Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

(for is a negative, and does mean nondum). This point is, of course, common to both views. The other view is, that the whole 4th verse is not the superscription to what follows, but the subscription, or codicil, of the preceding chapter, as in Lev. vii. 37; xi. 46. It is inferred to be so, because, among other reasons, there is no mention in what follows of the creation of heaven, so that it would seem inapposite as a title; and the name Jehova, which militates against this verse belonging to the first chapter, is regarded as an interpolation (there is some ground for its omission, in the Var. Lect. of the LXX.). The fifth verse is then the commencement of the new section; and the copula in has here an adversative force (for which, and the position of the word to which the adversative applies, see Ewald, § 606), and at the same

into propositions of וְכָל עֵשֶׂב וְכֹל שִׂיחַ,time makes the two clauses

state (upon which important distinction see Ewald, § 607). These two influences conjointly produce this sense: But before any shrub of the field yet was in the earth, and before any plant of the field yet sprouted-for Jehova Elohim had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground, but a mist went up from the earth, and watered all the face of the ground-Jehova Elohim formed man.' For, according to this view, the true apodosis is, in ver. 7; and the words 'for Jehova,' down to 'ground,' form a parenthesis. The intelligent reader will discern that both these views are conformable to the normal syntax of the Hebrew language; and if, like the generality of our countrymen, he is determined to ignore the results of German research as to the composition of the book of Genesis, he can still shut his eyes to the very small portion of these views which is influenced by those results, and yet adopt, on purely grammatical grounds, a very important emendation of our Vulgate. As for the emendation of Bayley and Boothroyd, Nor had a vapour ascended, &c.,' which our author cites with no more reprehension, or assent, than he does the opinion of Rosenmüller just before, we assert that there are two reasons why a real scholar should either have spared himself the trouble of adducing it at all, or, if he did, have exposed its signal violation of grammar. First, the attempt to extend the influence of the negative from verse 5 over into verse 6, is utterly inadmissible. The pretended Hebraists who believe the language capable of such wanton freaks, should really be the first persons to find out whether there are any distinct limitations to such a licence. There are limitations, and very strict ones, which positively preclude this verse from taking advantage of the licence. It is not allowed at all, in prose, unless the second proposition is attached by Vav

consecutivum.

consecutivum. The laws of the case are most distinctly stated by Von Ewald, in his Kritische Grammatik, p. 657. Secondly, the attempt to make into a pluperfect, is an example of the grossest ignorance of the uses and signification of the two Hebrew tenses (see Ewald, § 264).

Again, on chap. x. 21, we merely find: Auth. Vers.-The brother of Japhet the elder. Ged., Booth.-The elder brother of Japhet.'

Now surely we were entitled to a word of reason in this case; but we do not get a hint, for that is his entire note on the passage. We will merely content ourselves with referring the reader who desires to see that question satisfactorily discussed, if not settled, to an essay by Schelling, in Eichhorn's Repertorium, vol. xvii. p.

1-25.

6

Finally, in his note to chap. xxix. 1-8, we have a remarkable specimen of Kennicott's temerity, and of our author's inconsistency with the remarks which he has himself made, when contrasting the gentle measures of a German neologian with the slashing emendations of some even of the orthodox. In this passage, upwards of two closely printed pages are occupied with the Hebrew, Greek, and English forms of the eight verses, and with Kennicott's note upon them. This note proposes nothing more nor less than to read shepherds' instead of flocks' in verses 2, 3, and 8. The exquisite reason for these unwarrantable changes lies in this: that Kennicott does not comprehend how the plural verbs in those verses can be used without definite subjects expressed, and, therefore, he must actually make subjects, to remove this huge anomaly. Now, as our author, as usual, does not favour us with a line of comment on Kennicott's emendations, we will endeavour to supply them. First, that very P. J. Bruns, to whose far superior attainments Kennicott's labours owe nearly all their present value, in a paper which he published in Eichhorn's Repertorium, vol. xiii. p. 209, where he enumerates the passages which he was ordered to collate, mentions these three emendations, and adds this note: Infelices hæ tres, siquæ aliæ, correctiones Kennicotti. E contextu enim antecedens nomen intelligendum est. Jon. i. 3.-Jonas ascendit navim ut iret cum illis, sc. nautis, &c.' See also Ewald, § 551. Moreover, we cannot find any German commentator, from J. D. Michaelis down to Tuch, who has not preferred the original reading to Kennicott's emendations; and we cannot but express our surprise that even Rosenmüller's note on the place was not sufficient to apprise our author that, in reprinting such rubbish in our day, he was running some risk of discrediting his own scholarship.

We

We will only add, for the sake of those who desire the aid of a correct grammatical interpreter, and with reference to the only useful purposes which we which we can imagine this bulky and expensive work capable of serving, that the Commentarius Grammaticus Criticus in Vetus Test. in usum maxime Gymnasiorum et Academiarum, by Maurer, Lips. vol. i.-iv. 1, is in every respect, except type and paper, far superior to the Synopsis, if this brief examination of the latter can entitle us to form an opinion of the large remainder which we have not seen.

CORRESPONDENCE.

ON DEATH, AS CONNECTED WITH THE FALL.

BY THE REV. JOHN PYE SMITH, D.D., LL.D., f.r.S.

SIR,-An esteemed friend has written to me his desire for an answer or an opinion upon the question,-Whether Physical Death is the effect of the Fall; and, if so, what may we conceive as the probable condition of Man, and of the World, had Adam not fallen? He has also intimated that it would be agreeable to him, that I should solicit the insertion of my answer in your Journal.

