τὸ τέλος, and ὅταν παραδῷ all differently from the received

version.

1st. I observe that era, without a verb expressed, is never used, as far as I am aware, to begin a sentence, though it often continues one, as Mark iv. 28; 1 Tim. ii. 13.

2d. Though I can produce no instance in which réλog is used for the last part of a totum universale, as the Logicians speak, unless indeed Rev. xxi. 6, be one, I can produce instances, in which the correlative word åpxǹ is used for the first part of such a whole, viz.-Matt. xxiv. 8; John ii. 11; and instances in which the Hebrew words corresponding to reλos are used in the sense here proposed, viz. Amos ix. 1, and Numb. xxii. 41, and xxiii. 2. The first of the texts here adduced, is a very remarkable one, if the received version be correct, as I think it is. "I will slay the LAST of them (Heb. the END of them) with the sword.”

3d. I suppose it is not necessary to prove that orav, followed by an aorist or present, signifies the future imperfect, rather than the perfect, "when he shall deliver up," rather than " when he shall have delivered up. Of the former, there are innumerable instances which cannot be disputed. Mat. xxi. 40; xxiv. 15, 33, &c. &c. But I would Of the latter, the instances are comparatively few. beg of my readers to compare Matt. xxii, 30, and Mark xii. 25, which are strictly parallel, being equivalent Greek versions of the same Syriac sentence. In the former, we have ἐν γὰρ τῇ ἀναστάσει οὔτε γαμοῦσιν κ. τ. λ. ; in the latter ὅταν γὰρ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστῶσιν οὔτε γαμᾶσιν κ. τ. λ. This, I submit, justifies the latter translation that I have given of the clause orav rapade as if it were Ev Ty Tapadóσεl. This last, however, is not very material. The main point to be considered is the translation that I have proposed for To Téλos;—whether this be a sense that the word will bear;and if it be, whether the usage of the preceding word ɛira does not require that it should be given to it; thus avoiding the harsh ellipsis and abrupt transition of the received version. I am certainly disposed, after much consideration, to take the affirmative side of both these questions; but, as I said before, I propose my opinion with great diffidence, and shall be anxious to hear that of others, who are better capable of judging.

I remain, &c.

Σ.

BIBLICAL CRITICISM-REV. xiv. 13.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER. "Blessed are the dead, which die in the Lord from henceforth: yea, saith the spirit."

VULGATE." Beati mortui, qui in Domino moriuntur. Amodo, jam dicit spiritus."

GREEK.“ Μακάριοι οἱ νέκροι οἱ ἐν Κυρίῳ ἀποθνήσκοντες ἅπαρτι. Ναι, λέγει τὸ Πνεῦμα,

The words "from henceforth," have given much trouble to commentators, with what result we may conjecture from the little satisfaction given to those who read the explanations. The reading of the Vulgate is rather remarkable äraρri is read as belonging to the second member of the sentence, and the impressive Nai is left out. Now, vai is a word of great impressiveness and should not be omitted without weighty authority, and there is no authority at all for its omission. Mill and Wetstein give some varieties of reading the same words, but as they do not remove the difficulty that exists, it is needless to quote them. A very small alteration will remove that difficulty, by giving a fitting sense, without the slightest strain upon the words. For åráρrı, "ab hoc tempore-HENCEFORTH," read ȧπαρτì, “omnino, plene—ALTOGETHER FULLY:" then the passage will be "Blessed are the dead, who die altogether in the Lord." It can be scarcely necessary to remark, that the printed accents are of no authority, and should give way to an improvement so manifest as the above.

ERSKINE ON JUSTIFICATION.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER.

