SAMARITAN READING OF GENESIS, xi. 32.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER.

SIR-When I addressed to you some time since, the observations, which you published, upon the adoption of the Samaritan reading of Genesis xi. 32, by a work of so high authority as the "Codex Criticus," I did so under the conviction, formed upon a review of what had been written on both sides, that Mr. Hamilton had already exhausted all that could be said in favour of the proposed emendation; and in this respect at least, I have not been deceived; for your correspondent "G. H." has certainly brought no new fact to light, save that the Samaritan Pentateuch is very ancient, and that" in some cases it clearly corrects the readings of the Hebrew Bible," a fact, to dispute which, he must find an opponent different from myself. He has concluded, indeed, abundantly, upon his former premises, that his argument is "probable in the highest degree," while mine (as resting, by my own confession, on "what is generally allowed,"—on 66 what appears likely") is but "highly probable;" and therefore, by my own shewing, "has a very low degree of probability in its favour," or, in other words, no probability at all!

But in a question such as this, (for G.H. admits it to be merely a question of probability), the surest way of arriving at the truth, is to weigh the grounds and principles on both sides.

Mr. Hamilton's argument is briefly this: "The Hebrew text of Gen. xi. 32, contains an error; and this error will be removed by adopting the reading of the Samaritan Pentateuch, the authority of which, from its antiquity, is very great."

The arguments brought forward in proof of the alleged error in the text, I ventured to censure as inconclusive; and I still think my objections well grounded, especially as G.H. has passed them over without the slightest notice. The following is Mr. Hamilton's proof that Gen. xi. 32 is erroneous: Terah was 78 years of age at the birth of Abram (Gen. xi. 26), and Abram was 75 at his father's death (Gen. xii. 4, Acts vii. 4); consequently Terah must have died at the age of 145 as the Samaritan Pentateuch states, and not at the age of 205.

It is obvious, however, that this calculation is entirely founded upon the assumption, that Abram was the eldest of Terah's sons: an assumption which, as I have shewn, is not necessarily contained in Gen. xi. 26, and which is inconsistent with the analogy of Scripture, and with several other circumstances recorded in the brief history transmitted to us by the inspired penman. The arguments which I have brought forward in support of this opinion, from Dr. Hales and others, have not been replied to by G.H. they will be found very clearly stated in Poole's Synopsis, upon the passage in question.

:

Mr. Hamilton relies very much upon the argument deduced from Gen. xvii. 17, compared with Rom. iv. 17-20 these passages, it is urged, "speak a language inconsistent with the statement, that Terah, at Abram's birth, was 130 Abold. years ram would, in this case, have had no grounds for his surprise,

when, at the age of 100, he was told that he was to have a son; or, as Le Clerc states it, "the angel should not have brought forward the Divine Omnipotence in reproof of Sarah's unbelief, (Gen. xviii. 13, 14,); he should rather have adduced the example of Abraham himself, had he been himself born when his father was 130."*

That it was not unusual, at that period, for children to be born when their parents were 100 and upwards, may be very fairly inferred from the circumstances narrated in Gen. xx. by which we learn that Sarah, at the advanced age of 90, still retained her beauty; and hence, if this inference be admitted, it will follow that Abraham in his question, (Gen. xvii. 17,) alluded not merely to his own age, and that of Sarah, but principally to the circumstance of her barrenness. (Compare Gen. xv. 1-4). This view of the subject is strongly confirmed by the language of St. Paul, speaking of Abraham, (Rom. iv. 19)—" he considered not his body, now dead, when he was about a hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb:" so that the miracle of Isaac's birth did not consist in his being born when his father was 100 years old; but in his being born to parents, one of whom, up to the age of 90, had been barren; and the other since the birth of Ishmael, fourteen years before that of Isaac, had had no children, and that being 100 years old.

