alleged, that it is a 'subject purely of ecclesiastical jurisdiction.' What does Mr. Perceval see no difference between a thing being "purely and exclusively spiritual," and its being a "subject purely of ecclesiastical jurisdiction"? Surely he must be aware that there are many things which are the "subjects purely of ecclesiastical jurisdiction" that are not "purely and exclusively spiritual." These decisions, then, do not in the least shake the truth of my assertion.

I have now, I believe, replied to all the points in Mr. Perceval's letter; and as I think your readers must be getting rather weary of the subject by this time, I will only add that

I am, Sir, your obedient servant, WILLIAM Goode. London, Sept. 6, 1838.

ON 1 PETER, 111. 19.

SIR,-The following question recently suggested itself to my mind in reading a celebrated and difficult passage, 1 Peter, iii. 19, &c., which, I think, you may perhaps have the goodness to resolve for me. The words Πορευθεις εκήρυξεν απειθησασι ποτε, are rendered in our version, "went and preached (to the spirits in prison), which sometime were disobedient," &c.; a rendering which is required by the interpretation of this passage claimed by Bishop Horsley. What I wish to ask is, whether you consider this as an admissible, or at least as the most probable and legitimate, construction of the clause. The words are rendered in this version exactly as they would have been had the word anεonoaσ been preceded by the article. Is it the case that its omission has no influence on the meaning of the passage? My own impression is, that it has; that it goes to connect the disobedience of those to whom it is recorded that Christ went and preached, with the time at, or the circumstances under, which he preached to them. The spirits in prison disobedient in the days of Noah seems to me to be inclusively the object of the verb Kapužev. I do not understand atεionσaσι TOTE OTE &c. in the light of a mere specification of the class of spirits in prison to whom Jesus preached, but as assigning the circumstances under which he preached to them. It appears to me that this is the characteristic difference between the omission and insertion of the article in such cases. When the article is inserted, the adjective or participle simply serves to specify the object of the verb, and makes (itself) no part of it. The case is different when the article is omitted. In this case the verb has for its object, not merely the thing or person which the noun expresses, but this thing or person in those circumstances which the participle specifies. The action of the verb does not stop, so to speak, at the noun governed by it, but passes on till it takes in an idea compounded of this noun, and an action or passion indicated by the participle.

This is a distinction which has continually presented itself to my mind, and in which I desire to be informed whether I am borne out. Supposing it correct, it would determine the interpretation of the passage against Bishop Horsley.

QUÆRENS.

ON THE TRUE INTERPRETATION OF LUKE xx1. 32.

SIR,*-I beg to offer some remarks on the papers of your correspondents, the "Rev. W. B. Winning," "H.," and "G. F.," in which these gentlemen have discussed the meaning of Luke, xxi. 32, with its parallel texts in Matt. xxiv. and Mark, xiii.

"H."

Mr. Winning maintains, I think justly, that yɛvea is here used in its meaning of "a generation of contemporary men;" and that therefore the sense of the passage is, that some of those who were contemporary with our blessed Lord should not depart this life until all the things which he had just before predicted should have come to pass controverts this interpretation on the several grounds of verbal criti cism, of the just rules of scriptural interpretation, of fact, and of doctrine. And "G. F." hopes that he has discovered a sense for yernrai, which causes "all darkness in the passage to vanish," and affords the means of "a clear and easy interpretation of the prophecy."

I shall take the critical objections of "H.," and the elucidation of "G. F.," first; and then consider the remaining objections of the former.

1. "Professor J. F. Schleusner," "H." says, "declares that yevɛa does signify offspring, posterity, all who derive their origin from one common stock, a family, nation, tribe, or kin;" which is the wellknown Homeric sense of the word

Ταυτης τοι γενεης τε και αιματος ευχομαι είναι :

And he cites the following satisfactory Hellenistic authoritiesJosephus A. i. 10. 3. & A. i. 5; Gen. xxxi. 3; Levit. xx. 18, and xxiv. 41; Jer. viii. 3; together with a few others, which are not to the purpose. It may be added, that the word sometimes is used for a set, class, or denomination of people, without any literal consanguinity or community of procreation; in which respect only Psalm lxxii. (lxxiii.) 15, seems to differ from the above-mentioned passages.+

I fully acquiesce in the sentiments quoted by Mr. Winning from the late Bishop Jebb, on the merits of Schleusner, and on the caution with which his Lexicon ought to be used; but a reference to Schleusner's own pages would have convinced Mr. Winning that his censure is undeserved in the present case. Schleusner distributes the different significations of yɛvea into five classes, the fourth of which is "Homines una ætate viventes, homines alicujus ætatis seu sæculi." And under this class is placed the identical text of Luke, xxi. 32, with its parallel, Mark, xiii. 30.

