thing but the meritorious procuring cause of punishment, the learned annotator may yet enjoy his interpretation in quietness. But if this be so? If this expression do constantly and perpetually denote the impulsive procuring cause of punishment; it was not well done of him, to leave the preposition quite out in the first place, and in the next place so to express it, as to confine it to signify the efficient cause of what is affirmed.

This being then the reading of the words, He was wounded or tormented for our sins.' The sense as relating to Jesus Christ, is manifest. When we thought he was justly for his own sake, as a seducer and malefactor, smitten of God, he was then under the punishment due to our iniquities; was so tormented for what we had deserved. This is thus rendered by our annotator; 'Jeremiah was not in the fault, who prophesied to us, but we, that he was so evilly dealt with. He was bruised for our iniquities, that is, we thought hard of him, and dealt evilly with him;' which may pass with the former.

The LXX render these words: αὐτὸς δὲ ἐτραυματίσθη διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν, καὶ μεμαλάκισται διὰ τὰς ἁνομίας ἡμῶν· Rightly! to be wounded dià ràs auaprias, is to be wounded for, and not by sin, no otherwise than that also signifies the impulsive cause. And the Chaldee paraphrast, not able to avoid the clearness of the expression, denoting the meritorious cause of punishment, and yet not understanding how the Messiah should be wounded, or punished, he thus rendered the words: Et ipse ædificabit domum sanctuarii nostri, quod violatum est propter peccata nostra, et traditum est propter iniquitates nostras.'' He shall build the house of our sanctuary, which was violated for our sins (that is, as a punishment of them) and delivered for our iniquities.' So he : not being able to offer sufficient violence to the phrase of expression, nor understanding an accommodation of the words to him spoken of, he leaves the words, with their own proper significancy, but turns their intendment, by an addition to them of his own.

Proceed we to the next words, which are exegetical of these: He was wounded for our sins; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes are we healed.' Of these thus the annotator.

Disciplina pacis nostræ super eum] apud eum, id est, monitis, nobis attulit salutaria, si ea reciperemus.' He gave us wholesome warnings, if we would have received them.'

But 1. There is in this sense of the words, nothing peculiar to Jeremiah. All the rest of the prophets did so, and were rejected no less than he. 2. The words are not, He gave us good counsel, if we would have taken it.' But, The chastisement of our peace was upon him.' And what affinity there is between these two expressions, that the one of them should be used for the explication of the other, I profess I know not; Peter expounds it by, He bare our sins in his own body on the tree; 1 Pet. ii. 24.

3. The word rendered by us, ' chastisement;' by the Vulgar Latin which Grotius follows, disciplina,' is on, which as it hath its first signification to learn,' so it signifies also to correct,'because learning is seldom carried on without correction; and thence disciplina' signifies the same. Now what is the 'correction of our peace?' Was it the instruction of Christ, not that he gave, but that he had, that we have our peace by? The word hy he renders,' apud eum,' contrary to the known sense of the word; by is to ascend, to lift up, to make to ascend;' a word of most frequent use; thence is the word used, rendered 'super;' intimating that the chastisement of our peace was made to ascend on him: as Peter expresseth the sense of this place; ds ràs ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν αὐτὸς ἀνήνεγκεν ἐν τῷ σώματι αὑτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον 'he carried up our sins on his body on the tree;' they were made to ascend on him. The LXX render the words in aurÒV; avròv; the Vulgar Latin super eum.' And there is not the least colour for the annotator's, 'apud eum.' Now the chastisement of our peace,' that is, the punishment that was due, that we might have peace, or, whereby we have peace with God, 'was upon him;' is, it seems, 'He gave us good counsel and admonition, if we would have followed it.'

4. Here is no word expressing any act of the person spoken of, but his suffering or undergoing punishment. But of this enough.

Et livore ejus sanati sumus.] Livore ejus, id est, ipsius patientia, nos sanati fuissemus, id est, liberati ab impenden

tibus malis, si verbis ipsius, tanta malorum tolerantia confirmatis, habuissemus fidem. Hebræi potentialem modum aliter quam per indicativum exprimere nequeunt; ideo multa adhibenda attentio ad consequendos sensus.' With his stripes we are healed; with his wound, or sore, or stripe, that is, by his patience we might have been healed; that is, freed from impendent evils, had we believed his words, confirmed with so great bearing of evils. The Hebrews cannot express the potential mood, but by the indicative: therefore much attention is to be used to find out the sense.'

