We beg leave however to aík, with all poffible refpe&t for fo learned a body, why, in the University of Cambridge, a thorough knowledge in that Effay in particular is confidered as fo indifpenfable a requifite for attaining the firft degree in arts. That a thorough knowledge of the fubjects of which Locke treats, fhould be confidered as requifite for the attaining that honour, we readily grant; but the nature of the works before us, as well as the language of their authors, would lead a firanger to fuppofe, that a candidate for the degree of A.B. in the University of Cambridge muft adopt all Locke's notions. This, we are aware, cannot be the cafe; for of Locke's notions, fome are queftionable and others obviously falfe. His notions of power, for inftance, seem very confused, if not incorrect; and what he fays of abstraction and abftract ideas is contradictory and abfurd. His vague ufe of the term idea to express not only every internal object of human thought, but also the external qualities of bodies by which ideas are excited in the mind, is very apt to lead his reader, as it seems to have sometimes led himself, into great miflakes; and as he was confeffedly indebted for much of his eminence as a philofopher to the writings of thofe who had gone before him, over the fame field of science, why fhould the young student of the prefent age be precluded from confulting the writings of those who have come after him? No man has more fre quently pleaded the caufe of Locke against the uncandid attack of fome individuals of the Scottish School than the writer of this article; but he never imagined Locke to be infallible, or wholly original, or that there is not much to be borrowed from fuch diftinguifhed ornaments of that school, as Reid, Campbell, and Stewart. That Locke derived much from Hobbes is very generally known; but it is not perhaps fo generally known, that his doctrine concerning the origin of our ideas is as clearly taught by that prodigy of learning, Bishop Pearfon, in his expofition of the firft article of the Apofiles' Creed, as it is in the first book of the Ejay concerning Human Understanding. Locke was a great and a good man, and was enabled by the vigour of his own mind, and by fuch aids as he derived from preceding philofophers, to throw more light on the operations of the understanding, and on the nature of human knowledge, than has been done, perhaps, by any other individual ancient or modern; but he was not infallible, nor has he exhaufted the fubject. Would it not then be an improvement on the prefent plan of education, to publifh an elementary fyftem of intellectual · philofophy, philofophy, compiled from the moft eminent authors, whether ancient or modern, foreign or domeftic, with references to the works where the different topics are most fully treated; and to make the candidates for the first degree in arts study that fyftem, instead of obliging them to ftudy Locke's Effay, and Locke's Effay only? We throw out this hint with the greatest deference, perfectly aware that the Heads of Houses and the Tutors in the Univerfity of Cambridge are much better qualified to direct our ftudies, than we are to improve the plan of their's. Dr. Oliver indeed does refer to the Rev. Mr. Gay, Dr. Hartley, and Bishop Butler, as illuftrating and improving fome of Locke's notions; and to Bishop Berkeley and Dr. Campbell, as expofing the abfurdity of what he fays of abftraction; but, though a Cambridge man, we do not fuppofe that the Doctor writes by authority from the Univerfity, while we are decidedly of opinion, that various other authors might have been recommended to the young student with greater propriety than fome of these. ART. IX. Differtations on the principal Prophecies repreprefenting the divine and human Character of our Lord Jefus Chrift. By William Hales, D.D. Rector of Killefandra, formerly Profeffor of Oriental Languages in the University of Dublin. 2d Ed. corrected. 8vo. 362 pp. 8s. Rivingtons. 1808. OUR paufe upon this book has been the paufe of forrow. The author, in many parts of it, enters into controverfy with the BRITISH CRITIC. But, alas! the illuftrious perfon against whom the controverfy is really directed, and who had condefcended occafionally to veil himself under that title, no longer remains on earth to vindicate either us, or his own opinions. That perfon was no other than the late BISHOP HORSLEY, who, taking upon himself the task of examining the heterodoxies of GEDDES, took occafion to introduce a learned and valuable difcuffion " on the facred names of God in the Hebrew language *. Whether that diftinguifhed fcholar ever faw the opinions of this opponent, in the former edition, we have no means of knowing. If he did, he certainly felt no particular anxiety to answer them, or he would have honoured us with the com * Brit. Crit. vol. xix: p. 137) &c. &c. E 4 munication. 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 themselves in opinion. Is this," afks Dr. H., in one place, "to difcharge fkilfully and faithfully the perilous and delicate functions of SACRED CRITICs?" P. 167. Can those functions, we afk in return, be more admirably dif charged, than by committing the moft difficult difcuffions to the most learned, the most acute, the most eminent man of his day? Neither Bifhop Horfley, certainly, nor any other wife man, would pertinaciously 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 fagacity with himself (could fuch a one have been found) would have perceived that they did so, 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, because, 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 diffi cult queftion. The notions of Bifhop Horfley cannot properly be defended by any perfon but himfelf, because they were generally founded in deeper learning than most men poffefs, and matured by more reflection than the most learned are usually able to exert. Into the controverfial part of this work, therefore, we shall not deeply enter, but leave the authority of the writers in balance, one againft the other; the Bishop of St. Afaph 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 lamented 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 Pharifee's character in him; we mean, that "he trufts". implicitly in himself, and defpifes others." At the fame time, as his zeal against all that is unfound in religion is always ftrong, and generally enlightened, our disapprobation of particular paffages in his writings is always united with general refpect and efteem for the man. The prefent volume contains ten Diflertations, the fubflance of which, the author fays, originally appeared under the fignature of Infpector, in the Orthodox Churchman's Magazine; and, fhould this volume be favourably received by the public, he pro:nifes a fecond féries of Differtations from the the fame fource. There is little reafon to hope, from the habits of the prefent 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 grátified. The fubjects of the Differtations are thefe: << 1. An attempt to restore the original Hebrew text of Ba laam's Prophecy concerning the Meffiali. Num. xxiv. 7. P. 1. 2. On Pfalm xvi. P. 22. 66 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. 66 5. On Pfalm xxxix. P. 86. "6. On the primitive names of the Deity. In three Parts. 26 7. On Pfalm ii. P. 224. P. 269. 10. On the Prophecy of Micah. Chap. v. 2-4. P. 345." 1. In the first differtation Dr. H. begins by confirming, juftly, the interpretation of our authorized verfion, which gives to Pilate the words "Behold the Man," in John xix. 5. He thinks alfo, that these words may contain an allufion to the paffage in Balaam's prophecy, (Num. xxxiv. 7.) which, according to the Septuagint verfion and other authorities, is, "There fhail 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. does not very יצא איש 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. eafily pass into br; but the tranfpofition of one letter in, 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 external 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 probably 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 OnJ2) 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. proposes a corrected version of the first 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. " 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 elsewhere, we ftrongly object to his use 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 fill more wife. This is highly probable, and the fancies of Geddes, and even more respectable 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 farcasms 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 |