Perhaps my friend is not aware that this subject was one of those treated by me in a volume published in 1839, and of which the fourth edition is now in the press, "On the Relation between the Holy Scriptures and some Parts of Geological Science." I shall, however, avoid the repeating of what is contained in that book, as much as the identity of sentiment will permit.

Two questions are contained in the proposal. The first is, Whether Physical Death is the effect of the Fall? This, also, is evidently twofold, the one having a universal respect to all animated creatures, and the other a special reference to the race of Man. The second refers to an hypothetical condition of our first progenitor.

I. With respect to the Animal Creation universally.

i. All animal bodies are composed of limbs and other organs, which are resolvable into parts adapted to their respective functions, and can be continually distinguished through certain conditions of structure, till we arrive at minute cells each consisting of an inclosing membrane and an inclosed nucleus. Below these primordia of the bodily formation we cannot penetrate. We join them as our first term (and if there be any yet higher in intermediate space, the argument is the same),

with the will and power of the Creator, as we rest upon the same will and power for the perpetual and necessary support of all the future progress. From the first discoverable state of embryonic life, to the maturity of the individual creature, there is a succession of production, superseding, and rejection; and then a descending succession of decline and inability, to a final cessation, and that is death.

This is the physiological history of all animal existence, as to the individual possessor of it: production, formation, parts performing their functions, then withering, falling off, or being absorbed, succession of other parts and functions, maturity, decline, decay-and, at last, dissolution. This process has been proved, by indubitable observation, in relation to all the classes of animated nature; the infusoria and all the other invertebrata, and the vertebrata up to man, the highest term.

ii. Such is the course of animal or organized-corporal existence, as regards each individual creature. It may be deemed probable, from analogical reasoning, in which, however, the series of changes must be different from the individual case, that each species, animal and vegetable, has also its term of existence, fixed by the Divine wisdom, and having its appropriate phenomena down to cessation. But our knowledge of the present creation is not extensive enough to enable us to trace out any instance; and the period of time since its beginning is probably too short. This deficiency is supplied by the discoveries of Palæontology. From almost the lowest (that is, the earliest) of stratified formations, we see the successive beds of the earth's crust filled with the remains of living creatures, their shelly habitations, portions of their organized structure, bringing us, as we advance, to their skeletons, their stomachs under their ribs, and the contents of those stomachs being portions of other animals, bitten, broken, and in the course of being digested. This series of changes runs through countless ages, and in it we see species coming into existence, enduring for a time, then ceasing and other species appear, running a similar course in fulfilment of the Creator's ordination.

Thus we have sensible demonstration of limited periods of existence for all animals, both individually and as species; and that animals have been, in all periods, sustained by feeding upon other creatures possessed of animal life.

iii. The same order of things is presented to us in the existing system of creation, which we may call the Adamic; and its place in time is usually called the human period. God has made the vegetable world with the power and function of converting inorganic matter into organic. Then the vegetable organisms become the nutriment of some kinds of animals, and they supply similar means of life to other kinds. Now, be it observed that the anatomical formation of those which feed upon vegetables is, in all points affecting the case, different from that of the animal-feeders; thus indicating the design of the Creator and the provision for accomplishing that design. A few species are omnivorous; capable, in certain circumstances, of being nourished by both vegetable and animal food; but by far the larger number are carnivorous.

Here,

Here, then, we have evidence of the plan and will of the Most High; that the first product in his system of material life shall be vegetable, and that the next step shall be animal, of which a small part shall need only vegetable food, and the rest shall be provided with that which is necessary for it, animal-organized food. Also, it is not to be forgotten that, speaking more strictly, no animals are absolutely and exclusively herbivorous; for, in their food, and the water which they drink, they take into their digesting and assimilating functions infinite numbers of animalcular creatures; and it is rational to suppose that this is a condition necessary to their existence.

Now, neither vegetable nor animal substance becomes nutritious except by the intervention of DEATH. It is dead organized matter,

and that only, that can support the living animal.

It plainly follows that the Creator has appointed a system of animal existence which includes a perpetual circle of life and death, each ministering to the other and that such has been through countless ages the actual fact, we have sensible evidence.

If any, disregarding that evidence, should maintain that, prior to the sin of man, the head of the animal world, all its inferior tribes might have been created immortal, I would reply that the supposition gives an alternative.

1. Those creatures might be, as all animals now are, constructed upon the plan of organization. But that necessarily includes the changes which have been described, beginning with generation and cellular formation, involving continual separation and rejection of what is separated, and ending in decline, death, and decomposition.

Or, 2. they might be formed in some other manner, to us perfectly unknown and inconceivable: and, if in any way (however beyond our power of imagining) the command of the Creator, "Increase and multiply," were to have place, the numbers would become too great for the capacity and bulk of the earth. Not being organized beings, they would of course not need food; but still the ever accumulating mass would produce the effect just mentioned. Both sides of this alternative are manifestly absurd.

From these premises, it appears to be an unavoidable conclusion that death must have been, from the beginning of an animal-creation, a part of its system.

Yet it has been strenuously urged that, where there is no sin, there ought to be no suffering. I reply that this is an unauthorized assumption, with respect to creatures not the subjects of a MORAL government; that the conditions of their existence must flow from the wisdom of their Creator and Sustainer; and that a system like the actual one is evidently more productive of happiness, to the individuals and to their sociable properties, than any other in our power to conceive.

It should also be considered that bodily pain, through a long range of variety and degree, is a good; a provision of the wisest benevolence, for the preventing of incomparably greater evils, and the acquisition of many and important enjoyments. For the evidence of this position, I would refer my friend or any other inquirer to the late Archdeacon

Paley's

« PreviousContinue »