Table of Contents

Christian Privileges

Our Father's Will: Being a Short History of the Text of the New Testament

Our Father's Will

Introduction.

No need for Alarm.

The Various Forms of Evidence.

The Material of the Greek Manuscripts.

The Style of Writing.

GOD IS NOWHERE.

Causes of Variations.

List of Greek Copies.

List of Uncial Manuscripts.

Cursive Manuscripts.

Lectionaries.

The Fathers.

The Versions.

The Editor at Work.

Review of a Few Passages.

Various Readings in the Revelation.

Printed Greek Testaments.

The Order of the Books.

Divisions of the New Testament.

Headings and Subscriptions to the Books.

The Canon of Scripture.

The Authorised Version of 1611.

Verbal Inspiration.

Four truths Every Christian Should Know About Salvation

You can have a happy life

Safety, Certainty and Enjoyment

"Canst thou by searching find out God?"

Christian Privileges

Our Father's Will: Being a Short History of the Text of the New Testament

Our Father's Will

Introduction.

No need for Alarm.

The Various Forms of Evidence.

The Material of the Greek Manuscripts.

The Style of Writing.

GOD IS NOWHERE.

Causes of Variations.

List of Greek Copies.

List of Uncial Manuscripts.

Cursive Manuscripts.

Lectionaries.

The Fathers.

The Versions.

The Editor at Work.

Review of a Few Passages.

Various Readings in the Revelation.

Printed Greek Testaments.

The Order of the Books.

Divisions of the New Testament.

Headings and Subscriptions to the Books.

The Canon of Scripture.

The Authorised Version of 1611.

Verbal Inspiration.

You can have a happy life

Various - For the Young

Various

This document may be found online at www.stempublishing.com

You are welcome to freely access and use this material for personal study or sending to other Bible students, compiling extracts for notes etc, but please do not republish without permission.

With the prayerful desire that the Lord Jesus Christ will use this God-given ministry in this form for His glory and the blessing of many in these last days before His coming. © Les Hodgett (contact@stempublishing.com)

Christian Privileges

Christian Privileges.

"They took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly." Acts 18: 26.

New Edition.

G. Morrish, 20, Paternoster Square, London, E.C.

Contents.

Safety, Certainty, and Enjoyment

Salvation

Ye Must Be Born Again

The Blood of Christ

The Forgiveness of Sins

Cleansed from All Sin

Peace by Jesus Christ

Law and Grace Exemplified

The Advocacy of Christ

Christ as the Revealer of the Father

The Children of God

Our Identification with Christ

The Coming of the Lord

Do All in the Name of the Lord Jesus

What Is the Unpardonable Sin?

The Four Judgments

Not Under the Law

The Peace of God

The Two Resurrections

Safety, Certainty and Enjoyment.

If a Believer, Why not sure of Salvation

If Saved, Why not happy

"Which Class Are You Travelling?"

What an oft-repeated question! Let me put it to you, my reader for travelling you most certainly are from time into Eternity, and who knows how very, very near you may be this moment to the Great Terminus?

Let me ask you then, in all kindness, "Which class are you travelling?" There are but three. Let me describe them, that you may put yourself to the test as in the presence of "Him with whom you have to do."

1st Class. ? Those who are saved, and who know it.

2nd Class. ? Those who are not sure of Salvation, but anxious to be so.

3rd Class. ? Those who are not only unsaved, but totally indifferent about it.

Again I repeat my question, "Which class are you travelling?" Oh, the madness of indifference, when eternal issues are at stake! A short time since a man came rushing into the railway station at Leicester, and, while scarcely able to gasp for breath, took his seat in one of the carriages just on the point of starting.

"You've run it fine," said a fellow-passenger. "Yes," replied he, breathing heavily after every two or three words, "but I've saved four hours, and that's well worth running for."

"Saved four hours!" I couldn't help repeating to myself; "four hours" well worth that earnest struggle! What of Eternity? What of Eternity? Yet are there not thousands of shrewd, far-seeing men to-day, who look sharply enough after their own interests in this life, but who seem stone-blind to the Eternity before them? Spite of the infinite love of God to helpless rebels, told out at Calvary; spite of His pronounced hatred of sin; spite of the known brevity of man's history here; spite of the terrors of judgment after death, and of the solemn probability of waking up at last with the unbearable remorse of being on hell's side of a "fixed" gulf (Luke xvi. 26), man hurries on to the bitter, bitter end; as careless as if there were no God, no death, no judgment, no heaven, no hell! If the reader of these pages be such an one, may God this very moment have mercy upon you, and while you read these lines open your eyes to your most perilous position, standing as you may be on the slippery brink of an endless woe!

Oh, friend, believe it or not, your case is truly desperate! Put off the thought of Eternity no longer. Remember that procrastination is like him who deceives you by it, not only a "thief," but a "murderer." There is much truth in the Spanish proverb which says, "The road of 'by-and-by' leads to the town of 'Never.'" I beseech you, unknown reader, travel that road no longer; "Now is the day of Salvation."

"But," says one, "I am not indifferent as to the welfare of my soul. My deep trouble lies wrapped up in another word ?

Uncertainty;

i.e., I am among the second-class passengers you speak of."

Well, reader, both indifference and uncertainty are the offspring of one parent ? unbelief. The first results from unbelief as to the sin and ruin of man, the other from unbelief as to God's sovereign remedy for man. It is especially for souls desiring before God to be fully and unmistakably sure of their salvation that these pages are written. I can in a great measure understand your deep soul-trouble, and am assured that the more you are in earnest about this all-important matter, the greater will be your thirst, until you know for certain that you are really and eternally saved. "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Mark viii. 36.

The only son of a devoted father is at sea. News comes that his ship has been wrecked on some foreign shore. Who can tell the anguish of suspense in that father's heart until, upon the most reliable authority, he is assured that his boy is safe and sound?

Or, again, you are far from home. The night is dark and wintry, and your way is totally unknown. Standing at a point where two roads diverge, you ask a by-passer the way to the town you desire to reach, and he tells you he thinks that such and such a way is the right one, and hopes you will be all right if you take it. Would "thinks," and "hopes," and "may bes" satisfy you? Surely not. You must have certainty about it, or every step you take will increase your anxiety. What wonder, then, that men have sometimes neither been able to eat nor sleep when the eternal safety of the soul has been trembling in the balance!

"To lose your wealth is much,

To lose your health is more,

To lose your soul is such a loss

As no man can restore."

Now, dear reader, there are three things I desire, by the Holy Spirit's help, to make clear to you; and, to put them into Scripture language, they are:

The Way of Salvation. (Acts xvi. 17.)

The Knowledge of Salvation. (Luke i. 77.)

The Joy of Salvation. (Psalm 51: 12.)

We shall, I think, see that, though intimately connected, they each stand upon a separate basis; so that it is quite possible for a soul to know the way of Salvation without having the certain knowledge that he himself is saved; or, again, to know that he is saved, without possessing at all times the joy that ought to accompany that knowledge.

First, then, let me speak briefly of the Way of Salvation.

Please to open your Bible, and read carefully the 13th verse of the 13th chapter of Exodus; there you find these words from the lips of Jehovah: "Every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck: and all the firstborn of man among thy children shalt thou redeem."

Now come back with me in thought to a supposed scene of 3000 years ago. Two men (a priest of God and a poor Israelite) stand in earnest conversation. Let us stand by, with their permission, and listen. The gestures of each bespeak deep earnestness about some matter of importance, and it isn't difficult to see that the subject of conversation is a little ass that stands trembling beside them.

"I am come to know," says the poor Israelite, "if there cannot be a merciful exception made in my favour this once. This feeble little thing is the firstling of my ass, and though I know full well what the law of God says about it, I am hoping that mercy will be shown, and the ass's life spared. I am but a poor man in Israel, and can ill afford to lose the little colt."

"But," answers the priest firmly, "the law of the Lord is plain and unmistakable 'Every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and thou wilt not redeem it, them thou shalt break his neck.' Where is the lamb?"

"Ah, sir, no lamb do I possess!"

"Then go, purchase one, and return, or the ass's neck must surely be broken. The lamb must die, or the ass must die."

"Alas! then all my hopes are crushed," he cries; "for I am far too poor to buy a lamb."

While this conversation proceeds, a third person joins them, and after hearing the poor man's tale of sorrow, he turns to him, and says kindly, "Be of good cheer, I can meet your need," and thus he proceeds: "We have in our house, on the hill-top yonder, one little lamb, brought up at our very hearth-stone, which is 'without spot or blemish.' It has never once strayed from home, and stands (and rightly so) in highest favour with all that are in the house. This lamb will I fetch." And away he hastens up the hill. Presently you see him gently leading the fair little creature down the slope, and very soon both lamb and ass are standing side by side.

Then the lamb is bound to the altar, its blood is shed, and the fire consumes it.

The righteous priest now turns to the poor man, and says, "You can freely take home your little colt in safety; no broken neck for it now. The lamb has died in the ass's stead, and consequently the ass goes righteously free. Thanks to your friend."

Now, poor troubled soul, can't you see in this God's own picture of a sinner's salvation? His claims as to your sin demanded a "broken neck" ? i.e., righteous judgment upon your guilty head; the only alternative being the death of a divinely-approved substitute.

Now you could not find the provision to meet your case; but, in the person of His beloved Son, God Himself provided the Lamb. "Behold the Lamb of God," said John to his disciples, as his eyes fell upon that blessed, spotless One, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." (John i. 29.)

Onward to Calvary He went, "as a lamb led to the slaughter," and there and then He "once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God." (1 Peter iii. 18.) "He was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification." (Rom. iv. 25.) So that God does not abate one jot of His righteous, holy claims against sin when He justifies (i.e., clears from all charge of guilt) the ungodly sinner who believes in Jesus. (Rom. iii. 26.) Blessed be God for such a Saviour, such a Salvation

"Dost thou believe on the Son of God?"

"Well," you reply, "I have, as a condemned sinner, found in Him one that I can safely trust. I do believe on him."

Then I can tell you that the full value of His sacrifice and death, as God estimates it, He makes as good to you as though you had accomplished it all yourself.

Oh, what a wondrous way of salvation is this! Is it not great, and grand, and Godlike, worthy of God Himself ? the gratification of His own heart of love, the glory of His precious Son, and the salvation of a sinner, all bound up together? What a bundle of grace and glory! Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has so ordered it that His own beloved Son should do all the work, and get all the praise, and that you and I, poor, guilty things, believing on Him, should not only get all the blessing, but enjoy the blissful company of the Blesser for ever and ever: "O magnify the Lord with me, and let us exalt His name together." (Ps. xxxiv. 3.)

But perhaps your eager inquiry may be, "How is it that, since I do really distrust self and self-work, and wholly rely upon Christ and Christ's work, I have not the full certainty of my salvation?" You say, "If my feelings warrant my saying that I am saved one day, they are pretty sure to blight every hope the next, and I am left like a ship storm-tossed, without any anchorage whatever." Ah! there lies your mistake. Did you ever hear of a captain trying to find anchorage by fastening his anchor inside the ship? Never. Always outside.

It may be that you are quite clear that it is Christ's death alone that gives safety; but you think that it is what you feel that gives certainty.

Now, again, take your Bible; for I now wish you to see from God's word how He gives a man

The Knowledge of Salvation.

Before you turn to the verse which I shall ask you very carefully to look at, which speaks of how a believer is to know that he has Eternal Life, let me quote it in the distorted way in which man's imagination often puts it. "These happy feelings have I given unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life." Now open your Bible, and, while you compare this with God's blessed and unchanging word, may He give you from your very heart to say with David, "I hate vain thoughts; but Thy law do I love." (Ps. cxix. 113.) The verse just misquoted is the 13th verse of the 5th chapter of the 1st epistle of John, and reads thus in our version: "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God: that ye may know that ye have eternal life."

How did the firstborn sons of the thousands of Israel know for certain that they were safe on the night of the Passover and of Egypt's judgment?

Let us pay a visit to two of their houses, and hear what they have to say.

We find in the first house we enter that they are all shivering with fear and suspense.

"What is the secret of all this paleness and trembling?" we inquire; and the firstborn son in- forms us that the angel of death is coming round the land, and that he is not quite certain how matters will stand with him at that solemn moment.

"When the destroying angel has passed our house," says he, and the night of judgment is over, I shall then know that I am safe; but I can't see how I can be quite sure of it until then. They say they are sure of salvation next door, but we think it very presumptuous. All I can do is to spend the long, dreary night hoping for the best."

"Well," we inquire, "but has the God of Israel not provided a way of safety for His people?"

"True," he replies, "and we have availed ourselves of that way of escape. The blood of the spotless and unblemished first-year lamb has been duly sprinkled with the bunch of hyssop on the lintel and two side-posts, but still we are not fully assured of shelter."

Let us now leave these doubting, troubled ones, and enter next door.

What a striking contrast meets our eye at once. Peace rests on every countenance. There they stand, with girded loins, and staff in hand, feeding on the roasted lamb.

What can be the meaning of all this tranquillity on such a solemn night as this? "Ah," say they all, "we are only waiting for Jehovah's marching orders, and then we shall bid a last farewell to the taskmaster's cruel lash and all the drudgery of Egypt!"

"But hold! Do you forget that this is the night of Egypt's judgment?"

"Right well we know it; but our firstborn son is safe. The blood has been sprinkled according to the wish of our God."

"But so it has been the next door," we reply; but they are all unhappy, because all uncertain of safety."

"Ah!" firmly responds the firstborn, "but we have more than the sprinkled blood, we have the unerring Word of God about it. God has said, 'When I see the blood I will pass over you.' God rests satisfied with the blood outside, and we rest satisfied with his word inside."

The sprinkled blood makes us safe.

The spoken word makes us sure.

Could anything make us more safe than the sprinkled blood, or more sure than His spoken word? Nothing, nothing.

Now, reader, let me ask you a question. "Which of those two houses, think you, was the safer?"

Do you say No. 2, where all were so peaceful? Nay, then, you are wrong.

Both are safe alike.

Their safety depends upon what God thinks about the blood outside, and not upon the state of their feelings inside.

If you would be sure of your own blessing, then, dear reader, listen not to the unstable testimony of inward emotions, but to the infallible witness of the word of God.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on Me hath everlasting life." (John vi. 47.)

Let me give you a simple illustration from everyday life. A certain farmer in the country, not having sufficient grass for his cattle, applies for a nice piece of pasture land which he hears is to be let near his own house. For some time he gets no answer from the landlord. One day a neighbour comes in, and says, "I feel quite sure you will get that field. Don't you recollect how that last Christmas he sent you a special present of game, and that he gave you a kind nod of recognition the other day when he drove past in the carriage?" And with such like words the farmer's mind is filled with sanguine hopes.

Next day another neighbour meets him, and in course of conversation he says, "I'm afraid you will stand no chance whatever of getting that grass-field. Mr. ? has applied for it, and you cannot but be aware what a favourite he is with the Squire ? occasionally visits him," etc. And the poor farmer's bright hopes are dashed to the ground, and burst like soap-bubbles. One day he is hoping, the next full of perplexing doubts.

Presently the postman calls, and the farmer's heart beats fast as he breaks the seal of the letter; for he sees by the handwriting that it is from the Squire himself. See his countenance change from anxious suspense to undisguised joy as he reads and re-reads that letter.

"It's a settled thing now," exclaims he to his wife; no more doubts and fears about it; "hopes" and "ifs" are things of the past. "The Squire says the field is mine as long as I require it, on the most easy terms, and that's enough for me. I care for no man's opinion now. His word settles all!"

How many a poor soul is in a like condition to that of the poor, troubled farmer ? tossed and perplexed by the opinions of men, or the thoughts and feelings of his own treacherous heart; and it is only upon receiving the word of God as the word of God that certainty takes the place of doubts and peradventures. When God speaks there must be certainty, whether He pronounces the damnation of the unbeliever, or the salvation of the believer.

"For ever, O Lord, Thy word is settled in heaven" (Ps. cxix. 89); and to the simple-hearted believer His Word Settles All.

"Hath He said, and shall He not do it? or hath Ire spoken, and shall He not make it good?" (Num. xxiii. 19.)

"I need no other argument,

I want no other plea,

It is enough that Jesus died,

And that He died for me."

The believer can add ?

"And that God says so."

"But how may I be sure that I have the right kind of faith?"

Well, there can be but one answer to that question; viz., "Have you confidence in the right person; i.e., in the blessed Son of God?"

It is not a question of the amount of your faith, but of the trustworthiness of the person you repose your confidence in. One man takes hold of Christ, as it were, with a drowning man's grip. Another but touches the hem of His garment but the sinner who does the former is not a bit safer than the one who does the latter. They have both made the same discovery; viz., that while all of self is totally untrustworthy they may safely confide in Christ, calmly rely on His word, and confidently rest in the eternal efficacy of His finished work. That is what is meant by believing on Him. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on Me hath everlasting life." (John vi. 47.)

Make sure of it then, my reader, that your confidence is not reposed in your works of amendment, your religious observances, your pious feelings when under religious influences, your moral training from childhood, and the like. You may have the strongest faith in any or all of these, and perish everlastingly. Don't deceive yourself by any "fair show in the flesh." The feeblest faith in Christ eternally saves, while the strongest faith in aught beside is but the offspring of a deceived heart; but the leafy twigs of your enemy's arranging over the pitfall of eternal perdition.

God, in the gospel, simply introduces to you the Lord Jesus Christ, and says: "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." "You may," He says, "with all confidence trust His heart, though you cannot with impunity trust your own."

Blessed, thrice blessed, Lord Jesus, who would not trust Thee, and praise Thy Name

"I do really believe on Him," said a sad-looking soul to me one day, "but yet, when asked if I am saved, I don't like to say yes, for fear I should be telling a lie." This young woman was a butcher's daughter in a small town in the Midlands. It happened to be market-day, and her father had not then returned from market. So I said, "Now, suppose when your father comes home you ask him how many sheep he bought to-day, and he answers 'ten.' After awhile a man comes to the shop, and says, 'How many sheep did your father buy to-day?' and you reply, 'I don't like to say, for fear I should be telling a lie.'" "But," said the mother (who was standing by at the time), with righteous indignation, "that would be making your father the liar."

Now, dear reader, don't you see that this well-meaning young woman was virtually making Christ out to be a liar, saying, I do believe on the Son of God, and He says I have everlasting life, but I don't like to say I have, lest I should be telling a lie." What daring presumption!

"But," says another, "how may I be sure that I really do believe? I have tried often enough to believe, and looked within to see if I had got it, but the more I look at my faith, the less I seem to have."

Ah, friend, you are looking in the wrong direction to find that out, and your trying to believe but plainly shows that you are on the wrong track.

Let me give you another illustration to explain what I want to convey to you.

You are sitting at your quiet fireside one evening, when a man comes in and tells you that the stationmaster has been killed that night on the railway.

Now, it so happens that this man has long borne the character in the place for being a very dishonest man, and the most daring, notorious liar in the neighbourhood.

Do you believe, or even try to believe, that man? "Of course not," you exclaim.

"Pray, why?"

"Oh, I know him too well for that!"

"But tell me how you know that you don't believe him. Is it by looking within at your faith or feelings?"

"No," you reply, "I think of the man that brings me the message."

Presently a neighbour drops in, and says, "The station-master has been run over by a goods train to-night, and killed upon the spot." After he has left, I hear you cautiously say, "Well, I partly believe it now; for to my recollection this man only once in his life deceived me, though I have known him from boyhood."

But again I ask, "Is it by looking at your faith this time that you know you partly believe it?"

"No," you repeat, "I am thinking of the character of my informant."

Well, this man has scarcely left your room before a third person enters, and brings you the same sad news as the first. But this time you say, "Now, John, I believe it. Since You tell me, I can believe it."

Again I press my question (which is, remember, but the re-echo of your own), "How do you know that you so confidently believe your friend John?"

"Because of who and what John is," you reply. "He never has deceived me, and I don't think he ever will."

Well, then, just in the same way I know that I believe the Gospel; viz., because of the One who brings me the news. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God that He hath witnessed of His Son. He that believeth not God hath made Him a Liar; because he believeth not the witness that God gave of His Son. (1 John v. 9, 10.) Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. (Rom. iv. 3.)

An anxious soul once said to a servant of Christ, "Oh, sir, I can't believe!" To which the preacher wisely and quietly replied, "Indeed, Who is it that you can't believe?" This broke the spell. He had been looking at faith as an indescribable something that he must feel within himself in order to be sure he was all right for heaven; whereas faith ever looks outside to a living Person, and His finished work, and quietly listens to the testimony of a faithful God about both.

It is the outside look that brings the inside peace. When a man turns his face towards the sun his own shadow is behind him. You cannot look at self and a glorified Christ in heaven at the same moment.

Thus we have seen that the blessed Person of God's Son wins my confidence. His Finished Work makes me eternally safe. God's Word about those who believe on Him makes me unalterably sure. I find in Christ and His work the way of Salvation, and in the word of God the knowledge of Salvation.

"But, if saved," my reader may say, "how is it that I have such a fluctuating experience, so often losing all my joy and comfort, and getting as wretched and downcast as I was before my conversion?" Well, this brings us to our third point; viz.,

The Joy of Salvation.

You will find, in the teaching of Scripture, that while you are saved by Christ's work and assured by God's word, you are maintained in comfort and joy by the Holy Ghost, who indwells every saved one's body.

Now, you must bear in mind that every saved one has still with him "the flesh;" i.e., the evil nature he was born with as a natural man, and which perhaps showed itself while he was still a helpless infant on his mother's lap. The Holy Ghost in the believer resists the flesh, and is grieved by every activity of it in motive, word, or deed. When he is walking "worthy of the Lord," the Holy Ghost will be producing in his soul His blessed fruits ? "love, joy, peace," etc. (See Gal. v. 22.) When he is walking in a carnal, worldly way the Spirit is grieved, and these fruits are wanting in greater or less measure.

Let me put it thus for you who do believe on God's Son:

Christ's work and Your Salvation stand or fall together.

Your walk and Your Enjoyment stand or fall together.

When Christ's work breaks down (and, blessed be God, it never, never will), your salvation will break down with it. When your walk breaks down (and be watchful, for it may), your enjoyment will break down with it.

Thus it is said of the early disciples (Acts ix. 31), that they "walked in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost."

And again in Acts xiii. 52: "The disciples were filled with joy, and with the Holy Ghost."

My spiritual joy will be in proportion to the spiritual character of my walk after I am saved.

Now do you see your mistake? You have been mixing up enjoyment with your safety, two widely different things. When, through self-indulgence, loss of temper, worldliness, etc., you grieved the Holy Spirit, and lost your joy, you thought your safety was undermined. But again I repeat it ?

Your safety hangs upon Christ's work for you.

Your assurance upon God's word to you.

Your enjoyment upon your not grieving the Holy Ghost in you.

When, as a child of God, you do anything to grieve the Holy Spirit of God, your communion with the Father and the Son is, for the time, practically suspended; and it is only when you judge yourself, and confess your sins, that the joy of communion is restored.

Your child has been guilty of some misdemeanour. He shows upon his countenance the evident mark that something is wrong with him. Half-an-hour before this he was enjoying a walk with you round the garden, admiring what you admired, enjoying what you enjoyed. In other words, he was in communion with you; his feelings and sympathies were in common with yours.

But now all this is changed, and as a naughty, disobedient child he stands in the corner, the very picture of misery.

Upon penitent confession of his wrong-doing you have assured him of forgiveness; but his pride and self-will keep him sobbing there.

Where is now the joy of half-an-hour ago? All gone. Why? Because communion between you and him has been interrupted.

What is become of the relationship that existed between you and your son half-an-hour ago? Is that gone too? is that severed or interrupted? Surely not.

His relationship depends upon his birth.

His communion upon his behaviour.

But presently he comes out of the corner with broken will and broken heart, confessing the whole thing from first to last, so that you see he hates the disobedience and naughtiness as much as you do, and you take him in your arms and cover him with kisses. His joy is restored, because communion is restored.

When David sinned so grievously in the matter of Uriah's wife, he did not say, "Restore unto me Thy salvation," but, "Restore unto me the joy of Thy salvation." (Ps. 51: 12.)

But to carry our illustration a little farther. Supposing while your child is in the corner there should be a cry of "house on fire" throughout your dwelling, what would become of him then? Left in the corner to be consumed with the burning, falling house? Impossible!

Very probably he would be the very first person you would carry out. Ah, yes, you know right well that the love of relationship is one thing, and the joy of communion quite another.

Now, when the believer sins, communion is for the time interrupted, and joy is lost until, with a broken heart, he comes to the Father and confesses his sins.

Then, taking God at His word, he knows he is again forgiven; for His Word plainly declares that "if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John i. 9.)

Oh, then, dear child of God, ever bear in mind these two things, that there is nothing so strong as the link of relationship; nothing so tender as the link of communion.

All the combined power and counsel of earth and hell cannot sever the former, while an impure motive or an idle word will snap the latter.

If you are troubled with a cloudy half-hour, get low before God, consider your ways. And when the thief that has robbed you of your joy has been detected, drag him at once to the light, confess your sin to God, your Father, and judge yourself most unsparingly for the unwatchful, careless state of soul that allowed the thief to enter unchallenged.

But never, never, NEVER, confound your safety with your joy.

Don't imagine, however, that the judgment of God falls a whit more leniently on the believer's sin than on the unbeliever's. He has not two ways of dealing judicially with sin, and He could no more pass by the believer's sin without judging it, than He could pass by the sins of a rejecter of His precious Son. But there is this great difference between the two; viz., that the believer's sins were all known to God, and all laid upon His own provided Lamb when He hung upon the cross at Calvary, and that there and then, once and for ever, the great "criminal question" of his guilt was raised and settled, judgment falling upon the blessed Substitute in the believer's stead, "Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree." (1 Peter ii. 24.)

The Christ-rejecter must bear his own sins in his own person in the lake of fire for ever. Now, when a saved one fails, the "criminal question" of sin cannot be raised against him, the Judge Himself having settled that once for all on the cross; but the communion question is raised within him by the Holy Ghost as often as he grieves the Spirit.

Allow me, in conclusion, to give you another illustration. It is a beautiful moonlight night. The moon is at full, and shining in more than ordinary silver brightness. A man is gazing intently down a deep, still well, where he sees the moon reflected, and thus remarks to a friendly bystander: "How beautifully fair and round she is to-night! how quietly and majestically she rides along!" He has just finished speaking, when suddenly his friend drops a small pebble into the well, and he now exclaims, "Why, the moon is all broken to shivers, and the fragments are shaking together in the greatest disorder!"

"What gross absurdity!" is the astonished rejoinder of his companion. "Look up, man! the moon hasn't changed one jot or tittle. It is the condition of the well that reflects her that has changed."

Now, believer, apply the simple figure. Your heart is the well. When there is no allowance of evil the blessed Spirit of God takes of the glories and preciousness of Christ, and reveals them to you for your comfort and joy. But the moment a wrong motive is cherished in the heart, or an idle word escapes the lips unjudged, the Holy Ghost begins to disturb the well, your happy experiences are smashed to pieces, and you are all restless and disturbed within, until in brokenness of spirit before God you confess your sin (the disturbing thing), and thus get restored once more to the calm, sweet joy of communion.

But when your heart is thus all unrest, need I ask, Has Christ's work changed? No, no. Then your Salvation has not altered.

Has God's word changed? Surely not. Then the certainty of your Salvation has received no shock.

Then what has changed? Why, the action of the Holy Ghost in you has changed, and instead of taking of the glories of Christ, and filling your heart with the sense of His worthiness, He is grieved at having to turn aside from this delightful office to fill you with the sense of your sin and unworthiness.

He takes from you your present comfort and joy until you judge and resist the evil thing that He judges and resists. When this is done communion with God is again restored.

The Lord make us to be increasingly jealous over ourselves, lest we grieve "the Holy Spirit of God, whereby we are sealed unto the day of redemption." (Eph. iv. 30.)

Dear reader, however weak your faith may be, rest assured of this, that the blessed One who has won your confidence will never change.

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever." (Heb. xiii. 8.)

The work He has accomplished will never change.

"Whatsoever God doeth it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor anything taken from it." (Eccles. iii. 14.)

The word He has spoken will never change.

"The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: but the word of the Lord endureth for ever." (1 Peter i. 24, 25.)

Thus the object of my trust, the foundation of my safety, and the ground of my certainty, are alike Eternally Unalterable.

"My love is ofttimes low,

My joy still ebbs and flows;

But peace with Him remains the same,

No change Jehovah knows.

"I change, He changes not;

God's Christ can never die;

His love, not mine, the resting-place;

His truth, not mine, the tie."

Once more let me ask, "Which class are you travelling? " Turn your heart to God, I pray you, and answer that question to Him.

"Let God be true, but every man a liar." (Rom. iii. 4.)

"He that hath received His testimony has set to his seal that God is true." (John iii. 33.)

May the joyful assurance of possessing this "great salvation" be yours, dear reader, now and "till He come."

WHAT transports then will fill our heart

When Thou our worthless names wilt own;

When we shall see Thee as Thou art,

And know as we ourselves are known;

And then, from sin and sorrow free,

Find our eternal rest with Thee.

Salvation.

"The salvation of your souls." ? 1 Peter 1: 9.

"Work out your own salvation." ? Phil. 2: 12.

"Now is our salvation nearer." ? Rom. 13:11.

The above scriptures show that the word salvation, as used in the New Testament, has more than one meaning.

The first speaks of believers having received the salvation of their souls, which salvation is as complete now as it will be when they are with the Lord in glory.

From the second believers learn that they are to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in them both to will and to do of His good pleasure; that is, by the power of the Holy Spirit of God in them they are to refrain their "feet from every evil way." (Ps. cxix. 101.) The Christian starts with the salvation of his soul. He is not told to work out that. It was wrought out by the Lord Jesus when He died, "the Just for the unjust, to bring us to God." (1 Peter iii. 18.)

The third refers to the glory that believers will enter into when they are caught up to meet the Lord in the air. (1 Thess. iv. 16, 17.) It was in view of this that the apostle said, "Now is our salvation nearer than when we believed." (Rom. i. 16; Phil. i. 19; Heb. v. 9; ix. 9, 28.)

Ye Must Be Born Again.

When Nicodemus went to our Lord for instruction, he was met instantly by the solemn word, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John iii. 3.) It behoves therefore every anxious soul to consider this searching divine word; because we at once learn, that whatever the anxiety of soul ? earnest desires, profession of faith ? if there has not been wrought this great change, the "new birth," there is no life in the soul, and consequently no salvation.

Who was it then to whom the Lord addressed these words? We learn only half the truth when we answer, Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; for, in fact, this tells us nothing beyond his name and official rank, and these things have no weight before God, and no significance for the seeking soul. It is in the connection of the third chapter with the second that we shall find the real answer to our question. We read, "Now when He [Jesus] was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast-day, many believed in His name, when they saw the miracles which He did. But Jesus did not commit Himself unto them, because He knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man: for He knew what was in man. But" (as it should be read) "there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews," etc. (John ii. 23-25; iii. 1, etc.) There was thus a number of Jews who believed on Jesus when they saw His miracles, and Nicodemus was one of that number. But Jesus did not commit Himself to them, because He knew what was in man; because, in fact, their faith was nothing more than a natural conviction, wrought by the evidence of the miracles, of the truth of the claims of Jesus. There was no bowing of heart before God in all this; there was nothing more than a natural or intellectual belief in the name of Christ. When therefore Nicodemus came to Jesus by night, no doubt in quest of something more, and expressed this belief, "Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him," Jesus answered him at once by stating the necessity of being born again. It was as if He had said, "You may believe in me as a divine teacher, and yet be lost. You must be born again before you can enter into the kingdom of God."

We thus get a most solemn warning, as well as a needed caution. The warning is, "Beware of being satisfied with a profession of belief in Christ." The caution is, Never forget that everything is useless if you have not been born again. You may be most earnest, most religious, a model of activity, in high repute for sanctity of life, or for works of usefulness, and yet be a lost soul; for unless you are born again, you cannot even see the kingdom of God."

Why then must a man be born again? The answer to this question brings us to a most important part of our subject. We have already shown that all men are sinners; but it is not only that they are sinners, but they have an evil, corrupt, depraved nature; and this incurably corrupt nature is the tree which produces all the evil fruits of sin. The acts of sin reveal the character of the nature; and this nature is totally unfit for God's presence. This is the purport of our Lord's words in this chapter, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh." (v. 6.) All therefore that we are as natural men, as children of Adam, is flesh; and in this flesh there dwelleth no good thing. (Rom. vii. 18.)

"Are we to understand that all men, without exception, are thus totally corrupt, hopelessly evil?"

"Yes. Such is the verdict of God upon human nature. 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh.'"

"But is it possible, for example, that all the noble deeds recorded in history, or all the kind, generous, and beneficent actions which we meet with in daily life, are all these done by those who have a totally depraved nature? Surely there must be a difference ? degrees in our natural condition; for how is it possible to class such actions with open and flagrant sins?"

It matters not what may be the outward character of the actions of men, whether such as will elicit the applause or draw down the condemnation of their fellows; for as long as they proceed from men who have not been born again, they are nothing but evil in the sight of God, for a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit. "For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes." (Luke vi. 43, 44.) The word of God is most explicit on this question. "The carnal mind" (the mind of the flesh) "is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God." (Rom. viii. 7, 8.) It is thus, as Luther said, not a question of doing, but of being; not a question of the character of actions, but a question of nature, and this nature God declares to be flesh, and the flesh is nothing but evil in His sight, and consequently "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." (1 Cor. xv. 50.)

Herein therefore lies the necessity of being born again. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh. . . . Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." (John iii. 6, 7.) This necessity is universal in its application. It concerns every one born into this world, the dutiful, obedient child, as much as the prodigal son; the active, zealous philanthropist as much as the convict in his cell. For the flesh is flesh, and cannot enter the kingdom of God. There must therefore be a new nature and a new life; for if there be not these, whatever a man's moral repute, he will be for ever outside of the kingdom of God.

How then must a man be born again? This, in substance, was the question of Nicodemus. "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (John iii. 4.) This question, rigidly construed, means undoubtedly, How is it possible for a man to be born again? But our Lord, in His answer, does not notice it in this form, but points out the way in which a man is born again. "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (v. 5.)

(1) Water. Much difficulty has been occasioned by special attempts to wrest the meaning of this symbol. Ritualists of many shades have persistently endeavoured to support their false teaching of baptismal regeneration from this passage. But if we confine ourselves to the Scriptures, we shall find that the difficulty will disappear. Now it is very evident that Nicodemus should have understood what our Lord meant; and if he did not, that he was expected to understand. For when he replied, "How can these things be? Jesus answered and said, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?" (John iii. 9, 10.) And if we turn to one of the prophets (with whose writings Nicodemus, as one of Israel's teachers, should have been well acquainted), we shall find a distinct foreshadowing of this teaching of our Lord. Speaking of the future restoration of Israel, the prophet says, "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you: and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them." (Ezek. xxxvi. 25-27.) Here we have the same conjunction of the water and the Spirit, and a radical change following upon its application; for nothing less than this can be implied by "a new heart." Not only so, but the water in this passage is used in the most familiar of all senses to the Israelites, in connection with cleansing. With this passage then before us, what, we ask, is the import of the water? Turn to Psalm cxix. 9, and we get this question: "Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed thereto according to thy word." We read also in the New Testament of the "washing of water by the word" (Eph. v. 26); again, "Now ye are clean through" (or because of) "the word which I have spoken unto you." (John xv. 3; read also John xiii. 5-41.) The water therefore is a well-known symbol for the word of God. Hence we find the Word constantly associated in other passages with the new birth. "Of His own will begat He us with the word of truth." (James i. 18.) "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away; but the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the Word which by the gospel is preached unto you." (1 Peter i. 23-25.) The apostle Paul makes an allusion to the same thing when he says to the Corinthians, "In Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." (1 Cor. iv. 15.) The word of God, preached in the gospel, is the first means of the new birth which our Lord here sets forth under the type of water.

(2) And [of] the Spirit. "It is the Spirit that quickeneth." (John vi. 63.) "The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life." (2 Cor. iii. 6.) The Spirit acting in and through the word of God quickens dead souls, and they are born again.

The Word cannot do this in and by itself; nor does the Spirit of God act alone, but He wields the Word as the instrument, so that by it He may bring souls out of death into life, producing in them both a new nature and a new life. Many illustrations of this might be collected from the Scriptures. Take the most prominent of all ? that afforded by the day of Pentecost. The crucifiers of the Lord Jesus were gathered round about Peter and the other apostles. Peter proclaimed the word of God to them, and said, "Let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." (Acts ii. 36.) At the beginning of the chapter we read of the descent of the Holy Spirit; and it is said of the apostles that "they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." Peter was therefore speaking in the power of the Spirit, and that same Spirit clothed the word of God with mighty power, and the effect was that a multitude were born again, the change wrought upon them being indicated by the fact that "they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter, and to the rest of the apostles, Men [and] brethren, what shall we do?" (v. 37.) So it is now when men are born again. It is always through the Word, by the Spirit of God. There is no other way.

Dear reader, have you been born again? You surely, with this testing word before you, can have no difficulty in answering the question. If you are, your whole soul will go out in thanksgivings to God for the gift of His only begotten Son. If you are not, let me again warn you that it matters not what you are besides ? you may be a good son or daughter, a loving husband or wife, a kind father or mother, and yet, not being born again, you are outside the kingdom of God, hopelessly undone and lost. Will you be satisfied in this condition? What had been the consequence if the bitten Israelites had refused to look to the serpent of brass, saying, "We may perhaps recover"? They would have died in their anguish and their sin. And so if you refuse to look to Christ, to believe in Him (Heb. xii. 25), instead of having eternal life, you will for ever perish. But if you bow to this divine necessity of being born again, acknowledging your true condition before God, and look to Christ in simple faith, you will immediately pass from death unto life.

ALL that we were ? our sins, our guilt,

Our death ? was all our own:

All that we are we owe to Thee,

Thou God of grace, alone.

Thy mercy found us in our sins,

And gave us to believe;

Then, in believing, peace we found,

And in Thy Christ we live,

The Blood of Christ.

Supposing now that those of whom we speak ? "anxious ones" ? have bowed to the judgment of God upon their condition, their immediate concern will be to know by what means they can obtain the pardon of their sins. The blood of Christ is the only way by which the guilt of sin can be removed. "Without shedding of blood is no remission." (Heb. ix. 22.) Herein lies the necessity for the death of Christ; the need, in fact, for the whole work of redemption. And hence it is of the first importance that this truth should be rightly understood.

We have already pointed out that death has "passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." (Rom. v. 12.) Adam first incurred the penalty through his disobedience to God. He had been warned not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Gen. ii. 16, 17.) Adam disregarded the divine command, and fell under the awful sentence of death ? the penalty which God had annexed to disobedience. Thus "by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." (Rom. v. 12.) There is therefore no difference; all alike are sinners; and hence every child of Adam's race is subject to the penalty of sin, which is death. Yea, death already reigns (see Rom. v. 13-21) over the whole human family; every individual member of it (saving those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ) being under the righteous judgment of death because of sin. "But God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." (Rom. v. 8.) He "so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John iii. 16.) Being rich in mercy, He sent His own Son to die, "the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God." (1 Peter iii. 18.) Just as when Abraham was about to sacrifice his son, God provided a lamb to be offered up in his stead, that Isaac might be rescued and live (Gen. xxii.), so God has provided a Lamb to be offered up in the sinner's room and stead ? "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." (John i. 29.) This is the secret and meaning, in this aspect, of the death of Christ. He died as the sinner's substitute, bore the sinner's judgment, expiated the sinner's guilt.

The marvellous efficacy of the blood of Christ, as meeting the sinner's need, flows from the character of His person and the nature of His death. His blood is the symbol of His death, of His life poured out; for the life is in the blood (see Lev. xvii. 10-14), and hence His blood cleanses from sin, because of the value of His death before God in the sinner's place and behalf. God has condescended to teach us this by type and illustration, as well as by direct statement. Look at the Israelites in the land of Egypt on the passover night. God was about to execute judgment upon the land of Egypt; and when once He began to deal in righteousness, Israel was as much amenable to the penalty of sin as the Egyptians. How then spare the former when the latter were to be judged? "I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord. And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt." (Ex. xii. 12, 13; also vv. 21-23.) The ground (mark it well) of difference on this night between Israel and Egypt was the blood. It was not what Israel was in comparison with the Egyptians, but it was the blood that stayed the destroyer's hand ? the blood on the outside of their houses; for the Lord had said, "When I see the blood, I will pass over you." The blood of the lamb ? for the lamb had been slain ? cleansed them typically from guilt, so that God could righteously spare Israel while He righteously destroyed Egypt. The same lesson is taught by the great day of atonement, of which we have the record in Leviticus xvi. For Aaron was directed to sprinkle the blood of the bullock and of the goat of the sin-offerings, both upon the mercy-seat and before the mercy-seat, where God dwelt between the cherubim; "for on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord." (Lev. xvi. 30.) All these things were but shadows of the efficacy of the blood of Christ. Thus we read: "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us" (1 Cor. v. 7); and again, "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood, He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (Heb. ix. 12-14.) Accordingly we are taught, that "the blood of Jesus Christ His [God's] Son cleanseth us from all sin." (1 John i. 7.)

We may, then, now point out distinctly the teaching of Scripture as to the blood of Christ in relation to sin. (1.) It is the only means of cleansing from guilt. This is the divinely-appointed and the divinely-given way. It is therefore exclusive of all other methods. "Though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord God." (Jer. ii. 22.) "If I wash myself with snow-water, and make my hands never so clean; yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch, and mine own clothes shall abhor me." (Job ix. 30, 31.) It is only the blood of Christ which can make the sinner whiter than snow. (2.) It is the blood in and by itself alone which possesses this efficacy. There cannot be any addition to it. It is not the blood and something else. Add to it in any way, whether by feelings, prayers, penitence (all of which have their proper place), and you mar its cleansing power. (3.) God has provided the blood. It was He who delivered up His Son to death. This provision for the sinner's need is one therefore entirely of God's grace, and consequently a provision outside of the sinner altogether. God in His infinite mercy, and because He so loved the world, provided the Lamb for the sacrifice and now the precious blood of that Lamb avails for every one who believes. (John iii. 16.) There is no limit whatever in its application, excepting in the sinner's unbelief. It is provided for all, and every one may be the subject of its blessed cleansing power through faith.

Beloved reader, you have confessed your need of cleansing; and God has provided that which alone can meet your need. Do you ask, But how am I to obtain the application of the blood to myself? Solely and entirely by the obedience of faith. Let us go back to the passover night. (Ex. xii.) It was not enough that the lamb was slain, and that the blood was in the basin; but the Israelite was directed to sprinkle the blood for himself upon the lintel and the two side-posts of his door. With the bunch of hyssop in his hand, the sign of his humiliation before the righteous judgment of God, he sprinkled the blood, thereby confessing his own desert of death, and his faith in the blood as the means to avert the stroke of the destroyer, of sheltering him from the wrath of the Righteous Judge. So now. The Lamb has been provided, and slain; His blood has been shed. But the fact of His blood-shedding does not secure your safety. The question is, Are you under the shelter of the blood? Do you again ask, How can this be? By bowing in humiliation, like the Israelite, before the judgment which God has pronounced against sin; that is, by taking the place of a sinner, and by looking to the blood of Christ to secure you from the righteous doom and meed of sin. The moment you do this, the blood of Christ is upon you in all its value, between you and judgment, sheltering you completely and for ever from the consequences of sin; for the blood has met and satisfied all the claims that a holy God had against you. For God hath set forth Christ a propitiation through faith in His blood. (Rom. iii. 25.) There is therefore absolutely nothing for you to do; not even have you to gather the hyssop and sprinkle the blood. You have simply to believe the word of God, to look in faith to the blood already shed, as the only means of protection from death and judgment, and God instantly sees you as covered with all its efficacy and value ? cleansed from guilt and whiter than snow. Delay not, then, to seek the protection of the precious blood of Christ. At midnight the Lord smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt; and as suddenly and unexpectedly will judgment overtake the rejecters of Christ, "for when they shall say, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them . . . and they shall not escape." (1 Thess. v. 3.) To-day, then, hear the entreating voice of the love of God, which bids you to flee from the wrath to come, and to "behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." (John i. 29.)

To Him that saved us from the world,

And washed us in His blood,

Called us to share His glorious throne,

As kings and priests to God;

To Him let every tongue be praise,

And every heart be love!

All grateful honours paid on earth,

And nobler songs above!

The Forgiveness of Sins

All forgiveness is founded on the blessed work of the Lord Jesus. Without the work of Christ, a holy and just God, yea, a God of truth, must have held man to be what he really is ? a guilty sinner, who must be judged according to his works; and we know beforehand from His word that there is none righteous, no, not one. The love of God, great as it is, so great that for us He did not spare His Son, could not say that sin was not sin, or that He was indifferent to good and evil; for He is not, and in His own nature cannot be; and if He judges, and makes man himself answer for what he has done, He must judge him righteously.

Besides, we are alienated from God in heart and mind, and so really already lost. I do not now mean finally, nor that we cannot be saved out of that state; but if we can, it is because Christ came to seek and to save that which was lost. Judgment, if we come unrepentant, unbelieving, before the judgment-seat of Christ, will be according to our works, and therefore to condemnation; for all have sinned.

But God is love ? "God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." God has thus anticipated, in grace, that day of judgment. The same blessed Son of God, who will as Son of man sit on the judgment-seat, and judge the quick and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom, has already, before that day, come as a Saviour, and died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and "he that believeth on the Son of God shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be condemned." Solemn as that warning is, I shall not say more of these last. The statement is plain enough and solemn enough without adding anything to it. They die in their sins, and are doubly guilty; they have not only sinned against His holiness, but despised His mercy.

Supposing now we do really in heart believe in the Son of God, with a faith wrought in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, and a conscience which feels the need of grace and forgiveness; for that is the great point ? a faith which has wrought true repentance, that godly sorrow and sense that we have deserved to be condemned which make Christ and His grace and His work precious to us. I suppose we have been all brought up to believe in what is written of the blessed Lord Jesus as a divine history; but that is very different from believing in Him as meeting the need of an awakened conscience.

But supposing I have this true faith in Him, then it behoves me to be able to say what He has done for me.

He has died for our sins according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. xv. 3); He has borne our sins in His own body on the tree (1 Peter ii. 24); He died, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God. (1 Peter iii. 18.)

So that here is our question: Supposing I have true heart-faith in Him, Christ having thus died for me, what is the effect or efficacy of His death for me?

I have a perfect and eternal forgiveness and redemption according to the glory of God. I do not speak of those who neglect this great salvation; they are doubly guilty; but of what the value of His work is for those who have really a part in it. "Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: and by Him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." (Acts xiii. 38, 39.) "In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace." (Eph. i. 7.) "Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God." (Rom. iv. 25; v. 1, 2.) "By the obedience of One shall many be made righteous." (Rom. v. 19.) "Whom He justified, them He also glorified." (Rom. viii. 30.) "By His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption." (Heb. ix. 12.) And its effect is complete ? "How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (v. 14.)

But is this valid for ever?

We have seen that it is eternal redemption, that it purges the conscience from dead works, and gives peace with God; but Scripture is more explicit. Christ is always at the right hand of God, and has presented His precious blood to God. It is always before His eyes; but Scripture is very explicit on this point ? "But this [man], having offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down at the right hand of God." Not like the Jewish priests, standing continually at the altar offering sacrifices which could never take away sins. (Heb. x. 11.) He sat down because, for redemption and forgiveness, He had done already the whole work; for (Heb. x. 14) "by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." He sits there at the right hand of God till His enemies be made His footstool; then He will come to deal with them in judgment. But all is done for His friends; that is, true believers, and He has sat down, having finished the work, so that those who come by it have no more conscience of sins. (v. 2.) "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will impute no sin." "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered." (Rom. iv. 7, 8.) And is it only some of them? No, that were useless. "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth no sin;" and the Holy Ghost testifies of it clearly in that same chapter from which we have quoted, "And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." (Heb. 10: 17.) And so plainly does He put it that He declares that "where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." (v. 18.) So that, if all were not completely pardoned and effaced, there could be no remedy.

The more we consider it the more plain it is. Christ is the Judge, and if now I can say by faith, He has loved me and washed me from my sins in His own blood, how can He, when I stand before the judgment-seat, impute to me the sins He has Himself borne and put away? He would be denying the value of His own work, which is impossible.

Again, if we are believers, we are raised in glory (1 Cor. xv. 43); nay, Christ shall Himself come to bring us to Himself ? "Who shall change our body of humiliation that it may be fashioned like unto His body of glory." If Christ comes to fetch us, and puts us in glory, where is the place for raising any question then about our sins? And this is clearly said in John v. 24: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation [judgment]; but is passed from death unto life."

Is it because God is indifferent to their sins? Impossible! But He has given His Son for us. Christ has borne them already, and cannot impute them to those who believe in Him and in the Father who sent Him in love. We know that the Lord says, "If ye do not believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." (John viii. 24.) But if we believe in Him we have the forgiveness of our sins, not of some to be condemned for the rest. "Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more," because "by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." And we possess the blessedness of this word ? "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man to whom Jehovah will not impute sin." Hence repentance and remission of sins were to be preached in Jesus' name. The Christian has a new life from Christ, and this will show itself in his walk. He is born of the Spirit, and the faith in Christ by which he has forgiveness makes Christ everything to him, as it is written in Colossians iii.: "Christ is all, and in all" ? the "everything," that is, of our hearts, and He is our life.

But I now confine myself to redemption and forgiveness.

There is, then, a forgiveness identified with redemption and the abiding value of Christ's blood, so that our sins are none of them imputed to us: God remembers them no more. We have part in this through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and the door by which we enter is repentance toward God, which faith in the word of Christ always produces. We have our eyes opened, we are turned from darkness to light, from the power of Satan unto God, and we receive remission of our sins and an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith that is in Jesus. (Acts xxvi. 18.)

Under the Old Testament, among the Jews, this full forgiveness was not known; they got a kind of absolution for each sin they committed; they were shut out from entering into the holiest by the veil, which hung before the place where God revealed Himself. Thus in Hebrews ix. it is written, "The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing." But we learn, when the real work of which all these things were figures was accomplished in the death of the Saviour, that the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom (Matt. xxvii. 51); and we are exhorted (Heb. x. 19), in virtue of the work of Christ and the remission of our sins (vv. 17, 18), "having boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way, which He hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, His flesh," to "draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience." That one work done once for all, never to be repeated, and effectual to give peace to the conscience, is the ground on which we have eternal redemption, full forgiveness, so that God remembers our sins and iniquities no more; an entrance into God's presence, and a part in the everlasting inheritance of God's children in glory.

This great difference in the state of believers before and after the death of the blessed Lord is celebrated by Zacharias at the birth of John the Baptist, Christ's forerunner. "To give knowledge of salvation unto His people, by the remission of their sins." (Luke i. 77.) So the repentant thief went straight into paradise with Christ; so to the repentant woman in the city that was a sinner the Lord said, not only, "Thy sins are forgiven thee," but, "Thy faith hath saved thee." (Luke 7: 48-50.)

There is then for faith a present but eternal forgiveness, founded on Christ's bearing our sins in a work which can never be repeated, its value never diminished, nor anything added to it. God has proved His estimation of its worth in setting Him who did it at His right hand in glory, where He was with Him as Son of God before the world was. "Without shedding of blood there is no remission." This cannot be repeated. "Christ is not entered into holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: nor yet to offer Himself often . . . otherwise He must often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the consummation of ages He hath appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment; so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time apart from sin unto salvation." Those whose sins were put away the first time, He comes to take into glory, as to them having no more to do with sin, which He put away the first time.

FORGIVENESS, 'twas a joyful sound

To guilty sinners doomed to die:

We'd publish it the world around,

And gladly shout it through the sky.

'Twas the rich gift of love divine;

'Tis full, effacing every crime;

Unbounded shall its glories shine,

And know no change by changing time.

"Cleansed from all sin."

1 John i. 7.

"Shall we not be perfectly holy when we are cleansed from all sin?" This is a question often asked by some who imagine that they can be gradually cleansed from "inbred sin," until at last there is no sin left in them, and they have reached a state of perfect holiness or sinless perfection.

They quote that precious word in 1 John i. 7 ? "The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin" ? and say, "Does not that verse show that we can be cleansed from all sin?"

Of course it does, thank God; and what is more, if you are under the efficacy of that blood you are "cleansed from all sin" now, and so is every true believer, even the babe in Christ, and that from the first moment that he took refuge in the blood.

"But," some will say, "if that were the case, if I, for instance, were cleansed from all sin, I should not feel sin in me as I do, and should never give way to temptation."

To such we would reply, You are confounding the work of Christ for you with the work of the Spirit in you, and you do not understand what Scripture means by cleansing by the blood.

Let us therefore look at one or two passages which explain it, and may God interpret His own word to us, so that we may get rid of our own thoughts, and have the truth.

Now in Leviticus xvi. 30 we read, with reference to the great day of atonement, "On that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord;" and on examining the chapter we find not only that the people did nothing, but that the priest, who did everything for the people, did nothing to the people; he did not even sprinkle the blood upon them, and yet he made atonement for them, and cleansed them, and they were clean from ALL their sins before the Lord. Ah! there is the point; they were clean before the Lord, not in themselves, and that is just the meaning of the verse already quoted ? "the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." It is before the Lord, before a holy God. It cannot mean that we are clean in ourselves; for in the very same chapter (v. 8) it says, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

"But," you say, "do we never read of the blood being sprinkled on the people?" To be sure we do, and in Heb. ix. x. we see the meaning of it. Did it not cleanse them? Yes, it cleansed them, but in what respect? Did it cleanse their natures? No, it cleansed their consciences. The blood of bulls and goats could only satisfy for a time, but the blood of Christ purges the conscience completely and for ever, so that the worshippers once purged (no repetition, remember) have "no more conscience of sins." Mark, it does not say "no more consciousness of indwelling sin," but "no more conscience of sins." The conscience no longer charges with guilt, because all the guilt has been imputed to the One who died in my stead, and He is risen and gone into heaven "by His own blood, having obtained eternal redemption," and "by one offering perfected for ever" (as regards the conscience) "them that are sanctified."

