6.) and in the scholia of Maximus. If the appeal is made, as it has been done, to ἐπίλογος and to ἐπιμέτρον, which is yet equivalent to uniquεToov, it would be a mistake, for ni here also signifies only what has been added to the just measure. In taking the word therefore in the spiritual sense, ni can only be explained as in the other case when the word is understood in the corporeal sense: "that which is serviceable and necessary to the existence, i. e. to the true existence." Thus Origen has explained it, and in like manner Cyrill of Jerusalem: Ó ÉTIOÚσιος ἀντί τοῦ, ἐπὶ τ. οὐσίαν τ. ψυχῆς κατατασσόμενος. Olshausen has not entered into a minute examination of the grammatical import of the word. If the grammatical exposition of its sense which has already been given is admitted to be just in case the passage is understood of corporeal bread, it must also be allowed to be admissible in that view of the passage which is now under consideration. We proceed now to inquire into the grounds upon which this spiritual interpretation is founded; and shall exhibit the arguments which have lately been presented by Olshausen. 1. The entire prayer is composed only of spiritual requests. We reply by repeating what has often been said, we should expect, for this very reason, that the prayer would certainly contain a petition referring to our earthly wants. If this prayer is a complete form, in which, as was early remarked by Chrysostom and Augustin, all the desires of our heart should ascend, then provided it is suitable for Christians to pray at all for earthly things, the prayer must contain a petition which takes also into view their earthly wants. But godliness has the promise of the life that now is as well as of that which is to come, 1 Tim. 4:8; Paul bids Christians pray for all that are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, 1 Tim. 2: 2, in which the wish is expressed for a peaceable enjoyment of the daily necessaries of life: Christians, according to Paul's direction, should labour, that they may have wherewith to supply their own wants, and something also to bestow on others, Ephes. 4:28. 1 Thess. 4: 11. 5: 12. 2 Thess. 3: 10, 12. Now if such labour were not to be sanctified by prayer, the consciousness of our dependence upon God would be wanting in respect to the greatest part of our present active existence. Prayer for earthly things is therefore essentially connected with industry, in order that industry may be sanctified, and that man may acknowledge his dependence on God in reference to his earthly work as well as in reference to

his spiritual. 2. Again it is said that in the following c. 6: 25, this very care for the body is thrown into the back ground as relating to a matter of subordinate importance. We reply it is also made to take the same subordinate place in our petition, first, inasmuch as but one petition has reference to our earthly concerns, and next, because only so much is prayed for, as may serve for our subsistence, and even that only for the present day ; as Chrysostom says, ἄρτον ἐκέλευσεν αἰτεῖν ἐπιούσιον οὐ τρυφὴν ἀλλὰ τροφήν. 3. The word ἐπιούσιος indicates spiritual food. How it has any such allusion Olshausen does not inform us. 'Ovola means simply existence; and there is no apparent reason, why we should suppose the reference is to the

This is well expressed by Luther, where, in the smaller catechism he says in reply to the question, what is that? "God gives their daily bread even without their asking for it, to all wicked men: but we ask in this prayer, that he would lead us to acknowledge it, and to receive our daily bread with thankfulness." Spener also, theol. Bedenk. I. c. 1. sect. 16, decides against the spiritual view of the petition, and that too, particularly "because it is essential to the Christian that he should not receive the temporal blessings of providence without prayer and thankfulness." Among the ancient interpreters, the original but often spiritual and profound author of the opus imperf. in Matth. gives this thought peculiar prominence. He remarks that the prayer does indeed seem unmeaning in the mouth of those, whom God has bountifully supplied against all future need, and answers the objection thus: Ita ergo intelligendum est, quia non solum ideo oramus: "panem nostrum da nobis," ut habeamus, quod manducemus, sed ut, quod manducemus, de manu Dei accipiamus. Nam habere ad manducandum, commune est inter justos et peccatores; frequenter autem et abundantius peccatores habent, quam justi. De manu autem Dei accipere panem non est commune, sed tantum sanctorum. Praeparare ergo non vetant haec verba, tamen cum peccato praeparare vetant. Nam qui cum justitia praeparat, illi Deus dat panem, quem manducat; qui autem cum peccato, illi non dat Deus sed diabolus. Nam omnia quidem a Deo creantur, non tamen Deo omnia subministrantur. Vel intelligendum est ita, ut, dum a Deo datur, sanctificatus accipiatur: et ideo non dixit: panem quotidianum da nobis hodie, sed addidit: Nostrum, id est, quem habemus jam praeparatum apud nos, illum da nobis, ut, duin a te datur sanctificetur. Ut puta, si laicus offeret sacerdoti panem ut sacerdos accipiens sanctificet, et porrigat ei: quod enim panis est, offerentis est: quod autem sanctificatus est, beneficium est sacerdotis.-Chrysostom on the last verse of the 6th chap. makes remarks somewhat of the same kind. Comp. Basilius Rev. brev. Interr. 252.

spiritual rather than to the corporeal existence. Origen distinguishes in an acute and sensible manner the twofold reference of ovoia to the corporeal and spiritual being, and grounds his assertion that ovoia in the present case denotes the corporeal existence, only upon the fact-which he takes for grantedthat the bread is spiritual.--A more important argument, perhaps, would be this: If the petition were only a request for the competent supply of our wants, why employ a word of so unusual a form? We have already explained that we suppose the word to be formed after the analogy of neolovotos, and this supposition is sufficient to explain the uncommonness of the form.

