munication. But the occafional petulance of Dr. Hales against his unknown antagonist may ferve as a falutary leffon to those who fall into the common cant of authors, affecting to defpife Reviewers, because anonymous, when differing from themfelves in opinion. "Is this," afks Dr. H., in one place, “to difcharge fkiifully and faithfully the perilous and delicate functions of SACRED CRITICS?" P. 167. Can thofe functions, we afk in return, be more admirably dif charged, than by committing the most difficult difcuffions to the most learned, the most acute, the most eminent man of his day? Neither Bishop Horley, certainly, nor any other wife man, would pertinacioufly defend opinions, merely becaufe he had once advanced them, whether anonymoufly or with his name. But his opinions always deferved refpect, and a man of equal fugacity with himfelf (could fuch a one have been found) would have perceived that they did fo, even when they were not entirely uncontrovertible. But, as it was, a body of men were to be reflected upon, as not qualified for the functions they had affumed, be, aufe, when they had published the thoughts of one of the wifeft and moft learned men of their time, an individual scholar (comparatively obfcure) happened to differ in opinion, on a very difficult queftion. The notions of Bifhop Horfley cannot properly be defended by any perfon but himself, because they were generally founded in deeper learning than most men poffefs, and matured by more reflection than the most learned are ufually able to exert. Into the controverfial part of this work, therefore, we fhall not deeply enter, but leave the authority of the writers in balance, one against the other; the Bishop of St. A faph against the Rector of Killefandra; and if in any points we may concede to the opinions of the latter, it is entirely without pledging ourselves that our la mented partifan and coadjutor would have done the fame.

Dr. Hales, if we read him not amifs, is a man who, with good learning, much diligence, and fome acutenefs, has too much of one part of the Phaifee's character in him; we acan, that "he trufts" implicitly " in himself, and defpifes ethers." At the fame time, as his zeal againft all that is un

d in religion is always itrong, and generally enlightened, aapprobation of particular pafiages in his writings is ays united with general refpećt and efteem for the man. The prefent volume contains ten Diflertations, the fubnce of which, the author fays, originally appeared under efignature of Infpector, in the Orthodox Churchman's Magosine; and, fhould this volume be favourably received by e public, he promifes a second series of Differtations from

the

the fame fource. There is little reafon to hope, from the habits of the present times, that Differtations, chiefly turning upon critical points of Hebrew literature, can be very popular; but perhaps the expectations of the author are only moderate; and if fo, they may have a chance of being gratified. The fubjects of the Differtations are these :

I. An attempt to reftore the original Hebrew text of Balaam's Prophecy concerning the Meffiah. Num. xxiv. 7. 66 2. On Pfalm xvi. P. 22.

3. On the Introduction to the Epiftle to the Hebrews. P. 38. 4. On the original Prophecy of Chrift, the Son of David. 2 Sam. vii. 1-15. P. 61.

P.

5. On Psalm xxxix. P. 86.

"6. On the primitive names of the Deity. In three Parts.

7. On Pfalm ii.

8. On Pfalm cx.
9. On Pfalm xlv.

P. 224.

P. 269.
P.

301.

10. On the Prophecy of Micah. Chap. v. 2-4. P. 345.".

1. In the first differtation Dr. H. begins by confirming, jufly, the interpretation of our authorized verfion, which gives to Pilate the words "Behold the Man," in John xix. 3. He thinks alfo, that these words may contain an allufion' to the paffage in Balaani's prophecy, (Num. xxxiv. 7.) which, according to the Septuagint verfion and other authorities, is, "There shall come forth A MAN of his feed, (Jacob's,) and he fhall govern many nations." He even thinks it poffible that Pilate might have heard of fo remarkable a prophecy, and might mean to allude to it, in derision.

However this may be, both the context and the authorities fufficiently confirm the verfion of the Septuagint, which is further illuftrated by the Syriac, as Dr. H. fhows. In the fecond part of his differtation he endeavours to account for the prefent corruption of the Hebrew; and though we do not think the alteration fo flight as he pronounces it, we can allow his conjecture to be fair, Ry does not very eafily pafs into ; but the tranfpofition of one letter in 1, making it b, by the mere insertion of, is more' eafy, and the fecond line takes the change ftill more readily." The author proceeds to confirm his conjecture by the exter-" nal and internal evidence; the facility of the adulteration," and the temptation the Jews had to make it. As it appears perfectly clear, that there has been a corruption of the paffage, fince the Septuagint verfion was made, Dr. H. is pro-" bably right in the main, though not in every particular.

2. The next differtation is employed to prove the 16th Pfalm to be entirely appropriated to the prediction of the Meffiah, to whom its application is well illuftrated. But we are inclined to think, that its firft application was to David; and the rendering of the name David, in the title [75 On32) by the appellative, the beloved, is much too bold for our acquiefcence.

3. Here, after rejecting the opinion of Michaelis and others, that the Epiftle to the Hebrews was originally written in Hebrew, Dr. H. propofes a corrected verfion of the firft chapter, and the three firft verfes of the fecond. To fome of his alterations we ftrongly object, and particularly to the change of his Son" (ver 2 of ch. i.) into A SON, which feems like one fon out of many; whereas there was no other fon, in the fame fenfe of Sonfhip, befides Chrift.

