durate creditor, μακροθύμησον επ' εμοι και παντα σου αποδώσω. Here we find it means, "wait patiently," "forbear to enforce payment for a while, under an expectation of receiving all some time or other." Had, however, the creditor himself found it necessary to submit to this disposition of mind, in expectation of the fulfilment of a gratuitous promise by some superior, the nature of his feelings would, perhaps, have been of a different sort. In that case, his uneasiness, if it should be so called, would have arisen only from anticipation; but even this acceptation, if the Patriarch's patient waiting be supposed to have been rewarded with complete fruition in this life (which our translation seems to imply, by intimating that he did not obtain the promise till after he had patiently endured), is hardly satisfactory here. The other is much more to the purpose; it occurs 2 Pet. iii. 9. Beadures της επαγγηλίας, says Peter of the Everlasting Father himself anna pargobuμs. By this we find, that the maker of the promise is represented by Peter as still exercising the same disposition of mind, many ages after, in order to accomplish his promise, as Abraham is said, by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, to have found it necessary to habituate himself in, before he could obtain it. This acceptation of the word, as it regards the same object, seems to be sufficiently decisive. And to this same conclusion we shall arrive, if we reconsider the arguments above adduced to prove, that the promise bere alluded to, was no other than the promise on mount Moriah, and recollect, that our own Apostle had expressly assured us, that the subject of that promise, viz. the seed of Abraham, in whom the nations of the earth were to be blessed, was not to be understood of all the seed, or the seed in general, but only of one in particular, viz. Christ; and, again, recollect that Christ himself told his countrymen at Jerusalem, that Abraham rejoiced to see his day, and did indeed, in a certain sense, see it and was glad and without at all intimating his having previously patiently endured. As, then, the case seems to be so very plain, why should we give ourselves any further trouble to inquire concerning the true sense in which Abraham is said to have obtained the promise? Why should we not take the liberty to interpret this verse thus at Tw, and, upon the strength of this assurance only (the reason for inserting only will appear as we go on) angluunas, looking a long way forward into futurity futurity to see the completion of the promise, as God also does; or, in other words, " seeing the promises afar of. Επέτυχε της επαγγελίας he enjoyed as long as he lived here, the pleasing prospect which the promise had presented to him, in addition to his other temporal enjoyments; that is, nyathaσato naι exapn, from the time when the promise was made, without any previous patient enduring. Και έτω (and in no other sense surely) Αβρααμ, while he continued on earth, επέτυχε τ' επαγγελίας made on mount Moriah. The other two promises relating to this life, we find, he actually enjoyed, "having been blessed in all things." Εν ῶ περισσότερον βελομενο ο Θεος επιδειξαι τοις κληρονόμοις της επαγγελίας το αμετάθετον της βύλης αυτό. "Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath." Notwithstanding God sent an angel to Abraham on Morial, purposely to prevent the immolation of his son, to make a declaration of the promise, and to attest its having been confirmed by an oath; notwithstanding the Almighty so far fulfilled that promise, that Abraham is said to have obtained it after he had patiently endured; we seem to be given to understand by this, that God did not, after all, do so much for Abraham as he was inclined to do for the heirs of promise, he being here said to have been "willing more abundantly' to shew unto the heirs of promise (than to Abraham, if any body at all, we may, of course surmise) the immutability of his counsel." And did he really do so? Most assuredly. And what, of his more abundant willingness, did he do for the heirs of promise, by way of showing the immutability of his counsel, than for Abraham? As Abraham is said to have obtained the promise after he had patiently endured, what further proof of the iminutability of the counsel of the Almighty could the heirs obtain than Abraham had before obtained? Confirmed it by an oath. It? What; the immutability of his counsel? As his counsel is ever immutable, that, surely, could not want confirmation at any time. But if the heirs of promise were not so far certified of this as they should be, he, no doubt could shew them, more abundantly than he had even shewed to Abraham, the immutability of his counsel. Did he then do so? If he did, how did he contrive to do it? Was it by another oath? or, did God appear personally and swear, instead of sending his angel to attest his oath, as he did to Abraham on the mount? mount? If not, what more abundant proof of the immutability of his counsel could the oath, as attested by the angel on Moriah, be to the heirs of promise (who have been brought acquainted with it only by tradition), than to Abraham himself, who obtained the assurance of it by the intervention of an angel? Had the same angel, who at first attested the oath to Abraham and his son on the mount, been sent to any of the heirs, he, doubtless, could have afforded them a still more abundant proof, not only by such a second appearance, but by a commoration with them, and also by some other more extraordinary means. And may there not have been an allusion to such a way of attesting the immutability of the counsel of the adorable Jehovah here? Let us attend to this verse a little more carefully, to see if things are stated as they should be. Εν Eva, "Wherein," says our translation; and where are we to look for the antecedent to which this refers us? It may surely be understood as referring us to the exemplification of the utility of an oath by its usual effect among men in the common concerns of life, which we find in the verse immediately preceding; or, to the transaction on Moriah; or, even to both. But, in either case, it seems to be only an ill-contrived link to couple_together two assemblages of ideas, which, in spite of its conjunctive efforts, will never form a rational consistence. What