and futherance of their faith, (1 Pet. i. 6.) and for otherwise glorifying God. But of this they may be assured, that, when they turn to any way contrary to the LORD, he will sooner or later make them know and see that it is an evil thing and bitter they procure unto themselves. He will mercifully but awfully make their own wickedness to correct them, and their backslidings to reprove them." ii. 17-19.

Jer.

XVI.

"So, being affectionately desirous of you, we were willing to have imparted unto you, not the gospel of God only, but also our own souls, [&vxas] because ye were dear unto us."-1 Thess. ii. 8.

We ought certainly to read, "but also our own lives;" as the same word is rightly rendered in Acts xx. 24. and in numerous other passages: though I am far from denying that there are passages of the New Testament, in which the word does import the soul, in contradistinction to the body, and is so rightly translated.

In Matth. xvi. 25, 26. our translators, in the former verse, correctly render it life;-" whosoever will save his life-and whoso ever will lose his life :" but erroneously turn to the other meaning in the verse immediately succeeding. This also ought to run-" For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own life? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his life ?" As a man's life is more to him than the whole world; so believers, looking forward to the coming of the Son of man in his glory (v. 27), have in view that "recompense of reward,” which infinitely outweighs all that they can lose for his name; though they should suffer the loss of life itself.

Reverting to 1 Thess. ii. 8. it is obvious that the common version presents to the English ear an idea, which we cannot suppose to have been in the Apostle's contemplation. Yet some perhaps may think that it is countenanced by another passage, Rom. ix. 3. which in the English version runs thus: "For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh." I believe the commentators have made various attempts to throw off the monstrous idea, which these words suggest, by a modified interpretation of them. But the fact is, that nothing more is needed to clear up the passage, than a corrected punctuation and literal version.

Removing the period at the end of the second verse, let it be read in continuation with the words "for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh;" and let the intermediate clause, literally translated, be marked as a parenthesis. Then the whole will run thus:-"I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart

(for I did myself wish to be accursed from Christ)—for my brethren, my kinsmen, according to the flesh." The Apostle, expressing his affectionate concern for his Jewish brethren who remained in unbelief, reverts naturally to the period, when he was himself of the same mind, when he persecuted the Church of Christ, and abhorred the thought of any connexion with Jesus of Nazareth. It is as if he said, “I mourn (and well I may, for I remember what used to be my own mind) I mourn over my unbelieving countrymen."

For the clearing up of this passage I am indebted to a writer, who in many respects has rendered so much service to the Church of God, that it is no wonder his name is of very bad odour with the devout and honourable" of the world; ROBERT SANDEMAN, M.D. of Scotland. Under the signature of PALEMON he published Letters to Mr. Hervey, on his Theron and Aspasio, and other pieces. I have not his work at hand, but am sure that I have given, substantially, the correction which he proposes in our translation of this passage. To me it seems indisputable.

On the substitution of "I did myself wish," for, "I could wish that myself were;" I am sensible that the Greek would admit the latter version; (nuxon being not inelegantly used for what is expressed in Acts xxvi. 29. by suga,unv av). But it is undeniable that

it equally admits the translation, "I did" or used" to wish; and that this is the more literal. [Let me also suggest to the Greek scholar that, if the other were the meaning intended, we might rather expect a different construction of the following pronoun; εμαυτον, rather than αυτος εγω. I shall only add, that the proposed correction is supported by that ancient and valuable version, the Syriac.]

XVII.

"Unto you therefore which believe, he is precious."—1 Pet. ii. 7.
[ύμιν εν ή τιμη]

We ought certainly to read, " Unto you therefore which believe is the preciousness:" i. e. that preciousness of the corner-stone, spoken of by the Prophet. The Apostle has just quoted the word of the LORD concerning his MESSIAH from Isa. xxviii. 16. Behold I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a precious corner-stone, a sure foundation he that believeth shall not [make haste] be in trepidation." And this brings to his remembrance two other scriptures concerning the same corner-stone, Isa. viii. 14. and Ps. cxviii. 22. and leads him to contrast the opposite results of Christ's coming in those who believe and those who believe not: much as the Apostle Paul contrasts the effects of the Gospel in the two classes, when he says" to the one we are the savour of death unto death; but to

"Unto

the other, the savour of life unto life." 2 Cor. ii. 15, 16. you therefore which believe is the preciousness: but unto them which disbelieve [amov] the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, who stumble at the word, disbelieving; whereunto also they were appointed."

The first part of this quotation is obviously from Ps. cxviii. 22. a passage applied by the Lord to himself. (Matth. xxii. 42.) It is as obvious that the latter part is a quotation from Isa. viii. 14. a passage similarly applied to the Messiah by Paul (Rom. ix. 33.): and similarly quoted by him in combination with the other passage, Isa. xxviii. 16. It would appear therefore that any, who do not pretend to be wiser than the Apostles, or rather wiser than the Spirit of Christ in his Apostles, must acknowledge without hesitation, that in Isa. viii. 13, 14. there is a prediction of the MESSIAH; as "GOD the SAVIOUR," a sanctuary and sure refuge to all that believe; but a stone of stumbling, at which those who disbelieve the word fall and are broken.

"the

In this passage of Isaiah, HE is distinctly characterized as LORD of hosts." Indeed, if the Saviour of his people were any other than JEHOVAH, the word that proclaims salvation to sinners would at the same time sanction idolatry. But is He not expressly marked by the same title in Ps. xxiv.? and this, combined with the description of his work of perfect righteousness as the Son of Man; in consequence of which He became head over all things" to his ransomed Church; rightfully claimed those gates to be opened unto Him, into which nothing unclean could enter; and is set down as "the King of glory" at the right hand of the majesty on high. Compare Ps. cxviii. 19, 20.

