allusion to such predictions, on the occasion and in the manner recorded by John.

2 Cor. vi. 18. And I will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord God Almighty. There is no passage in the Old Testament to which this can with any degree of probability be referred. Mr. Scott conjectures that the apostle only intended to make a general allusion to such promises as those contained in Jer. xxxi. 1, 9, and Hosea i. 9, 10; an idea which is by no means unlikely. But perhaps there has in this case been supposed what really did not exist in the mind of the apostle, viz. an intention to refer to the Old Testament as the source from which these words are borrowed. То me it appears more likely that, having in the preceding verses quoted as applicable to Christians, Jehovah's gracious promise to the Israelites that he would dwell with them and receive them, Paul goes on in ver. 18, to explain more fully in his own words the full import of that promise.

James iv. 5. Do ye think the Scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? This passage is exegesis and as

truly a crux interpretum, both as respects its respects the source of the quotation which it professedly contains. Without occupying space by attempting an examination of the different suggestions which have been offered in explanation of it, I shall, in a few words, lay before the reader what has appeared to my own mind the most satisfactory view of the subject.*

Rejecting the division of the sentence into two questions, which has been proposed by some critics, as quite unauthorised, and as making James ask a question too indefinite to be answered either one way or another, (for who could tell what was the purport of such an inquiry as "Think ye the Scripture speaketh in vain ?") the first point to be determined is the

Theile in his commentary on this epistle notices no less than eleven different modes of punctuating this verse, and eleven corresponding modes of explaining it. In the second Number of the Theologische Studien und Kritiken, for 1840, there is an able paper on this and the following verse, by Prof. Xyro, of Bern.

object designated by the phrase, "The spirit that dwelleth in us." Is this the natural spirit of man, or the Divine Spirit in the believer? The translators of the received version have evidently followed the former of these opinions; and in this they are countenanced by a great number of very excellent interpreters. It may be seriously doubted, however, how far they are correct in this. The phrase, "that dwelleth in us,” is never used of the human spirit, which is regarded by the New Testament writers rather as the man himself than as something merely belonging to him; while it, or something quite equivalent, is frequently used of the presence of the Divine Spirit in the heart of the believer; comp. John xiv. 23; Eph. ii. 22; 2 Tim. i. 14; 1 John iv. 12, &c. It is questionable, moreover, whether πνεõμа is ever used in the New Testament to designate the seat of carnal lusts and propensities in man, which must be the meaning of it here in connexion with T700, if it be used of the human spirit; the proper word in such a case is ux or καρδία.*

Understanding this phrase, then, of the Divine Spirit, the next question respects the meaning of рòs plóvov. Strictly speaking, this should be rendered by "towards envy," as expressive of the direction of the action of the verb érinоlei; but such a rendering is inadmissible here on two grounds: in the first place, because it would be absurd to say that the Divine Spirit could in any way tend towards envy; and secondly, because on this rendering it is impossible to make any sense of the passage, the whole of which would stand thus:-"The spirit which, &c. desires [something] towards envy." In lieu of the literal rendering, Winer and some others propose to render the phrase adverbially, invidiose, enviously; but even granting that there is authority for such a rendering, which I vehemently doubt, what meaning is to be made out of it I cannot conjecture, unable to fix any definite idea to the words, "The spirit desireth [its object] enviously." By far the most tenable rendering seems to me that

* See Olshauseni Opuscc. Theoll. p. 145, ff. De Nature Humana Trichotomia Novi Testamenti Scriptoribus Recepta. Berolini, 1834.

which gives pòs the force of against—an unusual, indeed, but not unauthorised meaning of that particle.*

The only remaining question respects the meaning of ἐπιποθεῖ. This verb denotes the desire of the mind for any given objectTоðεiv έní п,—and is generally followed by the infinitive of another verb or the accusative of its object. In the present instance the object is not expressed, but there seems no great difficulty in supplying it. The object of desire to the Divine Spirit within believers is their sanctification; and in accordance with this he desires all that would promote this, and all that is against that which would impede it. But nothing impedes it more than envy, malice, and strife among Christians; and therefore all the desires of the Spirit are against these. It is to this that the apostle appears to refer here; comp. Gal. v. 17.