I cannot but profess, that setting aside some of the monstrous figments of the Jewish Rabbins, I never in my whole life met with an interpretation of Scripture, offering more palpable violence to the words, than this of the annotator. Doubtless to repeat it, with all sober men, is sufficient to confute it. I shall briefly add;

1. The prophet says, 'we are healed:' the annotator,' we might have been healed, but are not.'

2. The healing in the prophet, is by deliverance from sin, mentioned in the words foregoing: and so interpreted by Peter, 1 Ep. ii. 24. whereby we have peace with God, which we have. The healing in the annotator, is the deliverance from the destruction by the Chaldeans which they were not delivered from, but might have been.

3. n in the prophet, is μúλw in Peter; but 'patience' in the annotator.

4. By his stripes we are healed,' is in the annotator, ' By hearkening to him we might have been healed;' or delivered from the evils threatened, 'by his stripes; that is, 'by hearkening to his counsel, when he endured evils patiently;' 'we are healed,' that is, we might have been delivered, but are not.

5. As to the reason given of this interpretation, that the Hebrews have no potential mood, I shall desire to know who compelled the learned annotator to suppose himself wiser than the Holy Ghost, 1 Pet. ii. 24. to wrest these words into a potential signification, which he expresseth directly, actually, indicatively. For a Jew to have done this out of hatred and enmity to the cross of Christ, had been tolerable : but for a man professing himself a Christian, it is somewhat a strange attempt.

6. To close with this verse; we do not esteem ourselves at all beholding to the annotator, for allowing an accommodation of these words to our blessed Saviour; affirming, that the Jews, who converted themselves (for so it must be expressed, least any should mistake, and think their conversion to have been the work of the Spirit, and grace of God) on the day of Pentecost, used such words as those that the Jews are feigned to use in reference to Jeremiah. It is quite of another business that the prophet is speaking: not of the sin of the Jews in crucifying Christ, but of all our sins, for which he was crucified.

-Munera quidem misit, sed misit in hamo.

Ver. 6. All we like sheep are gone astray, we are turned every one to his own way, and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Grotius. Erraveramus a Manassis temporibus, alii ad alia idola et permisit Deus ut ille nostro gravi crimine indigna pateretur.' 'We have all erred from the days of Manasseh, some following some idols, others others: And God permitted that he by our grievous crime should suffer most unworthy things.'

Though the words of this verse are most important, ye having at large before insisted on the latter words of it, I shall be brief in my animadversions on the signal depravation of them by the learned annotator. Therefore,

1. Why is this confession of sins restrained to the times of Manasseh? and not afterward? The expression is universal. all of us :' and a man to his own way. And if these words may be allowed to respect Jesus Christ at all, they will not bear any such restriction. But this is the πρштоν Evdоs of this interpretation; that these are the words of the Jews after the destruction of Jerusalem; which are the words of the converted Jews and Gentiles, after the suffering of Jesus Christ.

2. Why is the sin confessed, restrained to idolatry? Men's own ways which they walk in, when they turn from the ways of God, and know not the ways of peace, comprehend all their evils of every kind that their hearts and lives are infected withal.

3. The last words are unworthy a person of much less learning, and judgment than the annotator. For,

1. The word y'an (of which before) is interpreted without pretence, warrant, or colour, Permisit,' God permitted. But of that word sufficiently before.

2. By his suffering unworthy things through our fault' he understands, not the meritorious cause of his suffering, but the means whereby he suffered even the unbelief and cruelty of the Jews, which is most remote from the sense of the place.

3. He mentions here distinctly, the fault of them that speak, and his suffering that is spoken of. Permisit Deus ut ille nostro gravi crimine indigna pateretur:' when in the text the fault of them that speak, is the suffering of him that is spoken of. Our iniquities were laid on him;' that is, the punishment due to them.

4. His suffering in the text is God's act: in the annotations, the Jews only.

5. There is neither sense nor coherence in this interpretation of the words. We have all sinned, and followed idols: and God hath suffered him to be evilly entreated by us :' when the whole context evidently gives an account of our deserving, and the ways whereby we are delivered: and therein a reason of the low and abject condition of the Messiah in this world. But of this at large elsewhere.

Ver. 7. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.'

'Oblatus est, quia ipse voluit, et non aperuit os suum.] in Heb. oppressus et afflictus fuit, et non aperuit os suum. Sensum bene expresserunt LXX και αυτὸς διὰ τὸ κεκακῶσθαι οὐκ ἀνοίγε τὸ στόμα αυτοῦ. Etiam tunc cum in carcerem ageretur, et in locum lutosum nihil fecit, dixitve iracunde. 'Sicut ovis] mitissimum animal.

Et quasi agnus] cum quo ispe Jeremias se comparat, cap 11. v. 18.

'He was offered because he would, and he opened not his mouth; in the Hebrew, he was oppressed and afflicted. The LXX have well expressed the sense. Because of affliction he opened not his mouth: even then when he was thrown into the prison and mire, he neither did, nor spake any thing angrily.'