knowledge and warning, and with every circumstance to increase its heinousness.

And, though by the mercy of God, we may have been preserved from gross vice and profligacy, have we not, alas! reason to confess, with deep humiliation, that our sins, whether of thought, or word, or deed, have partaken of this aggravation; that they have been committed against the checks of conscience, the admonitions of God's word, and the secret strivings of his Holy Spirit in our hearts? We have not, indeed, had any particular offence foretold by an express voice from Heaven; but has not the Bible" told us all that ever we did?" Are not its warnings adapt ed to our case, as clearly as though they had been written for us alone? and are not its declarations respecting the sins and temptations which assail our fallen humanity, a transcript of what is passing in our own hearts, and in the world around us? We cannot plead that we have not had sufficient information; we cannot complain of want of warning. Life and death are set before us: the consequences of our choice are plainly pointed out; we are invited to forsake sin and turn to God; the most merciful promises of pardon and eternal life are made to us, and the Holy Spirit is promised to give effect to our humble resolutions. How then shall we escape, if we despise so many warnings and neglect so great salvation?

IV. The last aggravation of his crime was, the treacherous manner in which it was effected. "Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?" Must the badge of affection, the ordinary salutation of friendly intercourse in the age and country in which these words were spoken, be the signal for treachery and bloodshed? Judas had professed himself a disciple of Christ; he had been admitted, as his friend and follower, to his social and domestic circle; and now, under the garb of respect and affection, he determines to be

tray him into the hands of his bit terest enemies. They indeed sought his life; but they pretended to no attachment. Their crime was great, unspeakably great, in "crucifying the Lord of life and glory;" but Judas added to this the guilt of broken vows and perfidious hypocrisy.

And may we not in some measure continue to apply the parallel? The atheist, the scoffer, the professed unbeliever, the notorious profligate, openly oppose the cause of Christ; they are his avowed enemies; and it is said of all such, "Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel." But there are others who may be said to betray him; namely, those who call themselves his disciples, while they "crucify the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." There are many ways in which persons may do this to a greater or less degree. They may do it by false doctrines, or by an unholy and inconsistent life. Suppose that professing to believe the Divine mission, the spotless character, and the perfect doctrines and precepts of Christ, we should deny his claim to be equal with the Father, as touching the Godhead, though inferior to him as touching his manhood, should we not, while calling ourselves his disciples, rob him of his highest honour, and, as it were, take part with those who thought it blasphemous that he made himself equal with God? Again, if acknowledging his Divinity, we virtually set aside his atonement, by a proud trust in our own merits, are we not undermining the foundations of the religion we profess, and reducing the Divine Saviour to the level of a mere teacher and example, instead of a sacrifice, the only sacrifice, for the sins of the world? Again, if professing to trust alone in his atonement, and perhaps vaunting loudly of the efficacy of faith, we slight either in word or practice the obligations of

his law; are we not betraying him under the pretence of friendship, setting his commands at variance with his promises, and virtually maintaining that his Gospel leads to that most unscriptural conclusion, "Let us sin that grace may abound?"

In short, the neglect of prayer, the allowed indulgence of evil thoughts, a worldly spirit, all false, corrupting, or uncharitable conversation, and every sinful course of life, in those who profess and call themselves Christians, are a tacit abandonment and betraying of Christ. Who indeed can say that he has been duly faithful to him? There is, however, an essential distinction between the treachery of Judas and the fall of Peter. It is to our shame that we have so often proved weak, timid, or inconsistent disciples, as in a memorable instance was the latter; but let us most of all dread lest we become final apostates, like the former; and the most effectual way to guard against this is, to watch and pray against every temptation to evil, and to beware of the first approaches to coldness or infidelity in the cause of our professed Lord.

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer,

A CORRESPONDENT who signs himself a Constant Reader, in your Number for December last (pp. 740,741), thinks that "a complete misapprehension exists generally with regard to the subject of which the Apostle speaks," in 1 Cor. ii. 9; Eye hath not seen, &c.; namely, in its being "commonly applied to the state of the people of God in a future world of happiness," instead of to "the glory of the Gospel revelation upon earth." As far, at least, as commentators and ministers are concerned, I conceive him to be quite mistaken as to the general existence of such a misapprehension. Whitby expressly says, "These words do not immediately respect the blessings of

