"What is that which thou desirest, O my soul? Answer me. I have reason to do every action to which my will inclines me. Truly that is royal; but yet, on the other hand, tell me, by what means these things may be performed as I could wish." This passage bears a striking similarity to the eighteenth verse. "To will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good I find not." These opposite inclinations have led some persons, not favoured by Reve lation, to an opinion that man has two souls; the one inciting him to good, the other to evil. This is illustrated in the case of Araspas, recorded in Xenophon's Cyropædia, book vi. p. 328. Araspas gives this as a reason why he felt, at the same time, a love for things honourable and things shameful; and why he had, at the same time, a will and an aversion to the same actions; and then he adds, όταν μεν ή αγαθη (ψυχή) κρατη, καλα πρακτέαι όταν δε ή πονηρα, τα αισ. χέα επιχειρείται. "When the good sou! rules, honourable things are accomplished; but when the evil prevails, shameful things are undertaken.' 1." Now, setting aside the opinion of Araspas as to the cause, his experience is very similar to that described ver. 21, 22, 23. τα As to this point, Ovid affords an additional testimony in his Metamorphoses, Book vii. where he introduces Medea, making the following reflection, in a conflict between reason and passion, in which the latter gains the ascendancy. Video meliora, proboque; Deteriora sequor. "I see and approve better things, I follow worse." If it be asked why the Jew described by St. Paul, or why St. Paul, as a Jew, did not always feel this conflict between the flesh and the spirit, the answer is evident. There is a manifest difference between the character he personifies and that of one who gives the rein to vicious indulgences. St. Paul, being of the stock of Israel, circumcised the eighth day, brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, exemplary in the highest degree in his outward deportment, even touching the righteousness which is of the law blameless, and having a zeal for God, though misguided; it is scarce ly surprising, that, until the Lord touched his heart by applying the commandment in all its spirituality and extent, he should not see himself a lost sinner, needing redemption through the atonement of Christ. Nor is it any uncommon thing for persons of very inferior pretensions to those of St. Paul, to sin against God without a sense of the guilt and condemnation which they incur thereby. Such was the condition of the Jews while their minds were blinded by the false expositions of the Scribes and Pharisees. The following additional reasons seem to me to confirm my former interpretation. i. The words " carnal," "sold under sin," and the synonymous expression "living after the flesh," are uniformly employed by St. Paul, in every other place, to characterize the ungodly sinner, or the very defective christian; and they are not used, in any other sense, by any inspired writer. Sce Rom. viii. 6, 7. 1 Cor. iii. 1, 3, 4. 1 Kings xxi. 20. 2 Kings xvii. 17. Rom. viii. 5, 13. Gal vi. 8. Now, I think, the judgment of the apostle, independent of inspiration, would have suggested to him the impropriety of applying to himself, as a confirmed christian, terms which had been so employed. This consideration alone carries such conviction to my mind, as to decide the point, were it strengthened by no other reason. 2. It is a general rule, wherever a difficulty occurs in reading the Holy Scriptures, to collect the sense from such other parts relating to the same subject as are plain and obvious. Now I know but of one expression relative to St. Paul, which bears any similarity to these before us. The apostle, in his First Epistle to Timothy, styles himself the chief of sinners. This expression, however, when duly considered, proves to be nothing more than a present reflection on past actions. He styles himself the chief of sinners, because he had been guilty of the greatest of sins. He had persecuted the Redeemer of the world; he had opposed the counsels of heaven; he had made havoc of the Church of God. See 1 Tim. i. 13. Acts ix. 4. viii. 3. These offences formed one of the most humiliating circumstances of his life. Even when not inferior to the chief of the apostles in disin terestedness, knowledge, zeal, and sanctity, he thought himself unworthy to be called an apostle, because he had persecuted the Church of God. Compare 2 Cor. xi. with 1 Cor. xv. 9. Though as a son of Adam, encompassed with sin and infirmity, he disclaims all pretensions to perfection; yet perfection was his aim. Towards this mark he was continually pressing. It was his constant endeavour to keep "a conscience void of offence toward God and toward men." His reflections, at the close of life, are as opposite as possible to those in the passage we are considering. The person here described is "carnal, sold under sin;" there the apostle, brought by the grace of God to the end of his christian course, can say, "I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith." Finally, if the passage under consideration be one of those difficulties mentioned by St. Peter, which practically to pervert is destruction; it is sufficiently obvious in which interpretation