which underlies it, of infant church-membership, had been inwrought into the Jewish mind, so as to form a sort of religious second nature, by 2000 years' familiarity with it in the working constitution of the church. So, too, the apostles had no need to make any express and formal declaration of the Sabbatarian doctrine of the Lord's day. The institution of the week, founded in nature, on the moral law, had, by 4000 years of Sabbath observance, been made familiar to the church as the air she breathed. That institution was received by the New Testament church as a matter of course, as an immemorial part of God's revelation in the word. The silence of the apostles, therefore, while utterly unaccountable on the supposition that the Lord's day dates its origin from them, is easily and naturally accounted for on the supposition that it is "the Christian Sabbath;" not a new institution, dating from Pentecost, but, under a new form, an old institution, as old as Eden, as the nature of man. And thus the Sabbatarian theory really is a theory of the Lord's day. It enables us to see the Bible facts, to apprehend them all in one view. It not only accepts whatever is true in the dominical theory, but explains all that demands explanation, accounts for all the Bible facts to be accounted for. This, we have said, is the logical evidence of its truth. But this, too, is one reason of its practical power. It sways the conscience by giving satisfaction to the understanding. It moves the man to obedience, by enabling his mind to rest. Recognising the apostolic institution as fully and frankly as the poor dominical theory," it presents that institution to our view as organically connected with the whole historical revelation of God in his word; laying the foundations deep and wide in the whole. system of revealed truth regarding the relations of God to man, as created and redeemed, it secures to the Lord's day a place of corresponding depth and breadth in our affectionate veneration. Its practical impressiveness was no doubt one reason of the joyful reception given to this true theory by such earnest practical men as the Puritans, and has been one cause of its profound and abiding influence in Puritan churches and nations. We have not entered on the speculative question, how the Sabbath law can be a law of nature, in what precise sense the fourth commandment is moral. To that question, we trust we shall be permitted soon to return. In the mean time, we rest in the conclusion that the theory which affirms the morality of the fourth commandment is the only one which even appears to explain the Bible facts regarding "the Sabbath" and Lord's day; and that it is the only theory which, on a large scale, has been tried, and not found wanting in practice -no unimportant evidence of its truth. ART. V.-The Greek Testament of Webster and Wilkinson. The Greek Testament, with Notes, Grammatical and Exegetical. By WILLIAM WEBSTER, M.A., late of King's College, London, and formerly Fellow of Queen's College, Cambridge; and WILLIAM FRANCIS WILKINSON, M.A., Vicar of St Werburgh's, Derby, formerly Theological Tutor of Cheltenham College. Vol. I., containing the Epistles and the Apocalypse. London : Parker, Son, & Bourn, West Strand. 1861. Pp. 884. IN our notice of the first volume of this work in July 1861 (p. 642) was omitted* a reference to Carpzov's " Apparatus Criticus," where, at p. 424, the real point at issue respecting the alleged difference of time between our Lord and the rest of the Jews, as also between the Pharisees and the Karaites, is disposed of in the assertion that the inhabitants of the Holy Land were agreed, whilst the temple was standing, in reckoning the new moon, not by an astronomical calculation taken from the conjunction of the sun and moon, but from the first appearing of the moon after it was clear of the sun's rays. It is true, indeed, that notwithstanding this, Carpzov himself accedes to those who suppose that our Lord anticipated the Jews in the celebration of the passover, respecting which we again refer to the notes of Dr Robinson at the end of his "Harmony of the Gospels." We proceed to notice a few instances of controverted passages in regard of interpretation. It is our conviction that the modern literature is by far too innovating in this depart ment. Rom. i. 17, "For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith." Professor