[ocr errors]

who can never rest satisfied without inquiring into every critical nicety,
will eventually lament, that their time has been misapplied."

In opposition to this loose way of learning these languages,
we must remark, that every thing thus acquired, will be wholly
acquired by rote. The learner will indeed have obtained a cer-
tain degree of knowledge, but merely with respect to the parts
he has read, we cannot say studied. His knowledge will de-
pend only upon his mechanical memory, and he will have no
fixed principles upon which he can form an opinion with regard
to other passages. Besides all this, he must depend entirely
upon the accuracy of the translation he uses: when that errs,
(and as yet no translation of the Old or N. T. has been made en-
tirely free from defects,) he will err too, for the blind cannot lead'
the blind and when he has hobbled and stumbled over a certain
piece of ground, his translation, if he take the pains to examine
it, will be in every respect similar to the one he has used as a
guide. If he employ a good Lexicon, the use of which, how-
ever, the Author has forbidden, though for what reason we are
wholly unable to comprehend, he will, when the various signifi-
cations of a word are exhibited together, frequently be enabled
to discern a much better meaning than that which the version
has adopted; which he cannot do according to this plan of stu-
dy, unless he be, what very few as yet have been, a walking
Concordance. Perhaps Mr. Jaques who so vehemently recom-
mends these rules, may see some possibility of such qualifica-
tion being attainable through means of some new system of


These few objections are sufficient to overthrow these "excellent rules for the attainment of the Greek, Hebrew, and Chaldee." But many more will occur to every reader who has considered the subject of education.

The remaining sections of this chapter, which are three in number, treat of Idiom, the study of Chaldee, and of the Rabbinical writings.

The first of these, is, upon the whole, very good; and the author does not go too far with Pfochenius and Stolberg respecting the purity of the N. T. Greek. His method of studying Chaldee is exactly the same with that for acquiring Greek; and does not sufficiently notice the utility of an acquaintance with Rabbinical writings to an expositor of the N. T.

NO. X.

Translator's Preface, p. vii.

2 Ibid.

Aug. Rev.


[ocr errors][ocr errors]

The remaining 2 chapters of the first part discuss the subject of Historical reading, and Analytical reading. These we can very safely recommend: and we cite from the third chapter the following remarks on the analysis of doctrinal texts, which we could wish were more frequently attended to by preachers.

"When Analysis has in it any thing forced, it must needs be defect ive. A warm and glowing emotion will frequently overstep the limits of natural, or, rather, of accustomed order; nor can it reasonably be confined within them. See Gen. xlviii. 14. We do best when we seek the order in the subject; and not the subject in an order which we may have ill conceived.

In analyzing a doctrinal Text, the following rules must be attended


1. The Text should be referred to the Proper Argument and General Scope of the whole book; for various things belong to various scopes.

2. We must examine whether the Text have not a nearer connexion with some subordinate scope; and, consequently, a mediate rather than immediate, reference to the scope of the whole Book.

3. It is proper to inquire, whether the Text refer to the General Scope, as an Inference, as a Middle Term, or as a Perfect Syllogism: and, also whether the Argument go to prove, to explain, or to illustrate; all which it will not be difficult to ascertain, when we are thoroughly acquainted with the argument and structure of the whole Book or Section."

4. The Proposition contained in the Text, must next be formed and examined; and this, not in different or more simple language (which belongs to Exposition), but in the very words of the Text.

5. The Subject and Predicate of the proposition must be considered. 2 6. The casual matter which may attach to the Subject and Predicate, must be separated; and it should be discovered, what part of it belongs to the former, and what to the latter; and the degree of relation that they bear to each other.

7. If there be several doctrines enumerated in one Text, they must be examined separately; and, afterwards, the order in which they connect should be ascertained; a point to which the Inspired Writers are usually very attentive.

In order that the mode of instituting an Analysis of any entire doctrinal book may be rendered evident to all, we propose the following rules, in addition to those which have been already given:

Read, re-read, and repeat the whole Epistle (for here I allude more particularly to the Epistles), from beginning to end, in the original Greek; and, if possible, in an ancient copy, where the text is not divided into verses. Read it, as you would an epistle from a friend, three or four times over without interruption, until you fully apprehend the meaning, and the subject of the whole letter become clear. In fact, it should be perused, as it may be supposed, the Epistles which Paul addressed to the Corinthians were perused by them-frequently; not with many interruptions; not by chapters; but the whole read, at once, and until they

The reader may refer to our author's Analyses of the epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians, appended to the body of this work. 2 See Dr. Watts's Logick, Part S.

perfectly understood the Apostle's mind.... Much perplexity has certainly arisen from the manner in which most persons read the Scrip-tures. They mangle and dismember a text; and consider that sepa- · rately, which should always be connected with antecedents and consequents. On this account, we again recommend the advice given by Franzius, to read without observing the arbitrary divisions of chapter and


From this perusal, re-perusal, and repetition of the Epistle, the student must take care to derive a right knowledge of the scope which the Apostle had in writing it, and thus obtain an acquaintance with the general argument of the Epistle.

In order to succeed in this effectually, let the subsequent precautions be attended to.

1. Remark the words by which the Apostle himself declares his object and scope; which he frequently does in express terms.

2. Remark the historical incidents noticed in the Text; from which some judgment may be formed of the state of the controversy, as well as of the circumstances of the church or person to whom the Epistle is addressed.

3. When reference can be made to the "Acts of the Apostles," examine that book, and collate it with the text; inasmuch as it throws light on all the Epistles.

4. Weigh every word attentively (not however spending much time over little words); and consider whether it contain any thing which may lead to a more accurate judgment of the scope and argument of the whole Epistle. No one can easily be so dull of apprehension, as not to attain, by this means, the object he should have in view.

