have supposed that there was little or no use in applying those laws. Indeed, it has even been imagined, that in seeking the true sense of the sacred writers, he was exposed to err the most widely, who should endeavour to subject their words and phrases to the ordinary rules of the Greek language. Hence the direction, now to take refuge in Hebraism; or again, where there is no place for Hebraism, we are referred to the barbarous dialect of Alexandria; or at last, if there is nothing similar to be found in this dialect, we are told that the words of the sacred writers, so incongruously composed, and construed in a manner so contrary to the laws of language, must be explained from the connexion, and by reference to the object of the writer. Now who does not see that this mode of proceeding is most pernicious, and not only renders the whole interpretation of the New Testament uncertain, but delivers over the Scriptures to the caprice of every interpreter?" If these sentiments be correct, a sentence of condemnation against innumerable of the learned who have expounded 1 Cor. xv. 29 appears inevitable; for, should the law of Greek position, laid down by Matthiæ in section 276 of his elaborate grammar, be found to hold good when applied to the writings of St. Paul, they have all offended in charging the apostle with an unneeded deviation from grammatical precision.

That law is as follows: "Every designation which is adjoined to a noun (or its locum tenens, as his examples prove was his meaning,*) by a participle, an adjective, or a preposition with its case, (whether the noun conveys a perfect idea of itself, independently of this designation, as in the proper apposition or not, but requires this designation to make it complete,) the Greeks place either before the noun or after it; in the first of which cases it stands between the article and the noun belonging to the article; but in the other succeeds it, with the article repeated."

Had the apostle then read Matthiæ, and seen the propriety of conforming to his rules, in order that the views of any of the critics should be borne out, he must either have written, οἱ ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν βαπτιζόμενοι, οι αὐτοι οἱ βαπτιζόμενοι οἱ ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν, scarcely as it now stands, simply οἱ βαπτιζόμενοι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν.

St. Paul does attend to this law of the language, or, at least, as far as the present case is concerned.

From a perusal of his entire writings, undertaken expressly with a view to the settlement of this point, the following results were obtained. Eighty-one examples of the participle with the article occurring in contact with prepositions governing nouns, were collected; twenty-eight of which conformed to the first part of Matthiæ's rule, and forty-two

*He refers us, too, to section 270, where this proviso is expressly made.

to the second; the remaining eleven are apparent exceptions. As these need a few remarks, they are quoted here in full.

Rom. v. 14, καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς μὴ ἁμαρτήσαντας ἐπὶ τῷ ὁμοιώματι τῆς παραβάσεως Αδάμ.

1 Cor. xv. 18, ἄρα καὶ οἱ κοιμηθέντες ἐν Χριστῷ, ἀπώλοντο.

2 Cor. v. 4, και γὰρ οἱ ὄντες ἐν τῷ σκήνει στενάζομεν.

Gal. vi. 8, ὅτι ὁ σπείρων εἰς τὴν σάρκα ἑαυτοῦ, ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς θερίσει φθοράν, ὁ δὲ σπείρων εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα, ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος θερίσει ζωὴν αἰώνιον. Phil. i. 6, ὅτι ὁ ἐναρξάμενος ἐν ὑμῖν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν, ἐπιτελέσει ἄχρις ἡμέρας Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

1 Thess. v. 12, εἰδέναι τοὺς κοπιῶντας ἐν ὑμῖν, καὶ προϊσταμένους ὑμῶν ἐν Κυρίῳ.

2 Tim. iii. 6, ἐκ τούτων γάρ εἰσιν οἱ ενδύνοντες εἰς τὰς οἰκίας, καὶ αἰχμαλωτ τίζοντες τὰ γυναικάρια σεσωρευμένα ἁμαρτίαις.

Heb. v. 5, ἀλλ' ὁ λαλήσας πρὸς αὐτόν.

Heb. vii. 6, ὁ δὲ μὴ γενεαλογούμενος ἐξ αὐτῶν.

Heb. vii. 21, διὰ τοῦ λεγοντος πρὸς αὐτόν.

Heb. vii. 25, τοὺς προσερχομένους δι' αὐτοῦ τῷ Θεῷ.

These exceptions, it must be confessed, look formidable enough at first sight, yet still all will allow, that, though their number is considerable, they form quite a minority in comparison with the cases in which the rule is observed; they may therefore be reckoned unusual constructions.

