simple promise. The promise Genesis xiii. is however better for your argument than the other, for in the xv. it is evident from verse 5, that some agent is employed, whereas xiii. 14, the simple words are "Jehovah said unto Abraham;" but if you can show how Jehovah spoke to him, whether by his spirit in a ministering angel, or by internal inspiration, or by an external vision, or by causing him to hear a voice; you can do more than I. But certain am I, that there is no ground for supposing that every time, or at any time, the Everlasting Father spake personally to Abraham. For to do this he must have visited the earth from time to time in person, or have personally sojourned on earth. This is absurd to imagine. No! by his all-pervading spirit, his omnipotent, omnipresent agency, he energises the messengers of his will, be they spiritual intelligences, mortal intelligences, or mere unconscious matter, making even the very winds his messengers, and the flaming fire his servants.

Will you now, dear sir, admit the subjective use of the genitive, and allow that, in accordance, strict accordance with the rest of Scripture, as well as with the remaining portion of Gal. iii. that Paul means the spirit's promise concerning the heavenly inheritance? For says he, verse 29, "if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Beware, lest you too unhesitatingly maintain, that "the promised spirit of miraculous power" is meant, for by so doing you are, to use a vulgar phrase, making a rod for your own back, and which, Mormonites, Irvingites, and all other devotees, who foolishly imagine the age of miracles to have returned, will not scruple to make use of against you, saying "If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Of the inheritance? Yes, say they, but as an earnest of that inheritance of,) the spirit of miraculous powers.

I will not further encroach on your time and that of your readers, but with an earnest desire for "the light of that morning without clouds," which will dispel the present darkness from the religious world, I remain, yours respectfully, FIDELITAS.

THE EDITOR'S REPLY.

FIDELITAS affirms that he "did not take it for granted," &c. Our reply is, that it was the impression made upon our minds by reading his article, that he did. But as he declares that such was not the fact, and as we believe him to be an honourable conscientious Christian, we shall not attempt to question the truth of his derial.

We proceed to his second head. He objects to our interpretation of Gal. iii. 14, now" on rather different grounds." We are glad he keeps his convictionsin a moveable position, so that in whatever point truth presents itself, they immediately veer towards it, though their course has to be reversed. He has not permitted that irrational passion driven despot, erroneously termed Consistency, to mail his fettered soul to the wall of a system.

Fidelitas, however, tells us that he is not going "to throw a somerset,' though he has rather changed his objections. We advise him not to be alarmed at throwing one, because if he takes care, he will alight on his feet, and that too on terra firma. He continues, "but rather to expressing my surprise that you should demur to my terming the dative case, ablative." We reply, we never did. This we could not do, for Fidelitas never so termed it. He spoke of the ablative, not as identical with the dative, but as being a distinct case, and it was to this that we demurred. His words are, "In the construction of Greek and Latin nouns, there are two cases, rendered in English by the proposition of, viz. the genitive and ablative; if your interpretation were correct, the original would be in the ablative." He here speaks of the Greek and Latin nouns being identical in this respect, that they both possess the genitive and ablative cases. These cases, then, are spoken of as having, in both languages, the same relation to nouns. Now the ablative is a distinct case in the Latin, and as the Greek, being the language examined, is compared with that tongue, the case is declared to be a distinct one in it. And, again, both cases are stated as having the same connexion with the noun, hence as the genitive is a proper distinct case, the ablative is in fact affirmed to be one. But for why reason upon the words of Fidelitas? Every man of ordinary perception will discover that they speak of the ablative, not as being identical with another case, but as being a distinct one itself. Hence the demur with which Fidelitas charges us is not true, and his quotation from Mr. Jones not appropriate. We are prepared with high authorities for the confirmation of our words, whenever their truth is denied.

Fidelitas then retracts his assertion "That if our interpretation were correct, the original would be in the ablative." His retraction is full, honourable, and worthy of the Christian.

We fully accord with Dr. Arnold respecting the subjective and objective senses of the genitive. We also agree with Fidelitas that the former is the primary sense, but are persuaded that there are as many instances in the New Testament of the genitive being used in the latter, as former signification. In every instance, the context and tenor of Scripture must decide in what sense it is to be taken.

We then, affirm, that the Living Oracles maintain the correctness of our interpretation of the passage," promise of the spirit." Fidelitas is deceived when he says, "On the strength of your yet untouched argument, that the promise was made by the voice of God, therefore not by his Spirit, rests then the correctness of your interpretation." We have in store more arguments in proof of our position-arguments drawn from the Spring-head of Truth.

Fidelitas then quotes our assertion, " that the promise of Canaan was made to Abraham by God himself," and asks, “Did then, the glorious Uncreated One leave the high and holy place, and personally appear to Abraham, speaking the words of promise?" We are astonished at such objections, and ask, in reply, "Is it necessary for Fidelitas to leave his house, in order to cause his voice to be heard out of it? Is it necessary for him to be personally present with an individual, in order to speak promises to him?" Certainly not, answers every one of thoughtful mind; the man of ordinary voice can make it heard by numbers outside his abode, and give precepts and promises to them, without being visible to a single individual. How much less, then, was it requisite that the God of hosts, in whom dwells every power in its strength and fulness, to leave "the high and holy place," in order to speak his promise to Abraham? It does not then follow, that because the Everlasting Father did not appear in propria persona, that the agency of the spirit was employed.

