The Typology of Scripture [pp. 508-520]

Flairbairn on Ezekiel.
,minutest points. This is so far from being inconsistent with
the massive grandeur which is justly predicated of this prophet,
that the combination of the two apparently incongruous attri..butts is just what constitutes the individuality of his prophetic
stiyle and character.
The foregoing strictures are not to be understood as denying
to the work before us the praise of laborious and detailed inter pretation,'but. only as imputing to it greater crudeness, less
originality, and less convincing power, than to the author's
work upon T.ypoilogy; Except so far as the reasonings and con clusions of that treatine are repeated here, the author appears
less at home ad bens at ease, less conscious of his strength
though not by; t~A/ means less eager to exert it. We do not
find the saifie' appearance of slowly acquired thoroughly
digested knowledge, but rather that 6f hasty acquisition and
imperfect meditation. This may be only an appearance; but
* even in that case it sufficiently evinces that the author's strength
lies not so much in formal and continuous interpretation as in
comprehensive and connected views of general truths and fun damental principles. To use a technical distinction, he shines
less in exegesis than in hermeneutics. He is more successful
in laying down the laws of exposition than in applying them to
specific cases. We need scarcely add that the defects which
we have pointed out, are such as arise not from any intellectual
inferiority to what has been attempted, but rather from a cast
of mind and mode of thought adapted to a task still higher.
Our impressions of these interesting works may now be easily
summed up. The "Jonah" and "Ezekiel" are highly worthy
of perusal, were it only as embodying the choicest fruits of
the latest and best German studies in n form adapted to the
wants of English readers, by a writer of good scholarship,
sound principles, strong mind, and Christian spirit. We cannot,
however, conscientiously-describe them as making any sensible
advance'upon the ground already occupied by eminent inter preters, or as affording any new key to the difficulties of the
books which they interpret. The "Typology of Scripture," on
the other hand, we ltook upon as really supplying a desideratum,
and to a great extent filling a chasm which has long been felt
to exist in our biblical literature.
VOL. XXIII.-NO. III. 55
.185s1.]
519,