SIR-Admitting that justification includes pardon, the controversy (so far as the connexion between pardon and faith is concerned) must be considered as decided against Mr. Erskine, even on his own principles; for Mr. Erskine admits, in the most unqualified way, that justification is dependent upon faith. The meaning given by Mr. Erskine, to the term justification, as being only a sense of pardon, seems to have so little support either from etymology, or from common use, or from grammatical connexion; that Mr. Erskine himself, on the first introduction of his opinion speaks doubtingly on the subject. "I have sometimes been led to think (he says) that justification often is used to signify not pardon, but a sense of pardon." Now, Sir, though I do not entertain the least doubt that Mr. Erskine is under a mistake on this subject, and though I am fully persuaded that justification does include pardon, and is not a sense of pardon, I am willing to waive the advantage of this argument, and to suppose that pardon is unconnected with justification; still, I conceive, that the proof of pardon being dependent upon faith is quite sufficient, if we understand words in their ordinary acceptation, to satisfy us that Mr. Erskine has taken an erroneous view of this subject.

If Peter had seen this matter in the same light in which Mr. Erskine represents it, would he have expressed himself as he has done in the following language?" To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name, whosoever believeth in him, shall receive the remission of sins," Acts x. 43. In this passage there seems to be a plain contradiction to the sentiments of Mr. Erskine, both as to the dependence of pardon upon faith, and as to the time

when pardon is bestowed. "Whosoever believeth in him, shall receive the remission of sins." If I have any just notion of the plain import of words, I am authorised to infer from this passage, that forgiveness was something to be bestowed subsequent to the message of the speaker; that it was to be bestowed on those who should believe his doctrine, and that consequently, it was not a general thing, but a special one limited to believers, and coincident with the time of their believing. Again, Acts xxvi. 18, "to open their eyes-that they may receive forgiveness of sin," &c. Many passages of this description might be produced, which, to ordinary minds would convey the impression, that faith was in order to forgiveness; but ingenious men can evade, by the exercise of their skill, the obvious meaning of any passage, and baffle every effort to establish the common-sense interpretation of language. I am far from charging Mr. Erskine with a deliberate intention of giving a wrong sense to any portion of Scripture; I do not suspect him of it; but, in his anxiety to establish what he conceives to be a just view of the subject, I cannot but think he has been led to trifle with the sacred text. For example, when I should be led to suppose that the passage quoted from Acts x. " that through his name, whosoever believeth in him, shall receive remission of sins," was conclusive against the theory I am combating, and that Mr. Erskine must yield the point, I find that his confidence in his own views, has not received the least shock; he still holds that pardon is a general thing, and has no dependence upon faith; and how does Mr. Erskine keep his ground? Let him speak for himself. "The word receive here has the same sense, that it has in John i. 12'He came unto his own, and his own received him not,' or accepted him not. He had come to them, whether they received him or not, and so had the remission of sin, but those only who believed in his true character, would in that very character of him read, and receive their own forgiveness," page 181.

In this commentary on the passage, I do not find that discrimination which Mr. Erskine usually displays; for I cannot question his candour. It is quite evident, that in the quotation from Acts, the word receive occupies a place altogether different from what it does in John i. 12. The term accept, which Mr. Erskine assumes as the synonyme of receive, will answer in the one connexion and not in the other, and this alone is a sufficient proof that Mr. Erskine is mistaken, in supposing that receive means the same thing in both places. Let us put accept, for example, in the place of receive, in Acts x. 43-"To him give all the prophets witness, that whosoever believeth on him shall accept the remission of sins," and the sense is evidently not that of the original. The reason of this is sufficiently plain. In John i. 12, receive is equivalent to believe, and is employed figuratively; in Acts x. 43, it is the consequence of believing, and has a literal sense. That this is the case is evident, from an examination of the two passages-"He came unto his own and his own received him not; but as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God; even to them that

