he allows that there is much which has the appearance of fable; as, for instance, the statement that the Roman standards made a sort of obeisance to Jesus.

Amongst other things, the "Acts of Pilate" represent Jesus as accused of healing the sick by magical arts; an accusation which, at first sight, seems unlikely to be brought before a Roman Governor. Tischendorf, however, reminds us of the severity of Tiberius against magicians (Tacit. Annal. ii. 32, Suet. vit. Tib. 36), and argues that the Jews might hope to arouse the Governor to follow the steps of his Sovereign. Pilate's reply is said to have been, that such actions were not so much like casting out devils by the power of an evil spirit, as like the operations of the god Esculapius,-a reply which is thought to be somewhat in harmony with the character of Pilate. On receiving his wife's message, Pilate turns to the Jews and says, "Know ye that my wife is a devout person, and inclined to follow your religion (μᾶλλον ιουδαίζει σὺν ὑμῖν) ? They say unto him, Yea. Pilate saith to them, Lo! my wife hath sent, saying, Have thou nothing to do, &c.; to which the Jews reply, "Said we not to thee, that this man is a magician; behold, he hath sent a dream to thy wife." There is nothing, perhaps, inconsistent here with the Gospel narrative; and Tischendorf argues that it is not likely that Pilate would not have endeavoured to use so unexpected an incident as his wife's message, in order to acquit Jesus. Nor, on the other hand, is it likely that the Jews would not have attempted, in some way, to destroy the force of it.

A leading feature of the trial, as given in these "Acts of Pilate," is the presence of persons who took the part of our Lord before the Governor. Nicodemus, the man healed at the pool of Bethesda, the man born blind, the man who had been a cripple, the leper, the woman with an issue of blood, with many others, appear on His behalf as their benefactor. Tischendorf admits that this list might easily have been made up from the Gospels; yet he is disposed to see some truth under this part of the story. Nor does he think it a greater variation from the Scripture account, than already exists between Matthew, who speaks of both the thieves as reviling, and Luke, who tells us of the faith exhibited by one of them. Moreover, the women who followed weeping furnish an indication that popular sympathy was not wholly wanting. Again; Pilate would not have put it to the people whether he should release Jesus or Barabbas, had he not seen some evidence of sympathy among them. Yet how could he have detected this, had none but accusers come forward? Hence it may be supposed that the subsequent fury of the people was by reason of the persuasions of the priests, to which Matthew and Mark expressly refer, and leave room, therefore, to suppose that previous to such persuasion the popular temper may have been different. Nor was it alien from the character of Nicodemus, who so boldly undertook the

burial of our Lord, and on a previous occasion took his part in the Sanhedrim (John vii. 50), that he should be foremost among His defenders.

The "Acts of Pilate " also mention that the Jews brought forward slanders against our Lord's birth, and state the evidence of witnesses to disprove them. This Tischendorf considers as legendary, inasmuch as calumnies of this kind were, so far as can be ascertained, of much later origin, and arose from a perversion of the Gospel account. A remarkable answer to Pilate's question, "What is Truth ?" is here attributed to our Lord: "Truth is from heaven." "Is there, then," asks Pilate, "no truth on earth?" To which the reply is, "Thou seest how they that speak the truth are judged of them that have power on earth." It is conceded, however, that the description of Pilate not staying for a reply, as given by St. John, is more impressive.

When Pilate asks, "What shall I do to thee?" Jesus is made to say, "As it is given unto thee;" and Pilate enquiring," How is it given to me?" our Lord is said to have replied, "Moses and the prophets shewed before concerning my death and the resurrection." This is surely highly improbable, and tends to represent the Governor as the conscious and almost innocent agent of the Divine purposes, rather than the guilty and weak man unconsciously made to subserve the ends of Providence.

There is more likelihood in the assertion that the Jews cited the fears of Herod the Great, the adoration of the Magi, and the massacre of the Infants, in proof that Jesus was to be dreaded on political grounds. Tischendorf thinks that possibly this has some connexion with Pilate sending him to Herod; or that perhaps their arguments were adduced to Pilate in answer to his observation, that the then Herod found no fault in Him. If so and if Pilate was influenced by the conduct of Herod the Great, that act of deference on his part may have had something to do with his reconciliation with that monarch's son.

Our readers may remember that Mr. Birks, in his "Horæ Evangelicæ," attributes that reconciliation to the courtesy shewn by Pilate in sending our Lord to Herod, as soon as he knew he was of Galilee-thus owning his jurisdiction; just as he supposes the estrangement to have arisen from his contrary conduct on a previous occasion. (Luke xiii. 1.)

