(Works, i, 260-345) becomes necessary, to meet the simple requirements of this text, as well as remove external objections; namely, that Quirinus at this time made the enrolment, as special commissioner for Syria and the adjoining districts, and subsequently levied the tar upon it when proconsul. Three historical facts, coincident with the time of this register, seem nearly to prove the correctness of this solution:-first, a recorded oath of allegiance to the Roman government was then taken by the Jewish nation, (Josephus, Ant., XVII, ii, 4 ;) secondly, the emperor was displeased with Herod, (Josephus, Ant., XVI, ix, 3, 4,) and therefore would be likely to supersede him by some other agent for this business; and, lastly, Quirinus appears to have been in the East about this time, (see the authorities in Lardner, i, 331,) and was every way a suitable person for the appointment. Luke ii, 14: δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις Θεῷ, καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη· ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία. The correspondence of the expression dóza Oɛ with the formula 33, shows that it is hortative, requiring torw to be supplied; and its close grammatical connexion with the next clause, most naturally makes an imperative verb there also requisite. The only way to make the latter indicative, without great harshness, would be to regard the kaí as equivalent to xaì yúp; but so formal an enunciation of eiphon as the ground of praise, seems rather flat in so spirited and apothegmatical an ascription. It is better to regard it as a pure expression of interest in the welfare of this lower world by the angelic beings, and for this reason it should not be confined to any particular mood; it will thus contain a congratulation to earth upon its new-born Blessing, and also invoke the full realization of the consequent good. The usage of the phrase év vpíorous requires the adjective to be taken in the indefinite neuter construction, as equivalent to oupavois; but even then it returns, by reason of the synecdoche necessarily involved in the idea, to the sense of ¿yyéλois, and its obviously intended parallelism with the succeeding év ávýρúño shows that this is the meaning. At ènì yns, the variation of the preposition, instead of ev y, is apparently intentional, in order to prevent this from being taken as the apodosis; and for the sake of the same distinction, perhaps, the genitive is here used. This case is nearly interchangeable with the dative after that preposition; yet the latter case always implies more or less fixedness of position or relation, which would be less appropriate to the transient advent (ènì) of Christ from heaven, and especially his diffusive gospel. As evdoxía is antithetical to dóğa, there is here a reversing of the subject and object of the kindred ideas denoted by these terms,-adoration is to be offered to God by angels; complacency is entertained by the Deity with men, (¿v after evdokéw (Matt. iii, 17) has its resting-place in that object, not merely exists erga, respecting it.) The word y, in strictness answering to the abstract vioτa, prepares the way for the concrete avрwло. The last clause is exclamatory; the imperative force of the unexpressed verb-copulæ in the first clause, which was enlarged to a more than optative in the second, is softened to a declarative ejaculation in the third. The greatest cause of obscurity in this sententious doxology, arises from the attempt to reduce its exuberance of sentiment to the rigid limits of too phlegmatic art. Since ours has not been the privilege of listening to the tones of that angelic anthem, let us see whether we can catch some of its inspiration by attuning the inward ear to a just inspection of the notes that are left us, presented in as simple a guise as grammatical distinctness will allow : Flushing, L. I. "Praise [be] in heaven to God! JAMES STRONG. II. The Corner Stone. [By the Rev. J. F. Denham, M. A., F. R. S. From the Journal of Sacred Literature for July, 1848.] Psalm cxviii, 22, 23. "The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner. This is the Lord's doing [literally, This is from Jehovah]; it is marvellous in our eyes." 6 No text in the Old Testament is quoted by the writers of the New so often as this, which is found in six different places, (Matt. xxi, 42; Mark xii, 10; Luke xx, 17; Acts iv, 11; Eph. ii, 20; 1 Pet. ii, 4,) in all of which it is considered as fulfilled in Jesus Christ. It is also admitted by R. Solom. Jarchi on Mic. v, 1, and Abarbanel on Zach. iv, 13, that the Jewish Rabbins understood this stone of the Messiah. The passage may originally have been founded in a literal fact. Bishop Horne refers to a Jewish tradition concerning a certain stone, which, having been by the builders of the second temple thrown aside among the rubbish, was at last found to be exactly fitted for the honourable place of the head of the corner."