Now it is a common thing in the Greek Testament, that where a clause is arranged in a less usual manner, it contains an emphasis. Let us see to how many of these prima facie exceptions, this remark will apply.

Rom. v. 14. Here, it is presumed, there must be an emphasis; it is on the words ἐπὶ τῷ ὁμοιώματι, κ.τ.λ., since, if this be not allowed, the proposition will be equivalent to the following, which is false, "Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses even upon those who had not followed Adam in sin," i. e. had not sinned. The ka likewise, as has been remarked by Tolner, Koppe and Schott, clearly intimates that something unusual or unexpected was designed by the writer. It may just be noticed also, that the not having perceived this emphasis was probably the cause of the μn's being omitted in some Latin MSS., and by Origen, Cyril, Rufinus, Tertullian, Victorinus, Sedulius, and Ambrosiaster, among the fathers.

1 Cor. xv. 18. Here the stress is on the words ἐν Χριστῷ,—not only do the men of the world perish, but even those who have fallen asleep in Christ. That this deeply affected the apostle's mind is clear from his breaking off, (as if the supposition that Christ could possibly have deceived those who had trusted in him,-that He should have proved a broken reed, was too dreadful to dwell upon,) after another mournful sentence which yet carries on the thought, into that noble episode which

extends from verse 20 to verse 28 inclusive. Another proof that there is an emphasis here, is again found in the presence of the xai. 2 Cor. v. 4. Here much beauty is given by the emphasis. "This tent" is opposed to the "lasting dwelling-place," oikηTýptov, mentioned in verse 2.

Gal. vi. 8. This is a very fine and animated passage, and is given by Bishop Jebb in his "Sacred Literature," as a specimen of the poetical parallelism of the New Testament, thus:

He who soweth to his flesh, of the flesh shall reap corruption;

And, He who soweth to the Spirit, of the Spirit shall reap life eternal. To dwell on the very obvious emphasis in the phrases, eis τǹv σáρka ἑαυτοῦ, and εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα, would be altogether futile.

Phil. i. 6. The emphasis here is on the word évapέáμevos, antithetic to émitedéσei, in the same verse, in which word the reader needs only to be reminded that the én is intensive.

1 Thess. v. 12; and 2 Tim. iii. 6. These passages are more difficult, but as they are of the same class, they may be considered together. Their explanation is most probably this. The unusual arrangement is here adopted to prevent ambiguity. In the one case three participles are connected together by the use of the conjunction, and in the other two. Now, supposing them to be arranged in the more usual way, thus, oi eis τὰς οἰκίας ενδύνοντες και αἰχμαλωτίσοντες, κ.τ.λ. τοὺς ἐν ὑμῖν κοπιῶντας καὶ προϊσταμένους ὑμῶν ἐν Κυρίῳ, is the reader prepared to say that no change would take place in the thought conveyed, and that the preposition, with its case, would not then have to be construed with the two or three participles respectively, instead of, as was obviously the apostle's meaning, and as the sense demands, with only one? If not, these instances cannot be quoted as precedents for others where no such ambiguity could arise.

Heb. v. 5. Here the emphasis is found again, and it is very striking; it rests on the words ó laλnoas. "Thus also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest, but He that said unto him, 'Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee!" It is the declaration of God which constitutes him a priest. Indeed it is a question whether, if the emphasis be omitted, the words will not yield this sense, which yet is not sense : "Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest, but He that said unto him, 'Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee!'" did.

Heb. vii. 6. The emphasis is on avτŵv.

Heb. vii. 21. On avтóv. Through Him that said unto him, “The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec." To them he sware not, for they were made priests without an oath; see the context.

Heb. vii. 25. Emphasis on avrou, similar to last case. Throughout

this chapter it must be borne in mind that the Levitical priesthood, and the priesthood of Christ, are most strongly contrasted.

Thus has a satisfactory explanation of these apparent exceptions been attempted, and should the reader be willing to receive this solution, he must also acknowledge that the rule, so far from being weakened by their occurrence, derives additional strength from the circumstance. The result, in short, in that case is plain; no such construction as oi βαπτιζόμενοι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν, can be admitted in the absence of a noun or its locum tenens, on which to depend, unless, as the exceptions prove, an emphasis were intended by the writer.

