occasionally deformed by a remark of a doubtful complexionis one of the most useful philo. logical works which the biblical student can possess. The London edition, revised by the Rev. S. T. Bloomfield, D.D., and the Edinburgh edition, revised by. Mr. Negris and the Rev. J. Duncan, are improvements upon the author's own text.*

Mr. Duncan's edition we have frequently heard spoken of as less expurgated than Dr. Bloomfield's. Neither professes to be expurgated; but Mr. Duncan has occasionally interjected, within square editorial brackets, a few words expressing theological dissent; whereas Dr. Bloomfield's corrections, so far as we have observed them, are only critical. Dr. Bloomfield addressed a letter to the conductors of the Record newspaper in reply to some strictures upon Professor Robinson's work, which glanced at himself, stating that his own views are decidedly anti-neologian; that he had also inquired carefully respecting Dr. Robinson's religious opinions, and was assured by three persons of known orthodox principles, including two of the most distinguished theological writers of this country, that they are decidedly orthodox, and even evangelical;" that upon this he determined to edit the work; but that "he did not consider himself at liberty to make any direct alteration;" and that he disclaimed being responsible for the author's opinions, by expressing in his preface his regret that "some matter should have found a place, which had better have been excluded, and some views of interpretation and opinions in theology have been brought forward, which had better have been altogether omitted." The conductors of the Record in their reply said: "In noticing the strong condemnation which the British Magazine had passed on Dr. Robinson's work, we thought it possible that its design might be to show the real nature of the American theology, now apparently so fashionable, and therefore that the reviewer had made his extracts from the edition published in Scotland, with all the author's theological sentiments unpruned; but we hoped that the edition to which Dr. Bloomfield had given the sanction of his name might have been purified from these stains, and, retaining all that was valuable, have become free from the

The plan of the Greek English Concordance is the following. There is an alphabetical arrangement, after the plan of Schmid, of every word in the Greek New Testament, Immediately after

errors which the British Magazine showed made the original so unsafe a

guide. We noticed, as an instance of what was meant, something similar having been done for an edition of Parkhurst's Lexicon, of which the reviewer could not be ignorant. As nothing like this appears to have been done, but Dr. Bloomfield's edition is not materially better than its rival, the British Magazine ought not to have selected for reprobation a comparatively obscure edition, but should have singled out Dr. Bloomfield's; since, from his reputation, and from the place of publication, it will be most known, and therefore most likely to become injurious."

We have nothing to do with any of the statements in this passage, except the remark that "Dr. Bloomsfield's edition is not materially better than its rival;" which expresses the opinion we have above alluded to; whereas Mr. Duncan has done in part what Dr. Bloomfield did not consider himself at liberty to attempt; so that if the balance is to be adjusted, the favourable side should be assigned to Mr. Duncan.

We will offer a few illustrations.- On turning to the word Пveux we find a clause significantly interjected with Mr. Duncan's brackets: "Called likewise the Spirit of Christ as [eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son, and as] being sent or communicated by him after his resurrection and ascension." Again, a few lines after, "This Spirit is every where represented as in intimate union with God the Father and Son, as proceeding from and sent forth by them, as possessing the same [nature and] attributes." No such additional words are in Dr. Bloomfield's edition. So again, under the word sapoviçoμai, where Dr. Robinson says, that "it is much disputed whether the writers of the New Testament used this word, to denote the actual presence of evil spirits in the persons affected, or whether they employed it only in compliance with popular usage and belief, just as we now use the word Lunatic, without assenting to the old opinion of the influence of the moon;" adding, "A serious difficulty in the way of this latter supposition, is that the demoniacs every where at once address Jesus as the Messiah;" Mr. Dun

each Greek word follows the series of passages in which it occurs, from the authorised English translation. Italic letters are used to mark the words which correspond to the Greek word under consideration. The object of the work, says the Editor, “is to enIdeavour to lead the mind to deduce its meaning and definition of words from the use made of

can subjoins in brackets [" The difficulties indeed are so many and strong, as to render the opinion utterly untenable."] Dr. Bloomfield has no such remark; he however interjects "See my note on Matt. iv. 24." We have not his note at hand, though we conclude that he writes satisfactorily, as his opinions on these subjects are well-known; but the reader of Robinson is not guarded by them.

