then, it will be said, that Christ was the Eldest born of his own Creation; which is so absurd, that it requires no common hardihood to defend it. Schleusner, indeed, it must be admitted, adopts the derived, not the primitive sense of πρwτóтокоs, making it to signify princeps et dominus; but this does not relieve the difficulty, unless an instance can be produced, in which рwтóтокоs signifies dominus otherwise than in reference to the brethren, over whom the first-born among the Jews had authority. Of the literal sense the instances cited by Schleusner are Gen. xxvii. 29, 37. and 1 Sam. xx. 29. about which there can be no doubt: for the metaphorical he quotes Jeremiah xxxi. 9. in which, however, there is no confusion of metaphor, the words being, "I am Father "to Israel, and Ephraim is my first-born;" i. e. Ephraim shall have authority over the other tribes, who are his brethren; exactly as in Rom. viii. 29. we have πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς. What is wanted is an instance, in which TρwтóтоKоs is so used in the metaphorical sense, that it not only has lost sight of its origin as a metaphor, but is used in direct contradiction to it, as is alleged in the present instance.-On the whole, I know of no better expedient, than to understand the words as meaning begotten before every creature," i. e. before any created being had existence: thus it was explained by the majority of the ancients. See Suicer, vol. II.

66

1 That this is the true interpretation, can hardly be doubted; aud the doctrine is that which is more fully expressed in the Nicene Creed: "Begotten of his Father before all worlds.”The substitution of the superlative for the comparative in such cases is too common to need illustration. J. S.

p. 879. That TрTоs may be thus used is evident from John i. 15. and 30. Michaelis has observed, that in the language of the Rabbins God is called the First-born of the World. At any rate, be the meaning of this text what it may, the utmost which can be expected by the malice of heresy and achieved by the perversion of criticism, is to detach it from the verses, which immediately follow; with which, however, it seems to be most closely connected. But even this will be of no avail: with the 16th and especially with the 17th verse the reasonable Advocate for the Pre-existence and Divinity of Christ might, if he had no other evidence in his favour, be abundantly content. The positive assurance that Christ was before all things, and that by Him all things σvvéσTηke (the word used both by Josephus and Philo of the acknowledged Creator: see Krebs's Obss. in N. T. e Josepho; and also by many other writers) leaves no question as to the dignity of the Redeemer of Mankind.

Mr. Wakefield translates "an image of the invi"sible God, a first-born," &c. as if there were several such it is difficult to suppose that he was ignorant of the usage after the Verb Substantive.

Article pro

V. 23. ἐν πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει. Several considerable MSS., and Griesbach thinks the bably spurious: but see the last Note. MS. of Matthäi omits the Article.

Not a single

The phrase

here is equivalent to ver. 6. of this Chapter, év Tavti τῷ κόσμῳ.

CHAP. II.

V. 10. kepaλn máσns ȧpxñs. See on 1 Cor.

xi. 3.

66

V. 14. τὸ χειρόγραφον τοῖς δόγμασιν. There are few passages of the N. T. in the interpretation of which the Translators and Critics have more widely differed from each other. Our English Version has hand-writing of ordinances," and this is adopted by Macknight and Newcome; though how this meaning can be deduced from the words of the original, I am at a loss to discover. Rosenmüller explains the Greek by "legem illam scriptam præceptis variis constantem ;" and some have made rois doyuɑow to have no dependence on τὸ χειρόγραφον, but to be governed by eaλeiyas. I believe that the true construction must be sought in an Ellipsis of our, examples of which are common in the profane Writers: the same Ellipsis occurs also in Revel. viii. 4. Taîs προσευχαῖς τῶν ἁγίων, which is well rendered by Abp. Newcome," together with the prayers of Saints." It is some confirmation of this solution, that the Armenian adds auroù: that two or three authorities have ΣΥΝ τοῖς δόγμασιν : and that in the Second Homily of Clemens Romanus (Coteler. vol. 1. p. 631.) Moses is said to have delivered τὸν νόμον σὺν ταῖς ETIAUσEσ. The sense will thus be, Having cancelled the bond, together with all its covenants':" these covenants or conditions were the numerous expiations prescribed by the Levitical Law; the Bond

1

66

See below ver. 20. and Eph. ii. 15. Author's MS.

was the Law itself. The same Ellipsis is known to the Hebrew: see Noldius, p. 576.

V. 17. τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Here many MSS. including a large proportion of Matthäi's-Tou. This is probably right, especially since Xpirou is not immediately dependent on τὸ σῶμα.

CHAP. IV.

V. 5. τὸν καιρὸν ἐξαγοραζόμενοι. Macknight renders this by "gaining time." But Kapos is not equivalent to xpóvos, being always used in reference to something which is to be done. It seems to be the intention of St. Paul in this place, as well as Ephes. v. 16. to admonish his Christian Readers to " purchase the opportunity (viz. of gaining over the Heathens) by judicious concessions and by a vir"tuous example." The reason subjoined is, "that "the days are evil:" i. e. the times, in which ye live, are so unpropitious to the conversion of the Jews and the Pagans, that the zeal and circumspection, which I have recommended, are indispensable.

66

V. 16. ÉπIOTOλý. See on 1 Cor. v. 9.

I. THESSALONIANS.

CHAP. II.

V. 5. Oeos μápтus. Two MSS. have o Oeós. The Θεὸς μάρτυς. Article is not necessary, since if uáprus were the subject, its Article could not be omitted'.

66

ἐν

CHAP. IV.

V. 6. év τ πрáyμатı. Our Version has "in any matter." Wolfius thinks, that T Tрáyμarı is equivalent to Tois прáyμaσi, by which he understands in business, i. e. in commercial transactions. Our own Version has the sanction of Schleusner, who explains T by T, though this, as has been shewn, is an usage unknown to the N. T. He wavers, however, and supposes, that the words may mean, as they

1 The Reader will perhaps pardon me, if I stop him for a moment, to offer a gratuitous piece of service, unconnected with the doctrine of the Article, in the correction and illustration of a passage somewhat remarkable in its construction. It occurs in this Epistle, iii. 5. ἔπεμψα εἰς τὸ γνῶναι τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν, μή πως ἐπείρασεν ὑμᾶς ὁ πειράζων, καὶ εἰς κενὸν γένηται ὁ κόπος ἡμῶν. "I sent to know your faith, whether the tempter have tempted you by any means, and lest (in that case) our labour be in vain." Exactly similar is Eurip. Phæniss. 91-2. μý Tis TOMITOV EV Tрiß φαντάζεται, Καμοὶ μὲν ἔλθῃ φαῦλος, ὡς δούλω, ψόγος, Σοὶ δ', ως ȧváron. In both cases un has different senses according to the different moods with which it is connected. J. S.