nothing against the truth, but for the truth." And yet more, to him who feels the necessity of a harmony between revelation and science, and has rightly studied the history of these successive strivings after it, it is a hope, founded not only on faith, but on a faith, which is "the substance of that hoped for." In this very analogy that we have drawn, do we read the assurance of triumph. It was necessary that primitive Christianity should pass through its fearful conflicts, before its victory, yet that victory came. Poor and imperfect, as viewed in the broader light of modern science, that early philosophy appears; yet when we compare its results with the character of the time before it, when we remember that before even that imperfect Christianity, a more imperfect heathenism and scepticism passed away; when we remember the constellation of genius and learning which shone upon the fourth century, we may see in it a sure advancement. And in like manner, when we regard the equally necessary causes which led to our struggles, and on every hand the omens of the present, we may expect similar results. Such is our view of the present attitude of Pantheism. As the early speculations of a Proclus, a Philo, only formed a partial step in the process which produced a true philosophy, so we look upon the overshadowing system of Hegel as a transient effort to grasp those supernatural truths, which will themselves reveal its emptiness, and mould a higher and more satisfying system. Yet it will be asked, what special ground of hope is given here, if, according to this very analogy, we may only look for a partial and short-lived success, for an after age of worse confusion? Our answer is given in the difference, as well as in the likeness, of the two eras. The contest of this time, though like, is deeper, and the result will be deeper. The first witnessed an incipient struggle; the last has witnessed the meeting of philosophy and revelation on the final ground of battle, and the victory, when it comes, will be proportioned to the grandeur of its causes and its issues. Compared with the Pantheism of modern Germany, the most stupendous system of error the mind can create, heathen unbelief was puerile; compared with the boldness of neology, the attacks of a Celsus and a Porphyry were harmless; compared with the results of a Clemens and an Origen, the Christian philosophy of a Schleiermacher, a Twesten, a Müller, an Ullmann, are an immeasurable progress. And on every hand we may see the signs of this new unity. Geology and astronomy are taking Christian ground; criticism is producing her learned men of thoroughly believing mind; history is recognizing the place and influence of revelation; metaphysics and

ethics are striving after the harmony of reason and conscience with faith; and in the most important domain of all, scientific theology, we have already traced the striking phenomena of our age. Out of the bosom of Protestantism is proceeding a new and living Christian philosophy; and whatever the fears of many, there has never been a period, when in every part of Christendom has been such a vigorous awaking of both speculative intellect and devotional feeling, in the direction of belief. Even Romanism has passed, with a Möhler, into the ground of scientific inquiry, and his position and method are utterly different from those of a former dogmatism. Our trust is in that progressive development through which not the reason of man only, but of God, is leading His Church. Christianity cannot die. Her triumphs are sure. Unbelief will pass, as it has passed away. We may lament the evils of the present; we may look for no immediate conclusions, but we must not, cannot fear the end. We must view these movements as the inundations of a mighty Nile, which, although they do not leave untouched the dwellings planted on the level of the shore, prophesy fair harvests blooming on soil fertilized by the waters; and we must wisely learn, before the next overflow, to rear our houses on firm piles above the highest mark of the rising element. This is our hope, and this our labor. In such a retrospect of the past, and such cheering omens for the future, we may look forward to a better era than any already reached; an era that shall achieve what the primitive and succeeding times have only "known in part and prophesied in part;" an era when a nobler constellation of genius than that of a Clemens, an Athanasius, an Augustine shall gild the firmament of the church; when, after her most gigantic conflicts, she shall win a lasting triumph, and to the centuries of a dissevered Christendom shall succeed the age of faith and living worship.

ARTICLE IV.

EXPLANATION OF SOME PASSAGES IN GENESIS.

By R. D. C. Robbins, Professor of Languages, Middlebury College.

I. GENESIS, NINTH CHAPTER, VERSES 25-27.

"AND he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth; and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant."

It will be recollected that these words follow the account of the planting of a vineyard by Noah, his yielding to the temptation to drink of the wine and consequent exposure, and which his son Ham, father of Canaan, not only beheld but reported to others, whilst Shem and Japheth thoughtfully took measures to screen it from view. This conduct brought upon the transgressor, the curse of the father, contained in the 25th verse, and more particularly explained in the following verses, by contrasting the fate of his posterity with that of his brothers. We should expect to find Ham in the place of Canaan in these verses, and some versions have substituted that name, or have translated, as if the text were 7, but without critical authority. The 22d verse, in which Ham is called the father of Canaan, prepares the way for this verse, and the simple meaning is: that Ham shall be cursed in his posterity, the son bearing the iniquity of the father. The crime of Ham, according to oriental notions, was not a trivial one. "No greater offence could have been committed against him (Noah) than Ham, who was himself a man of mature years and had sons, committed in this case." The laws of filial reverence and modesty in domestic intercourse, were in that early age regarded as sacred. The transgression was a domestic one, and so the punishment. When the penalty was inflicted upon the father, depriving him of the right of a son, his children naturally and necessarily suffer with him. Herder Hebr. Poetry, I. 221. 3, servant of servants, that is, the lowest servant, the opposite of Comp. Heb. Gram. § 117. 2, and Ewald, § 488. —

to his brothers, as is plain from what follows, Shem and Japheth. In Shem and Japheth is plainly included their posterity, and hence the suffix pronoun in (to them) at the end of the 26th verse is used

1851.]

