Prospects of the Swedish Church. 683 lines of their present sovereign,-true in a sense far higher than that intended by the royal author, "Asa-runes Still are left us, and filial affection commands the duty of clearing away the debris from ancestral monuments, and restoring the heroic shapes of the Reformation era afresh to the light of day. Imperishable historic "runes," Christian "runes," Protestant "runes," are the splendid dower of the Swedish nation; and we would humbly counsel them to read and re-read those runes until their deep spiritual meaning is indelibly imprinted in the memory. For there is danger lest the Swedes, while doing all outward honour to the names of their old Reformation worthies, should somewhat forget to cherish the profound religious spirit that distinguished them. We rejoice, indeed, to know that in the Swedish Church there are many pious and zealous pastors, who find their main delight in the furtherance of the work of God. We rejoice to know that she possesses comparatively pure gospel standards,-in all vital points essentially Protestant, and that no desire has ever been evinced for their mutilation or rejection. We rejoice to know that among her rulers are men like Archbishop Reuterdahl and Bishop Anjou,-men who may rank with the noblest of her chiefs at any former period of her annals. Moreover, we believe that the clergy and people of Sweden are too intensely Protestant ever to allow themselves to be seduced from the path of Reformation light and freedom, by the Romanising tendencies so prevalent at the present day. No; it is from another quarter that peril seems to threaten the Lutheran Church of Sweden,-not from her ancient foe in the seven-hilled city, but from the rationalistic wildernesses and swamps of Germany. Let her, then, gird on anew her evangelical armour, and do brave battle with Rationalism in its every form, with religious indifference and coldness, until they be utterly expelled from her borders. Among European nations, we inhabitants of Britain,-whether south or north of the Tweed, should anticipate with peculiar interest the advent of such a happy consummation. "In all things we are sprung Of earth's best blood, have titles manifold." "An dock staa Ivar i hällen, Mossbelupna." -Dikler af C. F. (Charles XV). And in that "best blood," of which, with pardonable patriotic pride, our late great poet speaks, unquestionably not the least powerful, not the least noble element, is the Scandinavian. To the Swedish people, therefore, we would say once more, Go on and prosper. Wage with Rationalism an unsparing warfare; and may your church, freed from aught that dulls and deadens the true principle of religious vitality, ere long "look forth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners!' J. J. ART. II.-Analytical Commentary on the Romans. Analytical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans; tracing the train of thought by the aid of Parallelism: with Notes and Dissertations on the principal difficulties connected with the Exposition of the Epistle. By Rev. JOHN FORBES, LL.D., Edinburgh. T. & T. Clark, 38 George Street, Edinburgh. 1868. HE design of this commentary, as stated by the author, is twofold. 1. To furnish a specimen of such an analysis and arrangement of the text, as seems most desirable for the reader to possess in entering on the study of a difficult book of Scrip2. To give a fair and full illustration of the importance of Bishop Lowth's discovery of the parallelistic structure of Scripture, a discovery which he alleges is yet destined to throw a new and clearer light on a great part of the sacred volume. For the proof of the utility of the principles of this system of parallelism, the author refers more especially" to the perfect order and perspicuity which it introduces into what has generally been considered a very intricate and perplexed passage, ch. v. 12-21; and to the new light in which it exhibits that passage as containing the central, animating thought of the whole epistle." By the application of the principles of parallelism to this passage, Dr Forbes claims to have shown that "the leading thought is not, as usually stated, justification by faith as the leading doctrine of the epistle-presented, as has been objected to the bare forensic theory, in the cold, lifeless form of imputation,--as if by a legal fiction and mere outward reckoning of Christ's righteousness, believers were justified without any necessary change passing immediately upon the heart. The grand truth here enunciated," our author holds, "is the warm, living reality of a personal UNION with Parallelistic Theory. 685 Christ (contrasted with the previous union with Adam), by which, in place of the 'SIN' and 'DEATH' communicated by the first head of humanity, Christ's 'RIGHTEOUSNESS' and 'LIFE' are communicated to the believer, and become the inward, quickening mover of every thought, feeling, and action." In this way, Dr Forbes alleges, "the distinction is preserved, and yet the indissoluble connection clearly evinced between justification and sanctification, as being but two aspects of one and the same UNION of the believer with Christ-just as the dying branch ingrafted into the living vine, is then only reckoned, and may justly be declared to be, a sound, living branch when the union has taken place-because the assurance is then given of its being made so finally and fully, the vital juices of the vine having already begun to circulate within it." Such are the objects of this work, and such the advantages of the system of exegesis which it is designed to illustrate, as set forth in the preface. With regard to the merits of the system of parallelism, there is no need to enter into any special examination of its claims. There are few who will be led by anything the author has said in its favour, here or elsewhere, to believe that the entire volume of inspiration, including its prose as well as its poetry, has been so artistically composed and arranged, that word is balanced against word, line against line, thought against thought; and that this artistic structure, "in its more simple form, at first confined to the reiteration, or amplification, in a second line of the thought expressed in the first," at length "began to be extended to triplets, quatrains, and even five, six, and seven-lined stanzas ;" and eventually "since a more complex idea could not be expressed adequately in the compass of a single line, a