Lord's sufferings as the object meant by ai tôiai άuapríαι, and he refers for authority to Lev. xii. 8; xiv. 13; xv. 30. Let the reader judge whether these refuges do not totally fail the learned and valuable, though partial, annotator. "That this interpretation is absurd, and alien from the New Testament style, every unprejudiced person must perceive."—Kuinöl. And, on his own principles, what admirable sense does this gloss effect! Christ endured sufferings for his own sufferings, and for the sufferings of others! The good sense of Grotius seems to have recoiled at this consequence of his interpretation and to help its weakness, he intimates that the passage relates to our Lord's escaping from his sufferings by accelerating his death. But, by what ingenuity this new idea can be adapted to the design of the text, the sagacious critic leaves his readers to discover. So entangled often is the finest understanding, when it labours to make the worse appear the better reason:

Delphinum silvis adpingit, fluctibus aprum.

II. This comment (both on ch. vii. 27, and v. 3) takes for granted that the imperfection of the former priesthood must find its resemblance in the great High-Priest of Christianity; whereas it is evident that, in this circumstance, a contrast is intended. The apostle shews that Christ possessed all the requisites to constitute him a real and effective High-Priest; many of which were of course possessed, though in an inferior degree, by the Levitical priests: so far he continues the parallel. But when he adverts to the imperfections of the legal priests, he strenuously insists on the contrast. The circumstances parallel are,-human nature; sympathy; divine constitution; man the terminus à quo of the function; God, the terminus ad quem; the presentation of thanksgivings and expiations and intercessory prayers, for the persons on whose behalf the priest officiates with regard to God. The contrasted circumstances are, the Divine Nature; the constitution by oath; real efficiency; the glorious excellency of the blessings bestowed; continuance to immortality; and the

PERFECTION OF MORAL PURITY. Ch. i. ii. iii. 1-6; iv. 14; v. 10; vii. viii. ix. X. On the last particular, it is observable that, where the moral imperfection of the Jewish priests is introduced, particular care is taken to mark the absolute holiness of the Redeemer, by some strong declaration preceding or following. Ch. v. 3. comp. iv. 15. vii. 27. comp. 26.

III. Therefore the reason of the case, and ample proof from the connexion and the whole epistle, determine the relation of the phrase "this he did," to the single idea (àvapépeiv) of offering a sacrifice. A similar construction is in ch. xiii. 17; where "this [would be] unprofitable (i. e. by the frequent classical figure, meiosis, very distressful) to you," refers exclusively to the last preceding word. Rosenmüller, sen. a writer not thoroughly friendly to the sentiments maintained in this discourse, clearly acknowledges the justness of our construction. After copying (without acknowledgment, as his manner is) the unobjectionable part of Grotius's note, and citing an appropriate passage from Philo, he goes on: "It contributes to our happiness, that our High-Priest had not to offer sacrifice for himself; for we learn from it, that he acted and suffered altogether on our account and for our benefit." Scholia in N. T. Vol. v. p. 230. I cite Mr. Peirce's Note at length, as the work, his Paraphrase and Notes, is now become scarce.

"It is a strange interpretation which some very learned commentators here give, as though Christ, in analogy to the Aaronical High-Priests, offered sacrifice for his own sins as well as the people's; since it is certain, from all the accounts given of him by our author and all the other penmen of the N. T., that our Saviour was always perfectly free from sin : and to make ȧuagriv signify sinless infirmities is very unreasonable: the word being never, that I can find, used in that sense. And indeed if it were, what occasion could there be to offer sacrifice for sinless infirmities? This interpretation appears to be inconsistent, not only with the current doctrine of the N. T., but with the scope of this place and the argument here used. To set this in a full light, let us consider,

"1. Upon what occasion this is brought in: and that seems to be upon the mention he had made of Christ's being ́harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners.' These qualifications are a good evidence that he needed not, as the high-priests under the law, to offer sacrifices for his own sins: but it will not, to say the least, sound well, that he should speak of Him as 'harmless and undefiled,' and immediately subjoin that he offered sacrifice for his own sins.