Fidelitas then asserts, from Gen. xv. 10, that the promise of Canaan was made by Jehovah to Abraham while the patriarch was in a vision. We reply, that he has yet to prove that "the friend of God" was in this state when the

voice of the promise entered the portals of his ears. But granting that he was, we will prove that this fact does not strengthen the position of Fidelitas. Be it known, then, that the prophets made no difference between the supernatural words they heard in a vision, and those they heard at any other season. All were regarded and declared by them to be the words of God. Hence they use the same language in both cases to describe the manner he conveyed the knowledge to them, thus proving that to be thought the same in every instance. We give one proof out of many: Elihu says,-Job xxxiii. 14-16, "For God speaketh once yea twice, yet man perceiveth it not. In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed; then he openeth the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction." Now the expression "he openeth the ears of men" here employed to describe the speakings of God in! visions and even dreams, is also used in other scriptures, to express them when uttered to prophets in their ordinary hours. It is so in 1 Sam. ix. 15. The Hebrew words in both instances are the same. Hence supposing that Abraham was in a vision, yet he regarded and spoke of the promise as being uttered by God himself. Fidelitas may philosophise, and speculate, about the vision and the voice "being produced by the agency of the Spirit," but neither the patriarch, nor his historian Moses, who were prophets of the Most High. state one word respecting an intervening agent between God and his friend, and we do not wish to be wise above that which is written. Hence, taking the testi mony of those inspired men, we believe that the promise was made to Abraham by Jehovah himself.

The above expression, as do many others, also gives us a distinct knowledge that the words of God were actually addressed to the ear, not infused into the heart, hence that in both instances, God caused his prophet to hear an audible voice. For that is a phrase frequently made use of in scripture to express personal communications between man and man. It is so used, Ruth iv. 4-"I thought to advertise thee." This, in the Hebrew, is, "I said I would open, or reveal, thine ear." Again, it is employed 1 Sam. xx. 8,-" but that he will show me," Hebrew," reveal, or open my ear." As then man speaks to man, so did God to his prophets. Abraham then, and all to whom God himself spake, heard an audible voice. Now the Spirit never spake to any man by an audible voice. Its teachings were given by inward impulses. So it is said, I Peter i. 21, "Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." Hence, the promise of Canaan was not spoken to Abraham by the Spirit. Fidelitas then says, "actions ascribed to God, are alike ascribed to his word and spirit." We will show that his proofs do not establish his proposition. Our first enquiry | must be, When can an action ascribed to one person, be said to be alike ascribed to other persons or things? the true answer is, When each one of these, by itself, without being linked to the first, is said to have done the act. But if the person or thing be connected with the first as its principal and mover, this is in fact ascribed to it, not to that. The person, or thing, in the first case, is an agent, or co-operator; but in the latter, it is simply an instrument. And every agent, or co-operator, can have ascribed to it the actions of its principal, because it works apart from him either in presence or sphere, and has its impellant powers within itself. But an instrument cannot have ascribed to it the actions of its principal, because it cannot be said, without being associated with | him, to have done a deed, and because it operates in common with him.

We will illustrate these truths. The sustenance of man is ascribed to God, and it can also be ascribed to the earth, to food, and to man himself-because these are the agents of God, for they each, though engaged in the same work, act apart in sphere from him, and each has within itself its moving powers. Hence each can be said by itself, without being connected with its principalGod, to sustain man. Thus we can say the earth sustains man, or food sustains man, and a definite correct idea is given. Hence the same action ascribed to

ין

T

God, can be ascribed to them. There are other means employed in procuring man sustenance. These are his hands, his mind, and his labour. But the sustenance of man cannot be ascribed to any one of these, as to man himself, because they are but his instruments. They each move as he moves, and act as he impels them. Hence any one of them cannot be said, by itself, without being connected with him as its principal, to sustain man. Thus we cannot say, hands sustain man. We must associate these with their possessor, and say, the hands of man sustain him. Hence the same actions ascribed to him, cannot be ascribed to these nor to the other instruments.

We come now to apply these arguments. Are the word, and spirit, in the texts of Fidelitas, each one affirmed of itself, without being associated with a principal, to have done certain acts? If so, Fidelitas is right. But this is not the case. The word, and Spirit, are associated with a principal-God; and in connection with him, certain deeds are said to be done by them. They, then, are spoken of, not as agents, but as instruments-consequently the actions are, in fact, ascribed to their principal—God, and not to them.

Fidelitas then argues his position, That the same actions ascribed to God, are ascribed to the Spirit, from the fact that the resurrection of Christ is attributed to himself, to God, and the Spirit. But it is foreign to the subject to introduce the fact of that glorious event, being ascribed to the first. The true question is, Does the fact of the resurrection of Christ being attributed alike to God and the Spirit, prove the position? Upon this we shall concentrate our attention. The text in proof, is 1 Peter iii. 18. We shall show, that this passage will not aid his cause any more efficiently than the others.

