"The testimony of Matthew Levi, the Apostle." Com. Ver. "The gospel according to Matthew." "The (common) title, neither of this, nor of the other histories of our Lord, is to be ascribed to the penman," says Dr. Campbell; and to this agree the suffrages of all the learned. Ignorance and superstition have converted the common title into a meaning altogether repugnant to the character and design of these narratives. They are called "The Holy Gospel," and worshipped under this title in our courts of law and equity, with the Roman devotion paid to "the sacrament," or to the sacrifice of the mass, called "the host," under the tutelage of the Pope.

      The proper name of Matthew's narrative is unquestionably that which we have affixed to it, and it is authorized by the Apostles themselves. The Saviour, (Luke xxiv. 48.), thus address the Apostles themselves, "You are my witnesses"--equivalent to, You shall give testimony of me. He tells them, (Acts i. 8.), "You shall give testimony," or you shall be witnesses for me, "from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth." In Acts v. 32. x. 39. the Apostle assumes this title--"We give testimony of him," or "We are his witnesses." What they spoke, and what they wrote concerning Jesus, was equally their testimony. Whether verbal or written, the testimony is the same. We have the highest authority, then, for the title we have prefixed to these writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; and there is neither propriety in the common titles which they bear, nor authority for them. All the historians testify many items which, though subservient to their main design, are different from, and not the gospel of Jesus Christ, properly so called.

      The Greek terms marturion, marturia, are indiscriminately translated testimony, record, and witness, by King James' translators. They supposed also any of these English words equivalent to the original. In our times the term testimony is most in use; and the Testimony of John is more accordant with out standards, than the Record or Witness of John. There is, indeed, every kind of propriety in the title we have adopted out of the text itself. The student of these writings needs not be informed that Levi and Matthew are like Simon and Peter--names of one and the same Apostle.

      The preface to each of the five historical books, is in the common version, inserted in the history. Matthew's preface is made the first verse of the first chapter.

      Some suppose the preface to belong to the first chapter only; others more rationally suppose it to belong to the whole narrative. Those who appropriate it to the first chapter, translate the phrase Biblos geneseos, "the lineage," as Dr. Campbell has done. Those who extend it to the whole of Matthew's writings, translate it "the history." Dr. Campbell says, "This phrase is found where it cannot signify either genealogy or list of descendants, as Genesis i. 2. Biblos geneseos ouranou kai ges;--the account of the origin and gradual production of the universe." [44]

      The Syriac, according to Whitby, renders it thus:--"The narrative, or rehearsal of the generation or birth of Jesus." Whitby, on this passage, observes that "the word is used elsewhere with a latitude to comprise also the history of our Lord's life, death, and resurrection," although he confines it to the first chapter. Doddridge and Thomson translate it, "the genealogy of Jesus." The former, however, observes, that genesis corresponds with the Hebrew teledeth, which sometimes signifies the history of a person's life. Simon the Jesuit, translates the Vulgate into French, as Doddridge and Thomson have the Greek into English. Beza has it "liber generationis," and James' translators follow him--"The book of the generation." Vitringa contends that it should be translated history in this place, and Dr. Adam Clarke is of the same opinion. We find the phrase occurring frequently in the Septuagint as equivalent to the term history; and have accordingly given it in the text. But, with these documents before him, let the reader judge.

      "Angel of the Lord."--Dr. Campbell has here translated this phrase "messenger of the Lord," and in most other places he translates it "messenger." In his eighth dissertation he has specified four cases, including, say four-fifths of the number of times this word occurs; and in all of which perspicuity requires that it should be rendered messenger. In the first edition of this work, we uniformly, for the sake of perpiscuity, rendered the word aggelos, angelos, "messenger." To this it has been objected, that the word messenger is not more an English word than the term angel itself; that the word angel is naturalized and adopted into the English tongue; and now to exclude it from the language of christians and the public, is neither practicable nor eligible; besides, there is no difficulty in understanding it, and no controversy of importance depending upon its ambiguity. To this we reply, that we have no predilection for the word messenger, nor objection to the word angel, nor desire to exclude the latter term from the language of the christians. But we aim at perspicuity; and finding the term angel regarded rather as the name of a nature, than of an office--as belonging rather to a superior order of beings, than to the race of beings to which we belong--we preferred, for the sake of correcting or preventing such an error, a translation of the word unequivocally indicative of its meaning, to the most spiritual reader. Such is the term messenger.

      Messengers are of two sorts of natures--celestial and terrestrial. Of the heavenly messengers we know nothing. Their ministrations we understand, partially at least; but of their nature we are wholly ignorant. Of the terrestrial messengers we have some knowledge, both of their nature and office; and among these discover different ranks or orders. He maketh the winds, the lightnings, the ferocious animals, the sword, famine, and pestilence, his earthly angels, or messengers--the executioners of his will.

      The word aggelos in the scriptures is not confined to a superior race, or celestial order of beings; but is applied indiscriminately to every creature of God sent by him to accomplish his will, or to carry messages of good or evil to mankind, whether that creature have intelligence or not. It occurs more than one hundred times in the New Testament, and is in all versions occasionally translated by the term messenger, and frequently by the word angel, which is, indeed, an adoption, rather than a version of the word. It is also applied not only to the agents which God employs, but also to the agents of every creature. The devil or satan has his angels or messengers, and individuals and communities have theirs. The New Testament authors speak of an angel of satan, of the angels of the churches, of the angel of Peter, and of the angels of little children. It is applied to John the Harbinger, to the winds, and to all the elements which specially work for God.

      In most, or, perhaps, in all English and all modern versions, it is sometimes rendered by messenger, which also represents apostle; and this again confounds the reader: for when he meets the word messenger, he cannot ascertain whether it is apostolos or aggelos in the original. Had we our choice, we would ways render the word APOSTOLOS, missionary; and the word ANGELOS, messenger: but this we have not. The words angel and apostle are now naturalized and adopted into our language, and we must use them.

      Were we to use the word angel always in reference to the heavenly messengers, and the term apostle only in reference to the original eye and ear witnesses of the word, still we would not escape censure; for then some would say we had taken upon us to judge when the Greek term represented the one or the other, and that thus we have prescribed to the faith of the reader.

      With this explanation, we have, in the present edition, used the word angel and the word messenger in the historical books indiscriminately, because nothing is hazarded by so doing: but in the Epistles we have uniformly used the word messenger, leaving it to the reader, as the Apostle left it to us, to judge whether it is a heavenly or an earthly agent that is intended. The word APOSTOLOS we never translate angel or messenger, but adopt it as a naturalized term of our own language.

      Doctors Campbell and Macknight have not only occasionally translated Baptismos and Baptisma by the word immersion, but have contended, in their notes, that such is their [45] meaning. We shall give their own words; and if Paidobaptists quarrel with the translation, the controversy is with their own Doctors, and not with us. We love uniformity where no violence is offered to the sense; and what they have, in this instance, sometimes done, we have always done, and for the same reasons which they have given. However sectarian jealousy may exhibit itself on this occasion, we care not. For, whether the reader may believe us or not, we declare, in the presence of him who searches the hearts, that no interest, inducement, or consideration, could, in an undertaking so solemn and responsible as that in which we are engaged, cause us to depart, in the least respect, from what we believe to be the meaning of the sacred writers. But in this instance we do not depend upon our own judgment only, but also upon the intelligence and candor of these Presbyterian translators. Let the reader examine their own testimony:--

      Campbell's Dissertations, vol. 2., p. 23.--"In several modern languages we have, in what regards Jewish and Christian rites, generally followed the usage of the old Latin version, though the authors of that version have not be entirely uniform in their method. Some words they have transferred from the original into their languages--others they have translated. But it would not always be easy to find their reason for making this difference. Thus the word peritome they have translated circumcisio, which exactly corresponds in etymology; but the word baptisma they have retained changing only the letters from Greek to Roman. Yet the latter was just as susceptible of a literal version into Latin as the former. Immersio, tinctio, answers as exactly in the one case, as circumcisio in the other. And if it be said of those words, that they do not rest on classical authority, the same is true also of this. Etymology, and the usage of ecclesiastic authors, are all that can be pleaded.

      "Now, the use with respect to the names adopted in the Vulgate, has commonly been imitated, or rather implicitly followed through the western parts of Europe. We have deserted the Greek names where the Latins have deserted them, and have adopted them where the Latins have adopted them. Hence we say circumcision, and not peritomy; and we do not say immersion but baptism. Yet when the language furnishes us with materials for a version so exact and analogical, such a version conveys the sense more perspicuously than a foreign name. For this reason, I should think the word immersion, (which though of Latin origin, is an English noun, regularly formed from the verb to immerse,) a better English name than baptism, were we now at liberty to make a choice."

      Again, vol. 4: p. 128.--"Undergo an immersion like that which I must undergo"--to baptisma o ego baptizomai baptisthenai. English translation: To be baptized with the baptism that I am to be baptized with. The primitive signification of baptisma is immersion; of baptizein, to immerse, plunge, or overwhelm. The noun ought never to be rendered baptize, but when employed in relation to a religious ceremony. The verb baptizein sometimes, and baptein, which is synonymous, often occurs in the Septuagint and apocryphal writings, and is always rendered in the common version by one or other of these words--to dip, to wash, to plunge. When the original expression, therefore, is rendered in familiar language, there appears nothing harsh or extraordinary in the metaphor. Phrases like these, "to be overwhelmed with grief," "to be immersed in affliction," will be found common in most languages."

      Again, in his notes on Matthew iii. 11. vol. iv. p.24.--"The word baptizein, both in sacred authors and classical, signifies to dip, to plunge, to immerse, and was rendered by Tertullian, the oldest of the Latin fathers, tingere, the term used for dyeing cloth, which was by immersion. It is always construed suitably to this meaning. Thus it is, en udati, en to Iordane. But I should not lay much stress on the preposition en, which, answering to the Hebrew beth, may denote with as well as in, did not the whole phraseology, in regard to this ceremony, concur in evincing the same thing. Accordingly, the baptized are said anabainien, to arise, emerge, or ascend, v. 16. apo tou udatos, and Acts viii. 39. ek tou udatos, from or out of the water. Let it be observed further, that the verbs raino and rantizo, used in scripture for sprinkling, are never construed in this manner. I will sprinkle you with clean water, says God, Ezek. xxxvi. 25.; or, as it runs in the English translation literally from the Hebrew, "I will sprinkle clean water upon you," is, in the Septuagint, Raino eph umas katharon udor, and not as baptizo is always construed--Raino umas en udati. See also Exod. xxix. 21. Lev. vi. 27. xvi. 14. Had baptizo been here employed in the sense of raino, I sprinkle, (which, as far as I know, it never is, in any sense, sacred or classical,) the expression would, doubtless have been Ego baptizo eph umas udor, or apo tou udatos, agreeably to the examples referred to. When, therefore, the Greek word baptizo is adopted, I may say, rather than translated into modern languages, the mode of construction ought to be preserved so far as may conduce to suggest its original import. It is to be regretted that we have so much evidence that even good and learned men allow their judgments to be warped by the sentiments and customs of the sect which they prefer. The true partizan, of whatever denomination, always inclines to correct the diction of the Spirit by that of the party."----It is not necessary to give all he has said on this theme. The above may suffice to show that we have his authority for this rendering.

      We shall now give a mere sample from Macknight, who is so copious on this subject. As I aim at brevity in these notes, I shall select one passage from him, which fully [46] expresses his views of the whole matter, on 1 Peter iii. 21. To these I shall add a few testimonies from men of note among the Paidobaptists.--

      "The antitype Baptism.--The word tupos, type, denotes a thing that is so formed as to convey an exact image of itself, by impression on another substance capable of receiving the impression. In scripture it signifies a pattern, according to which a thing is made. Thus the visionary tabernacle shown to Moses in the mount, is called tupos, a type, or pattern, because he was to make the material tabernacle exactly like it. Hebs. viii. 5. In scripture likewise, tupos, a type, signifies an example of moral conduct, to be followed or avoided. 1 Cor. x. 6, 11. The word antitupos, antitype, denotes the thing formed in imitation of the type or pattern. Thus, Hebs. ix. 24. the Mosaic tabernacles are called antitupoi, antitypes, or likeness of the true tabernacle or habitation of the Deity, because they were formed according to the tupos, pattern shown to Moses, which was considered as the true tabernacle. Farther, because some remarkable persons and events, recorded in scripture were so ordered by God, as to be fit emblems or representations of future persons and events, (see Galatians iv. 24, note 1,) these persons and events are called types, and the things which they represented or prefigured, are called antitypes. Thus, Romans v. 14. Adam is called tupos, the type of Christ, who, on account is called the second Adam. Thus also the water of baptism is here called the antitype of the water of the flood, because the flood was a type or emblem of baptism, in the three following particulars:--1st. As by building the ark, and by entering into it, Noah showed a strong faith in the promise of God, concerning his preservation by the very water which was to destroy the antediluvians for their sins; so, by giving ourselves to be buried in the water of baptism, we show a like faith in God's promise, that though we die and are buried, he will save us from death, the punishment of sin, by raising us from the dead at the last day. 2d. As the preserving of Noah alive during the nine months he was in the flood, is an emblem of the preservation of the souls of believers, while in the state of the dead; so, the preserving believers alive, while buried in the water of baptism, is a prefiguration of the same event. 3d. As the water of the deluge destroyed the wicked antediluvians, but preserved Noah by bearing up the ark in which he was shut up till the waves were assuaged, and he went out of it to live again on the earth; so baptism may be said to destroy the wicked and to save the righteous, as it prefigures both these events,--the death of the sinner it prefigures by the burying of the baptized person in the water; and the salvation of the righteous, by raising the baptized person out of the water to live a new life. These things considered, may not our Lord's words to Nicodemus, "Except a man be born again of water," be an allusion to the history of the deluge, and a confirmation of its typical meaning? For Noah's coming forth from the water to live again on the earth; after having been full nine months in the water, might fitly be called his being born of water. Consequently, as baptism is the antitype, or thing signified by the deluge, a person's coming out of the water of baptism may have been called by our Lord, his being born again of water."