-(Comment, on Psalms.) Michaelis also understands the passage literally, and thinks it "probable that at the building of Solomon's temple one of those wrought stones' which David prepared 'to build the house of God,' (1 Chron. xxii, 2,) was found fault with by the builders, and declared to be useless, and that God, for altogether different reasons, commanded by a prophet that this stone should be made the head of the corner." "The Orientals," he observes, "regard the corner-stone as the one particularly holy stone in a temple, and think that it confers sanctity upon the whole edifice. It is therefore the more probable, that either by the Urim and Thummim, (the sacred lot of the Jews,) or by a prophet, God was consulted, which stone he would direct to be taken for the corner-stone. The answer was, that which they had perseveringly rejected and declared to be quite unserviceable. Certainly it must have been for a very important reason that God positively appointed this stone to be the cornerstone; but the New-Testament discloses it to us in Matt. xxi, 42 and 1 Pet. ii. 7. The Jewish nation would conduct themselves towards the Messiah precisely as the builders did towards this stone, and would reject him; but God would select him to be the corner-stone, which would support and sanctify the whole church."* If such an occurrence took place, this stone would be vividly associated with the tradition respecting it in the minds of the Jewish people, and curiosity would be kept awake with regard to it till the career of the Messiah should ultimately illustrate this prearranged typical circumstance in the most striking manner. There remain, however, certain points to be yet determined respecting this stone, which are essential in order to the full elucidation of the Scriptural allusions to it, namely. what was its precise position in the temple, and what were the uses it served. Bishop Middleton observes, that "it is not very plain what this stone was;" and it is remarked in a late valuable compilation of opinions, that "the common interpretations certainly do not answer the requisite conditions, and that so far they are unfounded." The following attempt to unravel the subject is submitted to the Biblical student : It seems probable, even from the original passage, (Psa. exviii, 22, 23,) that this stone, in its place in the temple, was visible. In this Psalm some Jewish king ap *Vide Uebersetz. u. Anmerk. † Trollope, Analecta. pears to be approaching "the gates" of the temple on a public festival, (v. 19, 20, 24.) and to see this remarkable stone, (22, 23.) Our Lord and the apostles combine with this passage some quotations from the prophets-comp. Luke xx, 18; Isa. viii, 14; Dan. ii, 34, 35, 44, 45; Zech. xii, 3; but the additional particulars thus introduced are doubtless in keeping with the position, &c. of this stone. From these quotations it is plain that its position was such that any one might "fall on it," (might dash himself against it, as St. Peter's words import, who calls it yi0og роokójшaτоs, 1 Pet. ii, 8,) and also was such that it might "fall upon him." Consequently from these two particulars, which enter into nearly all the allusions to this stone, it appears plain that it was not what we understand by a foundation-stone, which is laid deep in the ground, nor yet the coping-stone at the corner, which lies on the upper tier of masonry. Indeed, the distinction is clearly indicated in Eph. ii, 20, “and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone,"-akpoy@viaios, (which is the Septuagint word for corner-stone, (Isa. xxviii, 16,) quoted by St. Peter, (1 Pet. ii, 6,) and Symmachus's version of Psalm exviii, 22:) and that this xpoywviałog could not have been the foundation-stone is clear from St. Peter's representing it as possible for any one to have stumbled at it or dash himself against it. This stone must also have been of great size to satisfy our Lord's description of it, that if it fell upon any person it would "grind him to powder," literally, smash him to atoms, (comp. Luke xx, 18, Greek, and Dan. ii, 44, Sept.) It would also seem from Eph. ii, 21, that the circumjacent masonry was compacted with it―ovrappoλoyovμévn; and the whole complexion of this passage intimates that this stone not only sustained, but united the building; and such is the interpretation of its office by Chrysostom, Theophylact, Ecumenius, Theodoret, and of Epiphanius, (de Hæres, p. 324.) As far, then, as we have gone, we find this stone to have been single, of vast size, visible, perhaps partly projecting like a buttress, its lower end reaching nearly or entirely to the ground, situate at a