We do not think that either of the editors believed his author to be unsound in the faith, though occasionally referring to erroneous opinions without specifically disclaiming them. Even after the discussions respecting the work, Mr. Hartwell Horne, a most zealous and scrutinising anti-neologist, in the new edition of his Introduction to the Scriptures, recently published, continues and enlarges his eulogy upon Dr. Robinson's "truly valuable Lexicon," both in the author's text, and the English and Scottish editions, without the slightest charge of there being any rationalistic bias, or any caution to his readers against it. In nearly two thousand closely printed columns, the above quoted passages are among the most theologically doubtful; but even these do not convict the writer either of positive mistatement or intentional omission.

We will quote two or three other passages from Robinson and his editor Duncan, turning to words likely to elicit rationalistic propensities where they exist. Mr. Duncan's brackets

shew that he was not satisfied with his author's statements; nor are we; but we do not think that it is just to say that they are Neologian, and much less that Mr. Duncan abets such notions. "The Word, the Logos in the writings of John, John i. 1, bis 14, 1 John i. 1, [5: 7,] Rev. 19. 13. It here stands for the preexistent nature of Christ, i. e., that spiritual and divine nature spoken of in the Jewish writings, before and about the time of Christ, under various names, e. g. oopia wisdom."

EwTno. "Of Jesus as the Messiah, the

Saviour of men, who saves his people from [the guilt and pollution, the dominion, prevalency, and in-being of sin; and from] eternal death; from punishment and misery as the consequence of sin, and gives them eternal life and happiness in his kingdom.".

66

Δικαιοω. Spoken especially of the justification bestowed by God on men through Christ, in which he is said to regard and treat them as righteous, to approve and reward as truly pious; i. e. to absolve from the consequences of sin, and admit to the enjoyment of the Divine favour, [as a matter of justice as well as of grace, (grace reigning through righteousness,) on account of the righteousness, merit, or obedience of Christ imputed to believers who, by mystical union, are one with Him.]"

Aixαioon." The righteousness which is of or through faith in Christ, i. e. where faith is counted, imputed, as righteousness, or as evidence of piety, Rom. 9. 30; 10. 6. Phil. 3. 9. [But see the writings of the reformers and their followers, on the all-important doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers.]"

Πιστις. "Of faith in Christ's death, as the ground of justification before God, i. q. saving faith, only in Paul's writings.'

"More especially, the object of justifying faith, that on which a sinner believing the gospel, relies for acceptance with God, viz. Christ, as having fulfilled all righteousness."

referred to (Hebrews ix.) where he would discern that the mention of "the death of the testator," and of a testament not being of force till the testator is dead, led the translators to give that view of the passage. When also he reads in this chapter " the Mediator of the New Testament;" and in chapter vii. 22, "A Surety of a better testament;" but in chapter viii. 6, The Mediator of a better covenant;" he would not go about, as probably many vernacular readers have done, to discover why the Holy Ghost sometimes speaks of the suretyship or mediation as applying to a testament, and at others to a covenant; he will see that he is not to infer a distinction of meaning from the wording-there being but one word-but that a supposed distinction of meaning has led to the use of two renderings.