Still, however, I am far from thinking that what has been said on either side of this question is perfectly conclusive: all that I wish to maintain is, that such a degree of evidence does not exist, as will justify an alteration of the text; and indeed, so far as my judgment goes, the evidence appears to preponderate in favour of the common reading. The alteration of 145, were that the original reading, into 205, cannot be easily accounted for, unless we suppose it to have occurred accidentally; whereas the alteration of 205 into the Samaritan reading, is an obvious correction which would suggest itself to any superficial reader, who, assuming that Abraham was the eldest of Terah's sons, felt himself puzzled by the apparent contradiction which that assumption will, introduce into the text: and we know from the wide and systematic differences that exist between the Hebrew, the Samaritan, and the Septuagint in dates and ages, that the chronology of our Scriptures has been tampered with. With respect to the high authority of the Samaritan Pentateuch, I cannot see how this affects the question, unless we admit also into our text the whole of the Samaritan chronology. As it is, the alteration of Abraham's birth will overturn every approved system of chronology extant, and therefore should not be admitted without sufficient evidence, -"in gravioribus discrepantiis et additamentis," (says De Rossi, speaking of the readings of the Samaritan text) "caute

66

* Clerici Append. Comment. in Gen. See a very clear statement of the argument in support of the reading of the Hebrew Bible, in a treatise entitled Chronologia a mundo condito usque ad obitum Christi," inserted by John Henry Hottinger, in his Latin edition of Godwin's Moses and Aaron. Francofurt ad Mon. 1716, p. 420.

procedendum est. Nam earum plures totidem videntur interpolationes, ac glossæ ad historiæ expositionem ac conciliationem a Samaritanis scribis libere inventæ."

I cannot, therefore, but remain of the opinion that this view of the subject possesses a much higher degree of probability in its favour, than that which, contrary to the analogy of Scripture, requires us to assume that Abraham was the eldest of Terah's sons; and then, in order to reconcile this assumption with other passages, introduces an alteration of the text, on the unsupported authority of the Samaritan Pentateuch, and in opposition to the united testimony of the Fathers, the Versions, and every Hebrew MS. hitherto collated. Nevertheless, I think I can say in the words of Cicero, "Nos qui sequimur probabilia, nec ultra id quod verisimile occurrerit progredi possumus, et refellere sine pertinacia, et refelli sine iracundiâ parati sumus.' "*

Trin. Coll.

"

ON THE NEGLECT OF JOINING IN THE RESPONSES.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER.

SIR,-After some years residence in England, I have been spending a few weeks in Dublin, and availing myself of the opportunity to attend divine service in some one or other of the churches of the metropolis. The public prints had apprized me of the disposition manifested by numbers to quit the corrupt communion of the Church of Rome; and my own observation convinced me that no partiality was felt in favour of that apostate church; but Sir, after making that admission, I must own, with reluctance, that there seemed on the part of every congregation I beheld, a decided indifference with regard to the admirable liturgy which every churchman professes to believe on the whole scriptural and devout. One

of the strongest objections in my mind to the mode of conducting public worship among the Protestant dissenters, is, not only that the congregation are not prepared for the petitions which their minister may offer up, but that, as a consequence, prayer appears to be an employment in which the minister alone is to engage, while the people are not required or even expected to take any part. Now this appears to be very nearly the case at present with the congregation of every church in Dublin: they have not indeed absolutely discarded our unrivalled form of prayer, it is still read aloud in our churches, and many of the congregation come provided with prayer-books, and I doubt not are ready to join in any eulogium upon our liturgy; but I looked in vain for any cordial participation in the service. No response on the part of the congregation attested the interest they felt in what was going on; on the contrary,

*Tusc. Quæst. lib. ii.

