The whole description in both chapters is Messianic; and after what we have already had frequent occasion to remark, no farther proof is necessary to show how inadmissible is a proceeding like that of Venema, who cuts it all up into small pieces, and here assumes an exclusive reference to the return from the captivity; there, to the Maccabees, whom he almost raises to Saviours; in another place, to Christ and His Kingdom. We ought therefore, indeed, to give an exposition of the whole section; but, for external reasons, we are obliged to limit ourselves to an exposition of the principal portion, chap. xxxi. 31–40.
It is chap. xxxi. 22 only which we shall briefly explain, because that passage was, in former times, understood by many interpreters to contain a personal Messianic prophecy. "How long wilt thou turn aside, O thou apostate daughter? for the Lord createth a new thing in the land, woman shall compass about man." The last words of the verse are, by the ancient interpreters, commonly explained as referring to Christ's birth by a virgin. Thus, e.g., Cocceius: "It could not be said more distinctly, at least not without ceasing to be enigmatical, unless he had said that a virgin has born Christ the Son of God." But quite apart from other arguments, this explanation is opposed by the obvious consideration, in that case, just that would here be stated which, in the birth of Christ by a virgin, is not peculiar. For גבר and נקבה are a designation of the sex; the fact that the woman brings forth the man (since גבר is asserted to designate proles mascula), is something altogether common; but the important feature is wanting, that the woman is to be a virgin, and the man, the Son of God. But certainly not a whit better than this explanation is that which modern interpreters (Schnurrer, Gesenius, Rosenmüller, Maurer), have advanced in its stead: "The woman shall protect the man, shall perform for him the munus excubitoris circumeuntis." This, surely, is a "ridiculus mus"--an argument quite unique. We must fully agree with Schnurrer, who remarks: "This, surely, is something new, uncommon, unheard of;" but not every thing new is, for that reason, suitable for furnishing an effectual motive for conversion. The sense at which Ewald arrives: "A woman transforming herself into a man," is surely not worthy of being entertained at the expense of a change in the reading. The correct view is the following:--The Prophet founds his exhortation to return to the Lord upon the most effectual argument possible, viz., upon the fact that the Lord was to return to them, that the time of wrath was now over, that they might hasten back into the open arms of God's love. Without hope of mercy, there cannot be a conversion. The perverse and desponding heart of man must, by His preventing love, be allured to come to God. How important and valuable the "new thing" is which the Lord is to create, the Prophet shows by the terms which he has selected. It is just the nomina sexus which here are suitable; the omission of the article also is intentional. The relation is represented in its general aspect; and thereby the look is more steadily directed to its fundamental nature and substance. "Woman shall compass about (Ps. xxxii. 7, 10) man;" the strong will again take the weak and tender into His intimate communion, under His protection and loving care. The woman art thou, O Israel, who hitherto hast sufficiently experienced, what a woman is without the man, how she is a reed exposed to, and a sport of, all winds. The man is the Lord. How foolish would it be on thy part, if thou wert to persevere any longer in thine independence and dissoluteness, and if thou didst refuse to return into the sweet relation of dependence and unconditional surrefender, which alone, being the only natural relation, can be productive of happiness! In favour of this explanation is also the clear reference of תסובב to תתחמקין, and to השובבה, which, in the case of the latter word, is even outwardly expressed by the alliteration. How foolish would it be still farther to depart, as now the time is at hand when the Lord is approaching.--It is obvious that, even according to our interpretation, the prophecy retains its Messianic character.
The contents of the section, vers. 31–40, are as follows:--The Lord is far from punishing with entire rejection the contempt of His former gifts and blessings. On the contrary, by increased grace, He will renew the bond between Him and the people, and render it for ever indissoluble. The foundation of this is formed by the remission of sins, of which the richer outpouring of the Spirit is a consequence; and it is now, when the Law no more comes to Israel as an outward letter, but is written in their hearts, that Israel attain their destination; they will truly be the people of God, and God will be truly their God, vers. 31–34. To the people conscious of their guilt, and still groaning under the judgments of God, such a manifestation of God's continuous grace appears incredible; but God most emphatically assures them, that this election is still in force, and must continue for ever, as truly as He is God, vers. 31–37. The city of God shall gloriously arise out of its ashes. While formerly the unholy abomination entered into her, the holy one, even into her innermost parts, she now shall extend her boundaries beyond the territory of the unholy; and the Lord, who is sanctified within her, will sanctify himself upon her also. There shall be no more destruction.