The cleansing virtue of the blood may be further illustrated by referring to Numbers xxiii. 21, where God compels Balaam to say, "He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath He seen perverseness in Israel," and that at a time when they were as perverse as could be in themselves; but the blood was on the mercy-seat, and God's eye rested on that blood which spoke to Him of a perfect sacrifice for sin, and therefore He would not allow the enemy to curse, or even to accuse, His people, though He chastened them for their faults as a people who ought to have been as holy in their ways as in their judicial standing. Of course all was typical and imperfect under the law, but now it is absolutely and eternally true that God does not impute sin to those who are under the shelter of the blood of Christ.

But perhaps you will say, "What about Psalm li. and Ezekiel xxxvi.? Surely we get the thought of being 'inwardly cleansed from sin' in such scriptures as these?" Well, it is quite true there is such a thing as inward cleansing; but where that is attributed to the blood it has reference, not to the nature, but to the conscience, which is only thoroughly cleansed or purged when the blessedness is enjoyed of the man "whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered," and "unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity" ? a blessedness which David described in Psalm xxxii. and longed for in Psalm li., but which could only be fully known when Christ had accomplished the work of redemption.

When, however, the psalmist prays, "Create in me a clean heart, O God," and when the prophet Ezekiel speaks of what the Lord will do for restored Israel in the latter day, "then will I sprinkle clean water upon you," etc. (Ezek. xxxvi. 25-27), we have brought before us the cleansing power of the word of God, and this is typified by water not only in Ezekiel, but also in John iii., and many other parts of Scripture.

The word when applied by the power of the Holy Ghost does create in us a clean heart, and renew a right spirit within us. When first a man is brought under the life-giving power of the Word he is born again ? "of water and the Spirit;" an entirely new life and nature, holy and sinless, is imparted to him, and those whose hearts were hard as stone, "alienated and enemies in their minds by wicked works," are reconciled to God.

This is a very different thing from saying that the old nature is purified or rooted out, either all at once or by degrees. Such a thought is foreign to Scripture, in which you cannot find a single instance of any one professing to have attained to a state of sinless perfection, or teaching the possibility of it. On the contrary we read, "I count not myself to have apprehended" (Phil. iii. 13); "I delight in the law of God after the inward man: but I see another law in my members." (Rom. vii. 22, 23.) The old nature remains unchanged and unchangeable, side by side, so to speak, with the new nature ? "The mind of the flesh is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be" (Rom. viii. 7); "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves." (1 John i. 8.) And indeed the folly of those who have so deceived themselves will sooner or later be manifested, and often has been made evident by an outburst of passion, a display of pride, or a grievous fall.

Do not, however, suppose for a moment that we contend for a constant state of bondage or a fruitless struggle against sin. Far from it. "Sin shall not have dominion over you" (Rom. vi. 14): "Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh." (Gal. v. 16.) But the flesh, you see, is there to lust; for as long as the Adam-life lasts the Adam-nature remains in us; but when the Christ-life has been grafted into us, and the Holy Spirit has taken up His abode in us, we have liberty and power to cultivate the Christ-nature, and so to have our "fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life."

Thus by watchfulness, dependence, and subjection to the Word, keeping the eye on Christ in glory, and keeping the foot on the old man by the power of the Spirit, made good to us through Him who ever liveth to make intercession for us, "whose grace is sufficient" for us, and whose "strength is made perfect in weakness," we may seek to "walk even as He walked," and thus to be as clean through the Word in our daily walk as we are through the blood "before the Lord."

"In many things we all offend" (though we have no excuse for it), and "there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not." (Eccles. vii. 20.) But "if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." (1 John ii. 1.) And He who washed His disciples' feet still washes our feet to keep us in communion with Him by the constant application of the Word, reminding us of the cost at which He has purchased us, even His own precious blood once shed, and which never loses its value.

Peace by Jesus Christ.

Acts 10: 36.

If you are enquiring how "peace with God" is to be procured, the holy word of God answers, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done" (Titus iii. 5), but by believing on the Son of God, who came "preaching peace to all" (comp. Acts x. 36; Eph. ii. 17), having made it "by the blood of His cross." Again: "Being justified by faith, we have (now) peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ." Rom. v. 1. And the Holy Ghost has proclaimed, by the mouth of the apostle Peter, that "there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts iv. 12. But perhaps, dear reader, you are ready to say, "I do believe on the Son of God; I believe that He came into the world, took our nature upon Him, and died upon the cross for sin, and was raised again the third day, and that there is no other name by which a sinner can be saved, but His name." Well, this is a very sound confession as far as it goes; but are you in the enjoyment of the results of all this? If you really believe all this, then you possess eternal life, and divine righteousness. 2 Cor. v. 21. He that believeth on the Son of God hath eternal life; and again, "By Him (Jesus) all that believe are justified from all things." Acts xiii. 39. For one to say that he believes all this, and yet that he does not know his perfect justification before God, is a complete contradiction. If I am amongst the "all that believe," I am assuredly "justified from all things." God says so, and therefore I am bound to believe it, and rejoice in it. The completeness of the justification is founded upon the completeness of Christ's work. Faith owns this, and the soul is filled with joy and peace. I know that my sins are forgiven, and my conscience gets rest. It is deeply important to see that we are privileged to know the forgiveness of our own sins. There are many who, every first day of the week, declare their belief "in the forgiveness of sins," and yet who would regard it as presumption for one to say he believed in the forgiveness of his sins. "We know that we have passed from death unto life." 1 John iii. 14.

Is it presumption to take God at His word? God hath said, "He (no matter who) that believeth on the Son hath (now) everlasting life." John iii. 36, v. 24; 1 John v. 12. Mark, it is not said, be shall, or may, have it, but he "hath" it. "Because ye are sons, God hath, sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, [nothing less than] Abba, Father." Gal. iv. 6. Is it not far greater presumption "to make God a liar"? (1 John V. 10), which you are doing, if you are not rejoicing in the knowledge of the forgiveness of your sins. Jesus Christ did not come to put us in the way of making peace for ourselves; He came to make peace, and to give it to us as a free gift, "without money and without price." Isaiah 55. May this blessed message of "peace and good-will" be published far and wide, that sinners may hear and live.

But let it never be forgotten, that though the grace of God, that brings a full and free salvation, has appeared to all men, yet wherever it is received it teaches to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, and to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world. Titus ii. 11, 12. If we are not showing out the latter, we may rest assured we do not fully understand the former. Living faith in the living Son of God, crucified for sin, and risen, is the grand source and root from which all good works must spring, and whatsoever work or religious service springs not from this is selfishness ? an abomination in the sight of God no matter what we ourselves or others think of it, God has said, "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." Rom. xiv. 23.

May you, dear reader, have this precious faith; and may "the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, keep your heart and mind through Christ Jesus." Amen.

Law and Grace Exemplified.

Deut. xxi.. 18-21, and Luke xv. 11-32.

In looking through the various laws and ordinances of the Old Testament, we cannot fail to observe the intense spirit of holiness which they breathe; the most trifling ordinance, apparently, was calculated to impress Israel with a sense of holiness. God's presence in their midst was ever to be the spring of holiness and separation to His people. Hence we read in this passage of the book of Deuteronomy, "So shalt thou put away evil from among you." And again, in the ordinance of the manslayer, we read, "Defile not therefore the land which ye shall inhabit, wherein I dwell: for I the Lord dwell among the children of Israel." (Num. xxxv. 34.) God's dwelling-place must be holy; and "without holiness no man shall see the Lord." There can be no alteration in this. Dispensations may change, but God, blessed be His name, can never cease to be "the holy, holy, holy Lord God of Israel;" nor can He ever cease to make His people like what He is Himself. Whether He speak from amid the thunders of Mount Sinai, or in all the gentleness and grace of the blood-sprinkled mercy-seat in the heavens, His object is still the same; viz., to make and keep His people holy.

Very different, however, is the mode of acting in the law, from that which we find in the gospel. In the law, God was calling upon man to be what He desired him to be; He set before him a high and holy standard, no doubt, but yet a standard to which man could not attain. Even though he might aspire most ardently after what the law set before him, yet, from the very fact of what he was, he could not attain to it. All his efforts were based upon the unholiness of a nature which was perfectly irrecoverable. The law was like a mirror, let down from heaven to show to all who would only look honestly into it, that they were, both negatively and positively, the very thing which the law condemned and set aside. The law said, "Do this," and "Thou shalt not do that;" and man's only response, uttered from the very depth of his nature, was, "O wretched man that I am!" In short, the law, like a plumb-line, measured the human character, and showed out all its crookedness and imperfection. It was not, by any means, its province to make the sinner better. No; its province was to reveal his sins, and put him under the curse. "The law entered, that the offence might abound." And again, "As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse." This is very plain. Have anything to do with law, and it will prove you to be a poor, helpless sinner, and put you under the curse. It can really do nothing else, so long as God and man, holiness and sin, continue to be what they are. We may seek to confound law and grace, in our ignorance of the true genius of each; but it will prove, in the end, to be most thoroughly vain. As well might we seek to cause light and darkness to mingle, as to make law and grace combine. No; they are as distinct as any two things can be. The law can only point out to man the error of his ways ? the evil of his nature. It does not make him straight, but only tells him he is crooked; it does not make him clean, but only tells him he is defiled. Nor was the law designed, as is often imagined, to lead sinners to Christ. This idea is founded upon an erroneous quotation of Galatians iii. 24. It is not said, "The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ," but "the law was our schoolmaster unto (or until) Christ." The words "to bring us" are in italics, and do not appear in the original. This is important, as helping my reader to understand the nature, object, and scope of the law. How could the law bring a man to Christ? All it did for him was to shut him up under the curse; his finding his way to Christ was the result of quite another ministry altogether. The law acted the part of a schoolmaster from the time it was given until Christ came, by keeping souls under a restraint from which nothing could deliver, save the spirit of liberty imparted through the gospel of Christ.

However, by a simple comparison of the two scriptures which stand at the head of this paper, we shall have a very striking proof of the difference between the law and the gospel. The case presented in each, is that of a son who was disposed to do his own will and enjoy his own way. This is no uncommon case. The prodigal desired to have his portion, and to be away from under the eye of his father. But, ah how soon he was called to learn his folly! When he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want." Just so; how else could it be? He had left the only place in which all his need could be supplied, even the father's house. He had made his portion and the father's to be separate things, and hence he was compelled to learn that the former was capable of being exhausted. We can get to the bottom of all human circumstances and resources. There never was a cup of human or earthly happiness ? be it ever so deep ? ever so abundant in desirable ingredients ? which could not be drained to the bottom. There never was a well of human, or earthly refreshment, of which it could not be said, "He that drinketh of this water shall thirst again." Not so, however, with the cup which redeeming love puts into our hand ? not so with the wells of salvation from which the gospel invites us to draw. These are exhaustless, eternal, divine. As the countless ages of eternity roll along, God's cup shall be full, and His wells shall send forth their streams in immortal freshness and purity. My reader, how sweet ? how ineffably sweet ? to partake of these!

But the prodigal "began to be in want." And what then? Did he think of the father? No. So long as he had any other resource, he would not think of returning home. "He went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine." This was terrible. Thus does Satan crush the spirits of his votaries. Every one who is not walking in communion with God and subjection to the gospel of Christ, is thus engaged in the service of Satan. There is no middle ground. Reader, whom are you serving? Are you serving Christ or Satan? If the latter, oh, remember the end! Remember, too, the Father's love ? the Father's house. Remember that God does not will the death of a sinner, but rather that he should turn from his evil ways and live. This you may learn from the prodigal. The moment his necessities led him to think of returning home, that home was open wide to receive him. And, observe, it was simply his need that caused him to say, "I will arise and go to my father." It was not any longing desire for the father's company, but merely for the father's bread. Many are vainly looking within for some rising emotions of affectionate desire after God, not knowing that our very necessities, our very miseries, our very sins, render us suited objects for the exercise of divine grace. Grace suits the miserable, because the miserable can magnify grace.

And here we have arrived at a point at which we may appreciate the contrast between our scriptures. How would the law have dealt with our prodigal? The answer is simple. "Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; and they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear." The law could speak of nought but judgment and death. Mercy was not within its range, nor at all in accordance with its spirit. "The soul that sinneth it shall die," was its stern language. And again, "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."

But how does grace deal with its object? Oh for hearts to adore our God, who is the fountain of grace! "But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him." In short, the mode of treatment is the very opposite. The law said, "Lay hold on him;" the gospel said, "Embrace him;" the law said, "Stone him;" the gospel said, "Kiss him;" and yet, be it remembered, we meet the same God in both. The God of Israel speaks both in Deuteronomy and in Luke; and, moreover, we must remember what has already been stated; viz., that we trace the same object in both, which is, to give full deliverance from the power of evil. The stone of judgment and the embrace of love were both designed to put away evil; but, ah! how much more fully was the latter in sympathy with the divine mind than the former. Judgment is truly God's strange work. It was far more congenial to Him to be on the neck of the poor returning prodigal than to be within the enclosure of Mount Sinai. True, the prodigal had nothing to commend him. He had proved himself to be all that the law condemned. He had been "a glutton, and a drunkard," the rags of the far country were upon him, and were the law but to take its course, instead of the affectionate embrace of love, he would have to meet the stern grasp of justice, and instead of the father's kiss he would have had to meet the stone of judgment from the men of his city in the presence of the elders. Hence we see the contrast between law and grace; it is most striking.

But here let us ask, How could all this be? How can we reconcile the marvellous difference in the principles of acting here set before us? Whither must we turn for a solution of this apparent contradiction? How can God embrace a poor sinner? How can He shield such from the full action of justice and the law? In other words, how can He be "just and the justifier"? How can He pardon the sinner steeped to the lips in iniquity, and yet not "clear the guilty"? Where, my reader, shall we find an answer to these questions? In the cross of Calvary. Yes; there we have a precious, a divine reply to all. The Man nailed to the tree settles everything. Jesus bore sin's tremendous curse upon the cross. He exposed His own bosom to the stroke of justice; He drained to the dregs the cup of Jehovah's righteous wrath. "He bore our sins in His own body on the tree." "He hath made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him." Was not this a vindication of the law? Did ever the words, "So shalt thou put evil away," fall with such impressive solemnity upon the ear as when the blessed Son of God cried out from amid the horrors of Golgotha, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Oh, never, never! All the stones that were ever cast at offending sinners, all the penalties that were ever inflicted, yea, we shall proceed further, and say that the eternal punishment of the wicked in the lake of fire could not afford such a solemn proof of God's hatred of sin as the scene on the cross. There it was that men and angels might behold God's thoughts of sin, and God's thoughts of sinners; His hatred of the former, and His love for the latter. The very same act which shows out the condemnation of sin shows out the salvation of the sinner. Hence the cross, while it most fully vindicates the holiness and justice of God, opens up a channel through which the copious streams of redeeming love can flow down to the guilty sinner. "Mercy and truth met together, righteousness and peace kissed each other," when the Son of God offered up Himself as a sacrifice for sin.

And if it be asked, What proof have we of this? What solid ground of assurance have we of the full forgiveness and perfect acceptance of the believer? The answer is, Resurrection. Jesus is now at the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens; and there, moreover, on behalf of the believer. "He was delivered for our offences," and, could we go no further than this, we might despair; but it is added, "He was raised again for our justification." Here we have full peace, full emancipation, full victory. When God raised Jesus from the dead, He declared Himself as "the God of peace." Justice was satisfied, and the sinner's Surety was set down at God's right hand; and all who, by the operation of the Holy Ghost, believe in His death and resurrection, are looked at in Him, and seen to be as free from every charge of sin as He is. Most marvellous grace! Who could have conceived such a thing? Who could have thought that He, who is "the brightness of God's glory, and the express image of His person," should come down and put Himself in the sinner's place, and bear all the wrath, curse, and judgment due to sin, in order that the sinner might be set down in the very presence of God, without "spot or wrinkle or any such thing," so that God might be able to say of him, "Thou art all fair; there is no spot in thee"? My reader, was ever love like this? Truly we have here love in its fountain, love in its channel, and love in its application. The Father is the eternal fountain, the Son is the channel, and the Holy Ghost is the power of application. What divine completeness! What perfect peace! What a solid resting-place for the sinner! Who can raise a question? God has received the prodigal, has clothed and adorned him, killed the fatted calf for him; and, above all, has given utterance to the words, "It was meet that we should make merry and be glad" ? words which ought to dispel every shadow of fear and doubt from the heart. If God can say, in virtue of the finished work of Christ, "It is meet," who can say it is not meet? Satan may accuse; but God's reply is, "Is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?" In short, the soul that believes in Jesus is lifted into a perfectly cloudless region, where, it may be truly said, "there is neither enemy, nor evil occurrent;" and in that region we can see no one so exquisitely happy in the divine results of redemption as the blessed God Himself. If the prodigal could possibly have retained a feeling of doubt or reserve, what could have so effectually banished it as the father's joy in getting him back again? Neither doubt nor fear can live in the light of our Father's countenance. If we believe that God rejoices in receiving back a sinner, we cannot harbour suspicion or hesitancy. It is not merely that God can receive us, but it is His joy to do so. Hence we not only know that "grace reigns through righteousness," but that heaven rejoices over one repenting sinner. "Thanks be unto God for His unspeakable gift!"

GRACE is a mine of wealth

Laid open to the poor;

Grace is the sov'reign spring of health,

'Tis life for evermore.

Of grace then let us sing!

(A joyful, wondrous theme!)

Who grace has brought, shall glory bring,

And we shall reign with Him.

Then shall we see His face

With all the saints above,

And sing for ever of His grace,

For ever of His love.

The Advocacy of Christ.

1 John ii. 1.

The question often arises in the minds of the Lord's people, especially of those who are young in the faith, "What is to be done if we commit sins after we have been saved?" Many a child of God has said, "I know that I have believed in Christ, and see that my sins were put away by His blood; but what troubles me is the sins I commit now, and what am I to do with them?" The direct answer to this question is found in 1 John ii. 1, 2, "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and He is the propitiation for our sins." This is clearly written to believers, for the apostle addresses them as "my children;" that is, those who have been born of God. And again, "We have an advocate with the Father," as it is only those who are born again who can call God their Father.

The first thing for us to see is, that, as believers in the Lord Jesus, all our sins are put away before God by the one offering on the cross, as we get fully brought out in the epistle to the Hebrews; because till this is seen there must always be confusion in the mind, confounding our knowledge of forgiveness of sins with the work of Christ that put them all away when they were all future. In Hebrews x. 11, 12, 14, we read, "And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: but this Man [Christ], after He had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God. . . . For by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." The priests, under the law, stood and offered "oftentimes the same sacrifices, which could never take away sins," therefore their work was never done; but this Man [Christ] offered one sacrifice, and "for ever sat down on the right hand of God." Do you see, dear reader, that there is only one sacrifice for sins, and that there never will be another? So that if all your sins were not put away then, they never can be, for Christ is not going to die again.

People often say, "I know that my sins were put away up to my conversion;" but Scripture never speaks in that way, When did Christ bear your sins? On the cross. Did He bear a part of your sins, or did He put them away up to the day of your conversion? No; if He bore one, He bore them all when they were all future, when you had committed none of them; for, blessed be His name, He offered the "one sacrifice for sins," and then "for ever sat down on the right hand of God." This word "for ever" is not that which is used for everlasting, but it has the sense of continuously, uninterruptedly, never to rise up to offer another sacrifice or to complete the work; and the reason that He is so seated at the right hand of God is, that, "by one offering He hath perfected for ever (same word) them that are sanctified." He has perfected us for ever, therefore He has sat down for ever. The value of His one offering, which put away all our sins, is for ever; therefore He has nothing more to do throughout eternity with regard to the putting away of the sins of those that believe in His name.

Of course, when a soul is first awakened by the Holy Spirit, it could only be past sins that are brought to his knowledge, and that he knows are forgiven; but then, when we get the knowledge of forgiveness, we see that the work that put our sins away was accomplished when they were all future, and the value of that one sacrifice was not only up to the day of our conversion. Now we see the One that did the work "for ever sat down on the right hand of God," because He has perfected us for ever by that one offering; and God says, "Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." (Heb. x. 17.) Forgiveness of sins is the common portion of all Christians, as we read in 1 John ii. 12, "I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for His name's sake." There would be no sense in saying our future sins are forgiven, for we have not committed them, and we ought not to contemplate sinning in the future; but we can always say, as Christians, as in Colossians i. 14, "In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins."

But many have thought, "If we have the 'forgiveness of sins,' why do we read, in 1 John i. 9, 'If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins'?" There is another sense in which Scripture speaks of forgiveness; when a child of God has sinned, and his communion has been interrupted, and he confesses his sin, he gets forgiveness, not in the sense of non-imputation, as in Rom. iv. 7, 8, but of communion and joy being restored, which had been interrupted by the sin. The above verse (1 John i. 9) is a general statement, and would apply either to a sinner first coming to God and confessing his sins, and so getting forgiveness once for all on the ground of the death of Christ, or to a child of God who has sinned and confesses, and gets forgiveness as a child by the Father. The one might be called justifying forgiveness in the case of the sinner; and the other, Fatherly, or governmental, forgiveness in the case of a saint; and it is very important to distinguish between the two.

Christ as the Revealer of the Father.

God has been pleased to reveal Himself in various ways and under different characters in every age and in all dispensations. Before the cross He had made Himself known to Adam, to the patriarchs, and to His people Israel; but it was not until Christ came, and had glorified God on the earth, and finished the work which had been given Him to do, that all was told out, that the Father-name of God could be fully revealed. Ere this, clouds and darkness were round about Him; but as soon as atonement had been made by the death of Christ on the cross, the veil was rent, and believers could thereafter be set down in the light as God is in the light. All distance and concealment were now abolished, and all that God is, together with the name of Father, was fully displayed. Christ Himself, Christ as the eternal Son, but as the Word that became flesh and dwelt among us (John i. 14), was Himself the revelation of the Father (John xiv.); but until the descent of the Holy Ghost there was little, if any, power on the part of those before whose eyes the revelation was passing to apprehend it. There were a few anointed eyes who beheld His glory as of an only begotten with a Father, but John the Baptist knew Him not, except by the appointed sign of the descent of the Holy Ghost upon Him, and even Philip had to be told, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father."

Practically therefore there was no knowledge of God as Father until after Pentecost. This will be plain to the reader if we trace a little the successive revelations of God which were made to His people in the Old Testament. To Abraham, God said, "I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect" (Gen. xvii. 1); to Moses, "I AM THAT I AM: and He said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you" (Exodus iii. 14); and when He entered into distinct relationship with His chosen people, it was under the name of Jehovah, and that was ever His covenant name with Israel. Search indeed the whole of the Old Testament Scriptures, and not even the word father will be found more than five or six times as applied to God, and in most of these cases it is used rather as indicating the source of existence than as implying relationship. All the Old Testament saints were undoubtedly born again. This is to be insisted upon, for without a new life and a new nature they would not have been able to converse with God; but it is equally true that they never knew God as Father, and therefore that they could not be in the enjoyment of the relationship. One word from Scripture definitely and conclusively settles this point, "Neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him." (Matt. xi. 27.)

It is then abundantly proved that God was not revealed as Father before the advent of Christ. And passing now to the New Testament, it will be seen, as already stated, that Christ Himself was the revealer of the Father, and that it is in the Gospel of John He is presented to us in this character. In the very first chapter of this gospel it is said, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him." (v. 18.) Not only, indeed, does this scripture inform us that the only begotten Son declared the Father, but it also teaches that none other but Himself could have done so, and this because of the position He ever occupied ? the place of intimacy and communion which He ever, and He alone, enjoyed, as marked by the words, "in the bosom of the Father." This place He never left; He was in it (for it is a moral expression) as much when He was the Man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief, as when He possessed the glory which He had with the Father before the world was; and on the cross itself He was still there, for He Himself said, "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again" (John x. 17) ? His death in obedience to the commandment which He had received, supplying as it were a new motive for the expression of His Father's love. Later on in the gospel, we find one of His disciples permitted to lean on His bosom, and this same disciple was the chosen vessel to unfold in his gospel the eternal Sonship of Christ ? Christ as divine; and this in some measure may aid us in understanding that none but He who was ever in the bosom of the Father could unfold Him in this character and relationship. In divine things it is ever true as an abiding principle, that we can only tell out to others that which we ourselves know in our own souls. If we are not in the power of the thing spoken of, our words, clear as they may seem to be, will convey but little significance. The Lord Himself laid down this principle when He said, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen." (John iii. 11.)

Let us then enquire in what way the Lord revealed the Father. He Himself has answered the question. "If," said He to the Jews, "ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also" (John viii. 19); and again, speaking to Thomas, "If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know Him, and have seen Him. Philip saith unto Him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of" (from, literally) "myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, He doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake." (John xiv. 7-11.)

WELL may we sing! with triumph sing

The great Redeemer's praise!

The glories of the living God,

Revealed in Jesu's face.

The love of God it was that sought

From sin to set us free;

That gave the Son, whose precious blood

Has wrought our liberty.

In Him we read the Father's love,

And find, eternal peace;

We meet in Him a Saviour-God,

And fear and terror cease.

Then gladly sing, and sound abroad

The great Redeemer's praise;

The glories of the living God,

The riches of His grace!

The Children of God.

Gal. iii. 26.

We have already seen that Christ as the Son was the revealer of the Father; and as soon as the Father is declared it is of necessity that there should be those who are in the enjoyment of the relationship; in other words, the Father must have His children. Accordingly we find the family in the very same gospel that contains the declaration of the Father's name. There are, it may be said, three notices of it to which we may call attention.

The first is contained in chapter i.; but we turn now to that found in chapter xi. After the resurrection of Lazarus the Jewish authorities assembled together for consultation. They could not deny the miracle that had been wrought; but, shutting their eyes to its divine significance and their consequent responsibility, and caring only for their own selfish interests and advantage, they determined to rid themselves of the One who so disturbed their peace, and who was making so many disciples. They thought in their wicked counsels only of themselves; but God was behind the scene over-ruling their thoughts, and was about to make their wrath to praise Him in the accomplishment of His own eternal counsels of grace and love. He thus used the mouth of Caiaphas to prophesy that Jesus should die for the Jewish nation, this being God's purpose from eternity; and to that prophecy the Spirit of God added another in order to embrace the full character of the death of Christ, by the hand of John, who writes, "And not for that nation only, but that also He should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad." (John xi. 49-52.) We thus learn that not only was the heart of God set upon His children, but that also the death of Christ was requisite ? requisite for the glory of God as for the redemption of His people, as the foundation on which the Spirit of God could, through the entreating message of the gospel, go out into every land, and gather in one by one those who should constitute the Father's family, and as such be heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. As the Father could only be fully revealed by the life and death of Christ, so likewise the children could only be sought out, found, and gathered through that death.

The second reference is in chapter i. 12, 13, and points out the way in which we become children ? the only possible way ? and this must be entered upon more fully. It is stated at the very outset in accordance with the character of the gospel. In the three preceding gospels ? generally termed the synoptical gospels ? Christ is presented to His people for acceptance, and we see Him rejected in the course of the narrative. This is true of all three, though there are characteristic differences. In John, on the other hand, Christ is introduced as already rejected. He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not." The world was ignorant (knew not God, as in 2 Thess. i. 8), and the Jew rejected Him (did not obey the gospel, as also in the scripture cited). Hence we find a fuller display in John of the person of Christ, and the introduction of the cross with its blessed teachings at the commencement (chap. iii.) instead of waiting for the historical relation at the close. We have therefore, following immediately upon the statement of His rejection, a class indicated who received Him, and who in receiving Him received power (right or authority) to become (to take the place of) the children of God; and then, to dispel all uncertainty as to the nature of the change thus wrought, it is added, "Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (v. 13.) It is a divine and sovereign operation effected by a power and through agencies outside of man, and with which man, though he may be the subject of their energy, can have nothing to do.

But the consideration of this will lead us back to the very fountain-head of the existence of the children of God. They are born of God. In chapter iii. the Lord tells Nicodemus, that "except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (v. 5); and here we find another truth, that those who are born again through these instrumentalities are brought into relationship of children with the Father. Combining then these scriptures, we shall have before us the whole truth of the process by which the family of God is formed.

Its origin is in God Himself; and this same apostle tells us another thing, not only that believers are born of God, but also that their blessed place and relationship flow from the heart of the Father. "Behold," he exclaims, "what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons (children ? tekna) of God" (1 John iii. 1); so that the very fact of our being children is the expression of the Father's heart. He desired to have His children for His own satisfaction and joy; and if we add another scripture, we shall see that in a past eternity He formed this blessed counsel of grace. "Having," as St. Paul writes, "predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, wherein He hath made us accepted in the Beloved." (Eph. i. 5, 6.) We cannot dwell too much upon this outflow of the heart of God, on the fact, we repeat, that our being children is but a simple consequence of the Father's love. And when in connection with this we consider what we were, the state we were in, our utter alienation from God, the bitter enmity of our hearts towards Him, we shall in some measure enter into the meaning of John's cry, "Behold, what manner of love!" Yea, it is love unspeakable, unbounded, and divine, having no motive for its expression except in that blessed heart whence it has flowed. Well indeed might we be humbled before it when we think that we ? once poor sinners of the Gentiles ? have become its object, and have been brought into its enjoyment, and that for eternity.

FATHER! we, Thy children, bless Thee

For Thy love on us bestowed;

Source of blessing, we confess Thee

Now, our Father and our God.

Wondrous was Thy love in giving

Jesus for our sins to die,

Wondrous was His grace in leaving,

For our sakes, the heavens on high.

Now the sprinkled blood has freed us,

Hast'ning onward to our rest,

Through the desert Thou dost lead us,

With Thy constant favour blest.

Our Identification with Christ from the Cross to the Glory.

I want to ask you to look at a few scriptures which unfold to us with great clearness and simplicity our identification with Christ from the cross to the glory.

We often find, in course of conversation, that people do not know the difference between "sin" and "sins." Were you asked what the difference is, perhaps you would say, "'Sin' is singular, and 'sins' plural." Such an answer is frequently given, but that is not what Scripture means by "sin" and "sins." Sin is the evil nature we brought into this world; sins are the things which that nature is guilty of committing. Sin is like a crab-tree, and sins the fruit that appears on it. It is just as much a crab-tree if it has only one crab-apple on it as if it had a thousand. When you are clear as to the difference between sin and sins, you will find that the Epistle to the Romans will help you in a remarkable way. The first part of Romans, from chap. i. to v. 11, is about sins we have been guilty of. From verse 12 of chap. v. it is a new subject, and the question of sin is taken up, not "sins." In chap. vi. sin is mentioned seventeen times; "sins" not once. Death is also presented in one form or another seventeen times in the same chapter. The moment the Holy Ghost mentions sin, He mentions in connection with it death! Why is this? Because nothing short of death would meet what is due to sin ? nothing but the death of Christ.

Have you found out that your evil nature is so bad you cannot make it any better? "Oh, no!" you say. "I pray, fast, and do all kinds of things to improve it!" Well, have you succeeded? You know you have not. If Satan has not stupefied your conscience with some of his opiates, you will have to own, like the woman in the gospel, that you are nothing better, but rather grown worse. Perhaps another says, "I have tried, and I find that I cannot make it any better." Like the man in Mark v., it cannot be kept bound with chains, or tamed, no matter what restraint you put it under. And this just proves the incorrigible badness of the first Adam nature. Now we come to a second question, more startling than the first, Have you found the flesh to be so bad that it cannot be made any worse? "No." Well, you will have to own this to be true if you bow to God's word. "Where is your scripture for it?" you say. In Rom. viii. 7. The natural mind ? the mind of the flesh ? is "enmity against God."

For 2500 years, from the time Adam and Eve were exiled from the garden, man was on his trial, and became so bad that God had to sweep him away by the flood. Afterwards He put man under law for 1500 years, and finally sent His Son, when they said, "This is the heir; come, let us kill Him." God had said, "Thou shalt not commit murder," and they murdered God's Son, the Saviour of sinners. With that deed the world's probation ended, and man, guilty and lost, is only awaiting the hour of judgment.

Why the cross if man could be made better? Why the propitiation for sins and substitution for sinners if the flesh could be improved? It is an awful, solemn demonstration of the fact that the flesh cannot be improved; it was brought to an end judicially in the death of Christ. "Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." We were the serfs, vassals, slaves of sin ? tyrannized over by it, but we have died to sin in the death of Christ.

Rom. vi. 6 is the broad statement of the fact that our old man is crucified with Christ; Gal. 20 is the soul individually believing it, planting the foot of faith firmly on the magnificent fact, and getting out of it all that God intends. It is intensely individual, the soul making it its own. It is true of all believers, though not enjoyed by all. A man may have a fortune left him of ?500,000 a year, but if he does not believe it he may go on trying to eke out a miserable existence on ?1 a day. The fortune is his, but he gets no enjoyment from it because he does not credit the fact. "I am crucified with Christ nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me" (Gal. 2: 20) ? is just the soul saying, "I believe what God says about me in Romans vi., and I live in the enjoyment of it."

A crucified man is a man come to an end on a cross of wood. I am crucified, and now I have a new life, entirely outside and apart from Adam, a life that he had nothing to do with. God utterly ignores my standing in the first man Adam, and does not recognize me in it. (Rom. viii. 9.) If I am a child of God, I am before Him in Christ. Christ is my life. "This is the true God and eternal life," and Christ lives in me. I feel how great a thing it is for any of us to be able to say, "I am crucified," yet I am alive; I have got life, I am a living being, "yet not I, but Christ liveth in me." Well may we ask, What manner of persons ought we to be? And, in regard to our practical life, what is to come out? Simply what is in Christ ? one ceaseless flow, in all our words, our work, our ways, of Christ, because He is in us. It is intensely individual. Can you look up to heaven and say, "He loved me, and gave Himself for me"?

When preaching in Ireland, I once mentioned that verse, and a young lady said to me, "if only that had been pointed out to me years ago what I might have been spared! I thought that I had to love Him. I tried one thing and another without success; but when you were preaching in my brother's cottage you said, 'He loved me.' I can rest there. I was incapable of loving Him, but He was capable of loving me. He has done it, and I believe it." Is your faith anchored there? Do you believe it?

I don't know that I need say more on the first point, but pass on now to the other identifications with Christ. The first is in death; we, "our old man," are crucified with Christ. If you accept that, you will never think you can make the old nature better. The people who do are to be pitied. If you had a piece of land, and sowed it with seed, and got no crop, what would you do? Get fresh seed. Then supposing you got no crop the second time, what would you do? Get fresh seed again. And supposing there was no crop the third time, after you had manured and husbanded the land in every way, you would say, "I will waste no more seed upon it; it is bad ground, and produces nothing." That bad ground is the old nature. Don't sow a thought, or word, or look upon it; for God has set it aside as a worthless thing. Why then should you try to get any good from it?

The flesh is incorrigibly bad, and the only remedy is to reckon yourself to have died "unto," not through sin, or in sin, but "unto" sin. (Rom. vi. 11.) You have died, and now you are risen. God reckons it true of you, and if you want to be in the power and enjoyment of it, you must reckon it true as well. Did you notice that little word "also"? You will get no blessing if you don't reckon with God. Now I pass on to the second. You are dead. What do you do with dead people? Bury them out of sight.

Having died, and been buried out of sight at Christ's burial, and buried with Him by baptism, which is a figure of death, we are raised with Him, and that brings us to our third identification.

In Romans man is looked at as alive in sins; in Ephesians ii. he is "dead in sins," in the lowest possible condition. Think of God coming to us there. We are quickened with Christ; it is a most wonderful thing! Not only is Christ quickened, but I am quickened too. In connection with the first Adam you come in for death, judgment, and condemnation; in connection with the last Adam you have life, righteousness, and glory. I don't ask you if you fully understand it. Who does? But we can just pause and think over such a love to you and me, not more true of the oldest than of the youngest, not less of the youngest than of the oldest; we are quickened with Christ.

Fourthly, "we are raised with Him." (Col. ii. 12.) We are risen with Christ. (Col. iii. 1.) There is the life of the believer who has died in the death of Christ ? "Ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God," Did God ever say that of anybody before the death and resurrection of Christ? How could any one have died with Christ when He had never died Himself? That is a characteristic of Christianity. It was not known, and was never true before Christianity, that our life is hid with Christ. Do you believe that you are raised together with Christ? That is the point. Would it not have power over you if you believed it? What a power to separate from the world! I long for the Holy Ghost to apply it, and make it good in our words, our walk, our ways, and our lives. We are resurrection men and women ? not risen as to our bodies; for that we wait till He shall come, and take us to Himself; but we are in resurrection life now.

How am I to prove that I belong to the resurrection family, that I am a child of resurrection? "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above." Why? Because we are dead; our life is hid with Christ, and this is the practical effect of it.

Eph. ii. 6: "Raised us up together;" that is, He has raised up Jew and Gentile. "And made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus." "We are seated." That is our position, not standing, but seated in restful enjoyment of our present blessings in Christ.

You will find the sixth, seventh, and eighth identifications all in one verse ? Rom. viii. 17 ? "And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together." "Co-heirs," or "heirs together." Think of that. It never says that of the archangel; never does God say of any of the heavenly intelligences that they are heirs together with Christ. But we, poor Gentiles, who were afar off and not nigh, think of it ? we are heirs with Christ.

"I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." (John xvii. 23.) The same love that the Father bears to His beloved Son is the love with which He loves us. "All things are yours." Why? Because ye are Christ's. Life, death, etc., all things are yours, because you are heirs together with Christ. Don't talk about your poverty; you are richer than the archangel ? heirs of an inheritance in which the archangel will never share: we are heirs with Christ. We don't half count up our possessions and blessings through being one with Christ. We have received the Holy Ghost and everything in Christ. Now it is only as you are consciously enjoying your oneness with Christ in the heavenlies, by the Holy Ghost in you, that you will be proof against the attacks of Satan against the truth. May God give us to hold the magnificent fact that we are one with Christ ? co-heirs.

Every child of God taught by the Holy Ghost accepts what the Father says about him in the first six; but when we come to the seventh ? "suffering with Christ" ? people begin to question, Why must we suffer? Why should we make ourselves singular, and bring down suffering on ourselves by being peculiar? "All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." Just in proportion as we represent Christ, we shall be hated by the world as He was. Are we so living as to represent Christ by the power of the Holy Ghost that people can say of us, "There is a man representing Christ"? That is what we get in Phil. 1: "To me to live is Christ." Nothing but Christ; feeling nothing that touches self, only what touches Him. How many there are who cannot bear a word! They are exquisitely sensitive as to what touches self; but when anything is said touching Christ, they feel it no more than would a marble statue ? they are not touched at all by it.

"Unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on Him, but also to suffer for His sake." It is a real gift. The apostles rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer for Him; and in Heb. xi. we get, "Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt."

Are you going to shirk rejection with a rejected Christ? You will never have such a moment again; you are left down here to share in His rejection. "If we suffer we shall also reign with Him." Suffering and reigning go together. Many kick vehemently against this, but you don't know what a loss it is not to get it. It is a real gain to suffer for Him. On the road to glory we are left down here to share His path, and to say ?

"Master, we would no longer be

Loved by the world that hated Thee."

Can you say ?

"I'd not have joy where He had woe,

Be rich where He was poor"?

Have you got hold of these words ? "They are not of the world"? It is true. God give us to accredit it!

Lastly, "glorified together." What an end to the chain of our identifications with Christ! What a prospect! When I hear saints talking of their trials and troubles, I say, What are they in comparison to glory? Who has ever been through what Paul went through, and what does he say? "I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed." Everything you can see is passing away. Are you living in the changeless, eternal things which are yours? You are going to be glorified together with Christ.

"We two are so joined,

He'll not be in glory, and leave me behind."

He will not be in glory alone. Look at Rom. viii. and see those five links stretching from eternity to eternity. Think of it. "Whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate . . . whom He did predestinate, them He also called: whom He called, them He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified." There it is, a wonderful chain, hanging from side to side of the throne, beginning with foreknowledge and ending with glory. Do you believe it? Are you in the enjoyment of this truth? Receive it on the authority of God's word, and then you will have the enjoyment of it, and power to carry it out.

Now let us just go over these eight points of identification:

1st. Crucified together with Christ.

2nd. Buried together with Christ.

3rd. Quickened together with Christ.

4th. Raised together with Christ.

5th. Seated together in Christ.

6th. Heirs together with Christ.

7th. Sufferers together with Christ.

8th. Glorified together with Christ.

This last is our sure unfailing prospect, and we were never so near the glory as now. A few more steps through the trackless, waste, wild, howling wilderness, and then the Father's home.

"And how will recompense His smile

The sufferings of this little while."

The Lord give us to live in the enjoyment of the wonderful things which are to be ours throughout eternity, for His name's sake.

The Coming of the Lord that which Characterizes the Christian Life.

Notes of an Address.

I purpose to take up a subject which I feel to be deeply important ? the coming of the Lord Jesus and to take it up, not proving it as a doctrine, but showing that it was originally a substantial part of Christianity itself. The groundwork is Christ's first coming, and His atoning death but when we look beyond the foundation, then we see that the coming of the Lord Jesus is not merely a bit of knowledge, but a substantive part of the faith of the church of God, and that on which the moral state of the saints, and indeed of the church of God, depends. You will see, in going through the passages which I will now quote, that it connects itself and is mixed with every part of Christianity, characterizes it, and connects itself with every thought and feeling of the Christian. A person could not read the Scriptures with an unprejudiced mind without seeing it.

I take conversion. People say, What has that to do with the Lord's coming? That is part of what they were converted to, "to wait for God's Son from heaven" This waiting for God's Son from heaven characterized their conversion: they were converted to serve God surely, but also "to wait for His Son from heaven." (1 Thess. i. 10.)

The Christian's position as to the coming of the Lord is, that he is waiting for Christ to come according to His promise. People say He comes at death. I reply, Do you make death the same as Christ? If this were the case we should have Him coming hundreds of times, whereas we only read of His coming twice. (Heb. ix. 28.) Shall I tell you what will happen when Christ comes? Resurrection! This is quite a different thing from death. The coming of Christ is, for the saint, to be the end of death ? exactly the opposite. I believe nobody can find a trace of the thought in Scripture that Christ comes at death. Instead of Christ's coming being death, it is resurrection; we go to Christ at death, it is not Christ who comes to us. Blessed it is "to depart and to be with Christ." "Absent from the body, present with the Lord." But I am to show that this thought of the coming of Christ mixes itself with and characterizes every part of Christian life.

In the first place we have it in conversion, as already said. They were converted to wait for God's Son from heaven. I will turn to other passages in support of it, but I will go through Thessalonians first. In the second chapter of the first epistle, at the end, the apostle speaks of what his comfort and joy in service were. He had been driven away by persecution from the midst of the Thessalonians, and writing to them speaks of His comfort in thinking of them. But how? "For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at His coming?" He cannot speak of his interest in them and joy without bringing in the coming of the Lord Jesus. Again, as regards holiness: "The Lord make you to increase and abound in love . . . to the end He may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all His saints." (1 Thess. iii. 12, 13.) As to the death of a saint, they were so thoroughly looking for the Lord that if a person died they thought he would not be there ready to go to meet Him. They were wrong in this, and the apostle corrects their mistake. But now people say, when a saint dies, We shall go after him, we shall follow him. Here there is not a word about it. Suppose I were to go and say to a Christian now, who had lost some one dear to him, "Do not be uneasy, Christ will bring him with Him," he would think me wild, or find it utterly unintelligible and yet that is the way the apostle comforts them. Them also which sleep through Jesus will God bring with Him. (Chap. iv.) He then shows the way He will do it. "We which are alive . . . shall not prevent them which are asleep." "Prevent" is an old word for anticipate or go before. The first thing the Lord will do when He descends is to raise the sleeping saints. He is going to bring them with Him. If they have fallen asleep in Him, their spirits will have been with Him meanwhile; but then they will receive glory, be raised in glory, be like Him, as they had been like the first Adam, and going to meet Him in the air, will be for ever with Him; and when He appears He will bring them with Him, and they will appear with Him in glory. You get it in a general way in the fifth chapter, where he desires their whole spirit and soul and body may be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. This hope then is a part of the Christian state in every aspect. Conversion, joy in service, holiness, a believer's death, the goal of blamelessness, all are connected with the coming of the Lord.

Turn now to Matthew 25. The wise virgins take oil in their vessels, but they all go to sleep and forget that the Bridegroom was coming. But what I have specially to inquire here is, What was the original calling? The statement, clear and positive, is, that they went out to meet the Bridegroom, but while He tarried they all slumbered and slept ? they all forgot His coming, the wise as well as the foolish. But at midnight the cry is heard, "Behold, the Bridegroom!" The thing that roused them up from their sleep was the cry, "Behold, the Bridegroom!" The original object then of the Church was to go to meet Him who came; but even true believers forgot it. And, further, what awakes them from their sleep is their being again called out to meet Him at His coming. Then you get in "the talents" the same thing in regard to service and responsibility. He takes His journey and tells them, "Occupy till I come."

Another very striking fact as to this truth is, it is always presented as a present operative expectation. You will never find the Lord nor the apostles speaking of the Lord's coming, with the supposition that it would be delayed beyond the life of those to whom they spoke. It might be at cock-crowing, or in the morning; but they were to be waiting for God's Son from heaven. In the parables referred to, the virgins who went to sleep were the same virgins as those who awoke up. The servants to whom the talents were entrusted were the servants who rendered an account of them at His return. We know centuries have passed; but He will not allow any thought of delay. "In such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh." "Blessed are those servants whom the Lord, when He cometh, shall find watching." Again, what was the cause of the Church's ruin? It was, "My Lord delayeth His coming." It was not saying, "He will not come;" but "He delayeth His coming." Then the servant began to beat the men-servants and maid-servants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; and this brings on his judgment. If the bride loves the Bridegroom, she cannot but wish to see Him. Her heart is where He is: When the Church lost this she settled down to enjoyment where she was; she got worldly; she did not care about the Lord's return.

Turn now to Luke 12, and you will find how this waiting for Christ characterizes the Christian, and therewith the serving Him while He is away. "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." They were to have their loins girded, their lights burning. Such was the characteristic of a Christian. They were to be as men that waited for their Lord, to open to Him immediately; their affections in order and full profession of Christ, but watching for their Lord's return. It is not having the doctrine of the Lord's coming. The blessing rests on those who are watching, "like men that wait for their Lord." "Blessed are those servants whom the Lord, when He cometh, shall find watching." They must be girded, and have their lights bright while He is away, and watch for His return; and then He makes them sit down to meat, and girds Himself, and comes forth and serves them. Now they must be girded, and watch; our rest is not here. "But," says the Lord, "when I have things all my own way, you shall sit down to meat, and I will gird myself and come forth and serve you. I will make you enjoy all the best that I have in heaven, and I will minister it to you; only be found watching."

Christ is for ever in grace a servant according to the form He has taken. He is girded now according to John 13. They would naturally think that if He were gone to heaven in glory there was an end of His service to them; but He tells them, "I am going away; I cannot stay here with you, yet I cannot give you up; but as I cannot remain on earth with you, I must make you fit for me in heaven. 'If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.'" It is water here, not blood. "He that is washed needeth not, save to wash his feet." Life-giving conversion, as well as salvation, is fully wrought; but if we pick up dirt in the way, even as to communion and the walk, grace and advocacy are there to wash our feet and have us practically fit for being with God where Christ is gone. Growth there is or ought to be; and as to the unchangeable cleanness of the new man, this is certain. But if I have not been watchful, I shall pick up dirt in my path. I cannot have this in heaven, nor in communion with what is there; and the Lord says in effect, "I am not going to give you up because I am going to God and glory, and so I must have you in a state suitable to that, and washed as you are (though not all, for Judas was there), keep you fit, restoring you when you fall. But you must be watching while I am away."

It is a comfort to me to know that all the virgins woke up in time, and I believe all His saints will wake up before the Lord comes. The difficulty to the heart in looking around is that so many do not receive it. But the true service of the Lord is connected with watching. That is the state to which the blessing and the heavenly feast are attached. Then you find another thing ? serving while He is away; and the result of this is, "Of a truth I will make him ruler over all I have." It is far better to eat, as is said of Israel, of the finest of the wheat, and that in the Father's house; but if we suffer with Him, we shall also reign with Him. With the serving in His absence, I get the ruling; as the heavenly feast with watching. The Lord then goes on to what we had in Matthew, the saying, "My Lord delayeth His coming."

What the Lord is pressing as to watching and serving is, "I am coming again. You must be watching for me, as men that wait for their lord." That was to be their character as Christians. Supposing all the people in this town were actually watching, waiting for the Lord from heaven, not knowing the moment He would come, do you think the whole town would not be changed? A person once said to me that if everybody believed that, the world could not go on at all; and the Christian cannot, in a worldly way.

If people were waiting for the Lord from heaven, the whole tone and character of their life would be changed. I may have the doctrine of Christ's coming, when I am really not looking for Him; but I should not like to be heaping money together when the Lord comes.

Turn now to Philippians 3. Paul was running a race. "Forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before." And how does he speak of Christ at the close of that chapter? "Brethren, be followers together of me . . . for our conversation" (our living association) "is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ," etc.

The Lord's coming affects all the truths of Christianity. Christ is not now on His own throne at all. He is sitting now, according to the word in Heb. 10 (and also in Psalm 110), at God's right hand, sitting on the Father's throne, as He says Himself in the promise in Laodicea. He has settled the question of sin for them at His first coming, and they have no more conscience of sins; they are perfected for ever. And to them that look for Him shall He appear a second time without sin unto salvation. He is expecting in the heavens till His enemies be made His footstool. Why does He say "His enemies"? Because He is sitting down after He has finished all for His friends; that is, those that believe in Him. Have all your sins been put away out of God's sight? If not, when will it be done? (1 Peter ii. 24.) That you grow in hatred of them all ? all right! But if they are not borne and put away on the cross, when will it be done? Can you get Christ to die again? Can you get anyone else to do it? If it is not done, it will never be done at all. Beloved friends, if the work is not finished, it will never be done at all. But it is done, and therefore He says, the worshippers once purged "have no more conscience of sins. . . For by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." (Heb. x. 2, 14.)

If you look now at Col. 3, you will find the same thing in its full result held out as our hope. "When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with Him in glory." The first promise He gave the disciples when going away was His coming again. "Do not be troubled, I am going to prepare a place for you. Do not be uneasy, I cannot stay with you, so I must have you up there with me" and the first thing is, "I will come again, and receive you unto myself." It is not one by one by death, but by resurrection for the dead, and change for the living, His actual coming to receive them, raised or changed, to be with Himself where He was gone, and like Himself, that we shall be in glory with Him.

Again, at His departing from His disciples left down here, what was the last they saw of Him?

They saw Him go up before their eyes, and the angel said to them, "Why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus . . . shall so come in like manner." His coming is wrought into the whole texture of the Christian life.

What is Scripture's last word? "Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus." in the same way you get it at the beginning, with warning and threatening, Jesus Christ, Faithful Witness, the First-begotten, etc. "Behold, He cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see Him." "I, Jesus, have sent mine angel," etc. "I am . . . the bright and morning star." Now I get what these saints who were watching, and those only, see. There is no star to be seen when the sun is risen; they see the morning star while it is yet early dawning, for the night is far spent, the day is at hand. Here He calls Himself "the root and offspring of David; the bright and morning star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come." If the bride has got the sense of being the bride of Christ, she must desire to be with the Bridegroom; there is not proper love to Christ unless she wants to be with Him. Abram said of his wife, "She is my sister;" then the Egyptians ? the world ? took her into their house. I just add that you get here the whole circle of the Church's affections. "The Spirit and the bride say, Come; and let him that heareth say, Come." That is, the Christian who has beard the word of his salvation joins in the cry. Then those who thirst for some living water are called to come. The saints of the Church can say, though they have not yet the Bridegroom in glory, that they have the living water, and so call, "Let him that is athirst, come," and then address the call universally, "Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." This they have, though not the Bridegroom. What I find then is, that in the word of God the thoughts and feelings and conduct and doings and affections of Christians are identified with the coming of Christ. Take all these things, and you will find that they are all identified with the coming of the Lord.

Take the first epistle of John, chapter 3, "Behold, what manner of love," etc. "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is." Beloved friends, we are "predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son." This is what God has purposed for us. When are we to be like Christ in the glory? When He comes. It is not when a person dies, and the spirit goes to be with Christ; for then he is like Christ when Christ was in the grave; and I do not want to be like Christ when Christ was in the grave. But if I die, I shall be like Christ as to that, but this is not what I want, though blessed in itself. I want to be like Him in the glory. When will that be? When He comes He will change our vile bodies, and fashion them like to His glorious body; so here it doth not yet appear what we shall be, but when He shall appear we shall be like Him. (Phil. iii. 20, 21; 1 John iii. 2.) Now mark the practical consequences upon the man that has been in his faith brought up to God's purposes. "He that hath this hope in Him, purifieth himself, even as He is pure." I know I am going to be perfectly like Christ in the glory, therefore I want to be as like Him as possible down here. You find here again what the Holy Scriptures are explicit in teaching, that holiness also is always referred to conformity to Christ in glory. I shall have that likeness to Christ in glory, and nothing else is my standard. You will find one passage already quoted, "To the end He may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all His saints." The perfection of the Christian is to be like Him when He comes. What again I find as to a Christian's body in 1 Cor. xv. is, "It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory." We have the blessed assurance that accompanies true assured hope of the first resurrection and its results.

