NOTE A.

From the Talmudical writers, it appears that the dead body was not hung by the neck, but by the hands; and that it was hung, not on "a tree" properly called, but en έvλov, on a piece of timber or stake,-Mischna, c. vi.; Gem. Babyl. Sanhed. c. vi. fol. 45, col. 2; edit. Amstel. The manner of hanging is thus described by one of these writers:-"They fix a stake in the earth, and out of that stake comes a piece of timber; and both the hands placed together are tied, and by them the executioner hangs the body up."-THEOD. DASSOVIUS. Dissertatio de suspendio hominis lapidibus obruti ad, Gal. iii. 13; Deut. xxi. 22.

NOTE B.

In bringing about the change referred to, the chief agent employed by Providence has been the Rev. Adam Thomson, D.D., of Coldstream. Few men have been honoured in a higher degree than this public-spirited minister of Christ. Through his instrumentality, that Word of God, which its Author glorifies above all his name; that Word which is able to make men wise unto salvation-which was, to a certain extent in this country, "bound"-now runs, has free course, and is glorified. May nothing stop its course!

NOTE C.

These are well weighed words of the candid and learned Joachim Camerarius, a man every way worthy of being Melancthon's friend-Est hic unus ex iis locis sacrarum literarum, de quibus pietas religiosa quærere amplius et dubitare quid dicatur, sine reprehensione: et de quibus diversæ etiam sententiæ admitti posse videantur, dummodo non detorqueatur kavwv tov to avto povew, id est, religiosa de fide consensio, neque aberretur, añо τηs avaλoуias TηS TIσTEWS." Luther's remarks, characteristic as they are, do not merit the same eulogium :-"Hac tam horribili poena Petrus Apostolus quoque motus videtur, ut non aliter quam fanaticus loquatur talia verba, quæ ne hodie quidem, a nobis intelligi possunt."-1 Pet. iii. 19, 20. "Mirabile profecto judicium, et vox pene fanatica."-LUTH. Exeg. Opp. Latt., tom. ii. p. 221. I do not know that we can make any better apology for the rashness of the great reformer, than to confess

with Langé, the worthy father-in-law of the learned and judicious Rambach, "virum optimum aliquid humani passum esse;" and that what he says, "ex affectu potius, quam verbis estimandum esse."

NOTE D.

Wiclif is uniform in his rendering "made dede in fleisch, but made quyk in spirit; he cam in spirit," &c. So is Tyndale, so far as the repeated mention of spirit is concerned: "Was kylled as pertayning to the flesshe; but was quykened in the sprete, in which sprete he also went," &c. Cranmer repeats Tyndale, as does the Genevan, with some slight orthographical changes. The Rhemists, in the first part of the rendering, are nearer the truth than any of them: "Mortified certes in flesh, but quickened in spirit; in the which spirit," &c.

NOTE E.

A pretty full account of the diversified opinions referred to in this and the following paragraph, is to be found in the third excursus appended to the second fasciculus of Pott's "Commentary on the Catholic Epistles," forming the ninth volume of the "Editio Koppiana" of the Greek New Testament. It is entitled, "Variæ interpretum, de descensu Jesu Christi ad inferos, sententiæ secundum temporum ordinem enumerantur, et breviter dijudicantur; nostraque interpretatio, copiosius explicatur." Bishop Horsley belongs to the more reasonable portion of this class. His defence of his view of the passage, like every thing he did, bears the mark of power, both imaginative and ratiocinative; but, like many things he did, it is lamentably deficient in sober thinking and conclusive argument. It is a happy thing that Priestley had other confuters, and the divinity of Christ other defenders, than the Bishop of Rochester.

NOTE F.

The opinion of the learned and judicious Winer deserves to be quoted : Επερωτάν can signify stipulari, but επερωτάσθαι is necessarily promittere, as also the glossaries teach. The answer to the question proposed (formally or implicitly) would be here the principal subject. Eneрwrnua, derived from the active voice, would here be altogether without meaning. The proposed question was not that which brings felicity: it must be taken pas

sively, and be derived from eneрorao bau, promittere. More simply, and in accordance with biblical usage, we may translate σ. a. e. . . the inquiry of a good conscience after God-comp. 2 Sam. xi. 7." This more simple mode of exegesis does not commend itself to my mind. Neander, after stating that the confession of faith made by catechumens at baptism was in answer to distinct questions, remarks in a note, "According to the most natural interpretation, 1 Pet. iii. 21, has reference to the question proposed at baptism,-Eneрornua, metonymice, for the pledge in answer to the question."-Gen. Ch. Hist. vol. i. p. 421.

DISCOURSE XVII.

EXHORTATION TO HOLINESS BASED ON THE ATONEMENT.

1 PET. iv. 1-6.-Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arın yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; that he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God. For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you; who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead. For, for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

THE paragraph now read presents us with a very important theme of consideration. It directs us to the practical use which we should habitually make of that great fundamental principle of Christianity, "that Christ, the just One, suffered in the room of the unjust, that he might bring them to God." It teaches us to use it as the most serviceable piece of armour, whether defensive or offensive, which we can employ in the spiritual conflict, on which, as Christians, we profess to have entered; that which, in the preceding context, is represented as the expiation of our guilt, the price of our pardon, the ground of our hope, being here exhibited as also the means of our sanctification, the strongest motive, the most cheering encouragement, to "cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, and to perfect holiness in the fear of God;" to "put off the old man, who is corrupt, and put on the new man, which, after God," that is, in the image of God, "is created in righteousness and

true holiness;"1 or, as the Apostle has it here, "to live no longer the rest of our time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God."

The words of the text are so obviously and so intimately related to those which immediately precede them, that we cannot help considering the commencement of a new chapter here as injudicious, and as fitted rather to obscure the sense, the natural place for a division being plainly the close of the eleventh verse. The long, and somewhat involved sentence which I have read (for it is one sentence), is a following up of the statement which had been made respecting the sufferings of Christ, in their nature, design, and consequences, by an exhortation enforced by two appropriate motives. The exhortation is contained in the second part of the first and in the whole of the second; and the first motive is adduced in the third, fourth, and fifth verses, and the second in the sixth verse. This is clearly the general division of the passage; and even this general view of the construction of the passage will be found useful in guiding our inquiries into its meaning.

verse,

Interpreters have been a good deal perplexed, both as to the manner in which the various clauses are connected with each other, and as to the meaning which severally and conjointly they are intended to express. I have never conversed with an intelligent Christian, acquainted merely with our English version of the passage, who has not complained of its obscurity, and acknowledged, that while most, though by no means all, of the expressions, seemed clear enough when taken singly, and many of the clauses viewed separately had an obvious meaning, he had failed in his attempts to obtain a consistent and satisfactory view of the whole; and I could not very readily point such a person to any interpretation of the passage where he would find a complete solution of his doubts and difficulties.

I have no doubt the passage has often been read without