Jews in general it presented no such appearance.

Can any good

thing come out of Nazareth?" was the question of "an Israelite in whom there was no guile."

There is not a particle of proof that St. Paul was blinded to thei truth of the fact by that worldly ambition, that willingness to preserve power by unjust acts, which was a deadly sin of the Jewish chiefs. He, who was but young at that time, and who appears never to have seen our Lord till," last of all" the disciples, at the period of his conversion, was not likely to receive from his instructors a correct account of the Galilean wonders, nor a fair description of the character of that person who had exposed their hypocrisy and brought their authority into danger. We know what saying was commonly reported among the Jews repecting the greatest miracle of all.

The fact, that a miracle did convert St. Paul, seems inconsistent with the notion of his wilfully resisting the evidence of miracles before ** and it is difficult to perceive how the same man could be guilty of a want of candour with regard to the Christian evidence, who" verily thought that he ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus / of Nazareth." While some of the Jews said that Jesus was a good man, others (perhaps simply from ignorance) said, he deceiveth the people. It is willingly allowed, that St. Paul was guilty in not duly examining the existing evidence on the question-not so much whether Jesus was the Christ, as whether Jesus had been sent from God. Yet we are scarcely justified in making a severe estimate of that guilt, especially with relation to one individual: and all we know of St. Paul besides, would lead us to think that a want of candour was his least likely fault.

On the question whether Jesus was the Christ, he defends himself for ever from the imputation of wilful infidelity, by asserting his ignorance of that truth, and by coupling with that ignorance his unbelief. For his early expressions of abuse against the holy Jesus, St. Paul / calls himself a blasphemer, and one who made others to blaspheme. But though in his contrition he used that term in its most malignant sense, yet the malignity of his fault depended not on the divine dignity ·· of Him whom he reproached, but on his own knowledge or ignorance of that dignity.

We go on next to the remainder of the accidental adjuncts of the case; the fact, of which we are aware, that the victims of his persecu→→ tion were innocent; and the general opinion entertained that perse cutors are actuated by some worldly motive, or some maliciousness of personal temper. Under this head of the subject we shall have

occasion to define the real nature of St. Paul's misconduct.

Supposing St. Paul to have been aware of the wonderful works of our Lord, does it follow that in that age, every honest man would readily say with Nicode mus, "We know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can dow these miracles which thou doest, except God be with him?" Might not St. Paul's whole attention have been turned to the appearance of seditious conduct, b which the hypocritical chiefs of the nation made their great pretext for putting him to death? The actual sight of Jesus of Nazareth in possession of divine glory, would be precisely the miracle calculated to convert a man thus unwilfully blind to the proof arising from common miracles.

It is indispensable to remember that, so far from leaving it to be suspected that he was urged to what he did by wilful malice, or personal ambition, St. Paul has distinctly assigned the cause of his injurious conduct to have been, that he "verily thought with himself that he ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth." With whatever caution we may admit the principle, yet as to the individual it is in the highest degree exculpatory. "I thought that I ought to do-and I did"-is the description of the working of an honest mind.

Putting together the two undoubted facts,-his probity of intention, and his ignorance of the holy character of those he opposed,-what will result as the actual nature of his misconduct? Plainly this; that he was led, by violent, but not wilful prejudice, by an excess, an extravagance, of religious zeal, with a real desire of God's glory,-to transgress the sacred principles of humanity towards those whom he believed to be pernicious members of society.

And a sufficiently grievous sin it must ever be in any man to allow his own opinions, however sincere, to seduce him into actions so cruelly unjust to men, of whose guilt there was no proof beyond what those opinions supplied; to destroy liberty, happiness, nay, even life itself, without due examination of facts, and without any evidence of crime. But this was the sum and substance of his fault.

The principle of persecution stands for ever accursed in the eyes of God and of all intelligent and virtuous men. Few arguments against it, however, are stronger than that supplied by the fact, that by it the guilt of blood has fallen on the heads of well-intentioned men; that by it the noblest natures have been perverted, and, contrary to the chosen practice of God, vice has been brought out of virtue, and out of seeming good evil been educed. And if, for the sake of a religious tenet, we deny to the individual St. Paul the fair claim of apology, founded on his upright intention, the fervour of his zeal, and his ignorance, we ourselves, by such unjust severity, display a temper not far removed from the very soul of persecution.

