the Lord, and endowed with miraculous gifts, that, in healing the sick, they employed this very act of anointing with oil: they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them."

I have treated this passage the more at large for two reasons: First, because it is by this text of Scripture alone that the Papists attempt to support their extreme unction, a rite which they employ, not with any view to the recovery of the sick person, (for they never administer it save when his recovery is hopeless, and he is considered "in extremis,") but as a kind of safe passport out of the world. The view of the passage which I have proposed, and which I defy all their priests to refute, affords a short and easy method of proving the corruption of that communion, and of refuting its arrogant pretensions to infallibility; when we find one of their so called seven sacraments, resting on the grossest mistake, about the meaning of the passage, by which they endeavour to support it. Perhaps it may please Him, who doeth great wonders, according to the counsel of his own will, to bring these pages under the eye of even some ecclesiastic of that most corrupt communion, and to bless to his conviction the plain remarks which I have offered; so that he may be no longer a blind leader of the blind, but may see and abhor the foulness of the imposture which he has been instrumental in palming on the people.

But, secondly, because I have known some who appeared really at a loss to account for it, that those who now maintain the obligation on disciples of returning fully to the enjoined practice of the Apostolic churches, do yet not think of acting in case of sickness according to the directions here given by James. Now, from the real meaning of it, which I have sufficiently established, it appears that there is, in these days, no room for putting that direction in practice, since the miraculous gift of healing no longer exists in the churches. We might as reasonably pretend to put in practice the Apostolic direction, in 1 Cor. xiv. 27, concerning the gift of tongues, although no such gift now exists, nor is ever likely to be renewed. Any attempt of the kind, in either case, would be found, on examination, to be not any conformity to Apostolic rule, but a farcical mimickry of what was practised in that day, under circumstances that no longer exist.

Having incidentally expressed my opinion that the miraculous gifts are never likely to be renewed in the churches, I would briefly state the grounds of that opinion. It is not that the Lord is less really, or less gloriously, with his people at this day than in the Apostolic age. It is not that his arm is shortened, or that their high privileges are diminished. O, no! He is the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever; the same mighty God of Jacob, who wrought all the recorded wonders for Israel in Egypt, at the Red Sea, and in the wilderness; and believers of the Gospel are his true Israel, " a people saved by the LORD," a people for whom he has obtained eternal redemption, who are the "children of God, and as children are heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ," Rom. xviii. 17. Can any language express, or any imagination picture a height of privilege and blessedness superior to this?

Nor was the possession or exercise of miraculous gifts the greatest privilege of believers in the Apostolic days, nor any peculiar part of their privilege. They were possessed and exercised by some who were not disciples indeed, as they had been even by Judas Iscariot. The same folly and hardness of heart which Christ upbraided of old in that language, "except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe," it is the same that ever makes us think of the cessation of miraculous gifts as a diminution of our Christian privilege.

Of all these miraculous powers, as existing in the Apostolic Churches, I conceive that we may say what we are expressly taught of one of them, (1 Cor. xiv. 22.) that they were not designed to serve them that believe, but "were a sign to them that believed not." Now they were a sign simply of the divine authority, sanctioning the Apostolic ministry. They accredited that; were calculated to draw attention to that, and left without excuse those who rejected it; they did not communicate, and never were designed to communicate a knowledge of the truth. They did not enlighten the understanding of those who witnessed them, to discern the real import and glory of the Apostolic testimony. They answered, however, the temporary purpose for which they were designed. But could this revival in the churches answer the same purpose now? I think it could not. With respect to the great mass of Christendom, who verbally acknowledge the Apostolic mission, as of divine origin, there is not any need or occasion for that purpose to be answered to them. And, with respect to others, who avowedly reject their mission as a human imposture, (a small number comparatively, but an increasing number, and likely to increase much more, and rapidly,) the renewal of miraculous powers generally, among professing Christians, would seem to be calculated only for giving a kind of supernatural sanction, in the eyes of Deists, to all the corruptions and errors of the Anti-christian world; and, if we suppose them renewed only among those who are Christians indeed, (not to say that this would be directly opposite to what took place in the Apostolic age,) would it not be calculated to give such a supernatural sanction, as we have no reason either to expect or desire, to the Christian profession of certain individuals, or certain bodies, to the genuineness of their faith, and correctness of their practice? For such an end as this they certainly never were ordained of old.

For these reasons I look not for the renewal of miraculous gifts in the Church of God, nor regard their cessation as any want; while I am quite ready to admit that they shall be renewed, if any period or circumstances should return, when their renewal would be for His glory, and the good of His people.

Some may wonder that I have touched this subject. But I have been led to it from finding (what does not surprise me)—that parties and individuals are starting up in these countries who put forward, or insinuate, pretensions to the possession of miraculous gifts. This, and every other delusion, we may expect to be multiplied as the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.

II.

Having damnation because they have cast off their first faith.—1 Tim. v. 12.

OUR translators seem to have been unfortunately fond of introducing this word damnation; and frequently, where the original conveys nothing at all like the import of that English expression. The present passage, for example, ought to be rendered" having censure," or "incurring censure, because they have made light of their first faith,' that is, of the faith pledged to the first husband.

The second marriage of a female was generally considered discreditable. By contracting it she was conceived to throw a slight on the memory of her former husband, and so to violate a kind of fidelity still due to him, though dead. Thus Virgil represents the widowed Dido on Æneas's desertion of her, as bewailing her breach of faith to the dead Sychaus. (Non servata fides, cineri promissa Sychæo! Æn. iv. 552.)

