of the same verb, and to be pointed. Nothing is easier, in either of these cases, than the grammatical construction. The relative pronouns can be combined in sense with the ini, i. e. it can be combined with the second, or even the first pers. of a pronoun; just as we can say: "He who, thou who, I who; Heb. Gramm. § 121. 1. n. 1. But the last two combinations are somewhat rare; yet not so much so as to be doubtful. Naturally the pronoun relates more often to the third pers., and to make a different reference witheut necessity, is undesirable. But if it be taken as the third pers. here, it would disagree with the suffix -.

But what now is the meaning of the proposed construction above? I answer, that the verb is no stranger in Hebrew. It occurs in Hos. 8: 9, 10, in the sense of distributing or diffusing. Its original meaning is to extend or stretch out. Abundant pledges of this are given in its correlates. In Greek we have rɛiv-w∞, to extend, stretch out. In the Indo-Germanic, tan is of the same meaning. In Ethiopic, tin expanse. In our English word ex-tend, we have the same etymon at the basis. Indeed this sense is quite plain, and well established, in the original root.

=

Besides this, if there be any meaning in the root 7, to give, which is here necessary, the same is also to be found in 2; for one of its meanings is, to give, to distribute, as it evidently stands related to 3. But clearly the former sense of diffusing or expanding is altogether appropriate in the verse before us, which speaks of glory expanded abroad over the whole heavens. What that glory is, the fourth verse has disclosed, viz., the moon and the stars, which, as a combined whole, are spread over the entire face of the sky.

We seem, then, to have arrived near our goal. We can now translate: Thou who diffusest abroad thy glory over the heavens; thus taking as related to the second person, in connection with the pronoun. We point the controverted word, in this case, participially, viz. n. Participles have no distinction of person, but only of gender and number; and they may therefore be used, with equal propriety, with either the first, second, or third person. All on this ground is plain, proper, and appropriately significant. We merely supply the appropriate vowel-points; and the liberty to do this, when the exigency of the passage demands it, has already been vindicated in the preceding No. I. That there is an exigency here, seems to me plain; for we cannot, against the universal testimony of all verbs Pe Nun and Pe Yodh, make an Inf. form out of from in. If it is not a monstrosity, it is at least in opposition to all normal forms of

abridged fem. Infinitives. We obtain as good a sense, even a better

But there is another way of resolving the difficulty, viz., by taking as a verb in the Praet., and pointing it. It would

the word then have for its subject, and we must translate thus: Thou whose glory extends abroad over the heavens. This is favored by Ewald; and for substance it gives the same sense as the other method of pointing, although the structure is not so facile, when we point it as a verb. The noun in is masc. and therefore requires the masc. verb; and such is .

Thus we save all the grammatical difficulty of an Infin. form, which is against usage and without a single parallel in the language. Thus too we obtain even a better sense than gives. And as the verb, when pointed as above (i. e. either or ), is no stranger in the older Hebrew, and has extensive off-shoots in other languages, I can see no valid objection to admitting it here. The objection, that such a verb is not frequent in the Hebrew, if urged against any particular word in this passage or in that, would, if admitted, exclude a great many well established words. E. g. (son) in Ps. 2: 12, stands quite alone in Hebrew, if we except the three examples of it in the brief composition of Lemuel, contained in Prov. xxxi. But who doubts the reality of the reading? So (wife) in Ecc. 2: 8,

stands entirely alone in all the Bible; yet that is no good reason for rejecting the word. And so of a multitude of other words. It is quite as probable that David should use the verb, elsewhere also employed, as that he should use in Ps. 2: 12. The only fair question is: Whether the verb is usable and appropriate? We reply by affirming both; and we have given our reasons for such a reply.

My object was merely a special one in the preceding remarks, viz. to investigate the apparently strange form of the word, as coming from in. We have found an easy and obvious solution, in supposing a different root in actual use. In this case, we change only the vowel-points; and if we can thus avoid trespassing the laws of grammar as to the fem. Inf. forms of verbs Pe Nun, and make even a more appropriate sense by adopting another root, I do not see why any serious objection should be made against the view of the subject which has been taken above.

I merely remark, at the close, that in my apprehension, Ps. viii. needs, and ought to receive, a very different exposition from that which Dr. H. has made out. The abstract ideal man accomplishes

very little here, in the way of satisfying the demands of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 2: 6-9, and several other passages. It seems to me quite certain, that the author of that epistle verily believed that the Messiah is to be found in Ps. viii. My views of his authority are such, that in my mind this settles the question, whether Christ is to be found there, in the affirmative. But time and space forbid entering on a discussion of the Psalm, although one is much needed.

ARTICLE IV.

THE FOUR GOSPELS AS WE NOW HAVE THEM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, AND THE HEGELIAN ASSAULTS UPON THEM.

By C. E. Stowe, D. D., Professor in Bowdoin College.
[Continued from Vol. VIII. p. 529.]

