4. When that which has been mentioned in the Old Testament as formerly done, is accomplished in a larger and more extensive sense in the New Testament.

St. Matthew seems to quote according to all these rules and it will be useful to the reader, to keep them constantly in view.*

Out of Egypt have 1 called my son. This is cited from Hosea, xi. 1. where the deliverance of Israel from Egyptian bondage, is referred to. To account for the application of this passage by St. Matthew, to God's calling his son Jesus out of Egypt, let us turn to Exod. iv. 22, 23, where God commandeth Moses, "thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, thus saith the LORD, Israel (is) my son (even) my first-born. And I say unto thee, let my son go, that he may serve me." Now under the patriarchal dispensation every first-born son in the holy line, reckoning from the father, was a type of the great First-born, the Messiah,† and no doubt was regarded as such by the pious believers of those times. The people of Israel then, being thus solemnly declared by God himself to be his Son, even his First-born, must have been considered, in some respects, an eminent type of the same exalted personage. Hence, in Isaiah (xlix. 3) Israel is put for Messiah, in these words, "Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified." So (in Isa. xlii. 1.) what is in Hebrew, "Behold my servant whom I uphold, mine elect in whom my soul delighteth," is, in the Chaldee Targum, "Behold my servant the Messiah," and in the Greek, "Jacob my servant and Israel mine elect." In Midrash Tehillim on Psal. ii. 7. are these remarkable words: "I will publish the decree: this decree has been published in the law, in the prophets, and in the Hagiographia. In the law, Israel, is my first-born son. Exod. iv. 22. In the Prophets, Behold, my servant shall deal prudently: Isai. lii. 13. In the Hagiographia, The Lord said unto my lord," Psal. cx. 1. Hence Rabbi Nathan in Shemoth Rabba, on those words speaks thus: "As I made

* Vide Dr. A. Clarke in loco. † See Rom. viii. 29. Cor. i. 18. and Parkhurst

Jacob my first-born, as I said (Exod. iv. 22) so have I made Messiah my first-born, as it is said (Psal. lxxxix. 28) I will make him my first-born, higher than the kings of the earth." And let it be particularly observed, that Jehovah gave to Israel this high title, on occasion of his calling him out of Egypt. Believers therefore might naturally expect that something si milar to the calling of Israel out of Egypt, would happen to Him whom Israel represented. If Jesus then was indeed the Messiah, the Son of God, the great first-born, St. Matthew very pertinently applied Hosea's words concerning God's calling Israel when a child (i. e. in a political sense, as not being yet formed into an independent nation) out of Egypt, to his calling the antitype of Israel, even his beloved child Jesus, out of the same country.*

On the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews.

[Continued from page 87.]

BESIDES the alphabetical poems and the poetical dialect, which have been adduced as proofs of the metrical composition of Hebrew poetry, the total difference between the poetical and common language, furnishes us with an argument, which though last is not least.

It is impossible to conceive any thing more simple and unadorned than the common language of the Hebrews. It is plain, correct, chaste, and temperate; the words are uncommon, neither in their meaning nor application; there is no appearance of study, nor even of the least attention to the harmony of the periods. The order of the words is generally regular and uniform. The verb is the first word in the sentence, the noun, which is the agent, or the patient, if there be one, immediate

* Vide Dr. Whitby in loco, and Parkhurst voce now.

ly succeeds, and the other words follow in their natural order. Each circumstance is exhibited at a single effort, without the least perplexity or confusion of the different parts: and, what is remarkable, by the help of a simple particle, the whole is connected from the beginning to the end in a continued series, so that nothing appears inconsistent, abrupt, or confused. But, in the Hebrew poetry the case is very different, in part at least, if not in the whole; not only in the choice of words, but in the construction. The truth of this remark will appear from what usually happens to a learner of Hebrew. He, for instance, who is a proficient in the historical books, when he comes to the poetical parts, will find himself almost a perfect. stranger. The phraseology, however, peculiar to the poetsthe inversion of the order of the words, the bold ellipses, the abrupt transitions of the tenses, genders and persons, and other similar circumstances-we must leave to be collected from practice and attentive reading. We would merely submit it to the judgment of our readers, whether a principle which pervades all poetry, is not a strong proof of the metrical composition of Hebrew poetry.*

