in half a-dozen words to explore and explain the world of experimental religion here revealed-seems to be the purport of our text. But if so, how far does the present sermon adhere to it ? Is not the discourse conspicuous, rather, for the completeness with which it turns away from this purport to another? There are two principal divisions of spiritual influence. Does not the text speak of the one kind, and the sermon of the other? St. Paul describes how the "Spirit helps our infirmities." Does not the preacher labour to explain how the Spirit gives assistance to our strength! But we do not think this is all. Let the reader ponder the next extract, and see the nature of some of the conclusions to which he is brought. At page 275 we read thus:— "But you will say: 'Are there not cases in which another law has been followed; as for instance, when the disciples were enjoined, on being arrested and brought before magistrates and kings, "Do not premeditate in that hour what ye shall say; for it shall be given you in that hour what ye shall say.' How was it given them? I apprehend that it was given them only in this way, that when a man is living in a high moral state all the time, and is brought suddenly into an emergency, under the stimulus of that emergency, as well as under the divine blessing, luminous intuitions are given to him. He does not need to study past histories in that hour. The intuitions of right and duty are spontaneous under such circumstances. I do not apprehend that the disciples in the day of Pentecost had given to them more of this than is given to men in our day who live as high as they lived, and whose souls are open to the impulsion of the divine spirit as much as theirs was. As the solar sun developes growth in the earth, so the influence of God developes growth in the human soul." 66 Surely this is something more than mere divergence from the text. If it were not for the qualifying clause, as well as under the Divine blessing," we should have described it as direct denial. For ourselves, we regard that limitation as practically nullifying the whole explanation; and we believe that all our readers will see that for themselves. But the meaning of the writer himself, as gathered from the way he sums up, is simply to the effect that the disciples on the Day of Pentecost had nothing more of spiritual influence than all other Christian men either have or may expect. They were in such a position and condition that the sun of God's Spirit shone full on them, and "drew them out," consequently, in such a manner that their natural energies were enabled to accomplish their very best. This, he implies, is the only mode in which they had anything "given to them." Thus it is he explains (away) the Scripture of his text. At the same time, in some portions of this sermon, there is much power and great truth. To some of these portions, both on this account, and also because they will serve as a startingpoint for discussing another most important characteristic of Mr. Beecher's style, we hope in our next article to advert. MATHEMATICUS, M.A., Formerly Chaplain of Trinity Coll., Camb. Biblical Criticism. "For thus saith the Lord of hosts, Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; and I will shake all nations, and the Desire of all nations shall come and I will fill this house with glory, saith : [ובאוּ חֲמדַּת כָּל־הַגוים] the Lord of hosts."-Haggai ii. 6, 7. 'S the above passage Messianic? Is it a prophecy? And does that prophecy refer to Christ? Some will answer in the negative, especially those who sympathise with the new Rationalistic German school of exegesis. But the question for us to consider is whether there is any sufficient reason for departure from the interpretation of the passage furnished in our authorised version. We certainly think not. Now the whole matter in dispute turns upon the meaning to be attached to the word, chemdāh. What is its signification, and to what object does it refer? According to Fürst, chěmdah, from п, chămădh, “to strive, seek after, desire,” means desire, wish, delight, object of desire. So far, good. It is evident that in some specific application of the terms, the Hebrew is not incorrectly rendered "the desire of all nations." To what object, then, does the word, chemdah, refer itself? Is that object a person, or a mere thing? And if a person-what person? 66 Hitzig renders the passage thus :-"Herbeikommen die edelsten aller Völker." (LXX.) Tà èkλektà távtwv tŵv ¿0v@v. “All,” he says, are shaken, but only the relatively best among them give glory to God." He next rejects the interpretation which would make (translated by Kostbarkett preciousness or sumptuousness) mean "the treasures of all the heathen-die Schätze aller Heiden." For then the stat. constr. receives a real substratum other than the genitive. Besides, in such case it would have read an ab. "Much rather," adds Hitzig, "is Л, chemduth, a synonyme of, mibhchăr.” Here, then, the words rendered in our version "the desire of all nations" is made to mean "the noblest from among all nations." The word chemdāh is made to have a personal reference, not, however, to Christ, but only to those among all nations who, by the tremendous commotions described in the 6th verse, should be stirred up to greater liberality in the service of God. "It is self-evident," adds Hitzig, "that the heathen would not appear with empty hands. Therefore also the statement in the second clause of the verse; while verse 8 indicates wherein such T1DJ, khěbhōdh or glory, shall consist, namely, in sacred oblations of gold and silver."