mind might entertain a project of this sort; a kind of solicitude to sustain the character of an apostle is observed in the author of the epistle; from his anxiety we may account for all those circumstances in the life of the apostle which the author has interwoven in the book, particularly 1: 18 seq. Though I would not deny that any one has a right to come to such conclusions, yet I believe that no person free from prejudice, will dare to demand that all others should so conclude, as if such was the only conceivable mode of solving the difficulty. This satisfies us; we affirm this only, that the spuriousness of the epistle cannot be shown by convincing arguments, in the manner that the genuineness of the gospels and other books of the New Testament may be satisfactorily established even in the view of an unfriendly critic by witnesses and documents in all respects worthy of credit. Far different, then, is the question respecting this epistle and that regarding other books of the New Testament, particularly the gospels and the more important epistles of Paul. These last may be vigorously defended against the assaults of adversaries by proofs from history and by internal evidence; while in respect to the second epistle of Peter, friendly critics who are desirous of establishing its genuineness will see occasion for doubt. But, on a thorough examination, this at least can be made out, that the arguments which go to disprove its genuineness are not of sufficient weight to establish the spuriousness of its origin.

I will now recall to the reader's mind what was said in an early part of this discussion: "If these arguments truly prove its spuriousness, it seems to me to be wrong not to exclude it from the constellation of sacred books, and probibit its use in all doctrinal and theological discussions. How difficult and perilous such a step would now be, every person must be aware. There are, indeed, very many, who, though they consider it to be spurious, hesitate not to employ it in popular discourses, and in doctrinal and theological discussions, maintaining that the subject and scope of the epistle are to be heeded, not its author and origin. To such, I cannot unite myself." This being the case, I acknowledge that the result of this investigation has given me the highest delight; the arguments do not demand what would be a most deplorable step-the exclusion of the epistle as spurious from the New Testament canon; wherefore, I most earnestly desire that that mode of judging respecting the sacred books, particularly the second epistle of Peter,

which I have proposed, (which does not in all cases require that the genuineness or the spuriousness of a book should be certainly determined, but which allows it to be placed in that class whose authenticity may be questionable), will commend itself to the critics of our times. I would also hope that the criticism of the New Testament may at length be placed on an established basis, although different writers will have different opinions regarding degrees of probability in particular cases. All sound critics may easily come to an agreement concerning those books which are clearly either genuine or spurious. Other books whose authorship is doubtful may be by common consent assigned to a special class. The remainder, in respect to which we can scarcely arrive at definite conclusions, may be placed by themselves. I think that all the books of the New Testament may be arranged in the following four classes.

1. This class may include those books whose genuineness can be demonstrated, and which can be assigned to specific authors. These are the four Gospels; the Acts, the following epistles of Paul-Romans, the two to the Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, the two to the Thessalonians, and the epistle to Philemon; the first epistle of John, and the first epistle of Peter.

2. Those whose spuriousness can be shown. To this class, I suppose, no book of the New Testament can be assigned.

3. Those books whose author is uncertain, but whose authenticity is clear. To this class belong the epistle to the Hebrews, the epistle of James, the second and third epistles of John, and the epistle of Jude.

4. The class which embraces the books whose authenticity or spuriousness cannot be made out by indisputable proofs. This includes the two epistles to Timothy, the epistle to Titus, and the second epistle of Peter.

In relation to the books of the fourth class, it may be remarked that the arguments are of less weight which are adduced against the genuineness of Paul's epistles to Timothy and Titus, than those which have been urged by us against the second epistle of Peter. We may then conclude that the force of the argument is not sufficient to maintain and demonstrate the authenticity of the epistles of Paul to Timothy and Titus; while in relation to the second epistle of Peter, the testimony is not sufficient to overthrow its authenticity. Greater suspicion attaches to the latter; entire certainty does not belong to the former.

The Apocalypse is a book of a peculiar kind. It seems to me quite difficult, as it did to Eusebius, (Euseb. H. E. III. 25), to assign it to any particular class. It is my opinion, however, that the causes of the difficulty do not lie in the book, or in its history, but in the diverse notions of learned men, who, influenced by doctrinal considerations, have imagined that they have found in the Apocalypse what they desired to find. Some have regarded the authorship as the only doubtful point; others have no question of its genuineness; while others still are fully convinced that it is the fiction of an impostor. At the present day the controversy respecting this last book of the New Testament does not seem to be at rest. An agreement in opinion on the part of the learned concerning this book appears at present scarcely to be expected. Yet, respecting a book full within and without of mysteries, I feel no desire to conceal my own judgment. Under the guidance of history, I believe that the Apocalypse is the genuine production of the apostle John. The Fathers universally ascribe it to him; the opponents of its genuineness beyond a doubt are influenced by doctrinal considerations. What is urged against its genuineness from the nature of the book itself, in opposition to the voice of all antiquity, is, in my opinion exceedingly trivial. Suppose that John wrote the Apocalypse during the reign of Nero, and all doubts arising from its style and its history vanish.*

