thesis were abbreviated thus : ἅτινα ἐστὶν, λόγον μὲν ἔχοντα σοφίας, πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός, there would probably be no difficulty in accepting some such rendering as: The which are, though having indeed a repute for wisdom, for (pós) the glutting of the flesh. Cp. ἐστὶν εἰς φθοράν (Col. ii. 22). The words ἐν ἐθελοθρησ κείᾳ, κ.τ.λ., which follow upon σοφίας, shew the element wherein the repute for wisdom is attained. The clause, καὶ ἀφειδίᾳ σώματος οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινι, would seem to be best explained by referring οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινι to the σώμα. For this we have the authority of the Greek commentators, and it gives the most natural meaning to v tiî. The parts of the clause are consecutive: the body, being held in no honour, is recklessly abused-it being in the nature of things that are not valued to be used unsparingly. The meaning of the whole passage (on which Dr Wordsworth has some excellent remarks) would thus be, that such wilful, supererogatory enactments as 'Touch not, taste not, handle not' things meant for use and consumption, are, notwithstanding their show of wisdom,' for the gratification of the carnal propensities in man's mind. The which are (with all their repute for spirituality, in will-worship, and humility, and unsparingness of the body, as of no value, lit. held not in any honour) for the satiating of the flesh.' This rendering gives a natural position and an antithesis to the pév, which the non-parenthetic readings fail to do.

B. Dr Lightfoot has tabulated the MS. authorities for the various readings of the clause rò yap "Ayap K.T.λ. (Galatians, ed. 2, p. 189.) The last of the four readings there given being neglected, ought not the preceding to be arranged, not in three classes, but four or two? The reading placed first is (i) Tò yàp Ziâ opos čσtív. 'So it is read in CFG...Augustine, Jerome...and probably all the Latin fathers. This is also the reading of the Gothic Version, except that it omits yáp... The MS. after σrív adds öv, in which respect it stands alone, &c.' Next in order, Dr Lightfoot places (ii) τὸ δὲ 'Αγαρ Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστίν, and (iii) τὸ γὰρ 'Αγαρ Σινᾶ ὄρος éσTív. If, however, (ii) and (iii) are to be separated, ought not , with its remarkable interpolation after éσrív, to stand alone? Thus the testimony in favour of (i) would be diminished. But it seems more natural in balancing the authorities for and against the omission of the word "Ayap, to neglect minor variations, and to

weigh (i), not against (ii) and (iii) taken separately, but against the two combined. We should have then in favour of retaining "Ayap, the authority of 'ABDEKLP with the vast majority of cursive manuscripts, with both Syriac Versions, and with the Greek commentators generally...;' and it would be necessary to reconsider the statement, that 'the strongest, because the most varied, testimony is in favour of the first of these readings.' It is difficult to account for the unexpected occurrence of the word "Ayap, following upon the neuter article, if it formed no part of the original reading. On the other hand, from the reading (iii), the variations (i), (ii) might (or, so to say, must) have arisen through homeoteleuton.

P.S. ἅτ. ἐστ. ἀλληγορούμενα] • Quæ alio quodam sensu sunt, sub. talia: vel, Quorum allegoria (quam vπóvoιav veteres vocarunt) talis est.' Poli Synops. v. 710. f.

yevvwσa] Mr Pater notices, in its bearing upon the Allegory, the avoidance or indirect use of this verb when the mother of JESUS is spoken of. Contrast Matt. i. 16, 20, 21, 23; Luke i. 31, 35; ii. 5, 7 with Luke i. 13, 57. Compare Luke xxiii. 29; Joh. xvi. 21. Bengel remarks on to yevvwμévov (Luke i. 35): 'Vocabula abstracta, et neutro genere expressa, initiis illis valde congruunt.'

CHAPTER X.

The Apology of St Stephen.

Amos v. 25-27; Acts vii. 2-53.

