the means of refutation were so easy! Minimus should have accounted for the almost universal prevalence of this error, should have told us the probable causes which misled the Jews themselves on a subject regarding their own division. of time; or he should have shown that the discrepancy supposed to exist between the scripture account and the writings of the Jews themselves did not exist. But as he has found it impossible, on his theory, to reconcile them, it is presumptive proof that that theory is incorrect. And this presumption will be strengthened, nay-it will amount to absolute certainty, upon a critical examination of the subject.

I propose to examine first the Jewish division of time, and then to show how all the texts quoted by Minimus can, on that division, be satisfactorily explained.

1. There were among the Jews three days of different lengths, or commencing at different times. The first was the natural day, consisting of twenty-four hours and reckoned from sunset to sunset. The second, called the artificial day, consisted of the time between sunrise and sunset. The third commenced with the first dawn of light and terminated in the afternoon. Afterwards, for the sake of an equable division of time, the last mentioned day and the artificial day began severally at three and six in the morning, and ended at those hours in the afternoon. The time between the evenings of those days was called inter duas vesperas. Goodwin De Paschate. That the last mentioned day did not commence at midnight is evident from Ex. xii. 29-31, compared with verse 22.

For the Israelites were not to go out until the morning (ws πρωΐ,) which did not commence until after midnight. The Jews at first divided their night into three watches, but afterwards, imitating the

Romans to whom they had become subject, they divided it into four, each of three hours length.*

2. The Jews commenced their civil day at sunset, reckoning the evening preceding the artificial day as belonging to the natural day.

This appears from the account of the creation given by Moses. Before the creation of light, darkness was upon the face of the deep.' And the works of the first day were, the creation of light, its separation from darkness, and the naming of the light and the darkness. The darkness, which he called night, must, therefore, have preceded the day, for it was named previous to the evening following the first day. Nor does the attempt of Minimus, to show that the time before sunrise is often called morning, at all lessen the force of this argument. For, according to the Jewish computation of time, as has been already shown, the time between the first dawn of light and sunrise is called morning. The argument is strengthened by the repeated mention of the evening first. For if the morning had commenced the day, such a collocation, to say the least of it, would have been awkward and unnatural.†

*Initio noctem secabant in tres vigilias, quarum quæque habebat quatuor horas. Hoc liquet ex Judicum 7th, ubi legitur Gideon ingressus fuisse in hostem igitur vigilia erat in media nocte. Quare media nocte, vigilia secunda. Secunda duae aliae extremae partes, erant prima et tertia vigilia, quarum una vigilia vespertina, altera matutina vocabatur. Sed postea imitati Romanos, secuerunt noctem in quatuor vigilias: quarum quæque haberet tres horas sicut habemus apud Evangelistas. Zanchius Tom. III. pages 439, 440. Prima vocabatur ¿↓è, sero. Secunda μεσονύκτιον, media nox. Tertia aλsxropopwvia,gallicinium. Quarta πρωΐ, mane. Nescitis quando herus venturus sit, ¿e vesperi, μsoovuxrix aut media nocte, ή αλεκτοροφωνίας aut gallicinio, pwi aut diluculo. (Marc. XIII. 35.) Goodwin. Lib. III. page 464.

+Insuper Moses vicissitudinem noctis di

3. The Sabbath, as other days, commenced at six in the afternoon. But the preparation commenced at three, at which time the preceding day commencing with the dawn, terminated.* It was ushered in by the sound of a trumpet, which also sounded at its going out. That the Sabbath ended at sunset is evident from the fact, that at the setting of the sun on Sabbath evening the Jews brought their sick to Christ that he might heal them. And the attempt of Minimus to prove that they did not consider the healing of the sick as a violation of the Sabbath, shows only the dilemma to which he is reduced. That they did so consider it may be inferred from Mark iii. 2. And they watched him whether he would heal on the Sabbath day; that they might accuse him.' And also from their own writers. 'Propter morbum quem medici periculosum habent, Sabbathum profanare licet, licet laboret ægrotus carnis aliqua exteriore parte. Si unus medicus affirmat morbum periculosum esse, alter vero negat, Sabbathum tamen profanatur.'

Having shown, I trust satisfactoeique recensens constanter vespera sive noctis primo meminit, veluti v. 5. et fuit vespera, et fuit mane dies primus conf. v. 8, 13, 19, 23, 31, quod argumento est diem naturaliter subsequi. Hinc Judæi uti olim ita hodienum noctem tempori matutino præponunt. Goodwin Lib. III. page 462. *Sabbathum incipit hora sexta vespertini pridie. Graeci id nuncupant παρεισοδον σαββατs. Preparatio Sabbathi erat hora tertia pomeridiana, quam Hebraei vocant vesperam Sabbathi. Goodwin Lib. III. De Sabbatho.

Neque cogi ad praestanda vadimonia sabbatis, aut pridie sabbatorum post horam nonam in parasceue. Flavii Josephi. Antiq. Judaei. Lib. XVI. chap. 10.

