"makes the wrath of men and devils to praise him ;" to be the occasions, that is, of benefit to his people, and of magnifying his own grace and goodness in their relief and preservation and improvement. Now, in this view of temptation, to the Hebrews then suffering so severely from persecution and thereby subjected to very heavy trials of patience, faith and fortitude, it was assuredly directly to the point to shew them that Christ himself sympathized with them, in the fullest sense of the term; not merely that he felt for them, but that he felt with them; could have and had a fellow-feeling (which is the proper notion of sympathy) with them, under all their trials and sorrows. But that fellow-feeling could not be predicated of Christ, unless he were not only man, complete man, in body and soul and in all the perceptions and feelings and sensibilities and affections of both, but also unless he had himself been previously exercised in similar circumstances of suffering and trial; so that he could positively enter into the individual cases of his people from personal experience, and from knowledge of the mode in which trials impressed and operated upon human nature. Could an angel from heaven, who had never known sorrow or sufferings, be at all capable of appreciating the experience of man under them? assuredly not; nor could the Saviour himself have been qualified for his office of high-priest and Redeemer of our fallen race, had he not partaken of flesh and blood, been exercised in our infirmities, sufferings and trials. "It pleased God, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect, (i. e. fully qualified for his merciful office,) through suffering-that he might become a feeling high-priest," one in whom his distressed and suffering followers through every age might put the fullest reliance as a compassionate and sympathizing Saviour.

Hence, as temptation (as usually understood) or trial from Satan, (i. e. the employment of diabolic craft and solicitation in order to persuade to sin,) forms one mode by which men are tested; so was Christ himself also subjected to that mode of trial as well as to so many others; and that too at the very outset of his ministry and just before he entered upon his direct mediatorial work, in order to give him the necessary experience of the severity of such trials (with a view to his future sympathy with, and succour of, his tempted followers), and to prove at once to men, angels and devils his immaculate purity-therefore the tempter 66 came but found nothing in him," nothing to work upon; no smouldering sparks of ambition, distrust and selfishness that he might fan into a flame, and so ruin at once and for ever, the Saviour and the hopes of the race he came to save.

Into the abstruse question of the positive peccability of our Lord's human nature, I do not now enter. I will only observe that, inasmuch as that nature, all-perfect as it was in its constitution and free from every taint of the positive tendency to sin with which the posterity of Adam comes universally into the world, and which is transmitted in the way of natural generation from father to son;-which exemption, we are to believe, was secured to the Redeemer by his miraculous conception, or rather immediate creation, in the womb of the virgin-inasmuch, I say, as Christ's hunan nature was still a created nature, we have no just reason for predicating its absolute and necessary impeccability; this all VIII.

4 Y

solid metaphysical reasoning concludes to belong to the unoriginated, selfexistent and independant nature of Deity alone. Nor, on the other hand, can we well, I think, conceive of trial, especially of trial in the sense of temptation to evil, as applied to a being or nature absolutely incapable of being affected by it; for as James asserts, "God cannot be tempted of evil;" and thence-from the perfect and infallible excellence of his own divine nature-" neither tempteth he any man" (to evil, namely): since what he cannot incline to himself, but is eternally and necessarily averse from, he will not, cannot propose to his creatures. So too, Adam was pronounced by his Divine Former, as he came from His creative hands, to be "very good;" but that excellence, which we justly, I think, believe to have consisted in a complete, perfect human nature, without any the slightest taint of evil or tendency to sin, was certainly not impeccable, though not peccant. Although, however, for these reasons, and from the plain common sense meaning of many passages of scripture referring to our Saviour's life and character, his trials and temptations, I cannot myself see how we can err in admitting that the human nature of our blessed Lord, though from first to last impeccant or without sin in principle or positive act, was yet peccable merely, or capable of fall: nor do I see how this should at all diminish our reverence for the Saviour; since he at once engaged and triumphed over "that old serpent the Devil," and though put to the test, and subjected to trials, and proved by sufferings and temptations, direct or indirect, the most various, severe and continued, fell not, but triumphed all glori ously, and thus "became the author of eternal salvation to all who be lieve in him;" nevertheless, on so delicate a point, in which the line of truth and fact is almost imperceptible perhaps, and may be deviated from at every moment in the attempt to trace it, I would speak with all reverence and humility and self-distrust; yet would I speak what I think to be the plain sense of things, with an honest courage not untempered with sincerest deference for the judgment of any others who may differ from me.