      Simon the Jesuit, a critic of great eminence in the church of Rome, in his translation of the Vulgate, on Matth. iii. 11. has these words, in a note: "To baptize literally signifies to dip; and to this day, through the East, baptism is performed in no other way, according to the ancient practice of the Christians, borrowed from the Jews."

      The great Whitby, of the Church of England, in his commentary, now before me, repeatedly censures those who depart from the true import of this term. I can only give one extract from him. It is from his notes on Romans vi. 4:--

      "It being so expressly declared here, and Col. ii. 12. that we are buried with Christ in baptism, by being buried under water, and the argument to oblige us to a conformity to his death, by dying to sin, being taken hence, and this immersion being religiously observed by christians for thirteen centuries, and approved by our church, and the change of it to sprinkling, even without any allowance from the author of this institution, or any licence from any council of the church, being that which the Romanist still urgeth to justify his refusal of the cup of the laity; it were to be wished that the custom might be again of general use, and aspersion only permitted, as of old, in the case of the Clinici, or in present danger of death."

      Dr. Doddridge, in his Expositor, seems to avoid any criticism on this term. Indeed, he often views it with considerable jealousy; yet he is constrained to translate it sometimes in order to make sense. Matthew xx. 22. "Are you able to be baptized with the baptism and to be plunged into that scene of suffering with which I am shortly to be baptized, and, as it were, overwhelmed for a time." And speaking of the Eunuch's baptism, he says, "It would be very unnatural to suppose that they went down to the water merely that Philip might take up a little water in his hand to pour on the Eunuch;" and admits that baptism was generally administered by immersion.

      Dr. Hammond, on John xiii. 10. says, "Baptismos signifies an immersion, or washing the whole body."

      Bishop Taylor, in his Rule of Conscience, 3d rule, chapter 4, says, "If you attend to the proper signification of the word baptism, it signifies plunging into water, or dipping with washing." [47]

      Beza, on Matth. iii. 11. says, "The word baptismos signifies to dye by dipping or washing, and differs from the word dunai, signifying to drown, or go to the bottom as a stone."

      Martin Luther, Tom. i. p. 71. and Tom. ii. p. 19, says, "Baptism is a Greek word, and may be translated, a dipping, when we dip something into water that it may be covered with water; and though it be for the most part almost altogether abolished; for neither do they dip the whole children, but only sprinkle them with a little water; they ought nevertheless to be wholly dipped, and presently drawn out again; for that the etymology of the word seems to require. I would have those that are to be baptized, to be wholly dipped into the water, as the word imports and the mystery does signify." Accordingly, in his translation, he styles John the Baptist, John the Dipper, or John the Immerser.

      John Calvin, Inst. lib. c 15. sect. 19, declares, "The very word baptizing signifies to dip; and it is certain that the rite of dipping was observed of the ancient church."

      To these Paidobaptists of illustrious name I might add a host of others, among whom would appear Scapula, Stephens, Grotius, Leigh, Bucan, Bullinger, Piscator, Erasmus, Burkitt, Pool, and Selden; but it appears superfluous.

      We will give no Baptist authorities, and will not make a remark of our own on this subject, save that it must strike every reader how exactly, and even beautifully, the uniform translation of the word in this version corresponds with all the words joined with it, and all the circumstances attending its appearance on all occasions; and that the words expressive of the Paidobaptist ceremony would not make sense, if uniformly adopted in the passages where this term occurs. But we rest the whole authority of this translation on the criticisms of the Romanists, Episcopalians, and Presbyterians.

      Thomson translates Matth. v. 22. thus: "Whosoever is angry with his brother without cause shall be liable to the sentence of the judges; and whoever shall say to his brother, Raca, (a contemptuous word,) shall be liable to the sentence of the Sanhedrim; and whoever shall say, Moreh, (a reproachful word,) shall be liable (to be sentenced,) to the vale of fire," or to the Gehenna of fire.

      In the common translation of this verse, there is confounding of things present and future, of things human and divine, that badly comports with the wisdom and dignity of the speaker. What affinity exists between judges, a council, and hell fire? Why should one expression of anger only subject a person to human judges, and another subject him to hell fire, in the usual sense of these words? Now, if the terms in this verse conveyed the same meaning to us, which they conveyed to the audience which the Saviour at that time addressed, we would discover a propriety and beauty in them which is not manifest in the common translations of them. The fact is, that the allusions in this verse are all to human institutions or customs among the Jews; and the judges, the Sanhedrim, and the hell fire here introduced, are all human punishments. Parkhurst observes on the phrase geenna tou puros, (a Gehenna of fire,) that, in its outward and primary sense, it relates to that dreadful doom of being burnt alive in the Valley of Hinnom. "The valley of Hinnom lay near Jerusalem, and had been the place of those abominable sacrifices, in which the idolatrous Jews burned their children to Moloch, Baal, or the Sun. A particular place in this valley was called Tophet; and the valley itself, the Valley of Tophet, from the fire stove in which they burned their children to Moloch." [See 2 Kings, xxii. 10. 2 Chronicles xxviii. 3. Jeremiah, vii. 30, 32. xix. 5, 6. xxxii. 35.] It appears also that burning a person alive was a punishment inflicted under the law. Leviticus xx. 14. xxi. 9.

      The design of the speaker in this passage goes far to solve the difficulties which awkward translations of it have thrown in the way. The great error which the Messiah, in this part of his discourse so severely reprehends, is a disposition to consider atrocious actions as the only evils which would subject men to the judgment of God. He proceeds to inform his audience that, under his reign, not merely atrocious actions, but improper thoughts, contemptuous and reproachful words, would subject men to punishment. In order to exhibit the discriminating spirituality of his reign, he alludes to human discriminations regarding criminal actions, and the diversities of punishment to which transgressors were obnoxious, according to the supposed malignity of their deeds.

      The sentence of the city councils, which extended, in certain instances, to strangling a person, is one of the allusions. These councils were composed of twenty-three judges, and were an inferior court among the Jews. The Sanhedrim, or council of seventy-two senators, whose sentences authorized stoning to death, and which was the superior court of that people, constitutes the second allusion. The burning a person alive in the vale of Hinnom, is the third. By these allusions he teaches his audience that anger in the heart, anger expressed in the way of contempt, and anger expressed with manifest malice, would, under his reign, subject men to such diversities of punishment as they were wont to apportion to atrocious actions, according to their views of criminality. [48]

      The following translation of this verse is expressive of the full sense of the original. "Whoever is vainly incensed against his brother, shall be obnoxious to the sentence of the judges, (the court of twenty-three;) whoever shall say to his brother (in the way of contempt,) Shallow brains, shall be obnoxious to the Sanhedrim; and whoever shall say, Apostate wretch, (the highest expression of malice,) shall be obnoxious to the Gehenna of fire," or to being burned alive in the Valley of Hinnom. This translation is in substance approved by Adam Clarke, and other critics of respectability.

      "All things were made by IT."--Every English version before that of King James preferred it to he--because of the laws of concord: word being in English neuter, the pronoun referring to it should be in the same gender. The Vulgate also uses hoc, the neuter gender, to agree with verbum, neuter. Luther, in like manner, prefers the neuter pronoun. In Italian, parola (the word) is feminine, and so is the pronoun agreeing with it. So in the French versions.

      Dr. Campbell justifies it in a long note on this passage, and shows that the authors of the common version departed from their own rule in the fourth verse of the same chapter, where the term light is as clearly applied to the same person as the term word, and yet, in the fifth verse, they translate the pronoun agreeing with it, by the same pronoun it;--"and the darkness comprehendeth it not." The Doctor says: "It is much more suitable to the figurative style here employed to speak of the word, though denoting a person, as a thing agreeably to the grammatical idiom, till a direct intimation is made of its personality. This intimation is made in the fourth verse--In it was life." To this we assent.

      The best reason, as it appears to us, for this preference, is, that the antecedent to the word it can only be the term word; but the antecedent to the term him may be more naturally concluded to be God, the nearest noun--which would materially change the sense of the passage. To avoid ambiguity, as well as for the other reasons assigned, we prefer the new version, which, in this case, is the oldest.

      Matth. xi. 12. "The kingdom of heaven is invaded," &c.--"The comparison is here to a country invaded and conquered." The scribes and Pharisees claimed for themselves the chief places in this kingdom, and were by their conduct shutting this kingdom against men. Publicans and harlots, however, in opposition to the influence and example of those men, received the doctrine of the Messiah, and thus, as it were, invaded or took possession of that kingdom, from which the elders and doctors excluded them. Finally, the Gentiles, too, by their faith in the Messiah, and the consequent boldness, took possession of the heavenly kingdom. This kingdom, since its first promulgation, admitted every man to enter it, who had boldness to deny himself and take up his cross.

      Matth. xi. 21.--The kingly conquests and triumphant victories of the Messiah, are the subject on which Isaiah dwells on that part of his prophecy, from which this quotation is made. The emblems introduced by the Prophets are designed to show the ease with which these victories shall be obtained. No trumpets, spears, or torches shall be employed in making his laws victorious. He will not employ such weapons in subduing the nations under his arm; not even a bruised reed will be broken as a substitute for a spear or lance; not a spark of fire, not even an expiring wick will be consumed or extinguished, in bringing nations under his yoke. How unlike his conquests are to those obtained by fire and sword! The spear and the torch of ancient warriors, and the clangor of trumpets are alluded to in these representations of Messiah's regal achievements.

      Most commentators we have seen, have overlooked the design of this passage, and have made sad work in accommodating a broken reed and a smoking wick to heart-broken sinners. But they have not been able to bring these emblems to correspond with his "not contending, raising a clamor, nor causing his voice to be heard in the streets," while making his laws victorious. With these remarks we introduce Bishop Lowth's translation of Isaiah xlii. 1-5:--

      As Dr. Campbell's note on this passage throws light not only upon it, but also on Matth. xxiv. 3. and xxviii. 20. we shall give it entire. It equally applies to a number of other passages, that most of which shall be referred to it.

      "In the present state--in the future--en touto to aioni--en to mellonti. E. T. In this world--in the world to come. The word state seems to suit better here than either age, which some prefer, or world, as in the common version. Admit, though by no means certain, by the two aiones are meant the Jewish dispensation and the Christian. These we cannot in English call ages; as little can we name them worlds. The latter implies too much and the former too little. But they are frequently and properly called states. And as there is an ambiguity in the original (for the first clause may mean the present life, and the second the life that follows,) the English word state is clearly susceptible of this interpretation likewise. And though I consider it as a scrupulosity bordering on superstition, to preserve in a version every ambiguous phrase that may be found in the original, where the scope of the passage, or the words in construction, sufficiently ascertain the sense; yet where there is real ground to doubt about the meaning, one does not act the part of a faithful translator, who does not endeavor to give the sentiment in the same latitude to his readers in which the author gave it to him. This may not always be possible, but, where it is possible it should be done."

      "What hast thou to do with me." Literally, "What is it to me and you." Some prefer this because more literal. But this is one instance where the more literal is not the more exact interpretation. "Bishop Pierce well observes," says Dr. Campbell, "Had that been the Evangelist's meaning, he would have written ti pros eme kai se, (ti pros eme kai se,) as in chapter xxi. 23." "It was," says the same critic, "no doubt our Lord's intention, in these words, gently to suggest that, in what concerned his office, earthly parents had no authority over him. In other things he had been subject to them." While examining and comparing the original, we have noted similar phrases in the four Testimonies. Such as Matthew viii. 29. Mark i. 24, v. 7. Luke iv. 34, viii. 28. which the curious reader may consult.

      "All that the Father giveth me." Literally, "Every thing that the Father gives me."--This Hebraism is of very frequent occurrence in the New Testament. Thing was used for person by our Lord and his apostles, in conformity to the Hebrew idiom. John xvii. 2. "That he may give eternal life to every thing which thou hast given him." Thus Paul often speaks of "things in heaven, things on earth, and things under the earth." We have a notable instance of this, John vi. 39--"Of all which he has given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again at the last day." In our idiom it should be read, Of all which he has given me, I should lose none; but raise every one, or the whole, again at the last day.

      Campbell says, "Many of the best critics and expositors of different sects, have entertained strong suspicions of these verses." Amongst these he enumerates Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Erasmus, Hammond, &c. "Euthenius, in the twelfth century, is the first who has explained them. And he assures us that they are not to be found in the most correct copies. They are wanting in many of the most ancient and respectable manuscripts.--If an interpolation, they are a very ancient one, having been found in some copies before Origen's time. Some have ascribed them to Papias, in the second century, and others say they were transcribed from the apocryphal gospel to the Hebrews. There are some internal presumptions, as well as external, against the authenticity of this passage." The Greeks still read them in their copies, though in some of them they are marked as spurious. They do not, however, affect the doctrinal import of the New Testament, and nothing of importance depends upon their adoption or rejection.

