Actual physical crucifixion is out of the question. It means, then, to treat with the greatest ignominy and contempt.

6

But what does saurois [himself] mean? It is susceptible of two interpretations: (1) As Dativus incommodi, i. e. to their own hurt, shame, etc.; so Starr. See Winner's N. T. Grammar, sec. 31, ed. 3. (2) It may be construed as Hebrew pronouns in the dative frequently are, viz. as pleonastic; e. g. 11, go for thyself, i. e. go; 7 53, he has fled for himself, i. e. he has fled; Heb. Grammer, sec. 545. I incline to the latter mode of explanation. Perhaps the shade of idea is, crucify, so far as they are concerned," or, "they themselves being concerned in the transaction of crucifying."

• Kai Tagadiiyμarifovras, and exposed him to public shame; compare Matt. i, 19. By renouncing their adherence to Christianity, they would openly declare their belief that Christ was only an impostor, and of course that He suffered justly as a malefactor. By returning again to Judaism, they would approve of what the Jews had done; and thus they would, as it were, crucify Christ, and expose Him to be treated by unbelievers with scorn and contumely. Every one knows, that an apostate from a good cause gives new occasion, by an act of apostasy, for the enemies of that cause to utter all the malignity of their hearts against it. In this sense apostates expose the Savior to public infamy, when they renounce all regard for Him, and join with those who view Him as an impostor and a malefactor.'

In his twelfth excursus,' the professor resumes the subject, as follows:- But does the whole paragraph pertain to real Christians, or to those who are such only by profession? To the former, beyond all reasonable doubt. For how could the apostle so solemnly warn those who are mere professors of Christianity against defection and apostasy? Defection from what? From a graceless condition, and a state of hypocrisy. Such must be the answer, if mere professors (and not possessors) of Christianity be addressed. But mere professors, instead

of being cautioned against defection from the state in which they are, are every where denounced in language of the severest reprobation. See Rev. iii, 15, 16; and the denunciations of the Savior against the Pharisees.

'Moreover, the language employed to describe the condition of the persons in question, shows that the writer is addressing those whom he takes to be real Christians ; e. g. μετόχους . . . πνέματος αγίου, [partakers of the Holy Spirit ;] καλον γευσαμένους θεου βῆμα, [tasted of the good word of God.] Above all, παλιν ανακαινίζειν εις μετάνοιαν, [again to be renewed to repentance ;] for how could he speak of being AGAIN renewed by repentance, if he did not address them as having been once renewed by it?

'The nature of the crime, too, and the awful denunciation with which it is threatened, shows that something peculiar is attached to the case which the writer is describing. Sinners, who have been taught the doctrines of religion, and yet renounced their external respect for it, are manifestly not without the pale of God's mercy; at least, they are not so considered in the Scriptures generally, and fact shows that they are not. It is a peculiar and aggravated case, then, which is here stated; and what other case can it be, than that of apostasy from a state of saving knowledge of Christ and His Gospel? Nor is such a

case at all without a parallel in the Scriptures. Manifestly such a one is stated in Heb. x, 26–32; also in 2 Pet. ii, 20-22; in Ezek. xviii, 24; xxxiii, 12, 13; iii, 20; and in many other passages of the Bible. It is implied in every warning, and in every commination, addressed to the righteous; and surely the Bible is filled with both of these, from the beginning to the end. What is implied, when our Savior, in his sermon on the mount, urges upon his disciples, i. e. the apostles, as well as other disciples, (see Luke vi, 12-20,) the duty of cutting off a right hand, and of plucking out a right eye, that offends; and this, on a penalty of being cast into hell? (Matt. v, 29, 30.) Is this penalty really threatened; or is it only a pretence of threatening, something spoken merely in terrorum? Can we hesitate as to the answer which must be given to this question?

But if we admit the penalty to be really threatened, then the implication is the same as in the passage before us, viz. that Christians are addressed as exposed to incur the penalty of the Divine law by sinning. In our text they are surely addressed as exposed to fall into a state in which there is no hope of renewal by repentance.'