the danger lies. While, therefore, I agree with Paulinus in his general statement, I must dissent from its present application; and I really believe that an ungodly man, gladly concurring with Paulinus that the passage referred to the apostle's experience, would, nevertheless, charge him with explaining away its plain and obvious sense, by restricting it to a few disallowed sins and infirmities. I am well aware that the interpretation of Paulinus is maintained by many persons of undoubted piety, strict integrity, and sound judgment, from an idea that such an interpretation tends most to humble man and exalt the Saviour; and indeed it must be granted, that we are but too prone to adopt unscriptural grounds of justification. This is abundantly evident from the whole scope of the Epistle to the Galatians. We can hardly be too vigilant in guarding against such destructive errors; since even our sincerest duties and purest prayers need the atonement and intercession of Christ to render them acceptable to God; but yet we should beware of confounding the good with the bad. For, though the upright christian be not of angelic purity, yet he is very far from being curnal, and the slave of sin. On the contrary, he is the Lord's freeman: he serves him with filial affection. The Holy Scriptures uniformly maintain this distinction. As many, probably, will be lost by wrong notions of faith, as by delusive opinions of human merit, and against both we are equally guarded by the inspired writers." With sincere regard for your disinterested conduct, and hearty good wishes for the success of your pious exertions, I remain, &c. CLERICUS JUVENIS. ON COL. i. 15. THE discordant opinions which have agitated the christian world respecting the interpretation of Col. i. 15, seem to have had their origin, either in a want of attention to the proper meaning of the word purotoxos, or from the fear of giving any countenance to the use made of this passage by the adversaries of the divinity of Christ. To render its signification as perspicuous as possible, it may not be impertinent to remark, that the Greeks frequently assign different meanings to the same word, distinguished by a difference of accent. It is needless to produce instances of this peculiarity, since they are obvious to every reader. Your correspondent "Inquisitor" seems not to have sufficiently attended to the distinction between próToxos accented on the antep. and protóxo; accented on the penult. The latter is the word introduced by Homer (Il. g. v. 5), which is always used actively, and may be properly translated "primum enixa,' ог quæ primùm peperit;" indeed the passage being followed by & πpy via roxolo, leaves us no room to doubt of its signification. But St. Paul, in the instance under consideration, uses the word próxos with the accent on the antep. which is, I believe, constantly received in a passive sense, and rendered by "primogenitus, or "qui primo partu editus fuit." Such is its evident signification in Luke ii. 7. Rom. viii. 29, and various other places. This distinction is maintained by the best lexicographers, as Step. Sued. Phavorin. &c. &c. Likewise in Ammon. qua xai dixopwy Atwv, we find the same doctrine: πρωτότοκος μεν προπαροξυτόνως, ὁ πρώτος τεχθείς πρωτοτόκος δὲ παροξυas ʼn πрÁTOV TEXнσX. The interpretation of Erasmus will be therefore entirely set aside by this distinction. If we adopt his translation on the present occasion, why should we not adopt it likewise in the expression πρωτότοκος εκ νεκρών, which immediately follows, and translate it, as some have done, "the efficient" or "first raiser of the dead?" The absurdity of such an exposition is obvious enough. Before we dismiss the subject it may not be unseasonable to remark, what little cause for triumph will accrue to the Socinians, even from our interpretation. They indeed wish to persuade us, that the rpwróronos, or "first created," must be necessarily a being of the same rank and denomination with the rest of created beings. The original, however, when properly translated will bear no such interpretation. The very learned Bishop Horsley hath judiciously observed, that had the apostle intended to convey to us their idea, he would have used the word πρωτοκτιστον, and the genius of the Greek language would have required it. But by adopting the phrase πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως, which is equivalent in signification to SEXPERT TO Tan, he distinctly points out the divinity of the Son of God as existing in the bosom of his father before all creation. It is thus likewise that Stephanus interprets the same sentence in Greg. Naz. Upon the whole, it seems evident, that the most legitimate translation of this passage is the literal one, viz. "the first-born of all creation," which has met with the approbation of Doddridge, and accords best with the Greek original. P. CAVANAI. seen the father." (John viii. 19. chap. xii. 45. chap. xiv. 9.) From which declarations, and the whole tenour of the context, which contains an accusation against the Jewish rulers for their blindness in not acknowledging Him whom the Father had sent, I think it may be gathered that dos refers to that appearance of God in the person of Christ, of which his appearance in the Shechinah