and really as to the other), between Christ and them both; much less does it assert, that Joseph was the son of Heli. It is true, Stephens's edition, above quoted, gives some countenance to our translation, by putting no comma after way, so making "uos iwanp to yλ" run on together, as here printed; but this circumstance can, at best, only indicate what might have been Stephens's private judgment; but that we know how to estimate by the Col. iii. 2. Set your affections on things above." THAT man is fallen; that his nature is changed from what it was, when he first came out of the hands of his Maker, is not only told us with great plainness in Scripture, but is most clearly to be drawn also from its doctrines and precepts. Consider in this view the precept in the text. Why should it be necessary to urge men to set their affections on things above? Is there ever any occasion to raise their desires after earthly things? Does the heir to a valuable estate, for instance, feel indifferent to it? So strong indeed are our de injudicious mauner in which his subsequent edition of the New Testament, printed in 1551, frequently divided the text into verses, which bad not been done before that period, and is not done in the above quoted edition of 1549 (see Marsh's Michaelis, vol.ii. p. 528.) But I have looked into four other Greek Testaments, each of which has a comma after the word iwore, and three of them are very good editions; the first, the London edition of 1633; the second, the Cambridge edition of 1665, by J. Field; and the third, the London of 1727, from the press of Knaplock, Tonson, and Watts. I sires after earthly things, as to re have rendered the word vos, " de- quire that the law should say, "Thou scendant," not only because it often shalt not covet." But who is in danbas that sense (see Matt. i. 1, 20; ger of too eagerly coveting what is xxii. 42, 45; Rom. ix. 27; Heb. vii. heavenly? This shews what is in 3; see also Parkhurst, Voc. Tros), but man. The soul would not move because the connection evidently upwards to that glorious and excelrequires it. I must further notice, lent state above, so heavily and unmore deceptive than in any other, in- depraved. Hence arises the importhat our translation is, in this place, willingly, were not its moral feelings asmuch as it does not print in Italics tance of the Apostle's exhortation; the whole of the words which are supplied, but only "the son," leav- have of the natural tendency of our and certainly, under the proof we ing us to conclude, that, in the ori- hearts to the earth, we ought to say ginal, there are words corresponding with David, when we consider this with "which was;" but this is not subject, the case. It is impossible to conceire that there can be a real contradiction between the two evangelists, because the words in Luke, mised assistance of the Holy Spirit, allusion to the miraculous concep- the things above? 2d, What it is to supposed," bear an evident let us now inquire; 1st, What are tion, as recorded by Matthew; and set our affections upon them. 3d, there can be no reasonable doubt but The motives and encouragements we Luke's account was meant to trace have to do this. My soul cleaveth unto the dust; quicken thou me according to thy word." With this view of ourselves, and depending on the pro as was the genealogy through Mary, who I." The things above" are things was the real mother of Christ, as spiritual, in opposition to things car CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 122. L 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, suca 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 atone ment of Christ may be considere not as opposed to this single sin i the man that committed it, and the left to its natural course, but rathe as set in array against this sin bot in the first man and in all his de scendants; each one of whom being personally and individually a sin ner, each one must be regarded a having need of a special interposi tion for his salvation; and whoever therefore, obtains salvation, as in debted for it to the special interposi tion 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 individual. 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, 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 appro priative, 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. He renders the Greek as if it stood thus: ¿v auTo Tò qŵs 8 σκότης ἐςὶ, πόσον τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐν σοι; whereas the reading is, εἰ ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἐν σοὶ σκότος ἐςὶ, τὸ σκότος doy; 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." The expression, "the light that is in thee," is, it must be confessed, somewhat equivocal; and hence, probably, arose Laicus' misapprehension of the passage: but a very slight alteration in the turn of the words may, I think, clear away all difficulty even to a mere English reader. If they were rendered the light within thee" (as I think they should be), would not the obscurity be removed? For the whole passage would then run thus: "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal. But lay up for your selves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal. For where your 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 which arises from the corruption of the mind's eye; that internal light, on which depends our choice of spiritual good or evil!" The leading antithesis appears to me to be not so much between us and exóros, as between&úxvos TË σúμatos, and τὸ φῶς τὸ ἐν σοὶ; the latter