one.

of which all these interpretations have sprung, is an erroneous. For the emphasis falls not upon λόγου δικαιοσύνης, but upon the ameipos, on that account preposed. Not for a nonpossession of the λόγος δικαιοσύνης, but only for a want of experience in the same, only for an insufficient, schoolboy's knowledge of it, does the author blame the readers. The Móyos Sikaloσúvns in itself, therefore, stands as indifferently related to the notion of the στερεά τροφή οι τελειότης as to the notion of the σToxeîa, to which Ebrard reckons it. Only by the more or less exhaustive imparting of its subject-matter does it become the one or the other. For the word of righteousness is nothing more than a periphrasis of Christianity or the gospel, inasmuch as just the righteousness availing with God' is the central-point of its contents. Quite analogous to this mode of designation is the Pauline characterization of the gospel office of teaching by ἡ διακονία τῆς δικαιοσύνης, 2 Cor. iii. 9, and of the teachers of Christianity by diákovoi Sikaioσúvns, 2 Cor. xi. 15; on which account also it is unnecessary, for the justification of the expression chosen, with Bleek, Bisping, and Maier, to assume an allusion to the exposition of the name Melchisedec, Baoiλeus Sixaloσúvns, given vii. 2. — VÝTTIOS Yáρ ÈσTw] for he is still a babe, a novice in Christianity. Setting forth of the naturalness of the ameipos λóyov δικαιοσύνης.

Ver. 14. The opposition: for perfect or more matured

1 Of the righteousness availing with God (comp. also xi. 7), have Beza, Jac. Cappellus, Peirce, Storr, Klee, Tholuck, Bleek, Stein, Ebrard, Bloomfield, and others already rightly interpreted dixaiorúvn. — In the above exposition, Alford, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 733), and Woerner have concurred; save that, according to Riehm, by virtue of an over-refined distinction, the gospel is not called the word of righteousness "because the righteousness availing with God is the central-point of its contents," but "because it leads to righteousness; because, by its proclamation to man, the possibility is created and the opportunity is afforded of entering into a condition of the rightness of his relation to God, inasmuch, namely, as he assumes a believing attitude towards the word proclaimed." But why should the author, familiar as he was with Paul's manner of teaching, and attaching his own doctrinal presentation thereto,— albeit with independence of character,-have shrunk from recognising, as the central theme of the gospel, "the righteousness which avails with God,” since even this was only a general notion, which did not exclude a peculiar conception and treatment, where it was a question of the development of details, and insistance thereon?

Christians, on the other hand (and only for them), is the solid food. — τελείων is with emphasis preposed. — τῶν διὰ τὴν ἕξιν κ.τ.λ.] more precise characterizing of the τέλειοι: for those who, etc. — ἕξις] like the following αἰσθητήριον, in the Ν. Τ. a ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. It corresponds to the Latin habitus, and is used in particular of the condition produced by use and wont. Here it denotes the capacity or dexterity acquired by practice. Comp. Quintil. x. 1. 1: firma quaedam facilitas, quae apud Graecos ἕξις nominatur. — τὰ αἰσθητήρια] the organs of the senses; transferred to that which is spiritual: the power of apprehension. Comp. LXX. Jer. iv. 19: τὰ αἰσθητήρια τῆς ψυχῆς μου. — γεγυμνασμένα] Predicate ; literally: as exercised. On the whole turn of discourse, comp. Galen, De dignot. puls. 3 (in Wetstein): ôs μèv yàp ... Tò αἰσθητήριον ἔχει γεγυμνασμένον ἱκανῶς ... οὗτος ἄριστος ἂν εἴη γνώμων. — πρὸς διάκρισιν κ.τ.λ.] for the distinguishing of good and bad. The words may be taken with γεγυμνασμένα, or they may be taken with the whole expression γεγυμνασμένα εχόντων. The καλόν τε καὶ κακόν, however, is to be understood of the right and the wrong, or of the wholesome and the pernicious, not, with Stein, of that which is morally good or evil. Chrysostom: νῦν οὐ περὶ βίου αὐτῷ ὁ λόγος, ὅταν λέγῃ· πρὸς διάκρισιν καλοῦ καὶ κακοῦ (τοῦτο γὰρ παντὶ ἀνθρώπῳ δυνατὸν εἰδέναι καὶ εὔκολον) ἀλλὰ περὶ δογμάτων ὑγιῶν καὶ ὑψηλῶν, διεφθαρμένων τε καὶ ταπεινῶν.