Ver. 31. "Behold, days come, saith the Lord, and I make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah."
Ver. 32. "Not as the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which my covenant they brake; but I marry them to me, saith the Lord."
The first question which we have here to examine is: What is to be understood by the making of a covenant? We cannot here think of a formal transaction, of a mutual contract, such as the covenant made on Sinai. This appears from ver. 32, according to which the old covenant was concluded on the day when the Lord took Israel by the hand, in order to bring them out of Egypt; but at that time a covenant-transaction proper was not yet mentioned. Most interpreters erroneously suppose that by the words: "In the day," &c., the abode at Sinai is designated. But since the day of the deliverance from Egypt is commonly thus spoken of (comp. Exod. xii. 51 ff.); since this day was, as such, marked out by the annually returning feast of the Passover, we must, here also, take יום, "day," in its proper sense. And there is the less reason for abandoning this most obvious sense that, in Exod. vi. 4; Ezek. xvi. 8; Hag. ii. 5, a covenant with Israel is spoken of, which was not first concluded on Sinai, but was already concluded when they went out from Egypt. Farther--No obligation is spoken of in reference to the new covenant; blessing and gifts are mentioned, and nothing but these. But are we to adopt the opinion of Frischmuth (de foedere nov. in the Thes. Ant. i. p. 857), and of many other interpreters and lexicographers, and say that ברית "does not only signify a covenant entered upon by two or several parties, but also πρόθεσιν, propositum Dei, ἐπαγγελίας, His gratuitous and unconditional promises, as well as His constant ordinances?" That might after all be objectionable. כרת ברית cannot signify any thing but to make a covenant.[2] But the question is, whether the making of a covenant cannot be spoken of in passages, where there is no mention of transactions of a mutual agreement between two parties. The substance of the covenant evidently precedes the outward conclusion of the covenant, and forms the foundation of it. The conclusion of the covenant does not first form the relation, but is merely a solemn acknowledgment of the relation already existing. Thus it is ever in human relations; the contract, as a rule, only fixes and settles outwardly, a relation already existing. And that is still more the case in the relation between God and man. By every benefit from God, an obligation is imposed upon him who receives it, whether it may, in express words, have been stated by God, and have been outwardly acknowledged by the recipient or not. This is clearly seen in the case under consideration. At the giving of the Law on Sinai, the obligatory power of the commandments of God is founded upon the fact, that God brought Israel out of the land of Egypt, the house of bondage. Hence, it appears that the Sinaitic covenant existed, in substance, from the moment that the Lord led Israel out of Egypt. By apostatizing from the Lord, the people would have broken the covenant, even if it had not been solemnly confirmed on Sinai; just as their apostacy, in the time between their going out and the transactions on Sinai, was treated as a violation of the covenant. It would have been a breach of the covenant, if the people had answered, in the negative, the solemn questions of God, whether they would enter into a covenant with Him. This appears so much the more clearly, when we keep in mind, that the New Covenant was not at all sanctioned by such an external solemn act. But if, nevertheless, it is a covenant in the strictest sense; if, here, the relation is independent upon its acknowledgment,--then, under the Old Testament too, this acknowledgment must be a secondary element. The same is the case with all the other passages commonly quoted in proof, that כרת ברית may also be used of mere blessings and promises. Thus, e.g., Gen. ix. 9: "Behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you." That which is here designated as a covenant is not the promise per se, that in future the course of nature should, on the whole, remain undisturbed, but in so far only, as it imposes upon them who receive it, the obligation to glorify, by their walk, the Lord of the order of nature. In part, this obligation is afterwards outwardly fixed in the commandments concerning murder, eating of blood, &c. Gen. xv. 18: "In the same day God made a covenant with Abraham, saying: Unto thy seed I give this land." In what precedes, a promise only is contained; but this promise itself is, at the same time, an obligation; and this obligation existed even then, although it was at a later period only, solemnly undertaken by receiving the sign of the covenant, circumcision. Exod. xxxiv. 