Ch. ii. 14, appears thus,-" When, therefore, the Gentiles, who are by nature without law, perform the precepts of the law," &c. This rendering is more elaborately defended than any other in the volume. In an appendix of twelve pages devoted to this verse, the author says,

"The common version represents the Gentiles, who have not the law, as doing by nature the things contained in the law. This representation is irreconcileable with the accounts of human nature, which are given in the scriptures, and by the apostle Paul himself. In Ephes. ii. 3, his words are, 'We were by nature children of wrath, even as others; thus plainly asserting, that all, both Jews and Gentiles alike, were partakers of a degenerate and sinful nature."-(p. 30.)

Nor is there anything, we reply, in the statement of the verse in question, as it is ordinarily understood, to negative this view. The apostle is simply proving that the Gentiles, no less than the Jews, have a law, not that they perfectly fulfil it. His argument is this. In a state of nature, as it is called, the heathen occasionally perform actions more or less moral. These evince a moral sense; in other words, an internal law, similar in its character, though not in its promulgation, to that of the Jews.

No more than this being intended, it is labour in vain to argue thus energetically,

"Such being the case, it is inconceivable how any, whether Jew or Gentile, should by nature perform the precepts of the law, which is holy, and just, and good. To maintain such a statement is identical with declaring, in opposition to all experience and scripture, that a corrupt tree may bring forth good fruit."-(p. 30.)

Mr. W. proceeds,—

“ The Greek of this passage is, ὅταν γὰρ ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα φύσει τὰ τοῦ vóuov Ton, and the meaning of it depends on the placing of a comma. If the comma be put before pure, the sense is, 'For when the Gentiles which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law,' which is the common version; while in this, the comma is set after pure, which gives the meaning, When the Gentiles, who are by nature without law, perform,' &c. If it should be supposed, that the expression, 'By nature without law,' is harsh or unusual, one that is parallel may be found in ver. 27 of this chapter, "The uncircumcision which is by nature;' i. e. being by nature without circumcision."-(p. 30.)

We venture to think that the meaning of the Greek above cited depends mainly upon the argument. But, if Mr. W. will not accept our view of what is the argument, we will cheerfully give him the benefit of transposing his comma, ad libitum, and rest our interpretation upon the position of the words in the original. This, if not absolutely conclusive, affords a very strong presumption in favour of the authorized version. We feel satisfied that, if the idea to be expressed had been, "When the Gentiles, who are

by nature without law," the Greek would have been čovŋ tà μù pútei vóμor exorta, and not as in the text. In other words, wherever quois is used in an adjective or adverbial sense, it comes before the noun or verb which it qualifies, as in the very instance referred to, ver. 27, ἡ ἐκ φύσεως ἀκροβυστία. So, xi. 21, τῶν κατὰ φύσιν κλάδων. Again, Galat. ii. 15, hues pures Iovdatos. A still more apposite instance, is Galat. iv. 8, edouλévoare roîs μù púσe, oùσi boîs. Here is the formula after which to express very "them which by nature have no law," nor can we doubt that such a clause would have been written as we have indicated.

There is something miserably frigid in the rendering of ch. ix. 1; "I speak truth in the presence of Christ, I lie not, my conscience bearing me witness, with a holy influence." It is thus vindicated in the Appendix, p. 190.

"Ver. 1.-' With a holy influence.'-The common version here labours under an inconvenience similar to that which has just been noticed; in addition to which, it renders the clause, in the Holy Ghost,' as if the original were, év T TVεúμari ayiw, with the article, which is not found in the original. Пveuua, without the article, is used for the gifts, endowments, or influence of the Holy Spirit. In the place before us, the apostle's meaning seems to be, that the testimony of his conscience, was accompanied by a divine influence, exerted by the Holy Spirit upon it.—(p. 190.)

Surely this is an unhappy specimen of criticism. Can the author have forgotten the effect of a preposition, or of quasi-proper names upon the article? Without referring to other epistles for examples, he is judged out of his own mouth, by his own rendering of passages in this, where ПIveμa, in the personal sense, is so repeatedly anarthrous.

Thus, ch. v. 5, he correctly translates, "The love of God is poured into our hearts, by the Holy Spirit (dià пreúμatos áyíov) which is given to us."