      Adam Clarke says, "After weighing what has been adduced in favor of the authenticity of this passage, and seriously considering its state in the manuscripts, as exhibited in the various readings in Griesbach, I must confess the evidence in its favor does not appear to me to be striking--yet I, by no means would have it expunged from the text." So we think, upon the most mature consideration we can bestow upon it.

      "No not the Son."--This sentence has been the subject of much criticism, and many commentators of different creeds have been perplexed with it. Though wanting in some ancient manuscripts, Griesbach has retained it. Macknight argues that the term know is here used a causative, in the Hebrew sense of the conjugation hiphel, that is, to make known. Adam Clarke thinks this is rather cutting, than untying the knot. The controversies between Calvinists and Socinians have made the difficulty appear much greater than it really is. It seems to bear just as much against the Socinian as the Calvinistic [50] hypothesis. On the supposition that Jesus of Nazareth was but a man of extraordinary endowments, eminently gifted by the Spirit of God, the difficulty is as great as upon any other hypothesis. He had just been speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple in the most exact and circumstantial manner. He had shown that he knew both the season (a term agreed to be equivalent to the hour) and all the adjuncts and circumstances of that tremendous catastrophe. He had minutely detailed all the concomitants, and expressly declared that the generation standing around him should not pass away, till every thing he had stated relative to this event was accomplished. This is, in other words, declaring that he knew the day of this calamity. He circumscribes and limits it to a certain day. But the question proposed to him explains the difficulty. He was not asked whether he knew the day, but to make it known. In the same way he was afterwards interrogated about "the restoration of the kingdom of Israel." In this case, he says, "It was not for them to know the times and seasons which the Father had reserved to himself, and did not authorize him to make known." And taking into view the circumstances of the whole case respecting the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and the question asked him, his answer is just equivalent to saying; The Father will make it known when it pleases him; but he has not authorized man, angel, or the Son, to make it known. Just in this sense Paul uses the term know, 1 Cor, ii. 2. "I came to you making known the testimony of God, for I determined to make known nothing among you but a crucified Christ." In the order of the words, man, angel, and Son, the Saviour declares his own superiority to any of them.

      "That this whole inhabited land should be enrolled." Macknight argues with great plausibility, that the phrase Pasan ten oikoumenen means here no more than the land of Israel. He adduces several instances from the Septuagint; where it must signify the land of Israel, and shows that Luke elsewhere thus used the word oikoumene, such as chapter xxi. 26. "men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming upon the land" of Israel; also Acts xi. 28. "a great famine through all the land." This translation rids the narrative of a species of objection preferred by some Sceptics, viz. that there is no account in all the annals of Rome, that Cesar Augustus ever issued such a decree as required the enrolment of all the world.

      Concerning these registers or enrolments, Thomson correctly observes, "There were two enrolments, the first merely for the purpose of numbering the inhabitants, and the second for assessing them. The first here spoken of was in the reign of Herod the great, when Cyrenius was deputy governor of Syria. It was done according to the Jewish custom by communities and families, and all were obliged to repair to their respective cities or towns, to be enrolled in their several families according to their genealogies. The second, which was after the death of Herod, was for assessment, and was made indiscriminately. This was the enrolment which offended the Jews, and excited tumults and insurrections, and brought on the war which terminated in the destruction of Jerusalem, and the utter dispersion of the Jews."

      Wherever the word church is found in the common version, congregation will be found in this. We shall let Doctors Campbell and Doddridge defend this preference: for, although they have not always so rendered it, they give the best of reasons why it should be always so translated.

      Doddridge, on Matthew xviii. 17. says, "This is one of those many scriptures which would have been very intelligible, if they had not been learnedly obscured by ingenious men, whose interest it has been to spread a cloud over them. I am more and more convinced that the vulgar sense of the New Testament, that is, the sense in which an honest man of plain sense would take it, on first reading the original, or any good translation, is almost every where the true general sense of any passage; though an acquaintance with language and antiquity, with an attentive meditation on the text and context, may illustrate the spirit and energy of a number of places, in a manner which could not otherwise be learned. The old English editions of 1539 and 1541, render it, Tell it to the congregation; and, I think, properly enough. The word church is unhappily grown into a term of art, and has, by different persons, a variety of secondary ideas attached to it, as Dr. Watts has beautifully shown in his Essay on Uncharitableness, page 7-10. But it signifies, in general, an assembly, or a number of people called together, on whatever occasion, as is well known. (Compare Acts xix. 32, 39.) It is, in the New Testament, generally used, as here, for a particular assembly, (Acts xiv. 23. 1 Cor. iv. 17. xiv. 23. xvi. 19.) but sometimes it is used for the whole body of Christians; because they are now called out from the world, and are at last to be gathered together in the presence of Christ their head, (2 Thessalonians, ii. 1.) and to dwell for ever with each other, and with him."

      Campbell, on the same passage, observes: "I know of no way of reaching the sense of our Lord's instructions, but by understanding his words so as they must have been [51] understood by his hearers, from the use that then prevailed. The word ekklesia occurs frequently in the Septuagint, and is that by which the Hebrew kahal is commonly translated. That word we find used in two different, but related senses, in the Old Testament. One is for a whole nation considered as constituting one commonwealth or polity. In this sense, the people of Israel are denominated pasa e ekklesia Israel, and pasa e ekklesia Theou. The other is for a particular congregation or assembly, either actually convened, or accustomed to convene in the same place. In this sense it was applied to those who were wont to assemble in any particular synagogue; for every synagogue had its own ekklesia. And as the word sunagoge was sometimes employed to signify, not the house, but the people, these two Greek words were often used promiscuously. Now, as the nature of the thing sufficiently shows that our Lord, in this direction, could not have used the word in the first of the two senses above given, and required that every private quarrel should be made a national affair, we are under the necessity of understanding it in the last, as regarding the particular congregation to which the parties belonged. What adds great probability to this, as Lightfoot and others have observed, is the evidence we have that the like usage actually obtained in the synagogue, and in the primitive church. Whatever foundation, therefore, there may be from those books of scripture that concern a later period, for the notion of a church representative; it would be contrary to all the rules of criticism, to suppose that our Lord used this term in a sense wherein it could not then be understood by any one of the hearers; or that he would say congregation, for so the word literally imports, when he meant only a few heads or directors."

      Thomson has generally preferred the word congregation. There is no good reason given, nor can there be any produced, for departing, in any instance, from the acknowledged meaning of a word of such frequent occurrence; and more especially when it is admitted, that this term fitly represents the original one. The term church, or kirk, is an abbreviation of the word kuriou oikos, the house of the Lord, and does not translate the term ekklesia.

      "Being (as was supposed the son of Joseph) son of Heli." So Macknight points it; making it equivalent to, he was supposed to be the son of Joseph, but in reality he was the son of Heli. But he is not tenacious of this pointing; for he alleges the common punctuation conveys the same idea. The Talmudists, the ancient Jews, and Christians, called Mary, Heli's daughter. It mattered not, according to the Jewish idea and usage, whether Jesus were the real or adopted son of Joseph: soon as Joseph was proved to be of the blood royal, Jesus was heir to the title and political rights of a prince, legally descended from the royal family. But still Matthew lays the chief stress upon the fact, that Jesus was the natural descendant of Mary, whose descent from David was incontrovertible, and therefore concludes his genealogy by informing the reader that this Joseph was only the husband of that Mary of whom Jesus was born. Luke traces his pedigree through Mary up to Nathan, the son of David, who was the common ancestor of the two families of Jacob and Heli.

      Thomson, in his "Harmony of the Gospels," instead of the words "as was supposed," reads it, "by law established," and has the following note on the passage:

      "By comparing this with Luke i. 5. and with the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, and with Matthew xiii. 55. Mark vi. 3. John xix. 2. it may be concluded that the father of Elizabeth and the mother of Mary, were brother and sister, and descendants of Aaron; that Elizabeth, the daughter of the brother, was married to Zacharias, and by him had John the Baptist; and that Eli, a descendant of David by the line of his son Nathan, married the sister, and by her had two daughters, namely, Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Mary the wife of Cleophas, and mother of James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas, who, according to custom, were called the brothers of Jesus, he being the head of the family: that Eli, leaving no son, to keep up his name, contracted with Joseph, son of Jacob, a descendant of David in the line of Solomon, to give him his eldest daughter Mary in marriage, he agreeing to drop his own line, and enrol himself, with his espoused wife in the family register, as son of Eli. Hence arose the necessity, at the enrolment ordered by Herod, of Mary's accompanying her husband from Nazareth to Bethlehem, notwithstanding the advanced state of her pregnancy, that the transfer in the line might be made in the most authentic manner. See Ruth, chap. iv. and in Potter's Antiquities of Athens we see how scrupulous and exact they were in cases of this sort."

      "Roll of the lineage."--"It may be necessary to observe, that the Israelites were divided into tribes, the tribes into communities, and the communities into families and houses of families; and that, in every city and town, public registers were kept, in which all the males were enrolled; so that every one might have it in his power to trace his descent from his father through the family, and community, and tribe, up to its head. Of these registers we have ample specimens in 1st Chronicles, chaps. i. x. xxiii. xxiv. xxv. xxvi. and elsewhere. In these rolls the word father is often used to denote ancestor, and the word son, descendant; and when the word son is used as a title, as it often is, it denotes or marks the person to be the head of a subordinate family; and the word (which, in my opinion, is improperly rendered) begot only marks the line of descent." [52]

      "Second Prime."--"Among the different translations which are given of the term deuteroprotos, I find nothing but conjecture; and, therefore, think it is the safest way to render the word by one similarly found in our language. This is what all the best translations have done in Latin. The common version has, in this instance, neither followed the letter, nor given us words which convey any determinate sense."--Campbell.

      "This is, I apprehended, the day when the sheaf of first fruits was offered--the second day after the passover, and the first of the fifty days to Pentecost. See chapter xxiii. 15. 16."--Thomson. So Macknight. Doddridge has it, "The first Sabbath after the unleavened bread." This exposition he gives, he says, with much hesitation.

      "In an oratory."--A house or place of prayer, of which the Jews, according to Josephus and Philo, had many. Luke mentions another, (Acts xvi. 13-16.) Even Juvenal, the Roman poet and satirist, alludes to these houses, commonly built in retired situations, near rivers.

      "Ede ubi consistas, in qua quæro PROSEUCHA." Campbell observes, on the word proseucha in this construction, that is is subversive of the analogy of the Greek language to translate it as in the common version.

      John iii. 5, 6, 8.--The word Pneuma, (pneuma,) translated both spirit and wind, occurs five times in these three verses. The Greek reader has an advantage over the English in this and some other passages where two words are employed by the translator for one in the original. We shall instance this in the following manner:--"Except a man be born of water and of pneuma, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of pneuma is pneuma. The pneuma blows where it pleases, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell whence it comes, and whither it goes; so is every one that is born of the pneuma." Most Latin versions have spiritus in every place where pneuma is found. Thus, "Except a man be born of water and of spiritus, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of spiritus is spiritus. The spiritus blows where it pleases, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell whence it comes and whither it goes: so is every one that is born of the spiritus." The Greek or Latin reader can therefore judge for himself whether pneuma or spiritus at one time mean wind, and at another spirit, in this discourse; but the English reader has no opportunity of so judging in any version now extant.

      The words also in construction with pneuma, in the 8th verse, viz. pneo, (pneo,) to blow; and phone, (phone,) sound, are capable of being understood as well of the spirit, as of the wind. In the Septuagint the pneuma zoes is the breath of life, and pan empneon (pan empneon,) is every thing that breathed. So also phone, (phone,) is a hundred times found for voice or report, as well as sound, in the sacred writings. Put all these words in the same construction with pneuma, translated spirit, and what comes of the wind? It then reads, "The Spirit breathes where it pleases, and you hear the voice or report of it, but cannot tell whence it comes, or whither it goes; so is every one that is born of the Spirit."

      That no violence is offered to the Greek language in the following version, scarcely needs one argument in proof:--

      "Except a man be born of water and of spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of spirit is spirit. The Spirit breathes where it pleases, and you hear the voice (or report) of it, but cannot tell whence it comes or whither it goes; so is every one that is born of the Spirit." Alike inscrutable to you, Nicodemus, who have not been the subject of such a birth. The author of this change and the change itself, the agent and the work, the parent and the child, are alike known and unknown to you. With these facts and remarks the reader is now able to judge for himself.

      A fellow-student of the original and a joint laborer in the work of reformation, to whom we formerly suggested an inquiry on this subject, favored us with the following:--

      The popular exposition of this passage of scripture, so far as we have been able to learn it, is, that the comparison here is between the wind, in its effects, and the Holy Spirit in its effects, on the regenerated. As the wind blows where it pleases, so does the Holy Spirit. How is this made out? By the insertion of two supplements--it and with. So it is with every one that is born of the Spirit. As we cannot tell whence the wind comes and whither it goes: so neither can the subjects of it tell whence the Holy Spirit comes, how it operates, and whither it goes. It operates alike sovereignly and mysteriously. How lame and blind all this!

