to be ascribed to the imperfect, failing, or perverted powers, of the organ of mental manifestation?

This result leaves entirely intact all the revelations of Scripture; which are of a totally different order, and which, in mercy and in love to poor perishing sinners, have been vouchsafed to man, for the establishment of his faith, the extension of his hope, and the increase of his knowledge. Although, therefore, I fully agree with H. B., that such things have been under a different situation of the Christian world, and of the church, I cannot accede to his position that such things are, until the preceding facts and arguments are refuted. Possibly, under some future great change, such things may again be; but of this we are not called upon to determine. The charge of enthusiasm, or superstition, is not preferred against H. B., or against any one who differ from me: for, in the first place, I do not believe that it would attach to him; and, according to my own principles, the precise point of light, in which facts, and views, and opinions, are received by the individual, do very greatly depend upon his physical temperament, and upon its peculiar state, as influenced by health or disease. This, of course, does not affect the truth of any particular point: but it does affect the impression of that truth, and the zeal and earnestness with which it is received; or the caution, and doubt, and prejudice, which absorb and enthral the mind.

(To be continued.)

REPLY TO REMARKS ON THE TWO

RESURRECTIONS.

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer.

MAY I beg the insertion of the following observations, in reply to the remarks of a correspondent in your May Number on my paper in "The Morning Watch."

νεκρών

I at once admit, that in distinguishing the two modes of expression adopted by the sacred writers, upon which the argument in that paper is founded, I ought more accurately to have written, “EK νεκρων Οι εκ των νεκρων, from dead, or from the dead; and veкpwv or Twv VEKρwv, of dead, or of the dead." That is, I ought to have written out the four expressions instead of the two. Αναστασις εκ των certainly does not occur, although we have the analogous expression πρωτοτοκος εκ των νεκρων; and as for avaoraσis TWV VEKρwv, it does occur 1 Cor. xv. 42, and also Phil. iii. 11; for it will not be contended, that avaoraow being there in composition with ε has any thing to do with the insertion or omission of the article. This, then, is "the head and front of my offending;" and if it should appear, that in this case the occurrence of the article is not material, or at least essential, to the argument, some of the remarks of your correspondent may, on reflection, seem to him uncalled for.

The whole strength of his objection is founded on the assumption, that whenever the preposition Ex is used in the sense of "separation," or "selection," it invariably requires the article before the noun specifying the object from which the separation or selection is made. Now, admitting that this is most usual in classical Greek, (yet not without exceptions, especially in the later classics,) it is surely unnecessary for me to observe, that many instances occur, in which profane criticism will not admit of a very strict application to the writers of the New Testament. The Divine penmen, always intent upon their subject more than upon the mode of conveying it, do not strictly confine themselves to the rules of the grammarian, and not unfrequently write what scholars would call bad Greek. I trust no unfair advantage will be taken of this observation: it is not intended to prevent the

application of just criticism for the elucidation of the inspired writings, but to shew the necessity of first attending to the use of terms and phrases in the sacred authors themselves, before we proceed to apply those rules which we have deduced from the study of profane writings. In criticism, as well as in interpretation, nothing is more important than comparing Scripture with Scripture. I will therefore content myself with pointing out one or two clear instances in the New Testament, of Ek being used in the sense of "separation without the article; and which, therefore, as it appears to me, deprive your correspondent's objection of all its force.

In Heb. v. 1: we have ras yap άρχιερευς ἑξ ανθρωπων λαμβανομενος, "for every high priest taken from among men." Again, Rev. v. 9; και ηγόρασας τῳ Θεῳ ημας εν τῷ αιματι σου εκ πασης φυλης κ. τ. λ. "Thou hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every tribe," &c. Similar instances we have in Acts xv. 23, Rom. ix. 24, though not observable in our translation.

Your correspondent has rejected the interpretation suggested in my paper; but let the reader judge how satisfactorily he meets the real difficulty. We have two expressions used by the Divine writers, and sometimes in the same passage.

1. αναστασις νεκρων.
2. αναστασις εκ νεκρών.

The first your correspondent considers must be rendered a RAISING of THE DEAD; by which, I presume, he means, a raising of dead bodies. The second he renders a RISING from THE DEAD by which he means the state of death. Thus he arbitrarily changes the meaning of both words: avaσraoic, in the first instance, he will have to mean 66 raising;" in the second, "a rising. Allowing that avaoraσis admits of an active, as well as a transitive rendering, still, in this case, the change from one to the other is

Η αναστ

perfectly gratuitous. But next; he takes the same liberty with the word veкpwv; which, in the first instance, is to be rendered "dead bodies,' and, in the other, "the state of the dead." Yet in explaining the latter phrase, your correspondent himself seems almost to admit the other meaning. His words are: TaσIS EK VEPKOV is intended to convey the idea of rising from the dead, without intimating whether the whole or only a part is to be raised." The whole or part of what? Of the state of the dead? What is the meaning of a resurrection of the state of the dead?

It appears to me to be much more consistent, and not opposed to the idiom of the language of the New Testament, to understand each expression in the same sense in both instances; one phrase asserting "a resurrection of dead ones," and the other "< a resurrection from dead ones." Had the sacred writers intended to express a resurection from the state of death, they would, I conceive, have written, not εκ νεκρων, nor ἐκ νεκρού, but εκ του θανάτου; which expression we do find thus used, in a figurative sense, 1 John iii. 14: μεταβεβηκαμεν εκ του θανατου εις την ζωην, we have passed from death unto life."

