« AnteriorContinuar »
vergent method, where the subject will admit of it,” is best adapted to ultimate success; and that in proportion as the sermon admits a running application, it is the less likely, in general, to produce any single and strong impression on the hearers." * Now there is no more essential contradiction between the rule to defer practical appeals until the close of the sermon, and the rule of the apostle to make these appeals in the body of an epistle, than there is between the whole system of our sacred rhetoric and the whole manner of the Bible.
Legh Richmond says, “ keep in mind that excellent ruleNever preach a single sermon, from which an unenlightened hearer might not learn the plan of salvation, even though he never afterwards heard another discourse.'
But it is very certain, that there are some books in the Bible, which when read once to an unenlightened hearer, would not teach him the whole plan of salvation, and it is very certain that the rules for unity and variety of style require us so to preach, that this plan will be sometimes only implied, and unenlightened men, in order to understand it, must hear us more than once. But because the Bible was not written, in all its parts, on this rule of Mr. Richmond, we are not to infer that the rule is essentially incorrect; it is expressed, like other aphorisms, in a laconic and sententious manner, which, like the manner of the Bible, admits the specific qualifications of a sanctified judgment. Augustine says that “all those who rightly understand what the sacred writers utter, understand at the same time that they ought not to have uttered it in
other manner." + Yet the same author modestly says, that the last clause of Rom. 13: 14 “ does not appear to him to flow, in the original Greek, melodiously,” and that “the sacred writers, he is inclined to believe, avoided that species of beauty which results from melodious clauses.” But notwithstanding this commanding example, he approves of the rule, that christian preachers should not shun, but rather cultivate a musical style, and says of himself, “ while in my own discourses, 1 do not omit attention to rhythm more than modesty compels, yet I am the more pleased that I find it very seldom in the sacred writers.”'S
It has been objected to views like the preceding, that the business of determining what are the general principles and
* See Porter's Lectures on Homiletics and Preaching, pp. 159, 166. † Aug. De Doct. Christ. Lib. IV.S 9. Ib. $ 40, 41. $ Ib. 941.
Vol. X. No. 28. 61
what the specific details of the biblical style, what parts of it must be retained, and what may be accommodated, requires more wisdom than is given to man. But the difficulty of distinguishing what is, froin what is not submitted to our discretion, is a theoretical more than a practical one. Good sense, sound piety, a love of truth, and faithful thought, will be sufficient to direct any one, who is worthy of the sacred office. Such criteria as the following, however, it may not be improper to suggest. The general principles of the biblical style, are those parts of it which are essential to communicate the exact biblical meaning to all men ; the particular details of it, are those parts which were useful in communicating this meaning to the men originally addressed. The former are adapted to the general principles of mental philosophy; the latter to the peculiarities of the early Jews and Christians. The former are always congruous with each other, the latter are not. Thus the general principles of dignity, sincerity, suitableness of diction to thought, tendency to interest the moral feelinys, all harmonize in the style of Mark and Ezekiel; but the cool and equal flow of the Gospel would not comport with the brilliant and sublime strains of the prophecy, and the interchange of their respective costumes would be congenial with neither of the books. The general principles suggest the appropriate details, and harmonize with only those which they suggest; the details therefore may, in particular circumstances, become incongruous, not only with themselves, but also with the generic rules. Thus it is one of these rules to give to every man a portion in due season, but there are certain occasions when men are plunged into difficulties never known before, and when they cannot receive their portion in season, unless the preacher vary from all details of style, which have been known before. Details, then, which had been proper in all other cases, are now violations of the general rule. Such inappropriateness is never seen in the Bible, but is exhibited often by men “unskilful in the word of rigliteousness."
1.-—Biblischer Commentar über Sämmtliche Schriften des Neuen Tes.
taments zunächst für Prediger und Studirende. Von Dr. Hermann Olshausen, Professor der Theologie an der Universität zu Erlangen. Dritten Bandes erste Abtheilung. Die Briefe Pauli an die Römer und Korinthier enthaltend.
Königsberg : 1836, pp. 820. Hermann Olshausen, brother of the professor of oriental literature, Justus Olshausen of Kiel, was born in 1796, in Holstein, between Hamburg and Lubeck, and is now, consequently, about 41 years of age. He fitted for the university mostly at the gymnasium of Glückstadt. In the 19th year of his age, he entered the university of Kiel. After two years, he removed to the university of Berlin, where he came into near connection with Tholuck, who exerted the most favorable influence on his religious feelings and prospects.