10: "And He said: Behold I make a covenant; before all thy people I will do marvels such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation; and all the people among whom thou art, shall see the work of the Lord; for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee." The covenant on Sinai is here already made; the making of the new covenant here spoken of consists in the mercies by which God will manifest himself to His people as their God. Every one of these mercies involves a new obligation for the people; every one is a question in deeds: This I do to thee, what doest thou to me?--It will now be possible to determine in what sense the Old Covenant is here contrasted with the New, The point in question cannot be a new and more perfect revelation of the Law of God; for that is common to both the dispensations. No jot or tittle of it can be lost under the New Testament, and as little can a jot or tittle be added. God's law is based on His nature, and that is eternal and unchangeable, compare Mal. iii. 22 (iv. 4). The revelation of the Law does not belong to the going out from Egypt, to which the making of the former covenant is here attributed, but to Sinai. As little can the discourse be of the introduction of an entirely new relation, which is not founded at all upon the former one. On this subject, David Kimchi's remark is quite pertinent: "It will not be the newness of the covenant, but its stability." The covenant with Israel is an everlasting covenant. Jehovah would not be Jehovah, if an entirely new commencement could take place; λέγω δε--so the Apostle writes in Rom. xv. 8--Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν διάκονον γεγενῆσθαι περιτομῆς ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας θεοῦ εἰς τὸ βεβαιῶσαι τὰς ἐπαγγελίας τῶν πατέρων· τὰ δε ἔθνη ὑπὲρ ἐλέους δοξάσαι τὸν θεόν. The sending of Christ with His gifts and blessings, the making of the New Covenant, is thus the consequence of the covenant-faithfulness of God. If then the Old and New Covenants are here contrasted, the former cannot designate the relation of God to Israel per se, and in its whole extent, but it must rather designate the former mode only, in which this relation was manifested,--that whereby the Lord had, up to the time of the Prophet, manifested himself as the God of Israel. With this former imperfect form, the future more perfect form is here contrasted, under the name of the New Covenant. The New Covenant which is to take the place of the Old, when looking to the form (comp. Heb. viii. 13: ἐν τῷ λέγειν· Καινὴν, πεπαλαίωκε τὴν πρώτην· τὸ δὲ παλαιούμενον καὶ γηράσκον, ἐγγὺς ἀφανισμοῦ), is, in substance, the realization of the Old. These remarks are in perfect harmony with that which was formerly said concerning the meaning of כרת ברית. We saw that this expression does not designate an act only once done, by which a covenant is solemnly sanctioned, but rather that it is used of every action, by which a covenant-relation is instituted or confirmed.--If, then, the Old Covenant is the former form of the covenant with Israel; and the New Covenant the future form of it, another question is:--Which among the manifold differences of those two forms are here specially regarded by the Prophet? The answer to this question is supplied by that which the Prophet declares concerning the New Covenant. For since it is not to be like the former covenant, the excellences of the New must be as many defects of the Old. These excellences, however, are all of a spiritual nature,--first, the forgiveness of sins, and then the writing of the Law in the heart. It follows from this, that the blessings of the Old Covenant were pre-eminently (for we shall afterwards see that an entire absence of these spiritual blessings cannot be spoken of, and that the difference between the Old and the New Covenant is, in this respect, a relative one only, not an absolute one) of an external nature; and this is also suggested by the circumstance, that it is represented as being concluded when the people were led out of Egypt; in which fact, all the later similar deliverances and blessings are comprehended. The Prophet, if any one, had learned that, in the way hitherto pursued, they could not successfully continue. The sinfulness of the people had, at his time, manifested itself in such fearful outbreaks, that, even when looking at the matter from a human point of view, he could not but feel most deeply that, with outward blessings and gifts, with an outward deliverance from servitude, the people were very little benefited. What is the use of a mercy which, according to divine necessity, must be immediately followed by a punishment so much the more severe? The necessary condition for the true and lasting bestowal of outward salvation, is the bestowal of the internal salvation; without the latter the former is only a mockery. It is this internal salvation, therefore, which is the highest aim of the Prophet's longings; to it he here points as the highest blessing of the Future; compare also chap. xxxii. 40: "And I make an everlasting covenant with them, and I will no more turn away from them to do them good, and I will put my fear in their hearts that they shall not depart from me."