66

The reader may have observed, that in both the 7th and 8th verses of 1 Pet. ii. I wish to substitute the expression disbelieving, or unbelieving, for disobedient: and this, because it more distinctly marks the contrast with those that believe, mentioned in the first clause of the passage. And in this sense the same word [amEIOEIY] occurs, and is rendered by our translators, in John iii. 36. Acts xiv. 2. xvii. 5. xix. 9. and elsewhere. Indeed, when the Gospel is said (as in Rom. xvi. 26.) to be now "made known to all nations for the obedience of faith;" the expression simply marks the divine authority with which it is sent throughout the world, demanding the credence of those who hear it, "commanding all men everywhere to repent." Acts xvii. 30. This repentance, or change of mind,—the " repent. ance unto life," which is the gift of God, is repentance to the acknowledging of the truth. (2 Tim. ii. 25.) Those who disbelieve it are disobedient indeed, setting themselves in rebellious opposition to the authority of the most high God.

But on the proposed change in the version of 1 Pet. ii. 7. some perhaps may demand, "what matters it, whether we read the passage unto you which believe he is precious, or unto you which believe is his preciousness? Is not the meaning of each version identical?" I answer, No: not, at least according to the way in which the common version is ordinarily quoted and applied. I have known it ordi

narily quoted as declaring the high estimation, in which believers. hold the Messiah, his preciousness in their view-to their hearts. And often have I known it applied, in this sense, so as to minister rather to the self-conceit of religious professors, than to their profit. There is indeed no doubt that Christ is the "one pearl of great price" in the view of those who know him. But those who know most of his value have reason rather to acknowledge, that their highest thoughts of him fall infinitely below his intrinsic excellence, than to be engaged in contemplating how high they reach. What the Apostle asserts in the passage is, not any thing about the believer's estimation of Christ, but what Christ is intrinsically to his believing people. This his preciousness to them is infinite, unfathomable, past finding out, "the unsearchable riches of CHRIST." Eph. iii. 8. They may therefore understand something of that paradox, "having nothing, and yet possessing all things," and, though commonly poor and an afflicted people," may well glory in Him who rich, yet for their sakes became poor, that they through his poverty might be rich." 2 Cor. viii. 9.

a

was

XVIII.

"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."-1 Pet. iii. 21.

THE translation of this passage is, to say the least, very strange and obscure. It is a very harsh expression, to say that a figure saves and, in the ordinary meaning attached to the term baptism, it is utterly false to say that baptism saves us.

The literal version of the original would be," the antitype baptism to which," that is, the baptism answering to which as an antitype to its type. But the idiom of the English language scarcely admits this literal translation: and I would therefore substitute one a little different in construction, but perfectly equivalent in its import and much more intelligible: viz. " which was a type (or figure) of the baptism that now saves us also.” To call one thing a type of another, and to call the latter an antitype of the former, are expressions obviously identical in their meaning.

In the preceding verse the Apostle has mentioned the preservation of Noah and his family in the ark; wherein" (saith he) "few, that is, eight souls were saved by water:" and then follow the words that we have quoted, "which was a figure of the baptism (or washing) that now saves us also.... by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." But lest any should imagine for a moment that, in thus mentioning

baptism, the Apostle intended that rite of baptism, or dipping in literal water, which marked the commencement of the Christian profession of the first proselytes, he immediately disclaims that meaning, and in language apparently indicating his abhorrence of such a mistake: "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God." The literal baptism, or washing with literal water, could but cleanse the body, or purify to the cleansing of the flesh. He therefore distinctly guards against the supposition, that this was the baptism he intended; and as distinctly marks that he speaks of that which cleanseth our conscience from guilt, "purging it from dead works to serve the living God," (Heb. ix. 14.) giving us peace with God, and leading us to walk with him as dear children. Now we know, that it is the blood of Christ which thus cleanseth the conscience, that blood which has been shed for many for the remission of sin," and the assurance given unto all by his resurrection from the dead of the divine acceptance of his one offering: we know (I say) that this is the baptism, or washing, which gives "the answer of a good conscience toward God." It therefore only remains to inquire, why the Apostle marks this as represented in figure by the waters of the flood, which preserved Noah and his family in the ark, but destroyed the rest of the world. It seems to me to intimate, that, as the flood of waters displayed the divine indignation, and executed the threatened vengeance against the wickedness of an ungodly world, while they yet bore up in safety the eight persons inclosed in the ark; so the death of Christ for sin, while it has effected the eternal redemption and salvation of all that are in Him, "a remnant according to the election of grace," is at the same time the most awful manifestation of the righteous judgment of God, as well as the surest pledge of its execution, against the "world that lieth in the wicked one."

Some perhaps may be surprised, that in the preceding remarks I have used the expressions-baptism and washing-indifferently, as equivalent. But that I have not done so unwarrantably, the mere English reader may satisfy himself by referring to Mark vii. 4, 8. Luke xi. 38. Heb. ix. 10. In all these passages, the words, justly rendered by our translators wash and washings, are the same with the Greek phrases baptize and baptisms: for these are but Greek words adopted into English. In fact, to baptize literally means, in Greek, to wash by dipping, or, in one word, to bathe. And thence it is sometimes applied to other forms of washing, as in Luke xi. 38.

I would incidentally remark, that there is a decided mistranslation in our common version of Acts xxii. 16. Instead of " arise, and be baptized," the Greek indisputably is "arise, and bathe." [CanTIONI, the middle voice; not Canтion, the passive.] I do not introduce the observation with the least idea of applying it to what is called the Baptist controversy. The important questions, connected with that, are to be decided on much broader and stronger grounds.