this place David's proposal to the army is just began, and a circumstance or two mentioned; but the reward proposed, and the person rewarded, are totally omitted. We may presume the text could not have been thus imperfect originally, since no ellipsis can supply what is here wanting; and therefore the words in the coinciding chapter of Chronicles, which regularly fill up this omission, were doubtless at first also in Samuel, and are therefore to be restored: the necessity of thus restoring the words not found in the present copies of Samuel is apparent. The English version, then, of these texts in Chronicles is And the inhabitants of Jebus said to David, Thou shalt not come hither. But David took the strong hold of Sion, which is the city of David. And David said, Whosoever first smiteth the Jebusites, shall be head and captain. So Joab the son of Zeruiah went up first, and was chief captain, And the English version of these texts in Samuel is— And they spoke unto David, saying, Thou shalt not come hither; for the blind and the lame shall keep thee off, by saying, David shall not come hither. But David took the strong hold of Sion, which is the city of David. And David said on that day, Whosoever (first) smiteth the Jebusites, and by the subterraneous passage reacheth the blind and the lame, which are hated of David's soul, (because the blind and the lame continued to say, He shall not come into this house)—shall be head and captain. So Joab the son of Zeruiah went up first, and was head-or captaingeneral.* Sonnet. THE THIRD DAY The born of chaos like a vast machine Clad with luxuriance-blossom, leaf, and bud, Was formed from nothing-like a brilliant dream! H. D. Kennicott. Comp. Parkhurst's Heb. Lex. aud Taylor's Concordauce, in Voce 18. three in heaven bear witness and these three, Saint John adds, are one, not only in the unity of a consentient testimony (as the Apostle's argument requires they should be) but also one God, the names, attributes, and perfections of Deity being ascribed to each of these divine persons in the Holy Scriptures. And there are three that bear witness in earth, viz. 1. The Spirit, still sent down from Heaven in his illuminating, renewing and sanctifying operations, which continue to produce the noblest and most blessed effects; for, at this very day, when any are converted to the faith of Christ, and turned from idolatry, and from sinful thoughts and practices to the love and practice of holiness, it is owing to the testimony which the Holy Spirit bears to Christ: the Spirit testifies of him, and thereby produces conviction or consolation in the soul (John xv. 26; xvi. 7-11.). 2. The Water also bears witness, in baptism, wherein we are dedicated to the Son, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, which water typifies his spotless purity, and the inward purification of our nature; and, 3. The Blood bears witness, being represented in the sacrament of the Lord's supper, and applies by faith to the consciences of believers and these three agree in one. They harmoniously agree with the three witnesses in heaven, in one and the same truth, and testify that Jesus is the divine, the complete, the only Saviour of the world." Upon this explanation I observe, 1. That the three earthly witnesses, whoever or whatever they may be, bear testimony to the unity of the three heavenly witnesses before mentioned. If the reader will turn to a former paper on this subject, at page 226 of the present volume, he will find it to be, I think, incontestably proved, that the word v joined to the article must refer to av in the preceding verse. But if the words rò v refer to ev grammatically, they must also refer to it in the sense. 2. I would remark the apparent improbability of the Holy Spirit's being introduced in two separate capacities, viz. as an earthly and as a heavenly witness. Especially as the character of the earthly witnesses is lower than the heavenly witnesses: if we receive the witness of men (evidently the witness τῶν μαρτυρουντῶν ἐν τῇ y) the witness of God (T. μ. Ev T ovpary) is greater. But if the Holy Spirit was meant in both cases, they would both have the same weight. 3. The connexion requires rò vowp and rò aiμa to have the same signification, as the same words in the 6th verse, where Christ is said to have come by water and blood. But how can Christ be said to have come by baptism and the Lord's supper? He might indeed be said to have come by baptism, with reference to his own submission to it, upon his first entrance upon his ministry. But the holy communion appears to have more to do with his departure than his coming; since that was the time and the occasion of its institu tion. Not to mention that Cyril and some extant MSS.* in the sixth verse have δι' ύδατος καὶ αἵματος ΚΑΙ ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΟΣ, which, although it is not permitted me to consider it as the genuine reading, yet shews that Cyril and the writers of the MSS. (and probably others of the same age), could not understand it, as it is generally interpreted. For it is absolute nonsense to say that Christ came by baptism, the Lord's supper, and the Holy Ghost! 