THE following circumstances occurred not many years ago, in the Aberdeen Circuit. I received the information from persons of unquestionable veracity, who were near neighbours of the individuals alluded to. As they teach an important lesson to the despisers of God's servants, and of sacred things, I have often thought them worthy of being recorded. JOHN M'OWAN.

While MR.- was stationed in the Aberdeen Circuit, he was remarkable for the affectionate earnestness and simplicity which has always distinguished his addresses to the hearts of his hearers. He preached frequently in the Parish of Belhelvic. Some careless persons there, having met together, began to misrepresent, and turn to ridicule, parts of the sermons they had heard him preach, which excited considerable mirth. One young man expressed his regret that he had not been to hear: "but," said he, "I shall surely go, the next time he preaches, and bring home as much fun as any of you." The time arrived. Several of the family were gone off before him. He was just about to follow, when suddenly he was taken very ill. He threw himself down upon a settle, and was in an agony. Those members of the family who had gone to the sermon were immediately sent

for. His disorder rapidly increased; and after enduring for a few hours the most excruciating pain, he went to appear before God!

Another person in the parish of Daviot, (in the same Circuit,) had for some time granted to the Preachers the use of his barn to preach in on Sundays. But after having heard

MR. a few times, he was led to use some very unbecoming language, and swore that he would never hear him again. On the Saturday preceding the Preacher's return, he came home from his work in the fields, in his usual health; and while standing in his own kitchen, he fell down and instantly expired!

A third instance, not less remarkable, happened during the same year, and in the last-mentioned parish. The Preacher above alluded to bad been pressing the duty of prayer upon his hearers in his usual forcible manner. One of them on retiring, in a very contemptuous manner, said, "He will have them all praying by the dyke-side very soon! But if in dying I can say, GoD be merciful to me, I am persuaded it will be enough." In a very few weeks this person was also taken suddenly ill, and from the beginning of his illness his speech was entirely taken from him, nor did he recover it till his spirit returned to GOD who gave it!

HAVING had occasion lately to consult the Commentators on the New Testament, concerning the meaning of the Greek word which, in our translation of Ephes. ii. 3, is rendered, “by nature," I found, as I have often done before, that the multitude of counsellors tended exceedingly to perplex, though ultimately it might conduce to safety. I was surprised to learn that several of those, whose opinions are generally thought to have an influence with Ministers of the Gospel, in forming their views of the meaning of God's

Word, have entirely given up the proof, usually drawn from this Scripture, of the doctrine of man's natural depravity. I could, in some measure, account for this in the case of those learned men, who are understood to have disbelieved the doctrine itself which it is generally brought to prove. There are, indeed, few Commentators who have not come to the study of the Scriptures with preconceived opinions, which render some caution necessary in the examination of their critical 'decisions. But the difficulty lies in accounting for the fact, that some who are without doubt orthodox,

have declared that the word puơn, in Eph. ii. 3, cannot have the meaning generally assigned to it. This decision appears to me very extraordinary. Is there any thing in the context that militates against the generally-received opinion? This will not, I think, be pleaded, since the Apostle, when, in the words immediately preceding, he mentions "the desires of the flesh and of the mind," must be understood as speaking of that natural depravity which we have generally supposed the word φύσει to indicate. Is there any thing in the New Testament that militates against the common translation? Nothing. For in the two or three other places where the word occurs, it means either, “by nature,” in the sense in which ARISTOTLE used the word, when he said rp puru GOTEGOV,— first in nature, or in the order of nature;"-or else it means, "by natural birth," of fures Loudates, (Gal. ii. 15;) which meaning of the word, if applied to Eph. ii. 3, would equally prove that all are born in sin. Ις there again any thing adverse to the received meaning in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, which is supposed, in some cases, to influence the phraseology of the New Testament writers? The word pure does not occur at all in the Septuagint.

