* * * * *

NOTE D. P. 189.

"It was an admirable definition of that which excites laughter," &c.—­[Greek:  To geloion apurtaepa ti chai aiochos auodnnoy chai on phthartichon oion enthus to geloion prosopon aischron ti chai dieotruppenon anen odunaes]—­Aristotle, Poetic, ii.

* * * * *

NOTE E. P. 245.

“I would endeavour just to touch upon some of the purposes for which the Scripture tells us that Christ died.”—­The Collects for Easter Sunday and the Sundays just before it and after it, illustrate the enumeration here given.  The Collect for the Sunday next before Easter speaks of Christ’s death only as an “example of his great humility.”  The Collect for Easter-day speaks of the resurrection, and connects it with our spiritual resurrection, as does also the Collect for the first Sunday after Easter.  But the collect for the Second Sunday after Easter speaks of Christ as being at once our sacrifice for sin and our example of godly life,—­a sacrifice to be regarded with entire thankfulness, and an example to be daily followed.

* * * * *

NOTE F. P. 282.

“Such also was to be the state of the Christian Church after our Lord’s ascension.”—­And therefore, as I think, St. Peter applies to the Christians of Asia Minor the very terms applied to the Jews living in Assyria or in Egypt; he addresses them as [Greek:  parepidaemois diasporas], (1 Peter i. 1,) that is, as strangers and sojourners, scattered up and down in a country that was not properly their own, and living in a sort of banishment from their true home.  That the words are not addressed to Jewish Christians, and therefore are not to be understood in their simple historical sense, seems evident from the second chapter of the Epistle, verses 9, 10, and iv. 2,3.

* * * * *

NOTE G. P. 315.

“Not only an outward miracle, but the changed circumstances of the times may speak God’s will no less clearly than a miracle,” &c.—­What I have here said does not at all go beyond what has been said on the same subject by Hooker:  “Laws, though both ordained of God himself, and the end for which they were ordained continuing, may, notwithstanding, cease, if by alteration of persons or times they be found insufficient to attain unto that end.  In which respect why may we not presume that God doth even call for such change or alteration as the very condition of things themselves doth make necessary?...  In this case, therefore, men do not presume to change God’s ordinance, but they yield thereunto, requiring itself to be changed.”—­Ecclesiastical Polity, b. iii.  Sec. 10.

* * * * *

NOTE H. P. 320.