when

a moral-aesthetic sense. Of similar meaning is employed in a moral signification, Ec. 3: 11.-Ver. 21. As to the difficulty in the construction of this verse, none of the many attempts which have been made to solve it, have been perfectly successful; an anakoluthon must be supposed. In the interpretation, we must take the leading idea, róuos, as a clue. This cannot possibly have a different meaning in ver. 21, from that which it has ver. 22, 23, as the law of God. On this account the accusative, ròv róμov, must not be connected with εὑρίσκω, as its object, but with τῷ θέλοντι ἐμοὶ Nouv. This construction, which is defended by Knapp, appears, it is true, somewhat harsh, with respect to zò xakóv1 (for which Knapp proposes to read rov zalóv, a useless change), and to the repeated uoí. The most simple mode of constructing the sentence would have been, ɛigíozo ãga, ὅτι ἐμοί, τῷ τὸν νόμον θέλοντι ποιεῖν, τὸ κακὸν παράκειται. But having placed the accusative too early in the sentence, the apostle could not regularly construct the remainder. The thought is not, however, materially affected by the different readings.-Ver. 23. aiyuahwricw, as aizuaλwrevo (2 Tim. 3: 6), belongs to the later Greek and to the Alexandrian dialect. Com. Phrynicus of Lobeck, p. 442.)

V. 24. Thus has Paul reached the peculiar turning-point in the inner spiritual life, the perfectly developed sense of the need of redemption, the point of separation between the law and the gospel. The law has accomplished its work when it has awakened repentance, and despair of attaining true holiness, internal and external, by personal efforts (Rom. 3: 20); and thus has become παιδαγωγὸς εἰς Χριστόν, Gal. 3:24. ΑΠ that appears surprising is, that the man, crying out from the deepest longing after redemption, does not desire this redemption from sin, or from the law of sin; but from the owμa rov θανάτου-σῶμα θνητόν. All explanations of this passage

1 The rò kaóv must be regarded as redundant, unless, with Homberg, we extend the meaning of vópov, or with Hemsterhuis, that of kaλó; for which there are no critical authorities. Comp. Knapp. scr. v. arg. 437.

2 Could a point be shown in the preceding description which might be

which leave out of view the corporeity, must necessarily be false, since they disagree with the plain assertions of the apostle in what has gone before, respecting the odos and the ulesi (com. 6: 12. 7: 18, 23, 25). Paul does not, however, as has been already remarked, conceive of the dog or the sua in a Manichæan mode, as sinful in itself; but in so far as the oua is necessarily connected with the physical life of man, and as a portion of the material world stands exposed to its wild and unruly forces, in so far the apostle says, áμagra oixɛī év τn ouoni. He wishes, therefore, not to be reἁμαρτια οἰκεῖ ἐν τῇ σαρκί. deemed from the body in itself (rather does he long to be clothed upon with that true, heavenly body, 2 Cor. 5); but only from the mortal body; in other words, that body which, by reason of sin, has become the property of corruption; so that he may become alive through the Spirit. (Comp. on Rom. 8: 11.)

It is plainly to be seen, moreover, from this passage, that Paul, as we have already remarked, teaches the depravity of human nature, yet recognizes in man the remains of the divine image, to which the renewing grace of the Spirit attaches itself. Man has not become, through hereditary transgression, a яvɛvμa ánáðagrov, like the evil spirits; but through the disobedient will of the yuz, the corporeal part of man first becomes subjected to the mere life of nature and its rough forces; this reacting upon the avevua, hinders and troubles

considered as the experience of the redemption of Christ in the spirit, and could this whole passage be primarily explained of the regenerate, then ver. 24 might be interpreted to mean, "Would that, since I am redeemed in spirit, my body might also be glorified!" But this would represent redemption as perfectly completed in the spirit, and needing to be perfected only for the body; whereas, according to the Bible, it needs to be constantly renewed, for the spirit as for the whole man.

It is true that the Bible knows nothing of the heathenish notion of the body as the prison of the soul; rather is it its necessary organ, on which account, at the highest point of perfection, the body reappears, only in a glorified form. Without a body, the state of the soul would be an imperfect one. Comp. on the relation of the body to the soul, Seneca (Epis. 65), who expresses himself thereupon in a manner approaching to the Christian view.

it. The пvεvμa, however, retains a certain degree of light and of beneficial influence, whereof, even in heathendom, relatively noble deeds have been the result. But this natural light, together with the natural strength of will, is not sufficient for the annihilation of sin, and the production of that true inward holiness which is demanded by the divine law. Man, therefore, needs a Redeemer, through whom he may recover the whole fulness of the primal spiritual energies, which being recovered, first purify the way, and at length glorify even the oμa. As the lusts of the flesh strive from below against the vý, so the energy of the spirit purifies it from above, and thence it is necessary that sanctification begin with the crucifixion of the flesh (Gal. 5: 24. 1 Cor. 9: 27), because the spirit begins to reign when the flesh is brought into subjection.