was both a type and earnest, and which the Jews, to whom our Lord addressed himself, did not discern. (John ix. 41.) The word shape, in our version, conveys to an English reader a declaration similar to that made by Moses, Deut. iv. 15. when he warned the people from making to themselves any image of the infinite and invisible Jehovah; which not being the error the Jews were then exposed to, does not seem to be the true import of the passage. C. L. I AM glad that the perusal of Soame Jenyns's works has led you to consider points, on which worldly sophistry is much employed to mislead the unwary. I quite agree with you in considering his doctrine of a future state of all intermediate degrees of happiness and misery between the highest and the lowest, as utterly unfounded and highly mischievous. It is founded on the speculations of human reason, in direct opposition to the word of God, on a subject, on which we cannot possibly speculate with any certainty or safety. Surely the divine government is a subject far be For the Christian Observer. JOHN V. 37. "The Father hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice (attended to it) at any time, nor seen (discerned) his ados form, appearance;" compare Exod. xxiv. 17. (Septuagint) where, as in many other places of that version, 00; answers to the Hebrew Nyond the grasp of our minds. What sight, appearance. Our Lord had repeatedly declared, "If ye had known me, ye should have known my father also;" "he that seeth me, sceth him that sent me;" "he that hath seen me, hath should we say of a little child who, but cannot possibly ever carry into execution, &c. &c." Parents, never theless, are weak and fallible; and the distance between them and their children in mental powers will not admit of being compared with that between man and his Maker. It was by speculations in opposition to a divine command, that the serpent beguiled Eve. "Ye shall not surely die;" "ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." And speculations equally presumptuous and equally opposed to the declarations of the Almighty, have continued ever since to be engines of Satan, to prevent mankind from flying to the only remedy for the fearful evils brought upon them by that fall, which presumptuous speculations first occasioned. But on what do S. Jenyns's views of the subject rest? On an assumption, that there is no broad line of distinction between the character of some of the righteous and some of the wicked. Now what is the grand discriminating feature in each of these opposite descriptions of men? With the religious the great ruling principle of conduct is to please God and to serve him, and all other principles are made subservient to this. With the irreligious, to please God and serve him is not the predominant principle, to which other principles are made to bend; but, if adopted at all, it is made to bend by turns to other principles, and is at best but secondary and subordinate. Now does it not appear at once, that there is a very broad and important line of distinction between these different characters? Would not a similar difference between two persons standing in the same relation in our human connexions-between two wives, for instance, be thought in the highest degree important? If one wife loved her husband better than all other persons, and made her regard for others give way to conjugal affection; and another wife had not the greatest love for her husband, but made her duties as a wife bend to her affection for some other person, we should not hesitate for a moment to maintain, that there was an essential and marked distinction between these wives; and that their deserts were very widely separated. Why then do we not decide in the case which involves duty to God, as we should in that which regards duty to a husband? Are the claims of God to our affecCHRIST. OBSERV. No. 27. tions and services less urgent than those of a husband to the affection and attentions of his wife? Surely in every point of view they are incomparably stronger, and therefore the illus tration, which has been used, but very ill expresses the wide disparity between those who, in the main, possess towards God right dispositions productive of right conduct; and those, in whose hearts God has not the first place, and who make his service at best but secondary and subordinate. You remember how often the connubial connexion is introduced, in the prophets and in the New Testament, to illustrate the connexion which ought to subsist between God and man; but the sacred penmen seldom employ it for this purpose, without strongly pointing out at the same time its inadequacy to convey a just idea of the warmth of affection, and the perfect duty, due by man to his Maker; and of the demerit of fixing the affections more, or as much, on any other object, and of refusing or neglecting to be devoted to his service. It is true, man cannot see the heart, and say with certainty in every case, "This man is devoted to his God and Saviour, and that man is not." But the blindness of man does not alter the great discriminating features of character, which are perfectly visible to the all-wise Being, who is to pass judgment on his creatures. His prerogatives as a judge are not impaired by the inability