advantage over the Gentiles in the possession of the sacred oracles; here it is asserted that the Jews (individually) had no advantage in point of personal righteousness.

Wetstein translates Tρоɛxóμεla as a Passive: an antecellimur? and Morus as a Middle (comparing Thucyd. i. 140. Soph. Ant. 80): “Num prætextus nobis est in his præcipuis nationis nostræ commodis ?"-but we may suppose the Apostle to have considered ἐχόμεθα equivalent to ἔχομεν ἑαυτούς.

10-18. "Utitur hic Paulus diversis sententiis tum ex Psalmis tum ex Esaiâ, nec utique verba semper adnumerans, sed sensum qualem memoria suggerebat bene exprimens. Tempora, inquit, sunt qualia olim a Davide et aliis descripta sunt." Rosenmüller. Compare vv. 10, 11, 12, with Ps. xiii. 1, 2, 3. ver. 13 with Ps. v. 9, and cxl. 3. ver. 14 with Ps. x. 7. vv. 15, 16, 17, with Prov. i. 16, and Isa. lix. 7, 8. ver. 18 with Ps. xxxvi. 1. In ver. 13, doλtovσav is an Alexandrine or Hellenistic idiom for doλouv, with which compare λOooav, for lov, Ps. lxxviii. 1.

19. ó vóuos here, as in ch. ii. 17. 20. John x. 34. xii. 34. 1 Cor. xiv. 21, &c., means the Jews' canon of Scripture, and the argument is: the Jews, whose own Scriptures describe them as above, are no better than the rest of mankind (ov Tάντws πρоÉXоvrai)-whence it follows that-so that, &c. &c. -for such is the peculiar force of iva, equivalent to us or Eπws av, whereby should every mouth be stopped, &c. Compare above ver. 8, and see Classical Museum, No. VI. p. 343. Ytódikos tų Dε is best rendered liable to God's justice, or, as in the marginal version, subject to the judgment of God; in danger of His "wrath and damnation" (Art. IX). Hesych: ὑπεύθυνος, ἔνοχος δίκης.

20. "Wherefore by works of law, whether natural or revealed, moral or ceremonial, there shall no man be justified meritoriously (ch. ii. 13) in His sight, because law makes men sensible that they are sinners, without giving them any hope of pardon; consequently, instead of entitling them to life, it subjects them to punishment"-so Macknight well translates

and explains this verse, with the exception only of dióri which should rather have been for or because that, as we find it in ch. i. 21. Luke i. 13. ii. 7. xxi. 28, &c., than made an illative conjunction, of which no other instance has been adduced by those who follow the English version.

Beza allows that in this passage vóuoc, without the Article prefixed, signifies "omnem doctrinam, seu scriptam seu non scriptam, quæ aliquid jubeat aut interdicat;" and by pya vóμov, works of moral or ritual obedience, as distinguished from that vaкой TίOTεwę (ch. i. 5) which it is the great object of the Christian revelation to produce, we may understand all such "works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of his Spirit," as in our Thirteenth Article are declared to be "not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ."

21. But now, without any reference to law of any kind whereby men should be accounted righteous before God for their own works or deservings (Art. XI.), a righteousness, which (see Phil. iii. 9) is of God, hath been disclosed to the world, witness whereof is borne by the Law of Moses (see John i. 45. v. 46. Acts xxvi. 22) and the Prophets (ch. i. 2. 1 Pet. i. 10. Rev. xix. 10)—a righteousness, I say (SE), which God hath appointed to be through the instrumentality of faith in Jesus Christ, designed for (ɛiç) all (not for one nation only), and realized unto (ì, brought home to) all who truly repent and unfeignedly believe His holy Gospel (see the concluding observation on ch. i. 17). Compare 1 Tim. iv. 10.

23. For all (have sinned, and therefore) lie under the guilt of sin, and of themselves fall short of the glory of God; i. e., as Locke explains it, that glory which God has appointed for the righteous; compare ch. ii. 10. v. 2. viii. 18. Col. iii. 4. 2 Tim. ii. 10. 1 Pet. v. 1.-being accounted (and dealt with as) righteous (i. e. innocent) only by His free grace, &c. See on ch. v. 1.

25. δν προέθετο ὁ Θεὸς ἱλαστήριον κ.τ.λ. Translate: whom God hath set forth (rather, as in the marginal version,

fore-ordained, i. e. appointed or designed; ch. i. 13. Eph. i. 9. Acts i. 7) to be a propitiatory from which He will dispense pardon to sinners through faith in his blood—with Macknight, who adds: "The cover of the ark is called iλaorýρiov iπíleμa, a propitiatory cover, Exod. xxv. 17. LXX., because it was the throne on which the glory of the Lord received the atonements made by the high priest on the day of expiation, and from which God dispensed pardon to the people. In allusion to this ancient worship, the Apostle represents Christ as a propitiatory or mercy-seat, set forth (designed) by God for receiving the worship of men, and dispensing pardon to them." Compare Levit. xvi. 13. 15, 16. Heb. ix. 5; and observe that in the sense of a propitiation, or expiatory sacrifice, iλaoμós (not iλaorýρiov) is used by St. John, 1 Ep. ii. 2. iv. 10.