      In order to come to the truth, let it be premised--

      1. We have here in the Greek language for wind and spirit--viz. pneuma. [53]

      2. An important rule of interpretation is, that "when any word or expression is ambiguous, and may, consistently with common use, be taken in different senses, it must be taken in that sense, which is agreeable to the subject of which the writer was treating;"--consequently, the meaning of pneuma and its proper translation into English, must always be determined by the connexion in which it stands.

      3. The subject of discourse between our Savior and Nicodemus was not wind, but spirit. Pneuma is four times rendered, in this connexion, spirit. It is so rendered in the predicate of the passage under consideration; but only in the subject rendered wind.

      Therefore, if to be born again, is to be born, not of wind, but of Spirit--if that which is born of the Spirit is spirit, and not wind--then must the Saviour's words (verse 8. John iii.) be rendered--

      The Spirit breathes where it pleases, and you hear the report of it, but know not whence it comes and whither it goes; so is every person who is born of the Spirit.

      The extract which Luke gives of the sermon on the mount, accords with our remarks in the preface to the historical books, on the methods by which each of these historians follows up his design. Luke omits all those parts of it which pointedly referred to the common errors, customs, and traditions in Judea. He relates such parts of it as were of a general nature, and applied to all people equally as to those in Judea.

      "Into hades."--Eis aden--eis geenna. Hades, or ades, is very improperly translated hell in the common version. It is compounded of a, negative, and idien, to see; and literally means hidden, invisible, or obscure. Geenna, which is also translated hell, is compounded of ge, valley, and Hinnom, the name of a person. There is a great impropriety in translating two words, so different in their derivation and meaning, by one and the same word in our language. Gehenna occurs neither in the Septuagint Greek of the Old Testament, nor in any classic author extant in the world. [See note on Matthew v. 22]. Both Tophet and Gehenna, among the Jews, came gradually to express a state of torment; and, at the time of the Messiah, were frequently used to denote a future state of punishment. It is suitably enough translated hell in our language, because the ideas attached to the English word hell very much correspond to the idea attached to the word Gehenna about the christian era. But this is far from being the true import of the word hades. The term hell by no means conveys its meaning; nay, it is a very erroneous representation of it, as Dr. George Campbell has proved in a dissertation of fifty octavo pages, from which we have extracted the substance of the greater part of our remarks upon these words.

      There being no one word in our language which corresponds with the term hades, he is obliged to retain and explain it. He always translates the term gehenna by the term hell. We have uniformly followed his method in the books which he did not translate; and, consequently, where the word hell is found in this translation, the reader may be assured it is gehenna in the original. It occurs just twelve times in the New Testament; and as it was better understood in Judea than in any other country, and amongst the Jews than among any other people, we find it never adopted in any letter or communication to the Gentiles. In the Testimony of Matthew Levi it occurs seven of these twelve times; in Mark's Testimony it occurs three times; in Luke, once. It occurs once in the Epistle of James, addressed to the twelve tribes in their dispersion. For the reference and examination of the reader, we shall note down all these passages in order:--Matthew v. 22, 29, 39.--x. 28.--xviii. 9.--xxiii. 15, 33.--Mark ix. 43, 45, 47.--Luke xii. 5.--James iii. 6. With the exception of the last mentioned passage, in every other quoted from the lips of Jesus. Dr. Campbell mentions two of these passages where it is used figuratively, James iii. 6. and Matthew xxiii. 15. To these we add Matthew v. 22. In the others he is of opinion that it relates to the future punishment of the wicked.

      Hades occurs eleven times in the New Testament; and, in the King's version is translated ten times by the word hell, and once by the term grave, (viz. 1 Cor. xv. 55.) The passages where it is found we will also note down:--Matth. xi. 23.--xvi. 18.--Luke x. 15.--xvi. 23.--Acts ii. 27, 31.--Rev. i. 18.-vi. 8.--xx. 13, 14.

      We have had the word hell about thirty-three times in the King's translation of the Old Testament. In two of these it is, in the Septuagint, thanatos, death; and in thirty-one it is hades. But they were constrained sometimes to depart from the term hell, because it was too glaring a perversion of the original; as when Jacob say, "You will bring down my grey hairs with sorrow to the grave."--"I will go down into the grave mourning."--"O! grave, where now thy victory!" In these places it would not do to have translated it hell; yet it might as well have been translated by the term hell in these passages as in many others. For the same reason that the King's translators abandoned the term hell, 1 Cor. xv. 55. they were constrained to abandon it several times in the Old Testament.

      For the same reason that it does violence to the original to translate either the Hebrew word sheol (which the Seventy translated hades,) or the Greek word hades by the English [54] word hell; it destroys the sense of many passages to render it by the term grave. Although the term sheol, or its representative keber, may, in the Hebrew idiom, sometimes have expressed this sense of hades, it is very far from being its common meaning. The term grave with us denotes the mere receptacle of the body; whereas the mansion of spirits separated from the body, is, by us, supposed to be quite different from the grave. According to our views, we should call the receptacle of the body the grave, and the place of departed spirits hades.

      To explain the term hades, it must be observed that there are three states of human spirits, entirely distinct from each other. The first state of human spirits is in union with an animal body. This state terminates at death. The second state is that in which human spirits are separated from their animal bodies. This commences at death, and terminates with the resurrection of the body. This is precisely what is called hades. The third state commences with the re-union of the spirit and body, and continues ever after. Hades is said to be destroyed when the third state commences. The termination of hades is clearly foretold by Jesus in these words, "Death and hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death." To say, as the common version says, that death and hell were cast into the lake of fire, or into hell, is very absurd and unintelligible. It holds out the idea; that one hell is to be destroyed in another.

      In the anticipation of the termination of hades, Paul exclaims, "O death, where now thy sting! O hades, where now thy victory!" The passage which Paul quotes is from Hosea xiii. 14. and reads thus:--

      O Death, thy power to separate spirits from their bodies is no more! O hades, thy dominion over disembodied spirits is destroyed!

      But the ancient Jews and Pagans supposed that hades, the region of departed spirits, was just as far below the earth, as the distance earth is below the heavens; and, therefore, we find allusions in the Old and New Scriptures to the common views of men in applying these words. Thus we find Jonah, when in the depths of the sea, speaking of himself as in hades. Thus David says, "If I ascend to heaven, thou art there; if I make my bed in, or descend to hades, thou art there." In Job, too, the knowledge of God is said to be "higher than heaven, and deeper than hades." And in this style, the Saviour speaks of Capernaum: "Thou art exalted to heaven, thou shalt be brought down to hades." This is a strong way of expressing greatness of privilege, and the deprivation that will ensue the neglect or abuse of it.

      But it will be objected that Dives is represented as being in torment in hades; and that, consequently, the state of the condemned, or what is called hell, is fitly enough denoted by the this term. "This is the only passage," says Dr. Campbell, "in holy writ which seems to give countenance to the opinion that hades sometimes means the same thing as gehenna." In reply to all objections derived from this one passage, it is to be noted--

      1. That before the Captivity, and the Macedonian and Roman conquests, the Jews observed the most profound silence upon the state of the deceased, as to their happiness or misery. They spoke of it simply as a place of silence, darkness, and inactivity.

      2. But after the Hebrews mingled with the Greeks and Romans, they insensibly slided into their use of terms, and adopted some of their ideas on such subjects as those on which their oracles were silent. Hence the abodes of Elysium and Tartarus became familiar among the Jews; and as the Greek and Romans had their gardens and fields of delights in hades, and their tartarus in the same region; so the Jews assimilated to them, and had their garden of Eden, of Paradise, and their Tartarus, all within the boundaries of Hades. So Abraham's bosom, or Paradise, was the abode of the happy separated spirits, and Tartarus was the abode of the wicked. Even Peter, a Jew, and an Apostle of Jesus Christ, adopts their word tartarus, and says, (2 Peter ii. 4.) that God cast the angels that sinned down to tartarus. In the common version, it is hell; but in the original it is neither gehenna nor hades, but tartarus. Now the truth is that these terms being thus introduced, must have had some of the ideas of the people that first used them, attached to them. And that there is, in the Christian Revelation, a degree of happiness and a degree of misery allotted to disembodied spirits, is beyond doubt or disputation; and also, that perfect happiness and misery, or happiness and misery in their highest degrees, do not commence until the re-union of spirits to their bodies at the resurrection, is a common idea, and clearly taught in the Christian books. In hades, then, the receptacle of all the dead, there are rewards and punishments. There is a paradise, or an Abraham's bosom, and there is a tartarus, in which the evil angels are chained, and the spirits of wicked men engulphed. Hence, Dives in tartarus, and Lazarus in Abraham's bosom were both in hades. Jesus and the converted thief were together in hades, while they were together in Paradise. But Jesus continued in hades but three days and nights; for of him these words were spoken, "Thou wilt not leave my soul in hades, nor suffer thy Holy One to see corruption in the grave." This solves a great difficulty with many, arising from the [55] good spirit of Samuel saying to the wicked Saul, "To-morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me"--viz. in hades.

      3. It is remarkable that the words in construction with hades, paradise, Abraham's bosom, and tartarus, are always correspondent, and those joined to heaven and hell perfectly suitable to the idea attached to them. Hence Lazarus is said to be carried away, not up to Abraham's bosom; but when Jesus leaves hades and the earth, and enters heaven, he is said to be take up into heaven. In the Greek text there is an exact uniformity which is not preserved in the English translation. Sometimes the King's version has an up or a down which is not in the original; as in Paul's account of the two visions and different revelations he had in heaven--it is not caught up, but caught away; but of this in its own place. There is, then, no repugnancy in the account of Dives and Lazarus to the above criticism on hades and gehenna. For hades is represented as the receptacle of separated spirits, whether good or evil--whether happy or tormented; in which there is a paradise, an Abraham's bosom, and in which there is a tartarus, separated from it by an impossible gulph. The happiness of those in paradise, and the misery of those in tartarus will be augmented to perfection, when hades shall be destroyed--when righteous spirits shall be united to their glorified bodies, and when the wicked shall be cast into hell.

      As these remarks will be applicable to many passages, solve many difficulties, and preclude the necessity of other references, we shall just add another--that, as we have seen in the instance of Capernaum, this term is sometimes used figuratively, as almost all terms are. Even Moses is, figuratively, a god to Aaron. In the New Testament it is once more used figuratively in connexion with the word gates. The gates of hades shall not prevail against the congregations of disciples built upon the Rock. "The gates of Hades," Dr. Campbell observes, "is a very natural periphrasis for death. We have sufficient evidence, scared and profane, that this is its meaning." Both the seventy translators and Grecian poets use it thus. Hezekiah uses Pulai adou as equivalent to death:--"I said, I shall go to the gates of hades;" i. e. I should die, but I have recovered. So Homer, eikon aidao tulesi, translated by Pope--

I hate him to death. To say, then, that the gates of hades shall not prevail against the church, is, on other words, to say, It shall never die--it shall never be extinct.

      The import of the term blasphemia, blasphemy, detraction, calumny, is the same whether God or man be the object. So the Saviour expounded it--"All manner of detraction or blasphemy may be forgiven to men, save the detraction from the Holy Spirit." Whatever is necessary to constitute slander, calumny, or detraction, as respects men, is necessary to constitute it, as respects God. There can be no detraction or blasphemy, therefore, where there is not an impious purpose to derogate from the Divine Majesty, and to alienate the minds of others from the love and reverence of God. Blasphemy is a Greek word, and its English representative is the term detraction, or calumny. It is now used in a latitude very different from its application in the New Testament.--Polemic writers on "Modern Theology" are frequently accusing one another of "blasphemous opinions, thoughts, and doctrines." In the scriptures it is only applied to words and speeches. Concerning the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, Campbell observes, that "it is certainly not of the constructive kind; but direct, manifest, and malignant. It is mentioned as comprehended under the same genus with abuse against man, and contradistinguished only by the object. It is explained by being called "speaking against."--This cannot have been the case of all who disbelieved the mission of Jesus and denied his miracles; many of whom, we have reason to think, were afterwards converted by the Apostles."

      To me it appears evident that the "detraction from," commonly called "the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit," was a sin of the tongue. It was not a "sin of the thought." In other words no person did commit this simply by thinking, however sinful his thoughts might have been. Nor could he commit this sin by expressing his real convictions, however erroneous they might be. To constitute it, it required that the tongue should be employed maliciously to express what were not the genuine convictions of the mind concerning that agent by which Jesus confirmed his mission.

