comment on one of those interjected clauses (Rom. v. 15, 16, 17), of which St. Paul makes so much use, and which, in many instances, taking their rise from his animated conceptions of the divine scheme of man's redemption, are not the least important parts of his writings. At the same time, their twofold character, as being both separate from and allied to their respective contexts, subordinate to these and complete in themselves, renders them liable to a difficulty of interpretation.

The guilt and condemnation brought upon mankind by the sin of Adam, have their counterpart in the righteousness and justification superinduced by the atonement of Christ. If the former, by inconsideration, perverseness, and self-indulgence, attached to his posterity. the displeasure of their Creator, and a disposition of resistance against bis authority; the latter, by forethought, rectitude, and suffering for the sake of others, procured for his followers reconciliation to their hea venly Father, and a disposition of conformity to his will, "For as by the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners; so also by the obedience of the one, shall the many be made righteous.”

But though the demerits of the first Adam, and the merits of the second, the misery occasioned by, the one, and the happiness wrought by the other, are thus to be contrasted rather than compared; what the one is in respect of evil, suc'a contrariwise being the other in respect of good; yet, on taking into the account by what method the conduct of each tended to its opposite end, occasion is found for comparison, and the result shews that the advantage, in point both of energy and precision, is altogether on the side of the efficiency of good. Now, the trans-, gression of the first man may be considered as an insulated sin, which, without any further effort on the part of the perpetrator, but merely by being left to take its natural course, spread through and tainted,

all his posterity: whereas the atonement of Christ may be considered, not as opposed to this single sin in the man that committed it, and then left to its natural course, but rather as set in array against this sin both in the first man and in all his descendants; each one of whom being personally and individually a sin ner, each one must be regarded as having need of a special interposition for his salvation; and whoever, therefore, obtains salvation, as indebted for it to the special interposition of Christ. "And not as (is) the transgression, so also (is) the free gift. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much rather the grace of God, and the gift by grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded unto the many."

But further: the atonement of Christ may be considered not only as set in opposition to the one original sin committed by the first man, and carried on, by all his posterity, but also as making head. against it in all its multitudinous consequences, when, under various forms, it has been repeated and rerepeated continually by each indi vidual. Hence there is no man but must confess, that having been guilty of sins without number, for each, of which he is subject to condemnation; if he be accounted, righteous before God, it must be, that for each particular sin of which he has been guilty, a particular satisfaction has been made by Christ. "And not as by one that sinned (is), the gift; for the judgment (was) from one (transgression) unto condemnation: but the free gift (is) from many transgressions unto justification."

As, then, the transgression of the first man, though thus comparatively inert and undistinguishing in its operation, has yet power to infix in those who feel its malignancy, the corroding fear of eternal death: how much rather may the atonement of the second man, thus absolutely in its operation energetic and appropriative, implant in those who, by

experience of its present effects, have reason to believe that it is exerted for themselves; that it enters into their own businesses and bosoms; how much rather may it implant in these the living and invigorating hope of life everlasting! "For if, by the transgression of the one, death reigned by the one; much rather they that receive the abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by the one, Jesus Christ."

F. T.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer. Your correspondent, LAICUS, in the exposition which he has given in your number for October last, of Matt. vi. 23, appears to me to have misconceived the force of the passage; and the translation which he offers, is founded upon a manifest distortion of the original.

treasure is there will your heart be also.-The light (or lamp) of the body is the eye: if, therefore, thine eye be single, thine whole body will be full of light (or be enlightened); but if thine eye be evil, thy whole body will be full of darkness (or be in darkness). If, therefore, the light within thee be darkness, how great is that darkness?" In other words, "If the bodily eye be sound or vitiated, the whole body is accordingly surrounded with light or darkness. How much greater and more momentous, then, is the darkness the mind's eye; that internal light, on which arises from the corruption of which depends our choice of spiri tual good or evil!" The leading antithesis appears to me to be not so much between φῶς and σκότος, as between ὁ λύχνος τα σώματος, and τὸ φῶς τὸ ἐν σοὶ; the latter phrase being, 1 conceive, equivalent to rò φῶς τοῦ πνευματός σε.

Sedburgh, 28th Nov. 1811.

D. M. P.

He renders the Greek as if it stood thus: si v auTo Tows 8 σκότος ἐςὶ, πόσον τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐν ; whereas the reading is, ei v To φῶς τὸ ἐν σοὶ σκότος ἐςὶ, το σκότος To the Editor of the Christian Observer. dry; the literal translation of which is that given in our common version, viz. "If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness."