If the foregoing have weight, my readers will be prepared to enter fully into the passage I set out with, of which I shall now beg to offer a rendering and paraphrase as before. "For, we have not a high-priest incapable of sympathizing (vuranoa) in our afflictions, he having himself been similarly tried in every way, apart from sin." The term кae dμoloтnтa, paraphrastically indeed, in the common version, but yet with substantial correctness rendered "like as we are," is I think more desirably translated similarly:' Greek scholars will know with what idiomatical propriety; so KаTα Tavra "in all points" better "in all things, ways, or respects," in every respect; xwpis ȧμaprias, except sin. Had Christ been of an angelic nature only; or even, with reverence be it spoken, of a divine nature alone, having no participation in our (human) nature with all its liabilities to trials and afflictions; or though perfect man, if he had not "learned obedience by what he suffered," we have scripture warrant for believing he would not have been a suitable high-priest and Saviour to us-one of whose compassionate fellow-feeling we could be assured, and therein be enabled to confide in his full and complete sympathy with us in all our varieties of inward and outward condition-sin only, and

1

the consciousness of guilt, excepted-for had he been either stained with the original (or birth-sin) of our race, or been moved to sin subsequently under his trials and temptations, his work would at once have been cut short, and we left to perish without a Saviour.

Referring, as a matter of Missionary interest, to the Bengali versions that have been given of the passages in question, I am led to make a few observations which I trust will not be thought irrelevant.

Dr. Carey's rendering is this : আমারদের এমত পুধান পুরোহিত নয় যে আমারদের দৌর্বল্যেতে পীড়িত হইতে পারেন না কিন্তু পাপবর্তে তিনি সর্ব প্রকারে আমারদের মত পরীক্ষিত ছিলেন. Mr. Yates's is thus : দৌৰ্বলোতে আমাদের সহিত দুঃখভোগ করিতে সক্ষম আমাদের এমন মহাযাজক নহেন; তিনি নিষ্পাপ হইয়াও আমাদের ন্যায় সর্বতোভাবে পরীক্ষিত হইলেন

That of Mr. Ellerton is the following :—tata দুঃখিত হইতে না পারে এমত মহাযাজক আমারদের নহেন কিন্তু সর্বতোভাবে আমারদের মত পরীক্ষিত ছিলেন তত্রাপি পাপরহিত

So, Ch. ii. v. 18, Mr. Yates renders-fsf sf FF3 LÈDI দুঃখভোগ করাতে পরীক্ষিতগণের উপকার করিতে পারেন. Dr. Carey thus—তিনি আপনি পরীক্ষিত হইয়া ক্লেশ পাওয়া পুযুক্ত পরীক্ষিত লোকেরদের ওপকার করিতে শক্ত আছেন. Mr. Ellerton thus—এই যে আপনি পরীক্ষিত হইয়া দুঃখিত হইলেন ইহাতে তিনি পরীক্ষিত জনেরদিগের সাহায্য করিতে পারেন।

I must here apply what I have elsewhere stated officially, and confirmed, as I think, at length, to form a characteristic difference between Dr. Carey's and Mr. Yates's entire Bengali versions; that while the former is less idiomatic, the latter is less literal. The one is wanting in purity of style, the other in closeness of rendering. These passages fully exemplify, and prove in so far, the assertion. Thus, in Dr. C.'s version, the clumsy construction in the first passage, occasioned by the inversion of the relative and correlative sentences-the use of the relative cat all-the substitution of the verb of existence fo for the copula or predicative, are gross violations of idiom; while the use of 1f33, an ambiguous word, and in this connection with no especially, easily mistakable for sick, diseased, rather than (as meant) distressed, pained; and in the second, the use of which denotes active or effective power, physical ability, not consequential aptitude or acquired ability, fitness, capability, are instances of verbal and metaphysical inaccuracy that nothing can render excusable. On the other hand, with all submission to the learned translator, I think that elegant as the second version of these passages is in point of idiom, it is yet not quite unexceptionable. I instance 1. in the attributive for at, or the mere copula for the verb of existence. This inaccuracy might have been obviated by omitting এমন, and placing আমাদের মহাযাজক at the beginning of the sentence; or by substituting for the phrase

7. N. B. The same inaccuracy is found in the 4 of Carey for Tate, with the additional incongruity of giving the inferior form Y for NTI; it should have been, with an honorable nominative, মহাপুরোহিত নহেন,

2. In দুঃখভেst for দুঃখবোধ — দুঃখভোগ is the actual and personal suffering of sorrow or calamity (and therefore rightly employed in Ch. ii. 18); eat is the perception of sorrow, the feeling of grief from (it may be) another's grief or sorrow. Now it is clearly this last, which is the sorrow of sympathy or the fellow-feeling of friendship, that is intended; of course, therefore, catst is an inappropriate term. Again f conveys the notion of companionship, participation, and augments, in my judgment, the impropriety of the foregoing rendering of ovata, The beautiful native phraseology is পরের দুঃখে দুঃখা পরের দুখে সুখী, happy in another's happiness, grieved in his grief; which identifies itself with the scriptural" rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep." 3. In fattats; a far departure from the literality of scripture. For χωρίς ἁμαρτιας is not equivalent to αναμαρτωλος ων, which would express the precedent rather than the succedent or consequent, which is clearly pointed at ; viz. not that our Lord, though being (previously) sinless, was tried, &c. as we are-but that although he was tried as we are, yet he came out of his trials without sin, not having lapsed under their pressure; and manifestly it is only in this aspect his example can be proposed to the suffering and tempted in the way of encouragement. For how could it animate a sinful being to resist temptation, that one not only sinless but incapable of sin had been tried by solicitation? Whereas that our Lord (in his human nature capable of suffering and peccable), was actually tried just as we are and overcame-may, taken in connexion with the concomitant assurance of his sympathy and offer of divine succours, effectually serve to animate us to endurance and resistance"even unto blood, striving against sin." Dr. Carey's is therefore both more literal and more according to "the analogy of faith." It is an elegant phraseology and exactly corresponding to xapis aμaprias. 4. in both versions is etymologically a correct rendering of a bevelas certainly; but the etymon and the usage of terms have often but small correspondence. It is quite certain that areveia in a multitude of places, has the meaning which the context of the passage under consideration must also assign it, viz. that of sorrow, calamity, trial, persecution, affliction of any kind. Whereas