But not to protract this discussion too far, I will simply add that I hope it is made apparent that the second epistle of Peter may be retained in the canon, though there may be a concurrence of specious arguments in opposition to its genuineness. This conclusion will greatly subserve the interests of the church. On account of the weakness of many Christians, it would be very difficult and dangerous to remove a book from the canon. Yet the second epistle of Peter ought to be removed, if it is not the production of the apostle. It must be regarded as the work of a bold and dishonest man, if it had its origin at a later age. That our epistle should find a more fortunate position than the one it

* I have not altered my opinion from reading the treatise of the learned Liicke (Bonn, 1832), who, though he denies that John the apostle was author of the Apocalypse, yet, moved, as it seems, by the great number of ancient witnesses in favor of its apostolical origin, attributes to John a very large share of authority in the composition of the predictions which it contains.

now occupies, neither history nor the nature of the epistle give us any right to expect. It is possible, however, that new remains of antiquity may be discovered, by which every thing that now creates suspicion may be altogether removed.

ARTICLE V.

ON THE MEANING OF THE WORD πλήρωμα IN THE NEW TESTAMENT; AND PARTICULARLY ON THE MEANING OF THE

PASSAGE IN WHICH IT OCCURS, IN COL. 2: 9, "Or iv avrợ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωμα τικῶς, καὶ ἐστε ἐν αὐτῷ πεπληρωμένοι.

By M. Stuart, Prof. Sac. Lit. Theol. Sem. Andover.

THE variety of interpretation which exists in commentaries, exegetical essays, and lexicons, with regard to this difficult and apparently obscure passage, renders it desirable that some further effort should be made in order more clearly to illustrate its meaning. Whether the present attempt to contribute something to this purpose, is in any good degree successful, must be left to the judgment of the reader.

The principal difficulty respects the words πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς. The course which I intend to pursue in relation to the exegesis of these words, and of the whole passage, will be that which is prescribed by the ordinary laws of grammar, by the usus loquendi, and by analogy of doctrine as exhibited in other passages of Scripture. All sober and considerate inquirers will at once concede, that the course itself now proposed is a proper one. The only question about which I anticipate any difference of opinion, will be, whether I have actually and properly pursued the course which I have marked out for myself. I cannot expect, perhaps, to obtain the assent of every reader, to all which I may here advance; but I shall endeavour so to conduct my inquiries, as to satisfy him that my design is to govern myself by sound principles of interpretation, and that, if I have failed to do so, it is rather from the imper

fection of my knowledge, than from party feeling or theological prejudice.

It may be proper that I should say a few words here, by way of introduction, respecting the form of nouns in -ua and the signification which may lawfully and properly be assigned to them. It is easy to see what bearing this will have upon the main subject of the difficulty before us, viz. the meaning of the word πλήρωμα.

The late Prof. Tittmann of Leipsic, whose name and essays have so often appeared in this Miscellany, remarks (Opuscula, 1829, p. 324), that commentators on Rom. 5: 18 have not unfrequently rendered the word dixalapatos there, as if it meant justification. To this he objects, on the ground that dixaiwμa must signify some thing or state, and cannot be rendered as a nomen actionis, i. e. as designating the same idea that dixaiwois designates, viz., justification as an act. A fault of this nature,' he then remarks, is not unfrequent in the lexicons of the New Testament;' he means that it is a fault or error to attribute an active signification to nouns ending in -ua.

The more attention I have paid, however, to the Greek language, especially to that of the New Testament, the more I have doubted whether this remark does not extend a theory in language beyond what practice or usus loquendi will warrant. Buttmann, whom all that know his merits will concede to be a very accurate and intelligent Greek scholar, has ranked several endings of nouns together, in his Greek Grammar, to which he assigns a common signification. Thus under those which designate action or operation (like that expressed by a verb), he designates the following endings, viz., -μός -μη -μα -σις -σια -η -a -os (masc.) -os (neut.). As to those in -uos, he states that they appropriately and generally denote abstract ideas, i. e. those which signify mere action itself, and not the subject or object to which these belong. Examples are naluós swinging, ὀδυρμός sorrowing, οἰκτιρμός compassion (as an act), σεισμός trembling, etc. On the other hand, those nouns which end in -μa he considers as more usually and naturally designating the concrete, and so of course as signifying subject or object itself. In this respect, a noun of such an ending seems to be equivalent to the neuter gender of the Perf. participle passive; e. g. πρᾶγμα a thing done = τὸ πεπραγμένον something done, μίμη ua an imitation or a likeness, onéqua seed or something sowed,

etc.