the reviewer's estimation of Middleton's work, it may render him less confident in the application of this theory, as well as of the rule of Mr. Sharpe, to particular texts.

But whether Middleton's theory of the article be true or not, the reading to in the 8th verse will not give even a shadow of probability to the interpolated seventh, if either of these two things can be shown ;-that similar cases of the article occur in the New Testament, or elsewhere, where no reference is discoverable ;—or (if to iv must refer to something) that the reference may be explained from the preceding or following unsuspected verses.

Now, though we do not profess to be thoroughly versed in the doctrine of the Greek article, we think that an examination of Schmidius' Concordance has furnished us with one example at least, where precisely the same phrase occurs, and where we venture to say no more reference is discoverable, than of the Toy in the 8th verse of John. It is the clause to Ev Opovaves in Philip. ii. 2. thinking the same thing. Dr. Middleton, we find, was aware, that this was a stubborn text, which would hardly bend to his theory. Now let any one attend to the manner in which he endeavours to get rid of the difficulty here, and judge whether it is not quite as easy to explain the article in this 8th verse, without calling up the 7th verse from the dead. By Middleton's own concession, the article prefixed to es, or any similar word, may refer to something following, as well as to something which precedes; why may it not refer then to uapropia in the following verse? It is no objection that mapTuplay is of a different gender, as any one may satisfy himself, who attends to Middleton's explanation of his doctrine of reference.

τυρίαν

If too we may be allowed to judge of Middleton's theory from the view given of it by the critick in the Monthly Review, it seems just as proper to say, of the English translation of to Ev Opovævres, thinking the same thing, that there must be a reference to some particular thing previously or subsequently mentioned, as that the same phrase in Greek must of necessity have a reference.

Dr. Middleton, in the first part of his work, which contains his theory, with the exceptions, and with the examples to justify it, says of some cases, which he adduces, " in these cases

the reference of the article is more obscure, than in the case of renewed mention strictly so called; but yet is explicable on the same principle for in all of them it is to something which is easily recognized, though not hitherto particularly mentioned." We are not sure, that this observation will not serve to explain the instance in question. If we were urged to say "to what does the Tov of the 8th verse answer except the iv in the 7th verse," we might reply that it refers to the testimony, (μaptvplov) implied in the 6th verse; where, after the water and the blood have been mentioned, it is said, "also the spirit bears testimony" TO VEUμA 151 μaptops-and then it is added in Greek, as we should say in English, "therefore there are three witnesses, the spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree in the same [testimony.]" Whether this is a satisfactory explanation, others must judge. In any case, it ought not to be forgotten, that it is far more probable, that the article and the clause in the 8th verse are spurious than that the 7th is genuine. Dr. Middleton allows that they may be; Grotius thought they were.

We wish that we had room to discuss the text in Hebrews i. 8. But our publishers warn us, that it is time for the Anthology and our review to come to a close. We cannot leave the subject, however, without observing, that whatever interpretation the analogy of the Greek language in this text may be supposed to require, (and we are inclined to agree with our reviewer as to this analogy) the original Hebrew is unquestionably ambiguous. Whether the Hebrew be translated, thy throne, O God, or, God is thy throne, we are entirely of Calvin's opinion, that the 14th Psalm, from which the quotation is taken, originally and literally refers to Solomon. If the mystical meaning relates to Christ, then Christ is called by a title, (05) which is also given to Solomon. Let any man read this Psalm for the first time, without having been informed, that any part of it had been applied by way of accommodation to Christ, and we venture to say, that he would discover in it no more of the marriage of Christ and the church, than in Solomon's Song. We hope the reviewers will not call this an "indecent" allusion.

It is not so clear a case as they suppose, that all the ancient Jewish Rabbies applied the Psalm solely to the Messiah : Gro

tius, and others, assert the very contrary. It is not certain that the clause in the epistle to the Hebrews is addressed to the Son. The preposition used is pos; which in the preceding verse is rendered of, (" and of the angels he saith.") Now as προς μεν in the former verse, and προς δὲ in this answer to one another, interpreters admit that it may be properly rendered, But of the Son he saith.-This however is nothing to the main question; any more than is the ignorance of the Panoplist reviewers in ascribing to Bp. Pearce an extract from James Peirce the learned dissenter, relating to this passage. The only question between us is, whether Griesbach has discovered any want of judgment or impartiality in printing the words, without insulating 80s by commas. Now the MSS. of the New Testament are probably not pointed so as to determine the question; and as the passage is quoted by the writer of the Hebrews from the LXX. where os in this place has never been made to appear in the vocative by means of commas, Griesbach has very properly printed it as it stands in the Greek version of the Psalm, Opovos 58 ò Oees, &C.

