when the passage was intended only for accommodation*. The se cond question is, in how far may the difficulty not arise from our ignorance of the circumstances or from the application by the writers being of so general a nature, that we have not sufficient marks to determine whether the words are, or are not a prophecy? As prophecies, either from their want of minute description, or from other circumstances, may be overlooked by us, so those of this character, even when pointed out to us, cannot appear strikingly applicable. But will we thence venture to say, either that such general circumstances never ought to be the subject of prophecy, or that the application, of which we cannot judge, must have been falsely made? And, last of all, supposing that the passage should have been really quoted as a prophecy, and should contain such minute, unusual circumstances, as to furnish striking marks for its application, the interesting question still remains, to what was it designed to apply? In cases where the application has been made but once, no one who believes in prophecy can see any difficulty. But an objection has been made in the case of prophecies, which, although apparently applicable to events in the Jewish history previously to the coming of Jesus, have yet been applied to him by the writers of the New Testament. The first point here to be determined, (as on the supposition made, the prophecy has been actually applied to Jesus,) is, whether it ever applied to any one else? whether it has not been erroneously imagined to apply to any event in the Jewish dispensation? Or if the double application seem to be equally clear, as Isaiah vii. 14. compared with Matthew i. 22, 23. must it necessarily follow that in the one or the other of the cases, the words have been falsely applied? Now, here, it is not enough to say with Michaelis, such quotations "must convey precisely the same meaning in the Old Testament as is given them in the New." For the question will still remain, what is their proper meaning in the Old Testament? Does it, or does it not, comprehend the event to which it has been applied in the New Testament? And this can in no other way be fairly determined but by a comparison of the prophecy with the event. But, it is said, a prophecy cannot have a double application. Is not this, in fact, begging the question? And is this arbitrary assumption of what is essential to prophecy, to be regarded more than what is suggested by a comparison of the passage with the the two events which it describes? Is it not upon the likeness between the prediction and the event, that every application must he made and determined; and if the likeness is strong in both cases, where is the principle by which, while, it must be conjoined with the one, it must be separated from the other? Now, as this principle is not to be found in the nature of language, all the terms of which, excepting proper names, and all the expressions of which, excepting those denoting abstract truths, are in various ways transferable to different subject; so, is it not to be found in the na

* See Marsh's Notes to chap. v. sect, 2. of Mich. Introd. to New Testament, vol. i. and Wetstein's Note on Matt. i. 22.-Matt. ii. 17.-xv. 7, 9.-John xiii. 18. + Compare for instance Deut. xviii. 15, 18. with Acts iii. 20-26. and Psalm xvi. 8-10. with Acts ii. 25-32.

Int. New Testament, vol. i. chap. v. sect. 2.

ture of prophecy, the end of which is, to describe a future event by marks, that it may be recognised as presignificant of it, when it shall have taken place. But this presignificancy, although it could not exist in a passage equally applicable to a whole class of events, or even to several different, altogether unconnected events, may exist, and without being impaired or confounded, when, as in the case of the quotations considered, it only embraces the two parts of one great dispensation, the preceding one of which is known by other types and prophecies to have been so regularly, and extensively, preparatory, typical, and prophetical of the subsequent. When a prophecy is applicable to the two corresponding points in the first and second parts of their harmonious dispensation, it may be said to have but one purpose, and not to be completely fulfilled, till the latter of the two events has explained its whole meaning*.

The remarks on this subject, have been more minute, because of its great importance. For could any error be made out, in the application of passages quoted by the writers of the New Testament as prophetic, or in proof of doctrines, then one consequence that must follow, would be an insuperable objection to any claim of inspiration in their favour. But no such case of manifest error has been discovered; and in a question of this delicacy, it would surely require the most indubitable evidence to outweigh appearances of accuracy, which, the more thoroughly they are examined, there is reason to think, will be found the more convincing. Our own ignorance may be the cause of any seeming difficulty. Such is the opinion of Michaëlist who, with his usual admirable candour adds, having found by actual experience, and a more minute investigation of the subject, that many passages, which other critics as well as myself, had taken for false quotations, were yet properly cited by the Apostles, I trust that future critics will be able to solve the doubts, in the few examples that remain.”