+ In omnibus provinciis atque urbibus Israelitarum vespera Sabbathi sextes clangebant.-Primus clangor edebatur in Mincha, tertia parte elapsa, quando sol jam occidebat. Ita quoque Sabbatho exeunte, stellis ortis, cum in finem clangebatur, ut quisque ad opera agenda licentiam acciperent. Rambam Tract. Sabb. Chap. 5.

6

rily, from profane as well as sacred writers, the true division of Jewish time, I will now examine those of the arguments of Minimus which relate more immediately to the Sabbath. The first regards the time of the burial of Christ. "The account of the burial of Christ furnishes evidence that the Sabbath did not begin at sunset." For the evening after which Joseph went to Pilate and begged the body of Jesus' could not mean the first evening which began at noon (three o'clock?) but the second which began at sunset. His arguments are not conclusive; for, the expression when the evening was come (όψιάς γενομένης,) may denote the first evening. Scapula thus defines pwi-ПPI, mane, cui oppon. o, vesperi. It thus appears that ia may denote either the evening of the day commencing at three in the afternoon, or the first watch of the night commencing at six. And the context shows that such must be the meaning. Because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath.' But according to Josephus as quoted supra, the preparation began at three in the afternoon. And according to Lightfoot the preparation began immediately after the evening sacrifice,* which, as will afterwards be shown, was sacrificed a little before three. It may be urged that the first evening cannot be meant, since Christ died at the commencement of this evening, and he had been a long time (raλai) dead. Our translators render raλa any while,' and Hedericus says, dicitur de brevi tempore.

The argument founded on Lev. xxiii. 32. "From even to even shall ye celebrate your sabbath,”

*Vespera Sabbati, seu dies precedens, dies preparationis Sabbati appellabatur, Lucae, XXIII. 54, et a pomeridiano sacrificio et deinceps Sabbato se preparare coeperent &c. Lightfoot Tom. II. page

16.

is not invalidated by the objections of Minimus. Because, as has already been shown, the preparation of the sabbath commenced on the evening of the preceding day. And in the verse preceding, it is expressly stated that they were to begin the Sabbath on the evening of the ninth day. Therefore both evenings would be included. There is one other objection to the commencement of the sabbath on the preceding evening, founded upon John xx. 19, and going to prove that the evening succeeding the sabbath was kept as holy time. Might not the same reference, with equal justice, be drawn from the same practice of holding religious meetings on the evening succeeding the day, which is prevalent now among those who begin the sabbath on the preceding evening?

There remains now to be considered the Passover and those texts which relate to the general division of Jewish time. The substance of his argument founded upon the time of the celebration of the passover may be thus briefly stated. The children of Israel were commanded to kill the paschal lamb" at the going down of the sun" on the fourteenth day, and to eat it on the same day. But if the day ended at sunset, the paschal lamb could not have been eaten on the fourteenth day. Nor could that day be called with any propriety the first day of unleavened bread. To this I reply

1. That the passover was celebrated on the evening of the fourteenth day. The lamb was sacrificed between evening and sunset after the daily sacrifice, and eaten in the night. Ex. xii. 8.* Hence

*Tempus quo agnus mactari debuit, erat vespera. Ex. xii. 6. Sive, ut in originali textu, inter duas vesperas. Goodwin de Paschate. page 545.

Pascha non comeditur nisi noctu, neque comeditur nisi ad mediam usque noctem. Talmud quoted by Lightfoot, Tom. I. page 609.

Deut. xvi. 6, refers to this time, mentioning the commencement and the close," at evening, at the going down of the sun. That these two expressions do not refer to the same point of time, is not only evident from the parallel passage in Exodus but from the continuation of the sentence," at the season that thou camest forth out of Egypt." The Israelites went from Egypt in the morning; the expression, therefore, must denote the preparation for their departure, not the precise time at which they left Egypt. But it stands in the same connexion as the other two expressions-" at even, at the going down of the sun, at the season that thou camest forth out of Egypt." They cannot, therefore, be interpreted literally as referring to the same time, but must denote generally the time of the sacrifice, and the preparation for their departure.

2. That the feast of unleavened bread was eaten on the fifteenth day, which was, therefore, with propriety called the first day of unleavened bread. But the preparation of the feast commenced on the evening preceding the fourteenth day with searching for leavened bread by the light of candles.* search continued four hours after the rising of the sun, from which time until noon the leavened bread was destroyed. As the paschal

This

lamb was sacrificed on the evening of the fourteenth day, and as the Jews were forbidden to offer the blood of sacrifice with leavened bread, Ex. xxiii. 18, they consequently abstained from the use of it on the afternoon of the fourteenth day, which might, therefore, not improperly be styled the first day of unleavened bread, although this was not eaten until the fifteenth day.*

But the reason given by Minimus for calling the fourteenth day the first day of unleavened bread, is very unsatisfactory. For why should that day be called the first day of unleavened bread with any more propriety if it ended at midnight, than if it ended at sunset, if unleavened bread was not eaten until the fifteenth, and if they did not abstain from the use of leavened bread on the fourteenth,-a fact of which Minimus seems not to be aware? The view of the subject here given presents the only satisfactory explanation of these seeming contradictions.