corner of the temple, forming a large portion of the wall in which it stood, into and upon which the adjacent portion of that wall was built, as also the alternate portion of the wall forming the angle, and serving to unite both. We next find presumptions that this stone served also the use of a sanctuary, asylum, or refuge. Thus Isa. viii, 14: "For he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel." Here a holy stone is clearly meant, and the remaining portion of the passage closely agrees with the other chief particulars of the stone in question. The connexion between a temple, altar, consecrated statue, &c., and a sanctuary, through all antiquity, is well known. Nor is further reference wanting to this connexion in Scripture, for in Isa. xxviii, 16, a passage whose true meaning is obscured in our translation, but which is eminently concerned in this inquiry, it is said of this corner-stone, "he that believeth (trusteth to it) shall not make haste" (to seek another asylum or refuge, or, as St. Peter and St. Paul render it, "he that believeth in him shall not be ashamed or confounded." Rom. ix, 33; 1 Pet. ii, 6.) A still clearer reference to the refugial use of this stone occurs in St. Peter's remarkable use of the Psalmist's words, (Acts iv, 11, 12,) "This is the stone which was set at naught of you builders, which is become the head-stone of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other." If the word be rendered, as it may justly be, "neither is there safety in any other," the reference to this use of the stone becomes plain, and the difficulty so generally complained of, which attends the precise import of the word "salvation" in this passage, is removed. Jesus Christ then appears as the corner-stone, the sanctuary or asylum in whom only safety is attainable. Kypke also shows that the phrase iv Tivi owrηpíav elvei is used by Aristophanes, Demosthenes, and Josephus, for safety's being FOURTH SERIES, VOL. II.-43 placed or lodged in a person or thing. The word owrnpia is certainly used in this sense in Heb. xi, 7; Acts xxvii, 34. There are possibly other allusions, both in the Old and New Testament, more or less direct, to the several points included in this prolific subject. The meaning of one passage already adduced is overlaid in our translation, and the verbiage employed in it has doubtless contributed to perplex the subject: “Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner-stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste." Isa. xxviii, 16. The exact rendering is, "Behold, I establish or appoint in Zion a stone, an approved stone, a cornerstone, precious, immovably fixed,”— "-as Lowth renders the latter portion. The word 70, though primarily meaning to lay a foundation, is metaphorically used in the sense of appointing or ordaining, as in Psa. viii, 3. St. Peter, in his quotation of this passage, (1 Ep. ii, 6,) so understands the word. But the introduction of the word foundation in the English version contributes to the impression that this corner-stone lay in the foundation. III. Remarks on Romans vi, 17. THE common version of this passage has been supposed, by exclusive immersionists, to have a reference to the mode of baptism in ancient times; and this question has been asked with great confidence, What is the form of doctrine to which the apostle alludes? It is not possible for any Greek scholar to suppose for a moment, that any allusion to a form or mode of baptism is here referred to; and such a thought never could have arisen, except to subserve the interests of the hard-pressed champions of baptismal regeneration, and exclusive dipping. The text reads thus: "But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin; but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you." There is some obscurity in the first clause of the text, which, as it stands, seems to hold out the idea that the apostle thanked God that the Roman believers had been the servants of sin, whereas he intended to, and did, thank God that they had obeyed, from the heart, the Gospel. The original text is, Xúpiç đề rộ ƉED, ÖTL İTE δοῦλοι τῆς ἁμαρτίας, ὑπηκούσατε δὲ ἐκ καρδίας εἰς ὃν παρεδόθητε τύπον διδαχῆς. Wesley renders it, "But thanks be to God, that whereas ye were the servants of sin, ye have now obeyed from the heart the form of doctrine into which ye have been delivered;" and he makes the following sensible comment on the passage: "The form of doctrine into which ye have been delivered. Literally, it is, "The mould into which ye have been delivered;" which, as it contains a beautiful allusion, convers also a very instructive admonition, intimating that our minds, all pliant and ductile, should be conformed to the Gospel precepts as liquid metals take the figure of the mould into which they are