CHAPTER VI.

πολ

VER. 2. Instead of the Recepta didas, Lachm. reads did. But the accusative has the support only of B and the Latin translation in D (doctrinam), and is a mere transcriber's error. — Ver. 3. Elz.: coμs, after B K LS, It. Vulg. Basm. Copt. Syr. utr. Ambrose. Retained by Lachm. Tisch. and Bloomfield. Defended also by Reiche. But as more original, on account of the symmetry with cepeda, ver. 1, appears the conjunctive Tonov, already commended to notice by Griesbach; approved by Bleek, Delitzsch, and Alford. It is attested by the strong authority of A C D E, 23, 31, 39, al. mult., Arm. Chrys. (codd.) Theodoret (comment.), Oecum. Damasc.- Ver. 7. i' auris] B** 213, 219** al.: ' air. Alteration in favour of the more prevailing linguistic usage. To the Recepta λáxis ipxóμsvov, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford have preferred the order ἐρχόμενον πολλάκις. The external accrediting is for both substantially equal. The Recepta is attested by ACK L, Vulg.; Lachmann's reading by B D E s, 37, 116, al., It. Syr. utr. Copt. al. But in favour of the originality of the latter pleads the greater euphony, for which the author is wont to show a predilection. - Ver. 9. The mode of writing p16dova, followed by Bengel, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford, al., after the precedent given by the Edd. Complut. and Plantin., instead of the Recepta xpsirova, is here required by A B C D*** (E ?) Ls, al. Otherwise, i. 4, vii. 7, and frequently. - Ver. 10. xui τῆς ἀγάπης] Elz. Matthaei: καὶ τοῦ κόπου τῆς ἀγάπης. But rou zónou is wanting in A B C D* E* §, 6, 31, 47, al., Syr. utr. Erp. Basm. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. Clar. Germ., with Chrys. (twice) Antioch. Theoph. Jerome. Already condemned by Beza, Mill, Bengel, al. Rightly deleted by Griesb. Knapp, Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. Alford, Reiche, and others. Gloss from 1 Thess. i. 3. Ver. 14. Elz. Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Tisch. 2, Bloomfield, Reiche: v. Instead thereof, Lachm. Tisch. 1, 7, and 8, and Alford have i v. The latter, approved also by Bleek and others, is, on account of the weighty authority of A B (C L**: sin) D (D corr.: si μ) EN, 17, 23, al., Didym. Damasc. Vulg. It. Ambrose. Bede (: nisi), to be looked upon as the original

reading. is a later conversion of the non-Greek expression of the LXX. into Greek. Ver. 16. vpwoμs yap] So ἄνθρωποι μὲν γάρ] Elz. Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield, and Alford. But uv is wanting in A B D* N, 47, 52, Cyril. Rightly rejected by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8.-Ver. 18. Osó] Bleek and Tisch. 8, after A CNo*, 17, 52, Cyril, Didym. Chrys. al. Tov 0ɛóv. Ver. 19. Instead of the Recepta dopaλn, : τὸν θεόν. which is confirmed also by the Codex Sinaiticus, Lachm., in the stereotype edition, writes, after A C D*: dopaλ (so also Tisch. 7), in the larger edition: dopaλv. But the form is hardly to be justified. Yet comp. Winer's Gramm. 7 Aufl. p. 64.

