opinions. They appear to me to be eminently hurtful to Christianity. But I cannot approve of the special pleading by which he would allow jurors to give verdicts against both evidence and law. The license is inconsistent with the sanctity and solemn obligation of an oath, and though it might be taken in one case, to further the interests of freedom and humanity, it would be employed in others to promote tyranny and cruelty. Those that cannot conscientiously become instruments in administering sanguinary and unchristian laws, should adopt Mr. Rutt's recommendation, (p. 548,) and absent themselves from Courts of Justice, at whatever risk: but, perhaps a still "more excellent way" would be to appear to their subpoenas, and to declare in the face of the court their incompetency, from convictions of conscience, to sit as jurors upon prosecutions for opinions, or such as may terminate in the infliction of unjust and cruel punishments. A few protests of this description would do more than a thousand evasive verdicts to bring such prosecutions into abhorrence, and to cause the repeal of the absurd laws on which they are founded. A CHRISTIAN LIBERAL. Question.-Has the World existed WH from Eternity? (Extracted by a Correspondent from the Westminster Magazine, for July, 1785.) WHATEVER has existed from eternity, must have existed of itself, not by means of another; for nothing could exist before it from which it could receive its being. Every thing, therefore, that has existed from eternity, must be selfexistent. On the other hard, whatever is self-existent, must have existed from eternity. For if it has not, there must have been a time when it began to be; and if there was a time when it began to be, then something without itself gave it beginning; for, if something without itself did not give it beginning, then something within must have given it, and one part must have existed in consequence of another, which, in a self-existent being, is impossible -I say impossible. For, whatever is self-existent cannot be divided into parts, or, which is the same thing, is not divisible; for if it was, then it behoved every part to be self-existent; and as every thing that is divisible may be divided ad finitum, we should then have an infinite number of self-existent beings, which is equally impossible. For if any thing exists of itself, there can be nothing else to controul its existence; or, what is the same thing, it must be superior to every thing else, and, consequently, omnipotent; seeing a superiority to every thing else is all we can mean by omnipotence. But there cannot be two omnipotent Beings, because either they would agree in every respect, and, consequently, be one and the same, which is absurd; or they would differ, and then each would oppose and annihilate the power of each, which is inconsistent with omnipotence. There is, therefore, only one selfexistent Being, and that Being has been demonstrated to be omnipotent, eternal, indivisible, and, consequently, immaterial. The visible world, however, is material and divisible: it is therefore not self-existent, and, consequently, has not existed from eternity. But the world may be farther proved not to be self-existent; for all the parts of it are produced in succession, by some previous external cause, i. e. by something without themselves but if all the parts are the effects of an external cause, the whole must be the effect of an external cause; for what may be said of all the parts, may also be said of the whole. That all the parts, however, are the effects of an external cause, appears from this: that in the animal king dom, no son can exist without a father; in the vegetable, no plant without a seed; and in the mineral, no stone without a collection of the requisite component parts. Should it be said that these are not properly new existences, but only changes and modifications of matter; I ask, from whence do these changes arise? from themselves, or from another? Does that particular modification of matter, the body of a man, exist by his own will, or by his own command? Does it not rather begin to be, continue to be and cease to be, not only without his will, but by means of which he is ignorant, which are at once external to him and independent of him? If, then, man cannot produce even this change or modification with respect to his own body, much less can he produce or create the materials of which it is formed. itself, it cannot be self-existent; and Attempt to illustrate Jude, ver. 9. SIR, But if man can do neither of these, ANY attempt to illustrate those much less can the other parts of the But if all the parts of the universe are thus changed and produced independent of themselves, the same must be true of the whole. Ergo-The universe is not self-existent, but the effect of some external cause; and as every effect necessarily exists posterior to its cause, it follows that it cannot have existed from eternity. Again, whatever is self-existent, must also be independent of all other things for the continuance of its existence. But every thing in the universe is dependent on something without itself for the continuance of its existence. Thus, for example, the inhabitants of the earth depend on it for a supply of nourishment, as well as upon the other elements for things essential to life; and they cease to exist, at least in a certain form, as soon as these are denied. The earth itself depends on the other planets for the place it holds in the universe; and the whole system is held together by an attractive power, which operates from without on every part of it, which is unknown to it and independent of it. If, then, the system of the universe is not independent, with respect to the continuance of its form and place, much less will it be so with respect to the continuance of its existence; and if it is not independent with respect to the continuance of its existence, much less will it be so with respect to existence itself; and if it is not independent with respect to existence passages of Scripture which are confessedly obscure, especially where that obscurity has induced a suspicion and doubt as to the genuineness of those passages, and of the books in which they are contained, must be grateful to every one who has a reve vence for the Sacred Writings, and feels pleasure in the investigation of their important contents. He that successfully performs this task is a friend to truth and to the best interests and improvement of his fellowcreatures. With this view, Sir, I submit to you a few observations on a passage which occurs in