Scholefield, in his Hints for an Improved Translation of the New Testament," departs from Beza here, to whom he generally inclines. But we think it has not been sufficiently borne in mind, that the transposition adopted by so many of the moderns is altogether unnatural for the epistolary style. That style of itself favours the ancient interpretation,-from the less instructed faith of the Old Testament to the clearer faith of the New, in accordance with the opinion of Tertullian amongst the Latins, and Clemens Alexandrinus and Ecumenius amongst the Greeks. We find from Professor Scholefield that Lightfoot held to this, the ancient view. Matthew Henry evidently leans to this construction, explaining the words of the apostle to import from one degree of faith to another. And it may be well that our readers By a misprint also (p. 641), Dr Hastings Robinson was changed to Robertson. † P. 430. should be reminded that Matthew Henry had the very great advantage of his learned father Philip Henry's MSS. and great erudition. The late Dr Butler, Bishop of Lichfield, is known to have expressed his astonishment at Philip Henry's profound acquaintance with the classics. Our impression is that it was in consequence of some of his MSS. being put into his hands. Rom. iii. 4, "And mightest overcome when thou art judged." Our editors thus paraphrase, and we think, rightly, "That thou mayest be proved righteous in thy promises, and mayest gain the cause when thou art put on trial." Here our editors rightly forsake Beza, whom Scholefield, in this instance, follows. St Paul follows the LXX. Accordingly, Rosenmuller here follows Wolf, who adheres with our version to the rendering of the Vulgate. Luther's version is with us in Rom. iv. 24, if we, instead of who believe, as proposed by Scholefield and Webster and Wilkinson, after Fritzsche. Dr David Brown, in his compendious "Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans," adheres to the authorised version. The condition is requisite for the argument, and hence probably the agreement of our own with Luther's version. Rom. v. 7. The editor, with Scholefield, would have yag to refer to the preceding clause of the sentence, in order to modify it. But the adversative sense of the particle is qualified by the use of the Hebrew, to which it answers, and is maintained by Alt. See his "Grammar of the New Testament," pp. 220, 221. Rom. v. 20. Rosenmuller appears to have selected the right sense of παρεισῆλθεν. He regards it as equivalent to προσετέθη, as at Gal iii. 19. And so it is given in Luther's version: the law next came in das Gesetz aber ist neben eingekommen. : 1 Cor. iii. 15. By fire. Both Scholefield and our editors suggest, as more perspicuous, through fire. 1 Cor. iv. 6. Not to think of men above that which is written. Webster and Wilkinson here, we think rightly, justify our version, which inserts of men, applying the warning to the party-spirit, the favouritism that divided the Corinthian Church. This surely suits the context better than Scholefield's rendering, not to be wise above that which is written. Scholefield here follows Beza. The Lutheran version supplies of yourselves; Erasmus, of himself. The Lutheran version is perhaps the best. Above that which is written refers to the preceding portion of this epistle. 1 Cor. v. 9. We would suggest that for an should be read this epistle. (See p. 22.) We, with the editors, are content with our version at 2 Cor. iii. 7, where Professor Scholefield would have rendered, "The ministration of death by the letter engraven on stones." And so, at ver. 18, we, with them and Beza, would retain beholding as in a glass. Erasmus, who would render by repræsentantes, is corrected by Beza, who here appeals to the Syriac version. Gal. i. 10. Here, do I seek to get on my side men or God, in accordance with the use of iw, in Acts xii. 20, and xiv. 19, would be clearer than the word persuade. Webster and Wilkinson propose "make my appeal to, try to satisfy." Scholefield would render, "Am I now seeking the favour of men or of God?" which approach too closely the words that follow. At Gal. iii. 22, we would, with Ellicott and the editors, retain the present reading, as more natural than the transposition proposed by Scholefield, that the promise may be given to believers by faith in Jesus Christ. Beza is here against Scholefield. Dean Ellicott, amongst other innovations of the exegetical kind, in his essay on the interpretation of Scripture in the "Aids to Faith," has questioned the reference to vicarious substitution in g in Gal. iii. 13. We are glad to find no such idiosyncracy in the volume before us. At Ephes. i. 1, our editors rightly retain 'Epiow. We have elsewhere observed that, besides the very doubtful "Codex Sinaiticus," the only uncial MS. which omits the words is the "Codex Vaticanus."