cast." Whoever supposes that by the word rúnov, the apostle alluded to any kind of baptism, must want arguments to sustain an untenable hypothesis. If we examine the sixteenth verse, we will be convinced of the correctness of Wesley's translations and comment. "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness." If we obey sin, we are the slaves of sin, bondmen, dead to God, alive only to sin; but if we cease to serve sin, and "yield ourselves" to God to be his servants, we are no longer the servants of sin, but the servants of righteousness; and as the brethren to whom Paul wrote had obeyed the Gospel, and been delivered from the bondage of sin, the apostle thanks God that, although they had been the servants of sin, they had now yielded themselves up to, or "been de livered" into, the Gospel mould. They had been transformed and changed, by the renewing of the Holy Ghost, from glory to glory, by the Spirit of the Lord. Paul was instrumental in converting many souls; but "thanked God" that he had baptized but few, two or three families; he did not seem to consider it much honour to baptize, but a great deal to "preach Jesus and the resurrection." TÚTOV didaxis, ("form of doctrine,") may be translated, "system of doctrine;" but whatever construction be put upon it, it cannot, without great violence, be made to allude to immersion. In conclusion, I will translate the sixteenth and seventeenth verses together, not pretending, however, to throw new light on this plain Scripture, but to show what must be its literal meaning. "Know ye not, that if ye present yourselves to any one as servants to obey them, ye are the servants to those whom ye obey, whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness. Thanks be to God, that ye, who were the servants of sin, have obeyed from the heart, that system of teaching to which ye have been committed." B. F. C. ART. IX.-LITERARY AND RELIGIOUS INTELLIGENCE. Germany. [WE are happy to inform our readers that we have been so fortunate as to secure the services of J. L. JACOBI, Professor Extraordinary of Theology in the University of Berlin, as a regular correspondent of this Journal. From his position in the chief University of Germany, and from his wide acquaintance with the Theology and Literature of the age, he will be able to furnish our readers with accurate and prompt information as to the religious and literary movements of continental Europe. In the first letter, herewith given, will be found a general view of the different theological parties of Germany, and of the difficulties under which the Church in that country is now labouring. Though we do not sympathize with all the political views of our friend, we are sure of the accuracy of his statements, and shall place just reliance upon his estimates of the value of new books appearing in Germany. We expect a letter from our valued correspondent for each number of the Review hereafter.-ED.] BERLIN, May, 1850. IT is well known that a crisis is now impending over the Protestant Church and theology of Germany; and nothing demonstrates it more strikingly than the state of the different parties of the Protestant Church in PRUSSIA. The same movement in opposite directions which threatens to rend the western and southern states of Europe, tends also, in like manner, to separate Christian communions. One party is solicitous to preserve intact the existing order of things; the other seeks constantly to supplant it, in order to establish in its place something which it deems more accordant with the spirit of the age. As that which is termed the Modern Culture (neuere Bildung) is in no state of Europe so widely disseminated among the people as in Prussia, so also the influence of this Culture, both good and bad, on political and theological events and parties, is nowhere else so unmistakably perceived as here. Those who desire to re-establish the older forms of Protestant doctrine and polity, are also, for the most part, partisans of political absolutism; and those who cherish a decided hostility to the supernatural character of Christianity-be they Deists, Pantheists, or Atheists-generally incline to democracy. Sad as it may appear, it is a principal endeavour of the Republican, or, as they also call themselves, of the Democratic party, in their political clubs, to throw suspicion upon Christianity, and upon every. thing spiritual or religious, in order gradually to annihilate faith in God, and to remove all restraint from the evil propensities of man. To this class belong the so-called Primitive Christian communions that have sprung up in Berlin, and who are distinguished from those who assume to themselves the name of the Free Congregation, only by their greater grossness and rudeness, and their more audacious denial of everything relating |