The only ground then on which the translation "by nature" can be rejected is, the assertion that the classical Greek writers do not use the word in that sense. This assertion has virtually been made. No proof, indeed, at all proportioned to the importance of the subject, has been attempted; at which we ought not, perhaps, so much to wonder, as it would be an attempt to prove a negative, which is always a difficult undertaking. But surely the assertion, that the word is not thus used by the best Greek writers,

See Gal. iv. 8. There is one passage of the New Testament, (Rom. ii. 14,) in which the word is found, where its meaning has been thought doubtful by Commentators. Perhaps the best interpretation is that which most naturally presents itself,-Qui, sana ratione et ipsa natura duce, officia lege præscripta præstant. SCALEUSMER." Who, with sound reason and nature itself for their guides, perform the duties prescribed by the Jaw."

should not have been made without a certainty of its correctness. How far it is from the truth your readers will judge for themselves, when they have considered the following quotations. I have met with the word three times in DEMOSTHENES's Oration De Corona, used, as far as I can judge, exactly in the sense in which our Translators understood it. The quotations are taken from the last London edition; and the English renderings are by PORTAL. P. 25: QUTEL madiv ανθρώποις υπάρχει των μεν λοιδορίων και των κατηγοριών ακούειν ηδέως : “ All men are by nature prone to listen with pleasure to invectives and accusations." Page 100: An de me, ws 201XE, NXITER OV Φιλολοίδοξον * οντα φύσει : "I am necessitated, it seems, though by nature averse to all invectives." Again, page 184: Δυο ταυτα τον φυσει μέτριον πολίτην έχειν δει : "Two principles should be implanted by nature in a virtuous citizen." To these I add another quotation from ARIstotle, given by STEPHENS in his Thesaurus;‡ Οι φύσει ασθενεστατοι τω σωματι, σε Who are naturally, or by birth, very infirm in body."

Against this evidence on the one side, what is there on the other to show that the word or has not this meaning in Classical Greek? All that I have met with hitherto in the shape of proof, is a quotation by DR. MACKNIGHT, which shows either his want of critical judgment, or his unfairness. He gives the following words professedly from DEMETRIUS PHALEREUS : Φύσει εβραχυλογουν Λακωνες, "The Lacedaemonians have naturally a concise mode of speaking." He infers that the meaning of the word us here must be, 'by habit." allowing (though it does not plainly appear) that the writer used the word in this sense, yet the authority has

66

But

+ Though we have nothing to do, at present, with the moral doctrine contained in these words, yet we may observe that DEMOSTHENES does not contradict here any thing which he had said before. All men, he teaches, naturally delight to hear slander, but all men do not naturally delight to utter it.

The decision of that consummate Greek scholar on this question, may be seen sub voce φυσις. He says that κατα φύσιν signifies, "according to the law of nature,"-the sense in which ST. PAUL uses it; (Rom. xi. 24;)-and he adds, that sometimes the Greek writera, instead of xxra Qui, put the dative, fuas.

no weight at all. For the Doctor either knew, or ought to have known, that none of the genuine works of DEMETRIUS have come down to us; and if the words are quoted from the treatise on Rhetoric, falsely ascribed to him, they are probably the language of DIONYSIUS of Halicarnassus, a writer who lived at Rome about the beginning of the Christian era, and whose Greek style has been pronounced by able critics very defective in purity.

With such evidence as that which has already been adduced, in proof that our Translators rightly understood the meaning of the word, (and this evidence may, if necessary, be augmented,) it would be folly to number this among the passages which are to be conceded to the enemies of Evangelical Truth, even though the plea should be used that the doctrine is taught in other parts of the Scripture. "By this one verse," to use the language of an ancient Commentator, "as by a thunderbolt, every man, how great soever he be, is levelled with the ground,"‚”—“Hoc uno loco, quasi fulmine, totus homo, quantusquantus est, prosternitur;"—and the retaining

REMARKS ON

For the Wesleyan-Methodist Magastre. WHEN ST. PETER, as the Apostle of the Circumcision, addresses the believing Hebrews in his Epistle, he, with great propriety, sets before the Jewish women the wife of ABRAHAM as their example. From this exhortation I am led to believe, that there are circumstances in the life of SARAH which have not, in general, been duly appreciated, and which I therefore venture to introduce to observation.