couplet, instead of a single line, came to be placed in parallelism with another couplet, or a triplet with a triplet, quatrain with quatrain, &c., until at length the love for exact arrangement and symmetrical order found full gratification only when it extended to the entire composition, so as to combine its various parts into one organic whole"-p. 69. Common sense must ever prove a sufficient antidote to such a theory of the structure of a book designed by infinite wisdom for the enlightenment of mankind. Parallelism may be good, if the passages to which its principles are applied be parallel; but the commentator, swayed by a particular theory, may imagine a parallel where no parallel exists. At any rate, it is allowable to say, that no plan, or method, or principle of exegesis can confer immunity from error. The result in every case will be determined, not simply by the system of exegesis, but by the mental capacity, the doctrinal and philosophical bias, and the subjective spiritual estate of the exegete. To this rule, the work under review is no exception. Whilst it gives evidence of fair scholarly attainments, and is pervaded by a spirit of genuine Christian courtesy towards those from whom the author differs, it, nevertheless, furnishes unquestionable proof that, in many instances, the doctrine has determined the parallel, and not the parallel the doctrine. Indeed it may be fairly charged that, in some cases, the previously entertained doctrine has led the author to do violence to the parallel as stated by himself. As an instance in point, the reader is referred to the following parallelism between our ruin and our recovery, as sketched on page 203 :— "For as by the disobedience of the one man Even so by the obedience of the one man On this passage, and the previous verse, Dr Forbes remarks: "The doctrinal precision of Paul's statement in the order of the topics is remarkable. In mentioning the two evils introduced by Adam, sin precedes, death follows-sin as the cause; death as the effect, ver. 12. But in the removal of these evils (ver. 18 and 19) the order is reversed, deliverance from death, or 'justification of life,' is placed first (ver. 18); deliverance from sin, or sanctification, is placed last (ver. 19). Justification is thus shown to precede, in the order of thought and causation: sanctification follows." Now the analogy between the order in the ruin and in the recovery, as stated by the apostle, and as exhibited in these parallel lines, certainly does not warrant the statement, that the order observed in the removal of sin and death is the reverse of that in which these evils were introduced. In the one case, the offence of one brings condemnation on all,-the disobedience of one makes the many sinners. In the other, the righteousness of one justifies all,-the obedience of one makes the many righteous. The points of the analogy are, the disobedience of the one man, Adam, and its effects, and the obedience of the one man, Christ, and its effects. Adam's disobedience brings condemnation and death; Christ's obedience brings justification and life. Adam disobeyed, and his posterity are condemned; Christ obeyed, and those for whom he stood are justified. What evidence is there here of a reversal of order? In both cases the order of the divine procedure is the same. In the one, Adam's disobedience is made the judicial ground of dealing with his posterity; in the other, Christ's obedience is made the judicial ground of dealing with his people. The alleged reversal of order is solely the offspring of Dr Order of Events in the Recovery Reversed. 687 Forbes's theory of righteousness and justification. Holding, as he does, that the righteousness which justifies the sinner is a subjective quality, an attribute of the Saviour, and that justification is a subjective, moral rectification, arising from the impartation of this quality, or attribute, to the soul, he is led to confound justification with the impartation of life, or, as he characterises it, deliverance from death. In this way, he concludes, despite the express teaching of the apostle in the passage cited, that the order of the recovery is the reverse of the order of the ruin. Nor is the order affirmed by Dr Forbes simply in conflict with the order as stated by the apostle; it is also in conflict with his own teaching on the subject of justification. If justification be a subjective rectification of the soul, arising from the impartation of the righteousness of Christ, considered as an attribute, is it not manifestly all one with deliverance, so far forth, from sin? Our author cannot fall back on the distinction between an initial communication of Christ's righteousness and the full impartation of the same; for the only difference in the two cases is a difference of degree or measure, and not of kind. The subjective impartation of righteousness at the outset, cannot be regarded as differing from the subjective impartation of righteousness at the close of the process of moral rectification, in any other sense than that of degree. If, then, as our author holds, the process, subsequent to its initiation, may be characterised as a deliverance from sin, surely there is nothing in the first act of communication so different from those which follow, as to necessitate a reference of it to a different category. If the first act, and the second act, and the third act, &c., be simply acts whereby righteousness is subjectively communicated, what warrant is there for representing the first as a deliverance from death, and the second and third, &c., as a deliverance from sin? But if the initial communication of righteousness may be regarded as a deliverance from sin, there is no ground for alleging, as Dr Forbes does, that the order of events in the recovery is diverse from the order in the ruin, inasmuch as sin, the evil which is first in the ruin, is confessedly removed, so far as there is any change at all effected in the condition of the sinner, by the very first act in the process of recovery. The only door through which our author can attempt an escape from this difficulty, is one of which he avails himself occasionally to avoid the charge that his theory confounds justification with sanctification. He may allege that the communication of righteousness as a subjective quality has a twofold effect: first, Deliverance from death; second, Deliverance from sin. Here again, however, the order, when correctly |