« ПретходнаНастави »
College, in Ireland, and of S. Peter's College, Radley, near Oxford. The closing and more secluded years of his long and laborious life were spent on a labour of delight in the composition of the Microscope of the New Testament, with a twofold object of disproving the destructive theories of modern neologians and of exploding the supposition that the Alexandrine Greek of the New Testament is not in its expression as minutely accurate as the Greek of the classics. With such unclassical forms as othkw and others before us in the Greek Testament, we are scarcely in a position to accord a very high measure of success to Dr. Sewell's singularly ingenious attempt to put the Greek of the Greek Testament on the high level of the Greek of the classics in point of minute accuracy; we can, however, most cordially accord him our fullest gratitude for his most successful refutation of the various destructive theories set forth by the neologian school. Most fully, too, do we enter into the impression produced on Dr. Sewell's own mind by his microscopic study of the Greek Testament when he declares, “Yet the more I study, the more minutely I look into the force, the exactness, the deep meaning of every single word, the profounder becomes my reverence, the more awful my sense of the importance of every jot and every tittle of Holy Writ. The most striking and original portion of the work is that which treats of the origin of the Gospels as declared in Scripture itself. Here our author's arguments rest on testimony which even from a human standpoint is clearly conclusive, because it is concurrent and independent. The fact most prominently set forth, then, in dealing with the history of the four Gospels is that they were arrangements of narratives given by the Twelve Apostles, or confirmed by them, as in the case of S. Paul's Evangelium. According to Dr. Sewell's theory, the Gospel of S. John (against which the neologians have exhausted their arguments and learning) was pro vided, under Apostolical sanction, with the guarantee and testimony of the Apostolic body to its accuracy, to supply more advanced teaching in the deeper mysteries of the faith, when this became more needed. Dr. Sewell maintains that this Gospel was not published in the early days of the Church, because it was not desirable at that time to raise questions surrounded with strong temptations to human curiosity, controversy, and speculation. To such a twofold arrangement of Divine teaching, elementary and advanced, Dr. Sewell finds a parallel in our Church teaching, in the catechism for the young and the articles for the more advanced minds.
In his treatment of the force of particular words and phrases in the Greek Testament (and especially in the treatment of the Greek article and the tenses of Greek verbs), Dr. Sewell is for the most part especially happy, and the successful results of his subtle scholarship and discriminating criticism find a singular corroboration in the critical works of Canon Lightfoot, the greatest living authority on the subject. This is all the more satisfactory when we come to bear in mind that so many of Dr. Sewell's arguments in defence of the Divine origin of the Gospel are more or less intimately bound up with the special force he finds in the terms used. It is, however, not a little remarkable that in discussing the exact sense to be assigned to the various Greek terms rendered in English by say' or speak,' to the confusion, if not to the entire exclusion, of the special force of the original, Dr. Sewell is not quite as satisfactory as we could wish, though he is sufficiently accurate to support his arguments by most of the distinctions he correctly points out and rightly insists upon. We cannot, for example, admit that Dr. Sewell exhausts the forces of, déyet in the Greek Testament when he limits them to the telling of a tale or the employment of words in connexion with reasoning ;' nor can we accept without certain qualifications his remark that 'Our Lord six times over (Matt. v. 21-44) contrasts éppéon, it was said,' and léyw, 'I say. Here we take léyw as 'I command,' a sense given to the word even in classical Greek by Sophocles, Xenophon, and Demosthenes, and equivalent to kedɛów, but distinguished from it occasionally as a verbal and immediate command—a sense clearly assigned to it in many passages in the Greek Testament, as Matt. viii. 4, 9, Rom. iii. 19 (öra ó vóuos léyal). It is remarkable, too, how often S. Paul uses déyw of commands of the Law, Scripture, and of God, and in 1 Cor. ix. 8 we find the remarkable contrast kata är putov raīra lalw and ó vóuoç taūra Néyel, which is repeated in xiy. 21-34. It is entirely owing to this sense (command) of léyw that we have lúyos used in the sense of a commandant, as S. Mark vii. 13, 1 John ii. 7, where our translators in the Authorised Version have actually rendered it by 'commandment'-a sense, too, which has passed into our long-naturalised English term decalogue. Two other cognate points we must here note—(1) that no sense could be more in harmony with the derivation and original sense of léyw, to lay down, as in English we have law (i.e. what is laid down by authority as a rule) from the old Saxon lagan (to lay down), and (2) no sense could be more appropriate to our Blessed Lord's character as the Logos, speaking directly and immediately in His own person. It is precisely in this relation that we find léyw contrasted with éppeln by our Lord Himself. He speaks the Divine command directly and immediately, for His word is not spoken by the instrumentality of any prophet, according to the common formula, tò pnOềv dià toū προφήτου λεγόντος. On the cognate term φημί Dr. Sewell tells us that, though so common in classical Greek,' it does not 'occur at all in the Greek Testament.' This is a singular oversight, and very misleading, for though onui itself does not often occur, yet éon is of constant occurrence, or rather recurrence, in every part of the Greek Testament; but what is peculiar about onuí is this, that its usage appears limited to the First Epistle to the Corinthians, as 1 Cor. vii. 29 (TOūTO dé onue). (See also ch. X. 19, xv. 50.) The whole work, we regret to say, abounds in too many inadvertencies of this kind, happily not detracting much, if anything, from the solid strength and relevant application of the author's reasoning, which is well supported on other grounds, but such inadvertencies clearly indicate the sad want of Dr. Sewell's finishing touches and of his final revision for the press.
