I. PETER. CHAP. I. V. 11. ἐδήλου τὸ ἐν αὐτοῖς πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ. A few MSS. have in one word ednλouro: there is, however, no objection to the Article, XpioToù being frequently a Proper Name. See on Mark ix. 40. V. 23. Ocov. Dr. Mangey conjectured Toû instead of ecoù, but without any apparent reason. CHAP. II.1 V. 13. eite Bariλei. Most Commentators understand this of the Roman Emperor: the Article may be omitted by Part I. Chap. VI. § 2. Below, ver. 17. where the same reason does not apply, we have TÒV Baoilea. In the LXX. indeed, we find Bartheus without the Article, though used in the most definite sense, as in Prov. xxiv. 21. φοβοῦ τὸν Θεόν, υἱέ, καὶ Baoléa, an instance which some have supposed to invalidate the canon contended for by Mr. Granville 1 I have never been satisfied with the common translation of ver. 7. of this Chapter: uv ovv ý tyμn Toîs TIσTEVOVOL "Unto "you, therefore, which believe, he is precious." The Article seems to lead to a different construction: it refers to vtipov in the preceding verse; and the force of it, if I mistake not, is, "Unto you which believe, is the preciousness," viz. which I speak of. J. S. Sharp. This example, however, is inconclusive, partly as being a close translation from the Hebrew, and partly because the word Bareus, even in the Attic Writers, may when definite reject the Article. See Apollonius de Synt. edit. 1590. p. 90. 66 V. 24. iva rais. Dr. Owen (ap. Bowyer) observes, Probably a marginal Note." Does he mean that the two words iva rais are a marginal Note? But they are necessary to the sense. Or is it meant that the whole clause has been introduced from the margin? Of this I perceive no other probability, than that the passage is somewhat similar to Rom. vi. 11. : but even in this similarity there is a remarkable discrepancy; for άrоyevóμevo occurs in no other place than the present throughout the N. T. CHAP. III. V. 3. ὁ ἔξωθεν ἐμπλοκῆς τριχῶν κόσμος. The Reader will perceive, that we have here a deviation from an usage, which has so often been noticed: according to which owoev Kóσμos cannot govern Eμπλокns: yet 'O is indispensable: we should, therefore, have expected ΤΗΣ εμπλοκής ΤΩΝ τριχών. On turning, however, to the various readings it will be found that the difficulty may not have originated with the Apostle, but in the error of some Copyist. We learn from Wetstein that six MSS., three Edd. and one Father, instead of ἐμπλοκῆς have ἐκ πλοκῆς: none, indeed, of these MSS. is in Uncial characters. From Griesbach, Symb. Crit. it appears that the same reading is found in his Cod. 60. and in some 66 MSS. of Origen. Of Matthäi's MSS. likewise five have this reading: among them is his Cod. f, of which he says in his Pref. to the Catholic Epistles, that"in Actis et Epist. Catholicis cuilibet præstantissimo par haberi debet." In his Note this excellent Critic remarks "EK TλоKns haud indocta est correctio: "retinui vulgatam, etiam ob similitudinem membro“ rum, quæ est in ἐμπλοκῆς τριχῶν, περιθέσεως χρυσίων « et ενδύσεως ἱματίων.” He then adduces an instance of ἐμπλόκιον and also of πλόκιον, but not of ἐμπλοκή: for this word see Harpocration and Hesychius voce κpoßuxos; also Clem. Alex. Pedag. II. p. 199: the want of authority, therefore, will not be a sufficient reason for rejecting Tλons. On the other hand, TλOK is not at all an unusual word, being found in the LXX. Exod. xxviii. 14. where our Version renders it wreathed work, and in Lucian's Amores we have the very phrase ή πλοκὴ τῶν τριχῶν. The cognate Téμara occurs 1 Tim. ii. 9. The reading, then, EK Tλoks is far from being "indocta correctio," supposing it indeed to be a correction; which is not very probable: for it is much easier to conceive that ἐκ πλοκῆς, written ̓ΕΚΠΛΟΚΗΣ, should have offended a Copyist, who therefore wrote uλoks, than that ἐμπλοκής should have been altered into έκ πλοκῆς: one of these corrections required only a knowledge that the word кTλon is without authority and without analogy, ETXEKO not being found: the other indicates a better acquaintance with the language, and somewhat, perhaps, of critical skill; for éμπλékw, as well as eurλóktov, is a legitimate word; and even ÉμTλоKŃ, as we have seen, is not without example: the difficulty arising from the want of the Article would not occur to every Copyist. Matthäi, indeed, retains the common reading merely "ob similitudinem "membrorum :" I do not, however, perceive that this harmony is at all injured by the var. reading: ὁ ἔξωθεν ἐκ πλοκῆς τριχῶν καὶ (ἐκ) περιθέσεως, &c. appears to me to have all the regularity, which could be desired even in an Attic Writer. I am, therefore, disposed to adopt the var. reading, unless it can be shewn that no considerable difficulty attends the received one; and I have the greater confidence in proposing this emendation of the received text, from having observed, that scarcely in any instance, which seemed unfavourable to the rules laid down in Part I. of this Work, have the MSS. of the N. T. unanimously withholden the assistance required. Some of them have either supplied or rejected the Article as the case demanded, or have exhibited a reading, which places the passage, as in the present instance, entirely on a different footing. It is scarcely necessary to observe, that the old Versions, the Latin of them at least, and probably the Versions themselves, afford no evidence either way, the sense being much the same: neither do I insist that the construction κόσμος ἐμπλοκῆς τριχῶν, the adorning of the plaiting of the hair, is somewhat unnatural: Suidas explains κρώβυλος by ὁ ΕΚ τῶν τριχῶν πεπλεγμένος ΚΟΣΜΟΣ: and Arist. de Repub. lib. vi. cap. 2. has καθάπερ ἐν Καρχηδόνι φασὶ τὸν ΕΚ τῶν τριχῶν ΚΟΣΜΟΝ λαμβάνειν. That a few authorities omit Tpxwv in St. Peter does not relieve the objection. It may be supposed that the common reading is to be vindicated by Part I. Chap. VI. § 2: I have not, however, observed that this usage ever interferes with the law of Regimen. V. 4. τοῦ πρᾳέος καὶ ἡσυχίου πνεύματος. Of the disposition which is, &c. Part I. Chap. III. Sect. ii. § 1. V. 18. τ TVеÚμaтi. Eng. Version, “quickened by the Spirit." So also Newcome, Macknight, and Wakefield. I have had occasion to signify (see on Rom. viii. 13.) that there is no indisputable instance in the N. T., in which any thing is said to have been done or suffered by the Holy Spirit, where Trevμa, whether in the Genitive or Dative Case, is not governed by some Preposition. But not only is the Preposition here wanting; even the Article has so little authority, that it is rejected from the text by Wetstein, Griesbach, and Matthäi; though the last, indeed, I know not from what cause, wished to retain it, had not the MSS., as he confesses, compelled him to abandon it. For what would happen, supposing the Article authentic? Not that the passage would speak of the Holy Spirit: the sense would be, in his Spirit, viz. the spirit or mind of Christ, as John xiii. 21. and elsewhere. And this is not remote from what I consider to be the true meaning "dead carnally, but alive spiritually:" the only difference is, that by retaining the Article, for which there is very little authority, we destroy the form of the Antithesis between σαρκὶ and πνεύματι, an Antithesis, which may be found in the next Chapter, ver. 6: also Galat. iii. 3. We find likewise ΕΝ πνεύματι, ἘΝ σαρκί, κατὰ πνεῦμα, κατὰ |