      On the words kerusso, euaggelizein, kataggellein, and didasko, the first three commonly rendered to preach, the last to teach, Dr. Campbell very justly observes that the word preach does not, in our idiom, suitably express the precise import of the words employed by the sacred penmen. He says, "No moral instruction or doctrinal explanations, given either by our Lord, or by his Apostles, are ever, either in the gospels or in the Acts, denominated preaching." Kerusso signifies to proclaim any news, good or bad, Euangelizo, to declare, publish or announce, good news only. The former implies that the [56] proclamation is open and public, and it may be applied to any repetition of the same fact or event: the latter is chiefly used to denote the first proclamation of good news; and it may be applied, whether the annunciation is public or private. Katangello is nearly synonymous with kerusso and euangellizo. "It is an intermediate term between them. In regard to the manner it implies more of public notice than is necessarily implied in euangellizo, but less than is denoted by kerusso. In regard to the subject, though commonly used to express good news, it does not express quite so much as euangellizo; but it expresses more than kerusso, which generally refers to some one remarkable fact or event, that may be told in a sentence or two." The word didasko is properly rendered by the word teach.--It ought never to be confounded with the other terms, whose meaning is so different. As the word preach is used in a latitude which the use of the sacred writers will not warrant, we have most generally preferred the interpretation given by Campbell to that given by any other translator. Were we to adopt one uniform translation of these words, adapted to convey the same ideas to an English reader, which the Greek text conveyed to the people who spoke that language, we would translate kerusso, I proclaim; katangello, I announce; euangelizo, I publish or declare good news; and didasko, I teach. To this we have generally conformed. If there be any deviation, it is in adopting other words of a similar import. The ideas exhibited are the same.

      On the word preach, we shall give one extract from Campbell's dissertation, all of which is worthy of the attention of every reader capable of understanding it. It is certainly most correct and judicious. Vol. 1, p. 373. "To preach" is defined by Johnson, in his dictionary, "to pronounce a public discourse on sacred subjects." This expresses, with sufficient exactness, the idea we commonly affix to it. For we may admit, that the attendant circumstances of church, pulpit, text, worship, are but appendages. But the definition given by the English lexicographer, cannot be called an interpretation of the term kerusso, as used in Scripture. For so far as it is from being necessary that the kerugma should be a discourse, that it may be only a single sentence, and a very short sentence too. Nay, to such brief notifications we shall find the term most frequently applied. Besides the word kerusso and kerugma were adopted with equal propriety, whether the subject were sacred or civil. Again, though the verb kerusso always implied public notice of some event, either accomplished, or about to be accomplished, often accompanied with a warning to do or forbear something--it never denoted either a comment on, or explanation of, any subject; or a chain of reasoning in proof of a particular sentiment. And if so, to pronounce publicly such a discourse, as, with us, is denominated a sermon, homily, lecture, or preaching, would, by no means, come within the meaning of the word kerusso in its first and common acceptation. It is, therefore, not so nearly synonymous with didasko (I teach) as is now commonly imagined."

      "To fill his belly with the carob pods." Thomson. "The carob tree, or bean-bearing locust, grows wild in America: the pods containing the beans, are long, crooked, and brown colored. In Syria, where the tree is common, the swine feed upon them." The term husk, in its generic sense, applies to any kind of pods containing any sort of bean or grain. Goboi, and not karutia, signifies what we call husks.

      "From faith to faith."--Com. Ver. Romans i. 17. "For the righteousness of God, by faith, is revealed in it, (eis) in order to faith." Macknight. "For the justification, which is of God, is revealed by it, (justification) by faith; in order that we may believe."--Professor Stuart's new version of the Epistle to the Romans, 1832. To these we prefer the following: "For in it the justification of God by faith, is revealed, in order to faith." For the phrase justification of God, see note on Rom. i. 17.

      "From faith to faith."--Unless we suppose this to be a climactic expression--"from a weaker to a stronger faith," as Stuart informs us was the opinion of Beza, Melancthon, Le Clerc, and many others, the phrase has no meaning. But from the whole scope of Paul's reasoning, in this and the other epistles, or this subject, the phrase of, or from faith, belongs to dikaiosune, righteousness, or justification. And, as Professor Stuart reads it, the syntactical arrangement is very obvious, namely: Dikaiosune gar theou en auto apokaluptetai (dikaiosune) ek pisteos. In this way, "of faith" is explanatory of what precedes. Hammond and Bengal interpret this phrase as Stuart has done.

      Eis pittin, in order to faith, "Eis, for, or in order to, says Professor Stuart, page 90, "with an accusative, is exceedingly frequent in Paul's epistles." This is confirmatory and explanatory of eis ephesin, Acts ii. 38.--"For (or in order to) the remissions of sins." For a similar association of ek pisteos with dikaiosune, compare Romans iii. 22, 30. iv. 11. 13. v. 1. ix. 32. x. 6. Gal. ii. 16. iii. 24.

      "The conclusion of this state."--Sunteleia tou Aionos, "The end of the world."--Com. Ver. This phrase appears generally, if not always, in Matthew, to refer to the end of the Jewish [57] state. See table of Greek terms on the word Aion. It occurs five times in Matthew, and once in the epistle to the Hebrews, in the plural form--"Once in the end of the world has Christ appeared to put away sin;" that is, in the end of the Jewish state. The consummation of the Jewish state was marked with peculiar characteristics of God's displeasure. "False Christs, wars, famines, pestilences, fearful sights and signs in the heavens," were the harbingers of the sunteleia tou aionos, or consummation of the Jewish state.

      As to the false Christs and pretend Messiahs, several are mentioned by Josephus, and many alluded to. One Egyptian prophet led out 30,000 into the wilderness, promising them redemption from the Romans. Felix put the greater part of these to death, and dispersed the rest. Dositheus, a Samaritan, and Theudas, who appeared on the banks of the Jordan, A.D. 45, were of the same character. These pretended to be the Messiahs spoken of by Moses. Josephus says, "They deceived many." [Wars, book ii. chap. 13.] During the reign of Nero, deceivers of this sort were so numerous, that some were seized and killed every few days. [Jos. An. b. xx. c. 4, 7.]

      As to the wars and commotions, this historian affords particular and ample information. In the war with the Syrians, about their claims to the city of Samaria, 20,000 Jews lost their lives. This drew the whole nation into a war, and engaged it in numerous conflicts. In these several wars nearly 80,000 Jews were slain. At Scythopolis, 13,000; at Askelon, 25,000; at Ptolemais, 2,000; at Alexandria, 50,000; and at Damascus, 10,000 were slain. Tetrarchies and provinces engaged in open wars against each other. Samaritans against Jews, and Jews and Galileans against Samaritans. The Jews, Italians, and other nations were engaged in war, while Otho and Vitellus contended for empire.

      Famines and pestilences, too, their consequents, are also mentioned by several historians during this period. Suetonius, Tacitus, and Eusebius, record the famine in the reign of Claudius Cesar, foretold by Agabus. Josephus says it was so severe at Jerusalem, that many died for want of food. Earthquakes, whether figurative, denoting the shakings and revolutions of kingdoms and provinces, or literal, denoting the shaking of the earth, were frequent during this period. Of literal earthquakes, there are mentioned one in Crete, in the reign of Claudius; one at Smyrna, Miletus, Chios, and Samos; one at Laodicea, in the reign of Nero, by which the city was overthrown; as also the cities of Hierapolis and Colosse. This also is related by Tacitus. Another was sensibly felt at Rome during the reign of Galba. To these we must add that tremendous one mentioned by Josephus, which so terrified the Jews in their own land. This earthquake was accompanied with dreadful tempests, lightnings, showers, swellings of the rivers and lakes, and roarings of the sea.

      Of the fearful sights and signs in the heavens, mentioned in this prophecy, both Tacitus and Josephus give an awful enumeration. There is mention made of a star, which assumed the appearance of a sword, and hung over the city a considerable time; of a comet which appeared for a whole year; of a preternatural light, which shone about the temple and the altar; of the ponderous eastern gate of the temple, when bolted, opening of its own accord, at the hour of midnight; of chariots of war, and armies fighting in the air, when the sun was shining, seen by multitudes; of the voice of multitudes heard in the temple at midnight, when the priests were officiating, saying, "Let us depart hence." A country fellow, called or nicknamed Jesus, during the space of four years before the siege, went about, crying, "A voice from the east--a voice from the west--a voice from the four winds--a voice against Jerusalem, and against the temple--against the bridegroom and the bride--against all the people." The magistrates, by stripes and tortures, were unable to restrain him. A stone or tyle, falling from a house, finally killed him, in the act of exclaiming, "Wo to Jerusalem, and wo to myself!" Josephus makes the most public appeals to the testimony of many witnesses, in proof of these statements; and Tacitus gives nearly the same account.

Of these, all under 17 were sold for slaves; those above this age were sent to the mines, and thousands were destroyed by the sword, and by wild beasts, at the public shows; 11,000 in one place perished by hunger; and, on one occasion, Titus killed 2,500 in honor of his brother's birth day. The land of Judea was sold, and the Gentiles became the proprietors. It was first owned by the Romans, next by the Saracens, next by the Franks, then by the Mamelukes; and is now in possession of the Turks. Thus, assuredly, great wrath came upon this people and upon their land.

      Ilasterion never signifies propitiation. In the Old and New Testament, it always signifies the mercy seat, or propitiatory. It was the name given to the golden lid which [58] covered the ark of the covenant, on which the Shechinah, or cloud of glory, rested. Improved version. So Locke, after Mede, argues. The antitype of the golden lid is Jesus, who is now the ilasterion, the propitiatory. Dia pisteos, through faith, is wanting in the Alexandrian, and some other manuscript; but retained by Griesbach.

      Dr. Macknight is of opinion, that the sixth hour here is not the Jewish, but the Roman sixth hour; and that John, writing so far from Judea, does not compute the hours of the day as the Jews did; but makes them correspond with the Roman. The sixth hour, in Judea, was twelve o'clock, noon, in the Roman and our arrangement of the hours: and the sixth hour in the evening, with us, was called the twelfth in Judea. There is some degree of plausibility in his remarks upon this hypothesis; but there is not decisive evidence that it is a fact.

      "Holy Scripture," or "Sacred Writings." The Jews used either graphe, the singular, or graphai, the plural, indiscriminately.

      "Gospel of God." Romans i. 11. Rom. i. 16. "Gospel of Christ." The "of Christ" is rejected among the spurious readings. This is one instance, among many, of the incongruity of the spurious readings, with the connexions in which they appear.--Paul, in speaking of the gospel as a subject of prophesy, calls it "the Gospel of God;" and, under this character, in the 16th verse, he declares that he is not ashamed of it. It is God's wisdom, and power, combined to salvation.

      "The accomplishment of all things" spoken by the Prophets, Acts iii. 21. must precede the second appearance of Jesus Christ; or, the heavens must retain him till the times of the accomplishment, &c. We substitute this phrase, as we do some others, from George Campbell, for those of Doddridge and Macknight.

      "And as many as were determined for eternal life, believed." Doddridge. "And as many as were fitly disposed for eternal life, believed." Thomson, and many others. "As many as were disposed for eternal life, believed." Whitby. "And all they who had been before ordained to eternal life, believed." Simon's translation of the Vulgate. There is no before, in the Greek. Some have read it thus: "As many as believed were set in order to eternal life." Joseph Mede contended, that the phrase "tetagmenoi eis zoen aionion," was a periphrasis for a proselyte of the Gate. By changing the pointing of the verse, Sir Norton Knatchbull has it, "As many as were met together, (that is, all the Gentiles,) believed to eternal life." This word is used, in the New Testament, to denote one's own disposition as well as that of another--chap. xiv. verse 4. Here it would seem, that it cannot refer to any secret determination of God, as Luke professed not to be advised on that subject. In other places, the word is used, and at least once by the same historian, to represent one's own disposition, or determination. For the various acceptations and occurrences of this word, see vocabulary of controverted terms.

      Gramma.--Gramma is a name given to any piece of writing. Luke xvi. 6. "Take your (gramma) bill," lease, or account. John v. 47. it is applied, in the plural form, to the writings of Moses; and Paul, 2 Tim. iii. 15. applies it to all the Jewish scriptures.--"You have known the holy scriptures." Like grapha, gramma, in the singular or plural form, may be rendered scriptures. Dia grammatos is the phrase, Rom. ii. 27.; and, as it is distinguished from circumcision by kai, it cannot mean the literal circumcision, but must comprehend the written law, or scriptures, in which the Jews gloried.

      En dunamei, (en dunamei,) with power; and kata pneuma agiosunes, (kata pneuma agiosunes,) "according to the spirit of holiness," are much contested phrases. That the former respects not the demonstration of the sonship of Jesus Christ, but the power and glory with which he is seated on the throne of God; and that the later respects his glorified state, are, to me, obvious, from the most careful consideration which I can bestow on the original, and the labors of the best critics.

      These notes are designed more for the unlearned than the learned, and, therefore we cannot think of introducing long and elaborate criticisms upon Greek words and phrases. [59] But a word for the learned, who may be disposed to question our authority, in some instances, is due. The phrase en dunamei, (with power,) may be used adverbially with oristhentos, according to the decisions of grammarians. But the meaning of the word oristhentos, agrees not with such a qualification. It cannot augment the import of the word declared, constituted, or set forth. But the phrase "with power," is frequently applied to the glorified state of the Son of God. He was exhibited or constituted the Son of God with power after his resurrection from the dead. It, therefore, qualifies "the Son of God," and not the participle oristhentos. Jesus, after his resurrection, received all power. The bodies of the saints are said to be raised, en dunamei; and Jesus is said (Matth. xxiv. 30. Mark xiii. 26. Luke xxi. 27.) to come to take vengeance on his enemies meta dunameoi kai doches. He is described in his glorified state as seated on the right hand tes dunemeos, Matth. xxvi. 64, &c. and both kratos and exousia are ascribed to him in Revelation v. 13. xii. 10. The phrase en dunamei is applied very generally to the Son of God in his glorified state, in all parts of the New Testament; but only once is it ever found applied to a participle, or any part of a verb, and then the participle is of the same meaning--Col. i. 29.

