the fon of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true: and we are in hint that is true, even in his fon, Jefus Chrift. This is the true God, and eternal life." Seriously reflect on this verse, and compare chap. i. 2. where he is exprefsly called “that eternal life, which was with the Father," because he bestows that greatest of all bleffings on his people. My fheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me, and I give unto them eternal life, &c. * And I prefume. he who beftows this must be the true God. + Again, he, who is faid, as concerning the flesh, to be of the Jews, is allo faid to be "over all, God blessed for ever." ‡ Now can you, my dear friend, in' the face of all thefe paffages of -God's most holy word, fay, that Jefus Chrift is not reprefented as the true God? Farther, is not the bleffed Redeemer reprefented as poffeffing divine attributes? Is not eternity afcribed to him, where he is called the firft, and the last. Is not he al= mighty who is able to fubdue all things unto himself. Is he not represented as omniscient, and is not omniscience peculiar to the true God? Confider these words of Solomon: "Thou, even thou only knoweft the hearts of the children of men!" yet doth not the Son of God fay: "All the churches fhall know that I am He, which fearcheth the reins and hearts?" ** Once more, Is not Jefus Chrift fpoken of as immutable, and his love as unchangeable; and is not immutability, or unchangeablenefs, peculiar to Jehovah, the true God, the God of Ifrael?" I am the Lord, I change not."†† Alfo the Pfalmift, when speaking of the changing nature of all things here below, favs But thou art the fame, and thy years fhall not fail." ‡‡ thefe words, when quoted by the Apoftle, are applied to Jefus, the Son of God. "Thou Lord in the beginning haft Jaid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They fhall perith; but thou remaineft: and they all fhall wax old, as doth a garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they thall be changed; but thou art the fame, and thy years fhall not fail. §§ Again he declares " Jefus Chrift, is the fame yesterday, to day, and for ever." || * John. x, 27, 28. § Rev. i. 11, 7. ↑ Rom. vi, 21. Phil. iii, 20. Rev. i, 8. ** Rev. ii, 23. See verse 18. §§ Heb. i. 10, 11, 12. ++ Mal. iii, 6. Heb. xiii. 8. Yet Rom. ix, 5. ¶ 1 Kings, viii, 39. ‡‡ Pial. cii. 27. My My dear friend, I can proceed no further at present, though the evidences of the adorable Saviour's divinity, pour in abundantly upon my mind; and I have in view thofe very encouraging words, "Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; let him know, that he who converteth the finner from the error of his way, fhall fave a foul from death, and fhall hide a multitude of fins."*. Let me befeech you to compare what I have written with the facred word of God, and let me know what effect it has upon your mind. If you are difpofed to attend with ferioufnefs, I have much more to offer in defence of what I confider a moft important, though myftcrious truth. "Where reason fails, with all her pow`ts, "There faith prevails, and love adores." I expect, if the Lord permit, to preach at the Tabernacle at Greenwich, on Friday week, in the evening, when 1 fhall be glad to have fome ferious converfation with you upon the subject. In the mean time I earneftly pray that you may be taught by the Spirit of truth... I remain, your foul's affectionate friend, Nov. 29. 1799. B J. U. CRITICAL REMARKS ON 1 THESS. v. 23.+ EING fomewhat interested in the criticism on 1 Theff. v. 23, propofed by Rev. Mr. Maurice in p. 510, ef volume viii and judging that the fubject is of some importance, I beg leave to fubmit to that gentleman, and to your correfpondents in general, a few remarks on his statement. But I would previously obferve, . That words ufed in a translation fhould always be received with caution in critical enquiries, and fometimes not at all. 2. That the Hebrew fenfe of words, which we may gather from the Old Teftament, appears to have frequently influenced the writers of the New Teftament. * James. v. 19, 20. The remarks of this Correfpondent may be ftrengthened by the following more literal tranflation of the paffage. "And the God of peace himself fanctify you entirely, and may every part of you (oλoxλngor vuar) the fpirit, the foul, and the body be preferved blameiefs, &c.-EDITOR. K 2 Το To apply these principles to the texts produced by Mr. M. I remark, it is ufually fuppofed by the learned, that Mathew wrote his Gospel in Syriac; and I fee CALMET, in his DicTIONARY of the Bible, admits that our present Greek copy is a translation, though now, to us, equal to an original.* Mr. M. produces four texts: his firft is Math. x. 38. "Fear not them who are not able to kill the foul.". But if this be a tranflation, then we are unable to determine what was the original word ufed by the writer: and this remark applies undeniably to his fourth inftance, "Mary faid my foul doth magnify; my Spirit rejoiceth :" for the Virgin Mary moft certainly did not speak in Greek, but in Syriac; and the Evangelift Luke has, happily for us, preferved a tranflation of her words. Mr. M.'s third inftance is not decifive. 