If these remarks be correct, we may translate the whole verse thus:" Or think ye that the Scripture saith in vain, the Spirit [of God] which dwelleth in you desireth [that which is] against envy ;" and understand the apostle as dissuading the Christians to whom he wrote, from those unseemly strifes into which they had fallen, by reminding them that it was a doctrine of Scripture, clear and true, that the whole tendency of the Spirit's influence was against such conduct and the passions from which it springs, so that they could not retain the Spirit of God, and yet indulge such a course.

Assuming this to be the meaning of the passage, we may regard the Apostle as referring generally to those Old Testament Scriptures, which, in announcing the promise of the Spirit, enlarge upon the peace and purity which he should produce in those to whom he should be given. If any of these in particular was present to his mind, it was probably Ez. xi.

18-21.

The only other quotation I shall notice here is that in Heb. x. 5-7 from Ps. xl. 6-8. There is no difficulty in tracing this quotation to its source, the difficulty lies in accounting for the variation in the quotation from the original, and I notice it here because I shall have occasion to use the passage in a subsequent

*Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 1; Eph. vi. 11, 12; &c.

Lecture. The apostle has made the quotation from the version of the LXX., which he has closely followed, with the exception of a few verbal alterations. The principal departure in this version from the original is in the rendering given to the words mine ears thou hast bored, for which the LXX. substitute σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοὶ, a body hast thou prepared for me, or rather, my body hast thou prepared. The difference here, however, is more in appearance than in reality; for when we come to ascertain the sense of both, we shall find that they only state the same truth in different words. As respects the former, it is obvious that an allusion is made in it to the practice among the Jews of boring the ears of those servants who refused to avail themselves of the liberty which the year of jubilee afforded them of leaving the service of their masters. This was a symbol of the servant's entire devotedness to the master whom he refused to leave; and hence the phrase "to bore the ear" came to be equivalent to a declaration of the unreserved submission and devotedness of the party whose ear was said to be bored to the party by whom that act was said to be performed. As used in the passage under consideration, therefore, it simply announces the entire devotedness of the Messiah to the service of his Father. Now this seems to be the idea expressed by the rendering of the LXX., only that they have dropped the allusion and substituted for it a direct statement. The word oua is often used in Scripture to denote the whole person (comp. especially Rom. xii. 1); and when our Saviour is represented here as saying, "Thou hast fitted or prepared my body," the meaning obviously intended is, that he held himself as entirely devoted to the Divine will and service. The expression is elliptical, but it is not difficult to supply the ellipsis from what goes before. If God did not require sacrifice and offering from him, but had, instead of that, prepared his body, we naturally infer that the meaning is that, in place of the sacrificial services of the Mosaic ritual, God had appointed for the speaker the consecration of his entire being, his owμa, or personal totality, which he would accept, and which the speaker was ready to render.-It may be added in support of

this, that the LXX. very frequently substitute for the figurative expressions of the original such direct statements as they conceived to be equivalent. Thus, e. g. Gen. iii. 8, for the Heb. expression," at the breeze of the day," they give simply " in the evening;" for the often recurring phrase, "to walk with God," they generally use the simple expression, "to please God;" for the words, "All my people shall kiss upon thy mouth" (xliv. 40), they give "All my people shall obey upon thy mouth;" for "the beginning of my strength" (xlix. 3), they say, "the beginning of my children," &c. Cf. Toepleri De Pentateuchi Interpret. Alexandr. indole Critica et Hermeneutica. Halæ, 1830. P. 43.

NOTE E. Page 94.

Opinions of the Fathers regarding the Plural Appellations of Deity in the Old Testament.

THE argument in the text in favour of the doctrine of the Trinity has been stigmatised by some Unitarian writers as a novelty which was unknown in the earlier ages of the Church. It is of little moment whether it be new or not, provided it be only sound; but as it is not new it may be as well to show by a few extracts in what esteem it was held by some of the very earliest christian writers.

Barnabas, in his Epistola Catholica, cap. 5, speaks of our Saviour as "the Lord of the Universe, to whom He (the Father) said, Let us make, &c." Patrum Apostoll. Ed. Hefele, p. 7.

Tertullian, in an argument on the subject of the Trinity, in one of his Tracts says: "But if the number of the Trinity offend thee, as if not connected in a simple unity, I ask, How comes a person who is alone and single to speak in the plural, 'Let us make man in our image and likeness,' when he should have said, 'Let me make, &c.,' as became one who was alone and single? Moreover, when he says afterwards, Behold