marker is pointedly fevere on his Lordship for omitting this laft clause in his text, and yet preffing it into his fervice afterwards by an unintelligible application of it to his metaphorical temple. The Bishop had faid, that this part of the prophecy was never fulfilled while the Temple ftood;' to which our Author replies, that, if fo, it never was, nor could be fulfilled at all. He reminds him, that Chrift is called our Peace, Ephef. ii. 14.-that the Meffiah was generally expected by the ancient Jews to appear in the fecond Temple; and that their defcendants agree in fuppofing Haggai to have meant a material Temple; though, in order to evade the argument which Chriftian writers have drawn from the deftruction of the fecond Temple, they are obliged to confider the prophecy as applicable to a third, which, in their opinion, is ftill to be conftructed for his reception. Having made a few additional obfervations on the Bishop's Difcourfe, he proceeds to the examination of Dr. Heberden's Letter on the fame fubject, which is printed among the Notes on Bishop Newcome's tranflation of the Minor Prophets. After controverting that part of the Doctor's reafoning which refts on the authority of the Septuagint, and contending that this verfion ought not to be admitted in oppofition to all the Hebrew copies, he obferves, that, by filling this boufe with glory, cannot be meant filling it with filver and gold; but that, the glory of the Lord of Hofts should fill this house, unobfcured by the cloud that accompanied it in Solomon's Temple, i. e. in the person of Chrift, who was God manifefted in the flesh. In proof of this, he remarks, that the fecond Temple was confeffedly inferior in point of grandeur and magnificence to the firft; and that no fuch glory was ever seen in it as that which appeared in Solomon's. His conclufion therefore is, that the prophecy could only be accomplished by the glorious prefence of the promised Saviour of the world. In reply to what Dr. H. fays of Herod's building a new Temple, our Author obferves, that in the fpeech which Jofephus puts into Herod's mouth, he intimates his defign, not of rebuilding the Temple, but of raifing and enlarging it; though Jofephus afterwards fpeaks in his own perfon, as if it had been actually rebuilt. That the teftimony of the Jewish historian, in this laft paffage, is either falfe or mifunderstood, appears plain to our Author, not only from the contradiction implied by Herod's fpeech, but from other internal evidence in the account given of the tranfaction by Jofephus himself. He thinks it highly improbable, that 20 cubits only of the uppermost part of the Temple fhould have failed, if the whole had been built new from the ground; and equally fo, that fo large an edifice should have been built throughout with ftones of the fame dimenfions, or completed in fo fhort a time. He afks, whether, if Herod had offered to take down the Temple, and rebuild it, the Jews would not have thought it facrilege to have permitted him? For these reasons, and because Jofephus fpeaks of two Temples only in his Antiquities, viz. that of Solomon, and that which was erected under the decree of Cyrus, our Author concludes thus: Let it be proved, that either Jofephus, or any other writer of credit, fpeaks explicitly of the Temple at Jerufalem which was deftroyed by Titus as a third Temple, and different from that which was conftructed under the Prophet Haggai, and it will be fomething. But till that is done, both Christians and Jews will continue to think, as they ever have thought, ab initio, that the Temple destroyed by Titus, was the very fame with that which was conftructed under the decree of Cyrus, only improved, enlarged, and beautified by Herod, and the liberality of the public.' ART. X. Evidence that the Relation of Jofephus, concerning Herod's having new built the Temple at Jerufalem, is either falfe or mifinterpreted. 8vo. 25. Oxford printed; and fold by Rivingtons, London. 