if we say "in whom," considering it as spoken of Abraham in the same sense as when the Father of the faithful was first assured of a blessed posterity, it was said to him" in thee" xas in thy seed? Ta de Aßpaan were the promises made to his seed. He saith not xa to seeds, as of many; but as of one, za to thy seed, which our own Apostle assures us is Christ. Περισσότερον. Whether this be understood to imply that God was still more willing to do something for the heirs of promise than he had thought fit to do for Abraham; or, that he was willing to do something "more abundantly" for them, it matters but little. But though this seems to be of so little consequence, yet it is, doubtless, of the utmost importance to the heirs of promise, to be assured of what that "more abundant" something, which God either will'd or did, was, Abraham, it is said, received the promise, and as confirmed by an oath; and, it may be added, in a manner which must have made a much deeper impression on his mind. 食 mind, than any of his heirs can be supposed to have experienced. He, it is also said, obtained the promise. And have any of the hers, if they only received the promise as confirmed by an oath in the presence of Abraham, obtained any thing more than this? What then can this something more have been, if it was not, that God was willing to shew still more, that is, to give a stronger proof of the immutability of his counsel to the heirs of promise, than he had at first given to Abraham? And what then has he done "more abundantly" for the heirs of promise by way of assurance, than he had before done for Abraham? scire licet-pεOSTEVσEV Op-that is, says our translation," confirmed it by an oath." Confirmed it!Why, confirmed?-and-Why, it? Confirmed what by an oath? His promise, say our commentators, one and all; making the oath consequent to the promise, and as peremptory as if it was so beyond all doubt. Do we not, say they, read immediately after of "two immutable things in which [it was] impossible for God to lie?" And what can these two immutable things have been but his promise and his oath? But did not the angel introduce the promise on the mount by previously attesting the oath ?-that is-Did not the attestation of the oath, not only according to what we read in the Hebrews, but even according to the report of Moses, then precede the annunciation of the promise; or, if not, at least accompany it in such a manner as to leave scarce the shadow of a reason for a distinction between them? Philo, surely, as an expositor of the law, deserves as much credit as any of our modern commentators, and he says, Το πιςευθηναι χαριν, απιτεμένοι καταφεύγεσιν εφ ορκον οι ανθρωποι οδε Θεος και λεγων πιςος εςι ωςε και τις λογος αυτό, βεβαίοτητος ενεκα μηδεν ορκων διαφέρειν, συμβέβηκε την μεν ημετεξαν γνώμην ορκω, τον δε Πκον αὐτὸν Θεῷ πεπιςῶασθαι: ε γας d όρκον πιςος ο Θεος, αλλά δίαυτον και ο ορκος βέβαιος. Τι εν έδοξε τῶ ἵεροφαντι παρεισαγάγειν αυτον ομνυοντα,&c. But, whether this distinction be valid or not, God, by confirming his promise by an oath, instead of giving a stronger proof of the immutability of his counsel to the heirs of promise than to Abraham, on the contrary appears to have given Abraham a much more sensible proof than the heirs, as it was a proof oculis subjectum fidelibus, that is, a proof communicated to him by a visible agent of a very unusual aspect-a sort of proof with which none of the heirs have been personally favoured. Besides, is confirmed any thing like the proper word to express express the meaning of CITEUGE at any time? In what other work does it occur in this sense? Does it not much inore clearly mean the voluntary action of one person or party who places himself between two other persons or part es? as, for instance, a surety between a creditor and his debtor, or between a judge, as the protector of any plaintiff or appellant, and a defendant? And do not our commentators, one and all, admit *, that it means something like "to interpose one's self," to intervene? though not one of them cares to allow that self-interposition or intervention was really the thing meant in this instance, by totally disregarding this mode of interpretation in all their decisions on this point, and uniformly presenting to our notice the interposition of an action instead of an agent. It cannot surely be denied, that they do admit, to a man, that its proper signification is primarily, at least, no other than what may be expressed by either of the terms above-mentioned, and, almost to a man, that one of those terms ought to be its representative here; and yet, strange to say, they cannot agree whether either of those terms is sufficiently significant of itself to express the sacred writer's meaning, nor whether it ought to have some little assistant attached to it, not expressed in the original. One assures us, that it ought to have some such assistant, and that it should be either cum or per; and another, on the contrary, that it should not have any, but that the representative of MOTEUGE should not be allowed to mean self-interposition, and that of og should be suffered to take the liberty of not appearing in the same case as its original, in order to accommodate this unauthorised interposition of the verb. And no less strange to say, they all seem to agree in conceiving that the principal extreme of the two, between which the intervention or interposition was to take place, was not a person, but the bare expression of his will. Strange, however, as these dissentions and conceits seem to be, it must seem still more strange, that the very writer above alluded to as admitting that interpono me is the primary meaning of ESTEUW, and its meaning here, and would call in the assistance of either cum or per to express the *Leigh, in his Critica Sacra, after having informed us that this verb be expressed either by interpono me, mediator sum, or mediatorem ago, immediately subjoins," Sed in ep. ad. Heb. cap. vi. v. 17, aliter accipitur, videlicet (that is, take my word for it) pro intervenit per jusjurandum," vel interposuit se cum jurejurando; (nam interposuit jusjurandum, quod habet Erasmus cum veteri interprete, nullo modo probare queo: exponitur etiam fide jussit jurejurando."-Steph. in Thes. Græc. Vol. XI. Churchm. Mag. for Dec. 1806. 3 I meani r may |