--The closing words of ver. 32 are frequently misunderstood. The erroneous interpretation of אשר by "quia," which is found with most expositors, is of less consequence. אשר indicates, in general, the connection with what precedes. We may explain it either by: "which my covenant they brake," as is done by Ewald; or, "since (Deut. iii. 24) they brake my covenant," in which latter case, אשר refers at the same time to "I marry them unto me." We have here farther carried out and detailed that which previously was said of the making of a new covenant; and the sense is: Although they have broken my former covenant, yet I marry them unto me, or make a new covenant with them. Of greater importance is the difference in the interpretation of בעלתי. By far the greater number of interpreters understand this sensu malo; the ancient interpreters in doing so refer to the words κᾳγὼ ἠμέλησα αὐτῶν, (Heb. viii. 9); but these can scarcely prove anything. For the author of that epistle, whose sole object it is to show that the new covenant stands higher than the old--the insufficiency of the latter was, as the Prophet's expressions show, sufficiently felt even by those who lived under it--has, in these words, which do not stand in any relation to the object which he has in view, followed the LXX. But it is a rather doubtful and suspicious circumstance that, in determining the sense, these interpreters greatly vary. Some, referring to the Arabic, explain בעל by "fastidire;" others, as they allege, from the Hebrew usus loquendi, by "to tyrannize." Thus, e.g. Buddeus (de praerogat. fidelium N. T. in the Miscell. p. 106): "We may readily understand thereby every severe chastisement by the neighbouring nations, such as frequently happened: they did not remain in my covenant, therefore I made them to bear the yoke of others, ἠμέλησα αὐτῶν, neglexi eos." But we have already seen (comp. remarks on chap. iii. 14), that for neither of these significations is there any foundation; and this has been felt by those also who, in order to bring out a bad signification, such as, according to their view, the text requires, undertook to change the reading, as e.g. Cappellus, who would read געלתי, and Grotius, who would read [3] בהלתי. The signification "to betroth onesself," "to take in marriage," which in that passage we vindicated for בעל with ב, is, here too, quite applicable; comp. Jer. ii. 1. This signification the Chaldee Paraphrast too seems to have had in view; for he translates אתרעיתי "cupio vos," "delector vobis." And is there anything to indicate, that here the reason is to be stated, why the old covenant is abolished? That reason can be brought in only by very forced explanations (comp. e.g. Maurer and Hitzig); and it is, moreover, sufficiently expressed, as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews has shown. Even in the announcement of a new covenant, the declaration is implied that the old covenant was insufficient: εἰ γὰρ ἡ πρώτη ἐκείνη ἦν ἄμεμπτος, οὐκ ἂν δευτέρας ἐζητεῖτο τόπος (Heb. viii. 7), as well as the reason why it was so, viz., on account of human sinfulness and hardness of heart, which are not helped and remedied by pre-eminently outward blessings and benefits, be they never so great. This their former greatness is indicated by the words: "When I took them by the hand,"--words which imply the most tender love. To this subjective cause of the insufficiency of the old covenant there is a reference in the words: μεμφόμενος γὰρ αὐτοῖς λέγει, in Heb. viii. 8, which by De Wette and Bleek are erroneously translated: "For reprovingly He says to them." The Dative αὐτοῖς belongs to μεμφόμενος (comp. Mathiae, S. 705); if it were otherwise it would be redundant, and would the less be in its place, that the discourse is not addressed to the children of Israel. The reason why a better covenant was required, such a one ἥτις ἐπὶ κρείττοσιν ἐπαγγελίαις νενομοθέτηται, Heb. viii. 6, appears sufficiently from that which, in vers. 33, 34, is said of this new covenant in contrast to the old. Here, however, it is rather the infinite love of God, the greatness of His covenant-faithfulness which are pointed out; and this thought is, from among all others, best suited to the context. המה and אנכי form an emphatic contrast. They, in wicked ingratitude, have broken the former covenant, have shaken off the obligations which God's former mercies imposed upon them. God too--so it might be expected--ought now to annul the old covenant, and for ever withdraw from them the old mercies. But, instead of doing so, He grants the new covenant, the greater mercy. He anew takes in marriage apostate Israel, and in such a manner that now the bond of love becomes firm and indestructible. Bleek objects to our interpretation: "The object is not the city of Jerusalem, or even the Congregation of Israel, but the single Israelites, who may indeed be designated as the children of Jehovah, but not as His spouse." But, in such personifications, it is quite a common thing that the real plurality should take the place of the ideal unity. In Exod. xxxiv. 15, for instance, it is said: "And they go a whoring after their gods,"--instead of the congregation, to which the whoring properly belongs, (comp. Is. lvii. 7), the individual members are mentioned; comp. Hos. ii. 1, 2 (i. 10, ii. 19).