We shall be perfectly like Christ when we are raised from the dead. We give an account of ourselves, but it is when we are like the Person to whom we are to give an account. The full efficacy of His first coming has been lost, and therefore people are not comfortable when thinking of His second coming. But for the saint "Christ is the first-fruits, then they that are Christ's at His coming." Is Christ the first-fruits of the wicked? Surely not. Just as Christ's resurrection was the public testimony of God's approval of Himself and His work, the resurrection of the saints will be a testimony of God's approval of them as in Him. As we find in Luke xx. 35, 36, "They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: neither can they die any more: but are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection."

Could anybody show me a single passage about a general resurrection? There is no such thought in Scripture. You get the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew quoted for it, that the goats and sheep represent the two classes; but He has come in His glory down here. He is not sitting on the great white throne: before this heaven and earth flee away. Here He is come, and sits on His throne. When He does come, and sits there, He gathers all the Gentiles ? the nations ? to judge them. It is the judgment of the quick or the living. You have three sets of people, not two; and you have nothing of resurrection. You have sheep, goats, and brethren. (Matt. xxv. 40.) So far from its being a general resurrection, there is no reference to resurrection at all; it is quite a different subject. Further, the only question is, How have they treated His brethren? The ground of judgment does not apply to ninety-nine out of a hundred of those who are to be judged, if it were a general judgment. Those that have had the testimony of the kingdom before He comes to judge the quick will be treated according as they have received God's messengers, but such only are in judgment.

And now the point I return to is, that the coming of the Lord influences and forms the whole life of the Christian. You cannot separate anything in the whole course and ways of the Christian from the coming of the Lord Jesus; and there is but the first coming, and the second coming. He has appeared once in the end of the world, and to them that look for Him shall He appear the second time unto salvation. It is true that He comes and dwells in us; but we speak with Scripture of actual coming. If you take holiness, or service, or conversion, or ministry, or a person who has died, they are all connected with Christ's coming. He warns them to be found watching.

I might quote other passages, but I have quoted enough to show that the Lord's coming is connected with everything in the Christian life. When we see Him as He is, then, and then only, shall we be like Him, according to God's purpose. And now I only ask, Are you waiting for God's Son from heaven?

His bearing the sins of many is the only ground of hope for any sinner; that is, the finished work which enables us, through faith, to look for Him when sealed by the Holy Ghost. Then, I say, what am I waiting for? I am waiting for God's Son from heaven. Can you say, "I am watching for Christ"? I do not know when He will come. "Blessed are those servants, whom the Lord, when He cometh, shall find watching." I do not ask you, "Do you understand about the coming of the Lord?" To wait for Him was the thing they were converted to. The thing that woke the virgins up was, "Behold, the Bridegroom!" Are you actually waiting for God's Son from heaven? Would you like Him to come to-night? Peter explains the delay. He says His long-suffering is salvation, not willing that any should perish. What would you think if He were to come to-night? Would it just be what your soul was looking for? People think that it would stop the gospel to be waiting for God's Son from heaven. Did the acceptance of God's testimony about the deluge stop the preaching of Noah? Far from hindering, it was what gave edge to all. May the Lord give us to be ready, when He comes ? found watching for Him.

"Do all in the name of the Lord Jesus." Col. iii. 17.

"Whatsoever ye do, in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him." (Col. iii. 17.) Here I get the whole course of everyday life. There are constantly difficulties that I find in passing through this world. I say, Ought I to do this thing or that, or not? I am uncertain as to the right course, or I may find great hindrances to doing what I think to be right. Now, if ever I find myself in doubt, my eye is not single; my whole body is not full of light, therefore my eye is not single. God brings me into certain circumstances of difficulty until I detect this. It may be something that I never suspected in myself before which hinders me from seeing aright; but it is something between me and Christ, and until that is put away I shall never have certainty as to my path. Therefore "whatsoever ye do, in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus." This will settle nine hundred and ninety-nine cases out of a thousand. If you are questioning whether you shall do a thing or not, just ask yourself, Am I going to do it in the name of the Lord Jesus? It will settle it at once.

Thus if a person says, What harm is there in my doing such and such a thing? I ask, Are you going to do it in the name of the Lord Jesus? Perhaps it may be something of which you will answer at once, Of course not. Then it is settled at once. It is the test of the state of the heart. If my eye is single, if the purpose of my heart is all right, I get here what settles every question ? it tests my heart. I wanted to know the right path, and it is as simple as A B C. If my heart is not upon Christ, I shall endeavour to do my own will; and this is not God's will. There is the constant uniform rule which clearly judges every path and circumstance. Am I simply doing it in the name of the Lord Jesus?

But what do I find with it? "Giving thanks to God the Father through Him." In another place it is said, "In everything give thanks." (1 Thess. v. 18.) Where my heart can take Christ with me, my mind is on God, and I can say, "He is with me," even if it is tribulation. I have got the path of God, I have got Christ with me in my path, and I would rather be there than in what is apparently the fairest and pleasantest thing in the world. As it is said in Psalm lxxxiv., "In whose heart are the ways of them."

This chapter (Col. iii.) begins with the great truth, that we are dead and risen with Christ ? the judgment of the old man absolutely and completely, and our reckoning it practically to be dead. People have talked about dying to the flesh, and of its being a slow death, etc., which is all nonsense. It is a simple fact that is true already; and if I died with Christ, I shall live with Him. It is the power of this that works in my soul. The root of all Paul's doctrine is, that we have been crucified with Him (Rom. vi. 6; Gal. ii. 20), and have died with Him (Rom. vi. 8); and it is not now we who live, but Christ that lives in us. Then Christ becomes the object of this life. Having laid that ground ? that the old man is put off and the new man put on (Col. iii. 9, 10), which is Christ ? he draws the consequence of the blessing in which we stand, and the fruits which spring from Him; and then there is this simple but blessed rule for him that is in earnest ? to do nothing but what can be done in the name of the Lord Jesus.

One great thing here practically put before us is this ? Christ is all. He is in all; but this is the great thing we have to look to, Is He practically all? Can you honestly say, Though a poor weak creature, notwithstanding that, I am not conscious of having a single other object in the world but Christ? You find many difficulties, you are not watchful enough, your faith is feeble, you know your short-comings; but can you, notwithstanding all this, honestly say, I have no object in the world but Christ?

First, the root of all is Christ as the life; then we pass over to the outward conduct in the man's walk. And let me remark, that while a person may be walking outwardly uprightly and blamelessly, it may be very feebly as a Christian, and without spirituality. You will find many a true Christian who has Christ as his life, and nothing to reproach him with as to his walk, and yet is not spiritually-minded. (Rom. viii. 6; 1 Cor. iii. 1.) You talk to him about Christ, there is nothing that answers. There is, between the life that is at the bottom and the blamelessness that is at the top, between him and Christ, a whole host of affections and objects that are not Christ at all. How much of the day, or of the practice of your soul, is filled up with Christ? How far is He the one object of your heart? When you come to pray to God, do you never get to a point where you shut the door against Him? where there is some reserve, some single thing in your heart, that you keep back from Him? If we pray for blessing up to a certain point only, there is reserve; Christ is not all practically to us.

O MAY Thy Spirit guide our souls,

And mould them to Thy will,

That from Thy paths we ne'er may stray,

But keep Thy precepts still!

That to the Saviour's stature full

We nearer still may rise,

And all we think, and all we do,

Be pleasing in Thine eyes.

What is the Unpardonable Sin?

Amongst the many devices employed by Satan to discourage souls, and lead them astray, is that of beguiling them into the thought that they have committed the unpardonable sin. It is sad indeed to see the distress into which some are plunged through listening to this suggestion of the wicked one. But, before proceeding to say a few words in the endeavour to help those who may be in this painful condition, we would earnestly remind them of Satan's real character, as declared by the Lord Jesus Christ: "He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." (John viii. 44.)

Now, as long as men are careless and worldly, living without God, Satan leaves them undisturbed in the enjoyment of the pleasures of sin; but the moment the soul becomes awakened to its responsibility to God, and the cry of the heart has gone forth, "What must I do to be saved?" than he does his utmost to hinder them from coming to Christ, to blind them to the abounding grace of God, and to make them believe that they are too sinful to be saved.

In order to understand the passage which treats of the unpardonable sin, we would invite our readers to carefully consider the whole context. Christ had been casting out unclean spirits, when "the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth He out devils. And He called them unto Him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house. Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: because they said, He hath an unclean spirit." (Mark iii. 22-30.)

Any careful reader of the foregoing passage may see at a glance what the unpardonable sin is. It is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. And in what did the blasphemy consist? We are distinctly told, in verse 30, that it was "because they said, He hath an unclean spirit." That is, these wicked scribes said that the Holy Ghost was the devil. Horrible wickedness And does not your soul, beloved reader ? you who may be sorely troubled about this sin ? revolt at the very suggestion of such a thing? How, then, can you have committed it? Those wicked men saw the work of the Holy Ghost before their very eyes, and yet, in their blindness and wickedness, ascribed it to Satan, saying, "He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth He out devils." But did you ever see the Lord cast out devils, and say of Him, "He hath an unclean spirit"? Surely you would never allow the thought that He wrought miracles by the power of Satan, or that the Holy Ghost was Beelzebub, the prince of the devils. Again we ask you, then, How can you have committed the unpardonable sin? Impossible! It is simply Satan's lie to make and keep you miserable. Foolish soul, listen to him no longer; give him no place; resist him, and he will flee from you. (Eph. iv. 27; James iv. 7.)

But if Satan find that you are beginning to see through, and to escape from his snare, he will very probably change his tactics, and suggest, as he does to some, that if you have not blasphemed the Holy Ghost you have at least sinned against Him. But what saith the Scripture? We nowhere read that sin against the Holy Ghost is not forgiven; or who could be saved? For is not all sin against Him, in that the Holy Ghost is God? And all sin is against God; and God forgives all manner of sins and iniquities. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is the alone exception. Of every one that believeth He says, even the God that cannot lie (Titus i. 2), "Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." (Heb. x. 17.) Again, "It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth?" (Rom. viii. 33, 34.) And again, "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." (Rom. iv. 8.)

Matthew xii. 31, 32 might still present a difficulty to some troubled soul. We read, "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come."

Another and more exact translation of this passage is as follows: "For this reason I say unto you, Every sin and injurious speaking shall be forgiven to men, but speaking injuriously of the Spirit shall not be forgiven to men. And whosoever shall have spoken a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age nor in the coming one."

We see then, from this, that speaking injuriously of and speaking against the Holy Ghost are the same as blaspheming against Him, which we have already sought to explain.

Some tried one, however, may say, "But, oh, I feel I've grieved the Spirit so often!" Well, that of course is wrong. It is sin, but not blasphemy. Where does God say that grieving the Holy Spirit is an unpardonable offence? Can Satan quote or misquote a scripture for that? What does the word of God say? "Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." (Eph. iv. 30.) Now God gives the Holy Spirit to those that believe. "After that ye [or having] believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise." (Eph. i. 13.) The Holy Spirit takes up His abode in the body of the believer. "Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost?" (1 Cor. vi. 19.) And He is the abiding Comforter. (John xiv. 16.) He does not come and go; but once He dwells in the believer, He remains with him. We are sealed unto the day of redemption. If we sin, we grieve the Spirit, but He does not leave us. It does not say we are sealed until we sin, or even until we die, and our bodies go to corruption, but until the day of redemption. If we should die (or fall asleep), He ceases to dwell in us ? on the earth, of course ? and our bodies do go to corruption. But what the Scripture says (and it is all-important to keep close to it) is, "Whereby ye are sealed unto [or for] the day of redemption;" that is, the coming of the Lord. (Rom. viii. 23; Phil. iii. 20, 21.)

David as a godly Jew could rightly pray, "Take not thy Holy Spirit from me." (Ps. li. 11.) But since the gift of the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, at the day of Pentecost (Acts ii.), once He makes the believer's body His abode, he is sealed till the day of redemption. It is on the ground of this very truth that we are exhorted not to grieve Him. What can be more miserable than to live in a house with a person who is grieved with your ways, and who is constantly showing his disapproval of them. And how unhappy the state of a Christian who is grieving the Spirit by lax and unholy walk and ways. He is the Holy Spirit, and is grieved by all unholiness. Knowing, then, that He dwells in us, how careful, watchful, and prayerful this should make us, that we should not grieve Him, but that rather we should be filled with the Spirit (Eph. v. 18), have the love of God shed abroad in our hearts (Rom. v. 5), and be filled too with all joy and peace in believing. (Rom. xv. 13.)

If we grieve the Holy Spirit of God, then, He does not leave us, but at once makes us sensible of His grief, and our failure and sin. Communion is interrupted and joy lost, to be restored only through the advocacy of Christ and the confession of sins. (1 John ii. 1, i. 9.) But our salvation, thanks be to the God of all grace, is eternal. (Heb. v. 9.) And when a soul is sealed, it is on the ground of the infinite worth of the finished work of Christ, the value of which ever abides in its lasting efficacy before God. Hence we are sealed for the day of redemption.

There is one more passage which we may connect with our subject, as it sometimes troubles souls. It is in 1 John v. 16, 17, and speaks of a sin which brings down the chastisement of God upon the offender. God deals in government as well as in grace, and one of His children may so commit himself that, though the subject of grace, he may be taken away from the world in the government of God.

In 1 Cor. xi. 28-32 we have a confirmation of this. Christians at the Lord's table were committing grievous sin, and partaking of the supper unworthily. Hence they were eating and drinking judgment to themselves. The hand of God was heavy upon them in consequence. "For this cause," says the apostle, "many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world."

And now, dear reader, if you are one that hitherto has been harassed and perplexed by the onslaught and fiery darts of the wicked one, and thinking that your case is hopeless, we would earnestly entreat you to heed no longer the lie of the arch-enemy of your soul, who belies the character of God, but rest in child-like simplicity of faith upon the sure word of God. "The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin." (1 John i. 7.) Listen to the word of Christ, in one of the very passages that has been troubling you, "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." (Matt. xii. 31.) Mark it once again, the only exception is the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, and this you have not committed. The false accusation comes from the father of lies. Heed him. not. God has said, "Their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more."

1 Corinthians 10: 13.

WHEN Satan appears

To stop up our path

And fill us with fears,

We triumph by faith;

He cannot take from us,

Though oft he has tried,

The heart-cheering promise, ?

The Lord will provide.

He tells us we're weak,

Our hope is in vain,

The good that we seek

We ne'er shall obtain;

But when such suggestions

Our spirits have tried,

This answers all questions, ?

The Lord will provide.

The Four Judgments.

Notes of a Lecture.

The subject of the four judgments is taken up with a desire to help those who have been lately converted, and who have confused thoughts about judgment. Some think that all are going to be judged together at the end of the world, but we learn from God's word that there are four distinct judgments; and this is not a theory of any particular school of theology, but the teaching of the Holy Ghost in the word of God.

The first judgment is passed. Christ bore it on the cross. It is most blessed to see that. He "His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree." (1 Peter ii. 24.) He there "suffered for sins, the Just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God," who now justifies every one that believes on the Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Peter iii. 18; Acts xiii. 38, 39; Rom. iii. 26.)

In John v. 24 we have a positive statement as to the fact that we shall not come into judgment. The word translated "judgment" in verse 22 is exactly the same as that rendered "condemnation" in verse 24, and damnation in verse 29. The changes were made by the translators to avoid repetition; but the word in each case should be judgment.

Verse 24. This is a golden chain, composed of five golden links.

"Heareth my word." Have you heard it? It makes dead souls live.

"Believeth on Him that sent me." Do you believe on Him that sent Christ?

"Hath everlasting life." Have you got everlasting life? Perhaps you say, "I don't know I should like to know." "Do you believe Him that sent Christ?" "Thank God, I do." "Then you have everlasting life." It is a present thing; and as to the future, do not be afraid.

"Shall not come into judgment." Christ says so, and He never contradicts Himself.

"Is passed from death unto life." God will not bring two persons into judgment for the same thing. Christ has borne the judgment. It is a thing of the past, behind the Christian's back, borne 1800 years ago; and there is but a step between him and the glory.

There are five more links in Rom. viii. 29, 30. "Whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate . . . Whom He did predestinate, them He also called: and whom He called, them He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified." When we see Him we shall be instantly transformed for all eternity into His own blessed likeness. (1 John iii. 2.) Imagine, when we are raised in glory, Christ putting us before the judgment-seat to see if we are fit to be in glory. If Christians saw how they were going to be raised they would never think of being judged, because they will be raised in glory. (1 Cor. xv. 42-57.)

We will now turn to the second judgment. In Romans xiv. 10 it is declared that all shall stand before the judgment-seat of Christ. Who are all? Every one, saved or unsaved, in the world. It does not say that all will stand there at the same time, or for the same purpose. As to believers, the question of everlasting life is settled for eternity: the question of rewards will be settled before the judgment-seat of Christ. (2 Cor. v. 10.) Believers will stand there first, before Christ's appearing; but unbelievers at the great white throne, after the millennium, and just before the end of the world. If the thought of standing before the judgment-seat terrifies you, it shows that you are not established in the grace of God, and the sooner you get good ground under your feet the better. Enter not into judgment with thy servant, O Lord. (Ps. cxliii. 2.) He has entered into judgment with our Substitute. Is He free from sins? So are we. Is He free from death? So are we. Is He free from judgment? So are we. When before the judgment-seat to have your works judged, before whom will you stand? Him who is your life, your righteousness, your peace.*

{*"We have to remember that at our appearing before the judgment-seat we are already glorified." (1 Cor. xv. 51, 52.)}

In 1 Cor. iii. 8-17 it is a question of reward. Marvellous honour! Deep responsibility! When the apostle preached Christ he laid the foundation, and the different characters of service are put in the order of their preciousness in God's sight.

Gold, silver, and precious stones all stand fire, but the three others will burn ? none of them stand fire. There may be a beautiful building, a fine stack of hay, a great stack of stubble, but they will all burn up. Man is manifested already. The works will be made manifest; the day will not declare him, but his work. It will be revealed by fire, by judgment of a searching character.

We have first (v. 14) a good man and good works, and there is a reward. Eternal life, forgiveness, salvation, righteousness, glory, the Holy Ghost, are all gifts. You will have glory with Christ as sure as He has it; that is no reward. But look to your work. Are you building according to the pattern in the Bible, or according to your own thoughts? A builder might build a most beautiful house, but if not guided by the architect's plan it would be condemned. You may get the praise of men, but if you are not building according to the divine Architect's plan your work will be condemned. A good man does good work, and he gets a reward.

Next (v. 15) we get a good man and bad work, and it is all burned up. He may have made a great show ? erected a large building, a large stack of hay, a larger stack of stubble; he is a good man, but has worked according to his own thoughts. Get your plans from the divine Architect, and take care to let no man come between your Master and yourself. This is a good man, but his work all goes, yet the man himself is saved out of the very fire that consumes the whole of his work. See to it that you are working according to the wonderful ways of God laid down by the Holy Ghost in Scripture. Suppose salvation was by works, this man must go to the lake of fire; for he has not a shred of good works left; but away he goes to glory through sovereign grace. We do not work for salvation, but from love to our Master. Salvation is by grace, not by works.

Rev. xxii. 12: "My reward is with me." Again we see that the second judgment is no question of life ? that is a settled thing ? but of rewards.

1 Cor. vi. 1-3. There is a good deal of misconception as to this scripture. It simply means that the saints of God were going to law before the unjust instead of before the Church of God, and they were told to let the saints arbitrate. Why? Because the saints are going to judge the world. It is a common idea in Christendom that the saints are going to be judged with the world, but they will be there as judges quite a different thing. What a wonderful honour. It is most solemn. Think of Christ coming to take His saints to glory, and coming back with us to judge the world ? dear ones, perhaps, who are part and parcel of ourselves, but who are finding their joy here. All saved people in this dispensation are saints. In Jude 14, 15 we find that Christ is coming back with ten thousands of His saints. How could He come with them if He had not fetched them first? He will fetch us first, then there will be the great tribulation. Then, when we have been with Him in the Father's house for a period of time, He is coming back, and we are going to be associated with Him in the judgment of the world.

The third judgment is at the introduction of the millennium. Millennium is a Latin word, and means a thousand years. In Rev. xx. "thousand years" occurs six times. The Lord is coming to fetch His people; then a thousand years will roll between His coming with His people to reign over the earth and the end of the world.

Joel iii. 2, 9-14; Matt. xxv. 31-46. Here they are all living people. Nations always mean living people. This is the judgment of the living, when Christ comes back with us.

Let me ask you, Where do you get the doctrine of a general resurrection and general judgment in Scripture? How could this be a general judgment when they are all living people, and there is no resurrection? It is not the judgment of the dead, but of the living.

Three classes are mentioned ? "sheep," "goats," and "my brethren." The sheep are saved Gentiles; the goats, those who have rejected the Lord Jesus Christ's own Jewish brethren, and their message. It is not the great white throne. When that is set up there is no mention of Christ's coming, because He has been there reigning over the earth a thousand years already. Christ might come to-night and take His own blood-bought people to glory; and you who are unsaved might live through the tribulation, and be here to be judged when Christ comes with His saints. (2 Thess. i. 7-10.)

We have looked at three sets of scriptures ? the first proving that one judgment is past, the second showing that believers will not come into judgment, and the third that, instead of being judged with the world, they are going to judge the world.

Rev. xx. 11-15. The fourth and last judgment is of the dead. The thousand years will have rolled their course, the millennium will be over, the great white throne will be set up. There will be nothing there but judgment and condemnation. All who stand there will be those who are dead in trespasses and sins ? the ungodly ? and they will be judged according to their works; and every one will leave the great white throne to go to the lake of fire.

What effect ought this to have on us? May God use it to make us see what manner of people we ought to be! We were never so near to Christ's second coming as we are to-day. May it give a colour to our work and ways!

Dear unsaved one, whilst He is waiting for us, and we are waiting for Him, look to Him, come to Him, receive Him by faith, and you will be saved; you will have rest, and will be a child of God, and ready to go to Him; or if Christ comes first you will be ready to meet Him, and to go to be with Him for ever, and if left in this poor world a little longer it will be to live and labour for Him who loved us and gave Himself for us.

"Not under the law."

Romans 7.

In this chapter the apostle first of all establishes the great principle that the believer is "dead to the law." Then he describes the workings of a quickened soul, which, knowing that the "law is spiritual," still feels "under the law," and is therefore compelled to exclaim, "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?"

Now, dear friends, let me ask you, "Am I, or is my state, the object of faith?" No; surely not. Faith never makes what is in my heart its object, but God's revelation of Himself in grace. If we stop half way, and see nothing but the law, it will just discover to us our condemnation, and prove us to be "without strength." If God allows us to know enough of the law, and of the experience described in this chapter, to show us what is our true state, that is just where grace meets us.

It is not that the conflict here spoken of will not continue; grace could not be known at all where conflict is not known (Gal. v. 17); the unconverted only are without it; but that which will not continue when grace is fully known, is that bitterness of spirit in which, while the conflict is going on, the person judges of himself, seeing the law to be "spiritual," but himself "carnal, sold under sin." The love of God is not realized as his own, and therefore this causes him to cry out, "O wretched man that I am!"

It is quite clear that while there is this experience felt, there is not simple faith in God's grace ? there is not a clear view of what God is towards me in Christ; for when the soul apprehends that ? when the faculties of the new man are exercised on their proper object, there is perfect rest. And though there is still conflict, yet the soul is at peace ? the battle is not ours, but the Lord's.

But how am I to know what is God's mind towards me? Is it by judging of it from what I find in myself? Surely not! Supposing that I even found good in myself, if I expected God to look at me on that account, would that be grace? There may be a measure of truth in this kind of reasoning; for if there be life in my soul, fruit will be apparent; but that is not to give me peace any more than the evil that is in me is to hinder my having peace. That, too, is true reasoning where the apostle says, "The law is spiritual; but I am carnal. . . O wretched man that I am" but there is nothing of grace in it.

But does the certainty of grace take us out of all trouble? No; I am not at all denying the fact that there is, and, while we are in a sinful body, that there ever must be, conflict going on between the flesh and the Spirit. But then it is a very different thing to have this conflict going on in the conscious certainty that God is for me, because I am "under grace," to having it in the fear that He is against me, because I am "under law."

If I see evil in myself (and this I always shall whilst here, in the root, even if it be not manifested in its fruit), and if I think that God will be against me because of it, I shall have no strength for conflict, but be utterly cast down ? groaning as to my acceptance. But if certain that God is for me, the consciousness of this will give me courage and victory; nay, even enable me to say, "Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my thoughts; and see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting." In the confidence of the love and grace of God, I can ask Him to search out all my evil, what I otherwise dare not do, lest it should overwhelm me with despair. God is for me, against my own evil.

The apostle speaks (chap. viii.) of the "carnal mind" being "enmity against God;" but then God, in the gift of Jesus, has brought out this blessed truth, that when man was at enmity against God, God was love towards man ? our enmity was met by His love. The triumph of grace is seen in this, that when man's enmity had cast out Jesus from the earth, God's love brought in salvation by that very act ? came in to atone for the sin of those who had rejected Him. In the view of the fullest development of man's sin, faith sees the fullest manifestation of God's grace. Where does faith see the greatest depth of man's sin and hatred of God? In the cross and at the same glance it sees the greatest extent of god's triumphant love and mercy to man. The spear of the soldier which pierced the side of Jesus only brought out that which spoke of love and mercy.

The apostle then goes on to show that those once at enmity with God, are now become His heirs; and that the knowledge of this is founded on the knowledge of grace ? "Ye have not received the spirit of bondage again," etc. Grace first makes us children of God, and then gives us the knowledge of it, and that we are heirs of God.

But what is the extent of this grace towards us? It has given us the same portion that the Lord Jesus has. We are "heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ." It is not only certain that grace has visited us, has found us when we were "in our sins," but it is also certain that it has us where Christ is ? that we are identified with the Lord Jesus in all but His essential glory as God. The soul is placed thus in the consciousness of God's perfect love, and therefore, as it is said in chapter 5, "we joy in God."

I have got away from grace, if I have the slightest doubt or hesitation about God's love. I shall then be saying, "I am unhappy, because I am not what I should like to be." But, dear friends, that is not the question; the real question is, whether God is what we should like Him to be ? whether Jesus is all we could wish. If the consciousness of what we are ? of what we find in ourselves, has any other effect than, while it humbles us, to increase our adoration of what God is, we are off the ground of pure grace. The immediate effect of such consciousness should be to make our hearts reach out to God and to His grace as abounding over it all.

It is better to be thinking of what God is, than of what we are. This looking at ourselves, at the bottom, is really pride ? a want of the thorough consciousness that we are good for nothing. Till we see this we never look quite away from self to God. Sometimes, perhaps, the looking at our evil may be a partial instrument in teaching us it; but still, even that is not all that is needed. In looking to Christ it is our privilege to forget ourselves. True humility does not so much consist in thinking badly of ourselves, as in not thinking of ourselves at all. I am too bad to be worth thinking about; what I want is to forget myself and to look at God, who is indeed worth all my thoughts. Is there need of being humbled about ourselves? We may be quite sure that will do it.

Beloved, if we can say (as in chapter vii.) that "in me, (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing," we have thought quite long enough about ourselves; let us then think about Him who thought about us with "thoughts of good, and not of evil," long before we had thought of ourselves at all. Let us see what His thoughts of grace about us are, and take up the words of faith, If God be for us, who can be against us?"

O LORD, Thy love 's unbounded ?

So sweet, so full, so free ?

My soul is all transported,

Whene'er I think on Thee!

Yet, Lord, alas! what weakness

Within myself I find,

No infant's changing pleasure

Is like my wandering mind.

And yet Thy love's unchanging,

And doth recall my heart

To joy in all its brightness,

The peace its beams impart.

Yet sure, if in Thy presence,

My soul still constant were,

Mine eye would, more familiar,

Its brighter glories bear.

And thus Thy deep perfections

Much better should I know,

And with adoring fervour

In this Thy nature grow.

Still sweet 'tis to discover,

If clouds have dimmed my sight,

When passed, Eternal Lover,

Towards me, as e'er, Thou'rt bright.

The Peace of God.

Phil. 4: 7.

Peace is our portion. There is a "counsel of peace" (Zech. vi. 13) which belongs to us, an assured peace; peace indeed in the midst of present trouble, but still God's peace. If it were not God's peace, it would be good for nothing. I may, it is true, have my spirit much disturbed, and know trial of heart, but still I have a title to perfect peace amidst it all ? not only peace with God, but peace concerning every circumstance, because God is "for us" in it all.

Had not man been in rebellion against God, there would have been no need for "the counsel of peace." Adam in paradise needed it not. But man has rebelled, and, though its modifications may be various, rebellion against God is still the characteristic of the unconverted heart. Such was his rebellion, that peace between man and God seemed impossible. But now, wondrous grace! we see that there is not only peace, but a "counsel of peace" ? thoughts of God concerning peace, thoughts which Jesus alone could meet ? "Lo, come to do thy will, O God." (Heb. x. 9.)

Supposing God had made peace with Adam, the peace could not have lasted; the enmity in the heart of man, or that produced by the power of circumstances thwarting his will, would very soon have broken it again. Look at Israel. They were placed in outward peace with God, owned as His people, favoured in every way, and yet what was the result? continual murmuring on their part, constant rebellion. As to moral peace with God, they had scarcely undertaken to keep His law, than they set up a golden calf to worship, and thus failed directly. And it would always be the same. It must be so; for the very will of man is altogether wrong. "The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." (Rom. viii. 7.)

But now "the counsel of peace" is between God and Jesus, instead of man, and hence security. It is not merely peace, but "the counsel of peace." The word "counsel" implies deliberate purpose. What solidity must there be in that peace which. God had a "counsel" about, and all the engagements of which the mind of Jesus fully entered into and accomplished.

I have said that peace is our proper portion as the children of God ? peace both as to sin, and as to circumstances. Now, it is true that the latter we have not outwardly yet; but God is taking up all that concerns us, and has taken upon Himself to make "all things work together" for our good; and the knowledge of this gives peace (if we will use our privilege) in all circumstances, be they ever those of trial, perplexity, and sorrow. Was it not so with Jesus? Who can be tried so as

He? "Consider Him that endured such contradiction of sinners against Himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds." Yet He had always peace. And so might we. "Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee." (Heb. xii. 3; Isa. xxvi. 3.)

But then it is most important to see that "the counsel of peace" is entirely between God and Jesus. The moment we begin to rest our peace on anything in ourselves, we lose it. And this is why so many saints have not settled peace. Nothing can be lasting that is not built on God alone. How can you have settled peace? Only by having it in God's own way. By not resting it on any thing, even the Spirit's work, within yourselves, but on what Christ has done entirely without you. Then you will know peace, conscious unworthiness, but yet peace. In Christ alone God finds that in which He can rest, and so is it with His saints. The more you see the extent and nature of the evil that is within, as well as that without and around, the more you will find that what Jesus is, and what Jesus did; is the only ground at all on which you can rest.

Our peace is established in what He did, and "the counsel of peace" is "between them both." Jesus has accomplished that which God purposed towards us.

In order to this, it was needful that He should "bear our sins;" and this He did as the "sin-offering." "He hath made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him." (2 Cor. v. 21.)

In the sacrifices, when the offerer laid his hand upon the head of the victim, there was in that act the complete identification of himself with the victim. Now there are two great characters in the sacrifice of Christ ? the one that of the burnt-offering; the other, that of the sin-offering. We lay our hands on Him as the "burnt-offering," thus identifying ourselves with Him. "Accepted in the Beloved," all His perfectness, all His "sweet savour" unto God, is ours. But then, as to the "sin-offering," it is just the reverse; the hand laid upon the victim, it became identified with my sins, charged with my guilt.

Well, beloved, the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus had this double character. He has completely accomplished the purpose of God, all that which was in "the counsel of peace." This "counsel of peace" was not between me and God, though I have, as the fruit of it, the enjoyment of the peace. I had not to do with it in any sense; it was "between them both." All is done, and Jesus, both the accomplisher and the accomplishment, has sat down, in proof that all is finished, on the throne of God. (Heb. x. 12-14.)

But, then, in order that we may have the enjoyment of these things, He is acting in another way as priest. Having the Spirit of Christ dwelling in us, we consequently see many things in ourselves contrary to Him ? many things that would hinder fellowship with God. Now here it is that the present ministry of Christ comes in. We need His priesthood in order to maintain our communion with God; we need Him in our daily sins, as it is said, "If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." We need the presence of perfect righteousness on our behalf before God, and He has ever before His eyes, and that "for us," the accomplisher of "the counsel of peace" ? "Jesus Christ the righteous."

Here then is "the counsel of peace" which was purposed between God and Jesus. Here, and here only, have we peace. If ever our souls have any idea of rest except in that which is the perfect rest of God, if ever we are looking for peace anywhere else, be it where it may, we have got out of God's way of accomplishing peace, off the ground of this "counsel of peace." He has not called us into "the counsel;" it is that which is entirely independent of ourselves ? "between them both" ? accomplished and everlastingly sure. Nothing can ever touch it. God has publicly owned His acceptance of Christ's work by seating Him at His own right hand. The Holy Ghost is sent to witness to us that Jesus is now "on the throne of God," having "by one offering perfected for ever them that are sanctified."

We may have a great deal of trial (we know we shall) ? trial from circumstances around, trial from within, exercise of conscience and the like; but still we have the perfect certainty of God's favour; "and if God be for us, who can be against us?" (Rom. viii. 31.) With Paul we may reckon, because of His having given Jesus for us, along with Jesus upon everything. This is the true way to reckon upon His kindness. "Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus." (Phil. iv. 6, 7.) Observe, he says, "the peace of God." Again, the word is, "Be careful for nothing." If one single thing were excepted, God would not be God. Well, if exercised and troubled in spirit, tempted to be "careful," let us go to God about it. Our wishes may possibly be foolish wishes, still let us go and present them to God; if they are so, we shall very soon be ashamed of them.

LORD, while our souls in faith repose

Upon Thy precious blood,

Peace like an even river flows)

And mercy, like a flood.

The Two Resurrections.

A Better Resurrection.

The Resurrection of the Just.

The Resurrection of Life.

This is the First Resurrection.

The Children of the Resurrection.

Heb. xi. 35; Luke xiv. 14; John v. 29; Rev. xx. 5; Luke xx. 36.

The resurrection of the saints at the coming of the Lord is distinct from the resurrection of the wicked; and the coming of the Lord is itself the hope of the Church.

The idea that Christians generally have, is that of an indiscriminate resurrection; the righteous and wicked being, as it is supposed, to be raised at the same moment, and that moment absolutely at the end of time ? after the millennium ? at the close of the entire course of God's dealings with this earth on which we dwell. This was the idea, which Martha, the sister of Lazarus, had. Desolate and sorrowful through the loss of her brother, our Lord, to comfort her heart, said to her, "Thy brother shall rise again." What was her reply? "I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Martha's faith as to the resurrection was exactly that of the bulk of professing Christians now; true, doubtless, as far as it goes, but stopping far short of the precious fulness of truth revealed in the word of God respecting it. There is indeed to be a resurrection; and that resurrection is to be at the last day. But "the day of judgment," "the day of the Lord," and, I would add, "the last day," each expresses, not a literal, actual day of twenty-four hours, but a lengthened period. The "last day" begins before the "day of judgment" ? "the day of the Lord" ? but it seems to us to embrace the whole period from the coming of Christ to receive His saints, to the time when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God the Father; when He shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. The resurrection at the last day embraces thus the resurrection both of the righteous and the wicked; but this does not in any wise prove that they are both at the same moment; and we shall see just now from the plain testimony of Scripture that they are not only distinguished from each other, but separated by an interval of a thousand years.

The first passage to which I would refer you is Luke xiv. 14, which simply distinguishes these two resurrections as to their character. Our Lord having exhorted those with whom He was sitting at table, when they made a feast, to call the poor, the maimed, the lame, and the blind, proceeds to enforce the exhortation thus: "And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be, recompensed at the resurrection of the just." Would any one, not previously possessed with the prevailing notion, gather the impression from this passage that the resurrection of the just and that of the wicked was an indiscriminate event? Would not the natural impression of the passage on any unprejudiced mind be, that the resurrection of the just is an event perfectly distinct? ? "thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just."

In Phil. iii. 10, 11 the apostle represents it as his great endeavour, his arduous, his continual endeavour, to know Christ, and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being made conformable unto His death, "if by any means," says he, "I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead." But if the only resurrection be an indiscriminate resurrection both of righteous and wicked, a simple act of God's power, apart from all questions of spiritual condition and character, how could it be Paul's solicitude "by any means" to "attain unto the resurrection of the dead"?

In John v. 28, 29 we have another important passage, in which our blessed Lord distinguishes between the resurrection of the righteous and that of the wicked. "Marvel not at this: for the hour is corning, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation." Here our Lord speaks of two resurrections, distinguishing them by the sources from whence they respectively flow, and by which they are thus respectively characterized; life in the one case, judgment in the other. "The resurrection of life" and "the resurrection of judgment." "Yes," you may perhaps be saying; "but both are in one hour." I anticipated this objection when I referred to the passage; and it is as much to meet this objection that I ask your attention to the passage, as to show you the positive proof it contains of the doctrine we are considering. "The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth." People infer from this that all rise together. And this would be a just inference, if the word "hour" meant a literal period of sixty minutes. But if you look back to verse 25 of this very chapter, you will see that the word is used in quite another sense. Jesus had been speaking of the quickening of dead souls, how he that hears and believes has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment (or condemnation), but is passed from death unto life. He then says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live." The hour is coming, and now is. It had commenced when our Lord spake. There is an "hour" in which the Son of God is quickening dead souls ? the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live. How long has this "hour" lasted? It had begun when Jesus spake thus; it has not terminated yet! Already do we know this "hour" of quickening dead souls to be of more than eighteen hundred years' continuance. For anything, therefore, that the word "hour" proves to the contrary, the "hour" in which Christ will quicken dead bodies might last as long as this present "hour" in which He is quickening dead souls. The passage before us does not determine how long the period is. It teaches plainly that there is a "resurrection of life," and a "resurrection of judgment." There is an "hour" coming, in the which both these will be accomplished; and we read, in the immediate context of this passage, of another "hour" which has unquestionably lasted for nearly two thousand years. What the period actually is that intervenes between these two resurrections we have to learn elsewhere in Scripture; and in another passage we are plainly told that it is one thousand years.

It is in Revelation xx. that we learn this. We find there that the duration of the "hour" in the which these two resurrections take place is one thousand years. The resurrection of life is at the commencement, the resurrection of judgment is at the close.

"And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, and cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season." People say that this is figurative language; and it is granted that it is so, at once. No doubt the key of the bottomless pit, and the great chain in the angel's hand, and the binding of Satan, and the setting of a seal upon him, are all figures. But what are they figures of? Are they expressions without meaning because they are figurative? Or is the meaning necessarily uncertain and indefinite? What do they all teach us, but that Satan will be forcibly restrained, and that in his own abyss, for a thousand years? So restrained that he shall deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years are fulfilled. What difficulty is there in understanding the force and meaning of figures like these?

"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection." Observe these last words, my brethren "This is the first resurrection." There may have been figures employed in the passage; no one questions it. But when the Holy Ghost is pleased to interpret the figurative language He has employed ? when He is pleased to tell us what it means ? are we to evade the force of all He says, by making His interpretation figurative also? "This is the first resurrection," is the Holy Ghost's explanation of the figures or symbols by which it had been set forth. "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years." Nothing can be more evident than what the simple, definite impression of this language would be on any mind not prepossessed with thoughts of another character. The way in which it is commonly sought to evade the plain, obvious meaning of the passage is by explaining it thus: that the resurrection of the martyrs, which John beheld, denotes a revival of the principles for which they suffered; that, having suffered death for Christian principles, the revival, and universal spread and ascendency of these principles, is set forth by the symbol of those who had been beheaded living and reigning with Christ a thousand years. Such is the popular interpretation of this passage. But it breaks down at every point. Those who have been beheaded are those who reign. Are they principles or persons that have been beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the word of God? Then again, supposing that the reign of principles might be set forth by the resurrection and reign of those who had been martyrs for them, how are we to account for their priesthood? "They shall be priests of God and of Christ." As one has said, in substance, somewhere, "You may speak of the reign of principles; but can you make principles into priests as well?" Then again, "on such the second death hath no power." What is the second death? It is explained in verse 14 to be "the lake of fire." And could there be any question of the second death, the lake of fire, having power over Christian principles? The lake of fire is for the punishment of evil persons; and it is one element in the blessedness of those who have part in the first resurrection that "on such the second death hath no power." Then further, the first resurrection is so linked in this chapter with what all admit to be a literal resurrection of dead bodies at the end of the thousand years, that you cannot explain away the one without explaining away the other. When John has witnessed the vision in verse 4, which is explained to him in verse 5 to be "the first resurrection," we are told of certain who have no part in it; "but the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished." In the verses which ensue we have a rapid glance at the events which occur when the thousand years are expired ? Satan is loosed ? the nations are again deceived ? fire comes down from God out of heaven and destroys them ? the devil who had deceived them is cast into the lake of fire, where the beast and the false prophet are (having been cast there alive a thousand years before, see chapter xix. 20); and then what follows? "And I saw a great white throne, and Him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." Is this figurative too, my brethren? If so, where is there Scripture authority for the doctrine of the resurrection at all? And if this be not figurative, why should the account of "the first resurrection at the beginning of the chapter be set aside as figurative? If it be allowed, which it must be, that the resurrection of the wicked dead at the close of the chapter is a literal, actual resurrection of dead bodies, on what principle can it be maintained that the first resurrection at the beginning of the chapter is figurative, and denotes the revival of dead or dying principles? What says the Holy Spirit? "This is the first resurrection." "But the rest of the dead lived not again," etc. The rest of the dead what? ? principles? ? or persons? Surely the "rest" must bear some relation to those from whom they are distinguished. If it be a revival of principles which constitutes the first resurrection, "the rest of the dead who live not again till the thousand years are finished" must be principles also. And if it shocks you to trifle thus with God's holy word ? if it be certain that the dead who are raised and judged before the great white throne, are dead persons, not principles; then is it equally certain that the first resurrection is a resurrection of persons too. If the first resurrection be one of principles, then must the second also. If the second, that before the great white throne, be a resurrection of persons, the first must be a resurrection of persons likewise. Nothing can be more evident and simple than this.

This chapter, then, demonstrates that there is an interval of at least a thousand years between the resurrection of life and the resurrection of judgment. "The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of judgment." That "hour" lasts a thousand years; the "hour" in which Christ quickens dead souls has already lasted more than eighteen hundred years. The "hour" in which He shall raise dead bodies commences with His coming to change His living, and raise His sleeping, saints; it closes with the resurrection of the wicked dead, and their judgment before the great white throne ? "the resurrection of judgment." I commend the whole chapter (Rev. xx.) to your patient, attentive, and prayerful perusal in your closets before God.

THAT bright and blessed morn is near

When He, the Bridegroom, shall appear,

And call His bride away.

Her blessing then shall be complete,

When with her Lord she takes her seat

In everlasting day. Rev. iii. 21.

The days and months are gliding past,

Soon shall be heard the trumpet's blast

Which wakes the sleeping saints.

The dead in Christ in glory rise,

When we with them shall reach the skies

Where Jesus for us waits.

What wonder, joy, and glad surprise

Shall fill our hearts as thus we rise,

To meet Him in the air; 1 Thess. iv. 17

To see His face, to hear His voice,

And in His perfect love rejoice,

Whose glory then we'll share,

O may this hope our spirits cheer,

While waiting for our Saviour here;

He'll quickly come again. Rev. xxii.

O may our hearts look for that day,

And to His word responsive say,

Lord Jesus, come. Amen.

Our Father's Will: Being a Short History of the Text of the New Testament

Our Father's Will

Being a Short History of the Text of the New Testament.

"The word of our God shall stand for ever."

London: G. Morrish, 20, Paternoster Square.

[Apology is made for the inaccuracy of the quotations in cursive Greek. We do not have the tools for writing Greek punctuation, breathing, diacritic and subscript marks in html. The letters themselves should be accurate.]

Contents.

Introduction

No need for alarm

The various forms of Evidence

The Material of the Greek Manuscripts

The Style of Writing

Causes of Variations

List of Greek Copies

List of Uncial Manuscripts

Cursive Manuscripts

Lectionaries

The Fathers

The Versions

Age and Families of Manuscripts.

The Editor at work

Review of a few passages

Various Readings in the Revelation

Printed Greek Testaments

The Order of the Books

Divisions of the New Testament

Headings and Subscriptions to the Books

The Canon of Scripture

The Authorised Version of 1611

Verbal Inspiration

Introduction.

There was once a large family — a very large family — of several generations, all descended from one common father. He was very great, and he had enormous possessions, which he had bequeathed to various branches of the family.

Some years since — though the various descendants were in possession of and enjoying their several estates — a strong desire arose to possess a more correct copy of their father's will. Communications were made with different branches of the family in various places, inquiring into the subject.

They discovered that the original writing was lost, but various copies existed. These were collected together, and compared, but the family were surprised to find that no two copies exactly agreed. At a cursory glance they were found to agree in the main. The estates of A were not given to B; nor the estates of B to C, etc. And some of the family thought that as the copies agreed in the main, there should be no further search.

Others thought it best to say nothing about the various differences. It might unsettle the minds of some of the younger members of the family, who were happily ignorant of their existence. If they heard of these differences they might doubt of the execution of the original altogether.

Others were startled at the discovery, and asked, Do we hold our estates only on a tenure that will not bear investigation? Pray let us endeavour to get at the real truth. If these differences exist, let us know the full extent of them. Although the few copies we have may not differ in the main, further search may bring to light greater differences. We are building for the future upon the supposed stability of our titles; we must know whether these titles are good. Nothing now will satisfy us but a thorough and searching inquiry.

Others took another line. They did not doubt of the stability of the titles to their estates; but they desired to read the heart of their great father. He had not only given them estates, but he had expressed his interest and affection for them. They desired to get at his very words — to enter into his affection for them, and to understand his thoughts of love concerning them.

Others also greatly desired to read his very words that they might better understand his wisdom. He had given them the benefit of his great insight into the character of men and things, with cheering encouragement on the one hand, and solemn warnings on the other. They feared lest anything should be lost, even what might appear to some to be the least.

Others knew that their great father had spoken to them a good deal about himself, and they were convinced that they should endeavour to obtain every word he had said.

Thus for these and other reasons it was judged to be highly desirable that a very extensive search should be made for copies of the will; that those found should be carefully compared, and all the alterations noted. They should endeavour to account for the alterations; and above and beyond all they should endeavour to ascertain what was the exact wording of the will.

With these objects, one here and another there set diligently to work at their task. The task was indeed laborious: they obtained many copies and proceeded to compare them carefully and note all the differences.

But they were soon struck with the fact that some copies were much older than others, and the older they were, the nearer they were to the original, and so were of course the more valuable.

But of some it was no easy matter to judge the age. It was known that at a certain period the style of writing had been decidedly changed. This fact led to the division of the copies into two distinct classes; but as to which was the oldest in each class was not so easy. The material on which the document was written was scrutinized, and every little variation in the writing noted that would in any way throw light upon its age.

There were also other branches of the inquiry. One was this. It was ascertained that in certain documents, written by some of the family, they had given extracts from the will: and some of these turned out to be of an early date. These were of great value, because they proved what was in their copy of the will at the time the quotation was made.

Further, it was ascertained that some of the family had journeyed into foreign parts, and had settled there, and for their benefit the original will had been translated into foreign languages. On inquiry, it was ascertained that some of these translations had been made very early. These were of great use, as they shewed what was in the translator's copy when the translation was made.

With all these and other materials the labour became immense. All had to be compared, and the variations carefully noted; the documents being separated and valued according to their various ages.

The next step was to endeavour to ascertain the cause of the variations. In many places it was, purely accidental. The writers had in some places mistaken one word for another. In others, words were accidentally omitted; and in others, words were added. In other places the alterations appeared to be done purposely. Apparently the copier had thought he could improve the wording, without perhaps thinking of the importance that would be attached to the identical [original?] words of this famous will.

Now the ascertaining of the cause of the variations was at once the means of removing a great many of them as variations. They were ascertained to have been accidental alterations, and were dismissed accordingly. But this would not clear up all. In some the preponderance of the evidence was overwhelming for one reading over another so as to settle indisputably which was correct, and this decided many questions. Still, a few remained in which it was difficult to decide which was the word actually used in the original.

On the whole, the result was highly satisfactory. The investigation has stamped an absolute certainty upon the will. Not a single point of importance is left in doubt or is surrounded by difficulty, and there remain only a few places where the actual words cannot be ascertained.

The family have great cause for thankfulness. Their estates are sure to them: they can read the heart and learn the intentions of their great father to them in his own words: they can profit by his wisdom, by his instruction, and by his warnings. And all this not simply in generalities, but in his own words. As if he was now speaking to them, they listen, and they hear his accents of love, and they learn himself. Thus are they happy and are blessed.

This will is the word of God. This family is the saints of God.

All scripture was given by inspiration of God, and it was written; but the original has been lost. There are many copies in existence; but they all more or less differ.

There have been and are men who have spent the best part of their lives in comparing the various copies: they have duly considered the value of each, and have carefully sought to discover the true text as it stood in the original.

The above is in no sense an exaggerated account of the history of the text of the New Testament. For many years the question lay entirely dormant. It was not until the year 1514 that the printing of the first Greek Testament — the Complutensian — was finished; but before it could be printed, the question had to be considered, "What copy shall be taken?" And although it was known that the manuscripts differed, yet, the fact that there were in existence a great many Greek copies was not known, and the nature and the extent of the variations had not then been fully ascertained. What copies were actually used for that edition is not now known, but they must have been comparatively few.

Other printed editions followed in rapid succession, by various editors, each one referring, as he had opportunity, to an increased number of manuscripts, with the various other sources of evidence. By degrees all evidence began to be valued, and to be used for deciding on the true text of that which God had caused to be written.

But, as we have intimated above, this caused alarm in the minds of some Christians, and they felt it their duty to protest against the making public the variations in the Greek manuscripts, judging that it was unsettling scripture, and, as John Owen called it, an attempt "to correct the word of God." Dr. Whitby was another who felt alarmed at that which was being brought to light. We can give them and others credit for their zeal for God's word, but they were certainly mistaken, as we hope to make plain as we proceed with our inquiry.

No need for Alarm.

We have seen how important it is that we should endeavour to get at the true text of "Our Father's Will," or, in other words, of "the word of God," though our present inquiry will only embrace the New Testament, and we have briefly glanced at the difficulties which have stood in the way.

Many have supposed that to procure a Greek Testament was to procure a copy of the true text as God caused it to be written; but, of course, a printed copy must have been made from some other copy; and it may have been copied from some one manuscript, or it may be a copy of what some editor (who has compared many manuscripts) judges to be the true text. Thus we are led back to the manuscript copies, and, as we have said, there are many of these, and no two of them are exactly alike.

This at first sight may seem to be a great calamity, throwing a doubt upon the blessed word of God, but on a closer investigation this will be seen not to be so. Of course, God could have preserved for us a faultless manuscript, but He has allowed it to be otherwise; the New Testament has gone through the various perils that any other old writing has been subject to, though with this difference, that it has been watched over by its living Author.* God, of course, could by a continued miracle have preserved to us the very copies that were written by the inspired penmen; but He has not done so. Who could have held them, and what would other Christians have done without them? As it is, all, scattered over the known world, had copies of the original from the first.

{* It has been estimated that in the writings of Terence, a book not nearly so large as the New Testament, if existing copies were examined with care equal to that bestowed upon the New Testament, at least 50,000 variations would be discovered.}

Besides, the New Testament has now the indisputable stamp of antiquity upon it. It is known, apart from the manuscripts of the New Testament, that, say, in the fourth century Greek was written in a particular manner, and it is known that various changes gradually took place in writing that language, (points, accents, and breathings being introduced,) until the same passage written in the fourth century, and written in the tenth century, do not look like the same language. Well, we have portions of the Greek New Testament, believed to have been written in the fourth century, and then each century after, with those very changes introduced as they are known to have been made. To those who value external evidences, there cannot be a stronger proof that the New Testament was written soon after the time of our Lord; indeed, the evidence is so strong, that we are not aware that it has ever been called in question, even by the most sceptical.

And, further, as one has said, "It is a good providence and a great blessing that so many manuscripts of the New Testament are still amongst us; some procured from Egypt, others from Asia, others from the Western churches. For the very distance of places, as well as numbers of the books, demonstrate that there could be no collusion, no altering, nor interpolating one copy by another, nor all by any of them."

It is important, too, to see that the variations in the manuscripts affect none of the great doctrines of Christianity. The divinity of Christ, His spotless life, His atoning death, His resurrection and ascension, all remain untouched. The fall of man, the glad tidings of salvation, the eternal security of the believer, and the eternal punishment of the unbeliever, all remain intact. The descent of the Holy Spirit, and the second advent of our Lord, remain unshaken. Indeed, as the same writer has said, "even put them [the various manuscripts] into the hands of a knave or a fool, and yet with the most sinistrous and absurd choice, he shall not extinguish the light of any one chapter, nor so disguise Christianity, but that every feature of it will still be the same." (Bentley.)

Yet there is the fact (and it must be remembered that by speaking of it we do not create it — it is the same, whether we know it or not) that there are hundreds of Greek copies, and no two of them are exactly alike. Any one complete copy would give us all we need for salvation; but, as we have said, because the New Testament is from God, we want to know every word. All He does, He does perfectly. He caused the book to be written, and the right words to be used; and surely it is a laudable desire for us to seek to have the very words He caused to be written.

Such is our desire, and such was the desire of certain zealous men who have spent many a long year in poring over old manuscripts, using various means to bring to light what, in many cases, had become invisible to ordinary eyesight. They are called editors. Let due honour be given to those who have devoted the best part of their lifetime to these arduous duties.

We cannot do what they have done; and if we had all the materials at hand, not one in a thousand is qualified to duly weigh all the evidence for and against a reading, giving to each its proper weight. But God bestowed gifts suited for such a work on one here, and another there; and they have laboured diligently, and have told us what they believe are the words which God caused to be written.

