parsons. Amongst these were specially enumerated "silver spoons and silver slippers." Mr. B. next essayed to produce individual cases of hardship and ill-usage, but here impartial justice would pronounce that he totally failed even to make out, to a not unfriendly audience, anything like either. Strangely enough, he selected for abuse the vicar of the adjoining parish, who is deservedly very popular with all classes, both as a man and as a minister. Nor would Mr. B. seem to have been happy in his choice of the delinquencies which he held up to public odium and contempt. "He has a Clothing Club'!"

this was said with an expression of withering scorn, which the resources of printing fail to convey,-" and only gives the 'poor' people half-a-crown besides their own money." But atrocious as this seems, it was not perhaps the worst. "There's some one going round to 'poor' people, asking them for a penny or two-pence for a present to the school-mistress, who is going away."

The charge of having sanctioned this collection was not brought home to the Vicar, the bare suspicion of anything so outrageously oppressive being doubtless deemed sufficient. Mr. B. next recurred to the former topics of his speech; and when these were fairly run dry, he supplemented his address by introducing the "Farm Labourers' Catechism," a very profane, if not absolutely blasphemous, parody on the Church Catechism, much worse in every way than a "Reformer's Liturgy," which I recollect to have heard recited in the streets of Plymouth during the Reform agitation of 1832. The Farm Labourers' Catechism was remarkably barren, even of such humour as might be looked for in a production of the kind, but made against parsons, landlords, and farmers the grossest charges of unchastity, subornation of perjury, &c., as if such crimes were characteristic of the classes, and the bright exceptions too few to be worth noting. All this was read in a jeering tone by Mr. B., and listened to, I am sorry to say, by the people of both sexes and all ages. At its close, Mr. B. sat down. Mr. C., who is a stranger to the neighbourhood, if not to the county, then invited any one who had anything to say, to speak. No one answering to this summons I rose, and in strong but measured terms characterized the proceedings as I thought they deserved, speaking of the wickedness and folly of trying to set classes (formed to be mutually useful and mutually dependent) against each other, and denouncing the "Catechism" as utterly unfit to be borne with in any meeting of professed Christians. I likewise said, that having been resident for several years in the parish, I was unaware of the existence of anything among us even remotely like what Mr. B. had

described, but that if any one knew of distress I should be very glad to hear of it, with a view to its relief.

My speech was listened to without word or sound of either satisfaction or disapproval; and when I had ended, Mr. C. again rose, and adverted sneeringly, but without specifying to what he objected, to the "very brief lecture of the Rev. gentleman." He noticed, with a very faint attempt to disprove, what I had said about setting class against class. He spoke at the top of his voice, in a very different tone from the whining, cajoling mode of address employed by Mr. B., but keeping as clear as the latter had done, except in the two unlucky instances which I have specified, from any definite charges of harshness to dependents against any one known to the meeting. He dilated on the oppression of the poor by the rich, who had robbed them of the common lands, and of money left-it was not stated when or by whom-for their benefit. Then the "parsons" came in for their share of abuse, along with farmers, landowners, and " titled rogues." The one solitary name not found in the black list was that of Canon Girdlestone, who, I doubt not, got no more praise than he deserved, but who was probably introduced merely as a foil to his brethren in the ministry. Something laudatory was said, too, of a Baptist minister, but so feebly and faintly as to suggest the idea that he was merely good by comparison with that terrible loup garou, a 66 parson." It is a remarkable and sad characteristic of the movement in question, noticed by more than one of the speakers at the C. P. Work meeting-that, unlike others of an anti-Church tendency, which have originated, or easily taken root, among the labouring classes, it has nothing of a dissenting or nonconformist tendency about it, but is distinctively irreligious, and, where fully developed, infidel.

Mr. C. did not fail to make the "refrain" of his address, as in private duty bound, "Join the Union." His hearers shewed no great readiness to obey the call; for though they would, perhaps, not care to deny that to its action, direct or indirect, much of the recent rise in their wages may be owing, the class to which they belong is quite as ready, as a class, to have good done for them by the toil or at the expense of others, as to cooperate in doing it for themselves. Perhaps, too, they might think that the "Union" had done as much in screwing up the rate of wages as their masters-I beg pardon for the phrase, their employers-were likely to submit to, or as their wagespaying resources would bear. With the ordinary run of working men,-I do not mean those under the influence of the highest motives,-gratitude for favours to come is as influential a motive as it has always been held to be with courtiers; nor is thankfulness for benefits conferred any stronger, as a general rule, in the one case than in the other. "Experto credite."

As for the more remote advantages offered by the Union, such as the rise in wages likely to result from the diminution in the number of labourers caused by emigration, they are scarcely to be grasped by the "bucolic" mind, which is, however, quite competent to estimate at its full value the weekly drain of two or three pence to be applied towards sending a young, healthy, unencumbered neighbour to a Canadian farm or an Australian El Dorado.

