from a seeming incompleteness in the first clause. Let the reader proceed as far as the word God. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God And then watch the progress of the sentence, and advance no further, till he finds he can do so intelligibly and satisfactorily. If the sentence is properly constructed, it will contain an answer to the question, what has God done? For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son, in the like-Now the next action expressed, is ness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk, not after the flesh, but after the spirit. "condemning sin in the flesh;" but there are two reasons why this cannot be considered as answering the question proposed. The one is, that the condemning of sin in the flesh is by no means a thing which the law could not do, it is, on the contrary, the very province of the law, and an exercise for which it possesses a wonderful energy. It is this which has I think no person can read this passage attentively, without being sensible of embarrassment, though he may be far from perceiving its cause. And the learned seem to have been more perplexed by it than the vulgar; since they are by driven so many commentators to no means agreed as to the subject interpret this phrase of a gracious to which it refers, whether justifi- mortification of sin in the heart; cation or sanctification; and some which certainly the law cannot of them have found great difficul- effect: but the interpretation is ties in the very structure and translation of the sentence. A striking instance of the latter is exhibited by the violent transpositions, and intricate involution, which the text has suffered, in the hands of so acute and celebrated a critic as Dr. Macknight, whose translation is as follows: For God, sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, and of a sin offering, hath condemned sin in the flesh (the thing impossible to the law, because it was weak through the flesh), that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled by us, who walk, not according to the flesh, but according to the spirit. Upon examination, we find the chief cause of the obscurity to arise obviously forced and unnatural, and, as it has been resorted to merely under a sense of the obscurity of the passage, if this can be removed in a more satisfactory method, it may be dropped with out further notice. A second reason for not carrying on the action of the former part of the verse to the latter, is, that the grammatical construction forbids it. To the question, What has God done? an answer is already applied to the preceding words; namely, "what the law could not do." But we do not want two answers to the same question. And besides, if we take the subsequent phrase, condemning sin in the flesh," as answering it also, we shall make the action of the same noun extend both backwards and forwards, in array quite irreconcileable with simplicity and correctness of style, as well as lucidness and force of expression. Now let any one, acquainted with the general method of parallelism, attempt the arrangement of these verses. They will readily form themselves as follows: For what the law could not do, God hath done. Sending his own Son, In the likeness of sinful flesh, He hath condemned sin in the flesh : That the righteousness of the law may be fulfilled in us, For the justification of a sinner. For Who walk, not after the flesh, but afternal, but the spiritual import of the Jewish ritual.) the spirit. I submit this to your readers, as Here it will be observed, that one instance in which the theory the first clause is completed, by of parallelism affords valuable aid, the addition of the words hath in clearing the structure of Scripdone. The arrangement of the ture from obscurity, and in deterpassage obviously suggests this, mining a doubtful interpretation. and fully justifies it. It is nothing I am well aware that there is no more than one of the systematic novelty, either in the interpretation methods of parallelism to omit of the passage, or in the manner words, and even clauses, when the of completing the first clause, as structure of the sentence suggests, any person may see, by consulting and will lead the reader to supply Poole's Synopsis. But the value them; as might be shown by many of parallelism, in this case, lies instances, both in the Old Testa- here, that, without consulting ment and the New. And the critics, and without any critical manifest completeness which the knowledge, it suggests them of itwhole passage thus attains, the self, and contains the proof of its accuracy of the grammatical con- own accuracy. To those who do struction, the lucidness of the sen- consult the commentators, it pretiment, the forcibleness of the ex-sents the additional advantage, of pression, and the perfection of the enabling them to exercise a sound parallelism, afford unquestionable discrimination, and to arrive at a pledges of the correctness of the satisfactory decision, in the midst arrangement. of jarring interpretation. The interpretation of this text now becomes easy. God hath done what the law could not do; that is, he hath made provision for I only add, that a little regard to the precise phraseology and arrangement of the original, will give yet higher beauty to the struc F that Christ died for all men equally. But as there are persons who hold that, though not equally, he did really die for all men, I should be obliged by some notice of this sentiment. I submit the following queries. Are there not two principal ends which the death of Christ is represented as designed to answer? The one, "to bring many sons unto glory;" Heb. ii. 10. The other, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John in. 16. an Is not the latter of these objects sense excellent and glorious one? Does it not relate to the whole of mankind? May it not be realised without the actual salvation of an individual? Does it not require the admission that, in a adapted to this end, Christ died for all men? And does it not lead to a satisfactory interpretation of the texts which assert that he did so? Jan. 1827. MICROTEROS. E-H. POETRY. ON A TEAR. THOU trembling drop on Mary's cheek, Words are not thine, but thou can'st speak, Say, where's thy fountain Whence thy stream? To mourning or to gladness given, And thou art seen where virtue grieves, The wrongs that men from men have borne ; Or where the melting bosom heaves The sigh for misery forlorn. The sinner seeks thy friendly aid, Weeps at the Cross-where help is laid, Thou watchest round the bed of death, W. F. REVIEW. fatory announcement; and as there can be little doubt but his work will receive a formal reply, we sincerely hope, who respect, the rare example of the author will secure practical commendation. A Treatise on