the ninth verse of the Epistle of Jude: "Yet Michael the Archangel, when contending with the Devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee." It may be proper, however, before we enter on an explanation of the passage, to take some notice of the doubt which has been entertained as to its genuineness, and as to that of the Epistle itself, and also as to the genuineness of the second chapter of the Second Epistle of Peter, where the same subjects as those connected with the above passage in Jude, are introduced and treated precisely in the same way, so that the arguments against the genuineness of the one will equally apply as to the genuineness of the other. * First, it is alleged respecting the Second Epistle of Peter, that this Epistle is placed by Eusebius amongst those books of the New Testament, the genuineness of which was disputed in the primitive ages." It is added, * See Imp. Version, Note, Ch. i.; see also Jude 1, Note, "Some have thought the first and third chapters genuine, but from the difference of style have doubted the second." That the genuineness of these Epistles was disputed may be admitted; nor is it at all wonderful that, in collecting the books and settling the canon of the New Testament, a dispute should arise respecting the genuineness of some of those books: dispute naturally leads to investigation, and investigation to the discovery of the truth. The fact, however, is, that the dispute terminated in favour of their genuineness, as is clear from their being received into the canon of the New-Testament Scriptures. Are then the authors of the Improved Version prepared to shew that that decision was not made upon clear and satisfactory evidence that those books were the genuine productions of those persons whose names they bear? Secondly, the authors of the Improved Version state, respecting the Epistle of Jude, that it is commonly believed to have been written by Judas, otherwise called Lebbeus and Thaddeus, the son of Alpheus, the brother of James the Less, and first cousin to our Lord." If it was, indeed, written by him, (and this, according to them, is the common belief,) then is the Epistle not only genuine, but also of apostolical authority, and this must establish both those points; for he was one of the twelve Apostles of our Lord. + Thirdly, on 2 Peter ii. 4, they observe, that that passage "is the most doubtful portion of the Epistle," and that "by those who admit the genuineness of the Epistle, this chapter is supposed to have been a quotation from some ancient apocryphal book." They add, "The Epistle of Jude is supposed to allude to, or to quote from, the same apocryphal work." On the parallel passage in Jude, ver. 6, they say, "Perhaps the writer may refer to some fanciful account of a fall of angels contained in the apocryphal book which lay before him." That there ever existed, before the writing of these Epistles, such a fanciful account of a fall of angels, or such an apocryphal book as that here supposed, out of which these writers made their quotations, there is not a shadow of evidence, or a pretence of evidence, much less is there any proof of the assertion, that Jude had this apocryphal book lying before him when he wrote his Epistle. The whole rests upon the perhaps, the suppositions or the assertions of these authors; or upon the suppositions of others which they have adopted. But what weight can their suppositions or those of any other man have in the decision of a question of this nature? That the writers of these Epistles in the passages under our consideration refer to the Jewish Scriptures, and not to some fanciful account in a supposed apocryphal book, I shall endeavour to shew by the following arguments : First, the authors of these Epistles, in the parts alluded to, are warning the Christians to whom they wrote, against false teachers, by whom they would be in danger of being seduced from the faith of the gospel. Peter says, "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them." And of them he adds, "Whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not." Jude gives a similar description of them: 66 For," says he, "there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained" (before written) "to this condemnation; ungodly men turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord" (deσorny, the word used also by Peter, "the only sovereign") God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." They then set before them various instances of the judgments of God in the punishment of persons of this description recorded in the Old-Testament Scriptures. Peter mentions first, the angels that sinned, whom God did not spare-then of the destruction of the old world, which also he See Note at the beginning of the says God did not spare-and then the Epistle. overthrow of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, which, he says, were made an example unto those that after 4 H should live ungodly, and on which he makes the following observation: "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished." He then refers to the history of Balaam, and compares the men of whom he is speaking with him, who, he says, "Have forsaken the right way, and gone astray, following the way of BaTaam, the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness." Jude introduces his enumeration of the judgments of God in the punishment of the wicked, by saying, "I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this." First, he reminds them, "How that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them which believed not." In the next place, he reminds them of the angels which kept not their first estate. Did he then mean to remind them of a fabulous story about angels, which had no foundation in truth, which he had (as is supposed) taken out of a spurious apocryphal book, a story with which they were probably wholly unacquainted? And what could a story of the fall of angels have to do with the writer's subject, as an instance of the punish ment of ungodly men and seducers? Jude reminds them in the next place of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, which, he says, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. And then, having described those ungodly men of whom he speaks as defiling the flesh, despising dominion, blaspheming (or, as Peter expresses it, who were not afraid to blaspheme) dignities, he reminds them of the contest between Michael the archangel and the Devil, contrasting their conduct with that of Michael. He also refers to the history of Cain, and of Balaam, and of Core, saying, "Wo unto them! for they" (the ungodly men of whom he is speaking) "have gone in the way of Cain, and run greedily after the error of Balaam, for reward, and perished, or will perish in the gainsaying of Core." Now, is it possible to conceive that these writers, in referring to a series of facts recorded in their own Scriptures, and with which they were well acquainted, should introduce and incorporate with those facts a fabulous story from an apocryphal book? Nothing, surely, can be more incredible than such a supposition, even supposing the Epistles were proved not to be genuine. 