Commentary on S. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. By FREDERICK
ADOLPH PHILIPPI, Doctor and Ordinary Professor of Theology
at Rostock. (Edinburgh : T. and T. Clark.) This first instalment of Professor Philippi's Commentary forms the second of the two volumes issued to the subscribers to their Foreign Theological Library by Messrs. Clark. It is not a work of first rank, but sufficiently able and learned, and what we should call Evangelical in the theological character of the notes. In the Introduction the author lays down (we think rightly), in opposition to Baur, Schwegler, and Volkmar, that the purpose of the Epistle was not polemic or apologetic, but friendly and hortatory. Nor can he see that it is directed against the Judaizing movement which desired to exclude Gentiles from the Church.
"No other opposition, then, to Pauline universalism is even conceivable than that which all Judaistic false teachers and sects actually adopted. Besides, it is such an opposition alone that the Apostle combats in the Roman Epistle. He contends only against righteousness by works, not against a designed exclusion of the Gentile world altogether; and, indeed, against the work-righteousness of Judaism, not against the workrighteousness of the Jewish Christian portion of the Roman Church. Had the Roman Jewish Christians followed this course, he would have attacked it directly, and have withstood them as he did the Galatian false teachers and the Galatian churches, and no consideration of any kind whatever would have induced the Gentile Apostle to treat gently a tendency striking at the very root of the Gospel. For the rest, the same view must be held if the Roman Church had adopted not the ordinary Galatian exclusivism, but the one described by Baur; for this, so far from being, as Dr. Baur supposes, gentler, was harsher than the Galatian form, seeing that it excluded even the conditional admission of the Gentile world to the Messianic salvation. If now, on the other hand, we are reminded (Baur, i. 331) that Paul did not in Rome, as in Galatia, see his own work overthrown, and had not to encounter opposition to his Apostolic authority as directly hostile; that here he had not to do with a Church that was going back, but with a Church, as he might hope, advancing from imperfection to perfection,-it is obvious to rejoin that in that case Paul would the more decisively and fearlessly have repelled false teachers so misleading the Church, and would have plainly and forcibly admonished and warned the Church itself. But here indeed everything returns to the starting-point, namely, to the hypothesis that not only the Judaistic heresy of the Apostolic age, but Apostolic Jewish Christianity in general, was merely a particularism holding righteousness by works'-(p. 16.)
The authenticity of this Epistle is so universally allowed both by friends and enemies, that the commentator is enabled to take this for granted. With the question of its date he does not deal. The Pauline Theory of the Inspiration of Holy Scripture: an Inquiry
into the present Unsettled State of Opinion concerning the Nature of Personal Inspiration, with the view of placing on a Consistent and Scriptural Basis the Inspiration of Holy Scripture. By William ERSKINE ATWELL, D.D., Rector of Clonoe. (London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1878.) Holy SCRIPTURE often asserts, but never defines, its own inspiration
a fact which the writer of this laborious inquiry has not weighed perhaps as much as he ought to have done. Had he done so, he might not have thought it possible to distinguish so absolutely inspiration from revelation. He would understand by 'inspiration' an antecedent process to revelation, preparatory to it. He defines it as follows :
“The supernatural actuating energy of the Spirit of God on the mind and heart of an individual, preparing him for the reception and for the manifestation of any gifts which he vouchsafes to bestow'-(p. 85).. After this he holds, knowledge is communicated to inspired men by revelation, which revelation includes (pp. 98, 99) the words in which it is subsequently to be expressed. We have the following singular result: that Dr. Atwell upholds the view known as "verbal inspiration,' and yet thinks that the term 'inspiration' is improperly applied to the Holy Scriptures, or indeed to writings at all. It can ex vi termini, as he has defined it, have no meaning as applied to other than human beings.