The Various Forms of Evidence.

Of course, age is that which gives value, in a general way, to any evidence. Then the evidence is divided principally into four divisions.

1. The existing Greek Manuscripts.

The earliest copies date in the fourth century, and then run down to the time of printing, in the fifteenth century; so that, from the time each of the books of the New Testament was written, till the fourth century, there is a blank, as far as Greek manuscripts are concerned, but which period is in a measure bridged over by other evidence.

For fifteen centuries the word of God was handed down by the use of the pen; and although there were such persons as writers who were paid for copying manuscripts, there can be no doubt that many hundreds of copies of the New Testament were made by the monks in their cells, after the monastic order came into existence. Whatever abuses were connected with that order — and they grew to be many and serious — this good was done by them. Amid changes and revolutions, they preserved the sacred writings, and perseveringly increased their numbers by the use of the pen.

It has been thought by some that the monks introduced the decoration of manuscripts; but this is not correct, it came early in vogue. Jerome, in the fourth century, complained that too much space was occupied with the ornaments. It began with ornamental initial letters, which were increased in size, until they became very large; then they had long ornamental pendants, and some made to trail along the bottom of the page also, thus occupying three sides of the page. Some of these ornaments were elaborate works of art, interspersed with rich colours and gold.

Strange as it may seem, it is yet true, that the ornaments to the early manuscripts form strong evidence as to the corruption of the Romish church. In the decorations to the early manuscripts by the monks there is no trace of the worship of the Virgin, the invocation of saints, purgatory, etc.; but when we come to the eleventh century and onwards, these and other corruptions are all interwoven with the ornaments executed by the monks. Thus, though good work was done in the cloisters, as the monks came to be corrupt, they left their "dirty finger-marks" upon the copies they made.

Some manuscripts were written entirely with letters in gold and silver. One of the Gothic versions of the New Testament is written in silver, with the initial letters in gold. It was executed about the fifth century, and is now preserved in the royal library of Upsal. It is known as the "Codex Argenteus," the silver copy.

2. The Versions; that is, the early translations of the New Testament into other languages.

These in a measure bridge over the period between the writing of the books of the New Testament and the Greek manuscript. While the earliest Greek manuscript is of the fourth century, the earliest version is of the second century, the Syriac being the oldest. The Thebaic dates in the third century, and others in the fourth.

The use of these Versions is great, not to tell us the meaning the various translators attached to certain Greek words (though they are also useful for this at times, but), because they tell us what was in the Greek copy at the date the translation was made. For instance, each early Syriac version lets us know what was in his copy in the second century, and of course his copy must have dated still earlier; so that we get by this means within, perhaps, a hundred years of the date when some of the Epistles were written.

That the Versions have come down to us more ancient than any Greek manuscript is perhaps owing to the violent persecution commenced by the Roman emperor Diocletian, who made a special point of demanding every copy of the sacred scriptures, on pain of death. All that were obtained were burned.* This persecution extended A.D. 303-312, and it has been seen that our earliest Greek copies date in the fourth century, so that it seems doubtful if we have any that escaped that fiery persecution. When peace was restored to the church, the copies would have been rapidly increased.

{*Those who gave up their copies were called traditores, "deliverers up." This is doubtless the origin of our word, traitor.}

3. The Fathers; that is, the early writers in the church, who quoted scripture in their writings.

It may be thought that these are open to suspicion, on account of the early heresies that crept into the church; but it must be remembered that, as we have seen, the New Testament was translated very early into other tongues, and was thus widely circulated, so that if a man had quoted scripture falsely, he would surely have been detected, and put to shame. We are not aware that any were charged with doing this; they rather sought to explain it away in some manner. It is true that in some cases the Fathers may have quoted scripture, as we often do, from memory, but this may be often detected and guarded against by a careful comparison.

In the Fathers we get to a date yet earlier than any version. We reach up to some who are believed to have been instructed by the apostles personally, and who came into contact with many who had seen our Lord. The few who are accredited to have lived in the time of the apostles, called Apostolic Fathers, and who are referred, to as quoting scripture, are,

1, Clement, supposed to be the one named in Philippians 4: 3

(now called Clement of Rome, to distinguish him from Clement of Alexandria).

2, Polycarp, martyred A.D. 169.

3, Barnabas, first or second century.

4, Ignatius, martyred A.D. 107.

Thus we see that we have the gaps, in a measure, filled up. The Fathers go back to the first and second centuries; the Versions to the second and third centuries; and the Greek Manuscripts to the fourth century.

4. The Lectionaries; that is, the manuscript service-books used in the church, which consist of portions of scripture. Some contained portions from the Gospels only; and others, from the Acts and Epistles.

Of the Lectionaries alone there are some hundreds, and they have as yet received comparatively little attention. The other three branches of evidence have been used freely. And though, as we should naturally think, the Greek manuscripts have the greatest weight, yet the Versions, and the quotations from the Fathers, must by no means be neglected, some of these, as we have seen, being older than any Greek manuscript that is spared to us. None of the Lectionaries are older than the eighth or ninth century, and carry, of course, less weight.

The Material of the Greek Manuscripts.

The first thing is the material on which the copies were written. In the word itself we read (2 John 12) of "paper and ink." This alludes most probably to the papyrus of Egypt. This was known to have been used before the time of Christ; but being frail and brittle, it did not endure the ravages of time. The specimens now in existence owe their preservation to being buried in tombs or ruins of cities.

The rolls found in the tombs had been placed under the arms or between the legs of the deceased, and sometimes on the stomach. There seems to be no doubt that these rolls were considered somewhat like passports to bliss. In the collection of Trinity College, Dublin, there is a papyrus which contains a rubric to this effect, as interpreted by Dr. Hincks: "If this book be recited on the earth, and this chapter be put in writing upon a person's coffin, he shall be manifested in the light with all the honours due to him: when he goes to his house he shall not be turned back; there shall be given to him bread, liquors, and the choicest meats on the altar of Osiris; and he shall go to the fields of Aalon." From this we learn that the delusions of Satan not only embraced the quieting of the conscience for time but extended to a hope of eternal bliss. How blessed to be delivered from his delusions!

There was a good trade done in the funeral papyri. Many are preserved which prove that they were prepared beforehand, and a blank left for the person's name, which in some cases has been filled up evidently by a different hand from the body of the writing, while in some cases the name was not inserted from some cause, and the blanks remain to this day.

This papyrus was made from an Egyptian plant. Underneath the coarse exterior rind of the plant lie a number of successive thin layers of the inner cuticle, about twenty in number. These were separated from each other, and two of them pasted together transversely, then pressed, dried, and polished. By joining the leaves together they were made into a long roll.*

{*The "paper reeds" in Isaiah 19: 7 is not now considered to be the best translation. It is rendered "The 'meadows' by the brook," etc.}

There are no manuscripts of the Greek Testament now in existence on the papyrus, (except a few leaves containing a portion of 1 Cor. 6, 7.) nor in the form of rolls; but this particular form explains the "book" referred to in Revelation 5. It will be noticed that this is said to be "written within and on the back side." It was usual to write only on one side of the roll, which was placed on two rollers. One was held in each hand, and by gradually unrolling with one hand, and rolling up with the other, the entire manuscript could be read. It was the duty of the librarian to re-roll them ready for the next reader, as of course they could only be read one way. But it occasionally happened that the whole writing could not be got in on one side, and in that case a portion was written on the back. The roll in the Revelation, being written within and on the back, pointed out the full revelation God was going to make of His future actings.

Another point of interest is that the book had seven seals, and the breaking of each seal was followed by a further revelation. This is easily explained by the above roll. As we may say, a portion was written, rolled up, and sealed; another portion written, rolled up and sealed, and so on to the seven. By opening one seal a portion of the roll was able to be read, containing the first revelation: then another seal presented itself, which had to be broken open before the second portion could be read, and so on. It was God's seven-sealed roll, containing seven revelations.

Further, in 2 Timothy 4: 13, we read of the "books" and the "parchments." The oldest copies of the Greek Testament now in existence are written on vellum or parchment, and the three oldest of them are remarkable for the beauty of the vellum on which they are written, later copies being on that which is thicker and coarser. The Codex Sinaiticus is believed to be written on vellum from the finest skins of the antelope or ass, and the pages are so large, that it is estimated the skin of an animal would not furnish more than two leaves. This will give some idea of the value of sufficient parchment to form a New Testament. The name "parchment" is supposed to have been derived from Pergamos, where it was first made.

Paper made of cotton is believed to have been invented about the ninth century A.D. There is a Lectionary in existence, written on vellum, of about that date, but in which two leaves are inserted on paper made of cotton, and which appear to have been written on by the same hand as the vellum. About the twelfth century a much finer paper was made of linen: when highly finished it much resembled vellum.

The supply of papyrus was abundant from the Egyptian market during the early part of the Roman empire, but on the complete division of the empire this supply was in a measure stopped, the intercourse with the East being both difficult and irregular. This led to a revival of the practice of rubbing out from the parchment anything that was not valued by the owner in order to put thereon what he desired to commit to writing, or it might have been done simply as a matter of trade, clean parchment being always saleable.

Unfortunately, as we say, some portions of the New Testament have been served in this way. The word of God has been rubbed out, and something comparatively worthless written in its place. In some instances a third writing has been placed on the same parchment. In 1476 one of the early editions of the Clementine Constitutions was actually printed on a parchment from which the writing had been erased.

But fortunately this erasing has not been thoroughly effected, so that the parchment still shews in faint outlines the original writing, which often, by great labour, and sometimes by chemical means, has been deciphered.

To comprehend the process of restoration it must be understood that there were two methods employed by the ancients in effacing the original writing — the wet and the dry. The first consisted in moistening the surface of the parchment, washing it with a sponge, and rubbing it with pumice stone. Of the dry there were different forms: either the entire line was scraped away with a broad tool or blade, or the operator followed the course of each separate letter and obliterated each in succession with the point of the tool. The ink again was of three kinds metallic (which was that commonly used), vegetable, and mineral. And as the action of the ink, whatever may be its composition, was not entirely confined to the surface, it is found that even after the superficial trace of colour has been partially or entirely removed, its unobserved presence may still be detected by careful scientific treatment.

The method frequently adopted by Mai was simply to wash the page with an infusion of galls, and expose it to the action of light and air. This was in many cases successful; in other cases however it blackened the parchment so that neither the first nor the second writing could be read.

The more recent mode is to carefully wash the parchment with water, then dip it in diluted Hydrochloric acid, and finally in Potassium ferrocyanide. This in many cases has proved entirely successful. (Encyclopedia Britannica.)

There is at Paris a famous manuscript of this description, which contains large portions of both the Old and New Testaments, over which have been written some works by St. Ephraem the Syrian. It is called the Codex Ephraem.

Such manuscripts are called rescripts, "written again," or palimpsests, "scratched or scraped again."

We give a specimen of one of these rescripts. It will be seen that in this case the leaf had been folded in half, and the second writing placed transversely. In other cases the two writings run in the same direction. Here only a portion of the original is covered by the second writing; but in other places and in other rescripts the entire original is covered. This, however, will shew how difficult it is to read the first where it is covered by a second writing, and in some places the original is much more indistinct than in our copy, being read in places only with great difficulty. The most difficult to read are those re-written line upon line, where the characters blend and run into one another.

Facsimile of a rescript from the Codex Nitriensis showing part of Luke 20: 9, 10.

Our specimen is from the Codex Nitriensis. It was brought from a Nitrian monastery in Egypt, and is now in the British Museum. It contains large portions of Luke's Gospel, which are judged to have been written in the sixth century. These have been written over in Syriac by Severus of Antioch, against Grammaticus in the ninth or tenth century. The specimen contains a portion of Luke 20: 9, 10, and in the common Greek type reads thus: αμπελώνα, και εξέδοτο αύτόν γεωργεις, και απεδημησε χρύνους ίκανούς. και εν καιρώ (a vineyard, and let it out to husbandmen, and left the country for a long time. And in [the] season).

The ink that was used for the earliest of the manuscripts has not stood its colour during the lapse of ages. It has often turned brown, or a sort of red, or become very pale. On parchment the ink does not sink into the material so much as on paper, and in some places it seems to have peeled off altogether; yet even there the text can sometimes be made out by the indentation left in the vellum, the writing having been made apparently by a metal pen (called a stylus, used for writing on tablets covered with wax). The coloured inks have maintained their colours better than the black. The ruled lines by some sharp instrument are also still visible in some places. These ruled lines and columns enabled the copies to be written very regularly, some having almost the uniformity of a printed copy, and which has led some to suppose the letters must have been stamped instead of written.

In the papyrus scrolls the lines were very short, so as to be the more easily read as they were unrolled; but, when books instead of scrolls began to be made, the writing gradually took the form of longer lines. The Codex Sinaiticus is the nearest in appearance to the papyrus copies, having four columns on a page; the Codex Vaticanus has three; and the Alexandrinus has two. This however cannot be taken as a sure criterion of age, as manuscripts with three columns have been discovered as late as the eighth and ninth centuries. We believe the Codex Sinaiticus stands alone in having four columns. The length of the lines may be seen in our specimen on page 28. Four columns made a good size quarto page, which was the usual form for the earlier copies, a few being in folio, and some in octavo. The sheets were folded into small sections of a few leaves, each section being numbered on the first or last page.

The Style of Writing.

For about the first ten centuries the copies were written all in capital letters, called Uncials, and afterwards in the small letters called Cursives. The word 'uncial' is supposed to be from uncia, an inch, not that the letters were really an inch in size (though in some copies the initial letters are over half an inch); 'cursive' is from cursus, a running, because the letters run together as in common writing. These two styles of writing divide the Greek manuscripts into two great classes; but of course it was desirable to fix the date of each copy as nearly as could be in its class. Though we have no cursive Greek manuscript earlier than the tenth century, yet that style was used for common purposes long before. It is even found in the Herculanean rolls in places where apparently rapidity was sought rather that elegance.

Greater attention has been given to the uncial copies with the view of fixing the date of each. "By studying the style and shape of the letters on Greek inscriptions, Montfaucon was led to conclude that the more simple, upright, and regular the form of uncial letters; the less flourish or ornament they exhibit; the nearer their breadth is equal to their height; so much the more ancient they ought to be considered. These results have been signally confirmed by the subsequent discovery of Greek papyri in Egyptian tombs, which vary in age from the third century before the christian era to the third century after that epoch, and yet further from the numerous fragments of Philodemus, of Epicurus, and other philosophers, which were burned [buried?] in the ruins of Herculaneum in A.D. 79. The evidence of these papyri indeed is even more weighty than that of inscriptions, inasmuch as workers in stone were often compelled to prefer straight lines as better adapted to the hardness of their material, where writings on papyrus or vellum would naturally flow with curves." (Scrivener.)

The Rosetta stone, now in the British Museum, and supposed to have been executed in the second century before the christian era, contains, besides the hieroglyphics, the record in Greek uncials, which gives a good specimen of the style of writing at that period, as it was done on stone. Its letters differ little from the specimen we are about to give from a Greek manuscript, except in the formation of three or four of the alphabet. The Rosetta stone does not divide the words, and has no breathings, accents, or marks of punctuation.

Further, the upright letters are more ancient than those written leaning, and the absence of any larger initial letters shews high antiquity. in nearly all the copies letters are huddled up together at the end of the lines in smaller characters, or the words contracted, in order apparently to get in each line as much as was in the copy used. This can also be seen in the specimen we give.

We will now shew the reader some of the difficulties that presented themselves in attempting to decipher the early Greek manuscripts. These will be more easily perceived by a facsimile of one of the manuscripts. This is copied from the Codex Sinaiticus. It is John 6: 14, 15.

Facsimile of John 6: 14, 15 from the Codex Sinaiticus

Being written all in capitals would not have created any difficulty, but the practice of running the words on together without any spaces between them certainly did. And besides this, the words were often divided at the end of the line without any regard to syllables, and without any mark to shew that the word was divided.

We give the passage in modern Greek cursive characters divided into words, shewing also where the words have been divided at the ends of the lines

ησεν σημειον έλε-

γον' 'ουτός εστιν

αληθως 'ο προφή-

της 'ο εις τον κόσμω

'ερχόμενος'

'Ις ουν γνους 'οτι

μέλλούσιν έρχε-

σθαι καί άρπάζειν

αύτόν καί άναδι-

κνύναι βασιλέα

φεύγει πάλιν είς το

όρος μόνος αύτός.

As nearly as it can be put into English, it would stand thus (disregarding for the present the corrections by a later hand). The reader will see how difficult it would be to read a book printed in this style.

HEDIDASIGNTHEY

SAID•THISIS

TRULYTHEPRO

PHETWHOINTOTHEWORL

ISCOMING•

JSTHEREFOREKNOWINGTHAT

THEYWEREABOUTTo

COMEANDSEIZE

HIMANDTOPRO

CLAIMKING

ESCAPESAGAININTOTHE

MOUNTAINALONEHIMSELF•

Now it is easy to see that, when copies were made, mistakes might occur by dividing some part wrongly into words. This may be well illustrated by an anecdote, which though well known will bear repeating. An infidel, lying on a bed of sickness, to sustain himself in his infidelity, wrote on a piece of paper

GOD IS NOWHERE.

His child coming into the room, her father asked her if she could read what he had written on the paper. She began to spell the words: G, O, D, GOD — I, S, IS — N, O, W, NOW — H, E, R, E, HERE — God is now here. It was used to her father's conversion, through the grace of God. It well illustrates the fact how that by dividing a word in a different place the sense may be entirely altered.

And where the meaning is not entirely changed it may be altered by the division of the letters differently. To take an instance that has occurred we may quote Acts 17: 25. Along with the different division of letters, a letter was sometimes added or omitted to endeavour to make good sense.

The letters stand thus KAITAΠANTA, which have been divided thus:

ΚΑΙ ΤΑ ΠΑΝΤΑ and all things

ΚΑΤΑ ΠΑΝΤΑ in respect of all things.

There can be no doubt the first is the correct reading.

Sometimes one letter was also changed for another, or perhaps it could not be well deciphered. Thus in 2 Thessalonians 2: 13 are the letters ΑΠΑΡΧΗΣ. These have been divided thus:

ΑΠ' ΑΡΧΗΣ from [the] beginning

ΑΠΑΡΧΗΣ [the] firstfruits.

There can be no doubt that the first is the correct reading.

Added to this was another difficulty, namely, the habit of contracting the words. For instance, instead of writing JESUS in full, they would at times write the first and last letters, with a line over the top to shew it was a contraction: thus JS; or in Greek ΙΣ (as it is in the fifth line of our specimen). But it might be in some cases that the line drawn over the letters was not so thick as were the letters, so that with the age of the manuscripts the line would become invisible, though the letters remained visible. In that case, these letters would naturally be taken to be a part of either the word that went before or the word that came after, or a word in itself, the copyist making the best sense he could.

In other cases they judged differently as to what the word was which was contracted. Thus in Romans 12: 11, there stands in the Codex Sinaiticus ΚΩ, which some have judged to be ΚΑΙΡΩ, season, "serving in season;" and others have judged it to be intended for ΚΥΡΙΩ, Lord, "serving the Lord." Without doubt the latter is right.

Another difficulty was occasioned by single letters being omitted and a line drawn over the top to shew the omission (as at the end of the fourth line of our specimen); but the letters might be visible yet not the line, and the omission be thus overlooked.

In some cases, the letter Θ, because of the line in the centre becoming invisible, was taken for Ο.

Perhaps the most important and trying question brought about by this means is in 1 Timothy 3: 16: "God was manifest in the flesh." Here the word for 'God,' contracted, is ΘΣ, but in two of the principal manuscripts (A and C) it cannot be told with certainty whether they were originally as above, or ΟΣ, 'who' — 'who was manifest in flesh.' It will be at once seen that the variation may have been brought about by the two short lines becoming invisible. א reads ΟΣ, but has been altered by a later hand to ΘΣ; P has ΘΣ.

In other cases the similarity of letters caused variations when age made them indistinct. Thus Α, Λ, Δ; Ϲ (the ancient form of Σ) Ο; Є, ϴ, etc.

Another point that added to the difficulty was that there were in the oldest copies few if any points. There are three in our specimen, but in other places they are entirely omitted. This also was a cause of passages being read differently, especially when the letters were not divided into words.

Another difficulty, and which has caused great labour, is that most, if not all, the older manuscripts have been altered from time to time by various correctors, and as age gives value to the writing, it is of importance to ascertain when these corrections were made. The style of the letters has to be carefully studied, and the colour of the ink, and which one is over another. By these means these correctors are classified into first hand, second hand, etc., often called by 'primâ manu,' 'secundâ manu,' etc., or, in short, p.m., s.m. Thus A would stand for the original of a manuscript. A1, or Ap.m. would be the first corrector; A2, or As.m. would be the second corrector, and so on. The corrections of the first hand may be sometimes as ancient as the original, and by the same hand.

To give an idea of the labour caused by these correctors, we may state that Tischendorf after careful study, considers that in the Codex Sinaiticus there are not fewer than ten different hands. All these had to be studied, and a relative value set on each, and, above all, to endeavour to find out the original readings.

By referring again to our specimen the reader will see two of these corrections. In the ninth and tenth lines the words και αναδικνύναι (and to proclaim) have dots over them, and in the margin the words 'ινα ποιησωσιν (that they may make) written to replace them. Again in line 11 the word αυεχωρησεν (withdrew) is intended to take the place of φεύγει (escapes). Both these corrections are judged by Tischendorf to have been made by the corrector whom he calls Ca (about the seventh century), who may be said to be the seventh who went through the manuscript to correct it after it was written. This corrector often altered the manuscript in a way that made it agree with the common text we now have. Both the above corrections did so.

There is one thing peculiar in the first of the above corrections, namely, that the writer in adding the word INA in the margin only wrote the last two letters, and used the last letter of the line as it stood for his I, drawing a line through the Δ that preceded it. Such a thing as this had, of course, to be carefully noted, for if the word originally written had made sense without the Ι it might be thought to have been added by the corrector: in this instance the dots over the Ι prevented any mistake.

It is supposed that each manuscript had a comparer, sometimes the original scribe, who compared the manuscript with the copy after it had been written, and a corrector who revised the manuscript, perhaps by a second copy. This was useful and necessary labour to ensure accuracy. Some copies have a note at the end saying by whom and where it was revised. After this of course the manuscript might fall into other persons' hands who might have the opportunity of comparing it with a third copy, and so on, until a copy had passed through perhaps a dozen correctors, which, as we have seen, gives great labour to distinguish the various hands, and assign a date to each as near as may be.

Now though all these difficulties may appear to be disadvantages, on the other hand they are, as we have already seen, an unanswerable proof of the antiquity of the New Testament. Suppose, for an instant, that the oldest copy we have at present had no such marks of antiquity, the sceptic would say that it was a modern invention, there was not a single proof of its early existence, such as they had for the writings of Homer and others. But this he cannot say. The oldest copies shew undoubted proofs of antiquity. In the old papyrus Greek manuscripts the letters are all capitals, not divided into words, with no points, no accents, no breathings. Well, we have copies of the New Testament with all these and many other marks of antiquity, written too on a material only used of such quality and texture in very early ages. God has caused that such copies should be preserved down to this our day, which no one has or could call in question as being the genuine monuments of antiquity.

Causes of Variations.

Besides the dangers that existed of mistakes being made in copying the ancient manuscripts, because of the way in which they were written, we must point out how other mistakes arose where the copy was not indistinct.

A large body of variations come under the head of what are called Itacisms [a name probably from the interchange of eta (η) for iota (ι)]; that is, a change of vowels; as ει for ι, and aι fοr ε. This may have been caused by a different pronunciation coming into use; or from some copies being written from dictation; or from mere preference of spelling a word in a different manner. Thus a great many of these variations may be dismissed as of no consequence, and indeed they cannot be called various, (or different) readings, being only a different mode of spelling a word; in a similar way to which some prefer to write honor for honour, color fοr colour; or, as another class of words, wroth for wrath; spake for spoke, etc.

This however does not account for and dispose of all the cases where only a single letter has been changed. When we remember that the inflexions of nouns and verbs are effected in Greek (as other languages) by a change of some part of the word itself, the alteration of a single letter may materially alter the sense of the passage.

Take for instance Matthew 23: 32, different copies read

πληρώσατε aorist imperative active, 6 'fill ye up.'

πληρώσετε future indicative active, 'ye will fill up.'

By one letter the sense is materially altered. Without a doubt the first is the right word.

In Matthew 10: 19 different copies read,

λαλήσετε future indicative active, 'ye shall speak.'

λαλήσητε aorist subjunctive active, 'ye should speak.'

In Romans 5: 1, a serious difference occurs by the alteration of a single letter:

'εχομεν present indicative, 'we have.'

'εχωμεν present subjunctive, 'we should have, or 'let us have.'

A similar alteration occurs in 1 Corinthians 15: 49: 'we shall bear' or 'let us bear.'

Also in Hebrews 12: 28: 'we have grace,' or 'let us have grace.'

Sometimes the sense is altered by such variations and sometimes it is not.

There are also many variations where two or three letters are different, some of little consequence and some more material.

There are also mistakes from two or three letters being added or omitted at the ends of words, which may seem to us singular mistakes, but which were easily made when there were no spaces between the words: thus in Luke 7: 21,

έχαρίσατο βλεπειν, 'he granted to see.'

εχαρίσατο τό βλεπειν

The first line would stand thus in the old copies: ΕΧΑΡΙΑΤΟΒΛΕΠΕΙΝ, which has been copied as above, and divided into three words, where there were but two. The sense is not altered.

In Matthew 16: 18 there are the words

και πύλαι, 'and gates.'

και αι πύλαι, 'and the gates.'

The latter is incorrect, being merely an error of the copyist.

In Revelation 14: 8,

παντα έθνη, 'all nations.'

παντα τα έθνη, 'all the nations.'

Here the latter is correct, the article being omitted by mistake.

Some such errors occur only in two or three copies, leaving no doubt as to which is the true reading.

Other variations have been caused by the similar appearance of words, especially when they were written in capitals. Thus in Mark 5: 14 we have ΑΝΗΓΓΕΙΛΑΝ, 'announced,' for ΑΠΗΓΓΕΙΛΑΝ 'told;' and in Luke 16: 20 ΗΛΚΩΜΕΝΟΣ for ΕΙΛΚΩΜΕΝΟΣ, both 'being afflicted with sores.'

Many variations occur by the transposition of words, but which in most cases do not affect the sense. The words Jesus Christ are often changed for Christ Jesus. Doubtless most of these are through carelessness and with the thought that it was of no consequence so long as both words were inserted, indeed some might have thought it an improvement if they read of 'Jesus Christ' in one verse to make it 'Jesus Christ' in another to make it uniform. But surely God does not make a difference without a reason. Without doubt there is a reason why Jesus is put before Christ in some places and after it in others. It is for us to discover why it is; certainly not to alter what God had caused to be written.

Another class of mistakes has been caused by omissions. Whole words or sentences have been omitted. These mistakes have been caused sometimes by what has been called Homoearkton, or similar beginnings, which may be illustrated thus:

Blessed are the poor in spirit:

for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they that mourn:

for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek:

for they shall inherit the earth.

Suppose a person was copying the above and he had read off the first two lines, when he had written them in looking to the copy again his eye might catch the third 'blessed' instead of the second, and he would write the third clause, and omit the second altogether. Thus in Hebrews 2: 13 there are two clauses commencing with και παλιν, 'and again,' two copies in existence omit the part after the first καί παλιν, the eye having gone to the second by mistake.

Another class of mistakes are called Homoeoteleuton, similar endings; that is, where two lines end with the same word, or there are two words of which the end letters are the same, the eye in returning to the copy catches the second word instead of the first, and omits the piece in between. Omissions from similar endings are much more frequent than from similar beginnings.

An instance of this is in 1 John 2: 23, which stands in our Testament with the last half of the verse in italics as not being in the Greek; but it is in many Greek copies (except the word 'but') and is undoubtedly genuine. Its omission is believed tο have occurred because both clauses end with the words τoν πατέρα έχει, 'has the Father.'

Another class of variations are generally believed to have been caused in this way. Some one reading his Greek Testament made a remark in the margin, intending it only as a note (a practice which is common with some people). But when a copy was made from that Greek Testament the copyist, supposing the note in the margin to be a part of the text which had been left out by mistake, would forthwith insert it as a part of the scripture. This is perhaps the explanation of the clause added in 1 John 5: 7, 8. It has often been a difficulty to understand how additions could be made to scripture: omissions might occur, as we have seen; but who would think of adding to the word of God? Well, additions may have been made in the manner above suggested. It is certain that comments were made in the margins, and it is quite possible they found their way into the text by mistake.

1 John 5: 7, 8, would stand thus if read without the words in brackets: "For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth], the Spirit, the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

This may also account for single words being added. Such, for instance, as the word "unworthily" in 1 Corinthians 11: 29, which some believe to be an addition; the word being supposed to be an 'explanation' placed in the margin, and from thence copied into the text. Some of the oddest MSS omit the word.

Another source of various readings has been caused by dividing the gospels into portions to be read in the churches. If a portion commenced by "And he said," they would alter this into "And Jesus said," so as to make it apparent who was speaking. This accounts for the addition of the words "And the Lord said" at the commencement of Luke 7: 31. Instead of commencing "Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation," they made it begin, "And the Lord said, Whereunto," etc.

In those days there was perhaps no copy of the scriptures in an assembly but that which was publicly read; and from a good motive these alterations were made to render the sense more intelligible to the hearers. Still they are alterations, and have to be corrected in order to be exact.

Another source of many vexatious variations is the attempt to make the Gospels harmonize, as it is called. Thus, if a scribe in copying one of the Gospels had noticed a particular passage, and in copying a second Gospel he noticed a passage similar, but different, he would perhaps think that they ought to be both alike and so would alter the second. Some persons may have compared the Gospels one with another in a more systematic manner and made alterations; and some of the alterations may originally have been marginal notes. In some way or another many such alterations have been made in the Gospels. Of course they are only in some of the Greek copies; and we have other Greek copies by which to correct them. We need point out only one or two of such alterations that have crept into the Authorized version.

The last two words of Matthew 9: 13, "to repentance," have been added, probably from Luke 5: 32. The words, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots," have been added to Matthew 27: 35, doubtless copied from John 19: 24.

Thus the harmonizers have done a great deal of mischief. For the most part they did it innocently, for but few have seen that the differences in the gospels were of God; but it was doing mischief; for God caused the gospels to be written as it pleased Him, and with a wise purpose. It is for us to ask for wisdom to discover what the purpose is, and not to alter them as we please.

Another mistake made was to alter the quotations from the Old Testament in the New, generally by adding to them.

Thus in Luke 4: 18 the words "to heal the broken in heart" is an addition of this sort. And in Romans 13: 9 the words "Thou shalt not bear false witness" are also an addition. Some doubtless thought that the quotations would be better if made fuller, and so to rectify what they judged to be omissions they added the pieces named.

These many causes of variations will give the reader some idea of the actual state of the manuscripts still in existence. Thus having many manuscripts is a great blessing; because they correct one another. A variation may be in a few copies only; and there may be abundant evidence to prove that it is not the correct reading. Everything is very earnestly to be avoided that in any way unsettles the word of God; but carefully and prayerfully attending to the variations is not to unsettle the word of God, but to settle it. It is surely not the work of every one nor of many; but it is the work of those whom God has gifted and called to the work. We enter into their labours and reap the fruit. Still it is important to know that everything respecting the word of God will bear the fullest investigation, when set about in a right and reverent spirit. Nothing has to be avoided; nothing to be hidden. The word of God has come to us through the various vicissitudes attending ancient books in general; each manuscript has its mistakes, which are corrected in a similar manner as in other books, by comparing copy with copy. But, as we have seen, its Author lives and has watched over and preserved His book from the beginning.

List of Greek Copies.

The Codex Sinaiticus. As this is the last-discovered Greek manuscript of great value, we give its history. The finding of it is remarkable. Professor Tischendorf was travelling in 1844, under the patronage of the king of Saxony, in search of manuscripts. At the convent of St. Catherine, on Mount Sinai, he espied in a waste paper basket some odd leaves of vellum, which turned out to be a part of the Old Testament in Greek. The style, etc., convinced him that they were of very early date, and so were of great value, and yet here they were placed in a basket of waste paper, destined to light the fire in the stove. These were readily given to Tischendorf, and consisted of forty-three leaves. He learnt that there were more of these leaves but, on his telling the monks that probably they dated back as far as the fourth century, they were immediately taken away, and he was only allowed to copy one leaf more than he had already.

He carried away the forty-three leaves, and published them in 1846, under the name of the "Codex Frederico-Augustanus," in honour of his sovereign's name, Frederick Augustus, of Saxony

In 1853 he again visited St. Catherine, but could not obtain any tidings of the leaves he had previously seen, and so concluded that some one else had been more fortunate than himself, and had carried them off. In 1855 he published the two leaves he had copied. These were also a part of the Old Testament — indeed, he did not know at that time that there was any but the Old.

In 1859 he again visited the East, and again tarried at St. Catherine. He had been there five days, and was thinking of leaving, when, on taking a walk with the steward, the conversation turned on the Greek Old Testament, and on their return to the convent, the steward brought from his cell a bundle of leaves, wrapped in a red cloth, such as is used for that purpose in the East, and shewed them to Tischendorf. The scholar now saw that there was not only some more of the Old Testament, but the entire New Testament. This was a great deal more than he expected, or had hoped for. He had to be exceedingly cautious not to let his joy be seen, lest the precious pages should again be taken from him. For very joy he could not sleep all night, and copied out during the night the Epistle of St. Barnabas, which was added at the end of the New Testament.

Nothing would satisfy Tischendorf but to copy the whole, and he at length obtained permission to do this. The manuscript was carried to Cairo, and there he was allowed a few leaves at a time, and had two to help him to copy. But this was uncertain and unsatisfactory work, and Tischendorf began to think how he could best contrive to get possession of the manuscript. He told the monks that it would be a fit and valued present to the Emperor of Russia, who was now his patron and theirs. This they concurred in, but just then the See of Sinai was vacant, and until a successor was appointed, the gift could not be completed. However, after some opposition, he procured the loan of the manuscript for the purpose of having it correctly copied.

He carried it to St. Petersburg, and the Emperor of Russia, at a great expense, had an elegant edition printed, in commemoration of the thousandth anniversary of his kingdom. Cheaper editions were also published, that none might be debarred the privilege of knowing its contents. It proved to be one of the oldest, and so one of the most valuable, of all our Greek Testaments. It is called Sinaiticus, because it was found in the convent at Mount Sinai.

This manuscript contains all the marks of extreme age: namely, the fineness of the vellum, the four columns in a page (in imitation of the papyrus copies), the absence of larger initial letters, the absence of accents and breathings by the first hand, few points, etc.

To add to the interest of this volume it may be named that after it had been introduced to the public, a man named Constantine Simonides came forward and declared that it was not an ancient manuscript at all, but that he himself had written it comparatively lately; that it was with no object to deceive, but being a good penman he had made the copy at the request of his uncle. His tale was so plausible that he found some who gave it credit, and the savants were not a little laughed at that they could have been so easily deceived in judging of the age of a manuscript. But the savants declared that they were not deceived. Every fresh examination of the relic convinced them that it was what they believed it to be. There was the fineness of the vellum, the various hands that had corrected it, the difference in the colours of the inks, etc. Besides, from what could it have been copied? for it agreed in every particular with no other copy in existence. All this was confirmatory evidence. The rebutting evidence as given by Simonides as to when and where it was written, etc., also would not bear investigation. Dates did not agree; persons declared they never knew such a man, etc. Scholars could come but to one conclusion, that the man was false and the copy was a true relic of antiquity. It was supposed that he made the declaration out of spite to Tischendorf, because he had exposed an attempt Simonides had made to pass off a spurious manuscript.

Dr. Scrivener tells the following anecdote of this same Simonides, which also well illustrates the fact that some who are used to examine old manuscripts seem intuitively to know an old copy from the best imitation. Simonides went with manuscripts to Mr. H. O. Coxe, librarian at the Bodleian. "He produced two or three, unquestionably genuine, but not at all remarkable for age . . . . he then proceeded to unroll, with much show of anxiety and care, some fragments of vellum, redolent of high antiquity and covered with uncial writing of the most venerable form. Our wary critic narrowly inspected the crumbling leaves, smelt them, if haply they might have been subjected to some chemical process; then quietly handed them back to their vendor, with the simple comment that these he thought might date from about the middle of the nineteenth century." Simonides made his exit from Oxford, but succeeded in deceiving one less wary.

Codex Alexandrinus (A). This important manuscript was given by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, to Charles I. of England. It was placed in the British Museum in 1753, where it is now exhibited, in a glass case, in the Manuscript room. This manuscript also contains the Old Testament. The New Testament is complete, except Matthew 1: 1 to 25: 6; John 6: 50 to 8: 52 (two leaves); 2 Corinthians 4: 13 to 12: 6 (3 leaves). It is in quarto, about 13 inches by 10, having two columns on a page. This differs from א and B in having larger initial letters, and it has, the Ammonian Sections and the Eusebian Canons, complete.* Scholars are pretty well agreed in fixing its date in the fifth century. Because of its importance it has been published in full.

{*These will be explained as we proceed.}

Codex Vaticanus (B). This valuable manuscript is in the Vatican Library at Rome (whence its name). It is mentioned in the earliest existing catalogue (1475), but how much sooner it was in the library, or what is its previous history, no one knows. As to age and value, it stands about on a par with Codex Sinaiticus, some giving the Vatican copy the preference, and some the Sinaitic. It is a quarto volume of 146 leaves, ten and a half inches by ten. It has three columns on a page. Its total want of larger initial letters, the fineness of the vellum, and the absence of the Ammonian Sections, point out its antiquity. A later hand (judged to be about the eighth century), has retraced nearly the whole of the manuscript, who, made alterations, adding initial letters, breathings, accents, and points.

The manuscript has been kept with great care too great a care, for those who would have collated it well were not allowed. In 1810 the manuscript was found at Paris, and could have been collated by Hug, but he let the opportunity slip. It had been collated by others, but by no one thoroughly, at least the collations did not agree. Tregelles, in 1845, attempted a new collation, going armed with a letter from Cardinal Wiseman. But he says, "They would not let me open it without searching my pocket, and depriving me of pen, ink, and paper;" and the two attendants (clergymen) kept up a loud conversation and laughter to distract him, and if they thought he looked at a passage too long, they snatched the book out of his hand. Tischendorf was more successful. Cardinal Mai had published an edition, but very inaccurate, and in 1866 Tischendorf succeeded in convincing the pope of this fact, and obtained leave to examine the manuscript for fourteen days, of three hours each. He published an edition, presumedly more correct than any previous. The pope has since also published an edition. The manuscript contains the Old Testament as well as the New. The New is complete down to Hebrews 9: 14, but contains the Catholic Epistles, which were placed after the Acts.

Codex Beza (D). This contains the Gospels and Acts only, and those imperfect in places. This manuscript is in the New Library at Cambridge. It was presented to the University by Theodore Beza, whence its name. It is both a Greek and Latin copy, each filling the page, the Latin being on the right hand. The copy is remarkable in having readings which do not agree with any of the other ancient uncials, and the Latin has less agreement with the Vulgate than any other. Of the curious readings may be named the following, which occurs after Luke 6: 4: "On the same day he beheld a certain man working on the sabbath, and said unto him, Man, blessed art thou if thou knowest what thou doest; but if thou knowest not, thou art cursed, and a transgressor of the law." Its date is assigned to the end of the fifth or the beginning of the sixth century. It has been published in full. It is a quarto volume, 10 inches by 8. It has only one column on the page.

Codex Claromontanus (D of Paul's Epistles). This bears a resemblance to Codex Bezae, and gives both Latin and Greek (the Greek being on the left hand page). It contains the whole of Paul's Epistles, except a few leaves. Its letters are square and regular, with initial letters but slightly larger than the others. The breathings and accents now in the copy were certainly added by a later hand. Though resembling Codex Bezae in appearance, it is considered a far purer copy and worthy to follow the four great uncials. Its date is fixed at the sixth century. It was edited by Tischendorf in 1852, who judged that it had been corrected by nine different hands. It is a small quarto, and has only one column on the page.

Codex Ephraemi (C). This is a palimpsest, and is in the National Library of Paris, on account of which it is often called the Paris Rescript. Over the writing of the New Testament had been written some Greek works by St. Ephraem, the Syrian Father, of A.D. 299-378. The chemical agents applied to the vellum have turned some of it dark brown and black, rendering the deciphering very difficult. It is in a single column on a page, has initials of increased size, and its letters are a little smaller than A or B. Its date is assigned to the fifth century. It being odd leaves only of the original manuscript, it contains but portions both of the Old and New Testament; the parts preserved of the New extend from Matthew to Revelation. This has been published in facsimile.

It would be out of place to give a detailed account of all the various uncial manuscripts. We have described the few great authorities (Aleph A B D), and also C, which is equally valuable, but of which we have only fragments. There are other fragments of great value. We add a list of the principal manuscripts for reference, giving the portions of the New Testament contained in each, where the copy now is, and the century to which its date is referred. Some of those named are merely fragments — in some cases a few leaves only; and in other cases, where more complete, it must be remembered that leaves are missing here and there, so that in no case can a manuscript not named for a reading be taken necessarily against the same, as the part in which the variation occurs may be wanting.

It must also be noticed, that, on account of the quantity of parts of the New Testament, the same letter is given to two or three different copies; thus E in the Gospels refers to one copy, in the Acts to another, in Paul's Epistles to a third. So that it must be remembered what part of the New Testament is under consideration before it can be ascertained to what copy E refers. The importance of this will be at once seen by referring to B. In the Revelation B refers to a copy dated the eighth century; but in any other part of the New Testament it refers to one of the earliest copies we have.

Another disadvantage is that different editors give different names to the same manuscript. Sometimes one is named after the place where the copy is, and sometimes by the name of the person to whom it once belonged, or who introduced it to the public. Thus A is called by Tischendorf Codex Oxoniensis because it is now at Oxford, but by English editors it is called Tischendorf III.

It must also be observed that some few of the manuscripts are now referred to by different letters from what they once were. See Codex Angelica Bibliothecae under the letters G and L in the following list.

List of Uncial Manuscripts.

א Sinaiticus. Whole of New Testament. (St. Petersburg.) Century iv.

A Alexandrinus. The whole. (British Museum.) Century iv. or v.

B Vaticanus. Matthew to Hebrews, including Catholic Epistles. (Rome.) Century iv. or v.

Vaticanus 2066 (or Basilianus). The Revelation complete. (Rome.) Century viii.

C Ephraemi, a palimpsest (often called Paris Rescript). Portions of the whole. (Paris.) Century v.

D Bezae (Greek and Latin) . Gospels and Acts. (Cambridge.) Century v. or vi.

Claromontanus (Greek and Latin). Paul's Epistles. (Paris.) Century vi. or vii.

E Basiliensis. Gospels. (Basle.) Century viii. or ix.

Laudianus (Greek and Latin). The Acts. (Oxford.) Century vi. or vii.

Sangermanensis (or Petropolitanus). Paul's Epistles in Greek and Latin. (St. Petersburg.) Century xi. Judged to be a copy of Claromontanus (D).

F Boreeli. Gospels. (Utrecht.) Century ix. or x.

Augiensis. Paul's Epistles. Latin and Greek, (Cambridge.) Century ix.

Fa Coislinianus. Fragments of New Testament. (Paris.) Century vii.

G Seidelii Harleianus, or Wolfii A. Gospels. (British Museum.) Century x.

Angelicae Bibliothecae, or Passionei. G in Acts and Catholic Epistles, and J in Paul's Epistles. (Rome.) Century ix. (Now called L.)

G. Fragments of the Acts. Century vii.

Boernerianus. Paul's Epistles, in Greek and Latin interlinear. (Dresden.) Century ix.

H Wolfii or Seidelii. Fragments of the Gospels. (Hamburg.) Century ix.

Mutinensis. Acts. (Modena.) Century ix.

Coislinianus. Fragments of Paul's Epistles. (Paris and St. Petersburg.) Century vi.

Tischendorf II, a palimpsest. Fragments of the New Testament. (St. Petersburg.) Century vi.

Ib Same as Nb.

K Cyprius. The Gospels complete. (Paris.) Century ix.

Mosquensis. Catholic Epistles and Paul's Epist1es (known from Matthaei's collation). Century ix.

L Regius. The Gospels. (Paris.) Century viii. or ix.

Biblioth. Angelica A. Acts, Catholic and Paul's Epistles. (Rome.) Century ix. (See G.)

M Campianus. The Gospels complete. (Paris.) Century ix.

Ruber (also called Uffenbachianus). Fragments of 1 Corinthians and Hebrews. (Hamburg, etc.) Century ix. (Named Ruber from its red ink.)

N Purpureus, or Vindebonensis. Fragments of Gospels (in various places). Century vi.

Petropolitana. Fragments of Galatians and Hebrews. Century ix.

Nb Musei Britannici, a palimpsest, two Syriac works being written over the Greek. Portions of John. Century iv. or v.

O Fragments of Gospels (some at Moscow). Century ix.

O and Ob. Fragments of 2 Corinthians and Ephesians.

P Guelpherbytanus A, a palimpsest. Portions of Gοspels (Wolfenbuettel.) Century vi.

Porphyrianus, a palimpsest. The Acts, all the Epistles, and Apocalypse. (St. Petersburg.) Century ix.

Q Guelpherbytanus B, a palimpsest. Portions of Luke and John. (Wolfenbuettel.) Century v. or vi.

Papyrus. Parts of 1 Corinthians 6, 7, on papyrus, the only fragments remaining on this material. Century v.

R* Nitriensis, a palimpsest. Fragments of Luke. (British Museum.) Century vi.

{* This is not the R of Griesbach and Scholz, nor the R of Tischendorf, 1849, but what is now referred to as R.}

S Vaticanus 354. The Gospels complete. (Rome.) Century x. This is the earliest dated manuscript, being written A.D. 949.

T Borgianus I. Fragments of Luke and John. (Rome.) Century iv. or v.

Twoi (From Woide). Fragments of Luke and John. (Supposed to be a portion of the same manuscript as Τ.)

Tb, Te, Td. Fragments of Gospels. Century vi. and vii.

U Nanianus I. The Gospels complete. (Venice.) Century x.

V Mosquensis. The Gospels to John 7: 39. (Moscow.) Century viii. or ix.

Wa, Wb, Wc, Wd, We. Separate Fragments of the Gospels.

X Monacensis. The Gospels. (Munich.) Century ix., x.

Y Barberini 225. John 16: 3 — 19: 41. (Rome.) Century viii.

Z Dublin Rescript. Portions of Matthew. (Dublin.) Century vi.

Γ Tischendorf IV. The Gospels. (Oxford and Petersburg.) Century ix.

Δ Sangallensis. The Gospels complete, except John 19: 17-35. (St. Gall.) Century ix. This copy has an interlinear translation in Latin, not the old Latin, but Jerome's, altered, and is of no independent value. Judged by some to be a portion of Codex Boernerianus, G of Paul's Epistles.

θa, θb, θc, θd, θe Fragments of the Gospels.

Λ Tischendorf III. Luke and John. (Oxford.) Century viii or ix.

Ξ Zacynthius a palimpsest. Portions of Luke. (Bible Society, London.) Century viii.

Π Petropolitanus. The Gospels. (Russia.) Century ix.

Cursive Manuscripts.

As has been already explained, the uncial manuscripts may be said to date from the fourth century to the tenth, though some are actually later than this; so also the cursive manuscripts, in the common running hand, date from the tenth to the sixteenth century, the two branches overlapping each other somewhat.

The cursive copies, complete and in parts, are so numerous that it would be useless, in such a work as this, to give even a list of them. They number in all about 1600 copies, though perhaps not more than twenty-five contain the whole New Testament.

They are referred to by the various editors by the figures 1, 2, 3, etc., as well as by the small letters, a, b, c, etc., which at once distinguishes them from the uncial copies for which the capital letters are always used, as may be seen in the foregoing list. Those referred to by a, b, c, etc., are mostly those collated by Dr. Scrivener, and are sometimes referred to thus Scr. a, Scr. b, etc. He collated many cursive manuscripts, and where all, or nearly all of those available for any part of the New Testament agree in a reading, editors sometimes express this by Scr.'s Mss. The manuscripts referred to by figures are those collated by Scholz and others. As with the uncials, so with the cursives the same figure does not always refer to the same manuscript. Thus one manuscript is called 35 in the gospels, 14 in the Acts, 18 in Paul's epistles, and 17 in the Revelation; so that it must be always remembered what part of the New Testament is under consideration before it can be known with certainty what Greek copies are referred to.

When we come to consider the families of manuscript, it will be seen that a cursive copy may be of great value. The great mass of them may be but duplicates of other manuscripts, while some are found to be far from this. On a few of the cursives special value has been set, and this not because of their date, but because they are believed to contain a more ancient text than that of the great mass. Thus, Tregelles who seeks to form a text from ancient evidence alone, quotes in the Gospels cursive manuscripts 1 (tenth century), 33 (eleventh century), and 69 (fourteenth century). In his list of authorities he places these before several of the later uncial manuscripts, though of earlier date than the above cursives.

A short notice of two or three of the cursive manuscripts will not be without interest. The first is

No. 33. This has been called "the queen of the cursives," because of containing, as is supposed, many of the most ancient readings where the manuscripts differ. Its name is Colbertinus, and it is now in the National library at Paris. Though it is number 33 in the Gospels, it is number 17 in Paul's Epistle, and number 13 in the Acts and Catholic Epistles. It has not the Revelation. It is on vellum, in folio size, and is judged to belong to the eleventh century. It had been shamefully neglected, so that the damp caused some of the leaves to stick together; and on separating them the ink from one page adhered to the opposite one, and can only now be read by the set off on the wrong page. In some places portions of a leaf have decayed away entirely, yet what was on these Places can sometimes be read by this set off.

No. 38. This is a copy of the Apocalypse, and is supposed also to contain many ancient readings. It is on cotton paper, and of the thirteenth century. It is valuable because of the comparative scarcity of manuscripts of the Revelation.

No. 1. This is a manuscript at Basle. It contains all the New Testament except the Apocalypse. It is supposed to be of the tenth century, but is judged by some tο be of a mixed character; and that while its gospels are of great value, all the rest is not equally so.

No. 69, called the Codex Leicestrensis because of belonging to the city of Leicester. This contains the whole of the New Testament, with numerous parts missing. This is written in folio, both on parchment and paper, having two of the former then three of the latter alternately. It is attributed to the fourteenth century, but is remarkable for containing many variations from the common Greek text, and thus not being a mere copy of the mass of manuscripts has had the more attention. Though it is 69 in the Gospels, it is 31 in the Acts and Catholic Epistles; 37 in Paul's Epistles; and 14 in the Apocalypse.

No. 61. This is called Montfortianus, because it once belonged to Dr. Montfort, of Cambridge: it is now at Dublin. It contains the whole of the New Testament, but is judged by some to have been originally different manuscripts and not all of the same date. It has acquired interest by containing the famous passage in 1 John 5: 7, known as the Heavenly Witnesses,* and is believed to have been the identical copy which caused the passage to be inserted by Erasmus in his Greek Testament, and thence into the authorized version. It is written on paper, and is judged to be as late as the sixteenth century. It is 61 in the Gospels; 34 in the Acts and Catholic Epistles; 40 in Paul's Epistles; and 92 in the Revelation.

{* See chapter 'Causes of Variations'}.

This must suffice for the cursive manuscripts. As we have said, they are 1600 in number, and all are more or less valuable: many of them have not been thoroughly examined, and thus their intrinsic value is in a great measure unknown. Of course, as a class, they rank below the uncial copies, but in some places they add material evidence for or against a reading.

Lectionaries.

These resemble the lessons read in the synagogues from the Old Testament. As early as the fifth century, Euthalius divided the Acts and Epistles into lessons to be read on various festivals, to which the Gospels were afterwards added. Shorter divisions were subsequently adopted by the Greek church. To make these divisions easily accessible the copies of the New Testament were marked in red ink where the lessons begun, where they ended, and what portions were to be omitted.

This led to manuscripts being written especially for this purpose, which were called Lectionaries to distinguish them. These would contain some passages more than once, and be arranged according as the festivals fell; other parts would be omitted altogether. Some contained the Gospels only, and were called Evangelistaria; others had the Acts and Epistles; and others Paul's Epistles only.

Though these books were introduced among the Latins as early as the fifth century, it is believed they were not adopted among the Greeks until the eighth. Some are extant in uncial characters, though it is believed lectionaries were continued to be written in this style after the cursive writing came into use.

One copy is described as containing lessons for every day in the year, with services for "the holy week," the great festivals, and saints' days, with gospels set apart for special occasions.

To make the ordinary manuscripts available for use, a list of lessons was added to some copies. These were called Synaxaria and Menologia. Scholz published copies of such lists in his Greek Testament, taken from some Paris manuscripts.

As has been already intimated, the commencement of the lessons were often altered to make them more intelligent to the hearers (such as substituting "Jesus said" for "He said") yet some of the Lectionaries are of considerable value.

Of Codex z, Dr. Scrivener says, "Besides the gospels in full, several portions of which are always written more than once in an Evangelistarium, this copy is remarkable for containing among the services for the holy week, four passages from the Septuagint version (Isaiah 3: 9-13; 52: 13 — 54: 1; Jer. 11: 18 — 12: 15; Zech. 11: 10-14;) and four from the Pauline Epistles (Rom. 5: 6-10; Gal. 6: 14-18; 1 Tim. 6: 11-16; Heb. 10: 19-31.) . . . . Few copies of the Gospels contain more numerous and interesting, yet minute variations from the printed text than Codex z but in many places it stands almost, often quite alone. Thus the patient student will find it a document of singular importance, well meriting his best attention." The portions named above will give the reader some idea of what were selected as "Lessons" in those early days.

