interprets πλήρωμα as meaning the same as πλῆθος, and θεότηTos the same as sou. The turn then given to the verse, e. g. by Teller and many others after him, is as follows: To him [Christ] as the Head, is all the fulness of the Divinity, i. e. all the church over which God reigns, attached; in other words, it depends on him, or from him as the Head, in a bodily way, i. e. after the manner of the human body.'

Singular as this exegesis seems to be, yet it is in substance followed by Schleusner, Koppe, Schulthess, and even Wahl. Heinrichs adopts it with some slight variation: All which the Godhead has brought together and united in this new kingdom, and as it were joined in one body, he has united and concentrated in Christ.'

For substance this interpretation represents the apostle as saying, that all the multitude of God, i. e. all the Christian church, are united together in Christ. This sentiment is indeed not objectionable in itself, because there are many declarations in the New Testament which are of the like tenor. It is inapposite, however, and to deduce this from v. 9 one must do violence to the usus loquendi of Paul. The context shews, that the preeminence of Christ, (ἡ κεφαλὴ πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξovoius), is the subject under consideration by the apostle. It was not the junction of the church with him, it was not the unity that exists between the members and the head, which the false teachers called in question, or which it was to the apostle's purpose here to assert. They paid religious homage to angels, i. e. to intermediate beings; they doubtless placed some of them above the Logos himself. It was therefore to the purpose of the apostle, to vindicate the preeminence of Christ over all such beings, whether real or imaginary. Hence it comes, that in v. 10 he plainly and explicitly asserts this preeminence, as connected with the matter of his declaration in v. 9.

But this is not all. The verb zarotzei is made to convey a meaning, by such a method of interpretation, which it cannot of itself convey. It means to dwell in, to inhabit, not to depend on, to be connected, to be concentrated, etc. Then again, where does Paul speak of the whole church as dwelling in Christ? His Spirit dwells in the church; Christians are the temple of God, according to this apostle; but that Christians on the other hand dwell in Christ-that is a mode of expression foreign to Paul. I know, indeed, that in a multitude of places he represents them as ἐν Κυρίῳ, ἐν Χριστῷ, etc. ; but this is a different VOL. VIII. No. 24.

54

phraseology from that before us, and even designates another shade of meaning. Bähr in his recent commentary says, that no such phraseology can be found in all the New Testament. If he means exactly such, this is true; but a kindred phraseology he surely might find in 1 John 4: 15, 16, where the apostle says, that Christians dwell in God and God in them. Still, even here the original verb is not οἰκέω nor κατοικέω, but μένω, which means to remain, to continue, and not to inhabit or to dwell in, as our English translation would seem to represent it. The design of John is to represent the permanency of the union between God and the true disciples of Christ.

Besides this, the word ningwua, although sometimes (by metonymy) meaning the thing filled, and so standing for the church which is endowed with gifts and graces by its Saviour (Eph. 1: 23), cannot be naturally taken here in such a sense. For then what would be the course of thought in the apostle ? Its tenor would be as follows: Be not led away by teachers of a false and vain philosophy, which does not accord with the true character and teaching of the Lord Jesus; for all the church dwells in him and is connected with him.' The reason of the admonition was some denial of the preeminence of the Saviour, as appears from v. 10 seq.; whereas the interpretation before us would represent it to be a denial of the connection between the Saviour and his followers.

Nor is this all. The whole church (according to this exposition) dwells in the Saviour owμarixos. The incongruity of assertion in this case, provided owμarizes be construed in an obvious and natural manner, is so great, that a forced meaning is put upon the word, viz., after the manner in which a human body is connected with its head. Is not this one of the last meanings which simple philology would put upon κατοικεῖ σωMarinas? I cannot resist the conviction that it is so.

(2) Socinus and many of his most distinguished followers have given another and quite different turn to Col. 2: 9. Their interpretation runs thus: 'In it, i. e. in Christian doctrine, or in the gospel, is or dwells all perfection, nav noшua.' In other words: The whole will of God is revealed or laid down in the gospel.'

But in such a case, the expression must bе nav nλnowμa, not πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα. We should expect Θεοῦ, moreover, and not Θεότητος. And besides this, to interpret πλήρωμα as meaning simply perfection, is departing wide from the usus loquendi ;

and farther still, when it is interpreted as meaning will. Karoizεi, also, is singularly handled when it is made to mean is or is contained; and finally, to make v avto stand for Christian doctrine, is surely offending greatly against the context here.

(3) Noesselt proffers a more probable interpretation. In substance it is this: All things which God by Christ would make known to men, dwell in him' [Christ]. Thus construed our text would be like the πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας οἱ John.

But what in such a case is the κατοικεῖ σωματικώς? Noesselt thinks it means, substantially, really, truly. But this sense owμatizws has, only when it is put in the way of antithesis to σκία, etc. The natural sense of it must be that which has been given above. The connection of the passage here seems to demand, that πλήρωμα should be taken as being employed τεχνικώς, i. e. with reference to the philosophy which Paul is opposing.