When the following truly valuable letter was sent to the Magazine, the press of parliamentary matter was such that it could not be used. The Editor regrets extremely that such a paper should subsequently have been so long overlooked.—ED. + British Magazine, No. XII. p. 54. I may here notice the reference of “H." to Psalm lxxiii. 15. "If I say, I will speak thus; behold, I should offend against the generation of thy children." That there is not any physical consanguinity or unity of procreation intimated here is true; but moral or spiritual procreation, or relationship, is not less real than a physical one.

Brit. Mag. No. XIII. p. 172.

VOL. XIV.-Oct. 1838.

3 H

"H.," therefore, is directly opposed by the authority to which he himself appealed.

Let us then examine which is right-Schleusner, in giving to yevɛa in the text in question the meaning of "homines una ætate viventes, homines alicujus ætatis seu sæculi,-as Mr. Winning expresses it, "a generation of contemporary men; or "H.," in assigning it to Schleusner's second class of the significations of the word.

For this purpose, permit me to quote the entire passage of the Lexicon to which "H." refers. It is as follows:-"2. proles, posteritas, omnes, qui ex communi quadam stirpe origines ducunt, familia, natio, gens, cognati. In notione prolis et posteritatis legitur apud Polyb. in Exc. p. 84, T. iii. Opp. ed. Ern. Joseph. A. J. i. 10. 3. ỏ 0ɛòç Kai παῖδα αὐτῷ γενήσεσθαι καταγγέλλει καὶ πολλὴν ἐξ ἐκείνου γενεάν. Adde Esther, ix. 28, ubi Hebraico y respondet et Num.xiii.23. yevɛaì Evàx progenies Enak. Familiæ ac cognationis significationem habet hac vox apud Joseph. Α. J. v. i. 5, σώζειν δὲ μόνην Ραχάβην καὶ τὴν γενεὰν αὐτῆς, et in versione Alex. Genes. xxxi.3, ἀποστρέφου εἰς τὴν γῆν πατρός σov, kaì eis tǹv yeveáv σov. Levit.xxv. 41. Jer. viii. 3. ubi Hebr.

respondit. Sic legitur in N. T. Matth. i. 17. #ãσaι our ai yevɛai omnes itaque familiæ sibi invicem succedentes, seu generationes. De natione et gente usurpatur in versione Alex. Levit. xx. 18. ubi pro Hebraico Dy ponitur."

The several meanings here given are obviously distinct from each other. Schleusner also treats them as such; and they agree in nothing but the notion which Schleusner expresses, "of deriving origin from some common stock." The authority, therefore, for one of these meanings is not to be taken as authority for another.

1. Now the first two meanings, "proles et posteritas," will be at once seen to be inadmissible, when we recollect that these are relative terms, and would give no definite meaning without a distinct reference, which there is not in the present case, to their correlatives, the parents, ancestors, or predecessors of the offspring or posterity spoken of. For if we read, "this offspring (or posterity) shall not pass away," &c., the question would immediately be, Whose offspring or posterity is meant? And as our Saviour makes no mention of, or allusion to, the patriarchs Jacob or Judah, it might as well be said that the offspring of Zebedee, of Jonas, or of Alphæus, was meant, as of Jacob or of Judah. The ellipsis in the Greek, if there is one, as there would be on the hypothesis of "H.'s" interpretation, would as grammatically and justly be supplied by Ζεβεδαίου, Ἰωνᾶ, or, ̓Αλφαίου, as by Ἰακώβ or Ἰούδα. And thus it would be doubtful whether James and John, the sons of Zebedee; Simon and Andrew, the sons of Jonas; James, the son of Alphæus, who were present; or the Jews, the children of Jacob and of Judah, were intended.

But supposing it were proved that yɛvɛa, in Luke, xxi. 32, means the offspring or posterity of Jacob: yeria aurn would be this offspring or posterity of Jacob, these children of Jacob, and would much more naturally mean the contemporaries of our blessed Lord than their offspring or posterity.

2. We come next to familia et cognatio: and we find that where YEVɛa has this meaning, it is, with one exception, (Jer. viii. 3,) to be noticed presently, of a family or kindred much too limited to suit the present place. In the quotation of Schleusner from Josephus, it comprehends only the father, mother, brethren, and sisters of Rahab, -her father's house, (Joshua, ii. 18.) In Gen. xxxi. 3, it comprehends only Jacob's father, his mother, if then alive, and Esau. And in Lev. xxv. 41, it signifies no more than the immediate kindred of the individual.