1. Sam. xxx. 17, is another text referred to by Minimus to prove that the evening generally followed the day, and the last that I shall here notice. "And David smote them from the twilight (drò twopogou from the morning dawn) even unto the evening of the next day.” Which is more probable that the battle lasted thirty six hours, or that it lasted twelve?

Since writing the above I have met with "Horne's Introduction,' and have been agreeably surprised at the exact coincidence in the re

sults to which we have arrived. This coincidence is a strong confir

ti, quae facta a quarta ad sextam horam. Goodwin. page 555.

* Investigatio fermenti erat nocte diei decimæ quartae, quamvis comestio fermentati non prohiberatur ante meridiem diei decimæ quartae. Rambam.

Prohibitum est comedere fermentum die decimo quarto a meridie et porro, ab initio horae septimæ. Maimonides quoted by Lightfoot. Tom I. page 458.

mation of their truth. Indeed however agreeable it may be to the feelings, or convenient to the interests of some, or how muchsoever it be fitted to promote a stricter observance of the Sabbath, the change of the evening is absolutely indefensible on the ground that Minimus has taken. Nor am I an advocate for accommodating the commencement of the Sabbath to the convenience of the worldly and irreligious. It is true that the "Sabbath was made for man," but this temporizing, accommodating policy has been carried too far. It ought to stand out from other days with a distinctive prominence. But, in the rage for innovation which is sweeping away the land marks of other ages, this too must be conformed to the spirit of an 'improved philosophy.' Our fathers in view of the positive injunctions of God, pleaded not convenience, but obeyed with alacrity and cheerfulness not only the spirit but the letter of the Law. But we their descendants have found it inconvenient to follow their example, and arguments must forthwith be collected to justify our departure from it. Q. Q.

EXPOSITION OF MATTHEW XI. 11. Verily I say unto you, among them that are born of women, there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding, he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. Mat. xi. 11.

This remarkable asseveration of Christ occurs twice in the evangelists; once in Matthew, as quoted, and also in Luke vii. 28. The passages are parallel, and very much the same in both places.

Perhaps no intelligent Christian has pondered the sentence, without sentiments of wonder and trouble the one, in respect to the question, what does the Saviour mean? the other, because no satis

factory solution has been afforded.

The meaning is the soul of any written instrument. How emphatically is it the soul of inspiration. Qui haeret in litera, haeret in cortice. How often do we rest in mere words; and possibly become pugnacious just in proportion to the husky, chaffy character of the subject-matter of dispute! The meaning, the inspired and native sense of any passage, is that alone which essentially deserves to be denominated the word of God. However technical may seem this sentiment, it is practical too-immensely practical in its applicability. Every Christian is just so technical, when, anxious for the pure truth, he meditates and prays to understand the mind of the Spirit, in any of the various sentences of scripture which may occupy his thoughts.

Notwithstanding, he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." What means this declaration? This is the question to be tried. We shall adduce some popular answers (which are professional and authoritative too!) with our reasons for supposing them erroneous after which, we shall endeavour to make the answer appear.

Many solutions, more or less in genious, have been furnished--we notice only two; and these because they seem (especially the latter) to have been more respectably adopted and more widely prevalent than others. Both depend upon the meaning respectively given to the phrase the kingdom of heaven; and we agree that the meaning of that phrase must (and finally does) determine the meaning of the passage.

1. Some suppose the phrase to refer to the beatitude of the glorified in heaven, and to mean THE

KINGDOM OF GLORY.

That the phrase, so much in use with the evangelists and through

out the New Testament, has sometimes this meaning, no one, we presume, will deny. It is therefore unnecessary to prove it. There are at least four senses in which the phrase is distinctively used with the sacred writers: namely, that which refers it to the visible church-or to the invisible or to the new dispensation-or to the estate of glory. To these some add other senses such as that of the dominion of Providence, that of the visible and invisible church combined, and that of the government or authority of God indifferently. We admit then that such a sense, as that assumed, is not without precedent; and therefore it may be adopted here, if sufficient reasons be not advanced in favour of another.

We might argue against this view from its destitution of positive evidence, from its ill accord with the scope of the context, and from its intrinsic inutility and plainness ; for, what is the bearing of such a proposition, or what its use the least saint in glory is superior to the greatest unglorified and "earthy" one! To whom is this information, or available for the use of edifying?" It appears more to savour of the rhapsody of the Koran, or the puerility of the Apocrypha, than of the sober and practical wisdom of the Bible.

In hope of evincing the right meaning, and consequently of superseding all others, we remark,

2. That many understand by THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN here THE NEW OR GOSPEL DISPENSATION.

Such a version of the phrase gives substantially the following proposition: great as is John the Baptist, he is surpassed by, and inferior to, the least of my disciples under the plenary sway of the dispensation soon to be introduced.

The general reason urged for this view is that Christians, formally such, are so much better informed,