As to the real quantity, the rhythm or modulation, the harmony and cadence, of what kind they were, and by what laws regulated, they appear to be totally unknown, and even to admit of no investigation by human art or industry. For harmony arises from the proportion, relation, and correspondence of different combined sounds; and verse from the arrangement of words, and the disposition of syllables, according to number, quantity and accent: therefore the harmony and true modulation of verse depends upon a perfect pronunciation of the language, and a knowledge of the principles and rules of versification; and metre supposes an exact knowledge of the number and quantity of syllables, and, in some languages, of the accent. But the true pronunciation of Hebrew is, most probably, lost; lost to a degree far beyond what can ever be the case of any European language preserved only in writ

* See Lowth's Lectures on Hebrew Poetry, iv. xv. xvi.

ing for the Hebrew language, like most Oriental languages, expressing only the consonants, and being destitute of vowels, has lain now for two thousand years in a manner mute and incapable of utterance; the number of syllables is in a great many words uncertain; the quantity and accent wholly unknown. Being ignorant of all these particulars, and incapable of acquiring any certain knowledge concerning them, how is it possible for us to attain the knowledge of Hebrew verse? He who attempts to restore the true and genuine Hebrew versification, erects an edifice without a foundation. But, if any one should still maintain the authority of the Masoretic punctuation, yet it must be allowed, that no one, according to that system, hath been able to reduce the Hebrew poems to any sort of harmony. The Jews, by their own confession, are no longer, nor have been indeed for many ages, masters of the system of ancient metre. All remembrance of it has ceased from those times in which the Hebrew became a dead language. Now the disciple is hardly to be supposed to have more information than his masters; and although Jerome speaks very fluently about the tetrameters, the hexameters, the sapphics and iambics of the Hebrews, the very state and circumstances of the case demonstrate how little credit is due to his authority. Indeed, his reasoning evidently proceeds from a confused head, when he attempts to trace a sort of remote resemblance between the Greek and Hebrew metres; and to explain, by some coarse analogies, a subject which he appears to have very imperfectly understood in treating of which, after all, he is not able to preserve even the appearance of consistency. For instance, after Josephus and Origen, he contends,* that the Song of Moses, in Deuteronomy, is composed in hexameter and pentameter verse; in another place, however, he affirms that the very same poem consists of iambic tetrameters.† In proof of his opinion he appeals to the testimony of Philo, Josephus, Origen, and Eusebius, who were not less ignorant of the Hebrew metres than himself. But if it was impossible for the

Masorites, and those who followed their system, assisted in some measure by a traditional pronunciation, delivered down from their ancestors, to attain to a true expression of the sounds of the language; how is it possible for us at this time, so much further removed from the only source of knowledge in this case, the audible voice, to improve or amend their system, or to supply a more genuine system in its place, which may answer our purpose better, and lay open to us the laws of Hebrew versification? The pursuit is vain; the object of it lies beyond our reach; it is not within the compass of human reason or invention. The question concerning Hebrew metre is now pretty near on the same footing with that concerning the Greek accents. That there were certain laws of ancient Hebrew metre, must, we imagine, be evident from the preceding arguments; and that the living Greek language was -modulated by certain rules of accent is beyond dispute: but a man born deaf may as reasonably pretend to acquire an idea of sound, as the critic of these days to attain to the true modulation of Greek by accent, and of Hebrew by metre.*

[To be continued.]

Defence of Revealed Religion.

Internal evidence of the authenticity and genuineness of the Bible.

STRONG-We may add indisputable, as the external evidence of the Old Testament unquestionably is, the internal evidence, arising from the consideration of the language, style, manner of writing, and also from the circumstantiality of the narratives, contained in the several books, is an equally decisive and incontestible argument for their genuineness, and also to shew that they were not, and could not, be invented by one impostor, or by several contemporary impostors, or by several successive impostors. The following arguments upon this point, by the

* See Lowth on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews, Leet. iii. and xviii. and Preliminary Dissertation to Isaiah, p. 11-13.