If, however, sin were primarily grounded in the лvɛvμa or νοῦς, so that Paul could have said, ἁμαρτία οἰκεῖ ἐν τῷ πνεῦ μari, then there could have been as little hope of atonement for man as there is for the evil spirits; for there would have been nothing in man to which grace could fasten itself. But since, even in the regenerate man, the body of death and the old man survive, he has occasion to cry out, rahainapos yo arqonos, though in a more partial sense than it is used here, where it is employed in the widest sense, to denote a deliverance from an earlier state, and a longing after an entirely new life, whose peculiar features are delineated in what follows.

[The expression ταλαίπωρος, from πλάω to suffer, and πώ gos a rock, a heavy stone, is very suitable to denote the heavy pressure under which man suffers while the slave of sin. It occurs also in Rev. 3: 17.-The choice of goua is also very remarkable. It indicates a powerful, forcible deliverance, such as is not expected from a circumstance or event, but only from an all-powerful Person; hence ziç μe ¿voerai. That in this voɛra is expressed, not only the communication

1 The whole expression betrays, not merely the thought, who will deliver me from this miserable state; but likewise, who can? There is a consciousness that no human help will avail.

of a new principle of life, but likewise pardon, atonement, is shown by (ch.8: 1) the phrase κατάκριμα οὐδέν τοῖς ἐν Χρισ τῷ.-In the words ἐκ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ θανάτου τούτου, the pronoun belongs to Guaros, being placed last, after the Hebrew usus loquendi, when two substantives are connected. So, without doubt, Acts 5: 20. 13: 26. Reiche was misled by his false interpretation of oua (which he explains as merely a personification of sin) to oppose this view. Should ouros be connected with avaros, then death must be understood spiritually, for which there is no warrant in the passage. Besides the active fighting of sin made alive (ver. 9) does not agree with the notion of death. In the expression body of death, death indicates only the highest point of corruption, which has possession of the entire man. Certainly oua rov daráTou cannot mean body, which is the cause of death, but, body which bears the nature of death in itself; oua rytóv (8: 10). The signification "sum," "whole," after the analogy of, is here quite foreign to the purpose.

ARTICLE VI.

THE PRELATICAL PRINCIPLES, ANTI-REPUBLICAN AND UNEVANGELICAL.

By Rev. ANSEL D. EDDY, D. D., Pastor of the First Church of Newark, N. J.

THE subject of Episcopacy has become one of almost engrossing interest, and an importance is now attached to it, which, under ordinary circumstances, it never could have obtained. Religious denominations generally, in this country, have long, by common consent, left each other in the undisturbed enjoyment of their respective and peculiar preferences, as to doctrine and forms. And had the friends and advocates of Episcopacy, been contented to enjoy theirs, within their own communion, without seeking to invalidate the basis of all other churches, and proscribing, as unscriptural and vain, all ministrations

but their own, they no doubt would have been permitted to rest undisturbed.

But advocated, as their principles and policy have been, and obtruded every where as exclusively scriptural and saving, they not only entrench upon the peace and rights of other churches, but they corrupt the truth, and arrest the advance of our common Christianity, and thus make war upon the dearest interests of mankind.

Episcopalians cannot and must not complain, that other denominations are officious in discussing their claims, nor sectarian in opposing them. It is for truth and vital Christianity that we meet and examine their system. "Truth is every man's concernment, every man's right, and every man's most necessary possession." The things of religion belong to the heart, whose ceaseless pulsation is the electric life of the world. They relate to man's mind and his eternal interests, and are the common property of man every where and forever.

And if it is true, that "two systems of doctrine are now, and probably for the last time, in conflict,-the Catholic and Genevan," infinitely momentous questions are at issue, and every man is deeply involved in the results. These results are immediate and perpetual. For it is equally true, that a corresponding spirit is abroad in the world. Two classes of civil institutions are now, if not for the last time, in conflict for the mastery; the free institutions of law and equality, and those of will and arbitrary distinction. And no one can mistake their respective religious affinities, and their influence on the popular mind.

It is in vain we assert, that truth has become established, so far advanced and understood, that little danger is to be apprehended from the efforts of sectarianism and infidelity to corrupt the faith and subvert the religion of the gospel. As much as the principles of Protestant piety and the doctrines of the Reformation commend themselves to the more intelligent classes, and have served to elevate and bless the human family, they are far from having lived through their struggles and being beyond the possibility of corruption. It is still