Abraham's establishment, or other persons were instructed by him, it is very probable that at first they would put this sense upon them. They have some resemblance to those clauses in which Jehovah is said to be the inheritance of the Levites, Num. xviii. 20, Deut. x. 9, xviii. 2.

ל

But this interpretation does not show us what plurality was implied in the word D when put by itself for the One Supreme. It is grounded on facts recorded of idolaters, scattered up and down in Scripture; not stated by Moses in the immediate connection. And it gives a meaning to the particle (which was employed by God in his communications of that day in a similar situation no less than eight times) quite different from that it must be allowed to have in those places, and unsanctioned by the version of the LXX. For when God says v. 4, NY, v. 6, Dr Tan, v. 8, Dhiy nines. v. 11, na minh, v. 13, 19,

לְאַב הֲמוֹן גּוֹיִם

the וּנְתַתִּיו לְגוֹי גָדוֹל ,20 .and v וְהָיְתָה לְגוֹיִם ,16 . לִבְרִית עוֹלָם

T:

meaning is that the subject of each clause shall be, not INSTEAD OF that before which is prefixed, but that very thing: so when God said he would be to Abraham and his seed D, it must in fair interpretation be taken to mean that he would be to them,

אלהים but really אלהים not instead of

Let it now be supposed that Abraham made no use whatever of his knowledge of the sense wherein the word was used by idolaters; and sought its explanation only in the certain knowledge he had already gained of Jehovah. What meaning would he probably attach to the word ", and how would he account for its plural form?

He would at once perceive it was a name for that relation in which God stood to himself, and was promising to stand to his posterity. This interview was not the commencement of that relation; it had continued now four and twenty years, and Abraham had considerable knowledge of its nature and its blessedness. But before this day, no name had been given to that relation. God had called himself, Gen. xv. 7, xvi. 11, and

xvii. 1; but these names had no relative signification. God had promised to be his 'shield' and his 'exceeding great reward;' but these expressions were figures, not names for the relation. The titles found in Gen. xiv. 19, 20, 22; xvi. 13, 14, did not express God's peculiar relation to Abraham. The patriarch had indeed in prayer used the relative term before this inter" view (Gen. xv. 2, 8), as he did after it, Gen. xviii. 27, 30, 31, 32. But the very extensive use of that term made it less fit to repre

sent

Its

sent this peculiar relation; and the Deity had not hitherto sanctioned it by his own use. God's relation to Abraham was before this day without a name. was to be that name. meaning, of course, was whatever God had been, or had promised to be, to Abraham and his posterity. Instruction and command, protection, blessing, and conditionally punishment, were all implied in it.

The laws of association teach us that if Abraham was not so amazed and overpowered by the present object, when Jehovah appeared to him, that he could not for a moment look back on past events, no parts of his history, nor indeed of his whole fund of ideas, were so likely to occur to him, as the appearances of Jehovah. Abraham's conduct shows that though he was awed, he was not confounded. We may, I think, safely conclude that it was impossible for him not to remember, though transiently, past divine appearances; and, of course, their plurality. Those appearances were the most remarkable, and not the least valued part of that relation whereto a name was now given. The plural form of the name might very naturally be supposed to commemorate the plurality of the manifestations of the Deity. If so, manifestation, whether by visible appearances or otherwise, must

אלהים be accounted a leading idea in the meaning of

It must not, however, be supposed, that if this position should be established, it will prove that the plural form of Dhad never any reference to a plurality of persons in Jehovah. On the contrary, it may perhaps appear that the manifestations themselves were so arranged as necessarily to suggest this idea.

To return:-we find that whether Abraham employed as a medium of interpretation, the idolatrous ideas of his neighbours, and of his own youthful days, or the sound theology which he had been taught in his age, he would arrive at conclusions concerning the meaning of the word D that differ only as the second is much more compreheneive than the first. It is probable that both trains of thought had their influence in teaching him its meaning. Long before the memorable day when the covenant was sealed, he had probably often thought that the Deity himself was to him instead of ; and he hesitated to call Him his Elohim, only because the Deity had not done it, and the word had been degraded. If so, his mind was prepared at once to seize the meaning of the term as soon as he heard it.

Before the studious reader is left to bring this hypothesis of the meaning of D to the decisive test, by examining all the passages where it is found, it may be convenient to notice two difficulties. 1. The word ' is by some (as Parkhurst, etc.)

thought

thought to have been derived from to threaten, to denounce a conditional curse:' it does not therefore seem very fit to commemorate manifestations in which few threatenings (Gen. xii. 3; xv. 14; and perhaps Gen. xvii. 14, and xv. 18-21, compared with v. 16) were pronounced, but which are remarkable for the most extensive promises of amazing blessings. 2. The word was used in Paradise. It cannot easily be supposed that its plural form and peculiarity of construction had there no significancy; or that it was afterwards introduced into the language of the church in a different sense. Its meaning, therefore, must have been fixed at first by circumstances before the fall, and not by others more than 400 years after the flood.

6

6

Both these difficulties may be removed by adverting to the recorded fact, that before the fall there were at least two manifestations of the will of the Creator, in both of which a solemn threatening was pronounced. The first was before the formation of Eve, in which the style is, thou shalt not eat of it,' 'thou shalt surely die;' the second was after she was formed, when her Maker says to her and her husband, ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.' Gen. ii. 16, 17; iii. 3. There may have been more warnings than these; but it is not necessary to suppose them. The declaration of their danger would be reckoned before the fall, and after that dreadful event, by the pious, perhaps by all, a friendly and kind interference. It is not easy to imagine how our first parents could express the interesting idea, He who warned us more than once,' more readily than by such a word as used in construction with a singular verb.