'THE speech of St Stephen is in itself an ample field of study, demanding of us much meditation before we can master either the general argument or the meaning and connection of the parts, and giving occasion for researches into Jewish. history, Rabbinical traditions, and Egyptian customs.' It contains a brief abstract of the sacred narrative-from the call of Abraham to the building of Solomon's temple-interspersed with more or less direct citations from the original sources; and its twofold aim, as gathered from antecedent circumstances, is to preach Jesus as the Messiah, and to defend the speaker from the charge of blasphemy 'against Moses, and against God.' False witnesses had said of him: This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law: For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us' (Acts vi. 13, 14); and it is in answer to the high-priest's question, 'Are these things so?' that the address now before us was delivered.

I. Of the citations with which this address abounds, one stands out, by general consent, as its characteristic, and gathers round it a greater complication of difficulties than any other. It is taken from Amos v. 25-27, and is introduced as

follows: And they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifice unto the idol, and rejoiced in the work of their own. hands. Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness? Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon' (Acts vii. 41—43).

I. For the question, Have ye offered &c.? diverse answers have been assumed. Some infer that the Levitical sacrifices were not offered in the wilderness; or, at least, that the system was (owing to the difficulties of the situation) in partial abeyance. Others, as Dr Pusey, emphasize the pronoun, and maintain that the sacrifices were not offered to God. 'God does not say that they did not offer sacrifice at all, but that they did not offer unto Him. The unto Me is emphatic. If God is not served wholly and alone, He is not served at all.' Not dissimilarly Jerome, seeking 'quomodo hostias et sacrificium non Deo obtulerint in deserto, concludes that after the making of the golden calf, 'omnia quæ fecerunt, non Deo, sed idolis fecisse monstrantur. Et quod, postea, quædam Domino cos legimus obtulisse, non voluntate, sed pœnarum fecerunt metu... Dominus autem non ea quae offeruntur, sed voluntatem respicit offerentium.' It is commonly held that the answer to the question, Μὴ σφάγια καὶ θυσίας προσηνέγκατέ μοι; must be negative, but it is disputed whether the negation is to be made absolute or relative: whether the 'No' means 'Not then [from the nature of the case] as in after time;' or with implied reproach, 'Not to Me.' With the latter explanation, the sequence is as follows: 'Have ye offered to Me slain beasts...? Not so, but ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch... And I will carry you away beyond Babylon.' The third clause here follows naturally upon the second, but the rendering of kaì aveλáßere is harsh. Mr Humphry combines the first and second clauses more harmoniously, by making both interrogative. 'Did ye sacrifice to Me forty years in the

But the

wilderness, and yet adopt the worship of Moloch? words καὶ μετοικιῶ ὑμᾶς, do not follow very smoothly upon this. It might indeed be conjectured that this harshness in the Greek has arisen from the literal transference of Hebrew idioms into a strange language, while in the original the same harshness has no place. But the original, as usually explained, is scarcely more harmonious than the Greek; its abruptness being fairly represented by our Authorised Version: 'Have ye offered unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel? But [lit. and] ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch...Therefore will I cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus' (Amos v. 25-27). It is possible, however, so to render the passage as to avoid this appearance of abruptness.

2. The first verb of Amos v. 26 is in the same tense as that which stands at the commencement of ver. 27, and which is taken by the LXX. and others as a future. The Hebrew commentator Rashi has, accordingly, adopted the expedient of rendering the former also of these verbs in the future: Ye shall bear If ver. 25 be now dismissed for a while as parenthetic, a close connection is apparent between the verses which precede and follow, thus: 'And judgement shall run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream. And ye shall take up the tabernacle of your Moloch...And I will cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus.'

3. The coherence of these verses with the preceding may be made more complete by rendering the word for 'Take thou away' (ver. 23), as an infinitive (rather than as an imperative), although it is not denied that the received imperative rendering is equally grammatical. Two arguments however may be advanced in favour of the infinitive rendering. (a) It makes the parallelism still more complete (the infinitive serving, as it well may, for a quasi-future); and (b) the putting away is best ascribed to God Himself, who, in ver. 22, 'will not accept though ye offer.'

4. There remain some points to be noticed in the twentysixth verse.