It ought not be forgotten, that at the very worst, no farther consequence could follow, even from such erroneous quotation, than the annihilation of the writers claim to the composition of an infallible record. From such error there could not reasonably be inferred any design to deceive. A fraud of this nature is not more unlike the manifest ingenuousness, with which the penmen of the New generally make use of the language of the Old Testament, than every other part of their conduct as writers: and it is refuted by its inefficiency; for the evidence from the prophecies in these ancient Scriptures, arises, not out of the assertion of the Apostles that they have been fulfilled, but out of that agreement betweeen the prediction and the event, which, independently of their opinion, must satisfy those who compare the two together, that the one must have been recorded with a view to the other. A supposition of fraud in such circumstances, would conceive it employed without a purpose, and with the certain prospect of detection.‡

Compare Warburton's Div. Leg. Book vi. Sect. 6, and Marsh, Lect. 22. + Int. N. T. vol. i. cap. v. sect. 2.

Cook's Inquiry into the Books of the New Testament, pp. 284-304.

Biblical Criticism.

1 John, chap. v. vers. 7, 8.

Τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυρουντες [ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατὴρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. Καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ,] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα· κ, οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ

ἕν εἰσιν.

Modern disputes and cavils have distracted the world with such furious and ungoverned contests, that it is not without reason that controversy has become an object of aversion to the generality of pious men. Indeed, when we consider the unimportance, sometimes the absolute nothingness of the points in debate, we must be struck with surprise at human folly and human weakness.

"Ambigitur quid enim? Castor sciat an docilis plus Brundusium Minucî meliùs via ducat, an Appi." For how will it affect the Christian Dispensation, that one man should understand our Lord's temptation to be real, another visionary? That one considers the six days of the creation to be merely days, another of a period of indefinite length, but more than six thousand years? Or, lastly, to omit many still more senseless and embarrassing strifes of words, of what consequence is it to us to determine precisely whether Jephtha really immolated his daughter, or only consecrated her to Jehovah?

Such discussions undermine the principles of true heart religion. They are the cankerworms which consume the centre of some promising fruit, and leave the mere outside to be admired by the beholders, while they are unconscious of the inward defect.

Not so, I trust, with respect to the subject upon which the following remarks are offered. The point at issue between the Trinitarian and the Unitarian is one which strikes at the root of Christianity itself, and which, however it may be decided by the Omniscient Judge at the last day, must involve thousands in the guilt of impiety. If Christ be God, the Socinian is convicted of denying the Lord who bought him, and who will in consequence deny him when he cometh in the clouds of Heaven. But if the contrary be true, the Trinitarian has been living in the grossest idolatry; worshipping and serving the creature instead of the Creator.

Having, in a previous paper, exhibited a concise view of the Doctrine of the Greek Article as delivered by the late much lamented Bishop of Calcutta, Dr. Middleton, I propose now to apply the rules there laid down to the elucidation of various important passages of the New Testament.

The subject of our present consideration is the text at the head

of this article, the controversy concerning which is known to every body. The disputed passage is inclosed within brackets. Dr. Middleton, from whom I have chiefly taken these remarks, conceives the passage to be necessary on account of the article TO before in the last clause, which must refer to something preceding, viz, to ev in the disputed clause.

The reader will remember what was said respecting the article being used (1.) "when conjointly with its predicate it recalls some former idea, or (2.) when it is intended to serve as the subject of an hypothesis" (see p. 159.).

In order to determine to which of these classes the article in this verse should be referred, it will be necessary to examine, what are the occasions on which the article is inserted before is, in the other parts of the New Testament. The word is, then, occurs with the article in the following passages: Matt. vi. 24; xxiv. 40; xxv. 18, 24; Luke vii. 41; xvi. 13; xvii. 35; xviii. 10; xxiv. 1, 18; John xx. 1, 19; Acts xx. 7; xxiii. 6; Rom. v. 15, 17, 19; 1 Cor. iv. 6; x. 17; xii. 11, 12; Philip ii. 2; 1 Thess. v. 11; Rev. xvii. 10. These are all the passages in which I have observed this usage, and in no one of these instances is the article subservient to the purpose of hypothesis. But let us consider each passage.

