Abbildungen der Seite


D'Orly's and MANT's Bible, 2 vols. PARKHURST's Greek Lexicon. ROBINSON's Theological Dictionary. GRAY's Key to the Old Testament. Percy's Key to the New Testament. Horne's Introduction to the Study of the Scriptures, 4. JENNINGS' Jewish Antiquities, 2. Wells' Geography of the Old and New Testament, 2. TOMLINE's Elements of Christian Theology, 2. Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, by Maclaine, 5. Burner's History of the Reformation Abridged. Skelton's Deism Revealed, 2. HOOKER's Ecclesiastical Polity, 3. Paler's Evidences of Christianity, 3. Nelson's Fasts and Feasts. PALEY's Horæ Paulina. SHEPHERD on the Common Prayer, 2. PRIDEAUX's Connexion of the Old and New Testament, 4. Newton's Dissertations on the Prophecies, 2, CAMPBELL's Dissertation on Miracles, 2. SECKER's Works, 4. Sherlock's Sermons, 5 in 3. (RANDOLPH's) Enchiridion Theologicum, 2. The Clergyman's Instructor (Clarendon Press.)

Assistant (Do.)


Novum Testamentum, a VALPY, 3 vols. Biblia Vulgatæ Editionis. Routh Reliquiæ Sacræ, 3. SCHLEUSNERI Lexicon in Novum Testamentum, 4. SCHMIDI Concordantia Græca, Novi Testamenti. Elsley's Annotations on the Gospels and Acts, 3. Slade's Annotations on the Epistles, 2. MACKNIGHT's Harmony of the Gospels. STILLINGFLEET's Origines Sacra. Sylloge Confessionum sub tempus reformunda Ecclesia. PEARSON on the Creed. Bulli Opera. POTTER on Church-Government.

CAMPBELL on the Gospels, 4.
MACKNIGHT on the Epistles, 6.
BUTLER's Analogy of Natural and Revealed Religion.
MAGEE on Atonement and Sacrifice, 3.
Beveridge's Thesaurus Theologicus, 4.
TRAPP on the Gospels.
BARROW's Select Sermons.
BEAUSOBRE and L'ENFANT's Introduction to the N. T.
JORTin on the Truth of the Christian Religion.
Nott's Bampton Lectures.
WATSON's Theological Tracts, 6.


LXXII Virorum Versio (Clarendon Press), 6.
TROMMII Concordantiæ Græcæ Vers. LXXII.
Biel Thesaurus Philologicus, 3.
Suceri Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, 2.
Wetstein Prolegomena in Novum Testamentum.
Cave Ecclesiastica Historia Literaria, 2.
JONES on the Canon of the New Testament, 3.
LELAND's View of the Deistical Writers, 2.
VAN Muldert's Sermons on Infidelity, 2.
Bennet's Abridgment of the London Cases.
WARBURTON's Divine Legation of Moses, 3.

2. Walton's Biblia Polyglotta, 6. CASTELLI Lexicon, 2. PARKHURST's Hebrew Lexicon. Spencer De Legibus Hebræorum, 2. KENNICOTT Dissertatio Generalis. Hodius De Bibliorum Textibus Originalibus. BYTHNER's Lyra Prophetica. GLASSII Philologia Sacru, by Dathe, 4 in 2. FABRICII Lur Salutaris Evangelii. Lightroot's Works, 2. Lowth De Sacra Poësi Hebræorum, by Michaëlis, 2. Michaëlis' Introduction to the N. T., by Marsh, 6 in 4.

F. R. S.


No passage in the whole range of Literature, sacred or profane, iş so widely mistaken, or the mistake of which has opened so wide a door to the influx of superstition, as the following: “ Then men began to call on the name of the Lord,” Gen. iv. 26. This is the exact rendering of the original, according to the vowel points, and yet it is obviously at variance with the truth: Adam, Eve, and iheir children, especially Abel, having, from the beginning, never ceased to call on the name of the Lord. If we disregard these points we have the true sense : Then men began to call themselves by the name of Jehovah ;” that is, they spurned the title and attributes of the eternal God, thinking themselves immortal on the earth. This presumption, however impious or unreasonable it may now appear to us, was in these circumstances of mankind very natural. The leading idea which man ever attached to the character of God was exemption from death; and as there were among the antediluvians those who lived for ages in full vigor without, it is probable, being visited by infirmity or sickness, they began to consider themselves as Gods, and to hold themselves forth as such to the world, thus claiming the submission and homage of their fellow-mortals. Moses mentions this circumstance as the origin of idolatry, and proceeds to state the shortening the period of human life, and the destruction of the world by a flood, as the consequences of it. But as it was his purpose to relate the pedigree of Adam, who remained in the knowlege and worship of the true God, unseduced by the impious presumption of their degenerate brethren, he digresses to fulfil that purpose, and after exhausting it, he returns to the subject thus: “ Then men began to assume the name of Jehovah”-“ And it came to pass when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of the Gods saw the daughters of men, that they were fair, they made them their wives, whomsoever each might choose.

And the Lord said, My breath shall not for ever remain in man, for be is himself but flesh, so that his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. Thus they were destroyers in those days: for after the sons of the Gods had commerce with the daughters of men, they bore them children, who became violent and mighty men, the same with those who of old were men of renown.”