another world, but are spoken by the prophet" (from whom the Apostle quotes them) "of the Gospel state, and the blessings then to be enjoyed by them that love God:" and the reader who shall consult Scott, Doddridge, &c. with this particular question in his mind, will, I think, perceive that they had the same view of the passage. "St. Paul," says Mr. Scott on Isa. lxiv. 4, "quotes the sense (though not the exact words,) with reference to the blessings of redemption by the death of Christ." The mistake of your correspondent probably arises from his having frequently heard preachers quote or allude to the words, when speaking of the heavenly state. I myself have often done so, though aware, for at least twenty years past, of the circumstance to which our attention is now called. Nor can I see any reason for relinquishing the practice: for, though the "immediate" reference may be, as Whitby justly observes, to "the blessings of the Gospel state," yet is it possible, in contemplating a passage which speaks generally of "the things which God hath prepared for them that love him," to confine our views to the present world? Surely not. No; they are blessings of which we have the earnests, indeed, here upon earth, but which reach forward into eternity, and there only are fully known and enjoyed: they form "a well of water even now "within us," but "springing up into everlasting life.” Even including those with which we are "blessed" on earth, they seem to be called "blessings in heavenly places" (Eph. i. 3); because that is their proper seat and home: thence they issue, thither they lead, and there only are they consummated. Great reason indeed have we to exclaim with holy ardour of gratitude, "Oh! how great is thy goodness, which thou hast laid up for them that fear thee, which thou hast wrought for them that trust in thee, even be fore the sons of men," and in this world; (Psalm xxxi. 19: see Prayerbook version): but I need not ob

serve to your correspondent, that the devout contemplation of these will ever bear our minds away towards the future, rather than fix them upon the present.

There is another passage to which I should be glad to draw the attention of your critical readers. The words occur 2 Cot. v. 14: 'El is ὑπερ παντων απεθανεν αρα Οι πάντες anεlavov: and they are thus rendered in the authorised translation; "If one died for all, then were all dead." That is, previously to his dying for them, and considered without respect to that event, they were all under condemnation to death. This is the view of the passage taken by Whitby, Doddridge, Macknight, and Scott. But there appear to me to be two objections to it: 1. The different rendering of the same word in the two clauses: "If one died... all were dead," namely, previously to his death; and, 2. I feel considerable doubt whether anε0avov can express simply the state of being dead, as contradistinguished to becoming dead, or the act of dying, which it seems requisite, that, according to the received interpretation, it should do in this place. There are indeed several passages in the New Testament in which it is rendered is dead, or was dead; but I question whether they might not all be rendered died, or has or had died; which would not answer the purpose in the present case. I am inclined to think, that simply the being in a state of death requires to be expressed by an adjective, with the verb . Thus Luke xv. 24 and 32, "This my son was dead," vεкρos : Rom. vii. 9, xwpis νομου ἁμαρτια νεκρα : see also viii. 10: Eph. ii. 1 and 5, vuas ovтAS VEKpOVE: Ja. ii. 17, 20, and 26, TLOTIS VEKPа EσTI: Rev. iii. 1, тo ovoμa èxɛus ότι ζης, και νεκρος ει.

Keeping then to the same rendering of the verb in each clause-"If one died for all, then all died,"-I would suggest the following interpretation. That the death of Christ was taken and considered as the death of those on behalf of whom it

was undergone: the death of the Surety was virtually, that is, as to its effects, the death of those who were represented by him: by his sufferings for them, justice was satisfied and they were freed. In short, it will express the acceptance of that atonement, the offering of which the adjoining clauses describe. That this is agreeable to "the analogy of faith," and the tenor of Scripture, will, I apprehend, not be denied: that it is a novel interpretation, I till very lately suspected; and I feel a repugnance to obtruding novel interpretations of Scripture; but on turning to Poole's Synopsis, I find it supported by one, if not two, of the authorities adduced by him: "Omnes mortui fuerunt [died], subintellige una cum ipso," says Zegerius-a name unknown to me;-and Piscator, more fully, "Perinde ac si illi omnes essent mortui [had died], et moriendo pro suis peccatis satisfecissent." (See also Christian Observer for 1821, p. 409.)

In proposing this view of the passage for consideration, I have no system to support: if I have prejudices, they are rather in favour of the common interpretation: I only wish the true sense to be ascertained.

J. S.-H.

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer. THE defective preparation for the peculiar duties of the ministry in the Established Church, is an evil extensively felt and frequently complained of. The subject has latterly engaged a certain degree of the public attention; and while some individuals have proposed, others have put into practice, plans for the better conduct of clerical education. Great good, it is to be hoped, will result from attempts of this nature; both as it respects the advantages immediately to be derived from them, and as they may lead to the establishment of more enlarged and publicly authorised institutions.