Explanation of Gen. 9: 25-27.

59

instead of i, according to Grammar, § 101. 2. Expl. 1. Ewald, § 421.

Noah does not proceed directly to the blessing that he is to pronounce upon Shem, but foreseeing his future prosperity, he more vividly portrays it, by breaking forth in a song of praise to God, who is the author of this good fortune. A somewhat similar usage is found in such passages as 14: 20, Ex. 18: 10, 2 Sam. 18: 28.7 , Jehovah the God of Shem, the author of the blessings bestowed upon Shem. It should be noticed that Jehovah (in) is only used in reference to Shem, to whose posterity, as the chosen people, he especially reveals himself by this name. See Tuch and Hengstenberg upon the passage.

The first clause in the 27th verse is more difficult of interpretation:

the paronomasia here between the first and last ;יַפְךְ אֱלֹהִים לְיָפֶת

words at once meets the attention. This verb,, future Hiphil (Jussive) from n was undoubtedly chosen for the sake of the similarity of sound with instead of a form of an with which it is here synonymous, although the primitive signification of n, to open, expand, is nearly the same, and this is the usual signification of the same verb in Aramaean. The latter verb followed by as here, is translated in 26: 22, made room for, and that is the literal idea in the present passage: to place in a free, unrestricted position, i. e. to make prosperous, and it should be rendered as expressing a wish: see Grammar upon the Impf. (Future) Jussive, § 126. 2. "May God make room for Japheth." So, in general, most of the ancient translations. The Sept. 7λazýva ó deòs rã 'láged: Vulg. dilatet; according to the Arab. of Saadi: Beneficiat Deus Japheto. Comp. also in the use of, Is. 4: 2, 18: 20, et al. "Let him dwell in the tents of Shem." The object of 7 is undoubtedly a pronoun referring to Japheth. The parallelism of members seems to require, that this verse should have regard to Japheth, as the preceding had respect to them; and besides, the last words of the verse: and "let Canaan be his servant," are a useless repetition from the preceding verse. But a more decisive argument for this interpretation is as Hengstenberg (Christology, Vol. I. p. 44) indicates: As Noah intentionally used the name Jehovah in speaking of Shem, and Elohim in speaking of Japheth, the name would undoubtedly not have been left to be supplied by the reader. The word t is also variously interpreted. Some expositors, as Gesenius, Michaelis and others make it an appellative noun, meaning name, illustrious name, with

"renowned habitations;" but there should be some good rea

son for giving this word a totally different meaning here and in the preceding verse, and as none appears, we do not hesitate to render the clause: "and let him [Japheth] dwell in the tents of Shem," that is, let them be partakers with Shem in the blessings which are peculiarly his. The interpretation which makes this phrase mean that the posterity of Japheth shall sometime gain possession of the country of the posterity of Shem, and reduce them to subjection, is so much at variance with the context, which requires that the blessings of Japheth should be only subordinate or supplementary to those of Shem, that it needs nó confutation.

The question naturally arises, what are the blessings desired and predicted, for the posterity of Shem, and in which Japheth is to be partaker? Von Bohlen, Tiele and others endeavor to make out a literal fulfilment in the temporal condition of the posterity of the three brothers, but the futility of this attempt is apparent on close inspection. Even Tuch, who cannot be accused of an undue partiality for the spiritual in interpretation, rejects their theories and says: "This declaration [referring to the clause, and Japheth shall dwell in the tents of Shem,]' goes back to the united act of filial piety of both brothers, and is intended to represent the ideal union in which at a subsequent time their posterity shall, as their progenitors now, be united, for a higher object. That is here first indicated in a more general way, which is distinctly declared in the subsequent history, chap. 12: 3, that the salvation of all nations shall proceed from the offspring of Shem, who, making Zion the common centre of their efforts, shall without distraction be united in the fear of the Lord."

This may be considered as the second stage in the revelation of the blessings which are to be bestowed upon the human race, and which shall have their consummation when the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ shall be fully established in the earth. The most general declaration immediately followed the fall: "it (the seed of the woman) shall bruise the serpent's head," Gen. 3: 15. But here it is indicated, that the deliverance shall be wrought through the posterity of Shem; in chap. 12: 3, 18: 18, et al. it is declared that in Abraham, of the lineage of Shem, shall all the families of the earth be blessed. The same is made to Isaac the son of Abraham, 26: 4, and to his son Jacob 28: 14, with which compare Zech. 12: 7 and Mal. 2: 12, where we find

in this ,אָהלִי שֵׁם corresponding to אָהָלִי יַעֲקֹב and, אָהָלֵי יְהוּדָה

passage of Genesis. And subsequently, as is well known, the promises became much more explicit and numerous. Comp. Isa. 2: 2-4, Zech. 14: 16 sq., Ps. 22: 26 sq., and Hengstenberg Christology, I. p.