The passage thus brought into one point of view, and more faithfully translated, is clear and consistent. Some of the descendants of Cain, who, having forsaken the true God, and who, living for ages probably with great bodily strength, began to consider themselves immortal, and to hold themselves forth as Gods to be worshipped by their inferiors in rank, might, and years. God beVOL. XXVII.



2 C

holding their impiety, removes the foundation of it, thus saying : “These men think that they have the principle of life in themselves, and that they will for ever live independent of me; I will correct their presumption : and as they breathe only in the breath which I gave them, I will recal it, and thus teach them humility and wisdom by shortening their days."

This passage owes its obscurity to the misconception of two words in the original.. The phrase dinspo 'ya, translated "sons of God” in our common version, means


of the Gods ;” that is, the sons or descendants of those who made themselves Gods, or, according to the language of Moses, who called themselves by the name of Jehovah. These inen, instead of confining themselves to a faithful union with one woman, agreeably to the marriage institution, appointed and recommended to Adam by God himself, indulged themselves in promiscuous intercourse with the daughters of men ; that is, women in the lower classes of life, and thus gave birth to a race of children, who, possessing vast stature and great bodily strength, and withal abandoned on the world without virtuous example or education, lived by violence and plunder, the terror and disturbers of society. Many tales respecting these marauders, who, in after days, were called giants, were doubtless handed down to posterity by the family of Noah; and it is to these traditional tales, current in his days, that Moses alludes when he says: “They became violent and mighty men, the same with those who of old were men of renown.” The other mistake lies in the verb =;117) idun, which our translators have rendered by

« shall strive,” while the Syriac and Arabic versions, the Chaldee paraphrase, the Septuagint and even the Latin Vulgate have rendered it by terms expressive of the meaning I give to it, viz. “shall remain.” How is this to be accounted for? The Chaldeans often changed the final o into y, such as the termination of plural nouns, d' eem

Thus the verb. 017 dum, to continue, to perpetuate, became changed into 117 dun, the same in form with another verb already existiug in Hebrew, under the sense of striving, contending, litigating: This accidental corruption may have taken place in the times of Moses or upwards, who has consecrated the vulgar cor. řuption with the primary meaning of continuing or remaining." The corrupted verb dun is the parent of the Greek dnv, Snucuos, anda, dnouvw, while dun, to contend, gave birth to devvacw, deivos. This confusion having taken place, it was natural that the interpreters of Moses should have been divided, some adopting the sense of the corrupted, and others that of the genuine verh, and agreeing in pothing but in overlooking the meaning of the passage.

In the Jewish scriptures, Angels are called, "sons of God." See Job, i. 6. xxxviii. 7. Now, as the Jews believed that angels were employed under God in superintending the affairs of men, and as the title by which angels are elsewhere designated, is here used by Moses, it was natural for the Jews to conclude, that the een.

[ocr errors]

same writer meant angels in this place. But it seems that some of these angels, while engaged in the affairs of men; perceiving how. fair their daughters were, became enamoured of them, and seduced them, and thus fell from God. Josephus, the Jewish historian, who could not have been mistaken as to the sentiments of his countrymen on this subject, states this to be the fact in ex

press terms. See Antiq. Jud. i. 4., and also Just. Martyr Apol. jäi. p. 112. Here we see the origin of fallen angels; nor is there another single verse in all the Jewish scriptures that can be considered as countenancing the same absurd notion. But, though the Jews believed in the preposterous notion of fallen angels, they did not think it consistent with the character of God, to suffer beings so subtle and powerful, to roam at large, worrying mankind, and seducing them to evil. They therefore imagined, that the Almighty keeps them chained up in Hades, till the day of judgment. This notion is countenanced by Peter, 2d Epist. ii

. 4. For if God spared not the angels who transgressed, but cast them down to Hades, and put them in chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment, and spared not the old world.... when he brought the flood, &c.” It is needless to say, that this is a piece of Jewish mythology which forms no part of the Gospel. For neither Christ, nor any of the Evangelists sanction it; and Peter alludes to it as an opinion, which he believed in common with other Jews before the coming of our Lord: and he himself refers to the very passage in Moses, on which that notion is grounded.

But these fallen angels, being spirits, could not bave commerce with flesh and blood, in a state purely incorporeal. The meaning then, was, that they had previously entered the bodies of men ; and the men thus possessed, acting solely under the influence of the supposed indwelling spirits, assumed their name of "sons of God." In other words, they were demoniacs, tyrannical and violent'men, instigated by demons or evil spirits. Hence the origin of demoniacal possessions.

According to the Jews, and many Christians, good angels are still employed in administering the affairs of men. But, it is thought, they will not look in the face of women, lest they be tempted, and follow the example of their fallen brethren. And to * this alludes the following verse of the Apostle Paul : “ For this cause ought a woman to have a veil over her head, because of the angels." This illustrious ehampion of the Christian faith correctly understood the language of Moses, and his words are to this effect: "The marauders and oppressors of old, who go under the name of sons of God, or angels, laid violent hands on those females who came within their view. For this reason, let every "woman wear a veil, lest she should become the victim of tempta

tion ; lest she should expose herself to some person, who by intrigue or violence, by wealth or power; may lead her astray.” Nor should it be forgotten, that this admonition was given to the wõnieu of Co

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
« ZurückWeiter »