Ver. 33. "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after these days, saith the Lord: I give my law in their inward parts, and will write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people."
כי is, by some interpreters, here supposed to mean "but;" so much, only, however, is correct that "but" might also have been put; for is here quite in its place. The words: "Not as the covenant," &c., in the preceding verse, are here vindicated, and expanded by a positive definition of the nature and substance of the New Covenant. It is just because it is of such a nature, that it is not like the former covenant. ההם does not, by any means, as is erroneously supposed by Venema and Hitzig, refer to the days mentioned in ver. 31, in which the New Covenant was to be made. "These days," on the contrary, are a designation of the Present; "after these days," equivalent to באחרית הימים "at the end of days." The Prophet so repeatedly and emphatically points to the Future, because unbelief and weak faith imagined that, with the Present, the history of the covenant-people was finished, and that no Future was in store for them. Calvin pertinently remarks: "It is just as if the Prophet had said, that the grace of which he was prophesying could not be apprehended, unless they, believers, kept their minds composed, and patiently waited until the time of the promised salvation had come." As regards the following enumeration of the blessings, in and by the bestowal of which the new covenant-relation is to be established, Venema very correctly remarks: "The blessings are distinguished into radical or causal ones, and subsequent or derived ones." The second כי, in ver. 34: "For I will forgive their sin," proves the correctness of this division, which is also pointed out by the Athnach.--תורה is, by many interpreters, here understood to signify "doctrine." Thus Buddeus: "By the word תורה, the whole New Testament doctrine is to be understood." This interpretation, however, is objectionable, and destructive of the sense, תורה never means "doctrine," but always "law;" and the fact that it is only the law of God, the eternal expression of His nature, and common, therefore, to both the Old and New Covenants, which can be here spoken of, and not a new constitution for the latter, is seen from the reference in which the giving in the inward parts and the writing on the heart (the tables of the heart, 2 Cor. iii. 3), stands to the outward communication and the writing on the tables of stone on Sinai. The law is the same; the relation only is different in which God places it to man, ("lex cum homine conciliatur quasi," Michaelis.) One might easily infer from the passage before us a confirmation of the error, that the law under the Old Covenant was only an outward dead letter. Against this error Buddeus already contended, who, S. 117, acknowledges that it is a relative difference and contrast only, which are here spoken of He says: "This, of course, was the case with the Old Testament believers also; here, however, God promises a richer fulness and higher degree of this blessing." Calvin declares the opinion that, under the Old Testament dispensation, there did not exist any regeneration, to be absurd, and says: "we know that, under the Law, the grace of God was rare and dark; but that, under the Gospel, the gifts of the Spirit were poured out, and that God dealt much more liberally with His Church." The idea of a purely outward giving of the Law is indeed one which is quite inconceivable. God would, in that case, have done nothing else towards Israel than He did to the traitor Judas, in whose conscience He proclaimed His holy Law, without communicating to him strength for repentance. But such a proceeding can be conceived of, only where there is a subjective impossibility of ἀνακαινίζειν εἰς μετάνοιαν. Every outward manifestation of God must, according to the constitution of human nature, be accompanied by the inward manifestation, since it is inconceivable that He who knows our nature, should mock us by the semblance of a blessing. As soon as we know the outward fact of the deliverance from Egypt, we know, at the same time, that God has then powerfully touched the heart of Israel. As soon as it is established that the Law on Sinai was written on tables of stone by the finger of God, it is also established that He, at the same time, wrote it on the tables of Israel's heart. But that which is thus implied in the matter itself, is confirmed by the testimony of history. In the Law itself, circumcision is designated as the pledge and seal of the bestowal, not merely of outward blessings, but of the circumcision of the heart, of the removal of sin attaching to every one by birth; so that man can love God with all his heart, all his sold, and all his powers, Deut. xxx. 6. This circumcision of the heart which, in the outward