ( many) awake; the rest remain unawakened. This is the ground of the distinction. "These," i. e. the awakened, awake to everlasting life; "and those," i. e. the other class, who abide in the dust, who do not awake at all, remain subject to the shame and ignominy of that death, whatever it was, which marked their previous condition. The grounds of this construction are the following:

(1.) The "awaking" is evidently predicated of the 'many," and not of the whole. It will be observed that the phrase is not "many" in the absolute sense, which might perhaps be understood of all, but " many of," which plainly conveys the idea of restriction, distinguishing a part from the whole. "I most fully acknowledge," says Dr. Hody (Treat. of Resurrect. of the Body, p. 230), "that the word many makes this text extremely difficult. I know what expositors say, but I am not satisfied with any thing I have hitherto met with. Some tell us that many is sometimes used in the Scriptures to signify all, but this does not clear the dif ficulty; for there is a great difference between many and many of. All they that sleep in the dust are many; but many of them that sleep in the dust cannot be said to be all they that sleep in the dust. Many of does plainly except some." This we must regard as conclusive. The "awaking" is affirmed of the "many," and not of the whole.

(2.) The true sense of the original - is not some-and some, but these-and those, referring respectively to subjects previously indicated. By the former erroneous

rendering a distinction is constituted between two classes of those who are awakened; by the latter, between those who are and those who are not awakened. The difference is all important, and though the force of the criticism can be fully appreciated only by those who are conversant with the Hebrew, yet the common reader can scarcely fail to perceive, from the following examples, how strongly our interpretation is fortified by current usage when these words are taken distributively: Josh. 8. 22, So they were in the midst of Israelthese on this side, and

6

'And they sat down, the

those on that side.' 2 Sam. 2. 13, one ( these) on the one side of the pool, and the other (and those) on the other side of the pool.' 1 Kings 20. 20, And they pitched one over against the other (

these over against those) seven days.' In one single instance, and only one, in the whole Bible, do we find these terms used in a sense which affords countenance to the rendering in question. This is in Ps. 20. 7, Some (by these) trust in chariots, and some ( and those) in horses: but we will remember,' &c. The whole weight of authority is evidently in favor of the construction we have given to the phrase. The first denotes those who awoke, the second those who remained asleep. Life and glory crowned the first, shame and execration clothed the last. Thus understood, the passage yields a clear and consistent sense, in which no violence is done to the phrase, many of them that sleep. Its restricted import is preserved, which is otherwise. lost.

(3.) The usage which obtains in regard to the Hebrew term 7 or 7 awake, confirms this view. This term, in such a connexion, does not well admit of being taken in any but a good sense. The Psalmist says of himself, Ps. 17. 15, As for me, I shall behold thy face in righteousness; I shall be satisfied when I awake (7) with thy likeness.' But while it appropriately expresses the awaking of the