The next objection of your correspondent somewhat surprised me, as coming from a writer who shews himself not ignorant of the language about which he is writing. He charges me with having manufactured one word out of two. But, had he recollected that all the Greek manuscripts are written without any division of words at all, he might have spared himself the collation" of seven different editions of the Greek Testament of the highest authority;" for, after all, the division of the words, where any doubt exists, is exclusively the work of the commentator, not of the writer. I am not unaware of the critical difficulties of Rom. i. 4;. but concurring as I do with our

English version, in the translation

OF THE EVANGELISTS.

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer.

in ours, dead."

Your correspondent seems here to think me guilty of some almost incredible misrepresentation; but in truth all that I assert in the passage which he quotes, is, that wherever the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is spoken of, it is expressed by the plural of the word "dead," preceded by ε either alone or in composition. Can your correspondent prove the contrary? With regard to Phil. iii. 11, I will not say that εavaoraσiç does not admit of being rendered "the resurrection-out," by which, I presume, is meant out of the grave; but I think it a far-fetched interpretation. In the first place, avaσraois is often used without any such addition, and by itself implies a resurrection out of the grave, as all will admit. And in the second place, it seems to destroy the whole force of the Apostle's language. Why should he so urgently press forward to attain that which he could not possibly avoid? Had either Paul or Saul the Pharisee ever any doubt about attaining to a resurrection out of the grave? or was there any need of great exertion in order to attain to it?

W. D.*

THE circumstance of the three earlier Evangelists having frequently described the same event, affords great facility for ascertaining their respective peculiarities of style. Thus the comparative purity of St. Luke's composition is most clearly seen, after a perusal of the corresponding passages in St. Matthew and St. Mark.

"He

A characteristic of St. Mark seems to me to be a habit of noticing circumstances calculated to heighten the effect of his descriptions; what in an uninspired author we should call a love of the picturesque. Thus, for example: "Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness," say the other Evangelists; but St. Mark more forcibly, "The Spirit driveth him;" adding, was then in the wilderness with the wild beasts." Again, in chap. i. 32, we read, " at even, when the sun did set." This circumstance of the setting of the sun, is not noticed by Matthew or Luke. In the same manner, when describing the visit of the woman to the sepulchre of our Saviour, he tells us that it happened at sun-rise. These are instances of a peculiarity observable in every chapter of St. Mark's Gospel; and the equally marked peculiarities of other sacred writers greatly strengthen the arguments for the authenticity of their respective compositions. Y. M.

think we had taken a liberty with the Morning-Watch correspondent, which we did not take with our own. It is our constant practice to omit retorts and personal animadversions, which in the zeal of argument are apt to find their way even into Christian controversies; and our correspondents have usually in the end felt well contented that these luxuriances had been pruned. What is thus lost in pungency is at least gained in good temper, fraternal kindness, and calmness of judg

ment.

THE WORSHIP OF THE MASS

IDOLATRY.

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer.

It has been of late maintained, in parliament, in print, and even on the platform of religious societies, and, in some instances, by persons whose names are associated with every effort that is praiseworthy in benevolence, or sacred in the cause of piety and truth; that there is no just ground for charging the Roman Catholics with idolatry, in the administration of the Lord's Supper, because, in the sense in which they understand it, they believe that they are bowing to the Humanity and Divinity of Jesus Christ then present. This assertion has been supported by an appeal to the name and authority of Mr. Faber. Of this writer I would speak in terms of great respect; but, if an appeal must be made to names and authorities, I could, if necessary, adduce the united testimony of the whole body of the Reformers to establish the contrary position.

I would begin with Cranmer : "For as his Humanity joined to his Divinity, and exalted to the right hand of his Father, is to be worshipped of all creatures in heaven, earth, and under the earth; even so, if in the stead thereof we worship the signs and sacraments, we commit as great idolatry as ever was, or shall be to the world's end." (See Fathers of the English Church, vol. iii. p. 494.) Again; "Forasmuch as in such masses is manifest wickedness and idolatry, all such Popish masses are to be clearly taken away out of Christian churches." The very argument above alluded to, by which this idolatrous act is excused and justified, is met as follows, by the same high and venerable authority:-"And although the subtle Papists do colour and cloke the matter never so finely, saying, they worship not the sacraments, which

66

they see with their eyes, but that thing which they believe with their faith to be really and corporally in the sacraments, yet why do they run from place to place, to gaze at the things which they see, if they worship them not, giving thereby occasion to them that be ignorant, to worship that which they see?" (Ibid. p. 495.) "Having always this pretence or excuse for their idolatry, Behold here is Christ." (Ibid. p. 498.)-It is, in fact, evident that no qualification, or mode of reasoning, can make the act otherwise than what it virtually is. To quote language used on a late occasion, superstitious act must be declared to be superstition; and an idolatrous act to be idolatry." It is impossible to be otherwise. The supposition of the Divinity being present, involves in itself a manifest absurdity. For how can we so far degrade the majesty and glory of the Divine nature, as to conceive that it is capable of being identified with the form of a perishing wafer ? And as to the argument that Christ expressly says, "This is my body:" so does he also say, "I am the vine;""I am the door;" but who does not perceive that these are representative terms, descriptive of the character and offices of Christ, as the only appointed source of pardon and acceptance with God? Nor is the idea less opposed to Sacred Scripture. The language of the Apostle Paul is, " For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." These words denote a prospective coming; but if it be prospective, how can it be an actual coming, or real presence of Christ? Again, the nature and import of the institution cannot be more intelligibly conveyed to us than in the form of words used by our blessed Lord; "This do in remembrance of me." This is its real character and intention. It is a memorial of the death of Christ, and of its propitiatory effects. But if it be a memorial, how can it be the object