This is all that we have room to say in vindication of Griesbach. The unfortunate ambiguity of a passage in our review gave so fair an opportunity for the attack and the mode of attack in the Panoplist, that we have forborne to retaliate reproaches; and have neglected to notice all the occasions of censure and cavil, with which their attempt at criticism would have furnished us. What we have here written is intended not to produce a popular effect, but for the examination of those, who are disposed freely to explore the text and the interpretation of the New Testament by the rules of just criticism, unbiassed by the authority of names or parties, and to promote the careful, but unsuspicious use of Griesbach's invaluable labours.

ARTICLE 29.

An Eulogy on John Hubbard, Professor of Mathematicks and Natural Philosophy, in Dartmouth College, who died August 14, 1810. Pronounced at the College, September, 1810. By Elijah Parish, D. D. Hanover; C. W. S. and H. Spear.

cr

1810.

GENIUS," says the admirable Dennis in his remarks on Prince Arthur, "is caused by a furious joy and pride of soul on the conception of an extraordinary hint." If we may judge from the composition now before us, Dr. Parish is exactly such a genius as is here defined, for it is marked with an incoherency and extravagance which would almost induce us to think its author afflicted with something worse than a mere fervour of the imagination. Whether he has fallen into this unlucky manner of writing by endeavouring to pursue some methodis. tical model, or whether he has sought in vain for the impassioned style of the French pulpit, or whether finally he has erected a standard of imaginary excellence which he has fail ed to attain, but would have succeeded better if he had attempted less, we can neither decide nor conjecture. We propose to show merely the ground he now occupies, without undertaking to trace the path by which he reached it, for we dare not risk a fall by following his flight.

After a paragraph of introduction, he devotes two pages to the history of eulogies, which he traces to the earliest Egyptians; but cites no proof for his assertions, except that he once refers to Bingham's antiquities, and once, with unparalleled modesty, to his own geography. The last reference is somewhat curious. He here mentions "the annual solemnity in Thibet and Bengal to make publick lamentation for the dead," and thinks "this custom might conveniently and profitably be introduced to our Christian churches." If we understand this passage, it will require no great ingenuity to prove it but ridiculous, and inconsistent with another part of the pamphlet. Whether he had been reading the little pastoral of Cervantes, as translated and altered by Florian, we know not; but this kind of yearly mourning is introduced there among an Arcadian society to considerable effect, and on a much more fascinating system than is proposed in the eulogy. There seems to

be some congruity between the simple manners we ascribe to shepherds, and the simple expression of their feelings by periodically visiting the tombs of their departed friends; but there is something at once ludicrous and revolting in the idea of making a formal mourning for the dead a part of the Christian ritual, like our fasts and thanksgivings. There is also personal inconsistency in the system, for Dr. Parish seems now, to have none of those hypochondriack fears which oppress his imagination, in page 22, lest we should be devoured by "the dragons of Paganism." To be sure, we do not suppose there is any reason to fear that Christendom will ever relapse into idolatry; but there would certainly be more danger of it from the introduction of this fashion, than from a frequent perusal of the classicks and we do believe, that we should more easily imbibe" the catholick heresy of praying to the dead, or even the heathenish practice of worshipping them, from the system of Dr. Parish, than we should "the spirit of Paganism from an incessant familiarity with the Greek and Roman writers." There is indeed something consummately ridiculous in either supposition; but still, if it be possible to conceive any hazard, it is from the first. The steps of such a transition are skilfully pointed out by Farmer,* who supposes the whole machinery of ancient mythology originated in an improper respect for the dead, as an instance of which, he selects the very custom of Thibet, here so strongly recommended.

Nothing occurs in the remainder of this performance which we feel disposed to notice, unless it be two pages near the conclusion, devoted to the abuse of classical learning. This, it is true, is not the first time Dr. Parish has assumed a character so unworthy a liberal mind; but still we were not prepared to find him breathing this polluted spirit within walls consecrated to learning, where every hand ought to be raised to oppose the innovation, and chastise its author, The substance of the respectable part of his reasoning on this subject is taken from a note on the fifth letter of Foster's fourth essay; but when he protests against reading Homer because, in consequence of it, the "mind" of a Christian "at a funeral" is often absent

Worship of human spirits among the ancient heathen nations.”