4. The adjuncts or adjectives agreeing with τὸ πνευμα, τὸ ὕδωρ, and τὸ αἷμα, are all of the masculine gender, τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυ Pouvres, while the substantives are all of the neuter gender. Supposing these words to be understood in the commonly received sense, it will be difficult to account for the change of gender, and we should be rather inclined to expect τρία εἰσι τὰ μαρτυροῦντα instead of τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες. The explanation which the Classical Journal seems to take for granted, is insufficient. For it is difficult to conceive that the Sacred Writer, when about to express the earthly Witnesses in the next verse, might carry on the same expression, or adjuncts to that verse": although, in the Writer's opinion, "the correspondence in the number of Witnesses and the similarity of their design in bearing witness to the truth of the religion of Christ, may tend to confirm that sentiment"+. I know of no example of such a kind of attraction in the sacred or profane classics: at least, if there are examples, it was the Writer's part to have adduced them; especially since, if this be disallowed, his argument falls to the ground. But I have already exceeded due limits; and must therefore forbear to mention my own view of the subject, till (ết Oéos éλy) a future communication. GRAIUS. • Vide Middleton in loc. + Classical Journal, vol. ii. p. 871. ration, that it was something to which Job attached considerable importance. It is not likely that he was actuated by the desire of posthumous renown: his circumstances, at the time, will not permit us to entertain such a supposition. It is most true that man is not only capable of anticipating futurity, but that he naturally feels a wish to identify himself with the sentiments and opinions of distant ages. He grasps at the phantom of immortality, and all unmindful of the blessings of which he is in possession, and disgusted with whatever is present, sighs forth the poet's wish, "What shall I do to be for ever known!" This feeling, however, though one which, in some minds, adversity itself cannot subdue, is seldom indulged to any great degree, while the mind is suffering under the pressure of extreme affliction. When, therefore, we consider that the wish of Job, so vehemently expressed, was felt and uttered at a time when he was enduring an accumulation of evil; that he had undergone the privation of his substance, hte estrangement of his friends, and the loss of his children; that he was he subject of a loathsome disease, that his character was beclouded, and that he had just uttered this pathetic exclamation, "Have pity upon me! O, ye my friends, for the hand of God hath touched me." When we consider these circumstances, we surely may conclude that, at such a time, it could not be the lust of fame that inspired the sufferer. Had Job been the most ambitious of mortals, yet that at such a moment his ambition should have gained such an ascendency over him as to become incapable of concealment, is incredible. His wish can therefore be accounted for on no other ground than the conviction he had of the importance of that declaration which was its object. Job possessed the testimony of a good conscience: if therefore we regard the words as referring to his future temporal prosperity, their being recorded was of little importance to him personally; and as to recovery of the good opinion of his friends of which he might feel desirous, the enunciation of those words, expressive of his conviction, was as likely to be effectual as their being recorded in the most lasting manner: it could, therefore, have been only with regard to distant ages that Job wished to have this profession recorded so as to escape the ravages of time, and that not for the clearing up of his own character so much as for the justification of Providence, and the communication of a truth universally interesting and important to the human race. If Job had anticipated his restoration to health and prosperity, it could only have been by a direct revelation to him on the subject. If such a revelatiou had been made, he would doubtless have rested in expectation of it, confident that the event would justify his character, and the conduct of Providence, in the eyes of his contemporaries and of all posterity, The event would have been sufficient of itself without his prediction of it; nor should we have been in any danger of mistaking in either of these respects, though the prediction had never been uttered, or had never been recorded, instructed as we are by the event itself-the prosperity of Job in his latter end. There appears, therefore, on the supposition which we are com batting no ground at all for the exclamation of Job, expressing so vehemently his anxious desires, that those words of his should be preserved as a depositum for the human race. But when we consider this good man as anticipating and predicting the redemption of mankind, and as expressing his confidence in the certainty of a future state, a state of enjoyment in another world, then all is natural and consistent, and his desire to have it recorded is fully accounted for. In those early ages, little information existed as to the coming of the Saviour and the blessings of eternity. All that was known on these subjects was probably the sole result of dim and distant tradition. Darkness covered the earth, and gross darkness the people. And if Job, like Abraham, saw the day of Christ and spake of him, if he was enabled to look forward through the vista of years to the coming of the Redeemer-to the time when he should first appear in pain and then in glory-what wonder was it either that he desired with intense anxiety, or that God fulfilled his desire that these words should not be lost-that this inspired prediction should, for the benefit of his countrymen, and the world in every succeeding age, be placed on high, as a star lit up by heaven, to alleviate and cheer the gloom of that intellectual and moral night which had overspread the dwellings of mankind. This interpretation of the passage would be confirmed had we time to consider its different clauses: but having already so far trespassed, I shall conclude with the following translation of it. For I know (that) my Redeemer (is) living, And that at last (or afterwards) He will rise (or stand up) over the dust: And (though) after my skin they mangle this, Whom I shall see for myself And mine eyes shall behold and not a stranger 66 Therefore ye should say, why persecute we him ?" Daventry, J. W. T. VOL. II. 2 A |