revelation of God for the salvation of his church, the new worship (cultus), the new priesthood and theocratic authority, the prevalence of justice and righteousness in the church, which now a second time possesses Canaan the promised inheritance, and there, in full harmony and glorious communion, serves the living God, who manifests himself in the midst of it. VI.-1. An attack was made on the authenticity of the predictions against foreign nations (ch. xxv.-xxxii., xxxv., xxxvi., xxxviii., xxxix.), by an English critic, who would attribute them to Daniel. This attack was made known in Germany, but it never obtained any sympathy, and met with a reply which did more honour to the hypothesis than it deserved." 2. The assaults that have been made on the integrity of the book of Ezekiel, in Germany, belong to a period of criticism already disowned; and the manner of these attacks is in the highest degree characteristic of this period. Oeder and Vogel" assail the authenticity of ch. xl.-xlviii. An apparent external ground for this is found in Josephus (Antiq. x. 5. 1). But even if his words (ὃς πρῶτος περὶ τούτων δύο βίβλια γράψας κατέλιπεν) related to Ezekiel, they would not favour this view, but would merely show an ancient division of the book. The The passage, however, does not refer to Ezekiel at all, but to Jeremiah, otherwise Josephus would make the former a predecessor of the latter (contrary to Antiq. x. 7. 2). The remaining grounds relate chiefly to the darkness resting upon this part of the book; that it is impossible to be explained in an intelligible manner. It was, therefore, certainly the readiest plan to get rid of the section in the way that has been stated. Vogel, to put the crowning point to his hypothesis, supposes this portion to have been written by a Samaritan, in order to excite the Jews to build a temple in common with them! Corrodi" declared the greater part of the arguments brought forward by this critic to be worthless: yet he also decided against its genuineness, and would even place ch. xxxviii., xxxix. in the same category. His principal argument was, that the temple of Zerubabel had not been constructed according to the pattern of Ezekiel's temple, as well as that the description given by Ezekiel deviated so widely from the temple of Solomon. All this only shows how little they could appreciate the ideal character of the representation given by Ezekiel, which certainly See the Monthly Magazine and British Register, 1798, p. 189, sq. Comp. also Gabler, Neuestes theolog. Journal, 1799, ii. 1. p. 322, sq. m See Jahn, Einl. ii. pp. 600-606. n See (Oeder's) Freie Untersuch. üb. ein. Bücher d. A. T. herausgeg. v. Vogel p. 344, sq.; 373, sq. See the correct view in Eichhorn, iv. p. 179, seq. Bertholdt, p. 1497. P Versuch einer Beleuchtung des jüd. u. chr. Bibelkan. i. p. 95, sq. cannot cannot be referred either to the temple of Solomon, or that of Zerubabel. 3. To these not very creditable predecessors, Zunz' only, in more recent times, has attached himself. He adopts the view that the book of Ezekiel belongs to the Persian period. In his course of argument, every thing, even that which is most contradictory to his own view, is scraped together in the most uncritical manner. 'In Ezekiel's contemporary, Jeremiah, there are,' he thinks, no traces of Ezekiel's representations.' Rightly, in case the individuality of Ezekiel were the point to be proved, but there was the more reason why these should have been acknowledged here, since Zunz himself forthwith remarks (p. 160), that abundant use has been made of the predictions of Jeremiah. There can be, therefore, no question as to any essential difference between the two, such as would show that they belonged to different periods. Ezekiel appears not to have been correctly acquainted with the proper form of the cherubim ;' but in this the peculiar manner of Ezekiel's representation is wholly mistaken. The exactness of the statements in ch. x. 1-9, 14, 15, that the living creatures were cherubim, and that one of their four faces was the face of a cherub, is owing to the conception existing in the mind of the prophet in full detail. But the remark in ch. x. 20 sufficiently proves against Zunz, that Ezekiel was, before this time, acquainted with the cherubim of the temple: since otherwise he could not have compared them, as he clearly does, with those of the vision. The rest is still more insignificant, as the relation of Ezekiel to Daniel, the mention of the latter by Ezekiel (xiv. 14, 20; xxviii. 3), the silence of Jeremiah respecting Ezekiel, though he stood in connection with the exiles, &c. One chief motive by which Zunz has been led to take up this opinion against the genuineness of Ezekiel appears to have arisen from wrong dogmatical views. He refers, for instance, to the special predictions of the prophet, particularly that respecting the fate of Zedekiah (xii. 12 sq.): and considers that true prophecy knows nothing of (true) predictions of this kind. Many such special predictions, not less striking, are found in Ezekiel; compare, for instance, ch. xxiv. with ch. xxxiii. This indeed forms a peculiarity of Ezekiel which not only Jahn, but even De Wette was obliged to acknowledge." That he, however, does not stand alone among the prophets in this respect, the example of Isaiah is On this point see especially Beckhaus, Integrität d. proph. Schriften, pp. 251-297. r Zunz, Gottesd. Vortr. d. Juden, p. 158, sq. Jahn, Einl. ii. p. 589, ff.; De Wette, p. 318:-'In none of the ancient prophets (?) are there found such definite predictions as in this.' sufficient sufficient to show. The opposition to exact predictions rests however here not simply on an essentially perverted dogmatic basis, but also on a mistaken view of the person, the whole wonderful appearance, the task of this prophet, with which indeed this aspect of his prophecy is most closely connected. These doubts as to the genuineness of the book, lastly, are strengthened, Zunz considers, by an examination of its language and style. But the philological argument has been estimated by him most uncritically. It is much rather the case that as this testifies most decidedly in favour of the oneness of the book, and against the assumption that single portions are not genuine, so also it does in favour of the genuineness of the whole. For when Zunz remarks, that the language has often an Aramaic colouring, and more than one passage shows