It would seem from the above, that this eminent scholar and theologian had not only fully conceded our exegesis of the text under consideration, but many more of our proof texts; and, indeed, nothing short of the whole argument upon the danger and possibility of falling from grace! But he next makes an effort to save himself; or to avoid the imputation of having entirely abandoned the Calvinistic views of the perseverance of the saints. He proceeds :

'Whatever may be true in the Divine purposes, as to the final salvation of all those who are once truly regenerated, (and this doctrine I feel constrained to admit,) yet nothing can be plainer, than that sacred writers have every where addressed saints in the same manner as they would address those whom they considered as constantly exposed to fall away and perish for ever. Whatever theory may be adopted in explanation of this subject, as a matter of fact, there can be no doubt that Christians are to be earnestly and solemnly warned against the danger of apostasy, and consequent, final perdition. What else is the object of the whole Epistle to the Hebrews, except a warning against apostasy? In this all agree. But this involves all the difficulties that can be raised by metaphysical reasonings, in regard to the perseverance of the saints. For why should the apostle warn true Christians, (and such he surely believed there were among the Hebrews, chap. vi, 9,) against defection and perdition? My answer would be: Because God treats Christians as free agents, as rational beings; becanse he guards them against defection, not by mere physical power, but by moral means, adapted to their natures, as free and rational agents.'

But to this method of evading what appears to us the necessary consequences of his philological investigations, we shall urge two objections. The first is, that it involves the professor in inconsistency. It is clearly inconsistent with the sound argument which he has prosecuted with good effect upon another subject of importance. We refer to his argument against Universalism, in his Exegetical Essays on the several words relating to future punishment.' In this work he conclusively urges the certainty of the eternal punishment of the finally impenitent, from the legitimate import of the words employed in relation

to that subject; such as, hell, for ever, everlasting, &c. His argument from these words is substantially this, that sinners are addressed as exposed to final impenitence and an eternal hell. That they are threatened with a punishment literally eternal.

Now supposing a Universalist opponent to reply to his argument thus: Though we admit that the sacred writers have every where addressed sinners in the same manner as they would address those whom they considered as constantly exposed to die impenitent, and perish for ever; yet we are constrained to assert that the final salvation of all men is true, in the Divine purposes. And the sacred writers warn sinners against final impenitence and perdition, because God treats men as free agents, as rational beings; because he guards them against final impenitence and its consequences, not by mere physical power, but by moral means adapted to their natures as free and rational agents;'-What would Professor S. say in answer to this? If he were to adhere to his principles, would he not be found to acknowledge, that the threats of eternal punishment he has adduced, after all, fail to prove that any will finally realize them!

Dr. Huntington, in his posthumous work, entitled Calvinism Improved,' admits the full force of the terms which Professor S. examines; and yet attempts to prove the final salvation of all men on the principles of substitution, viz. that Christ suffered the whole of the threatened penalty in the sinner's stead, and of course that the sinner could not justly be compelled to suffer it in his own person. Had our professor lived a little earlier, he might have furnished Dr. H. with another argument, with which to avoid the doctrine of eternal punishment, his own philology upon the strength of the terms employed, notwithstanding. For, upon the principles of exegesis which the professor adopts, in the case under consideration, the Universalist would completely avoid his conclusions, from the strength of the terms employed in relation to the duration of the threatened punishment. The Universalist might admit all that our author contends for upon this point, and yet the truth of his theory remain unaffected. For he might retort with the greatest propriety: Though, indeed, eternal punishment is threatened in the Bible, this by no means proves it will ever be realized. It is indeed one of the means employed by God to serve the purposes of his mercy, in relation to the whole of Adam's race. Though sinners" are addressed as exposed to" die impenitent, and be eternally damned, yet "I am constrained to admit, the final salvation" of all men "is true, in the Divine purposes."

Is there any flaw in this conclusion? And does not the Universalist, upon Professor Stuart's own principles of exegesis, fairly avoid his conclusions, and furnish (if the exegesis in question be correct) a triumphant answer to all that can be urged from the terms which he has examined with so much critical skill; and indeed to almost every material argument to be deduced from the Bible against him? It gives us no pleasure to descant upon the inconsistencies of others under any circumstances, but especially when such inconsistencies are found in those who have rendered important services to the world, and whom we regard as every way, by far, our superiors. But principle must not be sacrificed to men, whatever may be their standing. But secondly, we object to the exegesis altogether, in both cases. VOL. VI.-April, 1835.

20

We are constrained to believe, in relation to the threatenings denounced, both against the finally impenitent and final apostates, that there is something fearfully portentous. We believe that there is too much solemnity and severity in these terrible comminations to admit of the idea of a mere false alarm. Indeed, the supposition is, in our view, derogatory to the Divine veracity, and would, if pushed to its legiti mate consequences, undermine the foundations of our confidence in God, as a being of undeviating sincerity and truth. For if He can threaten what He never will execute, why, then, He can promise what He never will fulfil! and so we would be left without a permanent foundation for our hopes!