The Lectionaries are generally classed with the cursives, and referred to by small letters (Scrivener's x, y, and z; for instance, are lectionaries, though x is an uncial), or by figures: Lec. x., or Lec. 1, being quite sufficient to distinguish them from anything else.

The Lectionaries are also interesting as shewing that at that early date the reading of the scripture in public was a constant thing. According to the Apostolic Constitutions two lessons out of the Old Testament and two out of the New were read every Sunday. And if a sermon followed it was nothing else but the exposition, says Cave, in his Primitive Christianity, "of some part of the scriptures which had been read before, and exhortations to the people to obey the doctrines contained in them, and commonly were upon the lesson which was last read, because of that being freshest in the people's memory."

The Fathers.

The evidence to be gathered from the Fathers is of great value. Doubtless they at times were satisfied with giving the sense of a passage as is often done now, but it is beyond dispute that they often made direct quotations from their copies of the scripture, which is surely good and weighty evidence as to what was in the copies from which they quoted. This too increases in weight when we remember that the Fathers date back to the second century — some being undoubtedly associates of the apostles, being about two centuries earlier than any Greek copy now remaining to us.

Further, some of the early Fathers are known to have had their attention called to variations even then existing in the manuscripts. Thus Irenaeus argues that the number of the beast in Revelation 13: 18 should be χξς (666) and not χις (616) as it was in some copies. He attributes the difference to an error in the copyist, and adds, "To those who have done this simply and without evil intention, we suppose pardon to be granted by God." This proves that he was not indifferent to the true readings of scripture in the second century.

Origen also (in the third century) writes, "It is now manifest that the diversity of the copies has become great, whether from the carelessness of certain scribes, or from the rashness of some who make corrupt emendations, or also from those who in emendation add or take away what they think fit."

Marcion, to serve his own evil purposes, attempted to make a new gospel out of the Gospel by Luke. He altered and cut out what he pleased. This caused the Fathers Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Ephiphanius to compare carefully Marcion's gospel with that by Luke and point out the alterations.

These things naturally caused the Fathers to exercise the greater care and watchfulness over the text of the word of God, and would have caused them to be the more cautious in making their quotations. Some of them may have fallen into errors themselves, but they wished to pass off as orthodox, and did not attempt to alter the word of God as Marcion had done.

It will be manifest from the above quotation from Origen that the state of the various manuscripts shewed similar variations to those we now have, yet we may fain hope that as then the copies were nearer to the originals and had thus been copied much fewer times, the variations were much fewer in number. Care is needed, as has been stated, to ascertain whether the Fathers quoted the exact words in their copies, or gave the general sense only. Where a quotation is the former, and where it is supported by good Greek copies of the New Testament now available to us, and perhaps by early versions, it undoubtedly has great weight.

For reference, we give a list of the principal Fathers, the date when they died when not otherwise stated, and the contractions under which they are generally referred to. The names in italic are Latin Fathers.

{*From Scrivener's Introduction.}

Ambrose Bishop of Milan, A.D. 397 (Ambr.)

Ambrosiaster, the false Ambrose, perhaps Hilary the Deacon of the third century, (Ambrst.)

Ammonius of Alexandria, 220 (Ammon.)

Andreas of Crete, 7th century (probably not the same person as)

Andreas Bishop of Caesarea, 6th century? (And.)

Arethas Bishop of Caesarea Capp. 10th century? (Areth.)

Arnobius of Africa, 306 (Arnob.)

Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria, 373 (Ath.)

Athenagoras of Athens, 177 (Athen.)

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, 430 (Aug.)

Barnabas, 1st or 2nd century? (Barn.)

Basil Bishop of Caesarea, 379 (Bas.)

Basil of Seleucia, fl. 440 (Bas. Sel.)

Bede the Venerable, d. 735 (Bede.)

Caesarius of Constantinople, 368 (Caes.)

Canons Apostolic, 3rd century (Canon.)

Cassiodorus, 575 (Cassiod.)

Chromatius Bishop of Aquileia, 402 (Chrom.)

Chrysostom Bishop of Constantinople, 407 (Chrys.)

Clement Bishop of Alexandria, fl. 194 (Clem.)

Clement Bishop of Rome, fl. 90 (Clem. Rom.)

Constitutiones Apostolice, 3rd century (Constit.)

Cosmas Indicopleustes, 535 (Cosm.)

Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, 258 (Cypr.)

Cyril Bishop of Alexandria, 444 (Cyr.)

Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem, 386 (Cyr. Jer.)

Damascenus John, 730 (Dam.)

Didymus of Alexandria, 370 (Did.)

Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, 265 (Dion.)

Dionysius (Pseudo-) Areopagita, 5th century (Dion Areop.)

Ephraem the Syrian, 378 (Ephr.)

Epiphanius Bishop of Cyprus, 403 (Epiph.)

Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea, 340 (Eus.)

Euthalius Bishop of Sulci? 458 (Euthal.)

Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116 (Euthym.)

Evagrius of Pontus, 380 (Evagr.)

Fulgentius, 5th century (Fulg.)

Gaudentius, 4th century (Gaud.)

Gregory of Nazianzus, the Divine, Bishop of Constantinople, 389 (Naz.)

Gregory Bishop of Nyssa, 396 (Nyss.)

Gregory Thaumaturgus Bishop of Neocaesarea, 243 (Thauma.)

Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, 605 (Greg.)

Hieronymus (Jerome), 430 (Hier.) or (Jer.)

Hilary Bishop of Poictiers, fl. 354 (Hil.)

Hippolytus Bishop of Portus, fl. 220 (Hip.)

Ignatius Bishop of Antioch, 107 (Ign.)

Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons, 178; chiefly extant in an old Latin version (Iren.)

Isidore of Pelusium, 412 (Isid.)

Justin Martyr, 164 (Just.)

Juvencus, 330 (Juv.)

Lactantius, 306 (Lact.)

Lucifer Bishop of Cagliari, 367 (Luc.)

Marcion the heretic, 130? (Mcion), cited by Epiphanius (Mcion-e), and Tertullian (Mcion-t.)

Maximus Taurinensis, 466 (Max. Taur.)

Maximus the Confessor, 662 (Max. Conf.)

Methodius, fl. 311 (Meth.)

Nonnus, fl. 400 (Nonn.)

Novatianus, fl. 300? (Novat.)

Oecumenius Bishop of Tricca, 10th century? (Oecu.)

Origen, b. 185, d. 254 (Or.)

Pamphilus the Martyr, 308 (Pamph.)

Peter Bishop of Alexandria, 311 (Petr.)

Photius Bishop of Constantinople, 891 (Phot.)

Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna, 166 (Polyc.)

Primasius Bishop of Adrumetum, fl. 550 (Prim.)

Prudentius 406 (Prud.)

Rufinus of Aquileia, 397 (Ruf.)

Severianus, a Syrian Bishop, 409 (Sevrn.)

Socrates, Church Historian, fl. 440 (Soc.)

Sozomen, Church Historian, 450 (Soz.)

Suidas the lexicographer, 980? (Suid.)

Tatian of Antioch, 172 (Tat.)

Tertullian of Africa, fl. 200 (Tert.)

Theodore Bishop of Mopsuestia, 428 (Thdor. Mops.)

Theodoret Bishop of Cyrus or Cyrrhus in Comagene, 458 (Thdrt.)

Theophilus Bishop of Antioch, 182 (Thph. Ant.)

Theophylact Archbishop of Bulgaria, 1071 (Theophyl.)

Tichonius? the Donatist, fl. 390 (Tich.)

Titus Bp. of Bostra, fl. 370 (Tit. Bost.)

Victor of Antioch, 430 (Vict. Ant.)

Victor Bp. of Tunis, 565 (Vict. Tun.)

Victorinus Bp. of Pettau, 360 (Victorin.)

Vigilius of Thapsus, 484 (Vigil.)

The Versions.

By The Versions are meant the early translations of the New Testament from the Greek into other languages. These are valuable, inasmuch as they let us know what was in the copies used by the various translators. Being translations they are not available, as may readily be understood, for every minute variation. In places where there are only shades of meaning they may not avail; but where the sense is materially altered, or where important words are inserted or omitted, they are of great weight. They go back too to the second century, thus in a measure bridging over the gap formed by the distance of our present Greek copies from the time when they were written.

Another disadvantage is that some of the early versions can be read even now only by comparatively few others being obliged to be content with Latin translations of the same. The Syriac, Egyptian and Aethiopic have but few readers. In minute points this naturally increases the difficulty.

We cannot suppose that such a book as the New Testament would be translated in those early times by anyone who did not value its contents, and therefore we may conclude that according to the light a translator had he faithfully performed his work.

We may start with the Latin copies, and these, as with the Greek, gradually shewed many variations, which went on increasing until the time of Jerome, who set to work thoroughly to revise the Latin translation. This naturally divides the Latin copies into distinct parts, namely, those before Jerome's revision and those after he had completed his work.

Latin Copies before Jerome.

These have been at times referred to under the names of the Old Latin and Italic. The latter name was given to those ancient documents because they were naturally supposed to have had their origin from Italy. But this has now been proved to be a mistake. Mr. Westcott says, "As far as we can learn, the mass of the poorer population [of Rome] — everywhere the great bulk of the early Christians — was Greek either in descent or speech. . . . When Paul wrote to the Roman church he wrote in Greek; and in the long list of salutations to its members with which the Epistle is concluded, only four Latin names occur. Shortly afterwards Clement wrote to the Corinthians in Greek, in the name of the church of Rome. . . . Justin, Hermas, and Tatian published their Greek treaties at Rome. The Apologies to the Roman emperors were in Greek. . . . Even farther West Greek was the common language of Christians. . . . The first sermons which were preached at Rome were in Greek: and it has been conjectured with good reason that Greek was at first the liturgical language of the church of Rome."

Those who have examined minutely the language used in the Old Latin copies declare that they must have originated in North Africa. But inasmuch as the old copies do not agree, the question has arisen whether when in Italy they began to use Latin copies, did they make a new translation (or were indeed several made) or did they adopt the one already made in Africa? Those able to decide such a question have come to the conclusion that new translations were not made, and that all the variations found were rather alterations made to the original African version. Of course copies may have been compared with Greek manuscripts differing from those from which the original was made, and alterations made accordingly, or some one understanding both Greek and Latin might have thought in places the Greek was but defectively represented, and attempted to improve the same. Certainly many alterations were made, until they made a formidable array in the time of Jerome in the fourth century. The term Italic is now given to only a portion of the Old Latin.

The following is a list of the Old Latin copies. It will be seen that some of them are not separate copies, but refer to the Latin that accompanies some of the Greek copies. These, or some of them at least, are not considered to be the Old Latin version, already spoken of, but are simply old in age. Italic letters serve to point out the Old Latin copies. We give their names also, as single copies are often referred to by their names. Of course from their great age all are more or less defective.

a. Codex Vercellensis. Contains the Gospels, and dates in the fourth century. It is considered to be one of the most valuable of these copies. It is preserved in Vercelli, and has been published by Bianchini.

b. Codex Veronensis. Contains the Gospels, and perhaps dates a little later than a. This is also a good specimen of the Old Latin. It has been published by Bianchini.

c. Codex Colbertinus. This contains the whole of the New Testament, but only the Gospels are the Old Latin, the other parts being a copy of Jerome's version. Although it dates the eleventh century, it is considered to be one of the best copies of the Old Latin. It was published by Sabatier.

d. Codex Bezae. This is the Latin which accompanies the Greek copy D, and is considered of comparatively little value. In some places however it does not agree with its Greek companion, and in these places it is of some value. It contains the Gospels and the Acts, and is of the sixth or seventh century.

d. Codex Claromontanus. This is the Latin text of the Greek copy D of Paul's Epistles. It ranks higher than the Latin of Codex Bezae. It is of the sixth or seventh century.

e. Codex Palatinus. Contains the Gospels, but with many parts deficient. It is of the fourth or fifth century. It contains a mixed text: in some places having the old version, and in others Italian revisions.

e. Codex Sangermanensis. This contains Paul's Epistles. It is the Latin text of the Greek copy E, but is considered to be but a copy of Codex Claromontanus, and not an independent witness.

f. Codex Brixianus. This contains the Gospels, and is of about the sixth century. Augustine had spoken of an Italian text, and this would seem to be a good specimen of that to which that Father refers, though it actually dates after him. It thus shews the revised and altered text rather than the original version. It was published by Bianchini.

ff. Codex Corbeiensis. Contains the Epistle of James.

ff1 and ff2. Codices Corbeienses 1 and 2. These contain portions of the Gospels, and consist of a sort of mixed text. They have been published by Bianchini.

g. Codex Beornerianus. This is the interlined Latin text to the Greek copy of Paul's Epistles G. Tregelles describes it as "barbarous in the extreme," and only occasionally of any critical value.

g1 and g2. Codices Sangermanenses. These contain the Gospels. Both have been collated by Sabatier. They both contain a mixed text. "Very ancient."

gue. Codex Guelferbytanus. Fragments of Romans. Sixth century.

h. Codex Claromontanus. It contains the Gospels, but the Gospel of Matthew alone is the Old Latin, and that in a measure mixed, the rest being Jerome's. It is of the fourth or fifth century.

i. Codex Vindobonensis. Contains fragments of Luke and Mark of about the fifth century. It is said to be a good specimen of the Old Latin, unaltered.

j. Codex Sarzannensis. This contains portions of John's Gospel and is of the fifth century. Its text is peculiar.

k. Codex Bobbiensis. Contains portions of Matthew and Mark, of about the fifth century. It contains many ancient readings, but in other places has been altered.

k Codex Bobbiensis. This consists of only a few leaves, containing fragments of the Acts and Catholic Epistles.

1. Codex Rhedigerianus. Portions of the Gospels of the seventh century. Its text is mixed.

m. From a "speculum." This is a remarkable work for the age (the sixth or seventh century). It contains a large number of christian doctrines as heads, under which are arranged quotations from the Old and New Testaments without any note or comment. The quotations are generally African as distinguished from Italic. It is remarkable also in containing twice the disputed passage of 1 John 5: 7, known as "the heavenly witnesses."

n. Codex Sangallensis. The Gospels; of the fourth or fifth century.

o. St. Gall. Fragments of the Gospels; of about the seventh century.

p. St. Gall. Fragments of the Gospels; seventh or eighth century.

q. Codex Monacensis. The Gospels; of the sixth century. An important copy.

r. Codex Frisingensis. Paul's Epistles; of the fifth or sixth century.

s. Codex Mediolan. Fragments of Luke.

s. Codex Bobbiensis. Fragments of the Acts, James, and 1 Peter, of about the fifth century.

δ. The interlinear Latin of Cod. Δ.

The Latin of Jerome. — The Vulgate.

This revision came about by the solicitation of Damascus, Bishop of Rome (A.D. 366-384). We have seen that revisers had been busy at work before this, and it was not an unholy desire to obtain a more correct translation, and one that should carry weight with it, and stay farther revisions.

Jerome procured the best ancient Greek copies he could, and doubtless had the pure African Latin text as well as that now called Italic. In A.D. 384 he had finished the Gospels; and the rest of the New Testament followed. Many years after he was still engaged on the Old Testament.

Jerome did not do his revision very uniformly, making alterations more freely in some parts than in others. In his Commentaries he speaks of some emendations which he preferred, but which, for some reason, he did not put into his text.

The effort to make a new translation of the scriptures was even in those early days not without its dangers. Jerome's New Testament was a revision; but his Old Testament was a translation from the Hebrew, the Old Latin of the Old Testament having been made from the Septuagint. This Augustine advised him not to do, fearing the change would have a bad effect on the mass of the people; and related to him the following instance "A certain brother bishop of ours, when he introduced the reading of thy version in the church over which he presides, something attracted notice on the prophet Jonah, which thou hadst rendered in a manner very different from that which was habitually familiar to the minds and memories of all, and which was consecrated by use through such a succession of ages. Such a tumult arose among the people, especially from the contention of the Greeks, and from their vociferating a charge of falsification, that the bishop was compelled (it occurred in a city) to require the testimony of the Jews. But, whether from ignorance or malice, they replied that in the Hebrew copies there was found the same that the Greeks and Latins had, and used. What next? Why the poor man was forced, after much danger, to be willing to correct this as though it had been false in order not to remain without the people.*

{* Tregelles, in Horne's Introduction.}

The reader will no doubt be curious to know what could have caused such a commotion. It would appear that one word especially attracted the attention of the audience. The passage being read was that referring to the "gourd." From this the Old Latin (made from the LXX) was cucurbita 'gourd,' which Jerome (he translated from the Hebrew) replaced by hedera, 'ivy.'

But to resume: As might be expected, when Jerome's version began to be copied variations appeared, until there were again many differences. From time to time some attempted to restore the original text of Jerome, but it was the copy of the scriptures (except what scholars might have had here and there) available in Western Europe during the middle ages — say for a thousand years — and becomes thus of great interest. In course of time some attempted (as Erasmus) to form new translations to take its place. Robert Stephens made an endeavour to restore Jerome's text, and in 1528 printed an edition, which was followed by even better editions; but as then the Greek text began to come into prominence, a mere translation began to lose its value.

The Roman authorities however sought to have an authorized edition of the Vulgate, and under Sixtus V. an edition was published in 1590, and all printed Latin Bibles after that were implicitly to follow this version. But, as one has well said, there is no royal or papal road to Biblical criticism, and so it turned out that this guide to all others had to be corrected with the pen in some places, and in others a piece of paper was pasted over, containing a correction or a totally different reading, and even this was done so incorrectly that one copy did not agree with another. The edition had to be recalled.

In the meantime Sixtus V. had passed away, and, in two years after, another edition was published under Clement VIII. In several hundred places this differs from that of Sixtus V., though to this day, in order to save the credit of the papacy, the title page bears the names both of Sixtus V. and Clement VIII. The Catholic edition is often called the Latin Vulgate: Jerome's revision has also the same title; they must not however be confounded, for they are not one and the same.

It is commonly thought that the Roman Catholics have grossly corrupted the word of God; but this is not borne out by unprejudiced examinations as far as the Vulgate is concerned. Bentley says that though those who revised this edition were unequal to the task, and not able to judge correctly as to the age and value of manuscripts, he did not discover anything 'dolo malo,' by evil artifice. It is declared to be substantially the version of Jerome; but still with many alterations, the changes being always for the worse!

There are a few good copies of Jerome's version in manuscript.

Codex Amiatinus (am). This copy contains both the Old and New Testaments, in one volume, is in very good condition, and with but few defects. It was written about the year A.D. 541. The New Testament is printed in full with Tregelles' Greek Testament, and is judged to be the best manuscript of Jerome's version.

Codex Fuldensis (fuld or fu). This is also counted to be of the sixth century. It contains the whole of the New Testament. Lachmann gives the variations of this manuscript in the Latin appended to his Greek Testament.

Codex Forojuliensis (for). This is a very good copy of the Gospels of the sixth century. It is stated that Mark's Gospel was removed from this copy and taken to Venice and there passed off as the actual copy of Mark's Gospel. written by himself! Of course it only imposed upon those who did not know that Mark wrote his gospel in Greek instead of Latin.

Codex Augiensis (aug). This is the Latin portion of the Greek copy F of Paul's Epistles. The Hebrews is in Latin only. It is a good copy of Jerome's version, modified in places.

Codex Toletanus (tol). Contains both Testaments in Gothic characters. It is judged to be of the eighth century.

Codex Harleian. (harl). Contains the Gospels. It dates about the seventh century. An important manuscript.

There are other copies, but they are only fragmentary.

Syriac Versions.

The Syriac is mentioned as a distinct language in 2 Kings 18: 26, though it is supposed to be alluded to as early as Genesis 31: 47, where the heap of stones was called by Laban, 'Jegar-Saha- dutha,' and by Jacob 'Galeed,' the former being Aramaean or Chaldaean (the same family of tongues as the Syriac) and the latter being Hebrew: both mean "heaps of witness." The language is still preserved as their sacred tongue in several Eastern churches.

It is pretty generally admitted that the New Testament was translated into Syriac as early as the second century. Eusebius says that Hegesippus speaks of quotations from 'the Syriac;' and Ephraem the Syrian in the fourth century speaks of 'our version,' which had evidently been then long in use.

1. This version is called the Peshito, which is interpreted to mean simple, but which some take to mean "faithful." It has been called "the queen of versions," as being the oldest and best, and is declared to be a most excellent translation. It was long since translated into Latin for the use of those who could not read Syriac. It has since been translated into English. The pure Peshito wanted 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and the Apocalypse.

The Curetonian Syriac. This copy was discovered in the British Museum by Canon Cureton. It contains the following fragments of four gospels: Matthew 1: 1-8: 22; 10: 32-23: 25. Mark 16: 17-20. John 1: 1-42; 3: 6-7: 37; 14: 10-12; 16-18; 19-23; 26-29. Luke 2: 48 - 3: 16; 7: 33 - 15: 21; 17: 24 - 24: 44. It is found not only to be a different translation from the Peshito (though others judge them to have had a common origin) but also to have been made from a different text. It is judged to be of the fifth century. It has been published by Dr. Cureton with an English translation.

The Philoxenian Syriac. This is stated to have been made by Polycarp, and was revised by Thomas of Harkel in the year A.D. 508 (and is sometimes quoted as the Harclean version). The translation is very literal, to the destruction of Syriac idiom. This version has received considerable attention from some one, being marked with asterisks and obeli. It is supposed that when an addition was thought to be needed an asterisk was put, and when a part was to be omitted an obelus was placed; the corrections being placed in the margin. It is a matter of question whether these various corrections were made by comparing this version with the older Peshito, or with various Greek copies; they may indeed have been made from both sources. It is necessary in quoting this version to distinguish between the version itself and its marginal corrections. This version contains all the New Testament except the Revelation.

The Karkaphensian Syriac. It is not known from what this Codex took its name, and it is supposed to be the same as Syr. Vatican 153. It is dated A.D. 980, but may have been copied from an earlier translation. It contains the same as the Peshito, but in the following order: Acts, James, 1 Peter, 1 John, Paul's fourteen Epistles, and then the Gospels. The translation closely resembles the Peshito, but is not simply a copy of that recension.

Besides the above, there are copies of a later Syriac version containing the parts missing in the Peshito.

There is also a Lectionary of the Gospels, in Syriac, called the Jerusalem Syriac, because of its peculiar dialect. It bears the date of A.D. 1030, but is supposed to have been copied from a translation of the fifth or sixth century. It differs from all of the above, and abounds in barbarisms.

Egyptian Versions.

Various names have been given to the Egyptian versions. At first only one version was known, and then it was called the Coptic; but when other copies were discovered, and one was traced to Lower Egypt, the term Coptic did not apply, seeing that name is from Coptos, a city in Upper Egypt. Sahidic was another name applied to the version of Upper Egypt; but now other terms are used for both Upper and Lower, the version of Upper Egypt being called Thebaic (or Sahidic), and that of Lower Egypt Memphitic (or Bahiric).

As Christianity spread, the desire for the scriptures in the vernacular tongue naturally arose, and there is good reason for believing that certainly not later than the fourth century the New Τestament was translated into Egyptian dialects.

1. The Thebaic Version. This is considered to be the more ancient of the two, and has been set down by some as belonging to the second century. It abounds in Greek words, and is set down as an unpolished dialect, the language of the common people, but it is thus all the more valuable in some respects. There are several manuscript fragments in this dialect.

2. The Memphitic Version. This is the dialect of Lower Egypt, and is judged to have been made when the language became more refined, and that it eventually superseded the Thebaic version in ecclesiastical uses. There are many manuscripts containing portions of this version.

3. The Bashmuric Version. This is in another dialect from either of the above, and is an independent translation.

The Gothic Version.

This was made by Ulphilas, bishop of the Goths, in the fourth century. He was an Arian, but it has not been ascertained that this caused him to corrupt the scripture in his translation (except perhaps in Phil. 2: 6). The scriptures were too widely spread for this, and any such dereliction would be sure to have been discovered; the Arians rather contented themselves with interpreting the scriptures in a way that would seem to support their error.

One famous copy of the Gospels is called the Codex Argenteus, because is was written in silver with some parts in gold. It has many defects, but some of these have been supplied from other manuscripts. Other copies also supply Paul's Epistles (with defects) except Hebrews. The Acts, the Catholic Epistles and the Revelation are also missing.

The Armenian Version.

An attempt was made to make a translation of the New Testament in the Armenian language from the Syriac; but in A.D. 431 a copy of the Bible in Greek was obtained from Ephesus where the Council was held; and with this the work was recommenced; but the translators found that their knowledge of the Greek language was too imperfect to accomplish such an important work, and therefore three of them repaired to Alexandria to acquire the language. On their return they commenced their third translation. It dates therefore the fifth century.

The question naturally arises as to how far this translation has reached us unadulterated. Certain Armenian editions have been printed, but in 1668 an edition was published which contained the disputed passage of 1 John 1: 7, which raised a suspicion that the original translation had been corrupted. Dr. Rieu, of the British Museum, endeavoured to clear the text of its alterations putting the various readings in the margin. Dr. Rieu says that out of eighteen manuscripts used by Zohrab, a former editor, only one (written in A.D. 1656) had the above disputed passage.

The Aethiopic Version.

A Text of this was published in Walton's Polyglot with a Latin translation. An edition was also issued by Mr. Platt for the British and Foreign Bible Society, for use by the Abyssinian church. In doing this Mr. Platt consulted such manuscripts as were available to him. Mr. Prevost of the British Museum has compared this edition with the one in Walton's Polyglot and noted the variations, which compilation forms the materials available for Biblical purposes.

Later Versions.

The versions besides those above named are of comparatively recent date and of much less critical value. Still as they are sometimes referred to by Editors, they may be named.

1. Arabic Versions. It has been a disputed point whether these have been taken from the Greek or the Latin; one version is supposed to have been made from the Egyptian. Nothing certain is known of the dates.

2. The Slavonic Version. The oldest known manuscript is A.D. 1056, though printed editions may have referred to earlier ones.

3. The Persian Gospels. These are of recent date (one is A.D. 1341) and are of no critical value.

4. The Gregorian Version. This was published at Moscow in 1743, and is considered of little weight.

5. The Anglo-Saxon Gospels. These are more interesting than useful for textual criticism. They were made from the Latin in one or other of its forms.

6. The Frankish Version of St. Matthew.

The Age and Families of Manuscripts.

We have stated that a manuscript is naturally of more or less value according to its age. This needs a little further consideration. We can easily understand that the more ancient a copy is, the fewer hands it has passed through, and the nearer it is to the original. We will try and illustrate this by a diagram.*

Diagram

{*It may perhaps be necessary to caution the reader that in this diagram the letters A, B, C, are used merely to shew that from one original manuscript there may have issued three separate and independent streams or families. The above letters in no way refer to the particular manuscripts generally referred to as A, B, and C.}

Suppose that Μ represents the copy of Mark's Gospel that he wrote. This was copied by A, who in copying made a certain number of mistakes. A was copied by A1 and A2, each of whom copied those mistakes of A (where they had no means of correcting them) and made more mistakes of their own. Then if A2 was copied by two others, each following the mistakes in his copy and making more mistakes of his own, we can understand that the farther a copy was from the original the more mistakes we might expect to find, and the less weight would be attached to it. But mistakes did not multiply in the same ratio as the copies were removed from the original; because the errors began to be found out, and were corrected by different hands before further copies were made. Thus, as we have seen, the Codex Sinaiticus (though classed among the earliest of our manuscripts) had passed through the hands of nine or ten correctors. So that we do not find the later copies so incorrect as otherwise we should do.

Another question arises as to how far each copy can be treated as an independent witness. This will be understood by looking again at the diagram. Mark's gospel was copied by A who made some mistakes, but it was also copied by B, who also made mistakes, but not the same mistakes that A made. Now we can easily understand that all the copies made from A might be free from the mistakes B made, and all the copies made from B, might be free from the mistakes that A made. And if we suppose that A was carried into one country, and B into another, the readings of the one would be the less mixed up with the readings of the other. This will illustrate what is called time theory of recensions or "families" of manuscripts. All that were copied from Α are of one family and all that were copied from B are another family. The importance of this is that A1, A2, up to A7 are not independent witnesses as to the mistakes A made. They copied his mistakes without knowing it. And therefore to say I have seven witnesses to prove that B is wrong would not have the weight of seven independent witnesses, for they are merely copies of one witness (A).

Thus to correct A we want B or its family; and to correct B we want A or its family. And when copies are found to be members of a family they do not form separate and independent witnesses, except as to mistakes made by each individual; but must be sometimes treated as one witness and not as many.

Then, later on, one person might have a copy of the A family and also a copy of B family, and correct one by the other, and thus would be produced copies that were not strictly A nor B, but had some peculiarities of both. This is what is actually found in the Greek manuscripts; and indeed this exists to such an extent that some have doubted the existence of separate and distinct families altogether.

On the other hand, some have thought that there were several different families; but they are now mostly confined to two, called "Alexandrian" (or Eastern, from the city of Alexandria), and Constantinopolitan (or Western, from the city of Constantinople). Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus would be the former, and Codex Alexandrinus the latter in the Gospels (notwithstanding its name); though it is said to belong to the other family in the Epistles.

As has been said, there is a break in the classification of manuscripts about the tenth century. From the first to the tenth the uncial copies (those written all in capitals) were in use; after that the cursives (those written in the ordinary Greek, not in capitals) came into use: and it has been a serious question as to how far attention should be paid to the cursives as evidence. Some pay no attention to them, considering that it is best to pay attention to the uncials only; and indeed some almost discard the later of these, attempting to obtain a true text from the older uncials only.

Now without questioning that the older a copy is the more valuable it is as a witness, it is important to see that some of the later copies may be right and of great value where the older copies differ. For instance, by referring back to the diagram, we have spoken of Mark's gospel being copied by A and B; but suppose it was also copied by C; and although C has been lost, yet we have some that have descended from that copy, but in cursives only. Now suppose that A and B differed in a reading (as the two families named often do), the reading of C, though only a cursive, may be of great value in determining which is right; especially if it was found not to belong strictly to either of the above-named families. Thus a person who confines himself to the earliest Greek copies will miss this class of evidence, because he pays no attention to the later uncials and the cursives.

It may be compared to a trial in a court. It almost always happens that some witnesses are much more valuable than others, but a wise counsel calls all he has; the evidence of all being needed to make his case complete. On the contrary side all are also called. But it often happens that some little thing from one of the non-important witnesses, as some might have been supposed, gives the key to a right judgment, or adds material weight in coming to a conclusion.

So it would seem in judging of a reading, it is not right to judge by a few witnesses only, and shut out a great many. It may be that one of those shut out gives the key to the true reading, being confirmed by one or more of the uncials, by ancient Versions and Fathers.

Before leaving the subject of "Families" of manuscripts it must be noted that each Family has been sought to be discovered not simply by mistakes, but by peculiarities in spelling, grammar, etc., of which the Editors make out lists, but some of which at least have had to be abandoned after having been made. It is sufficient for our purpose to state how the principal manuscripts are now generally arranged. The following has been drawn up by Tregelles: to which we add א.

Alexandrian:

א Β Ζ

C L 1 33

P Q T R Π N R

X Δ 69.

Constantinopolitan (or Western)

A

K Μ Η

E F G S U V Γ A

The manuscripts are placed in the above order as a sort of genealogy of each Family; but anything like scientific accuracy is not claimed for the above. D stands alone. The Latin is classed with the Western.

The Editor at Work.

Those persons are called Editors who, with whatever evidence is at their disposal, study to ascertain, wherever the Greek manuscripts differ, what the text was originally.

The reader will have seen that such a work was necessary, and this not simply for important alterations, but for those more minute. To make this more obvious we will examine in detail the small portion copied from the Codex Sinaiticus given in our specimen in the chapter 'Style of Writing'.

1. It omits ο 'Ιησους, reading, 'he had done,' instead of 'Jesus had done,' as in the common text. Tischendorf, Tregelles and Alford also omit 'Jesus.'

2. It omits óτι, 'that,' 'they said, That this is,' etc. This word is often omitted in the translation, but generally found in the Greek. The Editors retain the word.

3. It reads είς τον κóσμον ερχόμενος, 'into the world is coming.' The common text, confirmed by the Editors, places the words, ερχόμενος  είς τον κóσμον. The sense is not affected.

4. It reads καί αναδιχνυναι βασιλεα, 'and to proclaim [him] king.' The common text reads

ίνα ποιησωσιν αυτόν βασιλεa, 'that they may make him king.' The Editors adopt the common text, except that they leave out aυτον, 'him.'

5. It reads φεύγει, 'escapes.' The common text has ανεχώρησεν, 'withdrew,' which is adopted by the Editors, except Tischendorf, who prefers 'escapes.'

6. It reads μόνος αυτός 'alone himself.' The common text, confirmed by the Editors, transposes the words. The sense is the same.

Thus in this short piece there are six variations from the common text; in five of which we may say the Editors judge the Codex Sinaiticus to be incorrect and the common text to give the true reading. And this is so notwithstanding that this Codex is one of the oldest manuscripts we have; indeed it is declared to abound with mistakes, which of course have to be corrected by other manuscripts, as already explained.

To judge therefore of the true text in every detail is no easy task; the reader will have had a glimpse of the immense amount of evidence that is now available for an Editor of the Greek Testament. As we have seen, it is not everyone's province to attempt such work; and it is only those who have a special gift for such labour should approach it.

To most persons such a mass of evidence would be bewildering in the extreme; and in some cases, instead of all the witnesses being either for or against a reading, some may give a third reading, and some a fourth. To give each particle of evidence its own proper weight, and no more; to see which are independent witnesses, and which are only repetitions; to see how the age and family of each affects a question — are some of the points that have to be decided, and borne in mind all through.

The Editors have made for themselves, or adopted from others, certain rules for their guidance, which rules they call canons. We give a few of them, as they are given by various Editors.

1. No conjecture, without manuscript authority, is ever on any consideration to be entertained.

2. Though Versions and Fathers are of little authority when they differ from the Greek manuscripts, yet when the Greek copies of equal weight differ from each other, those have the greatest weight with which the Versions and Fathers agree.

3. The mere number of witnesses does not decide, but their age must be considered, and also whether they are independent witnesses, or merely copies of one another.

4. Where two readings have equal weight, the most difficult is the correct one; for we can easily conceive of a difficult passage being altered into an easier one; but it is presumed no one would alter an easy one into a difficult one.

5. Of two readings a shorter one is mostly preferable to a larger one; the tendency being in difficult cases to attempt to explain the meaning by enlarging the sentence.

6. In difficult readings, that one is generally preferable which will account for the others, or from which the others can have been taken.

7. In judging of a reading, attention must be paid to the style of the writer; it being judged that each writer had a style more or less peculiar to himself.

Other rules have been laid down by various editors, but perhaps it is not too much to say that not one has kept strictly to his rules. Every variation had to be tried upon its own merits, scarcely any two being exactly alike.

Perhaps the most difficult part of an Editor's work is touching internal evidence. Where there is a great preponderance of external evidence for a reading, internal evidence would not be allowed a voice; but where the evidence for and against a reading is very nicely balanced, it becomes a serious question how far internal evidence may be called into question, and also what may be called internal evidence. For instance, Dr. Scrivener, in describing such cases of difficulty, says, "By internal evidence we mean that exercise of the reason upon the matter submitted to it, which will often prompt us, almost by instinct, to reject one alternative and to embrace another."* In other places he speaks of "common sense" as greatly helping to decide such questions. With all deference to the indefatigable doctor we cannot help thinking this very dangerous ground. We cannot find any such thing set up as a guide in the New Testament.

{* Six Lectures on the Text of the New Testament.}

On the other hand, we doubt not a person in such difficulties should duly weigh the context, and see if any light could be thrown upon it therefrom. Here, of course spirituality would be of the greatest value. He who can enter best into the spirit of the passage will have an immense advantage over one who cannot.

But there is also this difficulty in deciding by internal evidence, that there is nothing to shew for it. The reasons that may operate in one mind may have no weight with another. We may expect that if the Holy Spirit leads one intelligently to a decision, it will commend itself to other Christians who also have the Holy Spirit as their teacher and guide; still there are degrees of spiritual intelligence, and what may be quite clear to one may be beyond another.

But the majority of variations have to be considered by external evidence; internal evidence only having a voice when the external is more or less nicely balanced.

Perhaps the reader will get a better idea of the work that has been done for him by looking at a few passages, and seeing the evidence for and against the readings.

Review of a Few Passages.

1. Mark 1: 2. This variation will illustrate the fact that mere numbers of Greek copies (even if uncial) will not always outweigh a smaller number of greater weight.

The common Greek text reads "in the prophets;" and the variation gives "in Esaias the prophet."

For 'in the prophets,' there are A E F H K M P S U V Γ Π (twelve Greek uncials).

For 'in Esaias the prophet,' there are א B D L Δ (only five).

Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford and Wordsworth all adopt the latter reading. It will be seen by turning back to the Families of Manuscripts (a previous chapter) that nearly all in favour of the common text are Constantinopolitan, and the four others (omitting D as neither) are all Alexandrian; to which may be added the two important cursives 1 and 33, also of the same family.

Besides the above, there are for the common text the Philox. Syriac and the Aethiopic versions, and Fathers Chrysostom and Photius.

For 'Esaias the prophet' there are the Latin copies, the Peshito and Jerusalem Syriac; the Coptic, Gothic, and Armenian versions; and Fathers Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Basil, Titus of Bostra, Victor of Antioch, Severianus, Jerome and Augustine.

In this case we doubt not that the three great uncials א, B, and D have decided the question with the Editors, the reading being supported by the Latin and Peshito versions, and so many of the Fathers.

2. Mark 16: 9-20. The question involved here touches the importance of retaining or rejecting a long sentence of eleven verses. Some copies close the gospel with the words "for they were not afraid" (ver. 8), an ending which would strike every person, one would think, as very strange and undignified. Still of course such questions must be decided by the evidence.

What makes this instance a little more embarrasing is that some copies have another ending differing also from the common text, and one copy at least has both endings. Thus, L gives, at the end of verse 8, "And this also is somewhere extant: 'And they briefly announced all that was bidden them to Peter and his company. And after this also Jesus Himself from the east even to the west sent forth through them the holy and incorruptible proclamation of eternal salvation.' And this also is extant after 'for they were afraid,' and then follow verses 9 to 20 as in the common text.

There can be no doubt that the shorter ending given above may be dismissed as without authority; though it is found in a few copies of minor weight; the only real question is, are verses 9 to 20 to be retained or rejected?

The evidence for the passage is A C D* (three of the great uncials) E F G K M S U V Χ Γ Δ; all the cursives; the Cureton, Peshito, Jerusalem, and Philoxenian Syriac; the Memphitic, some copies of the Old Latin and the Vulgate, with later versions. The passage was known to Irenaeus in the second century; to Hippolytus in the third; and to Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Augustine, and Chrysostom in the fourth.

{* D contains only a portion of the passage, being defective from verse 15.}

Against the passage are א B (two of the great uncials). In B after verse 8 there is a large blank left (which is quite unusual in this manuscript), as if the passage was in the copy from which B was taken, but was left for further consideration as to whether or not it should be inserted; the passage being marked with an asterisk in some copies. So that B is sometimes claimed for the passage rather than against it. Why was the blank left, if there was nothing to fill it in the copy from which Β was taken? L has already been mentioned as containing two endings. The Old Latin k gives a loose translation of the note in L, which note is also found in some of the versions.

With so much for and so little against, one might well wonder why any one could advocate its expulsion. One reason is that it was doubted by some of the Fathers. The earliest one is Eusebius, who in forming his canons for harmonizing the Gospels (hereafter to be considered) found a difficulty in reconciling the resurrection as given in Matthew 28: 1 with that in Mark 16: 9. Eusebius says some copies end the gospel at the words "they were not afraid." "At this point, in nearly all the copies of St. Mark's Gospel, the end is circumscribed. What follows, being met with rarely in some, but not in all, would be superfluous, especially if it contained a contradiction to the testimony of the other evangelists. This [any] one would say if he deprecated and would entirely get rid of a superfluous question."

Others of the Fathers have also written disparagingly of the passage, but their testimony is most probably but an echo of what Eusebius had stated.

Strangely enough, some of the Editors who have not ventured to cut out the passage take a sort of middle path, and admit the passage as scripture, but hold it to be a subsequent addition and not by St. Mark, alleging that the style is not that of the evangelist. But mere style of composition is very uncertain ground on which to judge of the genuineness of a passage, especially in so short a portion.

The passage is omitted by Tischendorf, and marked as doubtful by Alford, upon what, we must think, is most shallow evidence. The passage is unquestionably genuine.

3. Luke 14: 5. This is a variation in which the evidence is nearly equally divided. The common text reads, "Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit?" The variation reads 'son' for 'ass.' This reading of 'son' is startling, and seems so strange an association that Dr. Scrivener says "common sense" forbids even a moment's hesitation as to which to choose. Let us look however as to how the evidence stands.

For "ass:"

א (one of the four great uncials) K L Χ Π Greek uncials,

A host of Greek cursives,

The Memphitic and Jerusalem Syriac,

Three of the best copies of Old Latin (a, b, c) and two others,

The Vulgate, Armenian, Aethiopic versions.

For "son:"

A B (two of the four great uncials) E G Η M S U V Γ Δ Greek uncials,

A host of Greek cursives,

The Peshito, Cureton, and Philoxenian Syriac,

The Thebaic and Persic versions,

Three of the Old Latin (e, f, g),

Some Slavonic manuscripts,

Titus of Bostra, and Clement of Alexandria of the Fathers.

C is defective here, and other copies and versions read differently from either of the above; one (D) having 'sheep or ox,' and one 'son or ox or ass.' There can be no question that the evidence for 'son' is very strong. A and B belong to two families, and where they agree in a reading it is mostly judged to be the true one. And further, the Canon No. 4 would apply here. Unquestionably 'son' is the more difficult reading: we can the better suppose that 'son' has been altered to 'ass' because of the difficulty of the former, than that any would alter 'ass' into 'son.' Of course it may have been a mistake in a copyist; but in the old copies it stands thus: ONOC for 'ass,' and YIOC for 'son,' two words which are not very much alike. Of modern editors Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, and Wordsworth choose 'son;' Griesbach chose 'ass,' but marked 'son' as probable.

If 'son' is adopted, it would be in the sense of 'if a son fell into a pit, or even an ox;' but there is no word for 'even;' it is simply 'a son or an ox.' Tregelles refers to Deuteronomy 5: 14, where the sabbath is binding on two classes persons, headed by 'son,' and animals, headed by 'ox.' Our Lord takes the two heads, and says if either fall into a pit on the sabbath it would be rescued.

It is perhaps best to consider the reading as doubtful, though the five Editors named above give 'son' without any such limitation.

4. John 5: 3, 4. This is a question of admitting or rejecting the moving of the waters by the angel, commencing with the words "waiting for the moving of the water" (verse 3) and the whole of verse 4.

The evidence is not exactly the same for the whole passage; some copies which omit the words in verse 3, retain verse 4.

For the words in verse 3 there are A2 D; for verse 4 A; for both portions, C3 F G E I K L M U V Γ Δ; the mass of the cursives; the Latin, Peshito and Jerusalem Syriac, Armenian, and Aethiopic versions; Tertullian, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Cyril, and Augustine of the Fathers.

Against the portion in verse 3, A1 L; against verse 4, D; against both portions, א B C1; a few cursives; the Cureton Syriac, the Memphitic, Thebaic, and some of the Old Latin versions.

Two theories have been started. One, that the passage is a gloss, or a series of glosses, written by persons in the margins of their Testaments, from which they have found their way into the texts, some taking one, and some another, and some all. It is supposed the glosses were added because of something being needed to explain why the people waited in the porches, and in what way the waters were troubled.

On the other hand, it has been supposed that the passage was originally in the text, but was omitted by some as too strange an occurrence to be true.

The passage is omitted by Tischendorf, Tregelles and Alford, but we think without sufficient authority. It is found in some of the earliest of the versions, and is in the great majority of manuscripts. If it had been an invention we cannot but think that the inventor would have accounted for the troubling of the water in some other way than by the descending of an angel. To insert marginal notes to try and explain doctrines is a very different thing from inventing a story of such a supernatural visitation.

5. John 7: 8. In the passage "I go not up yet," some omit the word 'yet.'

For the word are B (of the great uncials) E F G H L S T U V X Δ Λ; the mass of cursives; the Peshito, Jerusalem, and Philoxenian Syriac, the Thebaic, a few Old Latin, and some of the Vulgate.

Against the word are א D (of the great uncials) K M Π; four cursives; (Jureton's Syriac, the Memphitic, the best of the Old Latin (a, b, c, e, etc.), the Vulgate, Armenian and Aethiopic versions; Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and Cyril of the Fathers.

A and C are both defective here.

This is one of the passages on which the infidel Porphyry attacked the truth, alleging that our Lord said He would not go, and yet went. Jerome answered the objection; but it is evident that in the copies they had, there was no word 'yet,' or it would have been referred to.

Both readings have very respectable external support. It is hardly a variation that could have occurred accidentally, because it is ούπω 'not yet,' or ούκ 'not,' and not simply the omission of a word. Here Canon No. 4 would come to our assistance. Unquestionably the 'not' is the more difficult reading, and while preferring to mark it as doubtful, we fear the 'not yet' has been substituted to remove the difficulty.

6. John 7: 53 — 8: 11. This is the well-known record of the woman taken in adultery, and is another instance where a whole passage of several verses has been called in question.

Here it must be conceded at once that the preponderance of external evidence is against the passage; but it is just one of those instances where mere weight of evidence may give way to the many witnesses.

As we have already seen, many copies were used for reading in the congregation, besides the Lectionaries which were specially written for that purpose, and it has been suggested that this passage might have been judged to be a tolerance of immorality, and be omitted on that account. In the Lectionaries it is placed to be read on the days set apart to penitent women. In some Greek copies the passage is put at the end of the Gospel, and in others it is put at the end of Luke 21.

This shifting of the passage into various places is, we think, evidence rather in its favour. Where did the passage come from originally if not written by John? And if he did not write it, why was it not at once expunged? Instead of this, in some copies where it stands in its right place it has marks apparently to point it out as doubtful, while in others it is banished to other places by men who, though rash, were not wicked enough to take it from the word of God.

The actual evidence for the passage is D (one of the great uncials), E F G H M K S U Γ Λ also uncials, being marked as doubtful in E M S Λ. Over 300 cursives, in some being marked as doubtful, and in about ten being put in a different place. Some of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, Arabic, Persian, Jerusalem Syriac, Aethiopic, and many copies of the Memphitic versions. Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome, of the Fathers, and the Apostolic Constitutions.

Against the passage are quoted א A B C (of the great uncials) L T Χ Δ. Of these A C are defective here, but by a careful calculation of the space the passage would occupy they are quoted as not containing it. In L and Δ there are spaces left after 7: 53, and in Δ the copyist had begun to write 8: 12 but drew a line through the words he had written. About fifty cursive copies omit the passage. Some of the Old Latin, the Cureton, Peshito and Harclean Syriac, and the Armenian versions omit it. The early Fathers are silent on the passage. Against the passage must also be named that in the manuscripts which contain it there are many variations, D having a sort of abridged form of the narrative.

That the passage was expunged because it was thought to give a licence to sin, is not what is thought now simply. Augustine (A.D. 354-430) and Nicon (century x.) both give this as the reason why the narrative was excluded. But to go further back we find that Tertullian (died A.D. 200) was very strong on the question of adultery, and devoted many pages to prove that if committed after baptism, it admitted of no pardon. The bishop of Rome had issued an edict that the sin of adultery and fornication were to be remitted on the guilty one's repentance. This drew forth a sharp rejoinder from Tertullian. "Where," said he, "shall this liberality be posted up? On the very spot, I suppose, on the very gates of the sensual appetites, beneath the very titles of the sensual appetites. . . . Far, far from Christ's betrothed be such a proclamation? She, the true, the modest, the saintly, shall be free from stain even of her ears. She has none to whom to make such a promise; and if she have had, she does not make it; since even the earthly temple of God can sooner have been called by the Lord a 'den of robbers' than of adulterers and fornicators. . . . Whatever authority, whatever consideration, restores the peace of the church to the adulterer and the fornicator ought to come to the relief of those who repent of murder or idolatry." The reader will surely see how such a passage as the one in John's Gospel would stand in the way of one of such unbending sternness.

On the whole we think good reasons can be assigned for the passage not being found in many copies: the quotation from Tertullian clearly evinces how hard a lesson it is to learn what grace is. His treatise is quoted to prove that the passage was not in his copy of the Testament, or he would have referred to it when speaking on the subject. Perhaps so; but it also shews for what reason the passage may have been expunged: for we must believe either that it was added or expunged by some one. We have seen why it may have been the latter, but we know of no motives that could have induced any to add the passage. It may also be noted that in one copy (Codex Veron.) some one was so anxious to get rid of the passage that he tore out the leaves which contained it, though in doing this he had to destroy what preceded and what followed it.

Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford all omit the narrative; Griesbach marks it as doubtful, and Wordsworth inserts it in his Greek Testament, but does not believe it to be canonical, a mode of action which strikes us as singularly inconsistent.

One thing which seems to have weighed with the critics is, that the style of the Greek in this portion is judged to be different from John's writings generally. But, as we have remarked. on the passage in Mark 16, this is very unsafe ground for rejecting a passage.

We believe the passage to be genuine, and to have a divine stamp upon it which has never been found in any human production. Who could have discovered such a way out of the apparent dilemma in which our Lord was placed? Grace triumphed in a marvellous way.

7. Acts 8: 37, "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

This verse is omitted by most modern Editors. Of the five oldest Greek copies, it is omitted from four (A B C א), and the other (D) is defective here. Η L P and many cursives also omit it. Most of the ancient versions also omit the verse.

On the other hand, E inserts the verse, with many cursives, some of the Latin copies, one of the Syriac, the Armenian, and the Arabic versions. It is quoted by Irenaeus in the second century, by Cyprian in the third, and by Jerome and Augustine in the fourth.

As we have said, the verse is omitted by most modern Editors (Wordsworth retains it). Alford accounts for its insertion thus: "The insertion appears to have been made to suit the formularies of the baptismal liturgies, it being considered strange that the eunuch should have been baptized without some such confession." On the other hand, it has been argued that because of infant baptism this verse was sought to be got rid of by those who had loose ideas of the inspiration of the scriptures. The preponderance of evidence is decidedly against the passage.

8. Acts 13: 19, 20. The common text reads, "By lot. And after that he gave [to them] judges, about the space of four hundred and fifty years." Some copies read, "By lot about the space of four hundred and fifty years. And after that he gave judges." It will be seen, by comparing the two readings, that it is but a transposition of the words; yet one that alters the sense materially. The one passage says they had judges for four hundred and fifty years; and the other that the judges were given after the four hundred and fifty years. The question of the judges existing for this period has always been a difficulty with those who have studied the chronology of the Old Testament; indeed one may say that volumes have been written on this point; but the variation removes at once the difficulty: yet the question is, was the variation made to remove the difficulty, or was it there originally?

For the common text there are D2 E H L P; the Aethiopic version.

For the variation there are א A B C; the Vulgate, Memphitic, Thebaic, and Armenian versions.

D1 does not transpose the words, but, though otherwise like the common text, it omits the words 'after that,' so that it is claimed as a witness rather for the variation than the common text.

Here the Canon must not be forgotten that the more difficult text is often the correct one; still this must not be pressed too far. If the variation were an alteration made in the original, it would scarcely have found its way into four of the great uncials, embracing both the Alexandrian and Constantinopolitan families. This reading is adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Wordsworth, and we think it is most probably the correct reading.

9. Acts 16: 7. The common text reads "the Spirit suffered them not." Another reading is, "the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not."

For the common text there are H L P, many cursives, one copy of the Vulgate, and the Thebaic versions; Chrysostom and Theophylact of the Fathers.

For the words "of Jesus" there are א A Β C2 D E; nine or ten cursives; the Vulgate, Aethiopic, some of the Armenian, the Syriac and Memphitic versions.

The latter reading is adopted by nearly all modern Editors, and we believe rightly. All the great uncials are in its favour; and we think the words "of Jesus" are a great deal more likely to have been omitted (because of the seeming strangeness of the expression in this connection) than that they have been added.

10. Acts 20: 28. The common text reads, "To feed the church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood." At first sight the readings here are very embarrassing. Some copies read the church of the Lord; others 'of Christ;' others 'the Lord Christ;' and others 'the Lord and God,' etc. But all may be dismissed as without any weight except the readings 'of God,' 'the Lord,' and 'the Lord and God.'

For 'God' we have א B; about 14 cursives; the Vulgate and Philoxenian (text) versions.

For 'Lord' there are A C1 D E (the Latin versions of the last two agreeing with the Greek), about 16 cursives; the Memphitic, Thebaeic, Philoxenian (margin) and Armenian versions.

For 'Lord and God' are C3 H L P, more than a hundred cursives; the Slavonic version.

What makes this variation of importance is the latter part of the sentence, "which he hath purchased with his own blood." The question is, does this refer to God, or the Lord, or the Lord and God? At first sight the word 'Lord' would seem to be more appropriate, because of the thought of 'the blood of God;' but this may be the key to the variation. If the early Christians staggered at such an expression, they might have attempted to soften it by altering 'God' into 'Lord.' And others, finding some copies read one way and some the other, combined the two into 'the Lord and God.' The external evidence is very nearly of equal weight for 'God' and for 'Lord,' as will be seen above; but unquestionably 'God' is the more difficult reading; we can see no reason why this should be substituted for 'Lord,' whereas the converse is probable.

The Fathers come in here to help the solution. Both Tertullian and Ignatius use the expression "the blood of God," which they would scarcely have done had they not had this apparent sanction from scripture. Basil the Great and Epiphanius also use the word 'God.' Others of the Fathers differ.

We believe the common text to be correct; though it has been judged that the harshness of the expression may be softened in the translation; and instead of "which he hath purchased with his own blood," it may be rendered "which he hath purchased with the blood of his own."