Nor would family or kindred give a more definite meaning than offspring or posterity, especially as the accurate meaning of the Hebrew word for which yɛvɛa is put in these passages of the Septuagint, is, not a "tribe," but a part, more or less extensive, of a tribe-one of the great houses of a tribe; though it is in a very many instances used for tribe. Its accurate and most usual meaning, however, is pointed out in the following passage, where it is rendered by nuos, distinguished on the one hand from quan, and on the other from ouros, Καὶ συναχθήσεσθε πάντες το πρωὶ κατὰ φυλὰς ὑμῶν, καὶ ἔσται ἡ φυλὴ ἣν ἂν δείξῃ Κύριος, προσάξετε κατὰ δήμους· καὶ τὸν δῆμον ὃν ἂν δείξῃ Κύριος, προσάξετε κατ' οίκον, καὶ τὸν οἶπονὃν ἂν δείξῃ Κύριος, προσάξετε κατ' ἄνδρα. Joshuæ, vii. 14. See also 1 Reg. ix. 21. And there is nothing in the prophecy of our Lord to determine whether, if yɛvea is used in the sense of family or kindred, it means the whole family or tribe of Judah, or one of the great families or houses, and what family or house, of that tribe. There is nothing to decide whose family or kindred is meant.

3. Of nation or tribe, Lev. xx. 18, affords the sole example. And this, with Jer. viii. 3, above alluded to, are the only places out of 161 in the Septuagint, and 38 in the New Testament, besides the three parallel texts in question-from Mat. xxiv., Mark xiii., and Luke xxi., which, on examination, have the slightest appearance of authority for rendering yɛvɛa in these three texts by nation or tribe.*

But these two places are of little weight. Though it were granted that the Hebrew of Jer. viii. 3, refers to the tribe of Judah as such, which is by no means clear, there is indubitable evidence that the LXX did not intend to render the passage truly, but that they softened down the meaning in the Greek so as to cast as little disgrace as possible on their nation. The Hebrew of this passage is correctly translated in our Bibles by the expression," this evil family;" whereas the LXX take no notice of the reproachful epithet. So also in chap. vii. 29, the Hebrew signifying "the generation of his wrath," is rendered τὴν γενέαν τὴν ποιοῦσαν ταῦτα, the generation which doeth these things. And in chap. xiii. 10, the Hebrew of "this evil people," is

I do not find any clear instance of yɛvea in any of the senses of offspring, posterity, family, kindred, nation, or tribe, without a genitive of the person or persons whose offspring &c. is spoken of, or without some express and decided reference to such person or persons. It is always thus: γενεα σου, γενεά αυτού, or, γενεά εξ

εκείνου, κ. τ. λ.

not rendered at all. If, then, the translator of this book was so desirous to spare his nation from reproach as these instances prove that he was, it is a reasonable inference that he would endeavour to confine such reproach as he could not shield them from to as narrow limits as possible, and consequently, that he was much more likely to mean by yevɛa, not only in chap. viii. 3, but also in chap. vii. 29, the generation of that time, than the family or tribe of Judah as such. At least, the instances I have quoted are sufficient to cast so much doubt on the intended meaning of yerea in chap. viii. 3, as to deprive it of all weight in determining the meaning of the word in Luke xxi. and the parallel places.

The only remaining example of the apparent use of yɛvea in the sense of tribe or nation, is Lev. xx. 18, rendered in the English, "both of them shall be cut off from among their people." Now this is the only place in the Septuagint where yɛvea is put for Dy, populus, though the Hebrew word occurs nearly eighteen hundred times. This is a striking proof that yeyea is not in itself an adequate translation of the Hebrew word, and that we must look for something peculiar in the passage to account for its being used here.

The peculiarity is this, that as it could be only from the generation of their contemporaries that the guilty persons could be cut off, the force of the Hebrew is sufficiently expressed by yevɛa in its sense of a" generation of contemporary men." The usual Greek representative of Dy is λaos: but Maos and yɛvɛɑ being here convertible terms, one might be used for the other under the circumstances, without any detri ment to the meaning. Vor Xaos expresses the abstract law: yɛyɛa

its practical effect.

The result then is, that out of about 200 places in the LXX and New Testament where yɛvɛa is used, there are only the, at best doubtful, cases of Jer. viii. 3, and Lev. xx. 18, to authorize us in giving the sense of tribe or nation to that word in Luke, xxi. 32, and the corresponding places of Matthew and Mark. And if these be contended for as sufficient authority, it is easy to see what confusion and uncertainty a like system of criticism would produce in manifold other cases. This word y, for instance, is rendered in the single place of Lev. xx. by yɛvɛa: in another, Exod. xxii. 25, it is rendered by adeλpoç: in Ps. lxxvii. 71, and lxxix. 5, by dovλos: in Isa. xlix. 22, by vnoog: in Ps. lviii. 11, by voμoç: and in Isa. lxiii. 18, by opos. And if the meaning of αδελφος, δουλος, νησος, νομος, oι δρος, were in dispute, the same rule which would make Lev. xx. 18, an authority for translating yevea in Luke, xxi. 32, by tribe or nation, would oblige us to accept these words as properly equivalent to Xaos, and brother, servant, island, law, and mountain, as synonymous with people.

But "H." appeals also to "the well-known Homeric sense of the word;" and it may be presumed that the line he has quoted is his clearest and strongest instance. For this, however, he is nearly as unfortunate as in his appeal to Schleusner, who had already decided against him. The line will be found at Iliad, vi. 211, and is the con