In 1818, he became theological repetent at Berlin, and in 1822, professor of theology at Königsberg, where he prepared and published most of his works. In 1835, he was called to Erlangen as professor of theology. He has consecrated himself principally to the study and exposition of the New Testament. He has little sympathy with the cold commentaries of Rosenmüller the elder, Kuinoel, Paulus, Weg. scheider, etc. In many respects, he harmonizes with Licke and Tholuck. He has not, however, that display of philological learning with which the pages of Tholuck are fraught, though he is by no means deficient in this respect, having been trained in the severe school of Gesenius, Winer, Schleiermacher, etc. He has more logical ability and philosophical discrimination than any of the New Testament commentators of his country, of the evangelical school. All his writings, which we have seen, appear to be characterized by the utmost sincerity and candor. He seems every where to be actuated by a simple desire to know and to make known the truth as it is in Jesus. The fierce opposition which he encountered from the rationalists at Königsberg did not sour his feelings nor call forth the bitter and unchristian retort. The writings of Tholuck frequently exhibit a kind of enthusiasm which it is difficult to define, being not by any means an unintelligible mysticism on the one hand, nor on the other, hardly what could be termed a true poetic feeling. It may be a part of the original structure of his mind, though it was, doubtless, somewhat affected by the circumstances of his conversion. It is in intimate union also with great tenderness of spirit and amiableness of character. It is diffused over much of his writings. This
trait does not appear, or at least is not prominent, in the commentaries of Olshausen, though he is a kindred spirit with Tholuck.. Some of the opinions of Olshausen will be regarded in this country as fanciful and specious rather than solid. It is unfortunate that he, along with some of the other evangelical commentators of his country, has consented even to illustrate some of his opinions from such sources as animal magnetism. It tends to throw discredit on opinions which are really solid and well-sustained. Such things are, howev. er, rare in Olshausen. His commentaries will be welcomed by all biblical scholars. They are, perhaps, now taking their place at the head of all the commentaries of living writers on the New Testament.
The present work contains the first part of the third volume, embracing the epistles to the Romans and to the Corinthians; the second part will comprehend the smaller Pauline epistles. The fourth volume will comprise the epistle to the Hebrews, the catholic epistles, and the Apocalypse.
The author first gives a general introduction to the Pauline epis. tles, occupying twenty-seven pages. The introduction to the Romans which follows treats of the authenticity and integrity of the epistle, of the time and place of its composition, of the church at Rome, of the course of thought in the epistle, of its value and peculiarity, and of its literature." While the writings of John,” remarks Olshausen, “are objective, making the certainties of theology and Christology the centre of the system, in Paul the subjective predominates. Anthropology and soterology have their foundation in the Pauline epistles. The occidental displays itself in Paul--the elements which found congeniality in Augustine and Luther. In John, we see the oriental — the immediate vision of God — simplicity in doctrinal statement gorgeousness of illustration.” The modern commentators on the epistle to whom Olshausen refers are Baumgarten, Mosheim, Koppe, Andrew Cramer, Morus, L. Usteri, Böckel, Tholuck, Flatt, Stier, Klee, Rückert, Benecke, Paulus, Reiche, Glöckler and Köllner. The last eight named have written since 1828. Olshausen makes less use of the writings of others than Tholuck and most other commentators.
The commentary on the Romans occupies about 450 pages. The remainder of the book, 370 pages, embraces the commentary on the two epistles to the Corinthians. An introduction of 26 pages treats of the character of the Corinthian church, the relations of Paul with that church, the authenticity and integrity of the epistles, their contents and literature. “ While in the epistle to the Romans,” hausen,“ the doctrinal element has a marked predominancy, in the epistles to the Corinthians, this is kept in the back ground, those things which are of practical moment being the most prominent." “ In giving us a knowledge of the personal character of the great apostle, the second epistle is of more value than all the others; in
ro li SI P Р. C
furnishing us knowledge of his connection with the primitive churches, the first epistle is particularly serviceable.” “The epistles to the Corinthians, along with the one to the Romans, belong to that class in which the Pauline spirit manifests itself so fully to the light of day, that no effort has been made either in ancient or modern times to call their authenticity in question. The contents and the form bespeak so entirely the Pauline ideas and the Pauline style, that the historical notices in the Acts come into sufficiently near connection with those contained in these epistles.” The commentators on both epistles mentioned by Olshausen are Mosheim, Baumgarten, Seniler, Moldenhawer, Schulz, Morus, Flatt, and Billroth. The commentators on the first only are Sahl, Krause, Heidenrich, and Pott; on the second, Leun, Emmerling, Gabler, F. F. Krause, Royaards and Fritzsche,
2.- Ern. Frid. Car. Rosenmüller Scholia in Vetus Testamentum in
Compendium redacta. Post auctoris obitum edidit Jo. Chr.
continens. Lipsiae, 1836, pp. 768.
We here translate a paragraph of the general introduction : “ Two of these prophets, Hosea and Jonah prophesied in the kingdom of Samaria. Yet all the remains of Jonah's writings, as well as those of Nahum, are directed against the Assyrian empire. Amos, driven from the kingdom near the beginning of his assumption of the pastoral office, as it would seem, was compelled to take refuge in Judah. Joel, Micah, Zephaniah and Habakkuk were connected with Judah. Habakkuk and Obadiah were personal witnesses of the destruction of Jerusalem, their lives being prolonged beyond that event. This is doubtful]. Haggai, who had seen the first temple standing,
was present at the time the second was built, after the return from Babylon. At the same age lived Zechariah, though in his prophecies, much later events are referred to, than the building of the second temple. Malachi, the last of all, seems to