man whose name was Jesus, and he was about thirty years of age, who chose us. And he came into Capernaum, and entered into the house of Simon who was surnamed Peter: and he opened his mouth and said, As I was coming by the lake of Tiberias, I chose John and James the sons of Zebedee, and Simon, and Andrew, and Thaddeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas Iscariot; and thee, Matthew, I called, sitting at the receipt of custom, and thou followedst me. You therefore, I appoint to be twelve Apostles, for a testimony unto Israel. And John was baptizing, and the Pharisees and all Jerusalem came out unto him, and were baptized. And John had his clothing of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his food was wild honey, of which the taste was that of manna, as a sweet cake in oil.""

After the passage cited before as the commencement of the Ebionite Gospel, and" after much matter besides," Epiphanius says, "it proceeds thus:

"When the people were baptized, Jesus also came and was baptized by John. And as he came up from the water, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit of God, in the form of a dove, descending and coming upon him. And a voice came from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. And again, This day have I begotten thee. And immediately a great light shone around the place. John, beholding him, said to him, Who art thou, Lord? And again a voice came to him from heaven, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And then John, falling down before him, said, I beseech thee, Lord, baptize thou me. But he forbad him, saying, Let alone, for thus it is proper that all things should be fulfilled.'"-Epiphanii Op. tom. i. pp. 137, 138.

Note [F], page 18.

Many modern interpreters understand "the tabernacle" in these passages as signifying the heavenly state. Yet these writers make "the sanctuary" also to signify the same object; thus confounding two very distinct images. The propriety of the figures, the argument of the connexion, and the frequent use of σkйvoc and okývμa to denote the human body (2 Cor. v. 1-4; 2 Pet. i. 13, 14, and this use of at least σkvos is common in Greek writers; see Wetstein on 2 Cor. v. 1, and Schleusneri Lex.) satisfy me of the justness of the interpretation of Calvin, Grotius, James Cappel, Dr. Owen, &c. It is no objection that in Heb. x. 20, "the veil" is the symbol of the Messiah's human nature: for the veil, as one of the boundaries of

the tabernacle, in a natural sense belonged to it; and the passage relates to our Lord's death, so that the veil is very fitly introduced, marking the transition out of life into another state. A further argument that our Lord's human body is here meant, arises from the antithesis to "the blood of goats and bullocks," and the position of " his own blood," which may be viewed as exegetical of the subject first mentioned; each of the three members having diá.

The text was partially quoted above, for the sake of presenting alone the clauses on which the argument rests. It is proper here to insert it at length. The reader will observe the apposition of "the tabernacle" and the "blood."

"But Christ, having presented himself, a High-Priest of the blessings to come, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, (that is, not of this creation,) and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, entered once [i. e. once for ever, never to be repeated,] into the sanctuary, having acquired eternal redemption."

Grotius's note is so judicious and satisfactory that it deserves to be inserted.

"The design of the writer is to declare that Christ entered the highest heavens through his sufferings and death. To keep up the comparison with the high-priest under the law, his object is to declare that Christ entered through his body and blood; for the body is very properly put by metonymy for bodily sufferings; and it is common in all languages to use the term blood to denote death, as death follows upon any very copious effusion of blood. Yet he does not express the body by its proper word, but uses a symbolical description suitable for carrying on the comparison, as I have observed above. The Hebrews were accustomed to call the body a tabernacle and from them the disciples of Pythagoras deduced the expression, as I have said on the Wisdom of Sol. ix. 15, and 2 Cor. v. 1-4. In particular the body of Christ is called a temple, on account of the indwelling divine energy: John ii. 21. Here this body is said to be "not made with hands," and the writer explains his meaning by adding, " that is, not of this creation," understanding by creation the usual order of nature; as the Jews apply the Talmudical term Beriah [creation, any thing created]: for the body of Christ was conceived in a supernatural manner. In this sense he properly employs the term not made with hands, because in the Hebrew idiom any thing is said to be made with hands which is brought to pass in the ordinary course of nature. See ver. 24, and Mark xiv. 58; Acts vii. 48; xvii. 24; Eph. ii. 11. The Prophets

frequently give to idols the appellation made with hands, as the opposite to any thing divine."-Grotii Annot. in Heb. ix. 11.

Note [G], page 22.

"Matt. i. 22, 23. The following are evidently the words, not of the angel, but of the evangelist, referring his Jewish readers to the O. T. in order to show them, that this new thing [Jer. xxxi. 22,] at the outset of the glad tidings, was already prepared for in their sacred ground of faith. Yet he does not take up any single or detached circumstance, for, in relation to such, discrepancies would present themselves, (e. g. the child which Mary bore was called Jesus, not Immanuel,) but the entire whole of the transaction; and this answered to the prophecy. The Lord himself is here presented as the efficient cause (vñò, as in ver. 20, έk, denoting the source or first spring of an action;) and the prophet merely the mediate organ of the action for dia, in contradistinction from vrò, signifies the instrument by means of which any thing is effected.-With respect to the meaning of the phrase iva or owe λnpwon (that it might be fulfilled,) which is used with a characteristic frequency by Matthew, it is, in the first place, very evident that the N. T. writers themselves understood it in the obvious and literal sense and, in the same plain comprehension of meaning, Anpovoðaι (to be fulfilled) to convey the idea that something, which had at a past time been promised or engaged for as to take place in future, is now brought into a present existence; so that #Aŋpovodɑı always presupposes a promise or prediction as having gone before. The conjunction ira cannot be translated ecbatically, so that, as if it merely designated the sequent event; but it must be taken telically, as expressing the design, in order that. In the whole phrase the designed character of the effect is clearly prominent; to which idea the verb itself necessarily leads. Therefore the ellipsis to TOUTO Yéyovεv (this was done) may be supplied by VæÒ Tой Kuρíov (by the Lord;) since that which took place cannot be regarded as a matter of accident. The form of expression is, by some interpreters, allowed to have its simple, proper, grammatical meaning, only where, in their judgment, prophecies strictly so called are adduced from the O.T.; but where this does not appear to them to be the case, they attach a wider meaning to the phrase, thus; the occurrence was such, that such or such words of the O. T. might very suitably be applied to it. In support of this method of explaining, it is urged that ira is used ecbatically in the N. T. I admit that this is the case in some passages, as John vii. 23, and ix. 2, though Fritzsche, in his Commentary on Matthew, p. 49, and