There is, however, a class of persons to whom such schemes and

institutions, whatever excellence they may possess, can now be of no service. I allude to those who have already obtained admission into Holy Orders, and have entered upon the discharge of clerical functions. Many such persons painfully experience the defectivenes of their preparatory education. The whole circle of ministerial duties is new and strange to them: and many are placed in situations where there is no affectionate counsellor to advise, or helping hand to assist them; and they feel, in consequence, their comfort disturbed and their useful ness circumscribed by their want of knowledge and experience. Of the responsibility of their office they are deeply sensible; they are inspired with an earnest zeal conscientiously to discharge its duties; and they are not unacquainted with the general means to be adopted for that end. But this is not sufficient either for the comfortable or the profitable performance of their duty. They want something more specific; something which they may lay hold of, and immediately act upon. They would be glad to be advised respecting the best means for the attainment of sound theological knowledge; and of the best methods of executing some of their essential occupations. They are desirous of being informed in detail of the most profitable me

thod of studying the sacred Scriptures; distinguishing between that reading which is practical and common to every Christian, and that which is necessary to give a minister a sound and extended acquaintance with the word of God. They wish also to know whether any other and what kind of theological reading would be eligible. They would be glad of particular information relative to the composition of sermons, and of the best means of conducting their pastoral communications with their people, as well as what portion of the week, and what times of the day, would be recommended for these several occupations.

It has struck the writer of this communication, that much benefit might be conferred on the class of persons in question, as well as upon the church at large, if some faithful and experienced minister would, through the medium of your pages, convey the information required on these several topics. He might favour the inquiring party with the actual details of his own practice; and while considerable advantage could not fail of being derived from such minute information, the most scrupulous modesty would be screened under the veil of an anonymous communication.

OLBIUS.

CHARACTER, OPINIONS, AND WRIT

INGS OF LORD BYRON.

(Continued from p. 158.) LORD Byron was accustomed to say of himself, that his "character required a long plumb line;" and perhaps this ought to deter an ordinary writer from the attempt to fathom it. But the soundings vary in characters, as well as in channels; some parts, in both, lie nearer the surface than others; and I may still touch the ground sufficiently for

useful purposes, though I should miss of finding the greatest depth.

Much has been said of the misanthrophy of the noble bard; but, in the full sense of that term, it may well be questioned whether such a charge has ever been strictly applicable to any considerable number of human beings. Many individuals doubtless have existed, in every age, whose opinions and lives have operated little less unfavourably for the well-being of society, than if they

had been really deliberate enemies of their species. But a conscious and intentional hater of his fellow-creatures is, assuredly, a monster of iniquity seldom seen. Deeply as mankind have fallen, (and with respect to God their fall has been low indeed,) they are not accustomed to exhibit traces of malice so diabolical as this. Conscious enmity is often directed against individuals; but not, I apprehend, often levelled at society in general.

There is, accordingly, no ground for believing that Lord Byron was a moral chimera of this description. His actual burden of guilt will be found sufficiently heavy, without any needless or imaginary aggravation.

His general love of liberty, and especially his zeal in the cause of the oppressed Greeks, would alone prove that, so far as the interests of the present life are concerned, he was no systematic hater of mankind. Nor did he manifest any general abhorrence of society. With his few intimate acquaintance, unworthy as some of them might be, he was kind, easy, and familiar. He deeply regretted the early loss of some of them, and the unexpected coolness of others. When about to take his seat in the senate, we find him bitterly lamenting the solitude of his condition. The repulsive coldness with which, as Mr. Dallas informs us, he received the hearty welcome of the chancellor, on his first appearance in the House of Lords, is to be attributed, not to misanthropy, but to wounded feelings and disappointed pride. When he was prompted, partly from the influence of these motives, to abandon his native land, he did not lead the life of an ascetic or an anchorite. His passions, on the contrary, plunged him into company of a certain class; the company of the dissipated and licentious; from which, by his own confession, he derived at the time no substantial enjoyment, and which left behind it, as does all vicious pleasure, a drawback of weariness, vexation,

and woe. As Mr. Dallas remarks, he had chiefly frequented that kind of society which was calculated to inspire him with contempt for human nature. "Disgust of life," observes the same writer, "leading to scepticism and impiety, prevailed in his heart, and embittered his existence." Perhaps, however, it would be more correct to consider his disgust of life not so much the cause of his scepticism as the effect of it, united to immorality of conduct; and both these concurred to render him a misanthropist, in the common acceptation of the term. Ill at ease with himself, with his own reason and his own conscience, he vented his uncomfortable and irritated feelings in frequent expressions of disgust at the general spectacle of life, and complained of it as a scene of littleness, vanity, corruption, and sorrow. He was too penetrating not to see the deep depravity of human nature, while his sceptical principles, by keeping out of his view the great remedy for our lost estate, only added darker shades to the picture which observation and experience had sketched out. He confessed, in a letter to Mr. Dallas, that he "considered human nature as every where corrupt and despicable." Yet, in another place, he attempts to apologize, in some degree, for his sentiments, by assuring us that "his was not a sneering, but a desponding scepticism."

The fact seems to have been that the expression of his infidel opinions varied with the state of his animal' spirits, and assumed the form of levity or sadness, as this ever-shifting barometer happened to be high or low. Another of his moral reflections may here be noticed. He expressed himself" convinced' that mankind did more harm to themselves than satan could do to them, and acknowledged that God arranged the best for us all." The former member of this sentence, though probably the writer did not seriously believe in the existence of the evil spirit, contains a most im