We have thus sought to put before our readers an epitome of a curious tract, not without interest, yet speculating on subjects on which any definite conclusion is nearly impossible. If, perchance, some fragments of truth are enshrined in this early Christian production, they appear to be surrounded and overlaid by much that is legendary. Nor can we attach very much value to such doubtful inquiries. However, as we are not aware that they are likely to have any hurtful result, we thus state them-valeant quantum. But we should deeply regret to see the day in this country when critical ingenuity, in ba

lancing à priori the probable and improbable, should ever be received as a substitute for legitimate investigation of external evidence. It should not be forgotten, that in the exercise of his critical discernment, Strauss was led to pronounce "the amber witch" as unquestionably a veracious history, while he resolved the Gospels into myths.

BRIEF NOTICES OF NEW BOOKS.

Theophylacti in Evangelium S. Matthæi Commentarius. Ed. Gr. et Lat. Gul. E. Humphrey, S. T. B.

THIS Commentary on St. Matthew is one of a Series of Fragments of the Patristic writings published lately by the authority of the Syndics of the Pitt Press at Cambridge. It is earnestly to be wished that the late changes which have been effected in the management of that establishment may lead to the publication of works more worthy its connexion with a great University. It is surely beneath the dignity of an Academic body to prepare text-books for secondary examinations. The Edition of Theophylact is not, indeed, included in this class, but it is difficult to see for whose use it is intended. The scholar would willingly dispense with the Latin Version, and would certainly require some critical apparatus; and the ordinary reader will not even wade through the Latin, to find the beautiful thoughts which might have attracted him in a condensed English translation. Mr. Humphrey has executed the limited task proposed to him with care; but it is earnestly to be desired that both the Writer and the Press should be employed on works which would have larger probability of circulation, and would more abundantly reward the student of them.

A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians; with a revised Translation, by C. J. Ellicott, M.A.

AN apology is due to Mr. Ellicott for our delay in expressing the pleasure, which, in many respects, his Commentary has given us. The late publication of a second volume on the Epistle to the Ephesians, proves that his Work has been welcomed as warmly by others as by ourselves. In this Commentary Mr. Ellicott has confined himself to a close examination of the language as distinguished from the teaching of the Apostle; and in so doing, he has furnished an admirable guide for all those who believe rightly, that a minute investigation of words is the only sound basis on which a complete interpretation of the text can be built. The book is thus, as it were, an applied Grammar of the Greek of the New Testament; and while we should be inclined to differ from Mr. Ellicott in some details, his method and principles must approve themselves to every scholar. Our readers will probably be glad to see Mr. Elli

cott's judgment on the famous passage, Gal. iii. 20. The note is a good specimen of his clear and simple style.

“20. ó de peσitns]' every mediator,' the generic idea of a mediator, Winer, Gr. § 17. 1, p. 116, Herm. Iph. Aul. pref. p. 15; not this mediator, the mediator just mentioned,' as Brown, p. 158, n. The difficulties in the interpretation of this verse are so great, that some commentators (comp. Rück.) have candidly avowed their inability to trace the connexion between it and the preceding and succeeding verses; while others, as Michaelis and Lücke, Stud. u. Krit. for 1828, p. 83 sq., have endeavoured to prove it a gloss, a supposition à priori improbable, as there is no variation found either in the words or their order. Out of the mass of interpretations, now amounting to nearly 300, those of Schleiermacher, Winer, and Meyer best deserve attention. A brief notice of these will serve to illustrate the precise nature of the difficulties.

"In the first part of the verse all are agreed, Now (dè metabatic) every mediator involves the idea of more than one:' in the concluding clause they thus differ. (1) Schleierm., adopted by Usteri, Lehrb. ii. 1. 2, p. 179; But God is one '-in reference to His promises, free, unfettered by conditions. (2) Winer; But God is one'-one part only; the people of Israel must be the other part. Hence they are bound to the law. (3) Meyer; 'But God (on the contrary) is one-and one only (ein Einziger); there is then a fundamental difference in the number of parties concerned in the law and the promise. Schl. and Win. thus connect ver. 20 with ver. 19 as an epexegesis ; Mey. joins it with ver. 21, making it St. Paul's own statement of a difficulty that might arise in a reader's mind. Meyer's interpretation has this advantage over Schleiermacher's, that it preserves the numerical idea which plainly belongs to eis; and this over Winer's, that ó cós, which is clearly the subject, is not turned into the predicate. But in the undue stress it places on the clearly unemphatic eis, as well as the doubtfulness of the logic (for God, though an ein Einziger,' used a mediator in the law,) it is far from satisfactory.