In the next number we shall consider, II. The Character of St. Paul after his conversion.

ON CONVERSATION.

ONE of the dangers to be especially avoided in our intercourse with society is the indulgence and growth of vanity. To study to please, with no better motive than to acquire a character of being agreeable, is unworthy of the principles of a Christian. He must please others, because it is the will of his Maker that he should contribute to the general good; and for the same reason he must be ready on due occasions to incur the character of disagreeable, rather than do wrong out of complaisance.-Social Conduct of a Christian considered, in Seven Sermons. Rivingtons.

ON THE STUDY OF HEBREW.

Mr. EDITOR, It was with the greatest gratification that I observed the study of Hebrew strongly advocated in a former Number, and some books recommended for the beginner. As, however, in the selection of these your attention seemed to be principally directed to the facility with which they could be procured, you will perhaps permit me, if you have not prepared any other answer to your enquirer, to suggest the expediency of mentioning some others, which in themselves seem to be preferable.

So much has been done since the rise of Schultens for the cultivation of Hebrew by the application of the cognate languages, that valuable as Buxtorf's Lexicon still is in many respects, a more modern one would naturally be desirable. For a student unacquainted with German, the translation of Gesenius' smaller Lexicon, by Mr. Gibbs of Andover, would be the most serviceable. It possesses over Mr. Leo's translation of the same work the decided advantage, that Mr. Gibbs, himself a good Oriental scholar, has employed the additional matter furnished by Gesenius' other works; and Professor G. has expressed himself particularly satisfied with it. Next, but far inferior to Gesenius', is that of Simonis, ed. Eichorn.

Of the numerous Grammars for a student who has not access to Gesenius', one professedly founded upon Gesenius', by Professor Stuart, of Andover, is, if it can be procured, by far the best. A second edition was sometime ago far advanced, and was considered by the author himself to be considerably improved. Professor Gesenius places the first edition incomparably above that of Cellerier, so much extolled by Mr. Horne, and regretted only the omission of the citations and of the direct illustrations from the cognate languages. Should this not yet be to be procured, the Latin one by Schroeder would be the most useful; though, in that case, any small grammar should be also purchased, which might contain fuller paradigms of the verbs. The syntax of Schroeder is still very valuable.

The greatest critical assistance he will derive from the Commentaries of E. F. C. Rosenmüller,―nor, as far as I have myself employed him, do I think, that in supplying him with treasures of Hebrew criticism which he cannot obtain from any other source, he would injure him in more material points. On those subjects, where the influence of his opinions would be to be deprecated, shallowness instantly discovers itself; and singularly must that mind be framed, which would surrender itself to such dicta. His verbal criticism is in the highest degree excellent; his illustration of the language of the Old Testament from the cognate languages, from the use of versions, or from internal comparison, is generally very sound and judicious; his quotations from the Arabic poets mostly very happy, sometimes also those from the classics; his references to travellers very useful; but religion, as a system, he does not appear to have studied: and, consequently, on those points, for the right understanding of which, a comprehensive view of the whole plan of Providence is necessary, the evident confinedness and partialness of his insight at once negatives the influence with which his great critical name might otherwise invest him. Some of his

opinions are, moreover, undergoing a change. His last edition of his Commentary on the Pentateuch, supports its genuineness, and contains some valuable arguments to that effect.

