fable." But when things so plain and so simple are not discovered till a much later period, their force as types remains the same, while the religion itself is freed from the objection which would otherwise infallibly have been brought against it. If there had been no difficulty for us to elucidate in the matter of the passover and last supper, would it eventually have strengthened or weakened the case of Christianity? It would have weakened it undoubtedly, as laying it open to the suspicion of fraud and forgery, whereas such difficulties when solved exhibit a force of "undesigned coincidence," which far surpasses any evidence that can be gleaned from matters lying on the surface. And how differently does the argument addressed to a Jew from our point of view, identifying Jesus most clearly both with the Paschal lamb and the sacrifice of expiation, appeal to him from that in which almost every type important in his eyes halts and hobbles to a most unsatisfactory solution.

Nor is it reasonable to object that Barabbas was historically too unimportant a personage to occupy the position of counterpart to our Lord in such a case. How many people are great in their day, who are almost lost from recollection afterwards! Vixere fortes ante Agamemnona. And Barabbas was a déoμios δέσμιος 'EПIΣHMOΣ (Matt. xxvii. 16), a "notable prisoner," who ΕΠΙΣΗΜΟΣ had headed a ETAZIZ or insurrection against the Romans (Mark xv. 7), in which blood had been shed, though it is not recorded to what extent. But the mention of the ovσTAσIÊTAI in St. Mark and the description of the man given by St. Matthew, taken together, certainly indicate an outlaw of more than ordinary consideration, who must have been at the head of a considerable band of men, perhaps amounting to a little army. No doubt at the time, he was a kind of popular hero. And in considering such a subject we ought to look upon things as they existed at the time, and not take an ex post facto historical view of events, judging of them by our own notions and prejudices or even by our own better and fuller information.

It will perhaps be worth while to state the manner in which we were led to our theory of the fulfilment of the symbolism of the great day of atonement, and the corroboration it has met with from living commentators, as it will shew that more minds than one have been working independently in the same direction. We believe it was in 1843 that a friend heard and recounted to us a sermon of Mr. Melville's, preached on Good Friday, in which he endeavoured to shew, (1) that the importance of the ceremonies of that day in the Jewish economy was so great, that they must have their counterpart in the actual history of our Saviour; and (2) that the history of the young

man, who fled and left the linen cloth, with which he was girded, in the hands of our Lord's captors (Mark xiv. 51, 52) was simply introduced in order to exhibit the fulfilment of the type of the scape-goat. This reasoning haunted us for some time, and we were equally unable to resist the arguments of Mr. Melville in favour of the necessity of a fulfilment of the type, and to accept his view of that fulfilment. We were, however, at length led to the conclusion, that it was not the young man who escaped, but Barabbas, who was deliberately released, that completed the anti-typical fulfilment of the ceremony of the scape-goat.

The same view appears to have been ventilated by a German of the name of Krafft and adopted by Luthardt, whose work on St. John was published in 1853. Just about the same time appeared Sepp's Leben Jesu, which contains the same theory. Thus it would seem that in all probability much about the same time and without correspondence or knowledge of each other's views, a Lutheran, a Roman Catholic, and an Anglican were led to the very same theory of the symbolism of this extraordinary ceremony. This view has also been adopted by Dean Alford from Luthardt, and that as long ago as 1854, though we were not aware of it, as we only possess the first and fourth editions of his first volume, and never had the second edition to our knowledge in our hands till the very day on which we are writing the present article. Altogether this is one of the most singular instances on record of several persons being led independently to the same conclusions, which had previously lain hid from the wise and learned. And we think we may fairly express a confidence that such a threefold cord will be found too strong to be broken by the touch of so arbitrary a rule as that laid down by Dean Ellicott with respect to typology.

We regret deeply that Dean Ellicott should in this case have been led to range himself on the side of the men, who live with their faces turned backwards, and who are willing to accept nothing that has not antiquity in its favour. Every man becomes an "authority" after he is dead, and the lapse of a few years will soon convert a new and startling interpretation into an old and stale one. And in the present day it is impossible to put enquiry down by a list of names or by anything that can be ultimately reduced to mere authority. If the Essays and Reviews shew nothing else, they at any rate shew this. We are ourselves convinced that the old orthodoxy is in the main in the right, and that the splendour of the truths it maintains will beam far more brightly after the windows have been cleaned, which let in the rays of the everlasting sun to its precious stores. But theologians have both collected a large quantity of dross

and sparkling tinsel along with the pure gold, silver and precious stones, and also in all probability left a great many jewels of "purest ray serene" unvalued and unconsidered through unskilfulness inattention or pre-occupation, which may after all have been heaven-sent for reasons unknown to us, but which a future age will more clearly perceive. Our duty is not to frame arbitrary rules like those by which Dean Ellicott would tether us, but to endeavour by God's help to be animated by a sincere love of the truth and the truth only, to make use of all prudential cautions that may be reasonably suggested to us, and neither to repudiate the old, because the germ of subsequent errors are visible in some portions of it, nor to reject the new, simply because it is new and may perhaps be startling to us. St. Paul gives us the true rule, "Test and try all things and hold fast that which is good" (1 Thess. v. 21). And whether we have to deal with those who depreciate the Fathers or with those who decry the labours of modern divines, let us always remember that our Lord himself has told us, that "Every scribe instructed as regards the kingdom of heaven, is like a householder who brings forth out of his store things new and old."