(4) If this circumstance be duly considered, the basis of many recent commentaries on Col. 2: 9 will appear to be undernined. These represent πλήρωμα as equivalent to πλῆθος, and then consider it as designating the Christian church. But the ideas designated by nλnowua and nos are widely different in their own proper nature. Tos of course designates abundance, multitude, large quantity; while nowμa designates the contents of any thing, that which fills it, whether it be great or small, many or few. The cases where the accessory idea of abundance seems to be naturally conveyed by it, we shall find to be all of that class, in which the circumstances of the thing or person to which the nλnowμa belongs, convey the idea of abundance.

The reader, who (in common with the writer of this exegetical essay) may have often felt doubtful what kind of error or false philosophy Paul is opposing in the epistle before us, will not be displeased, perhaps, if I should suggest a few more hints in relation to this subject.

Eichhorn (Einleit. III.) supposes them to be ascetic Judaizers. Both of these they plainly were; for the zeal about newmoons, and sabbaths, and other holidays, as well as concerning meats and drinks, savours altogether of strongly Judaizing prejudices. Ascetic they were, as appears by their touch not, taste not, handle not, their voluntary humility and maceration of the body. But mere Judaizing Ascetics they were not; for the worshipping of angels was not by any means a proper part of

even later Judaism. That this has reference to the emanationdoctrine of the eastern theosophists, there can scarcely be room for doubt; especially as the manner in which their theosophy ranked the Logos, would give direct occasion for Paul to assert the precedence that he has so strongly asserted. So far as Eichhorn goes, he would seem to be in the right. But he has not occupied the whole ground; and therefore his account is unsatisfactory.

Nor has Juncker (Philol. Comm. über Coloss. 1828) given a more satisfactory account of the errorists in question. He thinks that they were Jews, who mingled with their own Jewish superstitions the new Platonic and Alexandrian philosophy. So far as this partook of the emanation-philosophy, the supposition may be correct. But plainly the errorists before the mind of Paul, were not mere Jewish ascetics, or Jewish philosophizing ascetics. The manner in which the apostle speaks of them, shews that they were professed Christians; and particularly Col. 2: 19, où xqarāv rǹv xeqaλýv indicates plainly, that while they professed to be disciples of Christ, they rejected some of the leading truths of his gospel.

Some critics of distinguished note, Michaelis, Bertholdt, and others, have found, as they supposed, the Essenes in the epistle to the Colossians. The rigid abstinences described in chap. 11., would agree sufficiently well, it must be confessed, with the ascetics of the Essenes, as described by Josephus in his Bell. Jud. II. 8. Yet, since the Jewish historian speaks of them as distinguished above almost all men for their modesty, decorum, love of justice, benevolence, and religious scrupulosity, and not of any affected voluntary humility or feigned oxnois, it would be difficult to make out the characteristics of the Essenes in our epistle to the Colossians. Especially does the particular in regard to the worship of angels disagree with their practice. All that can be shewn in respect to this, is, that they held the names of some of the angels in particular reverence; which is far from paying them religious adoration. Finally, the circumstance that the errorists in our epistle are professed Christians, would seem to determine that they were not Essenes, i. e. that they were not simply or merely such. Nor does it appear that this sect lived in Asia Minor, but only in Palestine and Syria.

Nor is the opinion of those critics, who have held the errorists in question to be Platonists or Pythagoreans even so well

founded as the preceding one. What were new moons and sabbaths, the distinction of meats and drinks, etc., to these? The worship of angels, moreover, was as little characteristic of them as the circumstances already mentioned.

Others have found in the epistle to the Colossians, the Zabii or Sabians, i. e. disciples of John the Baptist; who thought very highly of John, but in an unworthy manner of the dignity of the Saviour. But the traits of character given by Paul, do not accord with the opinions of that sect, in some important respects. The worship of angels is not characteristic of them; and what is more than all, if they had made a profession of Christianity, they could hardly have still maintained their former views, which came directly in contact with the leading claim of Christianity. A Gnostic, or a Theosophist, any one might continue to be, even after he had professed to be a Christian; but a Sabian we can hardly suppose he would profess to be, inasmuch as the claims of John the Baptist, as by the Sabians represented, were so directly antithetic to those of the Saviour in the gospel.

We may acquiesce, then, in the views which were given in the earlier part of this disquisition, respecting the errorists who are opposed in the epistle to the Colossians. They were professed Christians, but retained all their zeal for Jewish superstitions and for the theosophy of the East, which was so widely diffused in Asia Minor, and which finally gave rise to various developments among the Gnostics, as men of this class were afterwards called.

ARTICLE VI.

THE CLAIMS OF THE ARABIC LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE,

By Joseph Packard, Professor in the Protestant Episcopal Theol. Sem. of Virginia.

THE Arabic language presents the phenomenon of a dialect stretching back to the infancy of the human race-of a dialect which has outlived all its sisters, its cognate dialects, and remained almost unaltered, while all other languages have fluctu