in his Excursus I., denies this. Yet, see what he says upon Matt. xiii. 13. But, because iva may be so used, it does not follow that it must be so in any passage. This peculiar phrase, which is of constant occurrence in the N. T., can have only one and the same meaning in all the places in which it is used. An appeal to the universal custom of applying passages of the O. T. to objects altogether alien from their proper reference as shown in their connexion, cannot be allowed to be available; for we cannot think that the sacred writers would have accommodated to themselves a practice both absurd and pernicious, and which was really a perverting of the word of God. Such it really would have been; and had those sacred writers followed that practice, they must also have received the principle on which it rested, namely, that the Scripture has unlimited meanings, and that it may therefore be applied to all possible relations and circumstances. The rabbinical authors made their applications of Scripture, even the most preposterous, upon this principle; and in pursuance of their view of the all-sided relation of the holy writings, they believed every one of the applications which they made, to be an actual fulfilment of the written word. In my opinion, it is only a doctrinal prejudice that has given occasion to the style of explanation which deviates from the plain grammatical meaning of the phrase, "that it might be fulfilled." It was conscientiously believed that, in the N. T. passages out of the O. T. are cited, as prophecies, which in their original connexion are not prophecies at all: therefore, to prevent its appearing as if the N. T. writers had cited out of the O. T. passages as prophecies which really contain no prophecy, recourse was had to the way of explanation which I have mentioned. Only then let the difficulty be taken out of the way, and there will be no occasion for departing from the proximate sense of the words. Now the difficulty is taken away by admitting, in the O. T. prophecies, a twofold reference; in the inferior, to an object immediately present; in a superior, to a future object. With this admission, we can always maintain the one reference; the proximate, simple, grammatical, literal sense; and, at the same time, comprehending the other, ascribe to the citations in the N. T. their full meaning as prophecies. It is a part of the peculiar INTENTION and CONSTITUTION of the Scriptures, that the life and being of the O. T. is a mirror of the N. T. life; and that all the lines of the religious ideas and institutions of the O. T. unite expressly in the person of Christ, as the chief object presented in the N. T.

"This universal character of the O. T. is expressed in the passage

(Isa. vii. 14,) here cited. The proximate, grammatical and literal sense necessarily requires a reference to an object actually present, as the virgin who was to bear the Immanuel, was presented by the prophet to king Ahaz as a sign. A reference to the Messiah, to be born of a virgin some centuries after, appears totally inapplicable to the occasion. Under the word virgin (Tapévos,

an unmarried female, in itself indeed different from whch necessarily signifies pure virginity; but by may, here it must, be understood of a virgin. in the strict and proper sense :) under this word, the mind most naturally recurs to the betrothed spouse of the prophet, designated in Isa. viii. 3, by the feminine termination to the word signifying Isaiah's own office, meaning therefore the wife of the prophet. Thus the passage obtains the plain and natural sense, that Isaiah presented as a sign to Ahaz, this series of facts, that his now only betrothed spouse, but who was soon to be his wife, would have a son, of the name Immanuel; and that, before this child should come to the usual early developement of faculties (that is, in two or three years,) the promises now made would be fulfilled. So king Ahaz had given to him a sign which was immediate and intelligible; while yet the birth of the Immanuel had its superior reference to the Messiah, in whom it acquired its fulfilment in a far higher and deeper sense, he being born of a virgin as a sign to the unbelieving world, represented in Ahab. This explication well suits the whole plan of the symbolical names which Isaiah gave to his sons. A complete series of sentiments and facts, of especial importance to him in the then existing circumstances, was represented by the names of his children; Shearjashub, Maher-shalal-hashbaz, and Immanuel. Thus, connecting the names of his children, he formed the circle of ideas in which his spirit so actively moved.' Such a method of conveying instruction is perfectly in unison with the plan of speaking by actions which was one of the peculiar characters of the prophetic office and thus also the evangelist Matthew had the ground of perfect right to apply the occurrence, the birth of an Immanuel, to the birth of Christ."Olshausen's Commentar. ub. d. N. T. vol. i. pp. 51-54. Königsberg, 1830.

1 Meaning, I presume, that the three names would form a sentence, as a prediction of the deliverance of Ahaz and his people from their great national dangers; q. d. Fear not, thy country shall not be long oppressed; the prisoners shall be released, a remnant shall return: because God is with us;-and thou shalt retaliate and be indemnified, therefore hasten to the spoil, quick to the prey. Dr.O. must also have supposed that Shear-jashub was the son of Isaiah by a former wife, or his scheme falls at once to the ground.