11. 1 Corinthians 3: 14. This will illustrate the intricate questions an Editor is called upon to decide. The common text reads "If of anyone the work abides;" which a variation alters to "If of anyone the work shall abide." It will at once be seen that there is here only a shade of difference in the meaning, yet it has to be decided as to which is the best reading. This is an intricate question, inasmuch as the first is μένει, and for the second μενεί; and seeing that all the great uncial copies have no accents except those supplied by later hands, none can be called as witnesses. And though Versions and Fathers may give definitely one or other of the tenses, yet whence did they get what they give, seeing that the uncial copies, from which all must have emanated, decided nothing?

Still Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford, and Wordsworth all decide for "shall abide."

12. 1 Corinthians 11: 24. "This is my body which is broken for you." Here the question is whether the word 'broken' should be retained or omitted.

For the word 'broken' א3 C3 D2 E F G K L P; 37, 47, and nearly all cursives; Peshito and Harclean Syriac, one Armenian and Gothic versions; Βasil, Damasc. Oecum. and Chrysos. of the Fathers. D1 may be also claimed for the word 'broken,' though it gives a different Greek word (θρυπτόμενον).

For the omission of the word are א1 A Β C1; 17; one Armenian; Cyril of Alexandria, Athanasius, and Fulgentius of the Fathers.

Though the four great uncials omit the word by the first hands, and form thereby a strong evidence against the word, it is on the other hand supported by later hands of א, C, and D; and the Peshito version. The Liturgies of the fourth century also retain the word.

The passage has evidently been tampered with: while the four uncials give no other word in the place of 'broken,' D', as we have seen, supplies another Greek word; the Vulgate, with Cyprian and Ambrose, gives 'delivered' (tradetur); while the Coptic and Armenian have 'given.'

The word may have been left out or altered because it was thought to clash with John 19: 36 "A bone of him shall not be broken;" but we cannot see that it clashes with this: in some of the sacrifices the bodies were divided, but a bone was not broken; in the Psalms too we have strong expressions; such as "all my bones are out of joint:" the broken bread too prefigures the broken body. Christ took bread, broke it, and said, "This is my body." On the whole, we should prefer to mark the reading as doubtful.

Various Readings in the Revelation.

The book of the Revelation in the common Greek text — from which was made in the main the English Authorized Version — having been edited from very few manuscripts, more various readings have been introduced by the Editors into this book than elsewhere. This has been occasioned by the discovery of further evidence. We give therefore a list of the principal of these various readings, and the authorities for and against them. It will be seen that in some places the weight of evidence is overwhelming for the amended readings; indeed in some instances we have been obliged to say "? any manuscripts," because no Greek copies are known to exist for such readings.

It must be remembered that of the Revelation the uncial manuscripts are even now comparatively few in number; still we have א A C of the great uncials, and B of the seventh century (which must not be confounded with B of the Gospels), and P of the ninth century. There are nearly a hundred cursives, varying from the tenth century. No. 38 is esteemed more valuable than many. The Syriac of the Revelation is about the sixth century (the Peshito and the Cureton Syriac not having the Revelation). C, it must be remembered, contains only portions of the book, namely, Revelation 1: 1 to 3: 19; 5: 14 to 7: 14; 7: 17 to 8: 5; 9: 16 to 10: 10; 11: 3 to 16: 13; 18: 2 to 19: 5.

The authorities for each reading will easily be understood by referring to the foregoing pages. The order is 1, Uncials; 2, Cursives; 3, Versions; , Fathers. Vulg.-ed. refers to the printed Vulgate of Clement viii.; Vulg.-am. to the Amiatinus manuscript.

Chapter 1: 5. "Loved," P; many cursives; the Vulg. Memph. Arm. and Aeth. versions; Andreas, Arethas of the Fathers. "Loves," א A C B; many cursives; the Syriac.

"Washed," B P; some cursives: Vulg. Memph. Aeth.; Arethas. "Freed," א A C; some cursives; Syr.

Verse 6. "Kings and priests," P; some cursives. "A kingdom, priests," א A C; some cursives; Vulg. Syr. Merph; Areth. Victorinus. B has "a palace, priests."

Verse 8. "Beginning and ending," א 1; some cursives; Vulg. Memph. Omit, א2 A C B P; many cursives; Syr. Arm. Aeth.; Areth. Ambr. Primas.

"The Lord," one or two cursives. "[The] Lord God," א A C B P; most cursives, and versions and fathers generally.

Verse 9. "Of Jesus Christ," some cursives. "In Christ Jesus," B; nearly fifty cursives; some of the Vulg. Syr. Arm.; Areth. Primas. "In Christ," A and one cursive. "In Jesus," א C P; one cursive; some of the Vulg. Memph.; Orig.

"Testimony of Jesus Christ," א3 B; some cursives; Memph. Arm. Syr.; Areth. Primas. Omit Christ, א1 A C P; some cursives; Vulg. Aeth.; Dion.

Verse 11. "I am the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and," P; some cursives; Arm. Omit, א 1 A C B; some cursives; versions generally; Areth. Primas.

"Which are in Asia," ? any manuscripts; Memph. Omit, א A C B P; cursives generally; Vulg. Aeth. Syr.; Andr. Areth. Primas.

Verse 18. "Amen," א 3; most cursives; Syr. Areth. Omit א1 A C P; a few cursives; Vulg. Memph. Aeth.; Iren. Orig.

Chapter 2: 5. "Quickly," B; most cursives; Syr.; Andr. Areth. Prirnas. Omit, א A C P; Vulg. Memph. Aeth. Aug. Jer. Vict.

Verse 9. "Works and," א B; most cursives; Syr. Arm. Areth. Omit, A C P; some cursives; Vulg. Memph. Aeth.; Primas.

Verse 13. "Thy works and," B; most cursives; Syr.; Arm. Andr. Areth. Omit, א A C P; one or two cursives; Vulg. Memph. Aeth; Jer. Primas.

Verse 15. "Which thing I hate," P; a few cursives; Arm. "In like manner," א A B C; many cursives; Vulg. Syr.; Areth. (P has both readings.)

Verse 20. "A few things," one or two cursives; Vulg. Omit, A C B P: many cursives, and versions generally. א reads "much."

"That woman," א C P; many cursives; versions generally. "Thy wife," A B; many cursives; Syr.; Andr. Areth. Cypr. Primas.

Verse 22. "Their deeds," A; some cursives; Arm. Memph. Aeth.; Cypr. Primas. "Her deeds," א C B P; many cursives; Syr. Areth. Tert.

Verse 24. "And to the rest," ? any manuscripts; Vulg. Omit "and," א A C B P; cursives and versions generally.

Chapter 3: 2. "God," one or two cursives; Arm. "My God," A C B P; cursives and versions generally.

Chapter 4: 11. "O Lord," one or two cursives. "O Lord and our God," A B; many cursives; Syr. "O Lord our God," P; some cursives, and versions generally. "O Lord, the Lord and our God," א

Chapter 5: 4. "And to read," some cursives; Arm. Omit, א B P; many cursives, and versions generally.

Verse 8, "Harps," many cursives; Vulg.; Cyp. Primas. "A harp," א A B P; many cursives, and versions generally.

Verse 9. "Redeemed us," א B 2; many cursives; Vulg. Memph. Arm. Syr.; Hipp. Cyp. Omit "us," A; Aeth. one or two cursives.

Verse 10. "Made us," ? any manuscripts; Vulg.-ed.; Areth. Made them," א AB; many cursives, Vulg.am. Syr. Arm. Memph. Aeth.

"Kings," B; cursives generally; Syr. Arm. Aeth.; Andr. Areth. "A kingdom," א A; Vulg. Memph.; Cyp. Primas. Fulg.

"We shall reign," ? any manuscripts; Vulg.-ed.; Primas. "They shall reign," א P; some cursives; Vulg.-am. Memph. "They reign," A B; some cursives; Syr. Andr.

Verse 14. "Four and twenty," ? any manuscripts; Vulg. ed.; Primas. Omit, א A B P; many cursives; versions generally; Andr. Areth.

"Him that liveth for ever and ever," ? any manuscripts; Vulg.-ed.; Primas. Omit, א A C B P; cursives and versions generally; Andr. Areth.

Chapter 6: 1, 3, 5, 7. "And see," א B (B omits in verse 3); and omitted by A C P, with other authorities for and against in each place.

Verse 17. "His wrath," A B P; most cursives; Memph. Arm. Aeth.; Andr. Areth. Primas. "Their wrath," א C; one or two cursives; Vulg. Syr.; Fulg.

Chapter 8: 7. "Angel," some cursives; Vul. Memph. Arm. Aeth.; Andr. Primas. Omit, א A B P; many cursives; Syr.; Areth.

"Earth," a few cursives; Memph. Add "and the third part of the earth was burnt up," A B P; many cursives; Vulg. Syr. Aeth. Arm.; Andr. Areth.

Verse 13. "Angel," P; some cursives; Arm.; Vict. "Eagle," א A B; many cursives; Vulg. Syr. Memph. Aeth.; Areth.

Chapter 9: 4. "Only," a few cursives. Omit, א A B P; many cursives; Syr. Memph. Arm. Aeth.; Andr. Areth.

Verse 13. "Four," B P; most cursives; Vu1g.-ed.; Andr. Areth. Cypr. Omit א 3 A; Vulg.-am. Syr. Memph. Aeth. א1 reads "a voice from the golden altar."

Verse 18. "Three," two or three cursives. Add "plagues," manuscripts and versions generally.

Chapter 10: 1. "A rainbow," א3, P; some cursives. "The rainbow," א 1 A C B; many cursives; Areth.

Verse 5. "His hand," A; a few cursives; Vulg. "His right hand," א C B P; many cursives; Syr. Memph. Aeth. Arm.: Andr. Areth. Primas.

Verse 7. "Should be finished," B; some cursives. "Was finished," א A C P; many cursives; Memph.

Chapter 11: 1. "And the angel stood," א 3 B; many cursives; Syr. Arm.; Vict. Omit, א1 A P; many cursives; Vulg. Aeth. Memph.; Areth.

Verse 2. "Within," א; a few cursives; Vict. "Outside," A B P; many cursives; Vulg. Memph. Arm. Aeth. Syr.; Andr. Areth. Primas. Ticho.

Verse 4. "God," a few cursives; Arm. "Lord," א A C B P; many cursives; Vulg. Syr. Memph.; Hippol. Areth. Vict. Primas.

Verse 8. "Our Lord," one or two cursives. "Their Lord," א3 A C B P; most cursives; versions generally; Orig. Andr. Areth. Primas. א 1 reads "the Lord."

Verse 17. "And art to come," a few cursives; Vulg-ed. Memph. Arm. Omit, א A C B P; many cursives; Vulg. am. Syr.; Areth. Cyp. Primas.

Chapter 12: 12. "The inhabiters of," a few cursives. Omit, manuscripts and versions generally.

Verse 17. "Christ"? any manuscripts; Vulg-ed.; Primas. Omit, manuscripts and versions generally.

"I stood," B P, most cursives; Memph.; Andr. Areth. "It stood," א A C; a few cursives; Vulg. Syr. Aeth. Arm.; Vict. Tichio.

Chapter 13: 7. "Tribe," a few cursives; Memph. Arm. Add "and people," א A C B P; most cursives; Vulg. Aeth. Syr.; Andr. Areth. Iren. Primas.

Verse 17. "Or the name," a few cursives; Vu1g.-ed; Omit "or," A B P; many cursives; Vulg.-am. Memph. Arm. Aeth. Syr.; Hippol. Andr. C reads "the mark of the name;" א "the mark of the beast, or his name."

Chapter 14: 1. "A Lamb," P; some cursives; Arm. Andr. "The Lamb," א A C B; many cursives; Memph. Syr.; Orig, Meth. Areth.

"Having," P; one or two cursives. Add "his name and," א A C B; cursives and versions generally.

Verse 3 "As it were," A C; a few cursives; Vulg. Omit, א B P; many cursives; Syr. Memph. Arm. Aeth. Syr.; Orig. Meth. Areth. Primas.

Verse 5. "Before the throne of God," ? any manuscripts; Vulg.-ed. Omit, manuscripts and versions generally.

Verse 13. "And their," B; many cursives; Andr. Areth. "For their," א A C P; a few cursives; Vulg. Syr.; Primas.

Chapter 15: 2. "Over his mark [and]," a few cursives; Andr. Areth. Omit, א A. C B P; many cursives; Vulg. Syr. Memph. Arm. Aeth.

Verse 3. "Saints," ? any manuscripts. "Nations," א 3 A B P; many cursives; Memph. Aeth.; Andr. Areth. Cyp. "Of [the] ages, א 1 C; a few cursives; Vulg. Syr.

Verse 6. "In . . . . linen," (א) (B) P; many cursives; Vulg.-ed. Arm. Syr. With a . . . . stone," A C; two or three cursives; Vulg.-am.

Chapter 16: 1. "Vials," P; a few cursives; Μemρh. Aeth. "Seven Vials," א A C B; many cursives; Vulg. Syr. Arm.; Andr. Areth. Primas.

Verse 3. "Angel," B; many cursives; versions generally. Omit, א 3 A C P; a few cursives; Vulg.-am. Aeth.

Verse 4. "Angel," a few cursives; Syr. Μemρh. Arm. Omit, א A C B P; many cursives; Vulg. Aeth.

Verse 5. "O Lord," ? any manuscripts; Vulg.-ed. Aeth. Omit א A C B P; the cursives; Vulg.-arn. Syr. Memph. Arm.

Verse 7. "Heard another out of the altar," ? any manuscripts; Vulg.-ed. "Heard the altar," א A C P; cursives and versions generally.

Verse 8. "Angel," א; some cursives; Vulg.-ed. Arm. Memph.; Andr. Primas. Omit, A C B P; many cursives; Vulg.-am. Syr. th.; Areth.

Verses 10 and 12. "Angel," some cursives; Memph. Omit, manuscripts and versions generally.

Verse 14. "Of the earth and," one or two cursives. Omit, א A B; cursives and versions generally.

Verse 17. "Angel," א 3; some cursives; Vulg.-ed. Omit, א1 A B; many cursives; Vulg.-am. Syr.

"Of heaven," B; many cursives; Arm.; Andr. Areth. Omit, A; few cursives; Vulg. Syr. Memph.; Primas. "Of God," א.

Chapter 17: 8. "And yet is," ? any manuscripts. "And shall be present," A B P; cursives generally; Arm.; Hipp. Andr. Areth. Primas. א 1 has "And shall again be present."

Verse 16. "Upon the beast," ? any manuscripts; Vulg.ed. And the beast," א A B P; the cursives; Vulg.-am. Syr. Memph. Aeth.; Hipp. Primas.

Chapter 18: 2. "Is fallen, is fallen," A; some cursives; Vulg. Syr.; Hipp. "Is fallen," א B; many cursives; Memph. Aeth.; Primas. Areth. Ρ reads "Is fallen" three times.

Verse 3. "Have drunk of," P; many cursives. "Have fallen by," א A C B; some cursives; Memph. Aeth.

"The wine of," א B (P); many cursives; Syr. Memph. Vulg.-ed. Arm.; Hipp. Areth. Ticho. Primas. Omit, A C; Vulg.-am.

Verse 6. "You," some cursives; Vulg.-ed. Omit, א A C B P; many cursives; Vulg.-am. Syr. Aeth. Memph.; Hipp. Cyp.

"Unto her," P; some cursives; Syr. Memph. Aeth. Omit, א A C B; many cursives; Vulg.; Hipp.

Verse 13. "Cinnamon," א3 B, many cursives; Vulg.-ed. Memph. Arm.; Primas. Add "and amomum,"* א1 A C 2; some cursives; Vulg.-am. Syr. Aeth.; Hipp.

{*"A precious ointment made from an Asiatic shrub, and used for the hair." — Alford.}

Verse 14. "Goodly are departed," one or two cursives. "Goodly are destroyed," א A C B P; most cursives; Vulg. Syr. Memph. Aeth.; Hipp. Primas.

Verse 20. "Holy apostles," C; a few cursives; Vulg.-ed. Arm. "Saints and apostles," א A B P; many cursives; Vulg.-am. Syr. Memph. Aeth.; Hipp. Areth. Tich. Primas.

Chapter 19: 1. "And honour," a few cursives; Memph.; Areth. Omit, א A C B P, many cursives; Syr. Vulg. Arm.

Verse 6. "God," A: a few cursives; Memph. Arm. Aeth. "Our God," א3 B P; many cursives; Vulg. Syr.; Areth. Ticho. "God our Lord," א1

Verse 17. "Supper of the great God," a few cursives; Arm. Aeth.; Andr. The great supper of God," א A B P; most cursives; Vulg. Syr. Memph.; Ticho. Primas.

Chapter 20: 9. "From God," א3 B P; many cursives; Vulg. Syr. Memph. Arm. Omit, A; a few cursives; Primas.

Verse 12. "God," one or two cursives; Andr. "The throne," א A B P; most cursives; versions generally.

Verse 14. "Second death," some cursives; Vulg.-ed. Arm. Memph.; Primas. Add "The lake of fire," א A B P; many cursives; Vulg.-am. Syr. Aeth.

Chapter 21: 2. "John," ? any manuscripts; Vulg.-ed. Omit, א A B P; cursives and versions generally.

Verse 3. "Heaven," B P; most cursives, and versions generally; Andr. Areth. "The throne," א A; one or two cursives; Vulg.; Iren. Aug. Ambr.

"[And be] their God," A P: some cursives; Vulg. Syr.; Iren. Ambr. Omit, א B; many cursives; Memph. Arm.; Areth.

Verse 7. "All things," one or two cursives. "These things," א A B P; most cursives; versions generally.

Verse 10. "That great city, the holy," some cursives. "The holy city," א A B P; many cursives; versions and fathers generally.

Verse 24. "And honour," B; many cursives; versions generally. Omit, א A P; some cursives.

Chapter 22: 1. "Pure," some cursives; Arm.; Andr. Areth. Omit, א A B P; some cursives; versions generally; Hil. Ambr. Ticho. Primas.

Verse 6. "Holy prophets," a few cursives; Arm. "Spirits of the prophets," א A B P; many cursives; Vulg. Syr. Memph.; Primas. Areth.

Verse 11. "Let him be righteous," two or three cursives; Vulg.-ed. Arm. Aeth. "Let him practise righteousness," א A B; many cursives; Vulg.-am. Syr. Memph.

Verse 12. "Shall be," B; many cursives; Andr. Areth. "Is," א A; a few cursives; Syr.

Verse 14. "Do his commandments," B; many cursives; Syr. Memph. Arm.; Cyp. Tert. Ticho. "Wash their robes," א A; a few cursives; Vulg. Aeth.; Ath. Fulg. Primas.

Verse 19. "Out of the book," ? any manuscripts; Vulg.-ed. Amb. Primas. "From the tree," א A B; most cursives; Vulg.-am. Syr. Aeth. Arm.; Andr. Ticho.

Verse 20. "Even so," many cursives. Omit, א A B; some cursives; versions generally.

Verse 21. "Our Lord," a few cursives; Vulg. Syr. Memph. Arm. "The Lord," א A B; many cursives.

"Christ," B; many cursives; Vulg. Syr. Memph. Arm. Aeth. Omit, א A; one or two cursives.

"You all," ? any manuscripts; Vulg.-ed. "All," A; Vulg.-am. "The saints," א "All the saints," B; many cursives; Memph. Syr. Arm.; Andr. Areth.

Printed Greek Testaments.

We have seen that there are many Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, which all differ more or less from each other. We have also glanced at the sort of work an Editor had to do in judging as to the true text where the manuscripts differ. We have now to look at the principal editions that have been published.

1. The Complutensian Edition. This was the earliest printed Greek Testament. It was edited by Cardinal Ximenes, Cardinal Archbishop of Toledo, in connection with his university at Alcala (Complutum). The printing of the New Testament was finished January 10, 1514, but the rest of the work (it embraced the Old Testament as well as the New) was not completed till 1517. The Cardinal died soon after this, and the work was not published till about 1522, though Leo X. authorized its publication in 1520. It is not now known what Greek manuscripts were used for this edition.

The Complutensian was printed in a remarkable style. Not only was the text given in double columns in Greek and Latin, but the words which corresponded in both languages were marked with the same letter, to assist those who understood either of the languages. The Greek had no breathings and the accents were according to a unique and fanciful system. The Latin had many contractions and was the modified Vulgate then in use.

We give a specimen in modern type.

βιβλος b γενεσεως c Ιησου

Liber b gnatiois c iesu d christi

d χριστου e υιου f δαυιδ g υιου

e filii f dauid g filii h abraá.

h αβρααμ. i αβρααμ k εγεννησεν

i Abraá k genuit l ysaac. m Isaac

τον l ισαακ m ισαακ n δε

n at o genuit p iacob. q Jacob

o εγεννησε τον p ιακωβ. q ιακωβ r δε

r aut s genuit t iudam: u et x fratres

s εγεννησε τον t ιουδαν u και

y eius. z Judas a autem

τους x αδελφους y αυτου. z ιουδας

b genuit c phares d et e zaram

a δε b εγεννησε τον c φαρες

f de g thamar.

d και τον e ζαρα f εκ της g θαμαρ.

Matt. 1: 1-3.

2. The Editions of Erasmus. Between the printing and the publishing of the Complutensian Edition Erasmus was solicited by Froben, a printer of Basle, to edit for him a Greek Testament. The request was made April, 1515, when Erasmus was in England, and the whole work was finished by February, 1516. He did it in reckless haste, as he says himself, to meet the views of Froben in order to publish it before the Complutensian Edition. He had none of the best Greek uncial copies, but used various cursives that were at Basle. One of these, embracing the Gospels (now called No. 1) was a valuable copy, but which he was afraid to follow where it differed from his other copies.

Erasmus inserted Acts 8: 37, though it was only in the margin of one of his copies; and stranger still he inserted in Acts 9: 5, 6 σκληρον σοι προς κεντρα λακτιζειν. τρεμων τε και θαμβων ειπεν κυριε τι με θελεις ποιησαι και ο κυριος προς αυτον, "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord [said] to him." Erasmus apparently added this from the Latin Vulgate alone, for it has not yet been found in any Greek manuscript. Yet, strange to say, it has been retained, and is in our Authorized Version. The Greek manuscripts, instead of the above passage, have merely the word αλλά, 'but,' reading, "I am Jesus whom thou persecutest; but arise," etc. On the other hand Erasmus omitted the passage in 1 John 5: 7, known as "the heavenly witnesses," because it was not in any of his Greek copies, though it was in the Latin. This brought a great storm of indignation upon him, and he promised that if the passage could be found in any Greek manuscript, he would insert it in future editions. It was found in a Greek copy, and Erasmus inserted the passage in his third edition in 1522, though now considered by almost all Editors as spurious. Erasmus published fine editions, making more or less alterations in each. To shew how badly off he was for Greek manuscripts compared to what Editors are now, it may be named that he had only one manuscript of the Revelation, which wanted the last six verses. These he had to re-translate from the Latin into Greek. As may be supposed, he used certain Greek words which are not in the best Greek manuscripts, if in any at all, and yet these have been retained and have influenced our Authorized Version.

3. The Editions of Stephens. Stephens was a printer at Paris. His first edition appeared in 1546. He says it was based on manuscripts found in the Royal Library, but it is evident that he followed the Complutensian and the last edition of Erasmus more than his manuscripts, copying his predecessors in some places where, as far as is now known, all his manuscripts were against him. In only about 37 places he departed from both the Complutensian and Erasmus's editions. Stephens's third Edition (1550) was his principal one, in which he gives in his margin various readings from fifteen different manuscripts. Still in this edition in places he alters from his former editions, and against all his manuscripts, to more uniformity with Erasmus. This is the edition that has been usually printed in England — the Greek text in common use. Stephens's fourth edition (1551) was the first that was divided into verses.

4. The Editions of Beza. His first edition was in 1565, but his third edition (1582) was his principal, though he had later editions. They were mostly a copy of Stephens's edition of 1550, being altered in places without apparently always good authority.

5. The Elzevir Editions. These editions were published in 1624 and 1633. They are mostly copied from Stephens's editions of 1550, corrected in places from Beza's editions. In the second edition they profess to give the text received by all, which is often referred to as the "textus receptus." This is the text commonly reprinted on the continent, though, as we have seen, the edition of Stephens 1550 is the common text in England.*

{*Some say that Mill's edition is the common text of England. But Mill copied Stephens, without any intentional alteration, though in a few places he seems to have adopted the variations of the Elzevirs without intending it.}

At this point there was a pause. Additional manuscripts came to light and some began diligently to collate the various differences. The common text had obtained a sort of standard, so that some were content to collect the material by which to correct the text; others became bolder and used the material in altering the text.

6. Mill's Edition, 1707. Mill gave the text of Stephens, but was remarkable for the material he gathered together, which shewed where the text might be corrected. He laboured for thirty years on his work, and died soon after its completion.

7. Bentley. This great scholar lamented that the text of Stephens should stand uncorrected as it did. He began to collect material for a critical edition and issued a prospectus, in which he aspired to great things, but died before he could accomplish his object, if indeed he had not found before he died that the difficulties were greater than he had expected.

8. Bengel. The pious Bengel, as he is often called, took great interest in the exact words of the New Testament, and collected as many of the variations of the manuscripts as he could. In 1734 he published his Greek Testament. It was mainly the common text, for he did not insert (except in the Revelation) any reading that was not to be found in some printed edition. The various readings he gave in the margin, and the authorities for and against, at the end of the book. Persons had become so accustomed to the common text that even the marginal readings exposed him to the bitterest attacks; and one of his opponents, curiously enough, requested him to admit that the various readings were given by inspiration, in order to meet the necessities of various readers! Bengel was the first to form the Greek manuscripts into "families."

9. Wetstein. Wetstein had been employed by Bentley to collect material for his proposed edition; but on his death Wetstein continued the work on his own account. He greatly increased the amount of material. His Testament was published in 1751-2. It was still the common text, with his proposed alterations at the foot, but which were not many. His principal work was to collect the material; but he shrank from or did not know how to use it when gathered.

10. Griesbach. After Bengel, Griesbach was the first to arrange the evidences systematically, and then seek to make a good use of them. His principal edition (his second) was published in 1796-1806, with a statement of the authorities; and a manual edition in 1805. He adopted the bold plan of altering the text from that commonly received, wherever he thought the evidence in hand warranted him in doing so.

He elaborated the system of families, arranging the manuscripts into three divisions, and then sought to deal with each division as one witness. The families were the Alexandrian, the Western, and the Byzantine. The text as given by Origen he took as the basis of the Alexandrian, and placed here the ancient copies A B C, L of the Gospels, the Egyptian and some other versions. The Western family was represented by D of the Gospels and Acts, and here he placed those which contained a Latin as well as Greek text; the Old Latin and Vulgate; and quotations in the Latin Fathers. The Byzantine embraced the great mass of other manuscripts, the Versions, and the Greek Fathers. This last family had less value with Griesbach than the other two.

Where two of the families agreed in a reading that decided its reception. Though laying aside the common text, he seems to have had a leaning towards it in cases of difficulty. His work was elaborately done, for he was not content with simply receiving or rejecting readings, but also inserted others, marking them as 'very probable,' and others as 'probable.'

By referring back to the chapter on Families it will be seen that more recent Editors do not class the ancient copies A and B in the same family, and now restrict themselves to two families instead of three.

11. Scholz. He published his Greek Testament in 1830-36. He is thought to have adopted a plan the very reverse of Griesbach, judging the Byzantine family to have the greatest weight; but he abandoned his principle before he died. His principal work however was to collect material, and it has been judged that he had nearly double the quantity that was possessed by Griesbach; but he did his work so badly that his readings, unless confirmed by other collators, cannot be relied on.

12. Lachmann. His principal edition was published in 1842-50. He was perhaps the first to set wholly aside the common text as of any weight, and to edit a text independent of that generally received. He endeavoured to confine himself as much as he could to evidence not later than the fourth century (not that he strictly kept to this date), which was to shut out a great deal of valuable evidence. Yet in many places he adopted readings which have since (with further material) been judged by other editors as the true ones. Scrivener describes him as "earnest, single-hearted, and a true scholar both in spirit and accomplishments."

13. Tischendorf. This scholar laboured for more than thirty years in collecting material and editing works bearing on the scriptures. His seventh edition (1856-9) is preferred by some to his eighth edition (1865-72), as he is thought to have made a sort of pet of the Codex Sinaiticus because he discovered it, and let it bias his mind against the best readings in some places. His Greek Testament gives the most elaborate collection of all available evidence, both for the readings he adopts and for those of the common text. Though some may differ from him in judgment as to the true readings in some places, most accord to him the first place as a biblical critic. He lived to finish his eighth edition, except the prolegomena.

14. Tregelles. For about thirty years this Editor laboured in collecting material and editing his Testament. The Gospels appeared in 1857 and the Revelation in 1872. He confined his attention almost exclusively to ancient copies. Illness prevented him quite finishing his last part, and he died soon after its issue.

15. Alford. In his commentary he publishes a Greek text, not remarkable for anything peculiar. In the majority of readings he goes with Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles.

16. Wordsworth. This Editor's Greek Testament is principally remarkable for its conservatism. He believes that God overruled the common Greek text (which has stood for three hundred years) and that it ought not to be departed from unless on good and sufficient authority. He therefore retains many readings which Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles and Alford agree in rejecting.

There have been many other editions of the Greek Testament, but these are the principal. And there is one by Doctors Westcott and Hort in preparation.

We hope, in considering the Authorised Version, to be able to give some practical hints in the use to be made of these Editors in determining the text.

The Order of the Books.

We now turn to a few subjects of interest connected with the arrangement of the books, with their various divisions, etc.

It becomes a natural and an interesting question as to how far, and in what way, importance is to be placed in the order of the various books of the New Testament.

As each book was written separately, of course the writers had no hand in placing the several books in one volume. As to their being placed at all comes under the head of the "Canon of the New Testament;" we are now merely considering the order in which they stand in our Testaments.

Some, considering the order of the books to be of God, have endeavoured to draw certain lessons from the way in which the contents of one book follow another as to their agreement, or their contrast, the gradual development of truth, etc. It becomes important, therefore, to see what light the history of the text throws upon the subject, and to ascertain the order of the books in the early copies of the New Testament.

In general, we may say that the early manuscripts do not place the books as we now have them, but generally in this order:—

The Gospels.

The Acts of the Apostles.

The Catholic Epistles (so-called).

The Epistles of Paul.

The Revelation.

We say "generally," for there are deviations from this order, and as many copies are only portions of the New Testament, we cannot gather from them the order of the whole. Codex Sinaiticus (א), with three or four others, places the Epistles of Paul before the Acts.

It is not easy to ascertain how the books became arranged as in our present order. If we refer back to the original copies of the common printed Greek text, we find our present order both in Stephens (1550) and the Elzevir (1624). But if we go farther back to the first printed Greek Testament (the Complutensian), we find the above order, namely, the Catholic Epistles placed before those by Paul. But inasmuch as this latter was not published until after the edition by Erasmus (this scholar having the honour of editing the first Greek Testament given to the church), the order of Erasmus — which is the same as in our Testaments — was afterwards followed, rather than that of the Complutensian.

If we come to details, we find that the old Latin copies generally put the Gospels in the order of Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. In the Codex Βeza (Greek and Latin) they are also in this order. In Greek copies generally they are in the order we have them. In the Syriac of Cureton they stand Matthew, Mark, John, Luke. Jerome, in revising the old Latin for his version, transposed the Gospels into the order of the Greek, in which we may say they have become fixed. In one manuscript the Apocalypse comes after the Gospel by John; and in two or three others the Gospels come at the end. But these are isolated cases.

We give a list of the books as they stand in the four oldest manuscripts, that our readers may have the earliest evidence before them.

By these lists the reader will see how the four oldest Greek copies differ in the order of the books. Not one has the same order that we have now. Those who first printed the New Testament, if they had had these copies, would have been perplexed as to which to follow, but they did not then possess them, and, as we have seen, how they determined the order is not now known. By examining these lists it will be seen that the principal transposition is by placing the Catholic Epistles before the Epistles of Paul, instead of after them; in transposing the Acts; and in putting the Hebrews before Timothy, instead of after Philemon. The four copies agree in this last with some of the cursives.

Codices.

Sinaiticus (א).

Alexandrinus (A).

Matthew

Matthew

Mark

Mark

Luke

Luke

John

John

Romans

Acts

1 Corinthians

James

2 Corinthians

1 Peter

Galatians

2 Peter

Ephesians

1 John

Philippians

2 John

Colossians

3 John

1 Thessalonians

Jude

2 Thessalonians

Romans

Hebrews

1 Corinthians

1 Timothy

2 Corinthians

2 Timothy

Galatians

Titus

Ephesians

Philemon

Philippians

Acts

Colossians

James

1 Thessalonians

1 Peter

2 Thessalonians

2 Peter

Hebrews

1 John

1 Timothy

2 John

2 Timothy

3 John

Titus

Jude

Philemon

Apocalypse

Apocalypse

Codex Vaticanus (B) agrees with A as far as Hebrews, after which all is lost.

Codex Ephraem (C) may also be said to agree with A; 2 John and 2 Thessalonians are lost.

Since the time of the first edition of Erasmus (1516), there can be no doubt that the order we now have has been very generally received and followed. How far this was overruled by God, doing so for the purpose of instruction (had we wisdom to discover it) is for the reader to judge; we are simply giving a sketch of its history. The Acts seems to follow more appropriately the Gospels than in any other place; and in the above lists we miss the Hebrews falling along with James and Peter; the former written to "the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad," and the latter to "the strangers scattered," etc. (the "dispersion"), which are brought together in our present order.

Divisions of the New Testament.

We are all familiar with the ordinary chapters and verses in our Bible, but these are comparatively a recent addition. When Paul wrote an Epistle, he would naturally write it without divisions of any sort, except, perhaps, breaking it up into paragraphs. The Gospels were doubtless written in the same style.

But though our modern chapters and verses are not found in the oldest manuscripts, yet they possess other divisions which we have not now. There were at first divisions marked in the margin, breaking a book into portions. But in these divisions the manuscripts do not agree. For instance, in the Codex Vaticanus, Matthew is divided into 170 parts, Mark 62, Luke 152, John 80, etc. It will be seen that these portions are much shorter than our chapters. By whom they are made is not known.

In the Codex Alexandrinus, and others, Matthew is marked for 68 divisions, Mark 48, Luke 83, and John 18. These are supposed to have been done by Titian, a disciple of Justin Martyr. These were called τίτλοι, titles, probably because each division had a title to it. Other portions were called κεφάλαια, divisions or chapters. It is supposed that these divisions embraced the first attempt at a "harmony" of the Gospels, that is, a system by which one continuous history could be read by taking a piece from each of the Gospels that appeared to relate to the same event or the same discourse, and reading them together; or simply for reference.

But these attempts gave place to a fuller system, by Ammonius of Alexandria, who, taking Matthew as his standard, drew up a table to form a "harmony," marking portions of the other three Gospels alongside each portion of Matthew, which he judged to refer to the same part of our Lord's life. These are commonly known as the Ammonian Sections.

This system was again attempted to be improved upon by Eusebius, whose plan is known under the title of Eusebius's Canons. It would appear that he used the divisions of Ammonius, and worked them out into a yet more elaborate system. He arranged the divisions into ten classes: thus,

I., those portions contained in the four Gospels.

II., those contained in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

III., those in Matthew, Luke, and John.

IV., those in Matthew, Mark, and John.

V., those in Matthew and Luke.

VI., those in Matthew and Mark.

VII., those in Matthew and John.

VIII., those in Mark and Luke.

IX., those in Luke and John.

X., those in one Gospel only.

The canon was arranged thus, which meant that the portion marked in Matthew 8 corresponded to the portion marked 2 in Mark, and to 7 in Luke, and to 10 in John. The passages, as marked, stand thus:—

Matthew

Mark

Luke

John

8

2

7

10

11

4

10

6

Matthew 3: 3

Mark 1: 3

Luke 3: 3-6

John 1: 23

Matthew 3: 11

Mark 1: 7

Luke 3: 16

John 1: 15

On referring to the Testament, the reader will see that the first line speaks in each of the Gospels of the saying by Esaias, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord;" and in the second line to John's saying that one mightier than he was coming. These references, therefore, correspond, as nearly as may be, to the references in the margins of our Testaments. Thus, at this early date — the fourth century — did the readers of the Gospels have this advantage of reference from one Gospel to another; and though such a system is generally called the harmony of the Gospels, it is useful in pointing out the characteristic differences of the Gospels, always remembering that those who formed these lists (whether ancient or modern) were liable to mistake, and to place two passages together which have no real connection.

These Canons are useful to us for another purpose, namely, to determine the age of the manuscript. As Eusebius did not draw up his canons until the fourth century, no manuscript containing them can be earlier than that date, unless, of course, they have been added by a later hand, but which can nearly always be detected.

If the reader will turn back to the printed specimen of the Codex Sinaiticus (chapter 'Style of Writing'), he will see in the margin these letters, NA, with a Δ underneath them. The Δ points to IV. of the Canon of Eusebius, which (as will be seen above) stands for passages contained in "Matthew, Mark, and John;" and NA stand for the Ammonian section 51. It stands in the Canon thus:—

John 51; Matthew 150; Mark 67;

which points out Matthew 14: 23b-27; Mark 6: 47-50; and John 6: 16-21. Tischendorf believes that these marks have been added to the Codex Sinaiticus by a later hand, though, for other reasons, the manuscript is dated the fourth century.

Most of the Greek manuscripts have these sections and canons, though some have only the Ammonian Sections, and in some they are left incomplete. They are inserted in coloured ink. Eusebius says vermilion, but they are sometimes blue or green. They have been copied into the modern printed editions of the Greek Testament of Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Wordsworth; and the last-named gives the Canon of Eusebius in full in his first volume.

The Acts and the Epistles were also divided into portions, but they appear to have been done at a later period. By the printed copies, it does not appear that the Codex Sinaiticus has divisions of any sort, except in the Gospels. The Codex Vaticanus has divisions marked throughout, but which are not found in the Codex Alexandrinus, nor Codex Ephraemi, of the fifth century.

Divisions were made in the fifth century to the Acts and Epistles, by Euthalius, deacon of Alexandria, but it is supposed that he adopted them from copies already so divided. The Apocalypse was divided still later.

Thus the copies remained, marked in different manners, or not at all, until about A.D. 1248, when an index of words was attempted for the whole Bible, by Cardinal Hugo, and then the books were divided into the chapters which we now have; and these again were subdivided (or rather marked in the margin) with the letters A, B, C, etc. These chapters were adopted in the Latin Vulgate, and became afterwards common in Greek manuscripts and printed copies.

Still there were no verses. Long before this there had been stichoi, στίχοι (called νersus in Latin manuscripts); but they appear to have been rather lines than verses, when an attempt was made to arrange the manuscripts into a sort of poetry, yet without measure or rhyme. Thus, at the end of 2 Thessalonians, the Codex Sinaiticus has στιχoν ρπ, "180 stichoi, or verses" (the manuscript has really 291 lines), none of these are marked in the margin, and it is not easy to see to what the 180 refers; other manuscripts put the number at 106.

It was Robert Stephens, the celebrated printer and editor of the Greek Testament, who, feeling with others, that for reference shorter divisions than those of Cardinal Hugo were needed, set to work to divide the chapters into short verses. This he did on a journey from Paris to Lyons — it is supposed at the various places at which he rested. Our present verses are the result of his labours. They were first published in Stephens's Greek Testament, 1551, and from thence copied almost universally.

There is still one other branch of the subject demanding a word, namely the divisions into paragraphs. We suppose we must say that the ancient Greek manuscripts have no paragraphs; not that they have no breaks which might have the appearance of paragraphs, but they have not this significance. Take, again, the specimen of the Codex Sinaiticus (chapter 'Style of Writing'), it will be seen that the sixth line stands out a little into the margin. Letters standing out thus occur very frequently, and often follow a short line, which has every appearance of marking a paragraph. But here it is at verse 15 (of John 6), where, we suppose, no one makes a paragraph. On the other hand, the common Greek text has a paragraph at verse 16, where Codex Siimaiticus has none. It has also one at verse 22, where Codex Sinaiticus has none. Codex Sinaiticus, however, has an apparent break at verse 23, where no one makes a paragraph.

Now this is not only interesting to us as students of scripture, but it has this importance, that we learn that none of the divisions of the New Testament have any authority. The divisions into chapters, paragraphs, and verses have all been made by man; God may have overruled it in the main, but it is believed that in some places better divisions might have been made, because the present ones destroy the connection. For instance, the last verse of Revelation 11 belongs to chapter 12. It would be better for chapter 11 to end with verse 18. Again the verses of Romans 8: 33-35 would have been better divided thus: "It is God that justifieth, who is he that condemneth? | It is Christ that died . . . . Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?"

The arrangement of the chapters and verses is not now attempted to be altered, on account of its use for reference, but each editor of the Greek Testament has to make paragraphs as he thinks best.

A paragraph Testament is best for common use as we are all too apt to read by verses or chapters, instead of the Gospels by sections, and the Epistles as letters. But the reader must understand that even in paragraph Bibles the paragraphs have no authority: the editors are not at all agreed as to where they should be placed. A spiritual-minded reader will be the best judge in such a question.

Headings and Subscriptions to the Books.

As nothing connected with the New Testament is without its importance, we devote a short chapter to the above subject.

As in other things, so in even the headings to the books, do the various manuscripts differ. As a rule, the more ancient the copy, the shorter the heading, the tendency being evidently to enlarge. Perhaps we shall better arrive at a true judgment by giving the headings of a few of the older manuscripts. It must be remembered that א A B C D are the oldest copies, and E F G, etc., more recent, but all we name are uncials.*

{*See 'List of Uncial Manuscripts' for these.}

Matthew. According to Matthew א B; Gospel according to Matthew C E K M S U V. Subscription. According to Matthew B; Gospel according to Matthew A D E H K U V; D adding "ended."

Mark. According to Mark א B F; Gospel according to Mark A D E H K L M S U. Sub. Gospel according to Mark א A C D E H K L U; D adding "ended;" According to Mark B (after 16: 8, omitting the rest of the chapter).

Luke. According to Luke א B F; Gospel according to Luke A C D E K L M S U X. Sub. According to Luke B; Gospel according to Luke א A2 C D K L S U; D adding "ended."

John. According to John א B; Gospel according to John A C D E F G H K L M U Χ. Sub. According to John B; Gospel according to John א A C D E G H S; D H adding "end," or "ended."

Acts. Acts א; Acts of Apostles B D. Sub. Acts of Apostles א B; Acts of the holy Apostles A E H L.

Romans. To [the] Romans א A B C; Epistle of the all-holy Paul the Apostle to [the] Romans P; Epistle of the holy and all-praiseworthy Apostle Paul to [the] Romans L. Sub. To [the] Romans א A B C D G P; G adding "ended;" P adding "Epistle of Paul." Epistle of the holy and all-praiseworthy Apostle Paul to [the] Romans, written from Corinth, by Phebe the deaconess L; B2 D3 P add "written from Corinth."

1 Corinthians. I to [the] Corinthians א A B C D F G P; P adding "Epistle of Paul;" F G adding "begun" (άρχεται); First Epistle of the holy and all-praiseworthy Apostle Paul to the Corinthians L. Sub. I to [the] Corinthians א A B C D F G P; D adding "ended" (επληρωθη); F G adding "ended" (ετελέσθη); I to the Corinthians, written from Philippi, by Stephanus and Fortunatus and Achaicus and Timotheus K L; B2 P add "written from Ephesus;" D2, "written from Philippi Macedon."

2 Corinthians. ΙΙ to [the] Corinthians א A B D F G K; D F G adding "begun." II Epistle of the holy Apostle Paul to [the] Corinthians L. Sub. II to [the] Corinthians א A B D F P; D F adding "ended;" B2 P adding "written from Philippi;" Second Epistle to [the] Corinthians, written from Philippi of Macedonia, by Titus and Luke K; L omitting "of Macedonia."

Galatians. To [the] Galatians א A B D F G K P; P adding "Epistle of Paul;" D F G adding "begun;" Epistle of the holy and all-praiseworthy Apostle Paul to [the] Galatians L. Sub. To [the] Galatians א A B1 C D; D adding "ended;" Epistle to [the] Galatians ended F G; To [the] Galatians, written from Rome B2 K P; End of the Epistle to [the] Galatians, written from Rome L.

Ephesians. To [the] Ephesians א A B D F G K P; P adding "of Paul;" D F G adding "begun;" Epistle of the holy Apostle Paul to [the] Ephesians L. Sub. To [the] Ephesians א A B D K L P; B2 P adding "written from Rome;" K L adding "written from Rome by Tychicus;" Epistle to [the] Ephesians ended F G.

Philippians. To [the] Philippians א A B K; so D F G, adding "begun." Epistle of the holy (P "all-holy") Apostle Paul to the Philippians L P. Sub. To [the] Philippians א A B K; so D F G, each adding "ended" (as in 1 Cor.); Epistle of the holy Apostle Paul to the Philippians L; K L adding "written from Rome, by Epaphroditus."

Colossians. To [the] Colossians א A B K P; so D F G adding "began;" P adding "Epistle of Paul;" Epistle of the holy Apostle Paul to [the] Colossians L. Sub. To [the] Colossians A B1 C K P; so D F G each adding "ended" (as in 1 Cor.); A adding "from Rome;" B2 P adds "written from Rome;" Epistle of the holy Apostle Paul to [the] Colossians L; K L adding "written from Rome, by Tychicus and Onesimus."

1. Thessalonians. I to [the] Thessalonians א A B K; so D F G adding "begun;" I Epistle of Paul to [the] Thessalonians P; First Epistle of the holy Apostle Paul to the Thessalonians L. Sub. I To [the] Thessalonians א A B1 K; so D F G, each adding "ended" (as in 1 Cor.); I Epistle of the holy Apostle Paul to [the] Thessalonians L; A B2 K L adding "written from Athens."

2 Thessalonians. II To [the] Thessalonians א A B K; so D F G, adding "began;" II Epistle of the holy Apostle Paul to [the] Thessalonians L. Sub. II To [the] Thessalonians א A B K P; so D F G, each adding "ended" (as in 1 Cor.); Second Epistle of the holy Apostle Paul to [the] Thessalonians L; A B2 K L P add "written from Athens."

1 Timothy. I To Timothy א A K; so D F G, adding "begun;" I Epistle of Paul to Timothy P; First Epistle of Paul to Timothy L. Sub. I To Timothy א A D P; A adding "written from Laodicea;" P "written from Nicopolis;" D adds "ended;" I Epistle to Timothy, ended F G; First (L adds "Epistle of the holy Apostle Paul") to Timothy, written from Laodicea, which is the chief city of Phrygia of Kapatiana (not Pacatiana, as Authorised Version) K L.

2 Timothy. II To Timothy א A D F G K P; D F G adding "began;" P adding "Epistle of Paul;" II Epistle of the holy Apostle Paul to Timothy L. Sub. II To Timothy א A C P; so D F G, adding "ended;" A adds "written from Laodicea;" P, "written from Rome;" Second (L adds "of the holy Apostle Paul") to Timothy, ordained first bishop of the church of the Ephesians: written from Rome when Paul was brought a second time before Nero Caesar of Rome, K L.

Titus. To Titus א A K; so D F G, adding "begun;" Epistle to Titus P; so H, adding "of the Apostle Paul;" The Epistle of the holy Apostle Paul to Titus L. Sub. To Titus א A C D F G K P; D adding "ended;" F G adding "Epistle ended;" A adding "written from Nicopolis;" P, "written from . . . .; "Epistle of the Apostle Paul to Titus H; so L, putting "holy Apostle;" H K L add, after "Titus," "ordained first bishop of the church of the Cretans, written from Nicopolis of Macedonia."

Philemon. To Philemon א A; so D F G, adding "begun;" Epistle of Paul to Philemon K L P; L adding "holy Apostle." Sub. To Philemon א C D K P; D adding "ended;" P' adding "written from Rome;" K adding "written from Rome, by Onesimus a servant;" Epistle of [the] holy Apostle Paul to Philemon and Apphian, master of Onesimus, and to Archippus, the deacon of the Colossian church: written from Rome, by Onesimus a servant L.

Hebrews. To [the] Hebrews א A B K; Epistle of Paul to [the] Hebrews P; written from Italy, by Timotheus: the Epistle to [the] Hebrews M; Epistle of the holy and all-praiseworthy Apostle Paul to [the] Hebrews L. Sub. To [the] Hebrews א A C K P; K adding "written from Italy by Timotheus;" A adding "written from Rome;" P adding "written from Italy."

James. Epistle of James B K; Catholic Epistle of the holy Apostle James L. Sub. Of James B; Epistle of James א A; End [of the] Catholic Epistle of the holy Apostle James L.

1 Peter. I of Peter B; I Epistle of Peter א A C K; I Catholic Epistle of the holy and all-praiseworthy Apostle Peter L. Sub. I of Peter א A B; I Catholic Epistle of the holy Apostle Peter L.

2 Peter. II of Peter א A B; II Epistle of Peter C K; Second Catholic Epistle of the holy Apostle Peter L. Sub. II of Peter א A B; catholic of Peter C; Second Epistle of the holy Apostle Peter L.

1 John. I of John A B; I Epistle of John א K; Catholic Epistle of the holy Apostle John L. Sub. I of John א A B; I Catholic Epistle of the holy and all-praiseworthy Apostle and Divine John L.

2 John. II of John א B; II Catholic Epistle of John K; Second Epistle of the holy Apostle John the Divine L. Sub. II of John א A B; II Epistle of John L.

3 John. III of John א B; III Epistle of John C; Third Epistle of the holy Apostle John L. Sub. III of John א A B; III Epistle of John C; III Epistle of the holy Apostle John L.

Jude. Of Jude א B; Epistle of Jude A C K; Epistle of the holy Apostle Jude L. Sub. Of Jude א B; Epistle of Jude A; Catholic Epistle of Jude C K; Epistle of the holy Apostle Jude L.

Revelation. Revelation of John. א C; Revelation of the Apostle and Evangelist John P. Title of A has perished, and these are all we have of the ancient uncials of the Revelation. Some of the cursives read, "Revelation of the holy Apostle John;" others add "the Divine." Sub. Revelation of John א A.

From the above it will be seen that the word "Catholic," to what are known as the Catholic Epistles, is not to be found in the oldest manuscripts. Also the copies differ as to where certain of the Epistles were written, and, of course, some cannot be correct. Paley says that six of the subscriptions in the Authorized Version are false or improbable — 1 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Titus. In some copies at the end of an Epistle, along with the subscription, was added the heading of the next Epistle. This prevented anything being intercepted between the two.

The Canon of Scripture.

Having said that everything connected with scripture will bear the fullest investigation, we must not conceal the fact that with some of the earliest copies of the New Testament there were placed other writings or epistles besides those now contained in our New Testament. And a very natural question is, if we take chiefly the old Greek copies for our guide as to the true text, how is it that we do not also take them for a guide as what is called the "Canon* of scripture;" that is, what books should be deemed to be scripture, and what should be excluded?

{*'Canon,' in the Greek and Latin, signifies 'a rule or standard by which other things are tried.' (Paul uses it in this sense in Gal. 6: 16, and Phil. 3: 16.) We commonly apply it to what we believe to be the true and complete list of inspired books. If our list is true and complete, it tries and condemns all others. We say our books are canonical and others are spurious or apocryphal.}

In the first place we must look at what books were placed with the early copies of the New Testament. They are as follows

א Codex Sinaiticus. With this copy were placed the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas; only a portion of the latter remains.

A. Codex Alexandrinus. With this were placed the Epistles of Clement of Rome. At present only the first Epistle is remaining, and a small portion of the second. The first Epistle is supposed to be a genuine work of Clement, but great doubt is entertained as to the second.

Codex Vaticanus. The latter portion of this manuscript is lost; therefore we cannot tell what was or was not appended to it.

Codex Ephraemi. Only portions of this manuscript remain, and will not help us.

Codex Bezae. This also consists only of fragments of the New Testament.

D. Codex Claromontanus. (D. in Paul's Epistle, not in the Gospels) contains Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, and the Apocalypse of Peter.

Now it will be seen from the above that of the early Greek copies which are complete all contain additional books, though of those which have other writings appended to them, no two copies agree in selecting the same books. Neither do those few here named comprise nearly the whole of the rejected books. There are about a score of different "Gospels," a dozen "Acts," a dozen "Epistles," and four or five "Revelations." Of the mass of these we suppose there can be no doubt among sober Christians as to their being uncanonical though most of them profess to have been written by one or other of the Apostles or their immediate successors.

Of course Barnabas may have written a letter or epistle, without in any way intending it as an "inspired" epistle. Indeed it seems to bear internal evidence of this; for he twice says that he had written 'to the best of his ability,' which is not in any way the language of one professing to be inspired.

Clement of Rome too may have written letters without dreaming of their ever being thought to be a part of scripture and being bound up with the New Testament.

The use others have made of these letters is another thing, but for that the writers may be in no way to blame.

Still the question arises why do we reject them, and how has the canon of scripture been formed? To this the common answer will be that the church determined the canon. But we must say that we do not consider this a sufficient answer, and it gives rise to the questions: When did the church settle it? Was it the church that settled it? and was the church in a fit state to settle such a question?

The church of Rome says that we cannot know what is scripture and what is not, except as that church tells us. After it has decided we can know but not before.

But if this were so, we should be obliged to receive the Apocrypha of the Old Testament, for the church of Rome has declared that to be canonical. This we cannot do.

And if we turn from the church of Rome, whence are we to turn for the church to decide such a question? If we go back before the church of Rome set up its claims, all is uncertain and in confusion.

We have seen that other epistles were placed along with the scripture; but besides this there is proof from the early fathers that Clement's epistles were read in most of the churches on the Lord's day, and that they were universally received. And also that the Shepherd of Hermas was read in many churches.