66 Secondly, the authors of the Improved Version, after having pronounced the passage respecting the angels that sinned, in 2 Peter ii. 4, to be the most doubtful portion in the Epistle, and after having repeatedly thrown out the supposition that it, with the parallel passage in Jude, was quoted from an apocryphal book, have themselves, with the most glaring inconsistency, attempted to explain those passages as having no relation to angels; and they have also attempted to prove that they are a plain, direct allusion to a portion of the Jewish history, in which, I conceive, they have been completely successful. Their exposition is as follows. 2 Pet. ii. 4, Note: If God spared not the messengers who had sinned, i. e. the spies who were sent to explore the land of Canaan, &c.; see Simpson's Essays, p. 205, &c." Jude 6: "And the angels who kept not their first state." Note on the passage: "Or the messengers who watched not duly over their own principality, but deserted their proper habitation, he kept with perpetual chains under darkness, (punished them with judicial blindness of mind,) unto the judgment of a great day, i. e. when they were destroyed by a plague; alluding to the falsehood and punishment of the spies, Numbers xiv. See Simpson's Essays, p. 210." But the allusion would have been still more apparent, and their interpretation more firmly established, had they, or had the authors of the Received Version, rendered the Greek T8s aлyeλes, the spies, as the latter have rendered it, James ii. 25, and as they themselves have explained it in 2 Peter ii. 4. A little more attention would probably have convinced the authors of the Improved Version, that the passage in Jude respecting Michael and the Devil, also is taken from one of the Jewish prophets, and not from a fabulous apocryphal book. Which leads me to observe, Thirdly, that that passage in Jude contains in it not merely an allusion to a passage in the prophecy of Ze chariah, but also an express quotation from it,—“ But said, The Lord rebuke thee." Peter also, treating on the same subject, and in the same connexion,† evidently refers to the same passage in the prophet: "Whereas," says he, angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord." It may be further observed, that in the Septuagint Version, although in general it retains the Hebrew word Satan, yet in this passage of the prophet, renders it Diabolos, Devil, from which Jude seems to have adopted the word. Besides this, the authors of the Improved Version tell us, that some suppose a reference in this passage (Jude 9) to Zech. iii. 1-3. Newcome." If this allusion is clearly established, the prophecy of Zechariah will serve as a key to unlock the meaning of that mysterious passage of Jude; and if the observations I have made have any solidity in them, they may tend, in some measure, to remove the suspicions which have been entertained respecting the genuineness of the Epistle of Jude, and of the second chapter of the second Epistle of Peter, and especially those passages in them which are supposed to be the most doubtful. The question may be asked, What has given rise to this doubt, and why has so much pains been taken to discredit these accounts, and to induce the belief that they are fanciful and spurious? The authors of the Improved Version have furnished us with an answer to the question; they say, in note on Jude 6, Perhaps, how ever, the writer may refer to some fanciful account of a full of angels contained in the apocryphal book which lay before him, without meaning to avouch for that fact any more than for the incident mentioned ver. 9."§ And again, in note on 2 Peter ii. 4, "If the common interpretation be admitted, it will not establish the po pular doctrine concerning fallen angels. For, 1, The Epistle itself is of doubtful authority. 2. From the change of style this is the most doubtful portion of the Epistle. 3. By those who admit the genuineness of the Epistle, this chapter is supposed to have been a quotation from some ancient apocryphal book, and the apostle might not mean to give autho rity to the doctrine. The Epistle of Jude" (they add)" is supposed to allude to, or to quote from, the same apocryphal work." It is here plainly supposed, that if the passages referred to are genuine, they do in fact teach the popular doctrine concerning fallen angels, and, therefore, in order to get rid of the doctrine, it was necessary, in some way, to get rid of those passages in which it was contained; for the suspicion seems to have been lurking in their minds, that unless they were got rid of, that doctrine would be established. This will fully account for the pains they have taken to invalidate the authority of these Epistles, and particularly of the above passages which they contain. Notwithstanding all this, these very same gentlemen confidently assert, that by the angels (the messengers) that sinned, is meant the spies who were sent to explore the land of Canaan, as recorded Numbers xiv., and consequently as having no reference to fallen spiritual beings. Could they believe this, and at the same time seriously believe, what they have so repeatedly stated, that it is a fanciful account of a fall of angels taken out of some ancient apocryphal book, and that too by an apostle; and that he too should gravely insert such an idle tale amongst a number of references to the Jewish Scripture, he himself at the time not believing it, or mean to give authority to the doc trine? If they were satisfied of the truth of their own interpretation, which they give, not as the supposed, but certain meaning of the passage, what cause had they to be afraid that it would countenance a false, although popular doctrine? Could there be any danger that the spies, who were the twelve princes of the tribes of Israel whom Moses sent to explore the land of Canaan, should ever be interpreted to mean apostate spirits, who, in some unknown period, were for their sin and rebellion cast out of |