I have only one more opinion to add, and that, I regret to say, differs from your own. It is on the part of the Bible, with which a Hebrew student should commence. The objection to beginning with that part which you, however, upon the whole recommend, you seem to have felt. "That the Psalms, as a poetical book, are less suited to a beginner than the historical." I only wish to press this objection more strongly. In no other language probably, ancient or modern, would it be recommended to commence with poetry; and the rule which holds in other languages appears to me particularly well grounded in this. For the style of its prose, especially of that of the Pentateuch, far surpasses in the simplicity of its structure that even of Herodotus; while in the poetry, even of the Psalms, occurs not unfrequently a conciseness and abruptness, productive at first of considerable obscurity, sometimes equal to that of Pindar. Add to this the inversions, the more frequent occurrence of rarer words, or of rarer forms of words; while the Archaisms of the Pentateuch have been, as in every case probably of books employed in general instruction, for the most part effaced. Another advantage also, besides the facility of learning the language, will probably be attained by commencing with the Pentateuch-the more vivid perception of the difference of its style from that of succeeding books. The mind, during the slow operation of reading it, forms its language into a sort of canon, by which it tries that of the succeeding books, the variations of which become thus more distinct. But after the advantage of being enabled to search for oneself this large portion of Holy Scripture, in the form in which it was originally given for our use, the additional evidence which the student will derive, for the genuineness of its several books, from the difference of their style and language, will be among the highest rewards of his labour. Nor am I led by my own or other's experience to think, that the familiar knowledge of our own version of the Psalms will be of considerable usefulness in facilitating the acquisition of the language; I should even fear that it would be apt to induce a careless habit in the mind of the student, and make him rest satisfied when he has assigned certain words in the one to those corresponding in the other, without further investigating the relations of the words, for the correctness of the significations. As a commentary, indeed, the Bible translation of the Psalms, (which, in very far the greatest proportion of places where it varies from that of the Common-Prayer Book, is the best) will be very useful; but then the examination of this should follow, not precede, his own development of the meaning. Your obedient humble Servant,

PSALM II.

A HEBREW STUDENT.

THIS Psalm appears to have been written on some occasion when the people of Israel rebelled against the authority of David, the Lord's anointed, and raised the seditious cry, "Every man to his tents, O Israel." Whether the revolt of Absalom, or the rising of Sheba the son of

Bichri, when " every man of Israel went up from after David," (2 Sam. xx.) or some other similar event were the occasion, it is not important to inquire; it seems however, from the sixth verse, that it was written after David had been anointed king over Israel, and had taken the strong-hold of Zion.

The following translation is the result of a very diligent examination of the Hebrew; it is not in every particular a translation word by word of the original, but it professes to give its full sense and no more. When, indeed, it is considered that the Hebrew and other oriental languages express ideas in modes very different from those used in the Western world, it may be doubted whether a very literal translation is the best means of conveying the sense.

In the following translation it will be seen that the whole Psalm is applied primarily and literally to David; but David being one of the leading types of the Messiah in the Old Testament, the propriety of the application of the same Psalm to the Messiah, David's antitype, immediately and clearly appears. See Acts iv. 25. and Heb. i. 5.

When the Hebrew word is expressed by more than one English word, the translation is written thus," sit-consulting."

1. Why do the people tumultuously-assemble? Why do the people meditate a vain attempt?

2. Why do the princes array-themselves,
And the Rulers sit-consulting together

Against Jehovah, even against the-king-anointed-of-him,t
(saying)

3. “Let us burst-asunder their bonds,

"Let us cast-away-from us their shackles."

4. He who sitteth-enthroned in the Heavens laugheth at them, The LORD holdeth-them-in-open-derision.

5. Soon will he speak-harshly unto them in his anger, And in his fury confound them.

6. But as to me- -(He hath said)

"I have anointed my King t

Upon Zion my holy mount."

7. I will publish this appointment§ of JEHOVAH.
He said unto me,-" My son || art thou,
"I this day have begotten thee.

i. e. The princes of Israel, the princes of the tribes. See 1 Chron. xxviii. 1. + See verse 6 and note.

↑ David. "Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king of Israel." 2 Sam. xii. 7.

§ Abner was aware of this appointment; he said, (2 Sam. iii. 9, 10.) " The Lord hath sworn to David to trauslate the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beersheba."

This may be understood of David; for a king or ruler is frequently designated in the Psalms as a Son of God. Thus in Ps. lxxxii. 6. "Ye are Gods, VOL. VIII. NO. VIII.

3 Q