We must be permitted to doubt, that the Evangelists or Christ would have employed simply novoia to designate the true existence, without more distinctly defining the meaning by some word like an ivós. What term would it have been necessary for Christ to use, in order to express without further addition the spiritual being or existence? Perhaps the same Greek word which we find in the Rabbinic and Syriac

1,

mo? Is the word of so high antiquity among the Rabbins and Syrians? But even if it were, who could have understood it without further addition, as it far more frequently occurs in the Rabbinic in the sense of opes and even of ager, (s. Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. s. h. v.)? Or did Christ say 13 or 773

? It would have been impossible to understand this of spiritual being without some further addition. And to what purpose would have been these unusual expressions, departing so widely from the usage of the New Testament, when so many other terms for this idea lay near at hand, and were universally current? This notion is expressed every where else in the New Testament by ἀληθινός, πνευματικός (1 Cor. 10:3, 4), ovoários.-But if Christ spoke of corporeal bread, he might

כּדֵי כְּדֵי לְקִיוּם : have made use of the following expressions . כְּדֵי חֲקֵנוּ, לְפַרְנַסְתֵּינוּ

We might also, perhaps, suppose 72, which is the rendering in the Heb. version of Münster-which, however, we do not approve. Viewed in this light also, the reference to corporeal bread recommends itself as the most satisfactory.

1 James of Edessa (at the close of the 7th century) remarks, that the Syrians first introduced the Greek word amo into their language about a hundred years before his time. Assemani, Bibl. Orient. I. 479.

Respecting oros we need only remark, that like p, it is used in the New Testament in the broader sense, e. g. 2 Thess. 3: 12, in which sense also it afterwards passed over into the later Greek comp. e. g. äorov ßeßagnuevov sodiei s. Du Cange Gloss. Graec. med. s. h. v. The modern Greeks employ you with the same general meaning. From the appended nu some have attempted to draw an argument in favour of the spiritual, others in favour of the literal interpretation. No conclusion can be drawn from it either way, it signifies the bread which we need, which is intended for us. Euth. ἄρτον δὲ ἡμῶν εἶπεν, ἀντὶ τοῦ, τὸν δι ̓ ἡμᾶς γενόμενον.

ARTICLE VIII.

CRITICAL NOTICES.

1.-A Commentary on the book of Psalms; on a plan embracing the Hebrew text, with a new literal version. By George Bush, Prof. of Heb. and Orient. Lit. in the NewYork City University. New-York, Leavitt, Lord & Co. 1834. pp. 80.

This Commentary is designed to be published in Numbers, at intervals of about three months. The whole work will probably be embraced in ten or twelve numbers. As most of the Psalms have no special connection with each other, a periodical issue was thought to be preferable to a delay of two or three years in publishing the entire work. The first number includes the preface; an introduction, (in which are considered the general title of the Psalms, the collection and arrangement, the titles and authors, musical accompaniments, poetical characteristics, the subject of imprecations, principles of interpretation, list of the most important critical works on the Psalms); and a translation of the first three psalms, with a commentary. The introductory matter occupies twenty-four pages. Clear exposition is the paramount purpose of the author. Though he

has the benefit of scholars especially in view, yet the intelligent reader, who simply understands English, it is supposed, may derive essential advantage from the work. In the literal version appended to the original text, the words of the established translation have been always retained whenever they appeared to be the most suitable; no departures being made from it with a view to greater elegance or euphony. The notes are designed principally to elucidate the force, import and pertinency of the words and phrases of the original, by the citation of parallel instances, and to throw light upon the images and allusions of the sacred writers by reference to the customs, manners, laws, geography, etc. of the east.

It would be manifestly improper to give any decided opinion of the merits of a commentary on one hundred and fifty psalms, when a tithe only is published.. We shall, therefore, mainly confine ourselves to the correction of a few errours. On p. 19, 3d line, eorum is printed corum; p. 21, 5th line, the word be is omitted; p. 26, Ps. 1: 1, the word is omitted; p. 49, 3d verse of the second Ps. the simple Sheva is wanting under the first letter of the first word; same page, 7th line from the bottom, the final Hholem is omitted in the Hebrew word there quoted. Last line of page 54, reference is to Ps. 72: 6, instead of 22: 6; p. 59, 6th line from the bottom, the word en is printed ; p. 65, 6th line from the bottom, 12 is printed ; p. 75. second line of the notes, remembering is substituted for reminding. Middle of p. 78, Chenaanah is printed Chenaniah, and Micaiah is printed Micah. In many cases, the letters in a Hebrew word are not separated by equal spaces, especially where the vowel Hholem occurs. The oversight gives to one word the appearance of two. The Greek words should have the usual accents. The insertion of them is certainly desirable, for the sake of conformning to general usage, if for no other reason. We doubt the propriety of the use of the words overladens p. 20, distressers p. 70, leaguring p. 77. We are aware that the above criticisms are minute, and do not affect at all the general merits of the commentary, yet they are not unimportant. Every author and publisher, particularly of works of this sort, ought to aim at entire accuracy. The proofreader should look well to his calling. The mechanical execution in general, we are happy to say, is neat and highly respectable.

In regard to the imprecations in the Psalms, Prof. Bush