66

Perhaps the following explanation is less open to objections. The context is a brief but perspicuous statement of the four distinctive features of the law (see above) with tacit reference to the enayyeλía. Three of these are passed over; the last, as the most important, is noticed: the law was with, the promise was without, a mediator.' Verse 20 thus appears a syllogism of which the conclusion is omitted: Now every mediator appertains not to one (but two). But (in the promise) God is one (not two). (Therefore in the promise a mediator appertains not to God.) Is then the law (a dispensation which, besides other distinctions, involved a mediator) opposed to the promises which rested (alone) on God (and involved no mediator)? No, verily. The only difficulty is in the prop. minor. How was God one, not two? Because He is one by Himself, and Abraham is one by himself, says Baur, Apost. Paul. p. 583. But this is manifestly insufficient; for the same might be said in reference to the law,-God was one, the children of Israel one, and yet a mediator was used, We seem then fully justified in looking for a deeper and more theological meaning. God was one, because He was both giver and receiver united; giver as the Father; receiver as the Son, the σπéрμа & éηууeλra. Thus every thing becomes forcible, logical, and as the very brevity would lead us to expect, theologically significant and profound. See Windisch in loc., to whom the credit of this latter interpretation seems due; so also Dr. Scott, in Theol. Critic, No. 4. The reader who desires to examine some of the other interpretations may consult, for the earlier, Bonitz, Plur. de Gal. iii. 10, Sentent. Examinatæ. Lips. 1800; for the later, Winer's Excursus, and Meyer in loc." (pp. 52, 53.)

CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 212.

4 D

Foundation and Superstructure.-A Sermon by A. P. Stanley, M.A., Canon of Canterbury Cathedral. Murray.

It is our hope, before long, to pay our respects more leisurely and carefully to Mr. Stanley in his new character as an expositor of Holy Scripture. In the meantime, we present our readers with a characteristic passage from a Sermon on laying the first stone of a new Theological College at Lancing, in Sussex. We are not sure that Mr. Stanley did not regard the whole proceedings of the day, and the spirit of the undertaking, with a more mixed feeling than he chooses to express; and, now and then, his inward questionings seem to ooze out; and those questionings, we have little doubt, would have been more multiplied in our own case. The rule with a class of writers to which the Author belongs, is to recognize whatever of good they find in the proceedings of a good man, and to leave the evil to a great extent unrebuked. Of course, if charity gains by such a line of criticism, truth may suffer; because few even of the worst heretics are men without some good intentions, and there is no system or institution without its good points. The Sermon bears an eloquent and cordial testimony to the late Archdeacon Hare, whom men of very different schools have conspired to honour; and whom we have never censured without doing violence to our own nature. But now for the passage. The Sermon is on 1 Cor. iii. 11, 12, 13. "Other foundation can no man lay," &c.

"And, first, let us speak of the Foundation. What is the first, the essential object which claims our support and sympathy? Is it that we all agree in every detail of the superstructure-in every method of instruction, in every practice and opinion, of those who are engaged in this work? No, not so. It may be, indeed, that most of us are so agreed; it might possibly be that we were all so agreed. But it is not this which really calls forth our Christian sympathy for any design such as this which is now before us. It is because it belongs to the foundation-stone of the life and spirit of Christ; it is because of the Christian energy and self-denial and love, which we believe to lie at the bottom of the whole. As in the material building, as in the natural world, so also the foundation on which all the good and great works of Christendom have been raised will be found, if we dig deep enough. It is like the granite foundation of the round world itself; sometimes running underground, invisible to human eyes; often cutting across all the other strata of the earth's surface; sometimes heaving itself up, here, there, everywhere, when and where we least expect it; throwing up here the fantastic crag, there the towering peak, here the long range which divides or unites the races of the world. So it is with all the most enduring of the works of men. It is the same foundation of the mind which is in Christ Jesus'-it is the same granite rock which forms the basis of the happiness and peace of our homes; it is this which sustains the patience and calmness of the Christian soldier; it is this which throughout the world has heaved up from the dull and level surface of everyday life the noble institutions, the heroic deeds, of past and present timeswhich strikes athwart the superficial and secondary boundaries that overlay and separate those who are in heart united. The same central fire has fused the same primeval mass; the central fire of faith, and hope, and love-the primeval rock of law, and justice, and duty. Such a fragment of the great foundation we may humbly trust to find in the spirit in which was conceived the institution of which one important part is this day to be inaugurated." (pp. 7, 8.)