But the question becomes more serious if we appeal to the early church; for it is no longer a question of a few epistles, which we hope to prove to be spurious, but as to whether some of the real epistles are scripture or not: for while some received the spurious, they refused some parts of what we hold and maintain to be inspired.

We are not sure that any of our received books were omitted from any of the Greek copies, because many of them are only in fragments; but the early Syriac (the Peshito) did not contain 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. And it is the judgment of some of the best writers that the Old Latin copies did not contain all the books now received.

The following give some of the early fathers, and two of the Councils, who have given lists of the books of the New Testament.

Origen, A.D. 210. Is doubtful of James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John.

Eusebius, A.D. 315. His catalogue agrees with our Testament, but he says the Epistles of James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation, were doubted of by some.

Athanasius, A.D. 315. The same as ours.

Cyril, A.D. 340. Omits the Revelation.

Council of Laodicea, A.D. 364. Omits the Revelation.

Epiphanius, A.D. 370. The same as ours.

Gregory Naz., A.D. 375. Omits the Revelation.

Philastrius, A.D. 380. Omits the Hebrews and the Revelation.

Augustine, A.D. 305. The same as ours.

Jerome, A.D. 382. Speaks doubtingly of the Hebrews, but admits it.

Council of Carthage, about 400. The same as ours.

It will be seen that the majority give the list the same as we now have it in our Testament; but it appears a poor and unsatisfactory thing if we have nothing more substantial than this to rest our faith upon, as to what is scripture and what is not.

And if we come to the great Reformers in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, we are not much better off. Erasmus denied the apostolic origin of the Hebrews, 2 Peter, and the Revelation, but left their canonical authority unquestioned. It is doubtful what Erasmus would mean by this, for he might have meant by "canonical" that which was ordered by the 'canons' of the church; for he was very anxious not to break away from the church of Rome. It would have been better if he and others had referred to God, and said distinctly whether they believed that the books were from God or not.

Luther spoke disrespectfully of the Hebrews, Jude, James, and the Revelation, and set them aside at the end of his version. Melanchthon is believed to have sided pretty much with Luther. Carlstadt also had his list of doubtful books. Calvin doubted the authenticity of 2 Peter, James, and Jude. We will quote his words as to Jude, as a specimen of how this good man treated some parts of scripture: "Though there was a dispute among the ancients respecting this epistle, yet as the reading of it is useful, and as it contains nothing inconsistent with the purity of apostolic doctrine, and was received as authentic by some of the best, I willingly add it to the rest." As to whether it was of God or not, seems never to have entered the Reformer's mind.

Now, though we cannot refer back and say that the church, or those who seemed to be pillars in the church, have always counted our present list of books to be authentic, yet we can say that very early the list was completed as we now have it, and was believed to contain all the New Testament scripture, and nothing but the scripture; and, further, we doubt not that this has been the judgment and conviction of the great mass of Christians for centuries, altogether apart from any order of council that it should be so, and altogether beyond the doubts that any might attempt to throw upon any one of its books.

We doubt not this conviction has been of God. How very few could enter into the questions that have been raised as to the canon of scripture, but they are in no wise troubled about it and rightly so; they believe that God caused the book to be written, and they call it — all of it — the word of God, rest their faith upon what it says, and lay open their consciences to what it enjoins.

The question indeed is simple if we start with God. He caused a volume to be written. Can we suppose that He would be more indifferent than any human author would be as to whether any that He wrote was missing? or, on the other hand, whether anything should be palmed off as His which was not His? Surely not. No human author would allow this, and sure we are that God has not allowed this; but that He has in His wisdom caused all that He has had written to be collected together, and all that was not inspired to be rejected.

Faith then — faith in God — makes us certain, as to the canon of the New Testament, and we need no external evidence to prove it.

Here we might well let the matter rest, but in order to complete our sketch we would ask our christian readers to take a view of the beautiful symmetry of the New Testament. The four portraits of our Lord in the four Gospels — Son of David, Servant, Son of man, Son of God; the giving of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost; and the founding of the church in the Acts; Epistles on doctrine, the standing of the Christian, practical ordering of the church, the hope of the individual Christian in expecting his Lord, and his practical walk in the meanwhile: some addressed to various churches, and some to the Jewish converts who had peculiar difficulties to overcome, but containing principles necessary for all. Pastoral epistles for individual guidance when failure had begun to set in; and lastly, a prophecy of coming events, carried on to the end of time.

Is there any one of the books we could spare without leaving a deep chasm? Not one. Is there anything we need to be added? Nothing. There is no place to put it. Its symmetry is perfect. It cannot be added to; it must not be tken from. It is of God. Let us receive it with thankful confidence, and bow to its authority.

We may also profitably compare it with the Old Testament, and this all the more convinces us that but one mind runs through the whole; that one Person is the author of it all. And this is the more to be admired, when we remember that in some cases the writers were entirely unknown to each other, and many hundreds of years elapsed between the parts being written; yet there is no clashing, no variance, but a beautiful harmony running through it all. True it is that we need anointed eyes to see its beauties; but this should in no way discourage us, but rather urge us on to seek that anointing, that we may be able to see, and seeing to admire, that which is surely and emphatically the handywork of God.

We will, however, let our readers glance at two or three of the epistles which were bound up with the New Testament and read in the churches; and. we confidently believe that they will instinctively perceive that they are not a part of scripture.

The Epistle of Barnabas.

This is supposed to have been written by the companion of Paul, and is quoted by Clemens, Alexandrinus, and by Origen, apparently as scripture. Eusebius and Jerome also judged the epistle to be genuine, but not a part of scripture. It is now, however, much called in question whether it was written by that Barnabas.

We quote Barnabas as to the scape-goat: "How, then, ran the commandment? Give your attention. Take two goats of goodly aspect, and similar to each other, and offer them. And let the priest take one as a burnt-offering for sins [the Cod. Sin. reads 'one as a burnt-offering and one for sins']. And what shall they do with the other? 'Accursed,' says he, 'is the one.' Mark how the type of Jesus now comes out. 'And all of you spit upon it, and pierce it, and encircle its head with scarlet wool, and thus let it be driven into the wilderness.' And when all this has been done, he who bears the goat brings it into the desert, and takes the wool off from it and places that upon a shrub which is called Rachia. . . . Why, then again, is this? Give good heed — 'One upon the altar, and the other accursed;' and why the one that is accursed crowned? Because they shall see Him then in that day, having a scarlet robe about His body down to His feet; and they shall say, Is not this He whom we once despised, and pierced, and mocked, and crucified? . . . . But why is it that they place the wool among thorns? It is a type of Jesus set before the view of the church: that any one who wishes to bear it away, may find it necessary to suffer much, because the thorn is formidable, and thus obtain it only as the result of suffering." (Chap. vii.)

Now it may be, as to the scarlet wool on the goat, that Barnabas only followed the Jewish traditions, but he does not quote it as that (for he writes against the Jews), and he says "How ran the commandment?" Then he is quite wrong in saying one goat was for a burnt-offering, or a burnt-offering for sins. Both goats were a sin-offering, and had nothing to do with the burnt-offering. These things and the fanciful interpretation of the wool on the thorn stamp it emphatically as not being inspired, and not a part of scripture.

Barnabas writes concerning circumcision:— "Abraham, the first who enjoined circumcision looking forward in spirit to Jesus, practised that rite, having received the mysteries of the three letters. For it saith, 'And Abraham circumcised ten and eight, and three hundred men of his household.' The ten and the eight are thus denoted — Ten by I, and eight by H. You have Jesus [that is the first two letters in the Greek for Jesus, 'ΙΗΣΟΥΣ]. And because the cross was to express grace by the letter T, he said also 'Three hundred ' [that is, in Greek, T stands for 300, I for 10, H for 8 — in all, 318]. He signifies, therefore, Jesus by two letters and the cross by one. He knows thus who has put within us the engrafted gift of His doctrine. No one has been admitted by me to a more excellent piece of knowledge than this, but I know that ye are worthy." (Chap. ix.)

Surely this is trifling with scripture. And taking the last sentence of the quotation as true, we may dismiss Barnabas as not to be named along with scripture, wondering the more how it could have been placed in the same book with the word of God and how it could have been read in the churches.

The Epistle of Clement.

The first Epistle of Clement was written to the Corinthians, apparently on their consulting him amid great dissension in the church: he writes thus severely:

"It is disgraceful, beloved, yea, highly disgraceful and unworthy of your christian profession, that such a thing should be heard of as that the most stedfast and ancient church of the Corinthians should, on account of one or two persons, engage in sedition against its presbyters. And this rumour has reached not only us, but those also who are unconnected with us; so that, through your infatuation, the name of the Lord is blasphemed, while danger is also brought upon yourselves." (Chap. xlvii.)

A great deal is said about repentance, love, and good works; but sacrifices to be offered at Jerusalem by the high priest are strangely interwoven with the exhortations. In chapters xl. and xli., under the heading of "Let us preserve in the church the order appointed by God," is the following:

"These things, therefore, being manifest to us, and since we look into the depths of the divine knowledge, it behoves us to do all things in order. He has enjoined offerings, and service to be performed, and that not thoughtlessly or irregularly, but at the appointed times and hours . . . . Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed times, are accepted and blessed; for inasmuch as they follow the laws of the Lord, they sin not. For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve upon the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen . . . . Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered . . . . but in Jerusalem only . . . . that which is offered being first carefully examined by the high priest and the ministers already mentioned. Those, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is agreeable to His will, are punished by death. Ye see, brethren, that the greater the knowledge that has been vouchsafed to us, the greater also is the danger to which we are exposed."

As we have said, this is placed under a heading as to the order appointed by God in the church. And Clement writes the above to the Gentiles at Corinth. One has only to compare it with the Epistle to the Galatians to see how entirely unscriptural it is.

When speaking of the "ministers in the church" he speaks of bishops (or overseers), and deacons, being appointed and says, "Nor was this any new thing, since, indeed, many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the scripture, in a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'" (Chap. xlii.)

This is doubtless intended for a quotation from Isaiah 60: 17 from the LXX, but altered by Clement to suit his purpose: for the LXX reads, "I will make thy princes peaceable, and thine overseers righteous." The absurdity of quoting this passage to prove that bishops and deacons were not a new thing, must be obvious to all our readers.

As an emblem of the resurrection, Clement relates the heathen fable of the phoenix living five hundred years, and then rising again as a fresh bird from its own ashes. And then says that God "even by a bird shews up the mightiness of His power to fulfil His promise." (Chaps. xxv., xxvi.)

Surely these extracts are sufficient to prove that the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians is not inspired, and forms no part of the word of God.

The Shepherd of Hermas.

This is divided into Visions, Commands, and Similitudes. We give the substance of one of the Similitudes, that our readers may perceive how entirely different it is from scripture.

"Seest thou this vine and this elm? 'Sir,' said I, 'I see them.' This vine, saith he, is fruitful, but the elm is a tree without fruit. Nevertheless this vine, unless it were set by this elm, and supported by it, would not bear much fruit, but lying alone upon the ground, would bear but ill fruit, because it did not hang upon the elm: whereas, now, being supported upon the elm, it bears fruit both for itself and for that. See, therefore, how the elm gives no less, but rather more fruit, than the vine . . . . This Similitude, therefore, is set forth to the servants of God; and it represents the rich and poor man.

"I answered, 'Sir, make this manifest unto me.' Hear, said he, the rich man has wealth; howbeit, towards the Lord he is poor: for he is taken up about his riches, and prays but little to the Lord; and the prayers which he makes are lazy and without force. When, therefore, the rich man reaches out to the poor those things which he wants, the poor man prays unto the Lord for the rich; and God grants unto the rich man all good things, because the poor man is rich in prayer, and his requests have great power with the Lord . . . . They are, therefore, both made partakers of each other's good works. Whosoever, therefore, shall do these things, he shall not be forsaken by the Lord, but shall be written in the book of life. Happy they who are rich and perceive themselves to be increased: for he that is sensible of this will be able to minister somewhat to others."

Of this writer Origen says, "I fancy that that Hermas [mentioned in Romans 16: 14] is the author of the tract which is called The Shepherd, a writing which seems to me very useful, and is, as I fancy, divinely inspired [!]"

In dealing with the spurious books of New Testament times, it is well to remember the introduction of Luke's Gospel, which seems to imply that there were false accounts even then in existence: "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which, from the beginning, were eye witnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed." There being many (and they must be spurious because many, for God had caused only three others to be written, and John's is very generally believed to have been written later), he would write one, by which Theophilus might be certain of the things he had been taught.

Another reference in scripture to spurious writings is in 2 Thessalonians 2: 2: "That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand."

Here the apostle intimates that they may have been troubled by some message or letter purporting to come from him which he had not sent, and warns them not to be troubled by any such things.

In the end of the same epistle Paul says, "The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write." (Chap. 3: 17.)

It was the custom of Paul to employ an amanuensis to write his epistles, see Romans 16: 22 (the Galatians he wrote himself: Gal. 6: 11), but at the end he wrote a few words with his own hand, or, we suppose, signed his name, that it might be a token to them of its genuineness. (See 1 Cor. 16: 21; Philemon 19.)

Of the other pretended epistles besides these we have named, there is not one but is manifestly not of God.

Some mention events that happened a long while after the pretended author's death. Thus for instance, in the "Constitutions of the Apostles," there is reference to the controversy about the re-baptism of heretics, which did not arise till the third century.

Some mention persons that did not live until long after the pretended author's death. Thus the book under the name of Hegesippus (who lived in the second century), mentions Constantine and Constantinople which could not be before the fourth century.

The Questions and Answers under the name of Justin Martyr, mention Irenaeus and Origen, who both lived after his time.

There are, however, still one or two points to be cleared up touching the canon of the New Testament. The first is in Colossians 4: 16, we read, "When this epistle is read amongst you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea."

This last sentence, "read the Epistle from Laodicea," has given rise to the thought that Paul had written another Epistle to Laodicea which was to be passed on to the Colossians after being read at Laodicea, in the same way that the Epistle to Colosse was to be passed on to Laodicea. And if so, what has become of that Epistle? and is the canon of scripture complete without it?

In the first place it must be noticed that the word does not speak of an Epistle to Laodicea, but "the epistle from (εκ) Laodicea;" and may refer to

1. The Epistle to the Ephesians, which, perhaps, was being circulated from one to another, and was coming to Colosse, from Laodicea.

2. It may refer to a letter written from Laodicea to Paul, stating things of general interest, a copy of which Paul sent on to Colosse for them to read; or it might be a letter evincing a certain state of things at Laodicea which Paul judged would be well met by his letter to Colosse being read there also; and so Paul not only requested them to send on his Epistle to Laodicea, but also thus shewed them in fellowship the reason for his so doing.

3. It may have been an epistle written by Paul to Laodicea, and which was coming from thence to Colosse, a letter of general interest, but not inspired, and which was not intended to form a part of scripture. There is no reason for believing that we have all the letters that Paul wrote, or that all he wrote were inspired.

In none of these cases would the canon of scripture be touched, which is the point under consideration; and here we might be content to leave the matter but that there is in existence the copy of a letter entitled "The Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans," which some have contended ought to form a part of scripture.

We give a copy of this epistle, from an old manuscript at Padua in Venice, that the reader may judge whether such an epistle is at all likely to have been written by Paul; not that the wording is not generally correct and scriptural, but that on the whole there seems no special point or object in it; indeed, it is supposed to be merely a compilation of portions of the epistles by Paul gathered together and made into a separate letter. By the side of the epistle we give the places from which the extracts may have been taken.

The Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans.

1. Paul an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, to the brethren which are at Laodicea.

[Paul an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ," etc. (Gal. 1: 1.)]

2. Grace be to you, and peace from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

[Grace be to you, and peace from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ." (Gal. 1: 3.)]

3. I thank Christ in every prayer of mine, that ye continue and persevere in good works, looking for that which is promised in the day of judgment.

["I thank my God upon every remembrance of you . . . for your fellowship in the gospel, from the first day until now," etc. (Phil. 1: 3, 5.)]

4. Let not the vain speeches of any trouble you, who pervert the truth, that they may draw you aside from the truth of the gospel which I have preached.

["There be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ," etc. (Gal. 1: 7.)]

5. And now may God grant that my converts may attain to a perfect knowledge of the truth of the gospel, be beneficent, and doing good works which accompany salvation.

6. And now my bonds, which I suffer in Christ, are manifest, in which I rejoice and am glad.

[My bonds in Christ are manifest." (Phil. 1: 13.)]

7. For I know that this shall turn to my salvation for ever, which shall be through your prayer, and the supply of the Holy Spirit.

["For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ." (Phil. 1: 19.)]

8. Whether I live or die; [for] to me to live shall be a life to Christ; to die will be joy.

["Whether it be by life or by death, for to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain." (Phil. 1: 20, 21.)]

9. And our Lord will grant us His mercy, that ye may have the same love, and be like-minded.

["That ye be like-minded, having the same love." (Phil. 2: 2.)]

10. Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have heard of the coming of the Lord, so think and act in fear, and it shall be to you life eternal:

["Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, .... work out your own salvation with fear." (Phil. 2: 12.)]

11. For it is God who worketh in you.

["For it is God who worketh in you." (Phil. 2: 13.)]

12. And do all things without sin.

["Do all things without murmuring, etc., v. 15, that ye may be blameless." (Phil. 2: 14.)]

13. And what is best, my beloved, rejoice in the Lord Jesus Christ, and avoid all filthy lucre.

["Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. (Phil. 3: 1.)]

14. Let all your requests be made known to God, and be steady in the doctrine of Christ.

["Let your requests be made known unto God. (Phil. 4: 6.)]

15. And whatsoever things are sound, and true, and of good report, and chaste, and just, and lovely, these things do.

["Whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report," etc. (Phil. 4: 8.)]

16. Those things which ye have heard, and received, think on these things, and peace shall be with you.

["Those things which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen — do, and the God of peace shall be with you." (Phil. 4: 9.)]

17. All the saints salute you.

["All the saints salute you." (Phil. 4: 22.)]

18. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.

["The grace of our Lord Jesus be with your spirit. Amen." (Gal. 6: 18.)]

19. Cause this Epistle to be read to the Colossians, and the Epistle of the Colossians to be read among you.*

["And when this Epistle is read amongst you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise read the Epistle from Laodicea." (Col. 4: 16.)]

{*From Jones, On the Canon of the New Testament.}

The reader will see by the above how very improbable it is that Paul ever wrote such an epistle as this professing to be from him to the Laodiceans.

Another passage that has been thought by some to allude to a lost epistle is 1 Corinthians 5: 9 "I wrote unto you in an epistle not to keep company with fornicators." The first word is έγραψα, the aorist indicative, 'I wrote,' but some translate it 'I have written' — 'I wrote unto you in the epistle (εν τη επιστολη) not to mix with fornicators.'

The first question is what epistle is referred to? Does the passage refer to some part of this First Epistle, or does it point to an epistle sent before this First Epistle? Some refer to verses 2 and 7 of this same chapter as being the parts alluded to but they do not seem to be sufficiently to the point to justify the language "I wrote to you not to mix with fornicators." It is to be noticed that in verse 11 we have the same word for 'wrote' with the addition of 'now.' "But now I wrote to you," or "now I have written to you." Others think that verse 9 refers to a former epistle, and verse 11 to the present one; and they would translate the former 'I wrote,' and the latter 'I write,' 'now I write' (though the two words are precisely the same: the aorist). Others refer both verses to a former epistle, taking the word 'now' in the sense of 'this is my meaning.' And others refer both verses to the present epistle.

It should be observed that in the Second Epistle (2 Cor. 7: 8), there are the same three words as in our verse 9: εν τη επιστολη, 'in the epistle,' and these, by the context, clearly refer to the First Epistle: why, therefore, may not the same words in the First Epistle refer to one still earlier? Supposing this were so, let us see what would be involved.

The conclusion might hastily be formed that an epistle was lost, and the canon of scripture not complete. But let it be noticed that the same Greek word is sometimes used for a 'letter' as is used for an 'epistle' (see Acts 9: 2; 2 Cor. 3: 1), so that the references in 1 Corinthians 5 may refer to some letter which Paul wrote to the Corinthians, but which was not inspired and is not preserved as a part of scripture. As we have seen before, there is no reason to suppose that all the letters the apostles wrote have been preserved to us. All they wrote to form a part of "the word of God" are preserved, but they may have written much more than what was intended to form a part of scripture (see 1 Cor. 16: 3), as, in a similar way, our Lord did many things which are not preserved to us in the Gospels. (John 21: 25.) To this we need only add that there is in existence another Epistle to the Corinthians, said to be by Paul. It was not apparently known to the early Fathers. One thing is certain, it cannot be the letter above referred to; for in it there is no caution not to associate with fornicators — the subject is not touched upon. It is further proved to be a forgery by this sentence, "I, from the beginning, did teach you the very same thing which I received from the former apostles, who had constant conversation with the Lord." This is directly the opposite of what Paul said of his ministry. See 1 Corinthians 11: 23; Galatians 1: 12; Ephesians 3: 2, 3.

This is all we need say on the canon of scripture. In taking up the writings of the Fathers, one is struck with the strong contrast there is between "the word of God," and the writings of even the immediate successors of the apostles. While one grieves at what appears such a declension, on the other hand it is well that there should be a deep line of separation between that which is "the word of God," and that which is the writings of men.

It is indeed surprising to find human writings attached to the scriptures, and that they were read in the churches. The formation of the canon of scripture was doubtless a work of time, and great respect was naturally shewn to those who had been companions of the apostles; but it must not be forgotten that long after that canon was settled, passages from apocryphal books were read in churches, as indeed in the Established Church of England — read, as the Prayer Book says, "for example of life and instruction of manners," but not "to establish any doctrine." And this, after so many years, is more surprising than that it should have been done before the canon was settled.

To revert again for a moment as to the settlement of the canon. It may suffice most to say that all Christians, all over the world, receive the canon as we now have it. Or a Christian can base it on faith, and say, "I believe that God caused the book to be written, and that He has preserved it to us intact. He has told us that it must not be added to nor taken from." (Rev. 22: 18, 19.) And, as one has well said, "this method of faith — the simplest and the shortest for establishing the certainty of the canon — is also unquestionably the most beneficial and the surest;" (Gaussen) and, we add, it is the only method that is suited for the simple and unlettered Christian, while we believe it is the only solid ground for the learned.

The Authorised Version of 1611.

We now turn to our venerable Authorised Version, with a view to ascertain, as far as we can, from what Greek text it was taken, and also to see what light all that has come before us throws upon the question of its integrity. We will first glance at the original preface.

The translators feared that their work would be evilly spoken of, for no one had ever sought to do any good for the people, but had been maligned: "Whosoeuer attempteth any thing," said they, "for the publicke (specially if it pertaine to Religion, and to the opening and clearing of the word of God) the same setteth himselfe vpon a stage to be glouted vpon by euery euil eye, yea, he casteth himselfe headlong vpon pikes, to be gored by euery sharpe tongue."

But this did not daunt them: they well asked, "What pietie without trueth? What trueth (what sauing trueth) without the word of God? What word of God (whereof we may be sure) without the scripture?"

They had profound reverence for the scripture "The originall thereof being from heaven, not from earth; the author being God, not man; the enditer the Holy Spirit, not the wit of the apostles or prophets . . . the form, God's word, God's testimony, God's oracles, the word of truth, the word of salvation, etc. . . . happy is the man that delighteth in the scripture, and thrice happy that meditateth on it day and night."

But how could men meditate upon what they could not understand because of being in an unknown tongue? "Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain that we may look into the most holy place."

But then the question was raised, Was there any need of a new translation, seeing the Bible was already in the English tongue? "Hath the church been deceived, say they, all this while? Hath her sweet bread been mingled with leaven, her silver with dross, her wine with water, her milk with lime?" On the other hand, others said, "Why do they now mend it? Was it not good?" The translators explain that they had no desire to find fault with any of their predecessors, but thought it good to go over the same work again to seek to make it more perfect. As secular books had been gone over again and again, "What ought we not to bestow upon the vine, the fruit whereof maketh glad the conscience of man, and the stem thereof abideth for ever?" They did not seek to make a good translation out of a bad one, but "to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against."

They tell us that they translated the Old Testament from the Hebrew, and the New from the Greek; but do not tell us what Greek text they used. This we can only arrive at by comparing it with the Greek texts then in existence.

Of other matters they then speak. The first point is in favour of marginal readings in points of difficulty, rather than giving one sole interpretation.

The next point is that the translators refuse to be bound in any way to translate the same Greek word by the same English word, even when the sense is precisely the same. They defended their diversity very curiously: "For as it has been written of a certain great philosopher, that he should say that those logs were happy that were made images to be worshipped: for their fellows, as good as they, lay for blocks behind the fire! so if we should say, as it were, unto certain words, Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible always; and to others of like quality, Get ye hence, be banished for ever, we might be taxed peradventure, with St. James's words, namely, To be partial in ourselves, and judges of evil thoughts . . . . niceness in words was always counted the next step to trifling."

They commend the reader to God and to the Spirit of His grace, which was able to build them up further than the translators could tell or think; and thus warn their readers: "If light be come into the world, love not darkness more than light; if food, if clothing be offered, go not naked, starve not yourselves."

From other sources we ascertain that the following were among the rules laid down for the guidance of the translators:

"1. The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.

"2. The names of the prophets and the holy writers with the other names in the text, to be retained as near as may be, according as they are vulgarly used.

"3. The old ecclesiastical words to be used: as the word church not to be translated congregation, etc.

"4. When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place, and the analogy of faith.

"5. The divisions of the chapters to be altered either not at all, or as little as may be, if necessity so require.

"6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.

"7. Such quotations of places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit reference of one scripture to another.

[Then follow rules as to how the work was to be apportioned out to different translators and finally revised.]

"14. These translations to be used, when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible viz., 1, Tyndale's; 2, Matthew's; 3, Coverdale's; 4, Whitchurche's (i.e., Cranmer's); 5, The Geneva."*

{* Anderson's "Annals of the English Bible."}

It will be seen that the above rules do not give any intimations to the translators as to what Greek text should be taken. And indeed there was the less need for any such instructions, seeing that the Greek texts then in vogue differed little from one another; and anything beyond them was but little known at that time. Still variations were known to exist, and it is a little surprising that no mention was made as to what text should be used.

As to date, the Authorised Version came in between the editions of Beza and those of Elzevir, but it is clear that the translators did not keep strictly to any one text then in existence; for whereas their version mostly agrees with the edition of Stephens 1550, in some places they chose Beza's text in preference.

It will have been seen from the above that the Authorised Version was rather a revision of the Bishops' Bible, than an entirely new translation. Now the Bishops' Bible was made by Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, assisted by some fifteen known scholars, and published in 1568, about thirty years before the last edition of Beza's Greek Testament; so that there can be no doubt that the translators of the Authorised Version referred to the editions of Beza; but as to why they chose his readings in some places in preference to those of Stephens 1550, we are quite in the dark; and it may be that in other places they simply followed the Bishops' Bible.

That they did not adopt Beza's text to the exclusion of Stephens's is also evident, for where the two texts differ they adopted about a score of Stephens's readings; and, strange to say, in some places they agree with neither Stephens nor Beza.

We will refer to these places with an endeavour to ascertain what could have guided the translators.

Matthew 2: 11. A.V., "they saw," with Complutensian and the Bishops' Bible. Stephens and Beza have "they found." Stephens had "they saw" in his margin, and this reading has been fully confirmed by the researches of modern editors. The Vulgate has invenerunt, "they found."

Matthew 9: 18. A.V., "a certain ruler," with Comp. and Vulgate. St. and Beza omit "certain." Modern editors are divided as to its insertion.

Matthew 10: 10. A.V., "staves," with Complutensian. St. and Beza, "staff." Stephens had "staves" in his margin, but this reading has not been conclusively established by further evidence.

Mark 4: 18. St. and Beza have (a second) "these are" before "such as hear the word." Comp. omits the words; but the translators may have thought the sense complete without their repetition.

Mark 5: 38. A.V., "and them that wept," with Erasmus and Vulgate. St. and Beza omit 'and,' but all modern Editors add it.

Mark 9: 42. A.V., had "these little ones," (with Comp. and Vulgate), but modern editions have 'these little ones.' St. and Beza omit 'these.' Modern Editors are divided as to its reception.

Mark 15: 3. A.V., "but he answered nothing," with Comp., Stephens 1546, 1549, and Bishops'. But St. 1550, Beza, and modern Editors omit the words.

Luke 3: 31. A.V. had "Menam" (with Erasmus and Bishops'), but modern editions have 'Menan' St. and Beza have Μαϊνάν, some Editors Μεννά.

Verse 35. A.V., "Heber," with Erasmus and. Bishops'. St. and Beza have 'Eber.' Editors are divided. It is only the difference of breathing in the Greek Ε.

Luke 12: 56. A.V., "of the sky and of the earth," with Comp., Vulgate, and Bishops'. St. and Beza "of the earth and of the sky" with all modern Editors.

Luke 20: 31. A.V., "the seven also, and they left," with Erasmus and Bishops'. St. Beza omit 'and' (reading 'the seven also left') confirmed by all modern Editors.

John 8: 6. A.V. (with Comp., Stephens 1546, 1549, and Bishops') had "as though he heard them not," in common type (put in italics in 1769). St. 1550 and Beza and all modern Editors omit.

Acts 7: 16. A.V. had 'Emor,' with Erasmus and Bishops'; but now it is printed 'Emmor.' St. and Beza have 'Εμμoρ, but most modern Editors Έμμωρ.

Acts 8: 13. A.V., "Miracles and signs," with Erasmus and Bishops'. St. and Beza, with best modern Editors, "signs and miracles."

Acts 27: 29. A.V., "we should have fallen," with Comp., Vulg., and Bishops'. St. and Beza, "they should have fallen." Stephens had the reading of A.V. in his margin, and it has been fully confirmed by modern editors.

Ephesians 6: 24. A.V. omitted "Amen" (with Vulgate), but it is added in later editions. St. and Beza, with most modern Editors, omit the word.

2 Timothy 1: 18. A.V., "he ministered unto me," with Vulgate and Bishops'. St. and Beza, with all Editors, omit 'unto me.'

Philemon 7. A.V., "joy," with Comp., Vulgate, and Bishops'. St. and Beza, 'return thanks' instead of 'have joy,' the word for 'return' or 'have' remaining unchanged; but 'joy' is confirmed by all subsequent Editors.

Hebrews 12: 24. A.V., το 'Αβελ, "than that of Abel," with Erasmus. St. and Beza τον 'Αβελ, reading "than Abel."

2 Peter 1: 1. A.V., "Simon (Σίμων) Peter," with Comp. and Vulgate. St. and Beza, "Symeon (Συμεoν) Peter," with all modern Editors.

1 John 3: 16. A.V., "love of God," (with Comp. and Vulgate); but afterwards printed "love of God." St. and Beza, with all Editors,. omit 'of God.'

Jude 12. A. V., "feast with you," with Comp. and Bishops'. St. and Beza, with all Editors, omit 'with you.'

Revelation 11: 4. A.V., "the two candlesticks," with Comp. St. and Beza omit 'the;' but all modern Editors add the word.

Revelation 17: 4. A.V., "was arrayed," with Comp., Vulg., and Bishops'. St. and Beza omit 'was;' but niodern Editors add the word.

Revelation 18: 1. A.V., "another angel," with Comp., Erasmus and Bishops'. St. and Beza omit 'another;' but modern Editors add the word.

Verse 5. A.V., "have reached," with Comp., but St. and Beza have "followed." All modern Editors agree with the reading of A.V.

Revelation 19: 18. A.V., "both free and bond" (with Comp.), but later editions "both free and bond." St. and Beza omit 'both;' but modern Editors add the word.

Revelation 21: 13. A.V., "and on the west," with Comp., Vulg., and Bishops'. St. and Beza omit 'and,' but modern Editors add it.

It will be seen that the translators in two of the places named may have followed the margin of Stephens, and in the others, the Complutensian, the Vulgate, or the Bishops.

In the main, however, the translators followed Stephens and Beza; but Beza had copied Stephens for the most part, and Stephens had copied Erasmus. This latter fact is striking in a few places. For Stephens in his edition of 1550 in some places abandoned his former text and all his manuscripts, in favour of readings given by Erasmus, and these were mostly retained in our Authorised Version.

Mill quotes the following instances of this going back, not to manuscripts, but to the printed edition of Erasmus:

Matthew 2: 11: 'they found,' instead of the correct reading, they saw:' already alluded to, as not being following by the Authorised Version.

Matthew 3: 8: 'fruits,' wrongly, instead of 'fruit.'

Mark 6: 33: 'the people saw,' instead of 'they saw,' the correct reading.

Mark 16: 8: 'they went out quickly;' 'quickly' should be omitted.

Luke 7: 31: 'And the Lord said,' omit the four words.

John 14: 30: 'the prince of this world,' instead of the true reading, 'the prince of the world.'

Acts 5: 23: 'the keepers standing without,' omit 'without.'

James 5: 9: 'lest ye be condemned,' instead of the true reading, 'lest ye be judged.'

In all the above cases more recent researches have proved that Stephens made a mistake in leaving his manuscripts: they were right, and Erasmus wrong.

It might naturally have been supposed that as Beza had additional manuscripts, his text would have been purer than that of Stephens; but this is certainly not the case in all places. Romans 7: 6 is a remarkable instance of a false reading in Beza, and which found its way into the Authorised Version, although right in Stephens 1550. Beza gave αποθανόντος which makes the passage read that the law was dead; αποθανόντες is the right reading, and this makes the persons to have died: the difference is doctrinally of great importance. The false reading, though supported by no Greek manuscript and by no version, was copied into the Elzevir text.

This will help us in the consideration as to whether the Authorised Version needs revision. There are two things that must never be confounded. First, what are the true Greek words that ought to be translated? and, secondly, how are they to be translated? Our question is concerning the former only, and not the latter. While all speak highly of the Authorised Version as a translation, most admit that in this it may be improved in some places. The grave difficulties are, who are to make the alterations, and how much is to be altered, so that the work shall commend itself to Christians generally?

But our subject is the text to be translated. The above passage in Romans 7: 6 ought to convince any person that in some places a purer text ought to be taken. If our readers will also turn back to the variations in the Revelation, they will see that some of the readings in the Authorised Version have, as far as we have any means of knowing, absolutely no manuscript authority whatever. Surely such passages ought to be altered. But in many places the sense may not be affected; and if the text is to be altered, the grave question is, who is to do it, and do it in such a way that it shall, as in the translation, commend itself to all Christians? This is a much more difficult question than the translation of the text after that is fixed on. The translation may perhaps be amended to commend itself to most; but as to the text, only few are at all able to judge as to where the text needs altering, and will naturally cling to their time-honoured New Testament. If portions were left out, and others added, we can easily see how many good Christians would look upon the work with the greatest abhorrence, if not designate it as the work of Satan!

While this is being written, as is well known, there is a Committee of learned men revising the Authorised Version of the scriptures. Of course, they will have to consider both of the above questions; but we fear that of the two, their choice of text will be that which may give the least satisfaction, as it is undoubtedly the most difficult. Whether this revised translation will ever become the Authorised Version of this country remains to be seen.

But our readers will naturally expect that we should give them some sort of finger-post to guide them through the apparent labyrinth of the various readings shewn forth in uncials, cursives, versions, and fathers. First, let us repeat what we said at the commencement, that though there are thousands of various readings, they do not touch one of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. All these remain intact; still, as we need and desire to know the very words of our God, we should value every help that would lead us to a more correct text. To attain this we know of no better plan for the general reader than to be guided by the united judgment of the various editors. There have been men who have laboured diligently and faithfully in the task of discovering what was the text of the New Testament as God caused it to be written at the first. These laid down certain rules for themselves — one taking this path, and another that; but in many cases they all arrived at the same conclusion. Where this is so, we consider that the student of scripture will be safe in taking their united judgment as decisive for a reading.

As to the editors to be taken we should not advise going further back than Griesbach, and even since his day a great mass of evidence has came to light. Scholz may be omitted, for, as we have seen, he rejected his own plan of action before he died. We should say, take Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Green, and Wordsworth; and Westcott and Hort when published.*

{* The reader will find the readings of most of these editors in both Greek and English in the "Englishman's Greek New Testament" (Bagster).}

Of course we should recommend this for private study, and not for public use. We see no difficulty in the Authorised Version being used in public, as the Septuagint was used by our Lord and His apostles even where it is not an exact translation of the Hebrew — and only corrected where absolutely necessary. By this means we shall preserve the familiar and forcible language of the Authorised Version, and still be furnished by the above, together with some good new translation, which may also confirm the text to be used, with all we may need to arrive at a true text, and the translation of the same.

Verbal Inspiration.

We have still to consider the subject as to how far the variations of the manuscripts touch the verbal inspiration of the New Testament.

Many Christians fully believe that the very words of scripture are inspired; that is, that not simply the sense of scripture was directly from God, leaving the various writers to choose very much their own words, but that God also caused the writers to use His own words.

Without entering at any length into the question of inspiration, it may be well just to quote two or three passages that bear upon the verbal in spiration of scripture.

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Mark 13: 31.) "The words I speak unto you, they are spirit and are life." (John 6: 63.) "He that is of God heareth the words of God." (John 8: 47.) "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled." (Matt. 5: 18.) These passages may suffice, when taken with the passages usually quoted for the inspiration of the whole of scripture.

But those who disbelieve in the inspiration of the words of scripture, say, "Of what use is your belief in verbal inspiration, when we are not sure that we have the very words God caused to be written? The hundreds and thousands of variations in the manuscripts destroy your theory, or render it useless."

Now, in the first place, we must insist upon it that there are two separate and distinct questions to be considered — questions which should not be allowed to interfere with one another.

The first question is — Did God so control the writers of the scriptures that they wrote His words? We say, Yes. We have quoted some passages that speak of "words;" and we must hold this truth firmly. To give it up is to allow the thin end of the wedge of scepticism to come in between us and God as to His word. What distinct thought can we have, in speaking of a jot or tittle of the law not failing, if it is sufficient to consider its general sense? And how are we to arrive at the sense of scripture except through the words used? We consider that a Christian must hold with "verbal" inspiration, or he virtually gives up inspiration altogether at least in a way that is at all worthy of God, in giving us an infallible guide amid the surrounding darkness and error.

Now, if this point is once settled, it greatly simplifies the other, namely, "Have we a correct copy of that which God caused to be written?" Suppose for a moment I am obliged to say, "No, we have not a correct copy;" that in no way touches the other point, namely, that there were correct copies once. And if I believe that there were such, I naturally say, "I wish I had a correct copy." But, on the other hand, I have nothing to wish for if I deny that there ever were copies of "the words of God." If Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, gave only the sense of what God intended them to write, I have that in almost any Greek copy: why search any more? Why spend years of labour, and thousands of pounds, to get at that which never existed, namely, "the words of God?" I may labour diligently to get accurately what Paul wrote; but of what use is it, if, when I have arrived at it, I have Paul, and not God, except as to the general sense? This I have already in the common Greek text, and in the Authorised Version.

Thus we see that by believing in the verbal inspiration of the scripture is given the impetus to search after a correct text; but it surely is not worth the time and labour, if I have nothing to gain but the words of those who were merely the instruments. It is because God caused the writers to use His words that gives us the earnest desire to have a correct copy of these very words.

Now, with this desire before us, we must candidly admit that we may not have every word God caused to be written; that is what we desire and labour for. But if we have not every one, we have nearly all; there are places where we have not yet been able to say with certainty that we have the exact words. In some places the weight of evidence for two or more readings is so nearly balanced, that it is not for any one dogmatically to say what it was in the original.

As we have seen, the various readings do not touch one of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. These all stand out in their full lustre, as they came from the finger of God. But because it is the word of God, we want to know the words He used in every place. We do know them in the main; in thousands of passages there are no variations worth speaking of, nothing to disturb the commonly received version which has been in use in the church for so long. With the exceptions that have been named, we have the "words of God" as given in the New Testament. On these we hang our souls' salvation, and in these is the hope set before us, of soon seeing our blessed Lord, and being with Him, and like Him, for ever.

This is "Our Father's Will:" let us receive it devoutly; believe every word of it; and seek to obey it in all things.

Four truths Every Christian Should Know About Salvation

Four truths Every Christian Should Know About Salvation

E. C. Hadley.

Many believers are frustrated and troubled about their walk, sometimes doubting their salvation because of so much failure in their lives. The following four truths about salvation should be helpful to anyone with such thoughts.

Truth 1: Forgiveness

When we come to the Lord Jesus as sinners and accept Him as our Savior, God forgives our sins and justifies us because of the shed blood of Christ (Rom. 3: 23-26).

When Jesus was on the cross, our sins were laid on Him and He took the punishment for them. There is no more judgment for sin for all who accept Christ as their Savior. Every sin that comes into our lives has already been judged and punished when Christ died for us on the cross (Isa. 53: 5-6; Heb. 9: 28; Heb. 10: 12-14).

Perhaps someone might say, "If that is true it does not make much difference whether we continue to sin or not." But it does make a tremendous difference, because there are three other truths to consider about salvation.

Truth 2: A New Nature

When we accept Christ as our Savior, God not only forgives us and justifies us, but He also gives us a new (divine) nature. We are born again_we become God's children (1 Peter 1: 23; James. 1: 18; 2 Peter 1: 4). This new nature loves God and hates sin; it makes us desire to live without sinning and makes us feel miserable when we do sin. No born again Christian can be truly happy in sin.

But someone asks, "Why do I do sinful things if I have a new nature? I really do not want to do them, but even with all my good intentions I eventually give in and do them again."

We not only have a new nature that hates sin, but we also still have the old (sinful) nature that loves sin. There is a conflict going on within us. The old nature wants to sin but the new nature wants to please God.

Besides this, we have consciences which tell us that what the new nature wants is right, and what the old nature wants is always wrong. But we find all too often that the old nature, with its desires and lusts for sinful things, is the strongest in time of temptation. It carries us away captive and we do those things which our new nature hates and our consciences denounce.

After it is all over we regret it and resolve that we will never do it again. However, it just seems as if we don't have any strength to resist temptation. What is to be done? Here is where the third truth of salvation comes in.

Truth 3: The Holy Spirit

When we accepted Christ as our Savior and were born again, God gave us His Holy Spirit to live in our hearts (Eph. 1: 13; Gal. 4: 6). This Holy Spirit pours out the love of God in our hearts and causes us to feel the peace of Christ in our souls. As a result, we are happy! (Rom. 5: 1-15).

But when we give way to sin, the Holy Spirit is grieved. He cannot give us joy, because that would encourage us in those sinful things which He hates. He is one with God the Father and Son in His hatred of sin and love of righteousness and holiness (Eph. 4: 30).

The Holy Spirit is given to us not only to pour out the love of God in our hearts. He also gives us power to say "No!" to the desires of the old nature, and to yield ourselves to the will of God, doing those things that please Him. "Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh" (Gal. 5: 16).

It is just like Peter walking on the water. As long as he was counting on the Lord to hold him up, all went well; but the very moment he noticed that the wind and the waves were rough, he became afraid and began to sink. In our Christian experience we must count on the Lord to hold us up each step of the way by the power of His indwelling Spirit (Matt. 14: 24-31; John. 15: 4-5).

Truth 4: Fellowship

Salvation brings us into fellowship with God. There is a happy feeling between God as our Father and us as His children. We can enjoy hearing what He has to say to us by His Spirit through His Word. We feel free to talk with Him about all our troubles, just as a child is free with his earthly father whom he knows loves him. He makes us happy by his smile.

However, when a child disobeys, he knows his father will be displeased. Instead of a smile he has to experience discipline. The relationship between father and child has not changed, but the fellowship and the happy feeling between them has been broken.

So it is with our heavenly Father. When we sin we are still His children. It is also true that Christ already took the judgment for that sin; it has been put away by His sacrifice on the cross. But fellowship with our Father and with our Savior is broken and the Holy Spirit is grieved. The Father has to rebuke us for our disobedience and perhaps even chasten us, especially if we continue in it.

If we come to Him with confession, humbled because of our sin and disobedience, then we can experience His forgiveness as a father forgives his child. Fellowship is restored and we feel free and happy in His presence again (1 John. 1: 9).

So then, when a child of God sins he is not lost, because God has accepted him on the basis of Christ's sacrifice for our sins. Neither is his relationship with God broken. He is still God's child and God is still his Father. But his fellowship with the Father is broken, the Holy Spirit is grieved and he is subject to the Father's chastening. When he is humbled about his sin and confesses it to his Father then fellowship is restored.

There is one thing we lose by sin that can never be restored. Christ said that a cup of cold water given in His name would never be forgotten (Mark. 9: 41). He is going to give a reward for everything we do to please Him. Therefore, if instead of giving way to sin we had been obedient and done something that pleased Him, we would have received a reward in heaven.

But now that reward is lost because we have lost the opportunity to gain it. That is an eternal loss, since every reward Christ gives in heaven is an eternal reward.

This should make us careful not to lose the opportunities we have each day for faithfulness to the Lord. If we let them slip by, both the opportunities and the  rewards are lost forever.

We will have all eternity to rejoice in the rewards for our victories, but we have only the present moment to win them. There are no victories to be won in heaven — they must all be won now or never.

You can have a happy life

You Can Have a Happy Life.

E. C. Hadley.

Index

Burden of Guilt

Dealing with Guilt

Seeking Peace

Obedience Needed

God Working

Peace of Mind

About Our Fears

Confessing Our Sins

Joy of Forgiveness

Path of Peace

Following the Shepherd

Adjusting Our Attitudes

Peace Assured

Trusting God

Provision of Prayer

Value of Thanksgiving

Example for Us

Learning from Him

Finding Rest

His Power

His Will

Searching Self

His Chastening

Examples of Chastening

His Purpose

Unselfish Service

Power over Sin

Happy Living

"These things I have spoken to you, that My joy may remain in you, and that your joy may be full." John 15: 11

Why are so many Christians restless, worried and unhappy, even though the verse above tells us clearly that this is not what God intends for His children? In this booklet, we hope to address this question to discover God's remedy so that we might be able to say with Paul, "I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content" (Phil. 4: 11).

BURDEN OF GUILT

One of the basic causes of unhappiness is a sense of guilt that burdens the conscience and robs the soul of peace. Before we can have true happiness there must be peace with God.

If there are any doubts about our peace with God, there can be no settled peace in the soul. If we are to succeed in finding peace, and the happiness that results from it, we must begin with this question of guilt and how it can be removed.

Guilt destroys happiness and peace. It breaks down self-esteem and robs us of self-confidence. How can we trust ourselves when we know that we have done many wrong things? We may try to run away from our conscience by pursuing earthly pleasure, or we may attempt to quiet its voice by reasoning that times have changed, and that now "everybody does it."

Still, there is that uneasy feeling that something is not right. We instinctively know that God has not changed and that sin never ceases to be sin. No matter how much we try to repress the guilty feeling, it is still there — making us restless, uneasy and fearful.

Coupled with a sense of guilt is a consciousness that we deserve to be punished. This increases our fear. God, who knows all about this, has said: "Be sure your sin will find you out" (Num. 32: 23). We cannot have peace and true happiness until the question of our guilt is settled in a way that is just.

Our God-implanted conscience, part of the moral nature of man, makes us feel guilty when we have done something wrong. It also makes us realize that we deserve punishment. Some try to ease their guilt by joining a church and getting involved in religious activities, but they know deep down that this will never bring peace.

DEALING WITH GUILT

Guilt produces a fear of God whom we know we have offended, and a fear of the punishment we instinctively know we deserve. There is only one way to lift this depressing sense of guilt and fear. It is through justification by faith in the redemptive work of Christ on the cross. In the epistle to the Romans, Paul deals directly with the question of our guilt and God's answer to it. There we read that all the world is guilty, but God provides the means for our justification: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus  -  that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom. 3: 23-24, 26).

In that same epistle, we also read of the results of that justification: "Having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ  -  And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation" (Rom. 5: 1, 11).  God's way not only lifts the depressing load of guilt but also gives us a consciousness of God's love that produces joy.

The guilt that once made us tremble at the thought of judgment now becomes the means by which we measure the love of God, who did not spare His own Son but delivered Him up for us. The memory of our guilt, becomes a wellspring of thanksgiving to God who redeemed us and justified us.

How can a guilty soul have peace with a holy God? The only answer is through the blood of the cross: "Without shedding of blood there is no remission" for sin (Heb. 9: 22). On the cross, Christ was made an offering for all our sins, and He bore the punishment due our sins (Isa. 53: 4-6, 10). This suffering and death of Christ are the only grounds upon which a righteous God and a guilty creature can be at peace.

SEEKING PEACE

Once a sinner acknowledges his sin, his first concern is how to obtain peace with God. But the great question is not, "How can a sinner make peace with his God?" It is, "How can a holy, sin-hating God make peace with this sinner?" God accomplished this by giving His Son as the sacrifice for sin: "Having made peace through the blood of His cross" (Col. 1: 20). It is not by any effort of the sinner that peace is made; God has already made peace through the blood of the cross.

Peace with God does not depend upon our feelings. We may deceive ourselves into believing we will come out all right in the end. But such false peace is the fruit of unbelief, for God plainly states, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3: 23). The only way to true peace is repentance; the Bible says, "Unless you repent you will — perish" (Luke 13: 5).

The first step to true peace then is to accept this fact. The next step is to believe God's evaluation of the sacrifice of Christ: "Who  -  when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high" (Heb. 1: 3). Peace is an accomplished fact; and God is so satisfied with that sacrifice for our sins that He has placed His Son at the right hand of His own throne in glory to prove it.

God always sees the believer as clothed in all the merits of that sacrifice, which washed away all his sins once for all and obtained eternal redemption for him (Heb. 9: 12). Therefore, God's attitude of peace towards the believer is unchanging because the sacrifice upon which it is based is perfect. However, the measure to which the believer enjoys it may vary greatly. If we get self-occupied we may lose the sense of it. We can only enjoy it as we rest in full assurance of faith in the sacrifice of Christ.

We may know that God is at peace with us through Christ and still not have a sense of the peace of God ruling in our hearts. Sin may bring us under the chastening hand of God. In chastening, He is only seeking to deliver us from those things which are robbing our souls of the enjoyment of His peace. (See Heb. 12: 5-11.) He chastens in love, not counting us as enemies, but always as His well-beloved children.

OBEDIENCE NEEDED

The conscience enlightened by the Word of God demands obedience to God who loves us and has redeemed us. If we do those things which displease Him, or if we leave undone things He wants us to do, our conscience accuses us and inward conflict results. We have no peace because we cannot quiet the voice of our conscience.

Besides the conscience, every believer in Christ also has the Spirit of God abiding in him. (See Rom. 8: 9, 15; Eph. 1: 13; Gal. 4: 6; 1 Cor. 6: 19.) One activity of the Spirit of God is to bring to our hearts the love of God, and to show the things of Christ to us (Rom. 5: 5; John 16: 14). Both give joy and peace to the soul, but "the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another" (Gal. 5: 17). The constant effort of the Spirit of God is to oppose the flesh and prompt us to do the will of God in obedience to the Word of God.

If we yield to the flesh we throw ourselves into conflict not only with our conscience, but also with the Spirit. On the other hand, if we yield to the Holy Spirit and to our conscience, He gives us the strength to do the will of God. And what happens then? Instead of inward conflict, we are in harmony with God, His Word, and His Spirit; and consequently we enjoy a deeper sense of His love and a fuller measure of His joy and peace.

When we walk in obedience to God's revealed will, we enjoy His love shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit (1 John 4: 9; Rom. 5: 5-8). Then we can say, "If God is for us, who can be against us?" (Rom. 8: 31). Trouble may be all around, but we will not fear because Psalm 4: 8 tells us: "I will both lie down in peace, and sleep; for You alone, O Lord, make me dwell in safety."

If we are disobedient, the peace of His presence will be lost and our conscience will accuse us while the Holy Spirit convicts us. When the Word of God is neglected, the soul does not enjoy peace. The power of God, which gave the heart confidence while walking with Him, will now work to humble us.

We will meet with disappointment. Plans will be overthrown. Things we thought would be sweet to the taste become bitter. He uses circumstances to make us taste the bitterness of disobedience and to break down self-will. His chastening hand is felt.

GOD WORKING

How graciously God works to bring us to our senses! Waywardness not only dishonors Him but also robs us of joy and peace. If God allowed us to continue in the path of disobedience, we would eventually have to reap the consequences. But in love, He lets us feel His chastening hand and uses circumstances to break down our rebellion to His will. Proverbs 3: 11-12 tells us: "My son, do not despise the chastening of the Lord, nor detest His correction; for whom the Lord loves He corrects, just as a father the son in whom he delights."

A loving Father may have to chasten His child for his own good. The child may doubt the motives of the Father, but the child's inability to discern the Father's purpose does not change the Father's love or methods. If the child had more confidence in his Father, he would believe Him — even though unable to understand. This makes it easier to yield to the Father's will and obtain peace as well. Confidence in God is necessary to enjoy peace.

The Holy Spirit speaks to our heart and conscience, through chastening and the Word, to bring us to confess waywardness and turn again to the paths of righteousness: "Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it" (Heb. 12: 11). Humbled "under the mighty hand of God" (1 Peter 5: 6), the soul is once more able to walk in the path of righteousness and reap its peaceable fruits.

If we learn the lesson of God's chastening, we acquire peace. If we keep His commandments, we gain even more, because "in keeping them there is great reward" (Ps. 19: 11). "Blessed are those who keep His testimonies, who seek Him with the whole heart! — Great peace have those who love Your law, and nothing causes them to stumble" (Ps. 119: 2, 165).

PEACE OF MIND

"These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world" (John 16: 33). When we read the account of the mock trial of our Lord, one thing really strikes us — Him standing peacefully in the midst of that mocking, hypocritical mob. How could He do it? He gives us His secret in John 16: 32: "I am not alone, because the Father is with me."