"2. Let us consider how his argument stands in this and the following verse. Two things he here asserts that Christ had no need to do, which were done by those high-priests; (1.) To offer sacrifice, from time to time, for his own sins; and (2.) To offer sacrifice, from time to time, for the sins of the people. The reason and evidence of the former he declares in the next verse; 'For the law maketh men highpriests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath which was since the law, maketh the Son high-priest who is perfected for evermore.' The 'for' [yap] here must connect this with somewhat that went before, which cannot be the last clause of verse 27, 'This he did once, when he offered up himself.' It must therefore, as indeed the nature of the argument shews, relate to his not needing to offer sacrifice for his own sins; for it is an assertion that he had none. 'The law made those high-priests which have [sinful] infirmity [and consequently had need to offer sacrifice for it], but the word of the oath (Ps. cx. iv.), which was [in David's time, and so] since the [giving of] the law, maketh the Son who is perfected for evermore;' and consequently needs not to offer sacrifice for himself. This connexion seems very clear. But then the question will be, what are we to make of that clause, 'For this he did once, when he offered up himself?' I answer, that our author, designing to treat again of his [Christ's] offering for the sins of the people, (ch. ix. 12; x. 10-14,) he here passes it over more slightly: and when he says, 'This he did once,' the pronoun this refers entirely to the nearest antecedent, the offering for the sins of the people, and the clause should be read in a parenthesis; and then the 28th verse will well connect with the

remoter antecedent, and shew he had no need to offer for his own sins. Or else, the sense of the 28th verse must be elliptical, and be thus supplied: And as to the other thing mentioned, his offering for his own sins, he had no need, as those high-priests, to do that; because the law maketh men high-priests which have infirmity [and so stand in need of an offering to be made for themselves]; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son a high-priest, who is perfected for evermore [and therefore needs no such offering upon his own account.'] And, as the word teteλeiwμévov stands opposed to ἔχοντας ἀσθένειαν, having infirmity, that is, sinful infirmity, for which there was need to offer sacrifice, I think it is better rendered perfected, as in the margin, than consecrated, as in our common text."

Note XIX.-page 61.

ON THE TERM SPIRIT, AS EXPRESSING THE DIVINE NATURE OF THE MESSIAH.

That the expression ETERNAL SPIRIT, and the correspondent ones 'Spirit' (in 1 Tim. iii. 16, and 1 Pet. iii. 19,) and " Spirit of holiness (in Rom. i. 4,) are intended to

denote the DIVINE NATURE of the Messiah, is the sentiment of several good critics. Their principal argument is, that the object signified by these terms is something belonging to Christ, not extrinsically added, but essential to his person, and contradistinguished from that which, in the passages referred to, is called "the blood" and "the flesh," known Hebraisms to express human nature. The late excellent Dr. Erskine has touched on this interpretation, in passing, but with his characteristic ability, in his Sermons, vol. i. p. 373. But the reader will find the criticism examined with much sagacity, learning, and candour, in the Annotations of Cameron and James Capellus; Schoetgenii Hora Hebr. vol. ii. in locos; Vitringa (filii) Opuscula, Leov. 1735.

Note XX.-page 62.

ON THE READING OF 1 TIM. III. 16.

Receiving ds as the genuine reading in this text, for which there is sufficient reason (see Wetstein and Griesbach); three constructions have been proposed.

1. That is is put, by ellipsis, for avròs or èkeivos ös. But I am apprehensive that this construction would be foreign to the Greek idiom, both the classical and the scriptural, which would have required ὁ φανερωθεὶς ἐν σαρκὶ κ.τ.λ. Such ellipsis, though frequent in the oblique cases, is very rare in the nominative; and, in the few instances which, with some pains, I have been able to discover, it is used, not in the sense of He who, but of whosoever, and commonly with a generalizing particle; or else it is put partitively with μèv and dé. The only resemblance of exception that I can find is Rom. iii. 32. But even there, the enclitic proves that it must be taken generally; though we are apt to overlook this, from the apostle's passing so rapidly into the particular case, which was natural to his full and ardent mind, and is one of the peculiarities of his style. Thus ooye implies a tacit reference to a general maxim, that whoever confers an immense benefit, may be presumed to be willing to do those smaller acts which are necessary to the completion of his kind intention.

If, however, this construction were grammatically unobjectionable, the very expression "He who was MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH," would ill comport with the denial of preexistence in any other state or nature, to the being so manifested.

2. That μvor plov is the antecedent to ds, as in Gal. iii. 16, and Eph. i. 13, 14. The objection to this is, that it would seem harsh and unusual to apply the word Mystery to Christ: but such an objection is, evidently, not of much