phrase being, 1 conceive, equivalent to ro φῶς τοῦ πνευματός σα Sedburgh, 28th Nov. 1811. D. M. P. To the Editor of the Christian Observer. SHOULD the following hasty remarks be worthy of a place in your Magazine, the author will feel honoured by your insertion of them. It may not be uninteresting to your readers to observe the very different comments of Bishop Wilson and Bishop Tomlyn on Matt. ix. 13, "I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Bishop Tomlyn (vide Refutation, &c. 2d edition, p. 13), says, that "the righteous," here spoken of, are "those who are truly and sincerely righteous; who have truly reformed their lives; who carefully endeavour to abstain from all known sins, and set themselves sincerely to the performance of their whole duty both to God and man, and so are righteous and acceptable in the sight of God; in which sense Job was righteous*, and eschewed evil; Za Job, however, does not seem to have regarded himself as one of those righteous charias and Elizabeth were righteous, 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 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 secth' #ice: I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes." To the Editor of the Christian Observer ̧ THOUGH I was pleased with the inge-, nious 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 ἤν ὁ Ιησους ώσεὶ ετών, τριάκοντα αρχόμενος, ων, ὡς ἀνομί gero, vids woyo, Te thi, paltar, ul." And I would propose thus, literally to translate it: "And Jesus, himself began to be about thirty years of age, being, as was sup-. posed †, the descendant of Joseph, of Heli, of Matthat, of Levi," &c. It, is certain the Greek text does not (as our translation, I think, injudi ciously does) assert, or, properly un-, derstood, 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." "Renew" should be substituted for "mend.” + This qualification is evidently meant to This was written before the Bishop of apply to Joseph only.. 1 1 Matthew had done with respect to FAMILY SERMONS. No. XXXVIII. things above." and really as to the other), between Christ and them both; much less does it assert, that Joseph was the son of Heli. It is true, Stephens's edition, above quoted, gives some countenance to our translation, by putting no comma after way, so making "uos iwan T " run on together, as here printed; but this circumstance can, at best, only indicate what might have been Stephens's private judgment; but that we know how to estimate by the Col. iii. 2.—" Set your affections on injudicious mauner in which his subsequent edition of the New Testament, printed in 1551, frequently divided the text into verses, which had not been done before that period, and is not done in the above quoted edition of 1549 (see Marsh's Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 528.) But I have looked into four other Greek Testaments, each of which has a comma after the word iwore, and three of them are very good editions; the first, the London edition of 1633; the second, the Cambridge edition of 1665, by J. Field; and the third, the London of 1727, from the press of Knaplock, Tonson, and Watts. I have rendered the word us, "descendant," not only because it often has that sense (see Matt. i. 1, 20; xxii. 42, 45; Rom. ix. 27; Heb. vii. 5; see also Parkhurst, Voc. Tios), but because the connection evidently requires it. I must further notice, that our translation is, in this place, more deceptive than in any other, inasmuch as it does not print in Italics the whole of the words which are supplied, but only "the son," leaving us to conclude, that, in the ori. ginal, there are words corresponding with "which was;" but this is not the case. It is impossible to conceive that there can be a real contradiction between the two evangelists, because the words in Luke, "as was supposed," bear an evident allusion to the miraculous conception, as recorded by Matthew; and there can be no reasonable doubt but Luke's account was meant to trace the genealogy through Mary, who was the real mother of Christ, as CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 122. THAT man is fallen; that his nature is changed from what it was, when he first came out of the hands of his Maker, is not only told us with great plainness in Scripture, but is most clearly to be drawn also from its doctrines and precepts. Consider in this view the precept in the text. Why should it be necessary to urge men to set their affections on things above? Is there ever any occasion to raise their desires after earthly things? Does the heir to a valuable estate, for instance, feel indifferent to it? So strong indeed are our desires after earthly things, as to require that the law should say, "Thou shalt not covet." But who is in danger of too eagerly coveting what is heavenly? This shews what is in man. The soul would not move upwards to that glorious and excellent state above, so heavily and unwillingly, were not its moral feelings depraved. Hence arises the importance of the Apostle's exhortation; and certainly, under the proof we have of the natural tendency of our hearts to the earth, we ought to say with David, when we consider this subject, My soul cleaveth unto the dust; quicken thou me according to thy word." With this view of ourselves, and depending on the promised assistance of the Holy Spirit, let us now inquire; 1st, What are the things above? 2d, What it is to set our affections upon them. 3d, The motives and encouragements we have to do this. 66 I. "The things above" are things spiritual, in opposition to things car L |