* Maurer, however, disputes this view of the passage. He thinks that without sufficient reason Hitzig synonymizes with , and that the sense of the passage is not "et venient nobilissimi omnium populorum." Maurer renders the passage thus:-"Et commovebo omnes populos, et venient [afferentur] deliciae [res pretiosissimae], omnium populorum, et implebo domum hanc splendore, inquit Jova exercituum."+ Here Maurer understands by the word, chěmduth deliciae-the delights, res pretiosissimae-dona pretiosissima-the most precious things—the most precious gifts, which all peoples would bring into the temple of Jehovah. But to both these interpretations insuperable objections must be urged. In what way could the advent to the second temple of "the noblest out of all nations" justify the prediction that "the glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former?" Hitzig says that the pre-eminence of the latter would "Von selbst aber versteht es sich, das die Heiden nicht mit leeren Händen erscheinen; daher die Aussage im 2 Versgl. V. 8. Sodann deutet an, worin solches bestehen werde, nämlich in goldenen und silbernen Weihgeschenken."-Die Zwölf Kleinen Propheten erklärt von F. Hitzig, Ph.D., D.D. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handb. zum Alten Testament, Leipzig, 1838, S. 287. Commentarius Gramm. Crit. in Vet. Test. scripsit F. J. V. D. Maurer, Ph.D., Vol. II., pp. 613, 614, Lipsiae, 1833. consist in its silver and gold-which as oblations and offerings those coming out of all nations would bring into it. And according to Maurer that pre-eminence was to consist in the selfsame thing. But how does this accord with the prophecy and with fact? In the very contents of the prophecy itself this exegesis is overthrown. For there (Haggai ii. 3) the inferiority of the second temple in these very particulars is expressly affirmed. "Who is left among you that saw this house in her first glory? and how do ye see it now? is it not in your eyes in comparison of it as nothing?" This confession occurs in close connection with the passage under discussion; and, as so occurring, it clearly proves that it was no such "glory" as this to which the prophecy looked forwards. Cf. Ezra iii. 12. Memel, Prussia. DR. CLARK, M.A., F.R.A.S., (To be continued.) CHRIST The Preacher's Finger-Post. AN UNCONVENTIONAL BUT A MODEL PREACHER. "For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes."-Matt. vii. 29. THE Scribes were in some respects in Judea, what the Episcopal clergymen are in England, the nationally recognised religious teachers. They were the accepted interpreters and administrators of God's will to men. When Christ came as a teacher He utterly disregarded their system of teaching, and pursued a didactic course, strikingly original and contrasting. His hearers felt this and said, "Never man spake like this men had many excellencies, but they had also many defects. Jesus of Nazareth is the grand and only perfect ideal. I. He was a model as to the MATTER of His teaching, which was unconventional, "and not as the scribes." The scribes, the conventional teachers, taught dry law, moral and ritualistic, and also the traditions of their fathers that often made void the commandments of God. But what was the grand subject of Christ's teaching? Not systems either of law or doctrine: the grand subject of His teaching was Himself. Christ taught Christ. He constantly projected Himself in all His utterances, "I and my Father are one. "I am ور the Bread of Life." "I am the door." "I am the good shepherd." "I am the resurrection and the life." "I am the way, the truth, and the light." No less, I think, than thirty times does Christ represent the happiness of man as depending on faith in Him as a living personality. In a mere human teacher this would be insufferable egotism, but in Him it was proper and incumbent. First: He had nothing higher to represent than himself. "In Him dwelt all the fulness of the God-head bodily." For Him to have discussed philosophic theories or scientific discoveries, or theological systems would have been more undignified than for the world's greatest sage, to spend his time in playing with an infant's toy. He was greater than the universe and He knew it. Secondly: He had nothing that the world required more than Himself. Souls wanted Christ as the sun, without which their moral firmament would remain in midnight, as the bread and water without which they would spiritually die. Now this must be our theme. He preached Himself, we must not do that, but must preach Him. We must endeavour to catch the rays of His glory and flash them upon the intellect and consciences of men. We must determine to know "nothing amongst men save Jesus Christ and Him crucified." The world wants Christ not creeds. It can do without theories of bread but it will perish without the bread itself. II. He was a model as to the MANNER of His teaching which was unconventional, "and not as the scribes." There were it is true .some things in His manner which were peculiar to Himself, and which ought not to be imitated. There is for example His positiveness. His teaching is made up of positive assertion. He does not go into proof, He does not argue, He dictates, seldom debates, and the reason of this was obvious. He dealt in first principles and first principles lie beyond the realms of proof. So congruous |