The former of these difficulties will not be felt by such as adopt the derivation of the word from an Arabic root meaning to strike with awe, according to Gesenius, and a host of the most eminent Orientalists.' Dr. J. Pye Smith gives it in English letters,' alaha, to adore.' 'Hence the noun will signify the object of adoration.' a

The studious reader who is disposed to bring the hypothesis here proposed to the decisive test, is advised to consider every instance in which the word occurs in Scripture, in the order of time in which the passages were spoken or written; and to pay particular attention to the more unusual constructions, such as those collected by Dr. Smith in the section above referred to. All this was done by the writer twenty-two years ago; and the result was a satisfactory confirmation of the theory, which has not been shaken by any subsequent observations or reflections. It is now proposed for the examination of others.

a

Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, 1st edit., p. 379, vol. i. ; 3rd edit., p. 465, DAVIDSON'S

note 2.

VOL. II.-NO. IV.

2 A

DAVIDSON'S INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT.

BY THE EDITOR.

An Introduction to the New Testament; containing an Examination of the most important Questions relating to the Authority, Interpretation and Integrity of the Canonical Books of Scripture, with reference to the latest Inquiries. By SAMUEL DAVIDSON, LL.D. Vol. I. The Four Gospels. London, S. Bagster and Sons, 1848. Pp. xxvi. 430.

HERE, at last, we have a book on what is called the Introduction to the New Testament, calculated to meet the wants of the age, and the sight of which will make the heart of every real Biblical student glad. It is the work we were enabled to announce to our readers in the first Number, and the appearance of which has since been eagerly expected by those who take interest in that most important branch of Biblical learning to which it is devoted-and particularly by those whose knowledge of the eminent qualifications of the writer enabled them to anticipate the thorough and exhaustive treatment the subject was likely to receive at his hands. The performances of the most competent and able men so often fall short of their design, and even of their resources, that it is not always safe to awaken large expectations. But we are bound to say that, in this instance, the expectations entertained have been fully realized. There is no other work by an English scholar like or comparable to this, or any which, by its breadth of view and elaborateness of investigation, affords an idea of what the Germans understand by Biblical Introduction, which is with them a study of primary importance in theological science. It is indeed true that the English scholar is not altogether without the means of forming some notion of this study in its continental significance, as we possess translations of the Introductions of Michaelis and Hug, the study of which—although they are now somewhat antiquated-may have prepared some readers for the mode of treatment exhibited in the present work.

We earnestly hope to see this branch of Biblical study much better cultivated here than it has been; and it is among the sources of the satisfaction with which we hail the present production, that it seems to us well calculated to give an impulse in this class of investigations, to which we greatly desire to see the practical good sense of the English intellect applied in fashioning to becoming and holy uses the vast materials which the fecundity and minute research of our Teutonic brethren have accumulated and are continually increasing. Little more than this can for many years be done among us; for original conclusions seem to be precluded by the thorough manner in which every conceivable point

and

6

and difficulty-under that view of the Sacred Books which Introduction takes has over and over again been stated, impugned, and vindicated by the scholars of the continent. But although to say any thing new seems next to impossible, fresh effects may be produced by the exercise of independent thought in analyzing and in passing judgment upon the conflicting views thus presented to attention. And this is what our author has done. There is much here, very much, that will be new to the English reader, but little with which one who has been enabled to follow the course of recent continental investigations is not familiar— though even he will rejoice to see the most important arguments and conclusions exhibited in an immense number of German books, here brought together, classified, and subjected to a most searching examination. Only one who knows the marvellous fertility of the German theological press in this branch of literature, can well form an adequate notion of the vast labour the production of this volume has cost its author, when he assures us that no available source of information has been neglected.' Such will also understand in its full force the reason— which will seem curious to others--why he sends forth the first volume, containing the Gospels, by itself. Chiefly because the author foresaw, that if he waited till the entire work were completed, he should be obliged, in accordance with his plan, to change a goodly part of his manuscript, in consequence of the numerous works on the Gospels which issue daily from the German press. He felt that by the time he should have finished his observations on the Apocalypse, his manuscript on the Gospels would be partially antiquated.' It will be seen from this that the author is not of those who profess to write for all time. He is content to know-he takes pleasure in hoping-that in the course of years the advance of Biblical investigation will place his work among the things that are old, and the use of which has passed away; and he finds sufficient reward and encouragement in the hope of being enabled to help on that advancing tide of knowledge by which he believes that his own work will be submerged. There are few authors who can look at such results steadily, and with the perfect contentment Dr. Davidson manifests. But it is the right and true spirit. It is the Christian spirit. It is the spirit of one who says, 'Let my works and my name pass away, if but Thy works and Thy great name be glorified.' This is, however, a book which must always fill a high and honourable place in the history of our theological literature.

In his preface our author says truly that there is no English book which gives a fair or adequate idea of the present state of opinion in this department. It is therefore to supply a want, which he thinks has been felt by many, that this work was undertaken :—

'It is matter of congratulation that the class of inquiring Bible students is rapidly increasing. Amid the conflict of opinions truth must always eventually prevail. The Scriptures will bear and repay the closest investigation. In the light of a true philosophy guided by an humble spirit, they will shine out with a fairer lustre. And yet there are many well-meaning men who entirely discourage the reading of such books as contain new researches into the region of theological science, especially those written in the German language. They denounce them as dangerous. They sound

2 A 2