resemblance between sitting with Christ in heaven and being dipped in water or taken out of it. Why, then, should we suppose the Apostle's illustration to be interrupted, not helped, by the introduction of a figurative allusion to the mode of baptism, when the subject of union to Christ, with which both pædobaptist and antipædobaptist writers must begin and end, carries us so admirably through the whole illustration?

Having thus endeavoured to explain the meaning of this text, we now state the following doctrines contained in it :

1. That Jesus Christ was raised from the dead by the power of God.

2. That faith is necessary in order to our union with Christ and participation in the blessings he has purchased for us.

3. That the effectual operation of God is necessary in order that this faith may be produced.

4. That it is incumbent on those who possess this faith to profess it by receiving the ordinance of baptism.

5. That by faith in the crucified Redeemer the believer becomes dead to sin and carnal observances.

6. That by faith in the risen Redeemer he is raised to holiness and the active discharge of the duties of the Christian life.

Among the legitimate inferences deducible from this text we may mention the following:

1st. We should call no man master on earth. Christ is our only master, and whatever in religion is not after Christ cannot command our obedience. Christ is all to the Christian. buried and risen with him.

We are

2nd. We ought to express our gratitude for the powerful operation of the Holy Spirit on our minds. If we have been raised to newness of life, we owe it to his powerful operation.

3rd. Our position as Christians demands that our lives be consecrated to the service of God.

ON

ON "INA AND THE FORMULA "INA ПAHPQ'OH.

By the Rev. W. NIBLOCK, A.M.

It is a matter of very considerable importance in Biblical exposition to settle the meaning of iva and iva λnpan as they are employed by the New Testament writers. Upon the way in which iva and iva λngaon are interpreted depends whether certain announcements made in the Old Testament, and which have been very generally in the Christian world regarded as predictions, are prophecies at all. Some expositors suppose that va has two significations, the one denoting design, end, or intention; and the other sequence, effect, accommodation, resemblance, or illustration-the one called the telic, and the other the ecbatic use of the word. In some places they think the term is employed without conveying any notion of design or intention whatever. There is another class of critics who think that iva never signifies anything but design or intention; and while these critics acknowledge that the immediate agents employed in fulfilling the divine predictions may not act with any intention to accomplish them, yet God, they think, who superintends the volitions and actions of men, designed to fulfil his prophecies by means of their agency. These expositors, in the cases referred to, also think that the sacred writers (being accustomed to trace all events up to the Deity as the prime mover in everything) ascribe the intention which is wanting in man to the Divine Being, and that this design is expressed by the writers of the New Testament by the word iva. In order to make out the ecbatic use of iva, it must be satisfactorily proved that it is employed occasionally without conveying any notion of intention in any way whatever. It is I think manifest, if this cannot be established, that the ecbatic acceptation of Iva must be given up altogether. I am quite satisfied that both Tittmann and Stuart have signally failed in their attempts to prove that va has an ecbatic meaning-that the word has this meaning I am convinced has not yet been established by anybody. Reasoning à priori, one would be inclined to think, from the nature of language as a vehicle of thought, that words cannot have two meanings that have no connection with each other whatever; if this were the case, words would have no fixity of meaning at all. Words, as it appears to me, must have one primary and radical signification, and in all their secondary acceptations they must have a meaning analogous to their primary one. If this were not

the

the case, language would be quite unsettled; it could never be employed as anything like an adequate representation of the operations of the mind. But how the triliteral va can at one time be used to denote design and intention, and then again be employed without any idea of design and intention, I confess I am not able to understand. I cannot discover in the laws of language and of thought why va should have one meaning at one time and another directly different from it at another.

Πληρώθη is related to πλήρης, which is akin to our word ‘full and the Latin plenus' and the Greek λéos; it signifies to fulfil, to accomplish or complete, and the translation of ivanpútn which we have in the Authorized Version of the Bible I believe to be the true one. It does not appear to me that there is any difficulty whatever in understanding the formula iva λngen, except what interpreters make for themselves; and I am very much inclined to think that the ingenuity and learning that have been displayed, in some cases, in explaining this phrase have served no other purpose than to get rid of its obvious signification. Is there any difficulty in understanding this sentence?-George went to college that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by his mother respecting his future scholarship; and when a New Testament writer says that a certain thing was done that a prophecy in the Old Testament might be fulfilled, is it not manifest that the event which he records was intended to fulfil the prediction ?