There are, however, two other examples of the very phrase in question. First, ch. xiv. 17; for the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy through the Holy Spirit (vepari dyiq)." Such is Mr. Walford's rendering here, and properly enough. Yet, if the common version may be followed in this instance, why should it be so radically wrong in ix. 1.? Again, ch. xv. 16, reads thus,-" that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Spirit (εν πνεύματι άγιῳ).”

The disputed clause, in ver. 3 of the same chapter, is rendered, -"For I myself wished to be accursed from Christ," with this vindication of the rendering in the Appendix,

"Ver. 3.— For I myself wished to be accursed,' &c.-The Greek of this passage is, Ηὐχόμην γὰρ αὐτὸς ἐγὼ ἀνάθεμα ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν μου :

the common version translates it, for I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ, for my brethren.' This version represents the apostle as expressing his present desire, or willingness, to be accursed, and separated from Christ; if by this means, he might save his Jewish brethren ;-a sense it would be difficult to admit. There is, however, nothing of the kind intimated in the words in question. The verb nuxóuny is the imperf. indic., and can mean only, 'I did wish.' The structure is parenthetical, and refers to the feeling of the apostle, during his unconverted state, when he was furious against the disciples of Christ, and execrated the thought of becoming a disciple himself.”(p. 190.)

Here again we discover the cramping force of a too literal apprehension of the apostle's language-a want of entering into the peculiarities of idiom, and the genius of his author. In directing attention to the force of the imperfect tense, we think that Mr. W. has done well, but nevertheless venture to suggest that he himself has missed it. 'Huxóun, he says, can only mean, "I did wish." Why so? Why not, "I was wishing," i. e. " I was for wishing," or "on the point of wishing,"-a sense which merges into," I could wish," i. e. " were it right and possible.' Very similar is the use of the imperfect, in Luke ii. 59, kai káλov Zaxaplav, i. e. "they were for calling him Zacharias." And in Gal. iv. 20. Ἤθελον δὲ παρεῖναι πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἄρτι, " I was on the point of wishing," or " I could wish."

αὐτό

In ch. x. 2, Mr. W.'s Hebrew scholarship has misled him to translate, "I bear them witness indeed, that they have great zeal." eo is clearly the genitivus objecti. The phrase is similar to "the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ," for "in Jesus Christ;" and again, "Faith of the operation of God," for "in the operation." It would therefore, be more properly rendered " zeal for God." Here again, as in most instances where a neglect of order would render the meaning equivocal, the order of the words is of some service in determining the sense. Had θεοῦ been used adjectively, would it not have preceded the noun, as in that cognate instance, 2 Cor. xi. 2, nλ yàp iμã‚‹‹ũ Sýλ? So in 1 Tim. iv. 1, where it has been left undecided by the commentators whether didaσkaλíaç daιpovíwy is to be understood "doctrines concerning dæmons," or " suggested by dæmons; " had the former been the true interpretation, we believe the order would have been inverted. This will appear the more probable, if not certain, on a comparison of Acts ii. 42, T didaxã tậy átostów; Matt. xv. 9, ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων ; 2 John ix. τῇ διδαχῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ; and the precisely parallel instance, Col. ii. 22; dıdaokaλías тŵv àv0púπwv—(in all which the doctrine comes first, and the party to whom it is referred follows), with Heb. vi. 2, Banтioμa didaxis where the subject precedes, and the doctrine itself follows.

The "zeal" to which reference is made in the verse before us,

was that vain-glorious, party-zeal which is elsewhere indicated by "Thou makest thy boast of God." The translation here is not immaterial. That given by Mr. W. entirely destroys the point, which seems to turn upon the iteration of the word coũ, thus :— 'They are indeed in some sort religiously disposed, but not according to knowledge; for with all their zeal for God, God's righteousness they spurn.'

In chap. xi. 3 our author's Hebrew associations should have disposed him to recognize the Jewish formula of citing Scripture. Our own translation-" Wot ye not what the Scripture saith of Elias?" is wrong, but we apprehend that it should have been amended after the model of the authorized version in Hebrews iv. 7-" Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, Today," &c. So here, we would read "in Elias," i. e. the portion of Scripture which bears his name, because it relates his history, and not, as in the Revised Translation, "Know ye not what the Scripture saith by Elias?"

The rendering chap. xi. 25, "Until the fulness of the Gentiles be accomplished (eirénon)" is probably, a mere lapsus, since we are not aware of any var. lect. which gives πληρωθῆ, Οι τελεσθῇ.