When all this has been done, the student should resume the Epistle, and sedulously weigh the conclusions interspersed through it. These are best ascertained by means of the particles, ou, apa, dio, &c. wherefore, therefore, &c.

With respect to these conclusions

1. Gain some knowledge of their meaning.

2. Compare them together, in order to determine in what they agree, and in what they differ.

3. Compare them with the scope and argument of the whole Epistle; both which, it is supposed, arc become familiar to the student.

4. Distinguish those which contain the Entire Scope of the whole Epistle; immediately in themselves; and those which are referred to it mediately; that is, are as middle terms to the Principal Conclusion. According to the accuracy with which the Conclusions are understood, and the precision with which they are distinguished, will the entrance to Logical Analysis become more or less easy and certain. For what is it to institute a Logical Analysis, but to search out the truth contained in any Proposition or Conclusion, and the Middle Terms by which that truth is demonstrated?

The Conclusions being thus examined, the student should resume the Epistle, and ascertain the Middle Terms, or reasons on which these

"The subject of a proposition is that, concerning which any thing is affirmed or denied; and the predicate is that which is affirmed or denied of the subject. Thus, Plato was a philosopher,' is a proposition; Th which, Plato is the subject, and philosopher the predicate." Dr. Watts.


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Conclusions are founded, whether they precede or follow them. In a Logical Analysis, it is proper to notice that which proves; and to separate, what is explanatory, from that which is illustrative.

Having thoroughly examined the Epistle, its component parts will become very perceptible. If there be an Exordium and Conclusion, a separation must take place between them, and each must be considered by itself. Should they prove to be two fold, partly Doctrinal and partly Practical, each branch must likewise be examined apart."

We now come to the second part, which treats "of reading, as it respects the spirit of the word." This consists of four chapters. The first contains remarks on expository reading: the second respects doctrinal reading: and the two last regard inferential reading, and practical reading. The work concludes with directions on the "order of studying the Scriptures;" but it is chiefly a summary of the preceding chapters.

The appendix contains a treatise in 5 chapters, " on the affections as connected with the study of the Scriptures ;" and also an Analysis of the Epistle to the Ephesians," and an "Analytical Introduction to St. Paul's Epistle to the Colossians." What we here find written on these Epistles, is not so satisfactory to us, as what Michaelis has delivered on the same subject.'

Having thus briefly analysed Professor Franck's work, we proceed to say a few words respecting Mr. Jaques' notes. These are chiefly bibliographical, very few being illustrative. The works mentioned are, with scarcely a dozen exceptions, such as have been frequently recommended before: and it is quite plain, that Mr. J. does not speak of them from his proper knowledge, but from what has been well termed the hue and cry of bibliographers. His chief authorities are Dr. Williams' Appendix to the Christian Preacher, Dr. A. Clarke's Preface to his Commentary on the Bible, his bibliographical Dictionary, and his Concise View of Sacred Literature. These in general he implicitly copies, and as long as they are right, which fortunately for him they usually are, all is well, but if they blunder Dr. Clarke in his commentary on St. John has entirely misunderstood a reference made by Dr. Marsh: Dr. M.


Introduction to the N. T. vol. iv. pp. 116–151.
2 Signature 4 X. (The work is not paged.)

3 Dissertation on the Origin of the three first Gospels, p. 12. (It is printed in his Translation of Michaelis' Introd. to N. T. vol. iii. pt. ii.) Dr. C. makes another mistake in referring to p. 180, for the real reference should be top. 14, and in giving Eichhorn's Harmony of the three first Gospels, he has referred to Dr. M.'s Dissert. p. 193 instead of p. 27.


had referred to an essay by Griesbach, which having been printed at Jena, in 1789-90, was afterwards "reprinted in the first vol. of the Commentationes Theologicæ, (Lips. 1794,)" namely of those collected by Velthusen, Kuinol, and Ruperti. Dr. C. has mistaken the meaning of the words "the Commentationes Theol.," and changes them into "his Commentationes Theologicæ." Mr. Jaques improves upon the blunder, and gravely sets down, in a very imperfect list of Griesbach's works, "Griesbachii Commentationes Theologica, Lips. 1796, 3 vol." With the same inaccuracy, though perhaps not arising from the same cause, he speaks of Bishop Lardner's works; and if it were necessary to show that Mr. J. is totally unacquainted with the chief writers on Biblical Criticism, we might produce him in forming the reader, "on the authority of Dr. A. Clarke, that Bengel is author of an edition of the N. T." though that is known to every beginner in sacred literature. We have only to add, that we have looked in vain for any notice of the valuable editions of the Greek Testament by Matthai and Birch, or Ro senmuller's Scholia on the Old and N. T. and that from the manner in which he speaks of Dr Marsh's Translation of Michaelis, we strongly suspect that he has never even seen it. An hundred similar defects might be mentioned; but we must hasten to conclude.


We have not at hand the Latin original of this work, and are therefore unable to say any thing with regard to the manner in which Mr. Jaques has executed the business of translation; but, on an attentive perusal, we have not remarked any thing which can give us reason to think he has done it ill. We could wish, indeed, he had chosen some more modern work than this; or, at least, that he had been more successful in supplying its defects. His blindly admiring, and his indiscriminately praising, such rules of study as those of Professor Franck, do not entitle him to praise; nor yet does his incomplete, ill chosen list of books. As his publication stands, we are obliged to pronounce it very imperfect and unsatisfactory; and to advise him not to appear again before the public, tif he shall have studied the languages respecting which he writes, in the manner in which the profounder and more eminent of modern scholars must have studied them.

*Notes on Franck's Guide,

P. 235. Ibid. p. 283.
4 Ibid. p. 227.



3 Ibid. p. 248.

« VorigeDoorgaan »