      Professor Stuart has defended this view at considerable length in his late work; and with the exception of two quotations, (Matth, xxviii. 18. and 1 Peter i. 16.) where he has confounded exousia and parousia with dunamei, his quotations are all relevant.

      The kata sarka, as to the flesh, is either climactic or in antithesis with the kata pneuma agiosunes--as to his holy, spiritual, or pneumatic nature. But here we shall introduce a passage from the Andover Professor, p. 69:--

      "We come, then, to the third position; viz.--that pneuma agiosunes designates Christ in his higher, or pneumatic state, or condition. But is this analogical? Is pneuma elsewhere applied to Christ in the like way?

      "That pneuma is applied directly to Christ, seems clear from 2 Cor. iii. 17. o kurios [Christos] to pneuma estin, and in iv. 18. kurion pneumatos. The appellation pneuma is probably applied to Christ here, as the bestower of pneuma. Again, in Hebrews ix. 14. Christ is said to have offered himself, in the heavenly temple, a spotless victim to God, dia pneumatos aioniou, in his everlasting pneumatic or glorified state. The passage does not seem fairly susceptible of any other meaning, when one compares it with verses 11 and 12, which precede, and with the analogy of scripture, dia here being dia conditionis.

      "In 1st Peter iii. 18. the Apostle, speaking of Christ, says, that he was thanatotheis men sarki zoopoietheis de pneumati where he apparently uses the very same contradistinction which Paul makes use of in the verse before us. What can be the meaning of pneuma, then, in such examples, if it be not the pneumatic state or nature or condition of the Saviour, i. e. his exalted or glorious state or nature? The word zoopoietheis, as here used, seems not to indicate restored to life, (for in what sense can this be literally applied to the pneuma of Christ, even if pneuma mean nothing more than his human soul?) but rendered happy, exalted to a state of glory; compare chapter iv. 1. where pathontos is put for thanatotheis in chapter ii. 18. and is the antithesis of zoopoietheis used in the sense just explained.

      "If I rightly comprehend the meaning of these expressions as applied to Christ, the sense of the whole clause on which I have been commenting is, 'Of royal descent, even of David's lineage, as to his incarnate state (logos sark egeneto;) the Son of God, clothed with supreme dominion, in his pneumatic, i. e. exalted and glorified state.'

      "That both clauses, viz. that which describes his state kata sarka, and that which describes his state kata pneuma agiosunes, are designed to describe the dignity of the Saviour, seems altogether clear. Not antithesis, then, but climax, seems to be here intended. So, with Thulock, I understand the passage; and have interpreted accordingly. I do not say that an ingenious critic can raise no difficulties with respect to this interpretation; but I cannot help thinking, that they are much less than attend any other method of exegesis which has yet been adopted."

      Dikaiosune tou theou (dikaiosune tou theou,) righteousness, or justification of God. The capital proposition in the christian revelation, and certainly the principal one in this epistle, is that here stated by the Apostle--Dikaiosune tou theou ek pisteous eis pistin. The justification by faith, of which God is the author, in order to faith. Whether dikaiosune ought to be translated righteousness or justification, in this, and several other passages in this epistle, is a question of much importance. As we prefer, even in matters to us most obvious, to be heard through the names of high authority, rather than in our own proper person, we shall give place to the learned Professor, who has ably and at much length justified the version we prefer. We can only give a few extracts, and these not in regular sequence, pp. 83, 84, 85:--

      "Dikaiosune theou is a phrase among the most important which the New Testament contains, and fundamental in the right interpretation of the epistle now before us. To obtain a definite and precise view of its meaning, we must betake ourselves, in the first place, to the verb dikaioo; for from the meanings which this verb conveys, come nearly all the [60] shades of meaning which belong to dikaiosune and dikaiosis, so often employed, (especially the former) in the writings of Paul.

      "The Greek sense of the verb dikaioo, differs in one respect from the corresponding Hebrew verb tzadik, for this (in Kal) means to be just, to be innocent, to be upright, and also to justify one's self, to be justified, thus having the sense of either a neuter or passive verb. In the active voice, dikaioo in Greek has only an active sense, and is used in pretty exact correspondence with the forms Piel and Hiphil of the Hebrews, i. e. it means to declare just, to pronounce just, to justify; i. e. to treat as just; consequently, as intimately connected with this, to pardon, to acquit from accusation, to free from the consequences of sin or transgression, to set free from a deserved penalty. This last class of meanings is the one in which Paul usually employs this word. As a locus classicus to vindicate this meaning, we may appeal to Romans viii. 33. "Who shall accuse the elect of God? It is God o dikaion, who acquits them," viz. of all accusation, or who liberates them from the penal consequences of transgression. Exactly in the same way it is said in Proverbs xvii. 15. "He who justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are an abomination to the Lord." So in Exodus xxiii. 7. "I will not justify the wicked." In the same manner Isaiah, v. 23. speaks: "Who justify the wicked for a reward." In these and all such cases, the meaning of the word justify is altogether plain; viz. it signifies to acquit, to free from the penal consequences of guilt, to pronounce just, i. e. to absolve from punishment, it being the direct opposite of condemning or subjecting to the consequences of a penalty.

      "In this sense Paul very often employs the verb; e. g. Romans v. 1. dikaiothentos, being freed from punishment, being acquitted, being pardoned--eirenen ecomen pros tou theon. Rom. v. 9. dikaiothentes, being acquitted, pardoned--sothesometha di autou apo tes orges, which salvation is the opposite of being subjected to punishment, or of not being justified. In Gal. ii. 16, 17. dikaioo is four times employed in the sense of absolved, acquitted, or treated as just; i. e. freed from penalty and admitted into a state of reward. So Galatians iii. 8, 11. iii. 24 v. 4. Titus iii. 7. In Romans iv. 5. tou dikaiounta ton asebe is plainly susceptible of no other than the above interpretation; for those who are ungodly, can never be made innocent in the strict and literal sense of this word, they can only be treated as innocent; i. e. absolved from the condemnation of the law, pardoned, delivered from the penalty threatened against sin. That the idea of pardon, or remission of the penalty threatened by the divine law, is the one substantially conveyed by dikaioo and dikaiosune, as generally employed in the writings of Paul, is most evident from Romans iv. 6, 7. where the blessedness of the man to whom the Lord imputes dikaiosune, i. e. reckons, counts, treats as dikaios, is thus described--"Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputes not sin," i. e, whom he does not treat or punish as sinner. This is a fundamental explanation of the whole subject, so far as the present class of meanings attached to dikaioo and dikaiosune, is concerned.

      "In the same sense we have the word dikaioo in Romans iii. 24, 26, 28, 30. iv. 2, et al. saepe. So Acts xiii. 38, 39. Luke xviii. 14. Compare Septuagint, in Genesis xxviii. 26. Job xxxiii. 32. Isaiah xliii. 26.

      "The way is now open for an easy and intelligible explanation of the nouns, which stand intimately and etymologically connected with the verb dikaioo. These are three, viz. dikaiosune, dikaioma, and dikaiosis, all employed occasionally in the very same sense, viz. that of justification, i. e. acquittal, pardon, freeing from condemnation, accepting, and treating as righteous."

      "In like manner all three of these nouns are employed in Paul's epistles; e. g. dikaioma in the sense of pardon, justification, Romans v. 16. where it stands as the antithesis of katakrima dikaiotis, in Romans iv. 25. where it plainly means justification; and so in Romans v. 18. where it is the antithesis of katakrima.

      "But the word dikaiosune is the usual one employed by Paul to designate gospel justification, i. e. the pardoning of sin, and accepting and treating as righteous. So we find this word plainly employed in Romans iii. 21, 22, (comp. v. 24,) 25, 26. iv. 11, 13. v. 17, 21. ix. 30, 31. x. 3, 4, 5, 6, 10. 2 Cor. v. 21, (abstract for concrete,) Phil. iii. 6, 9. Heb. xi. 7. et alibi saepe.

      "With these facts before us, we now return to our text. Diakaiosune theou seems very plainly to have the same meaning that it has in Romans iii. 21. and in the other passages just referred to in this epistle; viz. the justification or pardoning mercy bestowed on sinners who are under the curse of the divine law. In this sense it is allied to the Hebrew tzadike, which often means kindness, benignity, favor, deliverance from evil; e. g. Isaiah xlv. 8, 24. xlvi. 13. xlviii. 18. li. 6, 8. liv. 17. lvi. 1. and often in the Psalms.

      "The reader must be careful to note, however, that the simple idea of pardon, unattended by any thing else, i. e. the mere deliverance from punishment, is not at all which is comprised in the meaning of dikaioo and dikaiosune. The idea is more fully expressed by accepting and treating as righteous. Now when this is done by a benefactor, he does not stop with a simple remission of punishment, but he bestows happiness in the same manner as though the offender had been altogether obedient. As there are but two [61] stations allotted for the human race, i. e. heaven or hell; so those who are delivered from the latter, must be advanced to the former.

      "All is now plain. Diakaiosune theou is the justification which God bestows, or the justification of which God is the author." Theou is the genitivus auctoris; as in innumerable cases elsewhere. This made altogether clear, by comparing Romans iii. 21-24; and, indeed, the whole tenor of the discussion in the epistle to the Romans, seems imperiously to demand this sense."

      The translation of this verse is quite literal, the word attributes being the only supplement; and that cannot be strictly called a supplement, inasmuch as aorata implies things or qualities; and these are explained in the next clause--his eternal power and deity, or divinity. Stuart renders it, "For the invisible things of him, since the creation of the world, are clearly seen by the things which are made, even his eternal power and godhead." The collocation or transportation of the clauses in a Greek sentence, in accommodation to our idiom, when no rule of syntax is violated, is as allowable as the selection of any one meaning of a word, which, in the judgment of a translator, best suits the context. Such metatheses are common in every version of Paul's epistles.

      Dr. Adam Clarke is of opinion that phudei, here rendered "by nature," is to be understood in the sense given in Suicer's Thesaurus, in Latin, reipsa, revera; in English, certainly, truly--"When the Gentiles, who have not the law, truly, or in effect, do the things contained in the law." So Galatians iv. 8.--"Which by nature are no gods"--"Which certainly are no gods." So, also, Ephesians ii. 3.--"By nature children of wrath--truly, incontestibly, children of wrath, even as others."

      All critics, paraphrasts, and translators, which we have consulted, except Sir Norton Knatchbull, (whose rare work we happen to possess,) have either wholly overlooked the oti (because) in this verse, or regarded it as a mere Greek expletive; when, indeed, it seems to be the very word which gives meaning to this elliptical passage.

      As we have always given Campbell's translation of metanoeo and metanoia in the books which he did not translate, as well as in those which he did translate, we shall give an extract from his dissertation on this word and metamelomai, both of which are uniformly rendered by one English word in the common version.

      "When such a sorrow was alluded to as either was not productive, or, in the nature of things does not imply it, the word metanoeo (commonly rendered repent) is never used. Thus the repentance of Judas, which drove him to despair, is expressed by metamelethesi. When Paul, writing to the Corinthians, mentions the sorrow his former letter had given them, he says, that, considering the good effects of that sorrow, he does not repent that he had written it, though he had formerly repented that he had written it. Here no more can be understood by his own repentance spoken of, but that uneasiness which a good man feels, not from the consciousness of his having done wrong, but from a tenderness for others, and a fear lest that which, prompted by his duty, he had said, should have too strong an effect upon them. As it would have made nonsense of the passage to have rendered the verb in English reformed instead of repented the verb metanoeo instead of metamelomai, would have been improper in Greek. There is one passage in which the Apostle has employed both words, and in such a manner as clearly shows the difference. In the common version, "Godly sorrow works repentance to salvation, not to be repented of." This is a play upon the word repent, which is not in the original. The change in the word plainly shows, that in the judgment of the Apostle, there would have been something incongruous in using the same word. Godly sorrow works reformation not to be repented of, is a fair and intelligible translation of it. Metanoia denotes such a change of mind as issues in reformation; and when enforced as a duty, ought always to be rendered reformation; metanoeo by reform, and metamelomai, in my opinion, ought to be rendered repent." We have so done in all places.

      Of this luminous and convincing dissertation, we have only room for another extract:--

      "It may be said that in using the terms repent and repentance as our translators have done for both the original terms, there is no risk of any dangerous error; because, in the theological definitions of repentance, given by almost all parties, such as a reformation of the disposition is included as will infallibly produce a reformation of conduct. This, however, does not satisfy. Our Lord and his Apostles accommodated themselves in their style to the people whom they addressed, by employing words according to their received and vulgar idiom, and not according to the technical use of any learned Doctors. It was [62] not to such that this doctrine was revealed, but to those who, in respect to acquired knowledge, were babes. The learned use is known, comparatively, but to a few; and it is certain that, with us, according to the common acceptation of the word, a man may be said just a properly to repent of a good as of a bad action. A covetous man will repent of the alms which a sudden fit of pity may have induced him to bestow. Besides, it is but too evident, that a man many often justly be said to repent, who never reforms. In neither of these ways do I find the word metanoeo ever used."