And is an emphasis, then, all that is contended for? By no means,emphasis is here most expressly denied. It is true, many,—perhaps most of the commentators have affirmed that such exists, confidently pointing from Scaliger downwards (who yet called the Greek article, "loquacissimæ gentis flabellum") to the presence of the article with Vexpov as their proof; and in those who preceded Bishop Middleton, such reasoning was excusable, but that any who have consulted him on this passage, should have thus erred, seems not a little surprising. The truth is, that it is the general rule, as the bishop observes, for VERPOì, like many other nouns of the same class, to have the article, and the reason why, in so many parts of this chapter, it is omitted is, because veκpoì is there found in negative propositions, where a law of the language would have been violated by its insertion. The justice of this remark will appear by a reference to verse 35, where the proposition is not negative, and where the article is consequently found. The emphasis of the article, then, is not proven, as our northern neighbours say; and it would seem that no little keenness will be required to discover any emphasis at all.

Thus have been attacked and called in question the interpretations of former times: but since it would be cruel to take away the critic's gods (quite a Pantheon by-the-bye, upwards of thirty in number) without at least offering something to console him for the loss, it remains to consider the passage de novo;-to see, in short, whether it will not yield some totally different sense from any put upon it hitherto,—one which shall harmonise with the context and which shall, above all, possess what none of its predecessors have possessed,-the merit of

SIMPLICITY.

The first step in this investigation is to examine the text itself, since on its purity more depends in this passage than has been generally supposed.

After the word βαπτίζονται the received text has a second ὑπὲρ τῶν ExpÔv, instead of which, six uncial MSS. including the Alexandrine and the Vatican, a considerable number of cursive, or small-character ones, and many of the versions and fathers, read úπèр avтŵv, which is

accordingly edited by Mill, Bengel, Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann and others. This is doubtless the true reading, the other having arisen through the obvious homoioteleuton occasioned by the preceding vñèp τῶν νεκρῶν, which was again written by the copyist, instead of ὑπὲρ avrov, and thus the variation was caused.

The next change relates to the punctuation; the verse may be written thus : ἐπεὶ τί ποιήσουσιν οἱ βαπτιζόμενοι, ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν, εἰ ὅλως νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται ; τί καὶ βαπτίζονται; ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν τί καὶ ἡμεῖς κινδυνεύομεν πᾶσαν ὥραν ; κ. τ. λ.

And now, one remark will bring us at once to the interpretation of the passage as it stands. It is not only to the affairs of common life, that the proverb, "troubles seldom come alone," is applicable; the sacred critic has his full share of the experience of the truth of the adage: but then there is one redeeming circumstance in his case, and it is this, that the removal of one difficulty frequently leads with him to the easy conquest of others, especially should those difficulties occur in the same connexion. Now, in suffering the endeavour to take away the greater stumbling-block in this passage to engross their whole attention, interpreters seem never to have bestowed a thought upon the less; it may, perhaps, be seen in the sequel that, had they done so, they would have found their task far more easy and simple than it has become by their neglect. The apostle, they have well observed, breaks off, at verse 20, into that noble burst of eloquence which forms the episode that has been referred to, and which, though Bishop Jebb appears only to have noticed the fact as to part, is yet the whole of it delivered in parallelisms the most animated and beautiful. They have seen, too, that in the 29th verse he resumes his subject; but have forgotten to inquire how it is, that after so lengthy a digression, he should sound no note of preparation in joining again the broken thread of his argument? The truth is, that with their views of the sense of the passage, this is a question to be put, but not to be answered. Such a note nevertheless is sounded.

St. Paul, not once himself forgetting, during his transport of feeling, the very point at which he ceased, amply provides against his reader's losing sight of it either. To show this the more effectually, the section commencing with verse 16, and closing with verse 32 inclusive, is here given entire :

"For, if the dead be not awakened, neither is Christ awakened; and if Christ be not awakened, vain is your faith! ye are yet in your sins!-then, even those who have fallen asleep in Christ are perished! If in this life we be hoping in Christ only, wretched above all men are we!

But now hath Christ awaked from the dead,

The first-fruits of the sleepers !

For since by man came death,

By man also, the resurrection of the dead;

For as in Adam all die,