law condemns him and pronounces him accursed ; and grace alone, or mercy unmerited, and contrary to his merits, can relieve him, rescue him from the condemnation, or give him the reward. Either he hath "continued in all things which are "written in the book of the law to do them," or he hath not. If he have failed only in one instance, by violating one precept; he has for ever forfeited "the reward of righteousness," according to the law, and incurred its awful curse; and the mercy of our King is his only resource. It will no more avail him to say that he has kept all the precepts but one, than the same plea would in our courts of justice avail a traitor: or to say, 'I have kept that one also, except in a single instance;' any more, than for a criminal to say, 'I never committed any other crime against the law, but forgery, and that only in one instance.' Still the jury must bring in the verdict, GUILTY, and the judge must pronounce the awful sentence. He might indeed add; Circumstances are such, that I shall recommend him to mercy:' but mercy is not from the law; but remits the deserved punishment of the law: " Mercy rejoiceth against judg"ment." These considerations made David, say "If thou, Lord, shouldst mark iniquity, who shall "stand? But there is forgiveness with thee, that "thou mayest be feared."1 "Enter not into "judgment with thy servant; for in thy sight shall "no man living be justified."2 It might easily be shewn that this sentiment pervades the Old Testament, as well as the New: and that all the

2 Psalm cxliii. 2.

approved characters, from the fall of Adam to the close of the Old Testament, sought acceptance with God as sinners, from mercy, by faith; and not by their own obedience to the holy law of God: for had they been entitled to it upon the latter ground, they would not have wanted forgiveness.

The apostle did not intend to shew, that Jews alone, who, refusing the proffered mercy of the gospel, continued to be " of the works of the law," were "under the curse;" but that this is, and must be, the case of all men; Jews or gentiles, who, having acted in any thing contrary to their known duty, persist, notwithstanding, in justifying themselves, and claim " the reward of righteous"ness" as a debt, or reward, and not as an unmerited favour. This appears in his subsequent reasoning, which he sums up by saying, "The scripture hath concluded" (or shut up together, συνέκλεισε,) "all under sin; that the promise by "faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them "that believe." 3

The Galatians in general had been gentiles; but, after their conversion to Christianity, other teachers endeavoured to proselyte them to Judaism; and the apostle fortifies their minds against this temptation, by a chain of conclusive reasoning from the Old Testament, which no man can answer. It is also evident that they had become acquainted with the law of Moses, and were not liable to be imposed on through ignorance. Mr. C. professes to give the whole verse, (p. 99. 1. 34.)

1 Gal. iii. 22.

as it is in the Hebrew; but he only gives a part of it; and joins his own comment to it, as if it were a part of the text: Which is to say, that he 'must do and observe all those commandments 'that he can, and which may be done:'-words so vague and ambiguous, that it cannot be known what ideas they convey.

It does not appear to me that the word all, which the apostle is most severely reprehended for inserting, in the smallest degree alters the meaning of the passage; for, were it omitted, what difference of sense would arise from it? If Moses only meant some of the things written in the law; which did he mean to include, and which to exclude? Had the apostle said; He is under the curse who does not continue in these two things, "written in the book of the law to do "them;" namely, "in loving God with all his "heart," and "in loving his neighbour as him"self;" the result would have been precisely the same: but the statement would not have been equally obvious and intelligible to every reader.

P. 99. 1. 31. For any person that knows the ' original Hebrew,' &c.-To this I subjoin: And, if any person understand Greek, and will consult the Septuagint, he will see that what I am about to say is true,' namely, that St. Paul quoted the text as he found it in the Greek translation, made by Jews, before the time of our Lord Jesus Christ. He wrote to those who used this Greek translation; it expressed the original with sufficient exactness for his purpose; and he took it as he found it, not indeed verbatim, as the learned reader will observe in comparing the texts; but

so far as to take the word all, which is here so strongly and severely objected against, from that translation. No doubt he quoted from memory: but the quotation conveys precisely the same meaning as the Septuagint version.

These ancient translators did not mean to deceive the gentiles,' by inserting the word (mão) all: but, if there were any such intention, the blame belongs to them, not to the apostle; unless any should think that he was to blame, as a Christian, for paying so much deference to a translation made by Jews.

If Christians adduce this text against the Jews as "under the curse," in any other sense than as other unbelieving and unpardoned sinners are, they misapply it; for that was not the apostle's object in quoting it. He meant to teach all men, both Jews and gentiles, the difference between "the righteousness of faith,” and “the righteous"ness of works; "the covenant of grace," and 'the covenant of works. If it be applied exclusively to the Jews by professed Christians, with self-preference and severity, or contempt of the Jews, it is a very unchristian conduct.

The word all, in the translation of the original text in Deuteronomy, being in Italics, marks that it is not in the Hebrew: and, in my opinion, it would have been better not to have inserted it. Such insertions are, in some cases, necessary to give the meaning in the English idiom: but where not absolutely necessary, they constitute a paraphrase, or a comment, instead of a translation:

'Deut. xxvii. 26.

and this would be better avoided, even if it were only to prevent cavils and objections. It is, however, certain that the translators were not influenced by a desire to please St. Paul,' (for why should they?) much less to give offence to God:' but, in fact, they paid in this, as in some other instances, too great deference to the Septuagint : and, doubtless, their reverence of the apostle's words, as the language of inspiration, induced them the rather to do it. But, if indeed they acted improperly in this, a reproof, even in far milder language than that given by Mr. C. would have come with an ill grace from one, who has himself taken such unwarrantable liberties, in quoting scripture, as have already been pointed out. If, in the day of judgment,' the venerable translators of the Bible, have nothing worse than this to answer for; their honest and very able endeavours to give their countrymen the word of God, in their vernacular language, will meet with a gracious recompense.-The word might indeed be well spared; but it does not, in the smallest degree, alter the meaning of the text: and, in conceding thus much respecting our version, in a few instances, I feel as if I needed an apology. Ubi plurima nitent, non ego paucis offendar maculis.

P. 100. 1. 28. Let them,' &c.-It would be well for both Jews, Christians, and gentiles, to "give "the more earnest heed" to the texts of scripture here quoted but the reader may not at first perceive for what purpose the words of God to Balaam are added. The subsequent paragraph

will explain it.