1786. THE HE Author of this pamphlet ftates the reafon of his objection to Jofephus's relation, briefly thus; that if his account, as it is now interpreted, be true, the prophecy of Haggai never was fulfilled, and is therefore a false prophecy. Let the word glory, he fays, fignify what it will, whether the presence and glory of God, or filver and gold, and other external decorations, it will still be the fame. Haggai's Temple unquestionably never was equal, much lefs fuperior, to Solomon's, in point of external magnificence; and it is equally incontrovertible, that, if it was taken down before the coming of the Meffiah, it never was filled with a greater glory of the Lord, than that which filled the Temple of Solomon. Dr. Heberden's conjecture, for it is nothing more, fuppofing it to be well founded, tends only to prove that the fecond Teinple was not inferior to the firft. This, however, is by no means fufficient to establish the truth of the Jewish Prophet: for he prophefies that it fhall be filled, not with equal, but with greater glory than that of Solomon. To Herod's defign of taking down and rebuilding the Temple, our Author thinks infuperable objections must have been raised by the Jews. For a year and a half, according to Jofephus's own account, but probably for a much longer time, there muft have been a total fufpenfion of all the molt folemn and facred offices of their religion-there could be no prefentations in the Temple, for there was no Temple to be prefented in-no facrifices, for there was no altar on which they could be offered-no expiation could be made, for there was no Holy of Holies, into which the High Prieft could enter. For this exigency Jofephus has made no provifion. He does not even represent the Jews as urging an objection which could not but have occurred to them. Another objection, our Author thinks equally infuperable, would have been, that Herod could produce no authority for pulling down and rebuilding a Temple erected by the command of God himfelf, and under the immediate infpection of his Prophets. He then produces two paffages from Philo, which he thinks utterly irreconcilable with the fuppofition of a new Temple. Philo, fpeaking of Caligula's intention to fet up his own image in the Temple at Jerufalem, and endeavouring to diffuade him from it, calls it, περίβολον καθιερωθενία και καθωσιωμένου χρησμοίς και 2021015 DEOPATOIs, words, which, to our Author, feem ftrongly defcriptive of Haggai's Temple, but totally inapplicable to Herod's and which therefore afford evidence, that when Philo wrote, Haggai's Temple was ftill ftanding. In another paffage of Philo, the Temple is fpoken of as, εξ απείρων χρονών απαυτοις και αφείδεσι δαπάναις αει προσκοσμέμενον. Our Author thinks it hignly improbable that fuch language fhould have been applied to a Temple, which, at the time of Philo's writing, could not have been finished more than 44 years. From these circumftances, then, and from Agrippa's total filence with respect to Herod's having rebuilt the Temple, in his epiftle to Caligulafrom the contradictions and inconfiftencies of Jofephus himfelf in his Antiquities, and his Hiftory of the Jewish war-and from the language which he puts into the mouth of Herod concerning the affair of the Golden Eagle-on these grounds our Author concludes, that the hiftorian, in his account of Herod's rebuilding the Temple, has either expreffed him felf with inaccuracy, or that he has wilfully and defignedly told a direct falfehood either that his relation is not true, or fo negligently expreffed as to be liable to mifinterpretation.' The paffage of Jofephus on which the grand objection is founded to the received interpretation of Haggai is as follows: AvελWV DE TUS αρχαίες θεμελιες, καὶ καταβαλομενος έτερες, επ' αύλων τον ναον ήγειρε, μήκει μεν έκατον ον]α πηχών, το δε ύψος είκοσι περιτίοις, The hiftorian had before introduced Herod haranguing the Jews, and telling them, that it was his defign to remedy thofe defects in the Temple, which had been occafioned by the neceffity and fervitude of former times, and to enlarge and heighten it fo as to render it equal in its dimenfions to the firft Temple. Now the decree of Cyrus, which authorized the building of Haggai's Temple, directed that it fhould be built precifely on the fame pot with the former, but of inferior dimensions. Hence our Author conjectures, that Herod only added to the length and height of the Temple, and that the words, aveλw Tus apxates Depeλgs, relate, not to the foundations of Haggai's 9 Temple, Temple, but to thofe old foundations which remained unbuilt upon in the ground-plot of Solomon's Temple. After this attempt to obviate the objections drawn from Jofephus, our Author labours to expofe the futility and abfurdity of every interpretation of the paffage in Haggai, which excludes an immediate reference to Chrift, by whofe presence in the Temple which was then building, he thinks, the prophecy could alone receive its full and final completion. ART. XI. The Afiatic Mifcellany: Confifting of Original Productions, Tranflations, Fugitive Pieces, Imitations, and Extracts from curious Publications. Nos I. and II. of Vol. I. * IOS. 6d. each. Large 4to. Calcutta printed; and fold by Meffrs. White, Fleet-ftreet, London. A MONG the most powerful incentives to literary emulation, we