The Spirit, in it, is not connected with a principal; hence it is spoken of, as an agent, and not as an instrument as in the preceding scriptures. Now when a deed in one text is ascribed to God, and in another to the Spirit, it is because God was not the actor in propria persona. The deed was performed in a sphere remote from that in which was the immediate presence of Deity. Hence he did it by the agency of bis Spirit. These positions will endure the most rigid scriptural examination. It will be found that in no instance in which an act is equally ascribed to God and the Spirit, do the Scriptures give the idea, that Jehovah was present at its doing, as he is represented to be at the creation, and giving of the law. But in every instance it will be seen, that the deed is so described as to convey the idea that it was commenced and accomplished without the personal operation of Jehovah. He, then, as the principal, performed it through an agent. Hence, this is the reason for why, in one scripture, it is attributed to God; and, in another, to the Spirit. But the supernatural voices which the prophets heard, are far different to such deeds. They were believed to come direct from God himself-to proceed immediately from the dwellingplace of the Most High. Hence there is no instance of a prophet attributing a supernatural voice to the Spirit. Consequently as a voice from God spake the promises to Abraham, Paul would not ascribe it to the Spirit.

The next proof of Fidelitas, is Isaiah vi. 8, compared with Acts xxvii. 25. He argues, that the same words attributed to God, in the first text, are ascribed to the Spirit, in the second. This is quite true, but they are not attributed to it at the same time that they are to God. We will, however, fully examine the

text.

Be it observed, then, that the first speaks of the giving of the commission to Isaiah-but the latter speaks, not of its being given, but of its announcement to the fathers. The acts, then, described in the two passages, are distinct and separate, and in each a different person is introduced as the actor. In the first it is declared that God spake the words to Isaiah, and in the second, it is affirmed that the Spirit through him spake them to the fathers.

We must make one remark in illustration. When prophets received a commission from God, and apostles were favoured with one from him, or his Son,

they needed the Holy Spirit to direct them in fulfilling it. Thus the Apostles received a commission from Christ, but they required, and obtained, the Spirit to guide them in performing it. Hence when they opened it on Pentecost, they spake by the dictation of the Spirit. So it could be said with truth, that Christ spake the commission to them, and the Holy Spirit by them to mankind. Precisely so it was in the above instance. God spake the word to Isaiah, and the Holy Spirit by him to the fathers. And the passage in Isaiah speaks of the first circumstance, while that in Acts speaks of the latter.

We pass by the remarks following those passages, respecting God's word and Spirit being one, &c., they being all answered in the preceding arguments. We travel down to his remarks on 2 Sam. xxiii. 2, 3. Fidelitas says, that there is but one communication mentioned in this Scripture. We reply, that granting there be but one, the context informs us that it was made in different modes, henee that it was oft repeated; and this we will prove. It is the promise which God had made to David, that he should be king over Israel (see margin) and the monarch is here declaring that this promise was made him. Now it was frequently repeated, and as we learn from this as well as other Scriptures, announced to him in various modes.

We shall leave our readers to decide, whether Fidelitas has clearly shown. what he affirms he has; and shall also leave them to pronounce whether, as he says, we have been taking things for granted. We also step over his remarks respecting the chapter containing the promise, our position being provable from either chapter.

Fidelitas then says, that if we can show how Jehovah spake to Abraham, whether by his spirit in a ministering angel, or by internal inspiration, or by an external vision, or by causing him to hear a voice, we can do more than he. We reply, had it been an angel which spake to the patriarch, it would have said, "And the angel of the Lord spake to Abraham," as in other places when be was addressed by an heavenly inessenger; had it been by the second mode, the Spirit would have been introduced as the promise-maker. It is said in one text to have been by the third mode, and in this he heard a voice.

The argument of Fidelitas respecting God coming down personally to Abraham, we answered at the commencement. A moment's reflection will convince any one of the weakness of such an objection. His remark respecting the all pervading spirit of God, are inappropriate. He then asks, if we will admit the subjective use of the genitive. We say, No! for the reasons above assigned. And we deny that his position is in strict accordance to Scripture.

The concluding remarks respecting our making "a rod for own back," &c. we leave to answer themselves, and for the present wish him peace and joy.

OBSERVATIONS ON "T. M's." ARTICLES ON THE GOSPEL.

MR. EDITOR.-Sir,-I have rarely met with confusion equal to that contained in T. M's. two letters of November and January. He speaks of "nicities of criticism" acting fatally on devotion, thus ignoring all those fine criticisms by Jesus and his Apostles. Let any one read the following passages, Matt. xxii. 31, 32, and 45, 46; Luke iv. 6-26; Acts ii. 29-36; vii. 48-50; Heb. i. and ii. chapters, and then ask himself if his devotedness has received damage thereby, and if it has, he may couclude it is akin to those devotions of the Athenians, which stirred up the spirit of Paul, to criticise with the view of annihilating that devotion "to an unknown