* Ephes. v. 5. In the kingdom of Christ and of God. Our editors would read, and rightly, with Bishop Middleton, of him who is the Christ and God. See p. 363 of Rose's edition of "Middleton on the Greek Article." We regret to find Mr Ellicott, without any valid reason, giving up this rendering at p. 424 of the "Aids to Faith." At Ephes. vi. 12, our editors indicate the equally correct translation, the wicked spirits in the air. Luther's version has "the evil spirits under the heavens." So Chrysostom, whilst Theophylact justifies our version. The student will find ample references in "Wolfii Curæ Philologica." Ephes. vi. 16. The fiery darts of the wicked The editors, with Scholefield, correctly render, of the evil one: TOD TOνngoŨ. Phil. i. 7. As Erasmus, Schmidt, so Scholefield: partakers with me of grace. The editors give the same rendering. Scholefield refers to Rom. viii. 17, Philem. ver. 1, Rev. xix. 10, and Herodotus, 1. 2, c. 134, dúvôouλos AiGwTou. Soph. Antiq., 451, σύνδουλος Αἰσώπου. ξύνοικος τῶν κάτω Θεῶν. "And," he observes, "any reader of See a letter to the Bishop of Oxford upon the "Defence of the Essays and Reviews," in the April number of the Edinburgh Review, 1861, by the Rev. Arthur T. Russell, B.C.L., of St John's College. John Palmer, 58 Sidney Street, Cambridge. Greek may add to the collection, almost without end, from any author he may take in hand."* Col. i. 15. Our editors rightly explain #gwróronos of the heirship of all things. I Tim. ii. 15. Our editors adhere to our version. Not so Ellicott, who has recourse to the singular interpretation, by the childbearing, as alluding to our Saviour's birth of the Virgin. We refer our readers to Beza on this passage. We now proceed to a brief notice of the Chronology of the Epistles, and of the Acts of the Apostles, as standing in close connection with them. We believe that we cannot here follow a safer guide than Guericke, with whom we are satisfied upon every point in this department, except with the earlier date which he assigns to the Apocalypse. That date appears to us to rest upon the answer that is given to the question, Was Claudius a persecutor of the Christians? Dr Burton observes, in his 12th Lecture on the Ecclesiastical History of the first century, that "the name of Domitian is handed down as that of the second persecutor of the Christians after Nero." But Nero and Domitian are, by the common consent of church historians, reputed the two first persecuting emperors. Michaelis himself, therefore, was obliged to admit that the evidence of antiquity was in favour of the later date. "No traces," he observes," are to be discovered of any persecution of the Christians in the reign of Claudius; for, though he commanded the Jews to quit Rome, yet this command did not affect the Jews who lived out of Italy, and still less the Christians. Consequently, the banishment of St John to the island of Patmos can hardly be referred to the reign of Claudius." And, in truth, the bias of commentators, in regard of the interpretation of the Apocalypse, has had the principal hand in the attempt to affix the earlier date to this book. Guericke is himself a clear evidence of this. The conversion of St Paul occurred in A.D. 35 or 36. Compare Gal. i. 15-18, and 2 Cor. xi. 32; Joseph. Antiq. 1. 18, v. 1, 3; Gal. i. 3. After three years, i. e., three years after his conversion, St Paul left Damascus, which was a Roman city in the hands of Aretas, 2 Cor. xi. 32. This could have been the case only about the time of the war of the Romans with Aretas, which broke out in A.D. 37. Affairs were made up with Arabia in A.D. 38; so Dio Cassius lix. 9, 12. Three years earlier would be A.D. 35 or 36; and fourteen years thence (according to Gal. ii. 1), in the year 50, the great synod of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem.‡ *"Hints," &c., p. 83. Introd. to the New Testament, vol. iv. c. 33, sect. ix. p. 520. |