Notes Critical and Practical, on the Book of Genesis. By George Bush [pp. 271-301]

Bush on Genesis.
tion and to the just emoluments of literary labour, it is plain
to every reader, that his governing motives are neither mer cenary nor ambitious. He seems to take delight in those
very processes which, howvever necessary in the art of book making, are commionly regarded as most irksome and labori ous. The good effect of this is, that nothing is slurred over,
or omitted through neglect; and that the composition every
where exhibits marks of freshness and vitality, as far remo ved as possible from the dead and alive manner of most com pilations. A bad effect, resulting from the same cause, is,
that the pleasure which he takes in his researches often blinds
him to the real value of the product, and leads him to regard
a thing as highly important only because he had the pleasure
of discovering it. And this effect is aggravated by the characteristic fault which we designed to mention: an apparent
incapacity or indisposition to appreciate the different degrees
of probability, in weighing proofs or arguments together, and a
consequent tendency to mistake the possible for the
probable, and the probable for the certain. Some of our
author's expositions would appear to indicate it as his principle of exegesis, that what may be the meaning is the
meaning. To this end has contributed, we think, a strong
desire to find new solutions of vexed questions, which,
however laudable, must, if carried to excess, pervert thejudgment. No one who glances at the exegetical history of certain hard places, can fail to be struck with the general agreement of the greatest intellects. If the ayes and noes, on certain of these dubia vexata, should be recorded in parliamentary form, we believe that there would be a clear and almost
constant party line between the ingenious and the fanciful on
one side, and the profound and comprehensive on the other.
That a large proportion of the philological learning would
be found among the former, is indeed a fact, and one which
seems to lead to the unwelcome conclusion, that we must
depend on one set of writers to find out what the sense of
scripture may be, and on another to determine what it is.
Certain it is, that upon some important parts of scripture, all
the minute and accurate philology of modern German criticshas thrown far less light, than the perspicacious logic of the'
older writers. It is a great mistake to imagine that t!he German grammarians understand the Bible better, as a whole,
than the logicians of the sixteenth century. Exactness in
little things must be combined with large and comprehensive
views of great ones, or the most accomplished critic will be
272
[APRtIL