ROMANS III. 5-8.

This is commonly said to be a very difficult passage, and certainly the current interpretations of it are difficult enough. Neither is the matter mended by Professor Jowett, who persists in considering the interrogative un as equivalent to nonne, in spite of Winer and every other grammarian and lexicographer of respectability. The fact is, that if the Professor used his own language with the utter lack of precision, which he is so fond of ascribing to St. Paul, he would never have obtained his present reputation. If he would but just take his own entire dependence on beauty and precision of language into consideration, he would, perhaps, be less ready to accuse St. Paul of a misuse of common particles which any good Cambridge tutor would underscore with very black marks indeed in a pupil's exercise. However, we think that a very simple observation will set this apparently difficult passage in a clear and unclouded light.

Let us first translate it carefully with a strict regard to both grammar and dictionary.

"But if our unrighteousness proves God's righteousness, what shall we say? Shall we say, 'God is unjust who brings his anger to bear? (I am speaking in human fashion-Never! Since in that case how shall God judge the world?) For if the truth of God has by my falsehood

abounded to His glory, why any longer am I, too, judged as a sinner? And shall we say, as we are slandered, and some assert we say, Let us do the evil things,that the good things may come? But the condemnation of such

people is just."

It will be observed that especial attention is here paid to the meaning of un interrogative=num; and that from Tí èpoûμev in 5, époûμev is supplied to uǹ in 5, and to kaì un in 8. But one further remark is required to make the whole passage plain and simple. St. Paul answers the supposition of verse 7 by anticipation in verse 6, and in fact interrupts the sequence of the objection on account of his pious horror at the blasphemy. Verse 7 gives the reason of the supposition which follows un, in verse 5, and by a careful attention to this and the preceding remarks the reasoning of the passage may easily be drawn out without a flaw in either grammar or logic, somewhat as follows.

Apparently, from what has preceded, the righteousness of God is proved and recommended to man by the misconduct of the Jews. What then shall we Jews say under the circumstances?

(1). Shall we say that we are being unfairly treated by God, and that He is unjust in punishing us for what is but a means of carrying out His own ends? (St. Paul here interposes a caution that he is speaking in mere human fashion, and not as an inspired teacher ought to speak). For if the truth of God has been exhibited in greater plenitude by my falsehood,—continues the Jew-why am I to be judged and punished as a sinner for what is rather meritorious, judging by its results, than otherwise?

To this St. Paul replies or, rather, has already replied in his parenthetical exclamation, "This will never do, for it is inconsistent with what we know will be the case, namely, God's judgment of the world; and as we are sure that God both has the right to judge the world, and will judge the world, therefore it is clear that any statement of our case, as Jews, which is inconsistent with this, must be rejected.

(2). Shall we say, Let us do evil that good may come? Shall we adopt the principle that the end sanctifies the means?

To this St. Paul replies, "That the charge of holding such an immoral doctrine has been brought against himself and other Christian teachers, but that persons holding it are justly condemned on moral grounds, and that therefore this argument, also, must be rejected.

A. H. W.

PETER'S DENIAL OF CHRIST.

(Continued from No. I., New Series, page 134.)

Ir was now midnight, and the preliminary examination before Annas had already taken place. During the time of the passover, or in the months of March and April, though the days are warm in Palestine, the nights and mornings are very cold, so much so, that, according to some authorities, snow occasionally falls. In the midst of the open court, therefore, the servants and officers had kindled a fire, around which they sat and warmed themselves, and Peter came and sat down with them. The maid, who had opened to him the door, observed him, and looking him in the face, on which the light of the fire was reflected, she recognized his features, which she had previously seen, perhaps by a torch light, and she accosted him and said, "Art not thou also one of this man's disciples ?" (John), or "Thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth" (Matthew and Mark). Then presently turning to the servant, she said, "This man was also with him" (Luke). He denied it, not once only, but, in different words, again and yet again; and presently was heard the first crowing of the cock.

But were there then cocks in Jerusalem? The Mishna affirms that they could not be kept there, because they scraped up unclean worms; and, to explain the sacred narrative, recourse has been had to the notion that the Roman guards stationed in the city were accustomed to announce the several watches of the night by sounding a trumpet in imitation of the crowing of a cock. But the cock is not an unclean bird, nor is the keeping of it prohibited by the law of Moses. And if it were not usual among the Jews to keep this bird, can we therefore conclude that the Romans did not keep it; and may not this cock have been one in the possession of a foreigner who resided near the palace of the high priest? It is admitted by Reland, that whilst it was not lawful to breed cocks in Jerusalem, the Jews were not prohibited from buying them to eat, and that therefore the cock mentioned in the Gospel might be in the house of a Jew who designed to kill it for his own table; or may have been kept in the precincts of Pilate or of a Roman officer or soldier."

It is a strange and significant creature, this "bird of dawning," as Shakspeare calls it. Pliny thus speaks of it, "Next to the peacock, the animal that acts as our watchman by night,

• See Harris' Natural History of the Bible.