Now the

Let us now examine a few passages of Scripture with a view to ascertain whether the word "va is used in a telic or in an ecbatic sense. In Matt. i. 18-22 we have a citation from Isa. vii. 14 respecting the conception and birth of our Lord Jesus Christ; and in the 22nd verse we are told that everything regarding the incarnation of the Saviour was done iva λngwen, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son. question is, whether in this place va must be understood in a telic or in an ecbatic sense; if it be interpreted ecbatically, then it follows that Isa. vii. 14 can have no reference to Christ at all. The evangelist must simply be regarded as saying that the conception and birth of the Saviour bore a striking resemblance to one of a similar nature recorded by Isaiah. The words of the prophet run thus: 'Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son.' This language cannot be made to apply to the prophet's wife, or to a young woman to whom the prophet was shortly to be married, because they mentioned by the prophet was to conceive and bring forth in her virgin state. The words of Isaiah, I am humbly of opinion, must be regarded as referring exclusively to the virgin

mother

mother of our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ, and the particle iva inust be understood in its telic application. It is asked how could the birth of a child, that was to be born 740 years after the time of Ahaz, be a sign to him that the empire would not be dismembered at this time by the two kings that were combined against it, and given to the son of Tabeal (see Isa. vii. 6). It ought perhaps to be a satisfactory answer that the evangelist Matthew applies the prophet's words to the conception and parturition of the Saviour, and that Isaiah himself calls the very same event a sign. But in addition to this, it may be observed that the sign was not exclusively intended for Ahaz; it was also designed for the house of David, or for the whole population, or perhaps especially for the pious part of them. The king had wickedly refused asking a sign when it was offered by the prophet. To quiet the minds of the pious people of the kingdom of Judah the prophet reminds them that the sceptre should not depart from Judah until Shiloh come; that the Messiah was to descend from the tribe of Judah, and that their civil polity would be continued until the birth of the Saviour. The pious portion of the people would of course credit the prophet, and would feel assured that the kings who were confederated against them would not succeed in dismembering their kingdom and giving it to the son of Tabeal (see Isa. vii. 6). In the passage in Matthew above referred to, iva npwon must be understood as denoting that the conception and birth of the Saviour was intended to fulfil the prophecy of Isaiah (vii. 14). The telic use of iva however does not make the Evangelist say that the sole design of the conception and parturition of Christ was intended to fulfil the prophecy, but the fulfilment of the prophecy was one design of his incarnation.

Matt. ii. 15 is another place that has been adduced to prove that va must be translated so that; it is a citation from Hos. xi. 1, where the prophet says, "When Israel was a child then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.' The Evangelist Matthew says in reference to this citation, that Joseph went into Egypt with Christ, and remained there till the death of Herod, vz πληρωθῆ το ῥηθεν, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet saying, out of Egypt have I called my Now the question is, how must "va be understood in Matt. ii. 15? whether must it have an ecbatic or a telic signification? Tittmann, in commenting on this portion of sacred writ, says, the words of the prophet are not the object of my present consideration, nor shall I now inquire whether they were originally used in reference to Jesus or the Jewish people, for it is quite certain that the end proposed by Joseph, and to be accomplished by staying in Egypt, was not the fulfilment of the prophecy.' In this rather

son.

VOL. III. NO. VI.

2 B

positive

positive and summary manner he seems to think that he has settled the whole difficulty, and proved beyond dispute that the calling of Christ out of Egypt was not intended to fulfil the prophecy in Hosea above cited. Now it is readily conceded that it may not have been the intention of Joseph to fulfil the prophecy in Hos. xi. 1 by his remaining with Christ in Egypt till the death of Herod, and by his return after that event; but this is no evidence that Joseph's residence in Egypt and return from it was not intended by God to fulfil the prediction of the prophet. It must be admitted that several prophecies respecting the Messiah have been unintentionally fulfilled as far as the immediate actors were concerned; but this is no proof that God did not design by their instrumentality to accomplish the predictions. There is nothing in the language of Hosea cited above that I can see that prevents us from applying it to the Messiah. I am quite surprised at the dictatorial and dogmatical manner of some critics in deciding so peremptorily that the term Israel in Hos. xi. 1 must be applied to the Jewish people and to them only. I am not aware that their arguments are so conclusive, or that their logical deductions are so convincing as to warrant so much positiveness. The term Israel, as Lowth observes, in its original and full import, can only belong to him who contended powerfully with God on behalf of mankind and prevailed (Gen. xxxii. 28). The name David is not unfrequently given to Christ, and for my part I cannot see any good reason why the name Israel may not be given to him in Hos. xi. 1. In Isa. xlix. 3, I am quite satisfied that the Messiah is designated by the name Israel. The language of the prophet runs thus :-Thou art my servant O Israel in whom I will be glorified.' The Israel mentioned here in the subsequent part of the chapter is described as a light to the Gentiles, and as being for salvation to the ends of the earth; kings and princes are represented as honouring him, and as bowing down before him. I am not ignorant that the term Israel in this passage has been applied to the Jewish people, to the prophet Isaiah, and also to the collective body of the prophets, still I think it has not yet been proved that the epithets given to Israel throughout the chapter can be fairly and truly understood of any except our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. If these observations be correct, Hosea xi. 1 must be regarded as a prophecy respecting the Messiah; and the term va in Matt. ii. 15 must have a telic signification, and the Evangelist's meaning must be that Christ's residence in Egypt and return from it were intended by Jehovah to fulfil the prophecy in question.

Matt. iv. 13 is also one of those places where some critics think that ive λngwe must be translated so that it might be

fulfilled.