In conclusion we can but say, that we consider the case under consideration, one instance among several, in which this eminent linguist evidently flinches at the consequences of his interpretations of Scripture. We do, indeed, rejoice that he so frequently enters into a free and independent discussion of points, which have been so long maintained, and considered as settled, by Calvinistic interpreters; and that he fearlessly dissents from, and ably refutes some of their most objectionable constructions of the sacred text. But we can but regret that his attachment to a theory,' and his metaphysical reasoning,' should ever so bias his judgment, as to force him into reserves and resorts, which go in any measure to neutralize his labors as a critic. Auburn, January 16, 1835.

PARAPHRASE ON JOB.

Mr. Editor,—The following paraphrase was written by a member of the Society for the Promotion of Education; and its author intended to have read it at the last meeting of the Society; but was prevented. I have therefore solicited of him a copy for publication.

MARCUS.

Ir is with no small embarrassment that I submit to your judgment the following poetical effort. I am conscious of entering a field where the reapers have been before me, and all that was rich and rare and beautiful has been culled and garnered. Not possessing originality enough to strike out some new path, I have contented myself with taking a sublime specimen of ancient poetry, and adapting it to English metre, and present it, in a modern garb, for your approbation or censure. Any attempt to improve the language of the original would be vain and presumptuous; you will, therefore, perceive that I have adhered punctiliously to the spirit of the poem, as well as the original reading, only varying the phraseology so as to suit the metre. The measure I have selected is the English anapaest, a beautiful specimen of which is Campbell's Lochiel Warning, which approaches nearest to the hemistich of the original. Indeed, the plaintive seriousness, as well as the drag of that measure, is well calculated for the subdued wail of permanent anguish. The translator of the original appears to have glided naturally into this measure, for he opens the lament of Job in that strain: Let the day perish wherein I was born,' &c.

I am well aware that a production of this kind is not altogether in keeping with the avowed object of this society, and that to encourage a taste in the membership of the Church for the more useful and practical branches of education is of paramount importance to those minor efforts, that seem but to enrich the fancy, or exalt the imagination. Still there is an error in depreciating poetry too far, or considering it always as subservient or secondary to prose. Poetry is the mother of devotion; it is not merely her handmaid, but it is that which, if rightly directed, invariably gives rise to the soul's mysterious longings. It travels upward; it hath no congeniality with earth; with the lark it ascends, with its matin tribute, to the very gate of heaven-to Him, who is the source, the centre, and the soul of all harmony. All nature teems with poetry, from the faint melody of the purling rill to the rush of the cloud-sprinkling cataract; from the harmonious grove to where sphere chimes with sphere in mystic melody. Wherever in nationa! history, in the record of ages that are gone by, poetry has become a passion, and a pursuit among the citizens of a nation, there its effects are happily evident in the polish of manners, the softening down of asperities and ferocities, the eliciting and drawing out the virtuous and kindred feelings of man's rough nature, the increased respect to private right and public justice. Who shall say that the Iliad and the Odyssey of Homer were not productive of all this, and more? The violation of female honór, of individual right; of hospitality, ingratitude, contempt of the Deity, disrespect to old age, are there visited with such signal retribution, depicted in glowing numbers, and by a master hand, that they could not but have a powerful influence on the morals of a people.

It doth appear to me, that true piety and experimental religion are so intimately connected with the poetic spirit, or, as Racine terms it, the genie createur,' that I do not know how it is that, within the pale of our own Church, a poetical taste is so little cultivated, and so little cared for, noted as that Church is for the great stress it lays upon a religion in the soul.

The same reasons for decrying a taste for poetry are in vogue for depreciating devotional and experimental piety, viz. they are both incom patible with the spirit of pecuniary enterprise and gain-that both are inconsistent with that close, suspicious, intriguing spirit, which with some is too much the 'sine qua non' in forming a mercantile character, I readily allow; and Heaven grant they ever may be! The man that would rather sacrifice his integrity than his riches, whose exaltations and depressions are governed only by the state of the money market, would be a cold and indifferent listener to the pathetic and soul-stirring strains of Isaiah; to him the harp of David, though struck by the master himself, would have no charms, while the heaven-towering flights of a Milton would hardly remind him of his own baseness.

A suitable, though not engrossing attention to the laborious and active pursuits of life is not, however, alike compatible with the spirit of genuine piety, as well as the cultivation of a poetical taste. History will furnish us with proofs. Take one of the many brilliant examples from antiquity. King David was burdened with the government and cares of a nation, and a nation of most discordant materials for repose," and quite a stiff-necked and rebellious generation; and yet poetry, music, and devotion was the daily food of his soul, and oft he soothed