A case similar to this is constantly occurring in courts of justice. Let us suppose that a document has been carefully translated into English from a language which neither the judge, the counsel, nor the jury understand. Among other things, mention is made of a donation to a certain Society, and of a subscription to another; and a pleader is proceeding to explain these words, the first as meaning a single gift, the second (in ordinary construction, though not necessarily) a recurring contribution; and to found an argument upon the difference. Now though no person present understood the language in which the original document was written, and all were therefore in the condition of a mere English scholar reading the translated bible, yet if it were shewn to them that the same word was used in both places, but that the translator, knew that it meant generally pecuniary contribution, whether special or recurring, the

precise signification in every case being determined by the context, the discussion upon the meaning of the English renderings would be entirely set aside; and the only question would be whether there was anything in the context which would enable the judge and jury to see that such a distinction was intended. Still, as the parties did not understand the original language, they would justly feel inclined to suppose that the translator, if a faithful and competent person, and more especially if his version had been carefully revised by others, did not lightly give two renderings:

And thus would we say of our vernacular translation of the Scriptures. To the ripe biblical scholar it is open to inquire why this or that rendering was preferred; and in some of the passages just alluded to, he may not be able to satisfy himself as to the correctness of the variation. But the English reader must rely generally, as he justly may, under such powerful guarantees, upon the fidelity of the translation: yet with the right to consider the propriety of the rendering, where it is not affected by any philological criticism, but is adopted simply to meet the alleged spirit of the passage.

The

seven

Take another example. word Aikaupa is translated in the New Testament by "ordinances," "judgment," "judgments," "righteousness," and "justification." But four other words are also translated "ordinance; " others are translated "judgment," two others "righteousness," and one other "justification." This may seem perplexing; but the welljudging reader, however unlearned, will easily discover that such variations are easily to be accounted for, in transfusing one tongue into another; and may learn the useful lesson of not dogmatising, as

some very ignorant persons are apt to do, upon the strength of verbal coincidences or discrepancies in a translation.

Or suppose that the English reader wishes to have a fuc-simile of the original in the two words, faith and hope. He turns to the English alphabetical Index, which directs him to the pages of the Concordance in which the Greek words represented by these words occur. It is not essential for this mere verbal collation, that he should be able to read the Greek letters, much less understand the language; for without this he will yet see that the word translated "faith" occurs nearly two hundred and fifty times, and has always this rendering except twice; once where it is translated "assurance," (Acts xvii. 31,) and once (Titus ii. 10) where it is translated "fidelity." On turning to the passage where it is rendered fidelity, he will easily perceive that the translators probably used this word as being in their view more commonly, or properly, or intelligibly, employed to express the trustworthiness of a servant, than the word "faith," which they perhaps thought might be confounded with "faith in its theological sense.

Whether the variation was advisable is a point upon which a well-judging English reader is as capable of forming an opinion as a Greek scholar, espeally as the variation is made for the sake of the former, not the latter. At the present day there would be no popular difficulty in comprehending what is meant by a servant shewing "good faith; and there might even be some advantage in not departing from the otherwise uniform rendering; as the analogy would lead the reader to understand "faith" in its largest sense. Our first English version (Tyndale's of 1526) reads "Neither be pickers; but

that they may shew all good faithfulness;" and other English versions continued that reading. In the passage where the word is rendered " assurance," Tyndale and others read "faith"-" and hath given faith to all men." Our translators probably thought this rendering theologically ambigu

ous.

But the reader, on turning to the word "faith" in the English Index to the Concordance, will perceive that a second Greek word (E\) is assigned to it. On referring to this word, as he is able to do, the page being indicated, he finds it translated, to the number of nearly fifty times, "hope; but once, and once only, he finds it rendered "faith;" namely, Heb. x. 23; "Let us hold fast the profession of our faith" so that the concordance-maker tells him that this word is rendered by our translators both by "faith" and "hope." The concordance-maker is not to blame if he considered that in EXIs he had the identical word which in that passage our translators translated "faith; " but he must have known, and should perhaps have added a note to say, that it was impossible that they could have thus translated; so that they must either have had a copy which reads IIσTεws; or else the word "faith

was a mere

oversight in translating, writing, or printing. Our first translator Tyndale wrote "hope;" the Vulgate had "hope;" nor was there any reason for the substitution of "faith." If the vernacular reader turns to almost any popular commentary, he will be as wise in the matter as his learned neighbour. Doddridge for example will tell him that our translators gave that rendering on the authority of a single manuscript; and Mr. Scott will tell him that hope" is the approved reading. That it is the right word we think hardly worth