      The Bishop's Bible, a copy of which is now before me, published in England by authority of the King, and publicly read in all Protestant congregations, about the commencement of the 17th century, down to the year 1607, at which time the copy before me was printed--thus translates the word metanoeo in the passage before me--"Amend your lives, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins." And chap. iii. 19th verse, "Amend your lives, therefore, and turn."

      The noun, as well as the verb, is also by the author of this version, sometimes translated amendment of life. Matth. iii. 8. "Fruits worthy of amendments of life." Matth. iii. 11. "I baptize you with water to amendment of life." Matth. i. 4. "John did preach the baptism of amendment of life." Thus the verb metanoeo, and the noun metanoia, were understood till the year 1611. It is to be suspected that the fierce controversy about grace and works, at the time of the King's version, occasioned extremes on both sides; and that metanoia, in the estimation of the strong party, became altogether spiritual, and was understood to indicate no more than a mere change of views, or sorrow for the past.

      We have in this version of this difficult passage, only used one word (sentence) as supplementary; and that is taken from a preceding verse. This is four less than Stuart, and five less than the common version.

      By making verses 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 parenthetical, and connecting verses 12, 18, and 19, the reader will discover more readily the point of the Apostle's argument.

      Verse 20. "The law supervened."--The law was given to one nation, not privately, but in the most public manner; and as it was extraneous to the antecedent economy or patriarchal institution, it is correctly said to have supervened, as the word pareiselthen fully indicates.

      Much more than any of us is aware depends upon the import of the particles of language. These are the cement of speech, and the connective of thought. They give all the meaning which the principal words in language possess, in their various acceptations. The preposition eis is one of the very important particles of speech on which the meaning of sentences depend. The reader will perceive in the following remarks on en and eis, how much depends on the proper translation of these particles.

      We are not desirous of diminishing the difference of meaning between immersing a person in the name of the Father, and into the name of the Father. They are quite different ideas. But it will be asked, is this a correct translation? To which I answer, most undoubtedly it is. For the preposition eis is that used in this place, and not en. By what inadvertency the King's translators give it in instead of into in this passage, and elsewhere give it into when speaking of the same ordinance, I presume not to say; but they have been followed by most of the modern translators, and with them they translate it into in other places where it occurs, in relation to this institution. For example:--1 Cor. xii. 13. For by one spirit we are all immersed into one body. Rom. vi. 3. Do you not know that so many of you as were immersed into Christ, were immersed into his death? Gal. iii. 27. As many of you as have been immersed into Christ, have put on Christ. Now for the same reason they ought to have rendered the following passages in the same way:--Acts viii. 16. Only they were immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts xix. 3. Into what were you then immersed? When they heard this, they were immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus. 1 Cor, i. 13. Were you immersed into the name of Paul? Lest any should say I had immersed into my own name. 1 Cor. x. 1. Our fathers were all immersed into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. Now in all these places it is eis. The contrast between eis and en is clearly marked in the last quotation. They were immersed into Moses--not into the cloud, and into the sea; but in the cloud, and in the sea. To be immersed into Moses is one thing, and in the sea is another. To be immersed into the name of the Father, and in the name of the Father, are just as distinct. "In the name" is equivalent to by the authority of. In the name of the king, or commonwealth, is by the authority of the king or commonwealth.

      Now the question is, Did the Saviour mean that disciples were to be immersed by the authority of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? If by the authority of the Father, for what purpose were they immersed? The authority by which any action is done is one think, and the object for which it is done is another. None who can discriminate can think that it is one and the same thing to be immersed in the name of the Lord, and to be immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus. The former denotes the authority by which [63] the action is performed--the latter, the object for which it is performed. Persons are said to enter into matrimony, to enter into an alliance, to go into debt, to run into danger. Now to be immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus was a form of speech in ancient usage as familiar and significant as any of the preceding. And when we analyze these expressions, we find they all import that the persons are either under the obligations or influence of those things into which they are said to enter, or into which they are introduced. Hence those immersed into one body, were under the influences and obligations of that body. Those immersed into Moses, assumed Moses as their lawgiver, guide, and protector, and risked every thing upon his authority, wisdom, power, and goodness. Those who were immersed into Christ, put him on, or acknowledged his authority and laws, and were governed by his will; and those who were immersed into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, regarded the Father as the fountain of all authority; the Son as the only Saviour; and the Holy Spirit as the only advocate of the truth, and teacher of christianity. Hence such persons as were immersed into the name of the Father, acknowledged him as the only living and true God--Jesus Christ, as his only successful advocate of the truth of christianity upon earth. Pagans, therefore, when immersed into the name of Father, &c., renounced all the names that were worshipped by the Pagan world--all the saviours in which the Gentiles trusted; and all the inspiration and philosophy of which they vainly boasted. A woman, when she enters into matrimony, assumes the name of the husband, acknowledges him as her lord and master, submits to his will, and looks to him for protection and support. Just so they who are immersed into the name of Christ, assume his name, acknowledge him as Lord and Master, and look to him for support and protection. This view of the matter made Paul thank God when the christians in Corinth were assuming different names, (one the name of Paul, another the name of Apollos, &c.) that he had immersed few or none of them, lest the report should get abroad that he had immersed them into his own name.

      But, as this criticism is already too long, we shall only add that it would be quite anomalous to suppose that the command in the commission to make disciples, immersing them into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, means by the authority of. There is not one solitary example of the sort in all the oracles. Nothing is commanded to be done by the authority of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In the antecedent economy, the supreme authority was in the name of the Father. In the present economy the supreme authority is in the name of the Lord Jesus. But in no economy (for it is contrary to the genius of every economy) is the name of the Holy Spirit used as authoritative. Nothing was ever commanded to be done in the name, or by the authority of the Holy Spirit. When we speak of authority here, it is not the authority of a teacher, but the authority of a governor or lawgiver--a king or ruler. There is one sort of authority of which the Holy Spirit is possessed; and that is, to take the things of Christ and reveal them to us. His authority as a teacher we cheerfully submit to, but we speak here of the gubernatorial authority, the authority which a governor possesses. Invested with this authority, the Lord Jesus, in conjunction with his Father, sent the Holy Spirit to advocate his cause. The Father never gave the power of judging to the Holy Spirit. This he has given into the hands of the Lord Jesus. The Lord Messiah shall judge the world, and therefore by his authority, all things are to be done in his kingdom. When Peter ordered the Gentiles to be immersed, he did it by the authority of the Lord Jesus. He says, "In the name of the Lord immerse them." Here it is en onomati, and not eis to onoma. And it is by the authority of the Lord Jesus, or in the name of the Lord, that persons are to be immersed into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The great importance of the matters involved in this criticism will be sufficient apology for the length of it. Indeed, I scarcely know any criticism upon a single syllable of so much importance, in all the range of my conceptions, as this one.

      Eis, let me add, followed by an accusative, very often denotes the object for which a thing is done; thus eis aphesin, eis metanoian, means for remission, for reformation. Professor Stuart fully declares this, p. 72. "Eis, followed by an accusative, in almost innumerable instances, designates the object or end for which any thing is, or is done."

      The weight of evidence for apothanontes, in preference to apothanontos, justifies the adoption of the former into the text; and therefore, it is we who are said to have died. The supplement "with Christ" is taken from the Apostle's argument, chapter vi. verse 8. where he represents all the immersed as having "died with Christ." This supplement, take from the Apostle's argument, we think makes this meaning here more striking. In dying and being buried with Christ, we are freed from the condemnatory power of every law not enjoined by Jesus upon his disciples.

      Romans viii. 6, 7, 27.--"The mind of the Spirit."--"The mind of the flesh."--These phrases are peculiar to this chapter. They are not found in any other portion. Phronema [64] tou sarkos, (the mind of the flesh,) occurs verses 6 and 7; and the phrase phronema tou pneuma tos, (mind of the Spirit,) occurs verses 6 and 27. The common version renders the former, verse 6, "carnally minded," and verse 7, "the carnal mind;" and the latter, verse 6, "to be spiritually minded;" and verse 27, "the mind of the Spirit." Macknight prefers "the mind of the Spirit" in verse 27; but in the 6th and 7th verses he has "minding of the flesh," and "minding of the Spirit." We have been uniform in rendering these phrases by the same words, as the sense absolutely requires it, and as no reason appears for a change.

      But there is a peculiarity, not only in the phrase, but in the word which Paul uses for mind. We have the concurrence of the translators of the common version, of Macknight, and many others, in translating phronema mind. But it is not the word which the Greeks used to designate the mind of man in its natural state, or the mind simply; but an acquired mind. Hence, as the learned Ligh observes, the verb phroneo, whence comes phronema, rather denotes the operations of the will and affections, than of the understanding.

      On the word phroneo, sometimes rendered "to think," we may here remark, that in the New Testament it occurs more than twenty times, and is often used in the import in which our Lord uses it in Matthew and Mark. He said to Peter, "You savor not (or relish not) the things of God, but the things of men." The passive verbals generally represent the effects of the actions expressed in the active verb. The thinkings or relishes of the flesh are the mind of the flesh--the thinking or relishes of the spirit are the mind of the Spirit.

      Verses 33 and 34.--The phrases, "It is God that justifies," "It is Christ that died," are put in the interrogative form by Griesbach; and, in our judgment, this punctuation adds much to the spirit and force of the passage.

      "In the Septuagint, exegeiro is employed throughout in the sense of arousing, exciting, rousing up, waking up from, &c., with slight shades of variations in meaning, according to the connexion and the adjuncts of the verb.

      "In the New Testament we have only one example besides that before us, where exegeiro is used--viz. 1 Cor, vi. 14. where it is clearly used to designate the action of rousing from the sleep of death, raising or exciting from a state of inaction or death.

      "On the whole, then, the sense of the Greek word is clear, and subject to no well grounded doubt. It means to rouse up, to excite, to stir up, in any manner or for any purpose."

      "Ean omologeses--Iesoun, If thou shalt openly profess with thy mouth that Jesus is Lord. The verb omologeo means literally, eademe loqui, to speak what consents or agrees with something others speak or maintain. But it is frequently used to denote speaking or professing openly; that is, proclaiming openly one's belief in Christ, which was speaking in accordance with what other Christians had avowed. En to stomati, by word of mouth, in words, or by the use of language. Kurion I take to be the predicate of the sentence in this case; i. e. a true believer is to confess that Jesus is Lord. Compare Acts ii. 36. v. 31. Phil. ii. 9, 10. where the order of the words is, kurios Ieous Christos, the same as here, but where it is certain that kurios must be a predicate--viz. that Jesus Christ is Lord."

      Romans xi. 33.--"Here, then, to say the least, is some deep and mysterious proceeding on the part of God, which the human mind cannot fathom, and which it should only wonder at and adore. O Bathos, theou,--O the boundless goodness, and wisdom, and knowledge of God! Ploutou means riches, when literally understood. But a reference to the 12th verse shows that the Apostle had in his mind the abundant blessings of the gospel bestowed on the Gentiles, when he chose this term. Compare Eph. iii. 8. 2 Cor. viii. 2. Sophias, the wisdom of God--viz. the wisdom displayed in thus making the unbelief of the Jews subservient to the purpose of bringing salvation to the Gentiles, in thus educing good out of evil; and also in finally bringing the Jews back to their filial relation, through the mercy granted to the Gentiles; important ends, which no human foresight or wisdom could have accomplished."

      Romans xiii. 20.--"--Touto gar--autou: For in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. This is quoted from Proverbs xxv. 21, 22. In Psalm xviii. 8, 12, 13, coals of fire are emblematical of consuming or destruction. The Arabians say, he roasted my heart, or he kindled a fire in my heart, to designate the idea of giving or inflicting pain. So in 2 Esdras xvi. 53. 'Coals of fire shall burn on the head of him who denies that he has [65] sinned against God.' There can be no doubt, then, that pain is meant to be designated by this expression; but it is the pain of shame or contrition for misconduct, or that of punishment? More probably the former here; for so verse 21 would almost necessarily lead us to conclude. It is a noble sentiment when thus understood. 'Take not revenge,' says the Apostle; 'overcome your adversary with kindness and beneficence. These will bring him to shame and sorrow for his misconduct.'"--STUART.

      Romans xiii. 11.--"But what is the soteria, which is nearer than when christians at Rome first believed? Tholuck, and most of the late commentators in Germany, suppose that the Apostle expected the speedy advent of Christ upon earth a second time, when the day of glory to the church would commence. Accordingly they represent him here, and elsewhere, as exhorting christians to be on the alert, constantly expecting the approach of such a day."

      The critics seem not to have observed, that there is the present and the future salvation, often contrasted in the New Testament--the salvation from sin, or of the soul, here; and the salvation of soul and body at the resurrection.

      Romans xiv. 1.--"Him that is weak in the faith, receive you; but not in order to the strifes of disputations." Macknight. "Receive into fellowship him who is weak in the faith, without regard to difference of opinions." Thomson. "Him that is weak in faith receive with kindness; not so as to increase his scrupulous surmisings." Stuart. "Without regard to any difference of opinion." Anonymous translation. Literally it reads, "Receive him who is weak in the faith, without regard to nice distinctions of reasonings among yourselves." Diakriseis, dialogismon, (diakriseis, dialogismon.) Dialogismos means more than reasoning; for logismos, without the dia, signifies reasoning. Hence the word dialogue means not merely a discourse, but a discourse between two.