, I think, has never so extended an application; weakness, fatigue, physical infirmity and the like, are its only legitimate renderings. I should suggest or only for ; or perhaps better still, or the like. The most verla!, may be the least faithful version-as Dr. Carey's New and Old Testaments may prove passim. I will only further notice the rendering in v. 14 of έχοντες ουν αρχιερέα Meyav-Having therefore a great High Priest; which Dr. C. verbally but clumsily renders at a gaf, a great chief (or head) familypriest. His competitor in translation properly substitutes at sacrificer, for aff; and inverts, making it gåta æætatss— the chief high-sacrificer. Now this is scarcely correct; for though

bears the two-fold meaning of great and chief, is chief only. To me it seems that μeya is not a specific like 17, but a general expression of excellence, fitly to be rendered by fast or some such termas, বিশিষ্ট এক জন মহাযাজক.

Again in the third version, or rather the second, at least in order of

time, that of Mr. Ellerton, we may note first, that he relieves (though he does not remove) the inadequacy of as the rendering of aσbeveias, by subjoining the idiomatic af, et similia, q. d. our weaknesses and the like (sources of trial). 2ndly. His f (which is by no means equivalent to Mr. Yates's fast) is both strictly idiomatic and at once neat and expressive. 3rdly. His rendering of xwpis auaprias by af af, is equally correct and literal. So far then I think this version of the passage, as a whole, preferable to either of the preceding. It is vitiated, however, by the same erroneous substitution of a for at, and by the incongruity of the inferior form in agreement with the same (honorable) subject tætæ. From all the above suggestions taken together, the whole might perhaps run thus :-faft P GA আমাদের মহাযাজক আছেন তিনি আমাদেরও ক্লেশ দুঃখাদিতে সহদুঃখিত হয়েন না এমন নয় বরঞ্চ তিনি আপনি সর্বতোভাবে আমাদের মত পরীক্ষিত হইয়াছিলেন catfag tages; or, as in Dr. Carey above. Ch. ii. 18, thus : কারণ তিনি আপনি পরীক্ষার দুঃখভোগ করিয়াছেন ভজন্য তিনি পরীক্ষামাণ ব্যক্তিদেরও ওপকার করণে উপযুক্ত বটেন, (or ওপকার করিতে জানেন. )

I must not conclude without referring once again to the practical bearing of the important truth of our Lord's sympathy with his tried and afflicted people. How delightful to one who suffers is the sympathy of a friend! Nay though it be an indifferent individual who yet seems to feel for us in our trials, how much are our hearts soothed and how are they drawn out towards the person who thus pities and sympathizes with us! While to be deserted-to feel alone in our griefs and calamities, augments their bitterness unspeakably. But more-a friend or other individual, however kindly disposed to sympathize with us in our sorrows, is only imperfectly able to do so if he has not himself at any time experienced the same or similar causes of distress and pain. Whereas one who has passed through our experience of bereavement and afflic tion himself, is fully competent to enter into the anguish of a fellowsufferer, and knows how to administer the consolation and succours required for his support and relief. We feel more nearness to and confidence in the sympathy of such a one-we know that he is able to realize our actual grief, and to identify himself with us, as it were, under its pressure. Again, one greatly removed from us in sphere or circumstances, as he would not be able to enter so fully and closely into our experience, so would he not engage our confidence or be found to soothe our spirits in an equal degree with one of our own standing and brotherhood, so to speak. Now all these requisites meet in the Redeemer. Of the same complete humanity with us, body and soul; "bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh;" doubly tried, as both tempted and afflicted like ourselves; experienced in all the principal modes of human suffering and infirmity, in similar circumstances of outward condition and inward exercisehe is just such a comforter as we require, a friend whose sympathy is at once natural and intimate, real and similar, he challenges our fullest confidence. And Oh! blessed assurance! he does feel for and with us-he is able to and does actually sympathise with us amid all our griefs and trials, our difficulties, weaknesses and bereavements, our