Very unhappy is the translation chap. xii. 8-" He that distributeth with integrity." The author (and we are aware that he is not singular herein), evidently supposes the case of a church-officer, dispensing the Church's bounty. "Integrity" would doubtless be essential to such a charge; but the question is, Does the usus loquendi warrant that signification here? We are decidedly of the contrary opinion. The nearest approach to such a meaning is, where we meet the word anλóns in such a connection as this (Eph. vi. 5)" Singleness (dnλóτnt) of heart;" or 2 Cor. i. 12-"Simplicity (dλón) and godly sincerity." But wherever it relates to giving, or distributing, the sense is invariably that of liberality. Thus 2 Cor. viii. 2-" Their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality (s dλóτntos auтa). So chap. ix. 11, 13, and chap. xi. 3, of the same epistle; and James i, 5—“ God who giveth to all men liberally (ánλç).”

Speaking of the officers of the Church, we are led to ask, Why is "Phoebe our sister," called " a deacon," instead of " a deaconess?" Doubtless the expression is justifiable, but it seems to be a needless offendiculum.

To close our strictures on the Revised Translation, it is not easy to acquiesce in the following version of chap. xv. 8-" For I say that Jesus Christ was made subject to circumcision." Surely diákovov TEPITOμs means a minister to the Jews, "the circumcision," just as Tarépa Tepitoμns (iv. 12) means the father

of the Jews. The absence of the article probably stumbled our author. It will be detected, however, in the latter as well. as in the former case. The fact is, EPITOμ seems to be used as a proper name, similarly to Ephes. ii. 11-"Who are called uncircumcision (aкpoßuería) by that which is called the circumcision," in other words "Who are reproached as the uncircumcised by the Jews."

Having thus freely differed from Mr. Walford on points of translation and criticism, we have much pleasure in bearing testimony to the sound sense, the discrimination, the Evangelical yet practical piety which characterize the body of his work.

A specimen or two, casually selected, it seems but just to offer

"Another topic closely connected with the present inquiry is, the way in which faith justifies. This consideration derives its necessity from several expressions in Scripture; such as, the righteousness of faith,'' the law of faith,' &c. It has been shown, that the righteousness which justifies is a righteousness of God, and the import of this phrase has been determined by the use of it in various instances. Two directly conflicting meanings may be deduced from the words, 'the righteousness of faith.' It may be said, faith justifies, because it is an act of obedience which God is mercifully pleased to accept in place of a perfect observance of the law, which human frailty and infirmity render impracticable; or it may be said, that faith justifies, not as a work of obedience, but by virtue of a positive constitution, which the Divine wisdom and mercy have established, through which, whoever believes the testimony of God, respecting his Son, is justified gratuitously, and made a partaker of eternal life.

"There is no difficulty in showing, on the principles that are maintained in this epistle, that the latter, and not the former, is the sense intended; for, if faith as an act of obedience justifies, justification is not of grace, but of works. But the teaching of this epistle is, To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righte ousness,' Rom. iv. 5. This position is not affected by saying, that faith is more easily performed than a perfect obedience to the whole law, so that the grace is seen in substituting and accepting the less obedience in place of the greater; for the question is not about the quantity of work, but about the relation which exists between justification and any kind or degree of work. To him that worketh, is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt,' Rom. iv. 4, compared with Rom. xi. 6; 'If by grace, then it is no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace; but, if it be of works, then is it no more grace; otherwise work is no more work.' If any form of words can exclude every sort and degree of works from effecting justification, it is here before us.

"Let it now be considered how the matter stands when we read Rom. iii. 31: Do we then make void the law, through faith? God forbid! Yea, we establish the law.' To establish the law is to confirm its authority, and maintain its absolute perfection. But how is this done by diminishing its strictness and extent? By substituting, in place of the sinless obedience which it enjoins, the partial and incomplete obedience of faith? The law, then, is no longer holy, just, and good; it is superseded by a new law, more indulgent to human frailty; a rule that admits of no exact measurement, but varies with all the fluctuating sentiments of a sinful nature, and adapts itself to the shifting and unsteady conditions in which human obedience is ever found, even in the cases of wise and good men. What conclusion are we to form respecting the wisdom of God, in enacting a rule inapplicable to