1 Pet. ii. 11. "Abstain from fleshly lufts which war against the foul;" for certainly fleshly lufts war against the whole perfon, body as well as foul. As the Apoftle Paul reafons, 1 Cor. vi. 18, or if we fay they war against the animal life, the fact is eftablished by too many melancholy daily proofs. Thus, I think, I have invalidated three of the paffages produced out of four. The fecond I admit, in fome degree; but with this notice, that the criticism would be too long for infertion, by which I am withheld from admitting it altogether. I confirm what I have faid by remarking that, as in the New Testament we have two diftinct words for Spirit and foul, in the Greek language; fo in the Old Teftament we have two diftinct words allo to the fame effect. It is every way credible therefore, that when the word fout is ufed in the New Teftament, it thould refer to the “foul” (nephefh) of the Old Teftament, and spirit should refer to the fpirit" [ruah] of the Old Teftament. Now fince these words are not exegetical of each other in the Old Testàment, there feems to be fufficient caufe for doubting whether they are exegetical of each other in the New Teftament David might have faid, "My foul [nepheth] doth magnify the Lord, and my fpirit [ruah] doth rejoice," &c. Yet we should have fuppofed thefe different words referred to different things. Should this communication be favoured with notice, I would bcg an anfwer to the following hints. 1. In Heb. iv. 12. we are told the word of God divides " * So Michaelis, Lectures, Se&t. V. afunder afunder foul and fpirit. Now when these are thus feparated they cannot be the fame thing. 2. In 2 Cor. xii. 2. the Apoftle fays, that whether he was in or out of the body he could not tell. Doubtless he knew that the animal functions of life were continued in the body; but he feems alfo to fuppofe the absence of fomewhat from the body, during which abfence the body continued to live. Was not this his fpirit, the poffibility of whofe abfence he implies? for had his foul or animal life been abfent, his body had been dead. 3. In Acts xv. 26, we read of men who had hazarded their lives [pfychas] for the name of Chrift. Now it would be very inconvenient to read here "men who had hazarded their immortal fpirits," on behalf of Christ. 4. In Cor. xv. 45. we read, "The first Adam was a living foul; the fecond Adam was a quickening fpirit." It is evidently the Apostle's defign to defcribe the fecond Adam as fuperior to the firft. 5. In fhort, the word pfyche is applied to the dead body of Jefus, of which Peter tells us, Acts ii. 31, his dead body was not left in the state of the dead, neither did his flesh fee corruption." If this be referred to his animal life, it still marks very diftin&tly the difference between foul and fpirit. I believe it is not poffible to produce any paffage in which [pneuma] spirit is used in this degraded sense; neither would it be convenient to fubftitute the word /pirit for foul in this paffage. Perhaps the attempt is not requifite "to bring the Apostle out of heathen philofophy;" fince 1, If the principle be juft, it is not the worfe for having been held by any philofophers whatever. 2. It appears in the Rabbins, with whofe opinions St. Paul was well acquainted. 3. As neither of these notions is, in my opinion, very honourable to St. Paul, fuppofing we rightly underftand his words, why not fay, in this principle he was guided by the fame divine Spirit, as in every other part of his writings? He does not fpeak of this as of a new difcovery; but fuppofes the foundation of it, at leaft, not unknown by thofe to whom he he wrote; i. e. it was a general idea, but applied by him under the direction of the Holy Spirit. I fear, Mr. Editor, that I may trefpafs too much on your pages, and therefore I conclude these remarks. Where I live, I often do not fee your Magazine till the end of the month. If any of your correfpondents have already an fwered fwered Mr. M., I have only to beg your excufe for this intrufion, as I dare fay they have done it in a manner fuperior to these hints of yours, &c. Dec. 30, 1800. S. R I SIR, TO CANDIDUS. Confefs myfelf pleased, and in fome measure fatisfied, with your obfervations in the laft number of this Magazine. I dare not quarrel with the Lord for not electing ali the human race, becaufe I feel that I have myself no claim upon his mercy; and it seems to me indifputable that if fome only be chofen, others must be left. I am, therefore, at a lofs to know what a minifter, whom I lately heard, could mean, when he repeatedly faid, he firmly believed the doctrine of election, but abhorred that of reprobation. But though I would not reject any part of God's revealed will, nor queftion the equity of his conduct, yet, as Į am frequently liable to fall into converfation with thofe that do, I fhould feel myself much obliged by your farther reflections on this fubject, and particularly to know with what train of argument you would oppofe an objector, who abhors this doctrine. An early reply will oblige, SIR, SOME QUERY ON HEB. VI. 5-6. To the Editor. DIFFIDENS. OME of your carrefpondents having lately attended to a query on 1 Tim. iv. 19, 20.; I thould be much obliged by a fimilar attention to Heb. vi. 1---6, which has always appeared to me a much stronger objection to the doctrine of final perfeverance; though I confefs at the fame time, I fee fo much fcriptural evidence of its truth, that I am not difpofed to give it up for a difficulty or two, which perhaps may be occafioned only by my ignorance. I am your conflant reader, 1. |