the Divine Sovereignty. | satisfaction at finding his pamphlet so By Robert Wilson, A. M. pp. 197. perfectly in accordance with this preHatchard. Price 6s. CONTROVERSY is chiefly to be deprecated on account of the spirit in which it is ordinarily conducted, and the un-ever may be the respondent, that in this kindly feeling which is too frequently cherished by the opposing parties towards each other; insomuch that inWe are not aware, indeed, that in the difference, suspicion, and even misre- hypothesis of Mr. W. which, generally, presentation, commonly characterise is that advocated by our friends of the their intercourse. Though the common Arminian persuasion, or in his attempts ground which, with good fellowship, to illustrate and confirm it, there is any they may mutually occupy, is incom- thing which has not been repeatedly parably more commodious and valu- affirmed, and as frequently, and, in our able, yet too generally they prefer judgment, satisfactorily answered. It standing detached on that which is remains as yet one of the mysteries of limited and debateable; and were such the present imperfect state, that perthe exclusive and invariable result of sons of equal parts, piety and opporstating and defending your own senti- tunity, should arise from the contemments and contesting those of others, plation of the same object with sentiit would seem to require the influence ments so entirely at variance, that every of the worst passions of our corrupted effort to reconcile and unite their disnature to advocate the practice. But cordant opinions has proved ineffectual; discussion calmly and temperately pur- and after all that has been alledged in sued, has often contributed to elicit extenuation of the evils of jarring creeds, truth and establish its conviction; to the fact of diversity, under the circumdetect the weak points of conflicting stances supposed, continues unaccountstatements, and to exhibit and har-able, or at least, has not been adequately monize the principles equally adopted explained. From the anxieties of such on either side. a state of things we would seek our principal repose in the anticipation of that period of unmingled light to which the hope of every real Christian is directed. "Of controversy," the author before us says, "he entertains an opinion similar to that of a celebrated divine of the present day, who says, 'Controversy is, indeed, unfavourable to piety, and The work before us professes to to every Christian feeling: it is too com- examine the several Scriptures adduced monly the food of malevolence, ran- by Mr. Brown, in his Dictionary of cour, and obstinacy; but the examina- the Bible, under the articles Election, tion and comparison of the different Reprobation, and Perseverance — by the parts of Scripture, and the attention to late Mr. Scott, in his sermon 'on the revealed counsels of God, which" Election and final perseverance,” religious inquiry induces, are favour- and quoted by Mr. Fletcher in his able to the growth of vital religion."" discourse on "Personal election and Disapproving, as we most decidedly and conscientiously do, of those conclusions to which Mr. Wilson's treatise is framed to conduct us, we nevertheless cannot select terms too unqualified to express our divine sovereignty ”—in support of ́his views of the divine sovereignty as it regards the salvation of mankind. Be. sides the examination of these passages, there is a chapter in the commencement 1 of the volume, "On the divine sovereignty as manifested in the plan of human redemption, according to the testimony of Scripture ;" and one in the conclusion, "On the economy of the divine influence as it regards the recovery of mankind to the image of God." sist in the imparting of the knowledge of · This respectable author does not ap"John xvii. 6, 12, 15, 20, 24. We have pear to have intentionally omitted the in the passages here referred to, abundant consideration of any of those scriptures proof of the strength and durability of which are usually referred to in sup- Christ's love towards his disciples, and porting the affirmative of the above those that should believe in him through their word; but we have no proof that the points of Christian doctrine; but in at-love of Christ effectually secures abiding in attempting to sustain their negative, though some of his interpretations may be considered ingenious, we feel ourselves compelled to state it to be our deliberate conviction that he has, unwittingly as we believe, in an affecting degree trenched on the majesty of divine truth and the principal sources of Christian reliance and exertion. We are conscious that this is a grave imputation, but it appears to us to be most fully maintained by the following extracts. "Matth. xxv. 34, Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. We learn from the context, that the persons to whom the foregoing invitation will be given are the righteous. We also learn from the passage itself, that the kingdom was prepared from the foundation of the world, not for particular persons of mankind as sinners, but for such as were righteous. The subsequent context farther confirms this distinction-For I was an hungred and ye gave me meat, &c." p. 86. his love, and keeping his commandments." 'Eph. i. 13, 14. After that ye believed ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inherit ance.' The import of this passage seems to be, that the Ephesians, after they be"John x. 28, 29, And I give unto lieved, received the gift of the Holy Ghost, them eternal life, and they shall never which had been promised by the prophets perish, neither shall any pluck them out of of old, and by Jesus Christ before his demy hand. My Father, which give them parture out of this world; also that they me, is greater than all, and none is able to became, by the indwelling of the Spirit, the pluck them out of my Father's hand.'-The sealed property of God, having been preperiod, when those who are, in the context viously purchased by the blood of his Son; of this passage, denominated Chrint's sheep, and that the same indwelling of the Spirit were given to him, was not before the foun- acted as an earnest, on the part of God, for dation of the world, but when they were the faithful performance of the promise which attached to him as his personal followers.had been made in reference to an eternal inAll that the Father giveth me shall come to me,' John vi. 37. This giving seems to be synonymous with the divine drawing, thus No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him,' ver. 44. Again, this giving and drawing seem to con heritance. This view of the subject, however, leaves it still undecided, whether or not the power of God is engaged to preserve the believer faithful unto death." p. 134. In short, the entire scheme of inter |