in prison," that is, to those who were slaves to sin and ignorance, such persons as the Apostle afterwards (ch. ii. 6) calls the dead; 'who formerly were disobedient, when the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, &c.'

It appears to me clear, that the agency of Jesus here spoken of, was subsequent to his resurrection; that the direct reference of wopEVELS, having gone, is to his ascension; and that therefore this passage is more in point to prove the pre-existence of the spiritual captives to whom Jesus, by his Apostles, proclaimed deliverance, than that of Jesus himself, to which it can have no reference. Peter, however, obviously, does not mean that the same individuals, but that the same class of persons, had formerly resisted the divine warning communicated to them by Noah. Gal. iv. 4, 14. These passages have been already considered in p. 34, 35.

1 Cor. x. 4, For they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock was the Christ.'

The Apostle had just said, they all ate the same spiritual food, and drank the same spiritual drink, probably meaning food and drink given them in a miraculous manner. For the same reason, probably, he calls the rock spiritual.

* Εν ᾧ και τοις εν φυλακῃ πνευμασι πορευθεις εκήρυξεν. Tie expression strikingly corresponds with that in Luke iv. 19: 'He hath sent me to proclaim (îŋpužαı) deliverance to the captives; and also with the Greek of Is. xlii. 7: 'I have appointed thee-to lead out those who are bound from their bonds, and from the prison-house, εξ οικου φυλακης. In Acts i. 10, 11, πορευομαι is used twice in reference to our Lord's ascension. The Apostle in the use of vɛuμaoi, spirits, appears to refer to the spiritual bondage of those to whom the glad tidings of the Gospel were delivered.-On the whole passage, see the notes in the Improved Version.

When he says that rock was the Christ, he cannot be understood literally upon any scheme; and unless 'This is my body,' be admitted as a proof of the doctrine of transubstantiation, the expression in question cannot be admitted as a proof of the pre-existence. It probably means, this rock "was an emblem and representation of the Christ," for instance, in the rich diffusion of the blessings communicated by him. Compare John iv. 14.

1 Cor. x. 9, Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them' (the Israelites) 'also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents.' The true reading of this text is very uncertain. The evidence of Manuscripts and Fathers decidedly favours the Lord, which, however, Griesbach, though he prefixes his mark of high probability, does not introduce into the text. The evidence of the Versions favours the common reading. The Alexandrian MS. has God. "If we read Christ," says Archbishop Newcome, "the sense is, Nor let us tempt, try, prove, provoke Christ now, as some of them did God at that time:" and, whatever be meant, from a reading so doubtful no inference could be fairly drawn. I think the passage simply means, Let us not be rebellious and distrustful towards the Messiah, as some of the Israelites also were rebellious and distrustful, and perished by serpents.*

1 Cor. xv. 47, 'The first man was from the earth, earthy; the second man will be [the Lord] from heaven.'

* See Reply to Magee, App. D. for a consideration of the true reading in this passage, and of Archbishop Magee's remarks upon it.

nature.

One fundamental principle of the Apostle's reasonings, v. 21, for since by MAN came death, by MAN also cometh the resurrection of the dead,' so plainly implies that Jesus was properly a human being, the same as to nature with him by whom death came, that if he had not been called MAN in this very passage, I do not see how it could fairly be interpreted to refer to a superior The words the Lord are retained in the text by Griesbach, though with his mark of probable omission; but the evidence against their genuineness is so very strong, that they might justly be left out of view in our interpretation : it would scarcely, however, affect the sense of the following to retain them.—In Phil. iii. 21, the Apostle declares his expectations that the Lord Jesus Christ would come from heaven, and change our debased body so that it may be like his glorious body. He here declares the same thing; and he obviously refers, not to the preexistent but to the present state of Jesus, whose bodily system he speaks of, in Rom. vi. 9, as now incorruptible. The first man, he says, was formed out of the earth, and is earthy, frail and mortal; the second man, who is now incorruptible and immortal (v. 42-44), will come from heaven to raise us from the dead, and we shall become like him incorruptible.-The tense of the verb supplied in the Public Version "the second man is [the Lord] from heaven," is the chief if not

the only circumstance which misleads the unlearned reader as to the sense of the passage.* 2 Cor. viii. 9, "For ye know the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, ότι δι ὑμας επτωχευσε πλούσιος ων, that ye through his poverty might be rich."

It is at least equally accordant with the original to render the middle clause thus: that for your sakes, though rich, he was poor,' he lived in poverty. All that can be allowed as to the weight of the passage against Unitarianism, is, that it may be translated as in the Public Version, and that it may be interpreted in reference to a pre-existent state. That our Lord led a life of poverty is indisputable; the only question, and indeed the only difficulty on the Unitarian system, is, in what sense he could be rich at the same time. That the expression cannot be understood literally, so as to imply that he was in actual possession of riches, must be admitted even by those who refer it to a pre-existent state of glory and happiness: it could not be affirmed, in a strict literal sense, that a person is rich because he is in such a state. Using the expression figuratively, we may say that the Christian e.g. has riches which the world can neither give nor take away, that he is rich in good works, rich in faith, rich in the favour of God, rich in his

In v. 21, 48, there is a similar error as to the inserted verbs, (in the original there are none in either verse,) which, though less important, manifests an equal inattention of the Translator to the connexion. V. 22 shows that the second verb supplied in v. 21, should have a future force, either cometh or will come; and the circumstances of the case and v. 49, require the same in v. 48, and as is the heavenly, such will they also be that are heavenly.'

N

hopes and prospects, &c. In some such sense we must understand the Apostle, when he speaks (ch. vi. 10) of himself and fellow-labourers in the Gospel,AS POOR, yet making many RICH; as HAVING NOTHING, and yet POSSESSING ALL things;' and in a similar manner we must understand the words of our Lord himself, when he directs his servant John (Rev. ii. 9) to say to the church at Smyrna, I know thy [works and] affliction, and POVERTY, (yet thou art RICH.') In this sense, however, the Apostle can scarcely be here understood, since he refers to real privation for the good of men; but if it be admitted, as I most certainly believe, that our Saviour, by means of his miraculous powers, could at all times have obtained possession of worldly riches and greatness, then we have a simple and almost literal explanation of the expression: For your sakes he led a life of poverty and suffering, though he had at his command the means of wealth and power and glory.*

*If it could be shown that εTTWXενσε must be rendered, became (not was) poor, it still remains to be shown that the expression 'being rich' refers to a state prior to our Lord's birth. I have already remarked that it could not, even then, be understood literally; and it seems to me clear enough, that it might as well refer to that period (see Matt. iv. 8. Luke iv. 6) when we know that he had worldly power, wealth, and glory within his grasp, and rejecting which he chose a life of humiliation and suffering, as to one. in which he could not have possessed temporal riches. Without doubt, however, επTWXevσe is most justly rendered he was poor, (see Improved Version;) but I wished to show that the advocates for the pre-existent hypothesis cannot adduce this passage as a proof of it, because it is not only capable of two renderings, one of which does not suit that hypothesis, but the other also admits of a just interpretation which has no reference to it. Yet it is upon such passages that the doctrine rests for its evidence.