66

4. Confirms the application of the prophecy, 2 Sam. vii. 1-15, to Chrift, against the Jews, who feek to fix it to Solemon. This is done with ability, by means of a new tranflation of the paffage, compared with 1 Chron.xvii. 1—14. But here, as elfewhere, we ftrongly object to his ufe of the "Oracle of God," inftead of the WORD of God.

5. In this differtation Dr. H. follows D. Kimchi in making "Ethan the Ezraite," mentioned in the title of Pfalm lxxxix, the fame of whom honourable mention is made, Kings iv. 31, where he is reckoned among the wifeft, though Solomon was flill more wife. This is highly probable, and the fancies of Geddes, and even more refpectable commentators, may be difmiffed without regret. Dr. H. applies the Pfalm exclufively to the Meffiah, and feems to oppofe, with fome indignation, the double fenfe admitted by fome commentators, though it is certain that double fenfes may often be proved on irrefragable authority.

6. In this differtation we come to the controverfy of the author with the BRITISH CRITIC, or rather with the illuftrious Divine beforementioned, on the primitive names of the Deity in the Hebrew. We certainly have no objection to being reviewed ourselves, but we think the Doctor himfelf will blufh, even in his clofet, when he finds against whom his fneers and farcafms were really directed. We are ready, however, to concede to him, that the Maforetic and general practice of making triliteral verbs the roots of all Hebrew words must be erroneous. It is more natural certainly, that nouns fhould be prior, and, in whatever depends upon this pofition, we are inclined to believe that he is right. His proofs on this point are learned and judicious. We cannot, however, attempt to enter deeply into this fubject,

as

as far as it is controverfial, left we should do injuftice to the opinions of a coadjutor who can no longer defend them.. We think, nevertheless, that, excepting occafional violence of manner, the audious reader will find much deferving of attention in this differtation. But in the fecond part, when we come to "the Oracle of the Lord," as the divine perfon who converfed with Adam, &c. we must enter our direct proteft against the introduction of this novel and very objectionable expreffion. An oracle, in common ufe, implies nothing perfonal, but either the prediction delivered or the place of delivering it; and the heathen oracles are too familiar to our minds to allow of the confecration of the term to the divine perfon of Chrift. This abufe of the term is continual, and is put to reprefent both the DABAR IAHOH, and the Aoyos OU, and Dr. H. even feems to pride himself in the ufe. Still more unhappy is he when he attempts claffical criticism, and reprehends the editors of Horace for not printing Dis-piter inftead of Diespiter, (p. 156,) where the verfe would absolutely be annihilated by his reading. So eafily may even a learned man get out of his depth in some matters! This differtation is much the longeft of the whole. It extends to three parts, and contains much curious matter; though certainly, if examined with rigour, a number of difputable affertions.

7. In this differtation the author is again employed to combat a double sense. We have here another new term, the REGENT, applied to our Saviour, and introduced in various places and various ways; but, in our opinion, no better conceived than the author's favourite ORACLE.

The remaining differtations on the cxth and xlvth Psalms, and on a prophecy of Micah, are of the fame ftyle and cha racter. The author errs in general only by feeing too much, and being too pofitive refpecting his fancied difcoveries; but every where he is zealous, every where orthodox, and every where learned. We lament, therefore, that we cannot give him unalloyed commendation; and we cordially recommend his writings to the ftudents in theological literature, as fitted to exercise their judgment, and often to extend their learning.

ART.

ART. X. Lettre au Comte Moira, Général de fa Majefté Britannique, Colonel du 27eme Régiment, Confeiller Intime * de fa Majeflé, Gouverneur de la Tour de Londres, Sc. Sc. fur les Espagnols, et fur Cadiz, par le Baron de Geramb, Major Général au Service de fa Majefté Catholique Ferdinand VII. Magnat de Hongrie, Chambellan actuel de ja Majefté l'Empreur d'Autryche, &c. &c. Londres. De l'Imprimerie de Vogel et Schultz, Poland-treet. pp. 72.

1810..

4to.

THIS animated addrefs to the Earl of Moira, the patron

and friend of the meritorious or diftreffed of every nation, conftitutes a continued panegyric on the people of Spain, couched in language abounding with that imagery and metaphor, which feems requifite to fuftain elegant. French; but which, if equally applied to an English profaic compofition, would diminith its intereft, and give it a character of bombaft and affectation, not meant however in reference to the work before us.

The Baron, in his ufual vivid and flowing flyle, feelingly laments the fall of the Houfe of Hapiburgh, broadly hint ing at caufes which are now but too apparent. He might have mentioned the reafon of the lofs of the battle of Wagram. Auftria was completely victorious up to that fatal period of the war. Buonaparte's fituation, though in poffeflion of Vienna, was extremely perilous; and procraftination in the then ftate of Europe was the eflential object, in view. The preventing of the paffage of the Danube would completely have effected this. Inftead of that, the French army was quietly allowed to pass over, and to appear the following morning drawn up in battle array, at right angles to the lett flank of the Auftrian army, which was thus forced to change front, under every circumftance of dif advantage. It was attacked during a difficult and complicated movement, and neceffarily defeated. The honour of characters, deemed previously great in the cabinet and field, is deeply implicated in the event of that myfterious paffage of the Danube. The Auftrians are flill, in heart, attached to Britain; and therefore we earnestly with to have the lofs of the battle of Wagram accounted for, on grounds that will bear tactical investigation.

Confeiller Intime-Privy Counsellor.

The