may number fuch examples of genius and erudition, as feem defigned by Providence to exhibit the human intellect in its moft cultivated ftate, and to fupply every age with living inftances of that excellence, which, were it vifible only in the annals of antiquity, might entirely escape the notice of many, and be regarded by others as the meteor of a more favoured fky; too fleeting to juftify any hope of its return, and too dazzling to be contemplated even in defcription. If, in furveying the Temple of Fame, we had only a diftant profpect of the honours paid to the worthies of ancient times, it might reasonably be deemed inacceffible by their pofterity; but when we fee the ftatues of our contemporaries placed in niches equally honourable and confpicuous, we muft infer, that the mind of man ftill flourishes in its priftine vigour, and that there is nothing in the examples of former ages, which fhould damp the zeal of competition, or reprefs the ardour of imitation. Were we required to apply thefe obfervations to any particular character, no one would more readily occur to us than that writer, whofe compofitions are the higheft ornament of the Afiatic Mifcellany. For if, inftead of delighting and inftruct ing the prefent age, he had long fince been reduced to the fituation of those writers, whofe names and characters only have furvived the deftruction of their works, the portrait of Sir William Jones might have found, perhaps, infpectors as fceptical as that of the admirable Crichton. In the gay fpring of life, that feafon which the idle wafte in diffipation, and the diligent employ in elementary ftud es, diftinguifhed by that elegant con *The Afiatic Mifcellany will (according to the Advertisements) be published quarterly; every four Numbers to make a volume. The two Numbers now under review, are dated in 1785; and we have not heard that any more are yet arrived in Europe. viviality, viviality, which too frequently proves the bane of its poffeffor, the Author of the Oriental Commentaries affumed the triple character of a Lir guift, a Poet, and a Critic. With powers too vigorous and comprehenfive to be fhackled by the vulgar trammels of education, he commenced his literary career, where veterans of no common reputation have been content to finish theirs. To an intuitive perception of the fublime and beautiful, and an imagination at once bold and luxuriant, he added, what Mr. Pope thought incompatible with these faculties, the diftinguishing judgment of Ariftotle, and a memory quick and tenacious as that of Seneca, or Carneades. Nothing less than the union of these powers in the fame mind could have produced fuch pregnancy of thought, and fuch elegance and facility of compofition, in languages fo difficult and diffimilar. Yet this fancy, this elegance, and this facility, did our Author poffefs, in fpite of his early deftination to a profeffion, of which even the preparatory exercises exhauft the midnight lamp of the most perfevering ftudent. To the pen, whofe more ferious business it was to collect the cafes, and note the precedents of an English court of judicature, we are indebted, not only for a fpeech of Ifæus in an English drefs*, and for an exact delineation of the moft complicated part of the Athenian laws, but for verses, which echo the language, as well as the fentiments, of Sophocles, Theocritus, and Menander. To him who might have been fuppofed to confult the pages of Cicero, as the models only of legal argument, or popular declamation, we owe the perufal of fuch Latin profe as Tully might have read without disguft; and of Latin poetry, which breathes the fpirit of the beft writers of the beft age of Rome. He who was more profeffionally em ployed in difcuffing the legal mode of fuppreffing riots +, the laws of his native country on the fubject of bailments, cultivated the oriental languages, not only to illuftrate the Mahometan laws of fucceffion to the property of inteftates, but to develope the grammatical conftruction of the Perfian language, and to woo the Afiatic Mufes from the spicy groves of Arabia to the more chilly climate of Britain. Let it be remembered alfo, that the man of whom all this, and much more, might be faid, is now only in the bloom of manhood; poffeffed of integrity unimpeached, and of manners the most attracting; in his judicial capacity, the glory of the British name in India; and, as a scholar, ftill indefatigable in thofe purfuits, which render him at once the patron and example of the poet, the philofopher, and the critic. *See Rev. vol. lx. p. 452. ↑ Rev. vol. lxvi. p. 298. and + See Rev. vol. lxiii. p. 142. Rev. vol. lxvi. p. 442. |