Matt. vi. 24, o siç is opposed to o repos, referring to the two masters before mentioned: so also Luke xviii. 10; Acts xxiii. 6; 1 Cor. iv. 6.—Matt. xxiv. 40 it is opposed in the same way to els, thus in 1 Thess. v. 11.-Matt. xxv. 18, 24, TO Ev, the one talent mentioned in verse 15.-We find ó siç used for one of two, Luke vii. 41; xvi. 13; xvii. 35; xxiv. 18.-Rom. v. 15, rov ivòs refers to the one mentioned in the preceding verse, viz. Adam. By rou Evòs ȧvopúπоv in the same verse there is reference to Him, who had been just before mentioned under the appellation of rou μéλovros. The same may be said of verses 17 and 19. Similar to this are 1 Cor. x. 17; xii. 11, 12. It is opposed to ỏ ăλλog by way of reference, Rev. xvii. 10. There is somewhat more difficulty attending Philip. ii. 2, Tò ev OpovouVTEC. But I imagine this to refer to what immediately follows, μηδέν κατ' ἐρίθειαν ἢ κενοδοξίαν, as if the Apostle had said, minding this one thing, &c. This interpretation is favored by the Vulg. "Id ipsum sentientes, nihil per contentionem neque per inanem gloriam." But what principally confirms my opinion is the construction of the sentence following, undèv kar' építetav, which, in having no verb, assumes the form of a proverbial admonition, such as might naturally be made a subject of reference. Thus in undèv ayav we must supply ToLTE, exactly as in the instance before us. I observe that Grotius understood the passage in the manner here proposed his words are: "Hoc unum studentes, maximè scilicet, nequid contentione, &c." The only remaining phrase in which the word εἷς occurs with the article, is τῆ μιᾷ των σάββατων in Luke xxiv. 1; John xx. 1, 19; Acts xx. 7. Here I understand μg in the sense of πρώτος, i. e. as an ordinal. Now ordinals are usually preceded by the article, inasmuch as the nouns with which they

are joined, do, from this very circumstance, become monadic*; and therefore, the article will be required. Vide supra, p. 160, § 3.

If, then, the present reading be correct, it is manifest, from the uniform practice of the writers of the New Testament, that it must be understood with reference to something which has preceded, viz. tov in the 7th. verse. For otherwise the passage before us will be the only exception to this usage.

There are a few passages in the Fathers, and elsewhere, which bear some resemblance to the final clause of ver. 8. It is evident that whatever these may be, they must be reduced to two classes; (1.) those which insert the article, (2.) those which omit it. The first class of quotations afford evidence of the antiquity of the reading TO v, not of the propriety or legitimacy of the phrase; because citations of Scripture are intended to be literal. The second class by omitting the TO (perhaps in order to incorporate it, as it were, into their own writings), shew us what would have been the reading supposing there were no reference. Either of these cases favour the conclusion, that as it now stands TO ev must refer to the former ev. The only alternatives then, which remain are, that the TO in siç rò er may be spurious, or that the whole final clause of ver. 8. may be an interpolation.

The first is supported only by the reading of the Vienna MS. published by Alter, which has eiç ev, in a various reading of Cyril (ëv for siç rò ev), noticed by Griesbach, ad loc. and in the same various reading in the MS. of Euthym. Zigab. which once belonged to Crysanthus, as cited by Matthaï. That MS. omits the disputed passage, and in the last clause reads ǹoi rpɛis av tiot. So also reads the Armenian, and in one place Ecumenius. It is then barely possible that the Article may be spurious, though authorities are, in general, hostile to this supposition.

The other conjecture is scarcely more defensible. Horne says that "the authenticity of the latter part of the 8th. verse was never questioned, as indeed it cannot be, being found in every known MS. that is extant." (Horne's Introd. vol. iv. p. 527.) But many of the Latin MSS. omit the final clause. Mr. Porson (p. 139.) has given us his collation of fifty MSS, of the Vulgate : "Of this number," he informs us, "thirty-two omit the final clause of the 8th. verse; eighteen retain it, but one has it in the text underlined with red lead, two in the margin, one from the first, the other from a second hand." Further on, however, the Professor has as follows : "Abbot Joachim compared the final clauses of the 7th. and 8th. verses, whence he inferred, that the same expression ought to be interpreted in the same manner. Since, therefore, said he, nothing

* I may appear to be contradicting what was said concerning Ordinals in page 163. But let it be remembered that what was then advanced was an irregularity, the present is the regular rule..." The reason of the irregularity seems to be, that while their natural definiteness gives them a right to the Article, it at the same time renders the Article unnecessary." Bishop Middleton, p. 135, &c.