of man to act as his assessor; nor are the rules of his government superseded by man's insight into character being so shallow and dull, that he cannot apply them to the cases of his fellowmen. He, whose eye penetrates the inmost recesses of every heart, doubtless is able to apply them, even if we were still less able than we are to distinguish the good from the bad. In great mercy, however, he has enabled us to distinguish between them sufficiently to convince us, that the distinction is perfectly visible to him, though we cannot see it. Still, however, it is alleged, that "though the distinction between the individuals of these opposite classes be always great, yet it cannot be thought so great as that these should go to heaven, and those to hell." Will any mortal then dare to pronounce what is the exact demerit of sin, and what is the amount of its T just punishment? Or, on the other hand, will any mortal dare to set limits to the bounty of God, and fix upon the greatest degree of happiness which it is right for him to bestow on those whom he sees to be proper objects of his favour? And yet, except these things are within the grasp of human ability, it is evidently impossible for man to say, that the difference between heaven and hell is too great to admit of our believing that God will make the one the abode of all the righteous, and the other of all the wicked. How presumptuous are the reason ings, and how gross the self-delusion of man, when he questions the propriety of the divine proceedings, and the truth of the divine declarations! If you look again at the part of S. Jenyns about Friendship, I think you will see, that it is less entitled to your approbation than you supposed. If friendship for one man precluded all affection for the rest of the species, there would be a colour for S. Jenyns's reasoning: but as this is by no means the case; and as we are order ed to love different persons (as parents, wives, &c.) in different degrees; and as Christ himself had a peculiar friend ship for Lazarus and for one of his disciples; and as St. Paul has left us examples of similar predilections-S. Jenyns's position must be utterly abandoned. To the Editor of the Christian Observer. MUCH has of late been written against the sin of schism. But as the evil, it is to be feared, will still exist (for even wise and good men have differed, and probably will differ to the end of the world, about matters of churchgovernment), the next best thing that can be done is to try to lessen, as much as possible, the mischiefs resulting from this cause. Now the great evil of schism, as it has always appeared to me, and as the apostolic exhortations upon the subject sufficiently infer, lies in the occasion there by administered to strife and debate, to discord and animosity; those fruitful sources of every evil work and temper which pollute the purity of the church, disturb its peace, and violate the great christian law of mutual charity. The only practicable remedy for these disorders, rebus sic stantibus, is admirably pointed out to us in the following petition of one of the special prayers appointed for the late fast day, and more than once adverted to, as it deserves, in the Christian Observer; "and give us all grace to put away from us all rancour of religious dissension, that they who agree in the essentials of our most holy faith, and look for pardon through the merits and intercession of the Saviour, may, notwithstanding their differences upon points of doubtful opinion, and in the forms of external worship, still be united in the bonds of christian charity, and fulfil thy blessed son's commandment of loving one another as he hath loved them." Considering this language, Sir, as put into the mouths of the whole clergy of this land, and addressed by them to heaven on so awful an occa sion, I cannot but regard it as a public and solemn disavowal on the part of our church, of such claims and pretensions as have been lately set up, and warmly contended for, by the Anti-jacobins and other writers; claims which, if they be founded, place the order and discipline of the Church of England among the " essentials" of christianity, divest those who are not of our communion of any covenanted right at least to "look for pardon through the merits and intercession of the Saviour," and make it impossible for us, consistently with principle and a good conscience, to be "united" with such persons "in the bonds of christian charity." Such a prayer, Sir, could not have been offered without offence to God, by the Jewish Church, under the Mosaic economy, with reference to any religious community, employing the ministry of a different order of priests from that of Aaron, or adopting any other rites of worship than those which were in use among themselves; though they had even been worshippers of the true God, and had worshipped him by sacrifices. The members of any such community, it is plain, must have been to all true Israelites "as heathen men and publicans;" and any acknowledgment of them as belonging to the Church of God, or any religious union and fellowship with them, as such, would have been a dereliction of principle, and must have involved the guilt of infidelity and apostacy. Precisely similar must be the predica |