SHOULD the following hasty remarks be worthy of a place in your Magazine, the author will feel honoured by your insertion of them.

The expression, the light that It may not be uninteresting to is in thee," is, it must be confessed, your readers to observe the very somewhat equivocal; and hence, different comments of Bishop Wilson probably, arose Laicus' misappre- and Bishop Tomlyn on Matt. ix. 13, hension of the passage: but a very slight alteration in the turn of the teous, but sinners to repentance." words may, I think, clear away all Bishop Tomlyn (vide Refutation,

reader. If they
light within thee" (as I think they

were rendered the

"I am not come to call the righ

"the righteous," here spoken of, are "those who are truly and sincerely

should be), would not the obscurity righteous; who have truly reformed

be removed? For the whole pas.

their lives; who carefully endeasege would then run thus: "Lay vour to abstain from all known sins,

not up for yourselves treasures upon

and set themselves sincerely to the earth, where moth and rust corrupt, both to God and man, and so are performance of their whole duty and where thieves break through righteous and acceptable in the sight

and steal. But lay up for your of God; in which sense Job was selves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, righteous*, and eschewed evil; Zaand where thieves do not break

Job, however, does not seem to have

strough regarded himself as one of those righteous

charias and Elizabeth were righ teous, walking in all the commandments of the Lord, and Simeon; and so they needed not that repentance, which consists in the change of the life from a course of sinning to a living unto God." The bishop had said, in the outset of his observations on the passage in question (p. 11), "I am aware that commentators, who wish to reconcile this passage to the Calvinistic system, explain the word righteous' by Wrighteous' by those who consider themselves righ teous."

Now, as Bishop Wilson has never yet fallen, I believe, under the atrocious charge of Calvinism, but is regarded as a sober-minded man by all who pretend to piety, I will subjoin his interpretation of the words before us, and let your readers decide which of these directly opposite expositions is to be preferred. Bishop Wilson says (vide Works, 8vo. 3d edition; and 1st vol. Sermons, p. 341, Serm. xvii.), "I came not'" (says he), to call the righteous,' such as think themselves safe, but sinners to repentance.'

The bishop goes on to observe, in the page following: "This was the case of the church of Laodicea; Thou sayest that thou art rich and wantest nothing, and knowest not that thou art wretched and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked." "This" (continues Bishop Wilson), " is a sad case, and yet it is the case (God knows) of too many Christians, as appears plainly by that great unconcernedness to be seen in the lives of Christians; who generally satisfy themselves, and place their hopes of safety and happiness in being free from scandalous sins, such as the magistrate would punish; in observing the outward duties of Christianity, such as the most unconvert ed person may perform, without persons who had no need of repentance, when he says, "I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now mine eye seeth ee: I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes."

being sensible of the bondage of sin; and that religion must mend* their corrupt nature before they die, or they must never expect to be saved."

I am, &c.

PASTOR

To the Editor of the Christian Observer THOUGH I was pleased with the ingenious paper of T. Y., in your number for December, I must confess it has appeared to me that the most palpable difficulty on this subject, and which strikes the unlearned infidel with the most peculiar force, is the apparent contradiction in terms (which T. Y. does not obviate) in the two. accounts: the former asserting, that "Jacob was the father of Joseph;" and the latter, that "Joseph was the son of Heli." This is considered as an absolute contradiction, since the. same man cannot have two fathers; and therefore no ingenious hypothesis, to shew that one line is meant. to trace the descent of Joseph, and another of Mary, can obviate the verbal difficulty. I think, however, a little attention to the Greek text of St. Luke will satisfactorily do it. It runs thus, exactly as printed in the edition of Robert Stephens, of 1549: “ καὶ αὐτὸς ην ο Ιησους ὡσεὶ ετών τριάκοντα αρχομενος, ῶν, ὡς ὀνομί (ero, vids lwayo, Të qhi, : 8 μalder, rå " And I would propose thus literally to translate it : "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being, as posed t, the descendant of Joseph, of Heli, of Matthat, of Levi," &c, It. is certain the Greek text does not (as our translation, I think, injudiciously does) assert, or, properly understood, imply any thing as to the relative connection between Joseph and Heli, but only the connection (according to supposition as to one, London's last Charge appeared, which wages war with "conversions."

was sup

"Renew" should be substituted for "mend."

+ This qualification is evidently meant to • This was written before the Bishop of apply to Joseph only.