"The expression, faith in his blood," Macknight further observes, "is found nowhere else in Scripture. But the Apostle's meaning is sufficiently plain; namely, that God dispenses pardon to all who have faith in Christ's blood, as shed for the remission of sin; who trust to the merit of that sacrifice for the pardon of their own sin; who approach God with reverence and confidence through the mediation of Christ; and who, discerning with admiration the virtues which Christ exercised in His sufferings, endeavour to imitate them. This, I think, is faith in His blood." Lastly, “By teaching this doctrine,” he adds, "the Apostle removed the great objection of the Jews and heathens against the Gospel, that it had neither priest nor sacrifice.”

Ibid. eiç évdeığı K. 7. λ. for the purpose of making known His righteousness, or salvation; see Isa. li. 5—because of the passing over of by-gone sins through the forbearance of God-because that God (Acts xvii. 30), in His mercy, hath overlooked the past times of ignorance, but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent; διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τ. πρ. ἁμ. being equivalent to διότι παρεῖται τὰ προγεγονότα ἁμαρτήματα—to make known, I say (no distinction between się and pòç, further than that oÒÇ goes more directly to the point, which się aims at and makes towards; εἰς ἔνδειξιν, ut vel quo declararet; πρὸς ἔνδειξιν, ad declarandum;) at the present season (ch. i. 18. iii. 21. 2 Cor.

C

vi. 2), His righteousness, whereby—the virtue of which (so the Apostle defines the term Alkaloσúvn Oɛou) is that—He should be just (in no wise compromising His awful attribute of justice) at the same time that He acquits him that comes recommended to Him by faith in Jesus-or in the language of our Prayerbook, where the precise terms of such Δικαιοσύνη ἐκ πίσω τεως Ἰησοῦ are more fully stated, at the same time that H

PARDONETH AND ABSOLVETH ALL THEM THAT TRULY REPENT, AND UNFEIGNEDLY BELIEVE HIS HOLY GOSPEL.

27. What becomes, then, of our glorying? (ch. ii. 17. 23.) It has no place. So Theodoret: oùк ĚTI xúρav exe: and οὐκ ἔτι χώραν ἔχει: Chrysostom: oùKéti yàp Exeɩ kaιpóv—for (ver. 24) our hope of acquittal rests not upon any righteousness of our own, but upon the free grace of God. Under what kind of covenant? (see on ii. 27)—i. e., what is the nature of that law or covenant under which the new revelation places us? A covenant of works, that says to us (compare ch. x. 5—10), “This do, and thou shalt live." (Luke x. 28.) Nay-for then (see ch. iv. 2) we might have whereof to glory—but under a covenant of faith, that says (Acts viii. 37. xvi. 31), "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ with all thine heart, and thou shalt be saved." Compare the reasoning pursued in 1 Cor. iv. 7; and observe that vóμoç TioTews is not a mere antithesis to νόμος ἔργων, but what the Apostle has already expressed by Vπaкoǹ TíσTεws (ch. i. 5), and further described (Eph. ii. 10) as good works," which, says our Twelfth Article, "are the fruits of faith, and follow after justification; and, albeit they cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of God's judgment, yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith."

66

28. We conclude, then-as the true solution of that deeply interesting problem, πῶς γὰρ ἔσται δίκαιος βροτὸς παρὰ Kupių; Job ix. 2-that it is by faith that man is accounted righteous before God, without reference to works of moral or ritual obedience-without admitting, that is, even good works share in man's justification, which (as our Eleventh

to any

Article declares) is "only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, (made ours) by faith, and not for our own works or deservings;" compare Tit. iii. 5, oùê ¿1⁄2 čpywv τῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ ὧν ἐποιήσαμεν ἡμεῖς, not in consideration of meritorious works that we have done; works that operate in the way of (make for) justification, or acquittal at the bar of God's justice-inaccurately rendered in the English version works of righteousness-and to be distinguished from the "good works" recommended as indispensable to the Christian (though not meritorious), ibid. ver. 8. Aoyiloμai (on which see ch. iv. 3) has here the sense of summing up and balancing arguments, as in ch. viii. 18. Mark xi. 31. Heb. xi. 19.

29. The question in this verse is naturally enough suggested by the preceding proposition, which (like those contained in ver. 20) was evidently intended to bear an universal application, whether we translate äveρwτоv Man, as in Matt. iv. 4 (though some MSS. there read ó äv◊ρwños, as in Luke iv. 4), or a man (for пávтa äv0ρwπov, as rìç, unusquisque, for Tās ris, Matth. Gr. Gr. § 487, 2), as in Gal. ii. 16, which see in illustration also of what follows in ver. 30.

30. Seeing that it is one common God and Father of all (ch. x. 12, 13. Eph. iv. 6), who shall acquit circumcised persons-(being, supply ovσav) provided that they are not men of outward circumcision only (ch. ii. 29. iv. 12) but men of faith (ver. 26)—and persons uncircumcised, by the one common medium of faith (the Article introduced here with reference to πίστει in ver. 28). With περιτομὴ ἐκ πίστεως compare, in point of expression, dikaιoσúvŋ έk TíσTɛwę ch. i. 17.

31. "Few texts of Scripture, rightly understood, are more important," observes Bp. Middleton on this verse, and adds "that vouos here, without the Article, must be taken in the sense of moral obedience, is plain from the context, for it is opposed to faith." Translate: Is it to be inferred from this doctrine of man's justification that under the covenant of faith (ver. 27) we do away with moral obligation (and so are open to the charge of Antinomianism)? God forbid! On the contrary,