our countryman, Charles Thomson-" for I, even I myself wished." (2.) It happens that this verb, in the very mood and tense, in which it is found in the text we are considering, is read in one other place in the New Testament, Acts xxvii. 29-quxoro que gav Yeveola-rightly rendered by our translators, they wished for the day. But why should uxovro be rendered they wished in this text, and quzouny, I could wish, in Rom. ix. 3? It is believed that no satisfactory reason can be assigned for this variation: and this belief is strengthened, by considering how the sense of the former passage would have been sunk and almost destroyed, if it had been translated like the latter-It would surely have been a very flat expression, to have said of a ship's crew in a dark and tempestuous night, and every moment in danger of destruction, that "they could have wished for the day." Yet this would have been the very same kind of translation as that of the text we consider. (3.) In another respect, as well as in the rendering of the word nvxouny, the common translation seems not to correspond with the grammatical structure of the original and it certainly departs from the government which the verb vxoμa is seen to have in the exactly similar sentence which has just been quoted. In that sentence this Greek verb, signifying to wish, governs the noun which is the subject of the wish, in the accusative case-ηνχοντο ἡμέραν γενεσθαι—they wished for the day. But in the passage we consider ---ηυχομην γας εγω αυτος αναθεμα ειναι απο του Χριστου--the words sy avros, which our translators render myself, and make the subject of the wish, are not in the accusative case, but in the nominative. With what propriety is the apostle here represented as making himself y avros-the subject of his wish? According to the translators' own rendering in the other passage, they should have represented avaosμa-a substantive in the accusative case-as the subject of this wish i. e. they should have represented the apostle as wishing an anathema, or a curse, from Christ; and not as wishing himself accursed from Christ. It oc

eurs, indeed, that the translators may have viewed the strict rendering of this passage to be this-"For I myself wished to be an anathema from Christ”— and that they considered the translation they have given as an equivalent. If this were so, it may justly be remarked that they have in this instance translated much more freely than they usually do, and differently, as we have seen, from what they did in a similar instance; and so, moreover, as not really to give the sense of the passage, nor in the manner which best agrees with the structure of the original language. On the whole, let the words yw avros be considered as the nominative to ŋuzoμn“, and let this word have its proper government of avab sua, in the accusative, followed by the infinitive mood evac, and this followed by απο του Χριστον, and let these words, preceded by the conjuction yag, be strictly rendered; we shall then have a translation corresponding exactly with that of Acts xxvii. 29, and the only one, it is believed, which can be considered as correct. It will stand thus "For I myself did wish an anathema (or a curse) from Christ." In regard to the rest of the verse there is no dispute.

It may now be asked, what is the meaning of the whole verse? I answer, that it is at least evident that the meaning is not that which is communicated by the common translation:-it is evident that the apostle is not here speaking of the state of his mind when he wrote the epistle, but of what it had been long before, in his unconverted state. While he was in that deplorable state, and "exceedingly mad" against the Redeemer and his disciples, he had "wished for an anathema," or a curse, "from Christ, for," or concerning, "his brethren, his kindred according to the flesh." To what specific act, or acts, he might here have reference, he does not inform us. He elsewhere tells us, however, that he had been a blasphemer, as well as a persecutor and injurious. We also know that he was brought up and had his residence at Jerusalem, and that he was there at the martyrdom of Stephen, and "kept the raiment" of

those who slew him. This event took place a short time, probably within a year, after the crucifixion of our Lord. Is any thing more probable than that the apostle, then a young and ardent Pharisee, and devoted to all the measures and views of the Jewish priesthood, was one of those who invoked upon themselves the awful curse- his blood be upon us and upon our children?" Or if he did not join in the cry, at the very time, that hearing of it, as he certainly would, he had openly and often expressed his approbation of it, and thus made himself a party to it? And is it not probable that, together with his general character as a blasphemer, he might have this dreadful act particularly in view? If so, it not only gives great force to the text, but great strength and point to the whole context. Well might he, in recollection of all this, have "great heaviness and constant sorrow in his heart;" because "on his brethren, his kindred according to the flesh," he had invoked the awful anathema which he now saw abiding on them. He had, by the immeasurable grace of God and the miraculous interposition of the Saviour, been delivered from the curse himself. But he saw that the most of them were still under it, and likely so to remain: and, in contemplating their guilty and impenitent state, he could call God to witness, that he felt "great heaviness and constant sorrow of heart." Nor was this alleviated, but greatly aggravated, when he recollected that the people, now reduced to this awful situation, were once the peculiar people of God-"Israelites to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all God blessed for ever. Amen."

The author is not willing to close this extended note, in which he has attempted to correct what he conscientiously believes to be an error in the common English version of the New Testament, without remarking, that he is not among those who believe that version to be very faulty, and of course to need very

frequent corrections. On the contrary, he considers it as one of the very best translations that ever was, or ever can be made; and he has never seen any other English version, even of a single book of this part of the sacred volume, which, taken as a whole, he thought equal to the vulgar version. Yet to suppose that this version, the work of fallible men, is absolutely perfect, is an extreme on the other side. Nothing but the original is perfect. If it can be shown that, in a few instances, the eminently learned, and upright, and pious men, who formed the vulgar version, have, through that imperfection which cleaves to every thing human, not given the best rendering of a particular phrase or passage, let this be candidly shown; and if it be satisfactorily shown, a service is certainly rendered to the cause of truth. Whether this has been done, in the present instance, let competent judges decide.

5*

LECTURE III.

WHAT RULE HATH GOD GIVEN TO DIRECT US HOW WE MAY GLORIFY AND ENJOY HIM?

THE second answer, or proposition, of our catechism is thus expressed

"The word of God, contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us, how we may glorify and enjoy him."

Divine revelation, as made known to us by language, is here called the word of God; and is said to be contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. The book which is formed by the record of this revelation is also, you know, commonly called the Bible. It may be of some use to consider, very briefly, the meaning, and the propriety, of these several terms and appellations.

The word Bible-derived from the Greek word Bibros, (Biblos)—means the book, by way of eminence. There is great propriety in this appellation. We Icould do better without all the other books in the world, than without the Bible. It is from this alone that we are fully taught the nature of God, our duty to Him, the way of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ-the way to escape a state of endless future misery, and to secure a state of endless future happiness. What is all other knowledge compared with this? But besides this, the Bible communicates knowledge of a highly important kind. It gives us the only rational account of the creation of the world which we inhabit; of the original formation and state of man; of the introduction of moral evil into the world; of the general deluge; and of the early history of mankind. As competent a judge as ever lived-SIR WILLIAM JONES-wrote on a blank leaf of his Bible, the following character of this sacred book-"I have carefully and regularly perused these