believe in his name." Here it is palpable, that receiving is a term used figuratively for believing-a position which, I presume, Mr. Erskine will not dispute. But, how does the matter appear, as it respects the other passage ? Acts x. 43-" To him give all the prophets witness; that whosoever believeth on him, shall through his name receive remission of sins." Surely, Mr. Erskine would not, upon reflection, repeat what he has said, namely, “The word receive here has the same sense, that it has in John i. 12."In fact, no two different words can have a more distinct signification than this one word has in the two passages in question. The really corresponding members of the two passages are in the one— as many as received him," and in the other, "whosoever believeth on him." And again, "to them gave he power to become the sons of God," as standing parallel with "shall receive remission of sins." Nothing then can be more clear, than that Mr. Erskine has failed in explaining this important passage in accordance with his theory of pardon; and to me it appears certain, that no ingenuity can fairly make it bear any interpretation, but that which an ordinary reader would assign to it; namely, "that all the prophets bore witness to this truth; that any person who should believe in Jesus the Messiah, should in virtue of what he had done for sinners, receive the pardon of his sins." And, if this be so, surely the implication is, that till they believed, they were in an unpardoned state, and that consequently, Mr. Erskine's view of the subject is

incorrect.

To do complete justice, however, to Mr. Erskine, we must hear him explaining in what sense he is willing to admit that a sinner is pardoned when he believes, and not till then :-"When it pleases God to open the eye of the soul, to see the light of his reconciling countenance, &c.-Although the pardon has been always the same, yet the man may be said to be then first pardoned, because he then first admits, or accepts, or feels the pardon," page 177.

But from what arises the necessity for such distinctions as Mr. Erskine thinks it proper to recur to? In In my humble opinion, from the original mistake of calling that pardon, which is only a provision on the part of God, in virtue of which he can pardon sin, and will pardon it under certain circumstances explained by himself in his word. It is this that makes Mr. Erskine give to the term justification, a new sense; and it is this again, that makes him confound in the present instance, a pardon, with the first admission, or acceptance, or feeling of it. Mr. Erskine says, a man may be said to be first pardoned, when he "first admits, accepts, or feels the pardon." But surely, if he may, it is only by allowing a latitude of phraseology, scarcely reconcilable with common notions of gramınatical propriety. If I speak of the time when a pardon begins to have an existence; I refer to the intention of the offended party; and, if I speak of the time when the offender begins to know the kindness of his benefactor, I refer to the notification of that pardon to him. But to say that he is first pardoned, when he first receives the news, is evidently to identify two things, which

are as distinct as the formation of a purpose, and the execution of that purpose.

In this illustration I have admitted what is not, I think, the fact. I have supposed the pardon of the Gospel an absolute one; and even on such a supposition there would be an impropriety in identifying, in language, the time when the pardon is granted, with the time when the pardon is received; or, in other words, to say that a man is first pardoned, when he first accepts the pardon, cannot with consistency be admitted, unless he is really first pardoned, when he first accepts the pardon. Much more is this the case, if it appears that the pardon of the Gospel is respective of the faith of the party. On this point much remains to be said; but I have already trespassed, perhaps, rather too much upon your space in the present Number, I shall now beg leave to conclude.

P. S.-In my last letter there are two errors of the Press. Instead of the present reading, fourth paragraph, fifteenth line, read " Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and (or, perhaps, better even) he that hath no money ;" and in the last line, same paragraph, dele not.

EDUCATION OF CHILDREN.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER.

SIR-The matter to which I would now call your attention, being one of great importance to the rising generation, I feel persuaded it has often come under your serious consideration, and, therefore, appear before your judicial chair with the more confidence, and something of that satisfaction which Paul experienced while pleading his cause in the presence of Agrippa, knowing him to be expert in all the customs of the people among whom he resided, and well acquainted with the subject on which he was about to address him.

Now, Sir, this being your case, I am sure you are not ignorant that in our day, when many run to and fro, and knowledge is increased, there are certain evils arising out of the very exuberance of our privileges, which need serious attention and correction. Of this number, is one much to be deplored, as tending to deteriorate the whole mass of which our moral and intellectual world is composed, and nipping in the very bud the promise of future years. I allude to the precocity of infant judgment which is so much encouraged at present, and the mistaken estimate which children are permitted to entertain of their own reasoning powers. When we

consider that the first years of our existence are, perhaps, of more importance in forming the character than any succeeding period, and that the mind generally receives at that time such a bias or stamp, as adheres to it more or less throughout life; it will be evident, that the prosperity and glory of a people will be much affected by the manner in which the youth of the land are guided and

VOL, IX.

3 н