When ABRAHAM left his native country, his persuasions and example seem to have induced his father TERAH and his nephew Lor to accompany him; but we may account it rather a proof of SARAH's attachment and submission to her husband, than of her faith, if she readily complied with the removal. But after the deliverance of LOT, and of the spoils of Sodom, from the confederate Kings, ABRAHAM's situation

of its commonly-received meaning must appear important to every student of the Scriptures, as it expresses, in direct terms, what other passages express, plainly indeed, but in terms less direct. It stands in the same relation to the doctrine of Original Sin, as the text (1 John v. 8) concerning the Three Heavenly Witnesses does to the doctrine of the Trinity. Even the latter passage, with such advocates as the Dignitary of the Church of England who has lately stood up in its defence, may yet rise above the severe sentence of reprobation which the Critics have passed upon it. But however this be, the word gun, in Eph. ii. 3, labours under no such difficulties. These few observations are written as a testimony, however feeble, against the attempt to impose on this word the meaning of, by habit," and to exhort those of your readers who may be engaged in the study of the New Testament in the original, to give credit to the fifty-four venerable persons, who accomplished our translation, for a moderate acquaintance with Greek, till their learning in this instance is more successfully controverted.

1 PETER . 6.

Δ.

was, to outward appearance, very critical. There was great probability of their return with increased strength, the next year, to revenge the affront, and repair the damage they had sustained. The numerous flocks and herds of ABRAHAM offered no small inducement to such a renewed attempt; and we find at this juncture God himself condescending to encourage his faithful servant by a special manifestation of his presence and favour, assuring him that he would be his shield, and that though he had refused to receive from the King of Sodom any remuneration of his service, "his reward should be exceeding great," which is the proper translation of Gen. xv. 1. Now during this period it may well be supposed, from the timidity of her sex, that SARAH might experience very distressing fears, and • Hence ABRAHAM Inquires what the re ward shall be,

seek to influence ABRAHAM to undertake a removal from their exposed situation, unless her faith in JEHOVAH preserved her mind in peace; and to this part of her history, I am inclined to think, the Apostle alludes, (the circumstances of which might traditionally be better known to them than to us,) when he sets before the wives of those to whom he wrote the honour of being called "the daughters of SARAH, "whilst they acted well, being fit helpers to their husbands, and were not afraid with amazement," or, as it may perhaps better be expressed, "not affrighted by terror" from the path of duty.

The Christian Jews, to whom he wrote, were scattered through many countries, and were doubtless exposed to dangers and persecutions; hence the example of SARAH is very aptly introduced to strengthen the weaker sex against those terrors

which would incapacitate them to become helpers of the faith and duty of their husbands.

There is also, I apprehend, a particular propriety, not generally noticed, in the exhortation given to christian women to reverence their husbands after the example of SARAH. It is well known that till the christian era, women suffered many privations, and were far from being placed on an equal footing, even in religious privileges, with the men. But in token that our LORD, by being "born of a woman," had removed the disgrace which, as daughters of EVE, had till then attached to them, the liberty of women under the new dispensation was, and still remains, enfarged: hence a caution, lest this liberty should be abused to the breach of social order, became necessary; for all our blessings need a fence, and all our honours a covering. E. M. B.

of the invisible Gop, the first-born of every creature."

Might not the noun proroxos, translated" first-born," with equal propriety be rendered first producer? It is derived from pros first, and

Tox perf. mid. of rixTw, or obsolete TEX, both of which, according to the celebrated PARKHURST, signify to bring forth, or produce. The words immediately following appear to favour this translation," for by him were all things created."

Jude, ver. 4: “Ought not the verb προγράφω, rendered ordain, to be rather translated, To write before or afore time? In this sense it is used, Rom. xv. 4, and Eph. iii. 3. It is derived from pw before, and papw to write.

happiness of our rising charge, as we are solicitous that they should become useful and influential members of society, so should we carefully encourage and assiduously inculcate that meek forbearance of spirit, which our divine Teacher enjoined on his disciples with such im