The English expressions damn and damnation are immediately formed from the Latin damnare, and damnatio, which signify to condemn-condemnation; and in this general meaning the English derivatives were originally employed. But having long lost that general meaning, by the popular application of the terms exclusively to the future punishment of the ungodly, these expressions ought to be expunged from our English version, even where the Greek phrase does properly import condemnation.

But that is not the case in the passage under consideration. The word (xgua) which is there employed literally means judgment, or a judicial sentence, and is rightly rendered judgment in Matth. vii. 2; Acts xxiv. 25, and elsewhere. We know also that the Apostle, so far from considering the second marriage of a Christian female as necessarily involving apostacy from the faith, and final condemnation, expressly declares, in the 14th verse, that he would have "the younger widows to marry, and bear children," rather than incur the various evils to which they might otherwise be exposed. In that verse, indeed, our translators have given-"the younger women," without even printing the word "women" in the Italic character, to mark it as an ellipsis, which they have supplied. But it is evident from the whole context, that the ellipsis ought to be supplied with the word widows, which some Greek manuscripts indeed insert. The Apostle also expresses the same judgment in 1 Cor. vii. 8, 9.

We meet the same extraordinary mistranslation of the same word (xg) in 1 Cor. xi. 29, “he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself," instead of eateth and drinketh judgment to himself," that is, bringeth on himself those judicial visitations of bodily infirmities, sickness, and even death, by which the Lord marked his displeasure at their gross abuse of the ordinance

of His Supper; and marked it thus (as the Apostle expressly teaches) "that they should not be condemned with the world."

32, and the preceding article.

See v. 30, 31,

Again in Rom. xiii. 2, where we read, "they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation," we ought to read shall receive to themselves judgment;" and the judgment immediately intended is that "wrath," spoken of in the 4th and 5th verses, which earthly rulers are designed to "execute upon him that doeth evil." At the same time it is to be admitted and maintained, that the Apostle enforces on Christians the obligation of quiet subjection to the civil government by a higher consideration than the mere avoidance of civil penalties.

That higher consideration is marked in the fifth verse, by the words, "for conscience sake;" "ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but for conscience sake;" not only to escape the human penalties annexed to resistance, but from regard to the appointment of God, considering civil government as his ordinance. In this the. Apostle evidently does not regard the form of the government, or the character of the governors; whether the government be a monarchy, an aristocracy, or democracy; whether the governors execute their office well or ill. Christians are called to one course of quiet submission, and it is a course indeed suitable to those who belong to a kingdom "not of this world," while it is no wonder that others are disgusted with the rule, whose real infidelity is but ill concealed under a Christian profession merely verbal.

It may be remarked also, that the principles asserted by the Apostle have been as much abused and perverted by many worldly ecclesiastics, in professedly maintaining them, as they have been generally scouted by those who openly deny their obligation. Upon this passage in Romans, chiefly, the divines have rested their absurd doctrine of the divine right of KINGS; as if kingly government had more than any other the sanction of divine authority, or as if kings were, any more than consuls, the "ordinance and ministers of God." That civil government in general is a divine appointment, and mercifully calculated, even in its worst form, for the important good of man, Christians may well thankfully acknowledge; when they consider what consequences would follow from human wickedness, if the restraints thus imposed on it were removed. In fact, society would be so broken up, that it would be impossible to live in such a world. In Rom. xiv. 23, we read, “and he that doubteth is damned, if he eat." In this passage, the original verb is the compound xaranengirai, and should be literally rendered, "is condemned;" that is, condemned in his own conscience. He who doubteth the lawfulness of that, in which he yet indulges, is brought in guilty at the bar of conscience for the indulgence, however intrinsically innocent.

III.

"They that received tribute-money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your Master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented [anticipated] him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? Of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, then are the children free. Notwithstanding, lest we should offend [stumble] them, go thou to the sea, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money; that take, and give unto them for me and thee."-Matth. xvii. 24-27.

THE words rendered tribute-money and tribute in the first of these verses, and a piece of money in the last of them, are quite different from the words rendered tribute or custom" in the 25th verse. They are Greek names of particular coins, equal in value to the half-shekel and shekel of the Hebrews. Accordingly, in the 24th verse we ought to read, " They that received the half-shekels,”

doth not your Master pay the half shekels?" And in the 27th verse we ought to read, thou shalt find a shekel." And we are thus at once led to note the justice of that reference to Exod. xxxviii. 16. which is made in the margin of our larger Bibles.

[I prefer the translation of " half-shekels" and "shekel," retaining the name of the Hebrew coins, to the Greek terms "didrachms” and "stater," which are employed by the Evangelists; because to many English readers the latter denominations of coin would be quite new, while they are well acquainted from the Old Testament with the equivalent Hebrew terms.]

I proceed to offer some remarks, which may shew the importance of this correction of our translation. According to the common version, it might be supposed that the occasion, to which this narrative relates, was the collection of some tax imposed on the Jews by the Roman government, under which they lived; such as the Lord was questioned about on another occasion, Matth. xxii. 17. But it really was not. The payment of such taxes was not in any sense optional: as the question put to Peter by the collectors intimated that the payment of this tribute was. It might seem also that the Lord, in his question to Peter and his inference from Peter's reply, designed only to assert his rightful claim to exemption from any tax imposed by "the kings of the earth," as ranking with them in dignity. But, in fact, it is an infinitely higher rank he claims; even one with the King of kings, with JEHOVAH, with the God of Israel.

The tribute-money really spoken of was that divine appointment of the Law, given through Moses, to the Jewish people, of which we read in the 30th chapter of Exodus, from the 11th verse, commencing with the words, "JEHOVAH spake unto Moses, saying, When thou