But to return. I quitted the room as soon as all speaking was over, having first laid out a penny in the purchase of a copy of the "Farm Labourers' Catechism," of which, had I not remembered Bishop Tonstall's attempt to suppress Tyndall's translation of the New Testament, I should have bought up Mr. C.'s small stock. It found, alas! ready purchasers among those present. Whether any of them, and how many of them, joined the "Union," I carefully refrained from staying to see. The only visible and immediate result of the meeting has been the almost inevitable one of diminished respect and growing insubordination among the children of my Sunday School. Many of these were present to hear "dignities" (great and small) "evil spoken of." Two girls of the first class sat next myself. I am thankful to say that the attendance at church is quite as good as before; nor do I ever recollect to have seen a larger number of persons present at my school-room services, or more reverent and attentive in demeanour, than at the two which have been held since. The speeches of Mr. B. and Mr. C. have given me opportunities for "allusive contrast," of which, Deo adjuvante, I have endeavoured temperately to avail myself, especially when preaching from Rom. xiii. 8—10, and addressing my people in connection with the recent missionary services. It was not difficult, while carefully abstaining from offering any opinion on the questions at issue between capital and labour, to expose the miserable selfishness of the views taken by the speakers at "Labourers' Union" meetings, and their utter contrariety to the mind of CHRIST, who " came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many." E. S. E.

BENGEL'S GNOMON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

Gnomon of the New Testament. By John Albert Bengel. Seventh Edition. 3 vols. 8vo. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark. 1873. THE Editor, in his preface to this valuable work, for which our obligation is once more due to the firm of Messrs. Clark of

Edinburgh, justly observes that "it is quite superfluous to write in praise of the Gnomon of Bengel."

Whilst, however, we entirely coincide in the verdict thus pronounced on Bengel's "Gnomon," so far as regards professed Biblical students, it by no means follows that ordinary English readers should be equally aware of the distinctive excellences of this work; and still less does it follow that it should be superfluous to remind them of the great advantages which attach to those editions of it which have issued from the Edinburgh press.

We are indebted for the translation of the "Gnomon," or "Index" a title modestly given by the Author to a body of able and elaborate exegetical annotations on the New Testament-not only to Mr. Fausset, the Editor of the work, but, conjointly with him, to Messrs. Bandinel and Bryce, and to Dr. Fletcher.

Although, when regarded as a science, textual criticism may be said to have been in the stage of infancy in the days of Bengel, few Biblical students will fail to derive both interest and profit from the perusal of Bengel's remarks on the forty-three critical canons of Maestricht, as contained in the preface to the volumes now before us.

It is, however, in the exegetical portion of this Commentary that the value of Bengel's "Gnomon" must be sought.

We will adduce a few instances. In his exposition of the Sermon on the Mount, Bengel rightly, as we believe, interprets the contrast drawn by our Lord between the teaching of the Jewish Rabbins and His own, not as having reference to real inconsistencies between the Law and the Gospel, but to differences between the true interpretation of the Mosaical law and the false interpretation put upon it by the Scribes and Pharisees. "Moses said it truly; the interpreters of Moses said it with altered meaning."

Again, in reference to the faith of the Roman Centurion, as recorded in St. Matthew viii. 10, Bengel observes as follows:"From this first mention of faith in the New Testament we may gather that faith (as well as unbelief) is in both the understanding and the will, being the result of deliberation and free choice."

Again, in his comment on St. John xxi. 23, Bengel writes thus:"See how much more trustworthy is the written letter than a saying. The saying, even among the brethren, was, without any fraudulent intention, interpolated: the hand (writing) of the Apostles applies the remedy, and the benefit of it is reserved to us even to the present day.'

The comments of Bengel on the dying words of the protomartyr Stephen are short, but very pertinent. In reference to

his invocation of the Lord Jesus, he observes, "He calls the same Jesus, Lord. Dying persons invoke Him.” Again, in reference to the prayer of Stephen, "Lay not this sin to their charge," he observes, "It is not inconsistent with maintaining patience to call sin, sin." Once more, on the words, "he fell asleep," he observes, "A mournful but sweet word. This protomartyr had (strange to say) all the very Apostles as his survivors."

In the edition of the "Gnomon " now before us, we find several valuable additions in the form of notes, and references to later writers. These notes, however, are not invariably entitled to implicit confidence.

E.g., in Mr. Bandinel's note (vol. i., p. 150) on the division. of the Pentateuch into hebdomadal lessons, he observes as follows:-"The Pentateuch is divided into 50 or 54 Paraschioth, or larger sections, according as the Jewish lunar year is simple or intercalary; one of which sections was read in the synagogue every Sabbath-day. This division many of the Jews suppose to have been appointed by Moses; but it is by others attributed, and with greater probability, to Ezra." Mr. Bandinel appears to have fallen into two errors in this place.

(1) The division of the Pentateuch to which he refers was into 54 sections, not "50 or 54," as may be seen on reference even to any modern edition of the Hebrew Bible in which these sections are clearly marked. Moreover, whilst 54 is the maximum number of Sabbaths in the Jewish year, 47, not 50, is the minimum number. Practically, the annual reading of the whole of the Pentateuch is provided for by reading a sufficient number of the Pericopes, or sections in pairs. The Pericopes which are appointed to be so read are 14 in number, corresponding to the year which has only 47 weeks. If the year consists of a number of Sabbaths above 47 and under 54, so many of these 14 sections are read in pairs as will supply lessons for the varying number of the Sabbaths.

(2) Mr. Bandinel, when he ascribes the origin of this division. of the Pentateuch, in the estimation of the Jews, to Moses, and, in his own, to Ezra, appears to have confounded this division of the Pentateuch with one of much greater antiquity, viz., into 175 sections, by which arrangement provision was made for the reading of the Law in three years and a half,-i.e., twice in every Sabbatical year. This early division appears to have given place to the triennial division, in consequence of the lax observance of the Sabbatical year.

The exact date of the annual division is as yet unascertained. It is probable, however, that it gradually developed itself about the time of the Christian era; but it does not seem entirely to have supplanted the triennial division even so late as