Vv. 1-3. It is disputed whether in these verses the author carries out his purpose of advancing, with the pretermission of the Christian elementary instruction, to objects of deeper Christian knowledge; or whether there is contained in the same a summons to the readers, no longer to cling to the doctrines of the first principles of Christianity, but to strive to reach beyond them and attain to Christian maturity and perfection.1 The former supposition is favoured by Primasius,

1 Delitzsch and Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 781 f.), to whom Maier, Kluge, Kurtz, and Woerner have given in their adhesion, have thought to be able to escape the stringency of the above either. . . or... They will have us recognise the one to the non-exclusion of the other, in that they find expressed at the same time the exhortation to the readers to strive after the riλórns, and the design of the writer to lead forward the readers to the ruórns. But this (comp. also Reiche, Comment. Crit. p. 37, note 2) is an unnatural, absolutely impossible assumption. The announcement of the author's design to advance to a more difficult section of his disquisition, and the exhortation to the endeavour after Christian maturity addressed to others, are two so mutually irreconcilable declarations, as not possibly to admit of being compressed at the same time into the pipiofa izi, ver. 1, and rouro Tv, ver. 3. Just as little can at the same time be indicated by riλuórns, ver. 1, the condition of ripe age in Christianity, and the Christian teaching activity of another in reference to higher things. If, therefore, the author had designed to express both together,―alike an incitement of the readers, as also the carrying out of his own intention,-he must necessarily have brought under review each one separately, i.e. first the one and then the other. In addition to this, there is the further consideration that the view of Delitzsch and Richm bears the character of half measures. For they do not even venture to push it to a consistent conclusion, in that surely the same two-sidedness of reference which attaches to the principal verb spúμsta (and to the TouTO Tonowμsy which resumes the thought of the same), must also attach to the participles ἀφέντες and καταβαλλόμενοι ; but as it is, the participles are supposed to have grammatically, it is true, the same two-sided subject as the principal verbs; logically, on the other hand, to refer preponderantly (i.e. according to the preceding remark in Delitzsch, p. 209, init.: exclusively) to the author!

Luther, Vatablus, Zeger, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Piscator, Schlichting, Grotius, Owen, Limborch, Wolf, Bengel, Peirce, Cramer, Michaelis, Morus, Storr, Abresch, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Klee, de Wette, Stengel, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Bisping, Reiche (Comment. Crit. p. 36 sqq.), Conybeare, Reuss, M'Caul, Hofmann (Komm. p. 231), and many others; the latter, on the other hand, by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Photius, Gennadius (in Oecumenius), Theophylact, Faber Stapulensis, Calvin, Clarius, Justinian, Jac. Cappellus, Böhme, Stuart, Bleek, Ebrard, Hofmann (Schrifthew. I. p. 636, 2 Aufl.), Moll, and others. The connection with the preceding and following context decides against the first acceptation and in favour of the second. The author has just now charged the readers with dulness, and complained that they are still children in Christian understanding. It is not possible, therefore, that he should now continue in the strain: "on that account he purposes, passing over the doctrines of the initial stage, to treat in his address of objects of higher, profounder Christian knowledge;" whereas, on the other hand, the exhortation to ascend to a higher stage fittingly links itself to the complaint of the lower standpoint of the readers, which still continues unchanged notwithstanding all legitimate expectation to the contrary. No wonder, then, that expositors have been forced, in connection with the first-named explanation, to have recourse to arbitrary interpretations of the Sió, vi. 1; either in completing the idea, as Grotius, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Bisping, and others, by: "therefore, because surely no one of you wishes to remain a vos," which, however, as the middle term, must have been expressly added, since no reader could divine this from that which precedes,—or in referring it, as Schlichting and Reuss, to the first words of v. 11: Teρì οὗ πολὺς ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος καὶ δυσερμήνευτος λέγειν, and regarding all that intervenes in the light of remarks appended by way of parenthesis, which, nevertheless, is to be rejected, even on account of the intimate connection of δυσερμήνευτος λέγειν, v. 11, with the following Teì K.T.λ.,—or finally, what is lexically impossible, denying to it a causal signification, and then translating it either, as Morus, by "yet" (doch), or, as Zachariae, by "nevertheless" (indessen), or as Abresch, by