      Diakriesis literally denotes discrimination, distinguishing, or dijudication. Such being the literal import of the terms, the context shows in what sense they are to be received in this passage. "For one believeth this--another believeth that," shows that these private thoughts, opinions, or persuasions, ought not to interrupt communion. Hence the strong in the faith are commanded to receive the weak, without regard or affection for these differences of conclusions, reasonings, or opinions.

      Let the reader mark the difference between "weak in faith," and "weak in the faith." It is not uncommon to find persons strong in faith and weak in the faith; and weak in faith, though strong in the faith. Many a christian reposes strong faith in the promises of God, who is, nevertheless, weak in the faith; or whose knowledge of christian liberty is so limited as to render him as squeamish in conscience as a dyspeptic in ailments. Some, also, have very enlarged views of the christian system, who yet are weak in faith as respects confidence in all God's promises.

      Verse 25, 26 and 27 are, by Griesbach, rejected from this chapter, and are placed by him after the 23d verse, chapter xiv. We have, however, not seen sufficient evidence to authorize this change in their location; and, therefore, retain them in their usual place.

      There are two phrases in these verses worthy of note. The one is, "The revelation of the mystery or secret;" and the other is, "Concealed in the times of the ages"--

      "The Greek word musterion occurs frequently in the New Testament, and is uniformly rendered, in the English translation, mystery. We all know that by the most current use of the English word mystery, (as well as of the Latin ecclesiastic word mysterium and the corresponding term in modern languages,) is denoted some doctrine to human reason incomprehensible: in other words, such a doctrine as exhibits difficulties, and even apparent contradictions, which we cannot solve or explain. Another use of the word, which, though not so universal at present, is often to be met with in ecclesiastic writers of former ages, and in foreign writers of the present age, is to signify some religious ceremony or rite, especially those who denominated sacraments."--

      "When we come to examine the Scriptures critically, and make them serve for their own interpreters, which is the surest way of attaining the true knowledge of them, we shall find, if I mistake not, that both these senses are unsupported by the usage of the inspired penman. After the most careful examination of all the passages in the New Testament, in which the Greek word occurs, and after consulting the use made of the term, by the ancient Greek interpreters of the Old, and borrowing aid from the practice of the Hellenist Jews, in the writings called Apocrypha, I can only find two sense nearly related to each other, which can strictly be called scriptural. The first, and what I may call the leading sense of the word, is arcanum, a secret, any thing not disclosed, not published to the world, though perhaps communicated to a select number. [66]

      "Now let it be observed that this is totally different from the current sense of the English word mystery, something incomprehensible. In the former acceptation a thing was no longer a mystery than whilst it remained unrevealed; in the latter, a thing is equally a mystery after the revelation as before. To the former we apply, properly, the epithet unknown; to the latter we may, in a great measure, apply the term unknowable. Thus, the proposition that God would call the Gentiles, and receive them into his church, was as intelligible, or, if you like the term better, comprehensible, as that he once had called the descendants of the Patriarchs, or any plain proposition or historical fact. Yet, whilst undiscovered, or, at least, veiled under figures and types, it remained, in the scriptural idiom, a mystery, having been hidden from ages and generations. But after it had pleased God to reveal his gracious purpose to the Apostles, by his Spirit, it was a mystery no longer."

      "I signified before that there was another meaning which the term musterion sometimes bears in the New Testament. But it is so nearly related to, if not coincident with the former, that I am doubtful whether I can call it other than a particular application of the same meaning. However, if the thing be understood, it is not material which of the two ways we denominate it. The word is sometimes employed to denote the figurative sense, as distinguished from the literal, which is conveyed under any fable, parable, allegory, symbolical action, representation, dream, or vision. It is plain, that, in this case, the term musterion is used comparatively; for, however clear the meaning intended to be conveyed in the apologue, or parable, may be to the intelligent, proves a kind of veil. The one is, as it were, open to the senses; the other requires penetration and reflection. Perhaps there was some allusion to this import of the term when our Lord said to his disciples, "To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to them that are without, all these things are done in parables."

      "In this sense musterion is used in these words:--'The mystery of the seven stars which you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven candlesticks are the seven churches.' Again, in the same book, 'I will tell you the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carries her,' &c. There is only one other passage to which this meaning of the word is adapted, and on which I shall have occasion to remark afterwards. 'This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.' Nor is it any objection to the interpretation of the word mystery here, that the Apostle alluded not to any fiction, but to a historical fact--the formation of Eve out of the body of Adam her husband. For though there is no necessity that the story which supplies us with the body of the parable or allegory (if I may so express myself) be literally true; there is, on the other hand, no necessity that it be false. Passages of true history are sometimes allegorized by the sacred penmen. Witness the story of Abraham and his two sons--Isaac, by his wife Sarah; and Ishmael, by his bondwoman Hagar; of which the Apostle has made an allegory for representing the comparative natures of the Mosaic dispensation and the Christian."--

      "Before I finish this topic, it is proper to take notice of one passage wherein the word musterion, it may be plausibly urged, must have the same sense with that which present use gives to the English word mystery, and denotes something which, though revealed, is inexplicable, and to human faculties unintelligible. The words are, 'Without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.' I do not here inquire into the justness of this reading, though different from that of the most ancient versions, the Syriac and the Vulgate, and some of the oldest manuscripts. The words as they stand sufficiently answer my purpose. Admit, then, that some of the articles enumerated may be justly called mysteries, in the ecclesiastical and present acceptation, it does not follow that this is the sense of the term here. When a word in a sentence of holy writ is susceptible of two interpretations, so that the sentence, whichsoever of the two ways the words be interpreted, conveys a distinct meaning, suitable to the scope of the place; and when one of these interpretations expresses the common import of the word in holy writ, and the other assigns it a meaning which it plainly has not in any other passage of Scripture, the rules of criticism manifestly require that we recur to the common acceptation of the term. Nothing can vindicate us in giving it a singular, or even a very common signification; but that all the more usual meanings would make the sentence involve some absurdity or nonsense. This is not the case here. The purport of the sentence plainly is, 'Great unquestionably is the divine secret, of which our religion brings the discovery; God was manifest in the flesh,'" &c.

Campbell's Diss. ix. Part I.      

      "Chroinois aioniois, in secular times, the times of the ages, or in the times under the law. Why the times under the law were called chronoi aonioi, the times of the ages, we may find a reason in their jubilees, which were aiones, sæcula, or ages, by which all the time under the law was measured; and so chronoi aiones, the times of the ages, is used, 2 Tim. i. 9. [67] Titus i. 2. And so aiones, the ages, are put for the times of the law, or the jubilees, Luke i. 70. Acts iii. 21. 1 Cor. ii. 7. and x. 2. Eph. iii. 9. Col. i. 25. Hebs. ix. 26. And so God is called the Rock [Aionon] of ages, Isa. xxvi. 4. in the same sense that he is called the Rock of Israel, Isa. xxx. 22. i. e. the strength and support of the Jewish state; for it is of the Jews the Prophet here speaks. So Exodus xxi. 6. eis ton aiona, to the age, signifies not as we translate it, "forever," but to the jubilee; which will appear if we compare Leviticus xxv. 39, 41. and Exodus xxi. 2. [See Burthogg's "Christianity, a Revealed Mystery," pp. 17, 18.] Now, that the times of the law were the times spoken of here by Paul, seems plain from that which he declares to have continued a mystery during those times, to wit: God's purpose of taking the Gentiles to be his people under the Messiah: for this could not be said to be a mystery at any other time, but during the time of the Jews were the peculiar people of God, separated to him from among the nations of the earth. Before that time there was no such name or notion of distinction as Gentiles. Before the days of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the calling of the Israelites to be God's peculiar people, was as much a mystery as the calling of others out of other nations was a mystery afterwards. All that Paul insists on here, and in all the places where he mentions this mystery, is to show, that though God has declared this his purpose to the Jews, by the predictions of his Prophets among them; yet it lay concealed from their knowledge, it was a mystery to them, they understood no such thing; there was not any where the least suspicion or thought of it, till the Messiah being come, it was openly declared by Paul to the Jews and Gentiles, and made out by the writings of the Prophets, which were now understood."

Locke on the Romans, p. 345.      

      Diatheke--Covenant and testament, generally, in the common version; institution, generally, in this. This is its general meaning in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. A covenant between parties who mutually stipulate and agree, was by the Greeks denoted by Suntheke, (suntheke, not diatheke,) a word which is not once found in the apostolic writings.

      In all these transactions with mankind, proceeding solely from God, where man stipulates nothing, and God every thing, our word covenant does not fitly express the import of diatheke. The Apostles use this word in their writings thirty-three times; and, while its general import is institution, arrangement, constitution, or dispensation, it is sometimes used specially to denote one sort of institution: for a covenant, a will, a testament, are each special institutions. The word indenture, or the phrase articles of agreement, is used by us in the same latitude as the sacred writers used the word diatheke, We call bonds, and covenants, and deeds of various sorts, indentures. So what we call a will, a testament, a covenant, an economy, or arrangement of general principles, proceeding wholly from one party, the Greeks comprehend in the word diatheke. Now as the Apostles, in using this term, allude sometimes to a simple promise, a will or testament; and sometimes to a general arrangement or constitution, we have thought it expedient to select such a received signification of the term as will best express its meaning in the passage, or under the allusions in which it is found in the text; always preferring the general term institution, when the connexion will admit, as fully expressive of its general meaning--and because with us a will, a testament, a covenant, or any arrangement of general principles, is fitly expressed by the word institution. In Galatians iii. 15, 17. the allusion appears to be rather to a will or testament, than to any other institution known among us. This will was ratified with Abraham by the death of God's appointed victim, four hundred years before the transactions mediated at Mount Sinai by Moses, and four hundred and thirty after the first promise to Abraham. Hence we have the inheritance and the heir constituted by this will, debated till Paul is led (chapter iv.) to the two great institutions, the Jewish and the Christian, commonly called the Old and New Testaments. See, in the vocabulary of controverted terms and phrases, the word "Covenant."

      To these remarks we will add, from the former editions, the following, from Dr. Campbell's Dissertations on the phrases Old and New Testaments:--

      "It is proper to observe further, that, from signifying the two religious dispensations, they came soon to denote the books, wherein what related to these dispensations was contained; the sacred writings of the Jews being called e palaia diatheke, and the writings superadded by the Apostles and Evangelists, e kaime diatheke, We have one example in Scripture of this use of the former appellation. The Apostle says, speaking of his countrymen, 'Until this day remaineth the veil untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament.' The word in this application is always rendered in our language testament. We have in this followed the Vulgate, as most modern translators have done. In the Geneva, French, the word is rendered both ways in the title, that the one may serve for explaining the other, La Novueau Testament, c'est a dire la nouvelle alliance, &c., in which they copied Beza, who says, Testamentum Novum, sive Foedus Novum. That the second rendering of the word is the better version, is unquestionable; but the title appropriated by custom to a particular book, is on the same footing with a proper name, which is hardly [68] considered as a subject for criticism. Thus we call Cesar's Diary, Cesar's Commentaries, from their Latin name, though very different in their meaning from the English word."

Campbell's Diss. v. Part iii.      

      The Old Covenant and the New Covenant occupy but a few sentences. The former is contained, perfect and entire, in the words engraved on the two tables of stone; and the New, which was promised in the Prophets, Paul presents in a few verses. Heb. viii.

      Campbell has written a dissertation of more than 30 octavo pages, on the words diabolos, daimon, and daimonion, all rendered in the common version, devil. O diabolos, the devil, as a proper name, applies exclusively to the arch apostate satan, The others are never confounded with it in the sacred Scriptures, but are applied to an order of beings represented as very numerous. Diabolos means calumniator, traducer, false accuser; and is, sometimes, in this sense, in the singular number, applied to human beings. Thus it is applied to Judas. And in the plural number Paul applies it three times--1 Tim. iii. 11. 2 Tim. iii. 3. Titus ii. 3. Twice it is rendered false accusers, once slanderers, applied to both males and females.

      "What the precise idea of the demons, to whom possessions were ascribed, then was, it would perhaps be impossible for us, with any certainty, to affirm; but as it is evident that the two words, devil and demon, are not once confounded, though the first occurs in the New Testament upward of thirty times, and the second about sixty; they can by no just rule of interpretation, be rendered by the same term. Possessions are never attributed to the being termed the devil; nor are his authority and dominion ever ascribed to demons; nay, when the discriminating appellations of the devil are occasionally mentioned, demon is never given as one.

      "I observe further, that though we cannot discover, with certainty, from all that is said in the gospel concerning possessions, whether the demons were conceived to be the ghosts of wicked men deceased, or lapsed angels, or (as was the opinion of some early christian writers) the mongrel breed of certain angels, (whom they understood by 'the Sons of God' mentioned in Genesis,) and 'the daughters of men.'--it is plain that they were conceived to be malignant spirits. They are exhibited as the causes of the most direful calamities to the unhappy persons whom they possess--dumbness, deafness, madness, palsy, epilepsy, and the like. The descriptive titles given them always denote some ill quality or other. Most frequently they are called pneumata akatharta, unclean spirits; sometimes, pneumata ponera, malign spirits. They are represented as conscious that they are doomed to misery and torments, though their punishment be for a while suspended: 'Art thou come hither,' basanisai emas, 'to torment us before the time?'"

[TLO4 44-69]