V. COMPARISON OF THE CANONICAL GOSPELS WITH THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS STILL EXTANT.

THE impugners of the New Testament gospels appeal to the fact, that there are gospels acknowledged to be apocryphal, as a proof of their theory that our recognized gospels are also myths or forgeries. Any one who candidly examines these spurious gospels, and compares them with the New Testament, will find in them, not a refutation of our sacred writers, but a most convincing testimony to their intelligence, honesty and supernatural inspiration. So totally diverse are they from the genuine gospels, in conception, in spirit, in execution, in their whole impression-in all respects so entirely unlike, so immeasurably inferior, that the New Testament only shines the brighter by the contrast. They have scarcely so much resemblance to the genuine gospels, as the monkey has to a man.

An elaborate history and collection of these writings was first published by Fabricius near the beginning of the last century. The first volume of a new and critical edition was issued at Halle by Thilo in 1832. Prof. Norton has given an account of them in the third volume of his work on the Genuineness of the Gospels, but with an incredulity in regard to the testimony of the ancients which amounts

almost to credulousness; yet it is very useful to be studied in connection with other and more credulous authorities. Ullmann gives a very good abstract of them in his treatise entitled Historisch oder Mythisch, and Guerike in his Introduction to the New Testament makes a brief and intelligible catalogue of them. Quite recently Dr. Hoffmann of Leipzig has compiled a Life of Jesus according to the Apocrypha, accompanied with learned annotations. tions of the principal apocryphal writings of the New Testament have been collected and published both in England and the United States. If this has been done with any purpose of bringing discredit on our genuine New Testament, the design has most signally failed, for on every fair minded and intelligent reader, they must produce directly the opposite effect.

English transla

Fabricius gave the titles of about fifty of such spurious writings, and the industry of subsequent investigation has added to the number; but scarcely one-tenth part of these are now extant, and probably there were never more than ten or a dozen distinct works of the kind, the others being different recensions of the same narrative, or different titles of the same work, or mere repetitions of each other.

The Apocryphal Gospels.

Not more than seven of these now remain, which are worthy of notice, three of them in the Greek language, two in the Latin, and two in the Arabic. They are the following:

1. The Protevangelium of James the Brother of the Lord, of which the full Greek title is this: Διήγησις καὶ ἱστορία πῶς ἐγεννήθη ἡ ὑπεραγία Θεοτόκος εἰς ἡμῶν σωτηρίαν, that is, Declaration and history how the most holy mother of God was born for our salvation. This seems to be the most ancient and valuable of these books; it was first made known in Europe by W. Postel about the middle of the sixteenth century, and was published by Fabricius in his Codex Apoc. Nov. Test. The principal part of it is occupied (cap. 1—20) with the history of the birth and childhood of Mary, and the circumstances attending the birth of Christ. Then follows briefly and much in the manner of our gospels (cap. 21, 22) the visit of the Magi and the flight into Egypt; and it concludes (cap. 23, 24) with an extended description of the murder of Zachariah, the father of John the Baptist. The style of this gospel is far more simple and pure than that of any other of these apocryphal narratives, though in this respect, as in all others, it is immeasurably below the canonical books. Some

things mentioned in it are alluded to by Justin Martyr and Clemens Alexandrinus, and the book is expressly quoted by Origen. It was in existence, at least a part of it, as early as the third century, though it was much later than that, before it was ascribed to the brother of our Lord, or took the title of Protevangelium. It gives some indications of a Gnostic origin. It was for a long time held in high estimation by the Greek church, and publicly read at their festivals, especially those which pertained to Mary. Very probably many of the early church traditions respecting Mary are preserved in it; and in this respect it may gratify a curiosity for which the canonical gospels make very little provision.

2. The Greek Gospel of Thomas. This is one of the most extravagant of the apocryphal books, and professes to give a minute account of Jesus from the twelfth year of his age. It is filled with miracles which are wholly ridiculous, and some of them decidedly immoral and malevolent. The beginning and close of the book are very fragmentary. Irenaeus (adv. Haer. I. 17) refers to some things contained in the book, and Origen (Hom. in Luc. I.) expressly mentions it. There is not the shadow of probability that it was written by Thomas the apostle. It is evidently of heretical origin, and was highly esteemed and in great use among the Manichaeans. It is probably of considerably later date than the preceding one, and its Greek style is very impure.

3. The Greek Gospel of Nicodemus. This, next to the Protevangelium, is the most important and respectable, as well as the most widely circulated of the apocryphal gospels. It is divided into two unequal parts, which seem originally to have been separate works. The first part (cap. 1—16) contains a minute description of the examination of Jesus before Pilate, and of his crucifixion and resurrection, and appears to be a remodelling and amplification of certain epistles and acts of Pilate, which are very early mentioned, but have not come down to us in a reliable shape. (See Justin Martyr, Apol. I. 76, 84. Tertull. Apol. 21. Oros. Hist. VII. 4. Euseb. Hist. Ecc. II. 2.) It is probably of Jewish-Christian origin, and written for the purpose of affecting unbelieving Jews by the example of Annas and Caiaphas, who, it alleges, were converted by the testimony of Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea.

The second part (cap. 19-27) describes Christ's descent into Hades and the wonderful things he accomplished there. This is apparently more modern than the first part. Some Latin MSS. have an additional chapter, in which Annas and Caiaphas make oath before Pilate,