The fact is that, however we may now draw a scientific distinction between them, the sacred writers use 'inspiration' and 'revelation’ as convertible terms; and whether he says tav de älly ánokalvoon, revealed (1 Cor. xiv. 23), or nãoa ypaor OEÓT VEVOTOÇ, inspired (2 Tim. iii. 16), S. Paul is obviously referring in different ways to the communication by the Divine Spirit of supernatural knowledge, without attempting minutely to define the stages or method of the process.
Such a course is in our view far preferable to that of over-curiously defining that which is not really within the scope of human knowledge, viz. the method of the Divine communications within the soul of man. But we cannot see that either Dr. Atwell's view, or the ordinary acceptation of inspiration, is untenable, or even that they exclude each other upon any important point so completely as he appears to suppose.
Opera Patrum Apostolicorum. Textum recensuit, Adnotationibus
Criticis, Exegeticis, Historicis illustravit, Versionem Latinam,
Laupp, 1878. The present edition is founded on the fourth edition of the same edited in 1855 by the learned Dr. C. J. Hefele, then Professor of Theology at Tubingen. During the quarter of a century which has elapsed since that time, the materials for deciding upon the genuineness of treatises claiming to be the work of persons contemporary with the Apostles have greatly increased. Not to speak of Dressel's critical edition, which has gone through a second issue during the interval, the Greek text of the Shepherd of Hermas has been discovered and edited, and new versions of the Latin have been issued
Versio Latina altera vel Palatina quæ dicitur ac Versio Æthiopica.? A new and complete text of the Epistle of Barnabas was afforded by the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus in 1859;! and Hilgenfeld's edition (1877), based upon the Constantinopolitan MS., has done still more to settle the text of the Epistle. And, finally, the fourteen and a half chapters of the Epistle of Clement of Rome, missing up to that time in the extant copies, were supplied in 1875 from a MS. in the library
of the most holy Sepulchre in Fanar of Constantinople,' hitherto unknown, and given to the world by Mgr. Philotheos Bryennios, Metropolitan of Serræ.
The work of Dr. Hefele had therefore in every respect become antiquated, and was committed to Dr. F. X. Funk to re-edit and adapt to the completer information of the present day. He has had to do part of his work twice over, because of one of these literary ' finds;' or, as he expresses it, 'codex ille Constantinopolitanus inventus est, ita ut commentarius in tres priores, hujus libri scripturas, quem jam perfeceram, retractandus mihi esset.' . He has properly excluded from the present edition the Pseudo-Ignatian Epistles, and promises in a separate form the Corpus Pseudo-Ignatianum et Fragmenta Papiæ, and other relics of antiquity.
The general execution of the work is painstaking and laborious. In Prolegomena and Notes the author has taken care to acquaint himself with the very latest publications bearing upon his subject. Thus we notice a reference to Mr. R. W. Cunningham's edition of the Epistle of Barnabas, published last year, and another to Dr. Lightfoot's “Appendix' to his Clement of Rome. The work is learned and carefully executed, and is sure to be useful. An Eirenicon of the Eighteenth Century. Proposal for Catholic
Communion. By a MINISTER OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. New Edition, with Introduction, Notes, and Appendices. Edited by HENRY NUTCOMBE OXENHAM, M.A. 8vo. pp. 327. (London:
Rivingtons, 1879.) This extremely interesting and timely volume is a reprint of a small book anonymously published in London in 1704, then brought out again at the seemingly most unpromising and unlikely place and date of Dublin, r781, with two subsequent London issues in 1801 and
abstract, and so to speak unpractical, topic, whose very authorship is still only conjectural, attest the weightiness of its tone, and the interest with which the writer has invested his subject. And this is all the more noticeable because he was obviously a man of what would in the present day be regarded as safe and moderate views, and by no means a ‘Romanizer, though he was certainly above the doctrinal level of the Nonjurors, amongst whom, in despite of their attacks on him, he has been erroneously reckoned; for that level, contrary to the opinion current amongst those who do not personally know their
1 The statement in the Præfatio' may perhaps mislead. The complete text of Barnabas was not published until 1863 by Dressel. London