the apathy manifested would have fully justified the clergyman in acting as the facetious Dean of St. Patrick's did at Lavacor and saying to his clerk "the Scripture moveth you and me," inasmuch as the rest of his auditory appeared to consider the silence of a Quaker's-meeting as the best rule to regulate their proceedings. This is the more extraordinary when we remember how often the rubric enjoins upon the people to take a share in the service. "A general confession to be said of the whole congregation after the minister." "Then shall be sung or said the apostles' creed by the minister and the people." "Then the minister, clerks, and people, shall say the Lord's prayer with a loud voice." The late Mr. Cecil, speaking of the effect produced upon him by the sight of an old gothic structure, says that he never beheld it without reflecting, that within its walls for centuries had resounded that versicle of the Te Deum, "Thou art the king of glory, Oh, Christ:" no such sound, however, is ever heard from the lips of a Dublin congregation; and if perchance an individual ventures to act more like a churchman, and to repeat aloud the versicle or responses intended for the people, a stare of astonishment from those around him, reminds him that custom has in this country rendered obsolete a practice enjoined by the wisdom and piety of our reformers. I am not so old, Mr. Examiner, as to forget the admirable example set by our late venerable Sovereign, Geo. III., at his chapel at Windsor: his voice was heard distinctly repeating those parts of the service in which the clergyman was silent; but if his authority be considered of little weight, I can refer to that of the present Archbishop of Dublin, who, in consecrating the Free Church on the 4th of this month, joined the clerk in uttering aloud the alternate verses of the Psalms, Te Deum, &c. while his dignified and emphatic enunciation gave additional energy to those parts of the service in which he acted as the officiating clergyman. Should any one be disposed to consider these observations as of no moment, and the practice recommended of little value, I beg of him to reflect, whether the sermon itself may not prove ineffectual, except it has been preceded by devotion at once animated and uninterrupted.

I am Sir, your obedient servant.

X. Y.

REVIEW.

Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, appointed to examine the Reports on Irish Education.

The Committee, whose labours are to form the subject of this article, arose from the ashes of the Commission of Education, appointed in 1824, by royal authority. After three years of experiment and inquiry, and the compilation of nine Reports, with the most voluminous appendices, that Commission expired, with

the reputation of having done no actual mischief. Evidence had been received, upon the interpretation or the weight of which, the members could not agree; embarrassments had been encountered in separating the civil from the religious part of education, which they knew not how to elude; pretensions also had been urged by the Roman Catholic hierarchy, which, whether they were to be admitted or opposed, threatened an interminable succession of annoyances. Thus arrested, unexpectedly, and at the first step, in their intended course, the Commissioners were obliged to acquaint his Majesty,*" that they had experienced difficulties, which not only prevented them from establishing schools, but induced them to desist altogether from further proceedings in that undertaking."

Shortly after the announcement of this discomfiture, the Committee was appointed by the House of Commons. The members describe themselves as "the Select Committee, to whom the Reports on the subject of Education in Ireland were referred; and who were empowered to report their observations and opinions thereon, to the House." Without inquiring too curiously into the intentions of the Honorable House, it may be presumed, that the duty entrusted to these gentlemen was explained, clearly and adequately, in the title under which they were thus committed. The Royal Commission was empowered, not only to inquire into the existing state of education, but to suggest such new measures as it might consider expedient:+ the Parliamentary Committee, to judge by its title, would appear to have had more limited instructions, to examine, at least in the first instance, a mass of important but perplexing documents, to digest and elucidate, rather than devise. However this may be, the public would at least be justified in expecting from such a body, some attempt to resolve those doubts, and explore the causes of those obstructions, which had bewildered its predecessor. A review of the ambiguous evidence; a definition of what is civil, and what is spiritual, in National Education; a limitation of that interference on the part of the titular bishops, which, while it remains as it is at present, indefinite and irresponsible, must be a source of discord to the community, and distraction to the government;-all this, (perhaps more, perhaps not, but surely all this,) would appear to be implied in the very name of the Committee. It is now time to examine how far such anticipations may have been fulfilled.

The Report is comprised in somewhat less than six pages.

Of this narrow space, the latter half is occupied in detailing the plan which the Committee recommends. This plan shall be considered incidentally as we proceed; and more particularly, when we have disposed of the preliminary matter.

*In the opening of their Ninth Report.

+ This appears from the words of the King's Writ, which are as follows:-"For inquiring into the nature and extent of the instruction, &c.—for ascertaining whether any and what regulations may be fit to be established-and for reporting as to the measures which can be adopted," &c.