circumcision, was at the same time required and promised by God (comp. Deut. l. c. with x. 16), is not substantially different from the writing of the Law on the heart. Farther--If the Law of the Lord had, for Israel, been a mere outward letter, how could the animated praise of it in the Holy Scriptures, e.g., in Ps. xix., be accounted for? Surely, a bridge must already have been formed between the Law and him who can speak of it as rejoicing the heart, as enlightening the eyes, as converting the soul, as sweeter than honey and the honeycomb. That is no more the Law in its isolation which worketh wrath, but it is the Law in its connection with the Spirit, whose commandments are not grievous; comp. my commentary on Ps. xix. 8 ff. A new heart was created under the Old Testament also, Ps. li. 12; and not to know the nature of this creation was, for a teacher in Israel, the highest disgrace, John iii. 10. Yea, that which is here promised for the Future, a pious member of the Old Covenant expresses, in Ps. xl. 9, in the same form, as being already granted to him as his present spiritual condition: "I delight to do thy will, O my God, and thy Law is in the midst of my bowels,"
--words which imply the same contrast to the Law as outward letter, as being written on tables of stone, comp. Prov. iii. 1–3: "My son, forget not my law, and let thine heart keep my commandments ... bind them about thy neck, write them upon the table of thine heart;" compare my commentary on Psalms, Vol. iii. p. lxvii.--But how is it to be explained that the contrariety which, in itself, is relative, appears here under the form of the absolute contrariety,--the difference in degree, as a difference in kind? Evidently in the same manner as the same phenomenon must be explained elsewhere also, e.g. John i. 17, where it is said that the Law was given by Moses, but mercy and truth by Christ. By overlooking this fact, so many errors have been called forth. The blessings of the Old Covenant which, when considered in themselves, are so important and rich, appear, when compared with the much fuller and more important blessings of the New Covenant, to be so trifling that they vanish entirely out of sight. It is quite similar when, in chap. iii. 16, the Prophet represents the highest sanctuary of the Old Covenant, the Ark of the Covenant, as sinking into entire oblivion in future; when, in chap. xxiii. 7, 8, he describes the deliverance from Egypt as no longer worthy of being mentioned. Parallel to the passage under consideration is the promise of Joel of the pouring out of the Spirit, chap. iii. 1, 2 (ii. 28, 29); so that that which we remarked on that passage, is applicable here also. But, in that passage, the relative nature of the promise appears more clearly than it does here, just because, in general, under the New Covenant, in its relation to the Old, there is nowhere an absolutely new beginning, but always a completion only (just in the same manner as, on the other hand, under the New Covenant itself, it is in the relation of the regnum gloriae to the regnum gratiae). Joel, in reference to the communication of the Spirit, puts the abundance in the place of the scarcity; the many in the place of the few. Compare, moreover, chap. xxiv. 7: "And I give them a heart to know me, that I am the Lord; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God;" xxxii. 39: "And I give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them and of their children after them;" but especially Ezek. xi. 19, 20, xxxvi. 26, 27.--The remarks of Jewish interpreters on the passage under consideration, in which they cannot avoid seeing that, in it, a purely moral revelation is prophesied, in contrast to a mere external one, clearly show how strongly the Old Testament is opposed to that carnal Jewish delusion of the condition of the Messianic Kingdom (as it is most glaringly expressed in the Talmudic passage Massechet Sanhedrim, fol. 119: "There is no other difference between the days of the Messiah and the present state of things, excepting only that the kingdoms shall be our slaves),"--a delusion which is quite analogous to the expectations which are entertained by revolutionists concerning the Future, and which flow from the same source. Thus Rabbi Bechai (see Frischmuth) remarks: "This means that every evil concupiscence shall be taken away, and every desire to covet any thing;" Moses Nachmanides (ibid. S. 861): "And this is nothing else than that every evil concupiscence shall be taken away, so that the heart, by an internal impulse, does what is right.--In the days of Messiah there will not exist any evil desire, but, from the impulse of his nature, man will do what is right. And there will, therefore, not be innocence and guilt, inasmuch as these depend upon concupiscence." But if once bent upon it, pre-conceived opinions will overcome every, even the strongest,