an imitation of Jeremiah, that there are found points of agreement with the latest works of the canon,-- these are clearly appearances which can be derived from and explained by the period of the exile. Zunz also contradicts himself here, inasmuch as he acknowledges shortly before, that the diction of Ezekiel is lively, powerful, original, sprung from a period in which prophecy and the Hebrew language had still an independent life. Or can we with such accuracy lay down the characteristic difference between the language of the period of the exile, and that of the Persian age, a little later? Zunz, at least, has not entered into any explanation of what constitutes the peculiar character of this (so called) latest dialect. Finally, when he points out as the most striking' circumstance, the frequent use of words and expressions from the Pentateuch;' it is to be remarked that this argument has no force except to those who maintain that the Pentateuch first appeared during or after the exile." Exegetical works on this prophet: the Commentaries of Calvin, Pradus, and Villalpandus (Rom. 1596, 3 vol.); Starck (1731); Venema (2 vol. 1790); Rosenmüller, Scholia, Ewald, Hävernick (1843). See Gesenius, Gesch. d. Hebr. Sprache, p. 35:- By this alone the suspicion that single passages are not genuine is removed.' u Even Vatke (Bib. Theol. i. p. 502) remarks that this argument may in a certain view be overthrown, but of course only in so far as this critic would assign to Ezekiel the place of a predecessor of the Pentateuch. FREE FREE INQUIRY IN THEOLOGY THE BASIS OF TRUTH AND OF LIBERALITY. By the Rev. BADEN POWELL, M.A., F.R.S., Rara temporum felicitate, ubi sentire quæ velis, et quæ sentias dicere licet. TACIT. Hist. i. 1. ̓Αληθεύοντες ἐν ἀγάπῃ.—Eph. iv. 15. THAT the very basis of all real conviction must be the free use of our understanding seems to be a truth so obvious that it might be thought few would be found to dispute it. And that the same rule must pre-eminently hold good in regard to the search after religious truth, must (it might be thought) be equally apparent. More particularly still, among Protestants of any denomination, it might be expected that this must be the one principle recognized with an authority paramount to all others, as being in fact the sole plea on which the reformation could be justified. Yet in fact the just and obvious claims of freedom of discussion and private judgment have been viewed with jealousy and alarm by nearly all parties, even by those who outwardly feel constrained in some measure to profess them, while by a numerous party they are openly decried and repudiated. If indeed we look to the teaching of Scripture, it cannot but be acknowledged that this great principle is most distinctly indicated and expressed. To prove all things,' to be able to give a reason of the hope that is in us,' to search the Scriptures,' and a multitude of other like precepts, offer an undeniable support on scriptural grounds for the encouragement of all who would examine carefully the nature and grounds of the doctrines proposed to them, and would be justly unwilling to give a hasty or unsatisfied assent to points involving such momentous considerations, on which so much is at stake. But without further preface, we will proceed to some general examination of the principles of free inquiry considered generally, both with regard to the hindrances and difficulties which commonly stand in the way of its exercise, and the grounds and rules agreeably to which it may be conducted with the best prospects of success. In the serious pursuit of any inquiry after truth, we must ever refer refer to the very same sound and cautious principles which guide the inductive investigation of the truths of the natural world. What in fact practically is induction, but the process by which we learn from experience; and what is this but the method instilled by nature, by which from our earliest infancy we are continually storing our minds with the knowledge of external objects, and the common elements of information necessary for the daily purposes of our existence? As the primary object of inductive inquiry into the natural world is to lead us up from facts to laws, of increasing generality and complexity, and from subordinate to more comprehensive principles, so it ends in the assurance of an all-pervading unity of design, which is the physical manifestation of the one Supreme Intelligence; and on which all the conclusions of natural theology are raised. These great truths are conveyed through the medium of the external phenomena of nature; they are not offered directly to our senses but the investigation of the outward phenomena reduced to inductive laws, and carried upwards to their more hidden principles, leads us on to the conviction of the great universal moral cause whence the whole succession of physical causes take their origin; and thus to the acknowledgment of the existence and perfections of the Deity." In all this there is a direct analogy with revelation. In a precisely similar manner the further and higher intimations of revealed truth are addressed to us: not stamped directly on our minds by internal illumination, but elicited by the study of the records, which convey a long series of accounts of the disclosures imparted in former ages, often under widely different circumstances, to highly-gifted individuals, and by them to nations and communities, and lastly by a more universal declaration of higher and more elevating truths addressed to all mankind. But these records, like any others, can only be searched and understood by the ordinary aids of human learning and the free use of our reasoning powers duly employed on the materials submitted to them. Thus the two great branches of natural and revealed religion demand similar means of investigation, if we would satisfy ourselves as to their full meaning, and realize the instruction they convey. And as they are intimately connected in their evidence, as they are directed to the same great object though to different parts of it, as the truths to which they lead are in fact disclosures ultimately derived from the same eternal Source of all truth, so will analogous a For some admirable remarks on these points the reader is referred to Dr. Hampden's Bampton Lectures, 2nd ed. Introd. pp. 28-32, and more pointedly still in Archbishop Whately's Essays on Dangers to Christian Faith, pp. 144-148. principles |