He was in perfect submission to His Father's will, whatever the cost. He was with His Father throughout the ordeal, and so His peace was never interrupted. His Father's plan was perfect and His faith looked on to the glorious results of that wonderful plan: "For the joy that was set before Him (He) endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God" (Heb. 12: 2).

Now He has overcome the world and sat down in the glory. All power in heaven and earth is given into His pierced hand. What peace for our hearts and minds! He has a perfect plan for each one of His own. Let us trust Him then, knowing that His will is best. When we walk with Him, there is blessing and peace in our future: "I will never leave you nor forsake you" (Heb. 13: 5).

Why do we complain about our circumstances when His pierced hands are guiding us and His infinite wisdom has planned the future for us? Either we don't trust Him or we don't want to go the way He is taking us. Our deceitful heart manifests itself by not trusting Him who died for us and into whose pierced hands all power in heaven and earth has been given.

For our own good, we must surrender to Him. The Potter is forming a useful vessel. Should the clay rebel when it feels the pressure of His fingers as He molds, turns and shapes it on the spinning wheel?

Trust in Him: "These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace" (John 16: 33). Our circumstances may not change, our sorrows may not be removed; but if Christ is brought into our grief, we will be able to say with the psalmist: "You shall preserve me from trouble; You shall surround me with songs of deliverance" (Ps. 32: 7).

His wisdom cannot err. His power cannot fail. His love can never change. Even His direct dealing with us is for our deepest spiritual gain. Knowing this should lead us to say in the midst of sorrow, pain, and loss: "The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord" (Job 1: 21).

ABOUT OUR FEARS

One of the greatest hindrances to peace and security is fear — of sickness, accidents, death, job loss, financial trouble and so on. How can we have inner peace in a world full of injustice, conflict and uncertainty, where life is one long struggle for existence?

Job confessed that even in his great prosperity he was harassed by fears: "The thing I greatly feared has come upon me, and what I dreaded has happened to me. I am not at ease, nor am I quiet; I have no rest, for trouble comes" (Job 3: 25-26).

If we had a father who was very wise, had inexhaustible resources, and would do anything for our good, wouldn't that calm our fears and give us a sense of security? As a child of God we have all this in our heavenly Father.

If He invites us to cast all our cares upon Him, because He cares for us (1 Peter 5: 7), why then can't we turn our fears over to Him? Is it because we are afraid He will let us down? Is it because we are not willing to submit our wills to Him? Are we letting the devil get the best of us by making us feel we would be the losers if we completely surrendered our lives to Him?

We cannot leave God out of our lives and have freedom from fear. In the deep recesses of our souls we know that God exists and has almighty power. If we are not giving God His rightful place, we will have fear even though we may refuse to admit it. Denying God produces fear. It's as simple as that.

Fear is the painful sensation that danger threatens. The danger may be real or imagined, but the fear is real. Anxiety and worry are forms of fear. Anxiety is fear of anticipated danger. Worry is a brooding over these anxious fears.

Fear, anxiety and worry sap our energy and undermine our peace of mind. They are like weeds that grow and crowd out the flowers in our garden of happiness. Where do these weeds come from? Is there no way of getting rid of them? Has God left us with no way to cope with them?

CONFESSING OUR SINS

The Bible traces these fears to their real source and gives us the only effective remedy: "God is love  -  There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love" (1 John 4: 16, 18). Nothing will cast out fear like confidence in God's perfect love. Since love has blotted out all our sins through Christ's sacrifice on the cross, we can be sure that God has forgiven them and will never again hold us accountable for them.

An accusing conscience, that says that punishment is due us, is one of the major causes of anxiety, fear and worry. Genesis gives us the first record of fear that man had. In the Garden of Eden, after he had eaten the forbidden fruit, the Lord said to Adam: "Where are you?" Adam's response was, "I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked" (Gen. 3: 9-10). He was afraid because he knew he had sinned and deserved to be punished.

Down deep we know that sin deserves punishment, and that there will be no deliverance until the things that are troubling our conscience are cleared up in a way that is satisfactory to God.

When our conscience is troubled, we may try to forget our sins. It is natural to push them out of our mind or repress them altogether. But we can never really succeed, because deep in the unconscious mind the memory of them keeps surfacing in one form or another.

We may not be fully conscious of the fact that sin and self-will are the cause of our anxious fears. It is so easy to deceive ourselves and make ourselves believe that someone or something else is responsible. However, we will never get rid of our fears or have any real peace until we admit the truth and get things right with God.

A young lady, brought up in a Christian home, began to do things that her conscience condemned. Unwilling to admit them and confess them to God, she began to persuade herself first that God didn't care, and then that there was no God. For several years she claimed to be an atheist. But the sin in her life gradually developed into anxiety and fear.

She finally felt like she was losing her mind and ended up in a mental hospital. Many remedies were tried, but no relief came until she faced the fact that she was trying to rule God out of her life. Once she confessed her sins and surrendered to God, she was able to leave the hospital with her anxieties and fears gone and her mind clear.

JOY OF FORGIVENESS

We have to be conscious of God's forgiveness and His perfect love to have our fears cast out. But we can't have confidence in Him until we are sure we are forgiven. We can't have this assurance while we are unwilling to confess our sins to Him: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:8-9).

There are three steps we must take to really get rid of anxiety and fear:

1. Recognize the sin that is at the root of our anxious fears.

2. Believe that God really does forgive our sins when we confess them.

3. Put our sins, along with the anxiety and fear they produce, out of mind. Whenever they do come to mind again, instead of feeling anxiety, we will be reminded and thankful that God has forgiven them all.

When we take these three steps, we will be able to say with the psalmist, "The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want  -  I will fear no evil; for You are with me; Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me  -  Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life; and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever" (Ps. 23: 1, 4, 6).

A little child awakened by a storm cries out in fear. His father comes and takes him in his arms. Soon the child is asleep again. The storm has not ceased but the child's confidence in his father gives him a sense of security and removes his fear.

PATH OF PEACE

What comfort and peace would come if we would just cast ourselves fully on Him and willingly let Him plan our life! His plan is infinitely better than anything we could ever work out for ourselves. His plan embraces all the details of our life here, and also has in view our eternal happiness.

What comfort to have Him as our Shepherd, Caretaker and Friend — to be able to say, "The Lord is my Shepherd; I shall not want." (Ps. 23: 1). Rest and satisfaction belong to the believer who is willing to trust and follow the Shepherd: "He leads me beside the still waters" (v. 2). The storms may rage around us, but when we are close to Him, we are at peace. If we are in a place of unrest, we can be sure He has not led us there, though He may let us pass that way to teach us how bitter it is not to listen to Him.

Are we listening to His voice in our daily life? Are we following Him step by step regardless of how rough the road? He says, "My sheep hear my voice — and they follow Me" (John 10: 27). What a comfort to have such a Friend going all the way with us in every trouble, great or small.

What a path the Christian is called to follow! The Almighty Creator and Sustainer of this vast universe gave His life for us and now ever lives to comfort, counsel, guide and lead us. How is it that we let Satan get our eyes off Christ and rob us of our peace, giving us unrest and fear instead?

Satan wants us to doubt and fear. Will we yield to him or to the loving hand of God? Which path will we follow? That of sight that sees only the storm upsetting our plans, or that of faith that sees our Good Shepherd's loving hand guiding us into a fuller communion with Himself?

Are we in trouble? Do we fear tomorrow? Are we sick, sorrowing or in debt? Dear child of God: Christ died for us! Do not distrust His love. By these very trials He is working out for us a deeper joy and happiness than we could ever have any other way.

Paul triumphantly shouts in the midst of great troubles and distresses: "We do not lose heart  -  For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal" (2 Cor. 4: 16-18).

The language of faith is brave because the eye of faith does not let the things seen occupy the mind. They are seen only as the elements that God is using to develop a richer, fuller spiritual life in us. We must keep our eye on Him who will lead us into  peace and out of fear.

Certainly, there are trials in the path of faith, but each trial is a door to richer joy and peace in Christ. Don't shrink back at the entrance. If we do, we will find that there are greater trials in the path of unbelief, which are always bitter and disappointing in the end.

Christ endured the cross for us. If He sees fit to lead us through trying times, He will sustain us so that our joy will be richer for having endured the trial. As Paul met new trials, his eyes were on the "far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory" that would come to him because of them. He was not looking at his troubles in the light of the present, but in the light of the future eternal results.

If our heart is not at peace, what do we think we need to make it so? Write down what it is and take a good look at it. Now honestly ask, "Would its attainment restore the peace and quiet we want in our soul?" Satan wants us to think, as Eve did, that what God has withheld is something to be desired. (See Gen. 3: 1-6.) Be sure that peace for our soul is found in our willingness to let God have His way in our circumstances.

FOLLOWING THE SHEPHERD

The Shepherd is waiting for us to follow Him. We will gain nothing by murmuring and rebelling against His purposes; we will only make our misery greater. But, if we yield to Him, then He will fill our heart with joy and peace. If there is failure and sin, we must confess it, and believe that He forgives it according to His promise: "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1: 9).

What comfort for the weakest child of God who is submissive enough to trust Him: "You will keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on You, because he trusts in You  -  In YAH, the Lord, is everlasting strength" (Isa. 26: 3-4). To the extent that we are able to do this, we will have a steady peace which changing circumstances cannot take away.

It is a great thing to be persuaded by the Lord's love. The Lord of heaven and earth loves us with an everlasting love, which fills the heart and casts out fears. There is no other remedy. We do not need to say, "I am resolved in the future to do better." That would be leaning on self. Don't do it! Just say over and over again: "The Lord is my Shepherd; I shall not want. All His resources are mine. I can lean on Him."

But if we refuse to hear His voice, His blessings will be far from us and we will have nothing but self to fall back on in the shifting circumstances of life. Whether we admit it or not, when we are out of touch with the Shepherd, we are in trouble. Is there anything then that we cannot submit to, if it is the will of Him who sacrificed Himself on the cross for us?

ADJUSTING OUR ATTITUDES

It is not circumstances that make us happy or unhappy, but our attitude towards them. We are always striving to control our circumstances, and are able to do so to some degree. But many circumstances are beyond our control. Our tendency is to become discontented or even bitter when things do not go the way we want them to go. We act like children, crying or sulking or throwing a tantrum when we can't have our own way.

On the other hand, some are able to make the best of what can't be changed, by adjusting to their circumstances. Paul said: "I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content" (Phil. 4: 11). A Christian knows he is a beloved child of God, and that His Father has all circumstances under control, allowing only those things that are for our greatest good: "We know that all things work together for good to those who love God" (Rom. 8: 28). This is true, without qualification.

We are able to face whatever circumstance comes up and say with  assurance: "My Father has a lesson for me to learn. He has a blessing for me in this. He's giving me a golden opportunity to exercise patience, submission, faith and confidence in Him as His child."

Read the life of Christ in the Gospels. Look at the circumstances He passed through. They were surely not what the natural man would like: fleeing for his life to Egypt as a baby (Matt. 2: 13-14); working as a carpenter in the despised town of Nazareth (Mark. 6: 3; John 1: 46); having nowhere to lay His head (Matt. 8: 20); called crazy by His friends (Mark. 3: 21); called a demoniac by the crowd (John 8: 48). What scoffing He endured! But He received all these circumstances from His Father's hand and found in them an opportunity to manifest His divine nature.

Now each child of God has been made a partaker of that same divine nature (2 Peter 1: 4). He has Christ as His life. So all the circumstances we are passing through are God-given opportunities to let Christ take over and live out His life through us. This is exactly what Paul meant when he said, "For to me, to live is Christ" (Phil. 1: 21).

This should be the Christian's attitude toward the circumstances of life. And what a different outlook it gives to everything! No longer are things seen by human standards as trying and distasteful. They are now golden opportunities to develop our spiritual life as "children of God  -  in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights" (Phil. 2: 15). Even afflictions when looked at this way become an occasion for thanksgiving: "Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you" (1 Thess. 5: 16-18).

A positive Christian attitude brings true contentment to the child of God. All things are viewed as coming from the tender hands of a loving Father and are opportunities to learn valuable lessons in self-control, patience, faith and obedience, while gaining a rich blessing. Outward circumstances don't make us happy or unhappy, but our inward attitude towards them and towards God in them. Song writer Bill Gaither puts it this way:

I found happiness, I found peace of mind,

I found the joy of living, perfect love sublime,

I found real contentment, happy living in accord;

I found happiness all the time,

Wonderful peace of mind,

When I found the Lord.

PEACE ASSURED

"The peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus" (Phil. 4: 7). Who does not desire such an experience: the perfect peace of God Himself filling our hearts and minds? But why just desire it when we can have it? It is there for every child of God who wants it enough to meet the conditions.

Our Creator is the only one who fully understands the workings of our minds and all those feelings that well up in our hearts. Some of us have more emotional stability than others and do not swing as far and as often between extremes. Yet how few really know much of the perfect peace so necessary for true happiness. No matter how much or how little we have experienced this sweet peace, we want more.

If we are hungry and neglect to eat the food God has provided to satisfy hunger, we can't blame others if we starve. Neither can we blame others if we are unhappy but don't make use of God's provision for happiness. The whole fault lies in us. It is important that we face this squarely; otherwise we will never make use of God's provisions.

In Isaiah 26: 3 we read His first provision, which is trust: "You will keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on You, because he trusts in You." In Philippians 4: 6-7 we find the other two, which are prayer and thanksgiving: "Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God; and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus."

These three things — trust, prayer and thanksgiving — can give peace of heart and mind only to those who have full assurance of salvation. Many have assurance of sins forgiven; they know they are saved and have no doubt about their eternal security through the finished work of Christ. Yet they are often unhappy because they do not have that peace they desire and which God intends for them. They are neglecting these three simple tools.

TRUSTING GOD

What hinders us from trusting God? To trust Him we must first surrender ourselves to Him. No child can trust his father while walking in self-willed rebellion against him. Neither can one confide in God while walking in disobedience to Him.  We know that He will not help us with something that is contrary to His Word.

Our failure to believe that God's way is always best makes it hard to yield fully to Him and trust Him with all our heart. With distrust comes lack of confidence. With lack of confidence comes restlessness and unhappiness.

When Satan talked Eve into believing that God was withholding something good from her, she began to distrust God.  He had told Adam that if they ate the forbidden fruit they would die (Gen. 2: 17). But Eve looked at the forbidden tree and decided that it was "good for food  -  pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise" (Gen. 3: 6). She relied on her own judgment instead of yielding to God's. What unhappiness she plunged herself into!

Today this is still the root cause of all the unhappiness in the world. Keep this fact clearly in mind: If we want happiness and peace we must stop thinking we know better than God what will make us happy. We need to be willing to yield to Him and let Him have His own way with us. His infinite love and His infinite knowledge assure us that He knows what is best for us. His infinite power guarantees His ability to make it happen.

We cannot let our thoughts go astray; we must keep them on Him. Isaiah 26:3 tells us the Lord will keep us in perfect peace if we keep our minds on Him and keep trusting Him. Why let our thoughts run wild with anxious fear? The Lord has all things under control. He is, after all, the One who is above all and able to change all; and He wants to do what is for our greatest good. If we trust Him completely and keep our thoughts on Him, we will have peace of heart and mind.

Notice in the Psalms how often David talked to himself about God's care for him when he was cast down and harassed with fears. He was taught by God to do this, and was inspired to write these experiences for our encouragement. For example, when depressed and fearful he wrote:

• "Why are you cast down, O my soul? And why are you disquieted within me? Hope in God; for I shall yet praise Him, the help of my countenance and my God" (Ps. 42: 11).

• "I was brought low, and He saved me. Return to your rest, O my soul, for the Lord has dealt bountifully with you" (Ps. 116: 6-7).

• "The Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?  -  Though an army may encamp against me, my heart shall not fear  -  For in the time of trouble He shall hide me" (Ps. 27: 1, 3, 5).

• "Whenever I am afraid, I will trust in You  -  In God I have put my trust; I will not fear. What can flesh do to me?" (Ps. 56: 3-4).

We can never go wrong if we follow David's simple method of exhorting our own souls. It is not only psychologically correct, but also scripturally sound. We need to learn these verses and repeat them over and over again when we feel depressed, fearful or discouraged. Doing this will work wonders for us just as it did for David and many others who have followed his example. It will help to keep our minds fixed on the Lord instead of on our feelings or circumstances.

PROVISION OF PRAYER

Prayer is a wonderful provision of God to ease our burdens, tensions and fears, and restore peace to our hearts and minds. The value of prayer as a vital factor in a life of peace and happiness can never be overestimated. (See Phil. 4: 6-7.)

When we speak of the relationship of prayer to happiness, we are not talking about a few minutes spent each day repeating a stereotyped form of petition. Scriptural prayer is pouring out our hearts to God in simple childlike trust: "Trust in Him at all times, you people; pour out your heart before Him; God is a refuge for us" (Ps. 62: 8).

A school child comes to his father and says, "Father, will you help me solve this problem? I don't understand it." From this honest, simple request we can learn seven simple steps that govern effective prayer:

1. The child is conscious that he is in the presence of another person.

2. This person has the ability to solve his problem.

3. There is a relationship that the child is sure of — he's talking to his father.

4. He has confidence that his father has a personal interest in him and his problem.

5. He openly confesses his need for help with the problem.

6. He states his problem as clearly as he can.

7. He confidently waits on his father to show him the solution.

When we take these same seven steps and apply them to our prayer lives, they become simple rules for effective prayer:

1. When we pray, visualize in our souls that we are addressing a Person who is just as present as any earthly father could be.

2. Think for a moment of who He is and of His infinite power, wisdom and ability to understand and solve our problems.

3. Be conscious of our relationship with Him: He has made us His children; He is our Father.

4. As our Father, He has a very personal interest in us and our problems — more than any earthly father ever could. If He gave up His dear Son to die on the cross for us, we can be sure He is ready to give all that we need for our good.

So often we believe our prayers will be answered only if we do something to merit an answer. Since we know deep down that we have not been faithful to God, we feel we don't deserve what we are asking for. Therefore, we don't have confidence that He will answer. We must change our thinking.

Never ask anything on the grounds of personal merit, but simply on the grounds of our relationship with a loving Father who takes a personal interest in us. After all, by His grace He made us His for eternity. The Lord Jesus said: "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!" (Matt. 7: 11).

5. Since we are relying on our Father's personal interest in us, and not our merits, we can freely confess our ignorance, our inability, and even our failure to Him. If there is any guilt weighing on our conscience, we should confess it to Him and get the burden lifted. He is more than ready to forgive, for He already settled the account when He gave His Son to die on the cross for us. Thus we can have confidence as we present our problems to Him. (See 1 John 1: 9.)

6. Tell Him what our problems are as honestly as we can. So often, when we don't really understand our problems, talking them over with our Father helps us get a clearer understanding of them. The very act of putting our problems into words gives us a clearer picture of them. Then too, telling Him about them gives Him an opportunity to give us a clearer picture of what our real need is.

He invites us to bring our requests to Him, but we are not telling Him something He does not already know. In fact, He knows them better than we ever will! By unburdening our hearts to Him, we get in touch with Him about them.

7. Confidently expect that, because of His personal interest in us, He will give us the solution to our problems at the right time. This attitude opens the way for Him to lead us into the right solution, or to solve our problems through divine intervention.

The invitation to bring our requests to God — "in everything by prayer and supplication" — does not necessarily mean long hours spent on our knees pouring out our hearts in prayer. While quiet times are important, we cannot overstress the importance of constantly talking to God about everything during our daily activities.

This is what is meant in 1 Thessalonians 5: 17: "Pray without ceasing;" and in Ephesians 6: 18: "Praying always." Habitually referring everything to our Father in the midst of our daily routine keeps us in touch with Him so that His peace can keep our hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.

VALUE OF THANKSGIVING

If we are sad and depressed, we need to try thanksgiving. If we are discouraged and feel like complaining, we must try praise. God tells us in His Word that we should be found "giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Eph. 5: 20). Let's discover how we can do this.

The prophet Jeremiah was greatly depressed as he listed many things that weighed him down: "He has set me in dark places  -  He has hedged me in so that I cannot get out  -  He has made my paths crooked" (Lam. 3: 6-7, 9). In all, he named some thirty complaints about his desperate circumstances, ending on this sad note: "My strength and my hope have perished from the Lord" (Lam. 3: 18).

He felt as though he was hopelessly sinking under his burdens. But then his thoughts suddenly turned to God and he broke out with another thought altogether: "This I recall to my mind, therefore I have hope. Through the Lord's mercies we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not. They are new every morning; great is Your faithfulness. The Lord is my portion  -  therefore I hope in Him" (Lam. 3: 21-24). What a change! And that's always the way it is when we turn to God in our troubles. We find there is so much to thank Him for.

We should take all our sorrows to the Lord, and give Him the opportunity to show us why these things are in our life; but we should never leave His presence without thanking Him for all our blessings. This will surely turn our complaining into praise, and our depression into rejoicing. Paul made no mistake when He wrote, "In everything give thanks." He knew what was needed to lift us up. The unconverted have nothing to fall back on in times of trouble. But we have the eternal God with unlimited resources who takes a personal interest in us.

How sad to see so many confused and burdened Christians disregarding the Lord's gracious offer: "Come to me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matt. 11: 28). How grateful we should be, knowing that He will sustain us when we come to Him with all our burdens. We should even thank Him for our troubles, since they bring us closer to Christ and are stepping stones to a higher spiritual plane. (See 2 Cor. 12: 7-10.)

Some of us bring our burdens to the Lord, but are still weighed down with them, because we do not heed the Lord's simple instructions to give thanks in everything. If we did this every time we talked over our troubles with the Lord, we would find our souls uplifted by the awareness of our many blessings. We remain preoccupied with our troubles, when instead we should go on our way rejoicing because we have a loving Father who never fails His children. Praise and thanks work wonders.

EXAMPLE FOR US

If the Lord Jesus exhorts us to give thanks in every situation, He is not asking us to do something He Himself did not do. We should never forget that He was tested in every point just as we are. When He was tested by that unrepentant generation, even after all His labors of love and mighty miracles, notice how He reacted: "I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth  -  for so it seemed good in Your sight" (Matt. 11: 25-26). And in Luke 10: 21, where the same incident is recorded, we find it also recorded that "Jesus rejoiced in the Spirit."

As always, in these trials He saw His Father's hand and heard His Father saying, "This is from me." He recognized that His Father had power over heaven and earth, so He willingly bowed to His ordering of these painful circumstances, giving thanks. If we yield to our Father, we too will find great relief from distressing circumstances and also find renewed strength in our souls.

If we are not inclined to answer and say, "Thank you, Father," it only proves that our own wills are not surrendered to His. We don't want Him to have His way with us, and so we fret and complain, making ourselves still more miserable.

Don't forget that in all circumstances, we respond to God who is speaking to us through them. Our response may be, "Thank You, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight." Or we may say, "Father, I won't thank You because I don't want what seems good in Your sight." We might be thinking, "I would never say such a thing to my heavenly Father." But if we fret and complain about our circumstances, our response has no other meaning than that to God.

When we learn the Lord's secret of rejoicing in adverse and painful circumstances, we will find rest for our souls. His delight was in His Father's will. We too will find happiness when we give up our will for His. But we must try it to see what a wonderful change it will make. Our painful circumstances may not change, but we will see a rainbow in the cloud and hear a song in the night.

Perhaps our Father has ordered our difficult circumstances just to teach us to yield to Him and say, "Not my will but Yours be done." If this is the case, when His end is achieved in our lives, He will alter our circumstances accordingly.

The Lord found peace in the midst of trials by submitting to them and thanking His Father for them. We will find peace too if we do likewise. There is no other way. We cannot get peace by worrying or complaining. The more we yield our will to His, the more we will find the peace and joy of Christ in our souls.

LEARNING FROM HIM

When the Lord says, "Learn from Me," it is as if He were saying: "I know what I am talking about. I am your Creator who became your Redeemer. Don't be deceived by your own reasoning or by the opinions of men. Learn from Me, and you will find rest. My yoke is easy and my burden is light. But the yoke of self-will and sin is heavy with conflict and bondage."

Would our loving Creator and Redeemer deliberately make it hard on us if we surrender our will to His? Of course not! As our perfect example, Jesus submitted to the Father when He said: "Father  -  not my will, but Yours, be done" (Luke 22: 42). We are called to do likewise: "I beseech you  -  present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God" (Rom. 12: 1-2).

Our will, if not surrendered to God, is self-will. And self-will is the root of all the sin, misery and unhappiness that has ever come into our lives. Don't be deceived: it is not Satan, other people or our circumstances that bring about unhappiness in our lives; it is self-will. But God's Son came into this world to do His Father's will in love for us that we might have rest and happiness. A will surrendered to God is the gateway to happiness.

FINDING REST

To have a happy life, it is essential to be at rest. In explaining the way to find this rest, our Lord says: "Come to Me  -  Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me  -  and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light" (Matt. 11: 28-30).

The One who asks us to take His yoke upon us, gave us an example when He submitted to His Father's will saying, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God" (Heb. 10: 9). To find rest we too must surrender our wills to God's. That's what it means to "take My yoke upon you." Have you ever seen a yoke of oxen? When they are yoked up, they submit their will to the master.

Sin is the cause of all unhappiness in God's universe, and the root of all sin is self-will, or substituting our will for God's. Not only does this bring us into conflict with our Creator, but it also creates a conflict within us.

A child of God receives a new, divine nature when he is born again. This divine nature loves God and hates sin. The Christian also has the Spirit of God dwelling within him. For these reasons, inner conflict arises when a child of God yields to self-will and sin.

When we make something, we have the right to govern its use. Likewise, God has a right to say what we should do, because He has created us. When we buy something, it belongs to us. God has purchased us with the blood of His Son: "You are not your own  -  you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's" (1 Cor. 6: 19-20). When a child is born, he is expected to obey his parents. When a person is born again, God expects obedience from him (John 3: 3; 1 John 5: 18; 1 Pet. 2: 1-2).

We cannot disregard God's threefold claim over us — as His creation, His possession and His children — and expect inner peace. We must recognize God's rights. Therefore, if we exert our self-will in rebellion against God's will, inner conflict results.

HIS POWER

The power of God is so overwhelming that it should strike terror in the soul that is out of harmony with Him: "Even the demons  believe — and tremble!" (James. 2: 19). The power of God causes them to tremble. The legion of demons that possessed the maniac of Gadara trembled when Jesus commanded them to depart from him, because they knew His irresistible power (Luke 8: 31). Only man is foolish enough to try to persuade himself that he has nothing to fear: "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Ps. 53: 1).

Paul knew of this latent fear in the heart of men and he used it to awaken them to their need for the gospel: "Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men" (2 Cor. 5: 11). There is an unconscious fear of God in every human being regardless of how ungodly he is or how much he tries to suppress it. Man's cursing, swearing and statements of unbelief are an effort to drown the innate fear of God that is troubling him because he knows he is out of harmony with God.

No one can ignore the power of God and expect to have peace: "God is greatly to be feared  -  and to be held in reverence by all those around Him" (Ps. 89: 7). It is this inherent fear of God latent in every human soul that Christ appeals to when He says, "I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him!" (Luke 12: 5).

He goes on to couple this fear of God's power with a sense of confidence in God's care for them: "Are not five sparrows sold for two copper coins? And not one of them is forgotten before God. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows" (Luke 12: 6-7).

The Lord continues to develop our sense of security with these examples of God's care: "Consider the ravens  -  God feeds them  -  How much more value are you than the birds?  -  Consider the lilies  -  If then God so clothes the grass  -  how much more will He clothe you  -  Your Father knows that you need these things  -  all these things shall be added to you" (Luke 12: 24, 27-28, 30-31). What a comfort to experience God's awesome power over us and His care for us. Elizabeth Cheney wrote:

Said the robin to the sparrow,

"I should really like to know

Why these anxious human beings

Fear and fret and worry so?"

Said the sparrow to the robin,

"Friend, I think that it must be

That they have no heavenly Father

Such as cares for you and me!"

HIS WILL

It is a self-evident truth that God's power is always subject to His will. If we are sure that we are His, then we can be sure that He is working out His will for our present blessing and our eternal good. He has irresistible power to carry out His wonderful purpose concerning us. With this in view then, let's look at three statements about God's will for His children.

First, in Ephesians 1: 4-5, we learn what God's will was for us even before creation: "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will."

Who could ask for a higher place than to be His sons brought into His eternal favor? Could anything be more blessed than this? Angels are creatures before the Creator, but we are beloved sons of our Father. And all this because it was the good pleasure of His will.

Second, we know His purposes concerning us in the ages to come from Ephesians 2: 4-7: "But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ  -  that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus."

Here God reveals that in the future, His will is for us to discover the exceeding riches of His grace. Surely, God could not give anything greater than this! Why should we fear His power when we know the good pleasure of His will concerning us? His power, in fact, is our guarantee that His purpose concerning us will be accomplished in due time.

Third, in Romans 8: 28 we find His purposes revealed in the events and circumstances that touch us in our daily lives: "And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose." Should we dread His irresistible power and sovereign will when we know that He is making all things work together for our present and eternal good?

How narrow-minded of us to complain about our circumstances in the face of such plain statements! What a shameful way to treat our God who has willed such marvelous things for us! We cannot have peace in our soul when self-will and a refusal to submit reveal our distrust in God.

Remember, we are fighting in vain when we fight against God: "Woe to him who strives with his Maker" (Isa. 45: 9). Putting our trust in the One "who works all things according to the counsel of His will" (Eph. 1:11) is the happiest thing we can ever do.

SEARCHING SELF

Can we pray this practical prayer from our heart? "How precious also are Your thoughts to me, O God! How great is the sum of them! If I should count them, they would be more in number than the sand  -  Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my anxieties; and see if there is any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting" (Ps. 139: 17-18, 23-24).

If we search, we will find that God, in His great love for us, will show us both what is causing our trouble and what is hindering our peace. Thinking about His will for us should bring great peace. And thinking about His power should assure us of His good purposes concerning us. However, if we are not submissive, we should tremble, because we will discover that self-will leads to grief.

The children of Israel were self-willed, and great sorrow resulted: "'Woe to the rebellious children,' says the Lord, 'who take counsel, but not of Me, and who devise plans, but not of My Spirit, that they may add sin to sin; who  -  go down to Egypt, and have not asked My advice, to strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh, and to trust in the shadow of Egypt!'  -  The Egyptians are men, and not God  -  When the Lord stretches out His hand, both he who helps will fall, and he who is helped will fall down; they all will perish together" (Isa. 30: 1-2; Isa. 31: 3). Now, contrast this to those who love and do His will: "Great peace have those who love Your law, and nothing causes them to stumble" (Ps. 119: 165).

HIS CHASTENING

It is foolish to think we can have happiness and peace while showing disrespect for God's power to chasten us: "For whom the Lord loves he corrects, just as a father the son in whom he delights" (Prov. 3: 12). As His children we should never disregard His authority. He is training His children: "If we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world" (1 Cor. 11: 31-32).

How foolish to ignore His will and expect to have peace! We know we can't break His natural laws and expect to get away with it. If we touch a live electrical wire we will get a shock. If we take poison we will suffer the consequences. Just as there are natural laws that operate in His physical creation, so there are moral laws that operate in His moral creation. We cannot ignore one any more than the other and expect peace and prosperity. It is foolish to try.

In fact, many of God's moral laws have both a moral and a physical effect. For example, anger not only produces unhappiness but also effects the functioning of our vital organs. The worry, anxiety and tension that follow a fit of rage make us feel miserable and depressed. One hour of worry can cause more physical exhaustion than a whole day's work. How many people are nervous, irritable and tired all the time simply because they are breaking the laws of God governing their moral being!

But apart from these laws which have a uniform effect upon both body and soul, there is also a direct dealing by God resulting in discipline, correction, chastening, and training for the practical holiness of His children, as well as for their peace and happiness: "Whom the Lord loves He chastens, and scourges every son whom He receives  -  Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it" (Heb. 12: 6-7, 11).

We should be aware that God's hand is behind everything that affects us in our bodies, our souls and our circumstances. It is surprising how many of God's children go through life oblivious to this important fact. No wonder we drift along making so little spiritual progress and having so little real peace. If only we were more interested in learning the lessons and reaping the benefits of His chastening, how much misery we could spare ourselves and how much happier our lives would be.

God never wants to harm His children. He wants to deliver us from those traits that are harmful and develop those habits that produce peace and happiness. For example, if we are inclined to be proud, God may allow someone to make a derogatory remark about us for our own development. But if we do not recognize this as God's discipline for our correction, we are likely to get angry and say or do something we may regret later. However, if we see how God is delivering us from pride and giving us an opportunity to show a Christ-like spirit of meekness, forbearance and grace, His chastening will make us happy and peaceful.

God is always teaching us to renounce pride, hatred, anger, irritability, resentment, jealousy, envy, worry and anxiety, because these make us miserable and unhappy. He uses circumstances to give us the opportunity to develop the Christ-like traits of meekness, humility, gentleness, goodness, patience and self-control, because these produce peace and happiness.

God's chastening allows us an opportunity to renounce self and develop that new nature we have as His children. If we yield to His chastening and cooperate with Him in it, the results will be inner peace and happiness. If we ignore His discipline and decide to rebel, our Father may chasten us through sickness, accident, loss or some other providential means. He loves us too much to allow us to go on in self-will which robs us of peace, joy and fellowship with Him. God cannot make His children happy while they ignore "that good and acceptable and perfect will of God" (Rom. 12: 2).

EXAMPLES OF CHASTENING

The Bible is full of examples of God's chastening. In the case of Jonah, God used a great storm, an east wind, a beating sun, a great fish and a worm to chasten and discipline His rebellious prophet (Jonah 1: 4, 17; Jonah 4: 7-8). God has all things under His hand, and can use something as insignificant as a worm for chastening when He so chooses.

He used leprosy when chastening Gehazi, Miriam and King Uzziah (2 Kings 5: 20-27; Num. 12; 2 Chr. 26: 16-19). The sword, revolt and adultery were used with David (2 Sam. 11-12). Storms, famines, sickness, locusts, wars, and so on were repeatedly used by God to chasten His people for sin and rebellion. In 1 Corinthians 11: 30, Paul states that many were weak and sick, and some even died under the chastening hand of the Lord because of their sinful conduct.

An example for us today is that of a young woman dying from cancer. As a child, her godly mother taught her to know the Lord; but after her mother's death she drifted far into the world. Her battle with cancer brought her to the point where she could say: "My suffering will soon end in death, but the Lord has been speaking to me through it. I know why I had to suffer, and it has resulted in happiness." After a few weeks of peaceful suffering, the Lord took her home. Only the Lord knows how much suffering she might have been spared if she had surrendered to Him sooner.

While God uses sickness, accidents, and other trying situations to chasten His children, we must never conclude that God is disciplining us only because of sin. (This was the mistake Job's friends made regarding his suffering.) The Lord often uses sufferings and trials to draw us closer to Him. He may seek to strengthen our faith by putting us in situations where we have to depend upon Him.

When others are suffering, it is never wise to think that God is chastening them for wrong doing. We are not to judge; that's God's business. However, when we are being chastened personally, we should ask God whether He intends it as correction, training for usefulness, or character development. If we do not get in touch with Him about His purpose, and cooperate with Him, we will not gain the happiness and peace He intends for us. Remember, God's dealings are a reality, and we will suffer great loss if we pass over them lightly. On the other hand, they will contribute greatly to our peace and happiness if we take them seriously. We can brighten our testimony for Him by cheerfully accepting our trials.

HIS PURPOSE

No matter what our circumstances, there is no reason to become upset or discouraged, because God is ordering them for our good (Rom. 8: 28). This is the blessed truth that God wants His children to grasp. With a surrendered will and a confident heart, the child of God should be able to take everything from his Father without fretting or fighting. Instead, we should look for the benefit in it.

Let's make a mental list of all the things that upset us. Are others hurting our feelings? Are our surroundings getting to us? Do we seem to be battling against overwhelming odds? Are we nervous, tense and unhappy? Doesn't the God who allowed these circumstances also have the power to change them? Then why doesn't He? Because we know He does not send trials just to see us suffer, we can be sure that He has some lessons for us to learn.

How did Christ act in the circumstances of his life? Was he upset by them? No, He took them from his Father with a  submissive heart, as an opportunity to display His own divine nature. Now He is abiding in us by the Holy Spirit as our source of power and strength for daily living. We need to let Him take over and live His life through us so we can find His peace and happiness. Like Paul, we want to be able to say, "For to me, to live is Christ" (Phil. 1: 21).

Nothing will give such peace and happiness as a life lived in conscious harmony with our heavenly Father's plan for us. Let's yield our lives to God and view our circumstances as ordered for our good. Let's see in them a God-given opportunity to live in harmony with His purposes for our lives. If we do this, we will experience His sustaining power and His peace. Our circumstances may never change, but our lives will take on new meaning that will make for peace, happiness and a life worth living.

UNSELFISH SERVICE

A self-centered person never serves others unless there is something in it for him. But how different is the service of the child of God who finds true satisfaction and happiness in doing unselfish deeds. His good deeds are a source of joy and a spontaneous expression of his new nature.

Every born-again child of God has been made a partaker of the divine nature. This new nature is implanted in the believer by God's Spirit through the Word. It finds its greatest pleasure in helpful service to God and man. The believer can only be happy as he lives this kind of life.

Why did God redeem us by sacrificing His own Son? Why was Christ willing to die for our redemption? Because His own nature found its pleasure in unselfish love and service to others. A child of God partakes of this same divine nature and so unselfish service makes him happy. But a self-centered life depresses the believer and makes him miserable and unhappy.

We can only be happy when we act in accordance with our new nature which always finds its greatest pleasure in unselfish service to God and to man. But to understand why a true child of God is often unhappy, we must remember that we have two natures with opposite tendencies: a new, divine nature that we have received from God when we were born again; and our perverted, fallen nature that we have received from Adam by natural birth. To the extent that we yield to the natural, we will be unhappy.

POWER OVER SIN

Sin is destructive to happiness because it conflicts with the divine nature of the believer. It produces a humiliating sense of defeat. When we do things that our conscience condemns we feel miserable. We may try to forget about it but that is no solution to our difficulty. Power over sin is the only thing that can make us happy. But how can we get that power?

Before he learns the secret of victory, every born-again believer commits sins that he hates but seems powerless to overcome. Here is Paul's description of this struggle that leads to finding victory in Jesus: "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells — For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God, according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God — through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin" (Rom. 7: 18-25).

There are three laws spoken of in these verses. The law of God is that revelation of His will for man. The law of the mind is the working of the new nature in every born-again soul that delights in the will of God and hates sin. The law of sin is the working of the old nature that always wants to have its own way in opposition to God's will. These two natures — the divine nature that every Christian receives from God, and the sinful nature derived from Adam by natural birth — are entirely opposed to one another. One loves and clings to sin, while the other loves and desires to do the will of God. Struggles result, and the believer is sad whenever he gives way to sin.

This experience of struggle and defeat, often prolonged for months and even years, is very humiliating and painful. But it brings the believer to realize two things: that there is no good thing in him by nature; and that even after he has been made a partaker of the divine nature he has no power in himself to carry out the will of God.

While learning these painful truths, of our utter sinfulness and powerlessness to combat sin in our own strength, we often cry out in desperation as Paul did: "O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" (Rom. 7: 24). We have to learn that if we are ever to get the victory over sin, the power has to come from a source outside ourselves.

As soon as we look outside for a deliverer, we discover Jesus Christ as the answer to our agonizing cry, "Who will deliver me?" He is the only One who can set us free from both the condemnation and power of sin.

HAPPY LIVING

Much of the misery of this struggle with sin is due to the conscience continually condemning the believer for giving way to sin. But the great and glorious fact of the gospel of God's grace is that though our conscience condemns sin, God never condemns us, because He sees us in Christ, who has already paid our penalty for sin on the cross. So we are free and beyond condemnation and judgment: "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8: 1).

The life we now have flows down from Him, its fountain and source, into our souls. "Because I live, you will live also" (John 14: 19), are His own words to us. Our response is: "Christ  -  is our life" (Col. 3: 4). This is the great soul-delivering truth of God. He does not see us in our old nature any more. He is done with that and sees us only in the new life we have in Christ. And He has given us His Spirit to dwell in us, to develop His new life in us and to give us His power over sin.

So Christ is the answer to all of our struggles. We must stop trying to overcome the sinful tendencies of our old nature in our own strength and begin to let Him work in us that deliverance and victory over sin we so much long for. Likewise, we have no power to produce fruit, even though in our new nature we long to do so. What relief from our misery when we come to the end of ourselves and begin to trust Him. When we realize our powerlessness and look to the Lord, He gives victory over sin and produces fruit that brings joy and peace.

Christ gave us a simple illustration of how this works: "As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing" (John 15: 4-5). Where did the branch get the power to produce such wonderful fruit? Not from itself, but from the vine which sends its invigorating sap flowing into the branch to produce fruit.

Never lose sight of the great fact that Christ is the answer for every trouble. Without Him we cannot overcome. The more we keep in touch with Him the more fruit we will produce. Without Him fruit bearing is impossible. Without Him we will never have true and lasting happiness. He is the source of all joy. In Him we can have a happy life!

"These things I have spoken to you,

that in Me you may have peace.

In the world you will have tribulation;

but be of good cheer,

I have overcome the world."

John 16: 33

Safety, Certainty and Enjoyment

Safety, Certainty and Enjoyment.

G. Cutting.

"WHICH CLASS ARE YOU TRAVELLING?"

What an oft-repeated question! Let me put it to you my reader; for travelling you most certainly are travelling from Time into Eternity, and who knows how very, very near you may be this moment to the GREAT TERMINUS?

"Which class are you travelling?" There are but three. Let me describe them that you may put yourself to the test as in the presence of "Him with whom you have to do."

1st Class — Those who are saved, and who know it.

2nd Class — Those who are not sure of salvation, but anxious to be so.

3rd Class — Those who are not only unsaved, but totally indifferent about it.

Again I repeat my question — "Which class are you travelling?" Oh, the madness of indifference, when eternal issues are at stake! A short time ago, a man came rushing into the railway station at Leicester, and while scarcely able to gasp for breath he took his seat in one of the carriages just on the point of starting.

"You've run it fine," said a fellow passenger. "Yes," replied he, breathing heavily after every two or three words, "but I've saved four hours, and that's well worth running for."

"Saved four hours!" I couldn't help repeating to myself — "four hours well worth that earnest struggle! What of eternity? What of eternity?" Yet are there not thousands of shrewd, far-seeing men today, who look sharply enough after their own interests in this life, but who are stone blind to the eternity before them? In spite of the infinite love of God to helpless rebels, told out at Calvary, spite of His pronounced hatred of sin, spite of the known brevity of man's history here, spite of the terrors of judgment after death, and of the solemn probability of waking up at last with the unbearable remorse of being on hell's side of a "fixed" gulf, man hurries on to the bitter, bitter end, as careless as if there were no God, no death, no judgment, no heaven, no hell. If the reader of these pages be such an one, may God this very moment have mercy upon you and while you read these lines open your eyes to your most perilous position, standing as you maybe on a slippery brink of an endless woe.

Oh friend, believe it or not, your case is truly desperate. Put off the thought of eternity no longer. Remember that procrastination is like him who deceives you by it — not only a "thief, but a murderer." There is much truth in the Spanish proverb, which says, "the road of 'By-and-by' leads to the town of 'Never'. " I beseech you unknown reader, travel that road no longer. "Now is the day of salvation."

But, says one, I am not indifferent as to the welfare of my soul. My deep trouble lies wrapped up in another word:

UNCERTAINTY

i.e. I am among the second-class passengers you speak of.

Well, reader, both indifference and uncertainty are the offspring of one parent — unbelief. The first results from unbelief as to the sin and ruin of man, the other from unbelief as to God's sovereign remedy for man. It is especially for souls desiring before God to be fully and unmistakably SURE of their salvation that these pages are written. I can in a great measure understand your deep soul trouble, and am assured that the more you are in earnest about this all-important matter, the greater will be your thirst, until you know for certain that you are really and eternally saved. "For what shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul."

The only son of a devoted father is at sea. News comes that his ship has been wrecked on some foreign shore. Who can tell the anguish of suspense in that father's heart until, upon the most reliable authority, he is assured that his boy is safe and sound. Or, again, you are far from home, the night is dark and wintry, and your way is totally unknown. Standing at a point where two roads diverge, you ask a passer-by the way to the town you desire to reach, and he tells you he thinks such and such a way is the right one, and hopes you will be all right if you take it. Would "thinks" and "hopes" and "maybes" satisfy you? Surely not. You must have certainty about it, or every step you take will increase your anxiety. What wonder, then, that men have sometimes been unable either to eat or sleep when the eternal safety of the soul has been trembling in the balance!

To lose your wealth is much,

To lose your health is more,

To lose your soul is such a loss

As no man can restore.

Now, dear reader, there are three things I desire by the Holy Spirit's help, to make clear to you; and to put them in scriptural language, they are these:-

1. "The way of salvation.," (Acts 16:17).

2. "The knowledge of salvation." (Luke 1:77).

3. "The joy of salvation." (Psalm 51:12).

We shall I think, see that though intimately connected, they each stand upon a separate basis; so that it is quite possible for a soul to know the way of salvation without having the certain knowledge that he himself is saved, or again, to know that he is saved, without possessing at all time the joy that ought to accompany that knowledge.

First, then, let me speak briefly of

THE WAY OF SALVATION

Please open your Bible and read carefully the thirteenth verse of the thirteenth chapter of Exodus; there you find these words from the lips of Jehovah — Every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt NOT redeem it, THEN THOU SHALT BREAK HIS NECK: and all the firstborn of man among thy children shalt thou redeem."

Now, come back with me, in thought to a supposed scene of more than three thousand years ago. Two men (a priest of God and a poor Israelite) stand in earnest conversation. Let us stand by, with their permission, to listen. The gestures of each indicate deep earnestness about some matter of importance, and it isn't difficult to see that the subject of conversation is a little ass that stands trembling beside them.

"I am wondering," says the poor Israelite, "if there cannot be a merciful exception made in my favour this once. This feeble little thing is the firstling of my ass, and though I know full well what the law of God says about it, I am hoping that mercy will be shown, and the ass's life spared. I am but a poor man in Israel, and can ill afford to lose the little colt."

"But," answers the priest, firmly, "the law of the Lord is plain and unmistakable — 'Every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck.' Where is the lamb?"

"Ah, sir, no lamb do I possess."

"Then purchase one and return, or the ass's neck must surely be broken. The lamb must die or the ass must die."

"Alas? then all my hopes are crushed," he cries, "for I am far too poor to buy a lamb."

While this conversation proceeds, a third person joins them, and after hearing the poor man's tale of sorrow, he turns to him and says kindly, "Be of good cheer, I can meet your need;" and thus he proceeds: "We have in our house on the hilltop yonder, one little lamb brought up at our very fireside, who is 'without spot or blemish.' It has never once strayed from home, and stands (and rightly so) in highest favour with all that are in the house. This lamb will I fetch." And away he hastens up the hill. Presently you see him gently leading the fair little creature down the slope, and very soon both lamb and ass are standing side by side.

Then the lamb is bound to the altar, its blood is shed, and the fire consumes it.

The righteous priest now turns to the poor man, and says: "You can freely take home your little colt in safety — no broken neck for it now. The lamb has died in the ass's stead and consequently the ass goes righteously free, thanks to your friend."

Now poor troubled soul, can't you see in this God's own picture of a sinner's salvation? His claims as to sin demanded a "broken neck" i.e. righteous judgment upon your guilty head, the only alternative being the heath of a divinely approved substitute.

Now, you could not find the provision to meet your case; but, in the person of His beloved Son, God Himself provided the Lamb. "Behold the Lamb of God", which taketh away the sin of the world." (John 1:29).

Onward to Calvary He went, "as a lamb led to the slaughter," and there and then "He once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God." (I Peter 3:18). "He was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification." (Rom. 4:25). So that God does not abate one jot of His righteous, holy claims against sin when He justifies (i.e. clears from all charge of guilt) the ungodly sinner who believes in Jesus. (Romans 3.26). Blessed be God for such a Saviour, such a salvation)

Dost Thou Believe On the Son of God?

Well, you reply, I have, as a poor condemned sinner, found in HIM one that I can safely trust. I DO believe on Him. Then I tell you, the full value of His sacrifice and death, as God estimates it, He makes as good to you as though you had accomplished it all yourself.

Oh, what a wondrous way of salvation is this) Is it not great and grand and Godlike — worthy of God Himself? The gratification of His own heart of love, the glory of His precious Son, and the salvation of a sinner, all bound up together. What a bundle of grace and glory) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has so ordered it that His own beloved Son should do all the work and get all the praise, and that you and I, poor guilty things, believing on Him should not only get all the blessings, but enjoy the blissful company of the Blesser for ever and ever. "O magnify the Lord with me, and let us exalt His name together." (Ps. 34: 3).

But perhaps your eager inquiry may be, "How is it that since I do really distrust self and self-work, I have not the full certainty of my salvation?" You say, "If my feelings warrant me saying that I am saved one day, they are pretty sure to blight every hope the next, and I am left like a ship storm-tossed, without any anchorage whatever."

Ah, there lies your mistake. Did you ever hear of a captain trying to find anchorage by fastening his anchor inside the ship? Never. Always outside.

It may be that you are quite clear that it is Christ's death alone that gives SAFETY, but you think that it is what you feel, that gives CERTAINTY.

Now, again take your Bible, for I wish to say a little about how a man gets

THE KNOWLEDGE OF SALVATION

Before you turn to the verse which I shall ask you very carefully to look at, which speaks of how a believer is to KNOW that he has eternal life, let me quote it in the distorted way that man's imagination often puts it. "Those happy feelings have I given unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life." Now, open your Bible, and while you compare this with God's blessed and unchanging Word, may He give you from your very heart to say with David, "I hate vain thoughts; but Thy law do I love." (Psa. 119:113). The verse just misquoted is the thirteenth verse of the fifth chapter of the first epistle of John, and reads thus in our version:- "These things have I WRITTEN unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that we may KNOW that YE HAVE eternal life."

How did the first-born sons of the thousands of Israel know for certain that they were safe the night of the Passover and Egypt's judgment?

Let us take a visit to two of their houses and hear what they have to say.

We find in the first house we enter that they are all shivering with fear and suspense. What is the secret of all this paleness and trembling? we inquire; and the first-born son informs us that the angel of death is coming round the land, and that he is not quite certain how matters will stand with him at that solemn moment.

"When the destroying angel has passed our house," he says, "and the night of judgment is over, I shall then know that I am safe, but I can't see how I can be quite sure of it until then. They say they are sure of salvation next door, but we think it very presumptuous. All I can do is to spend the long dreary night hoping for the best."

"Well," we inquire, "but has the God of Israel not provided a way of safety for His people?"

"True," he replies, "and we have availed ourselves of that way of escape. The blood of the spotless and unblemished first-year lamb has been duly sprinkled with the bunch of hyssop on the lintel and two side-posts, but still we are not fully assured of shelter." Let us now leave these doubting, troubled ones, and enter next door.

What a striking contrast meets our eye at once! Joy beams on every countenance. There they stand with girded loins and staff in hand, enjoying the roasted lamb.

What can be the meaning of all this joy on such a solemn night as this? "Ah," say they all, "we are only waiting for Jehovah's marching orders and then we shall bid a last farewell to the task-master's cruel lash and all the drudgery of Egypt."

"But hold. Do not forget that this is the night of Egypt's judgment?"

"Right well we know it; but our first-born son is safe. The blood has been sprinkled according to the wish of our God."

"But so it has been next door," we reply, "but they are all unhappy because all uncertain of safety."

"Ah, " responds the first-born firmly, "but we have

MORE THAN THE SPRINKLED BLOOD, WE HAVE THE UNERRING WORD OF GOD ABOUT IT. God has said, 'WHEN I SEE THE BLOOD I will pass over you.' God rests satisfied with the blood outside, and we rest satisfied with His word inside."

The sprinkled blood makes us SAFE.

The spoken word makes us SURE.

Could anything make us more safe than the sprinkled blood, or more sure than His spoken word? Nothing, nothing.

Now, reader, let me ask you a question. "Which of those two houses was the safer?"

Do you say No. 2, where all were so happy? Then you are wrong. Both are safe alike.

Their safety depends upon what God thinks about the blood outside and not upon the state of their feelings inside.

If you would be sure of your own blessing, then, dear reader, listen not to the unstable testimony of inward emotions, but to the infallible witness of the Word of God.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on Me HATH everlasting life."

Let me give you a simple illustration from everyday life. A certain farmer in the country, not having sufficient grass for his cattle, applies for a nice piece of pasture-land which he hears is to be let near his own house. For some time he gets no answer from the landlord. One day a neighbour comes in and says, "I feel quite sure you will get that field. Don't you recollect how that last Christmas he sent you a special present of game, and that he gave you a kind nod of recognition the other day when he drove past?" And with such words the farmer's mind is filled with high hopes.

Next day another neighbour meets him, and in the course of conversation, he says, "I'm afraid you will stand no chance whatever of getting that grass-field. Mr. has applied for it, and you cannot but be aware what a favourite he is with Squire — occasionally he visits with him, etc., etc." And the poor farmer's bright hopes are dashed to the ground and burst like soap bubbles. One day he is hoping, the next day full of perplexing doubts.

Presently the postman calls, and the farmer's heart beats fast as he opens the letter; for he sees by the handwriting that it is from the Squire himself. See his countenance change from anxious suspense to undisguised joy as he reads and re-reads that letter.

"It's a settled thing now," exclaims he to his wife; "no more doubts and fears about it. The Squire says the field is mine as long as I require it, on the most easy terms. I care for no man's opinion now. His word settles it."

Now many a poor soul is in a like condition to the poor troubled farmer — tossed and perplexed by the opinions of men, or the thoughts and feelings of his own treacherous heart! and it is only upon receiving the Word of God as the Word of God, that certainty takes the place of doubts. When God speaks there must be certainty, whether He pronounces the damnation of the unbeliever, or the salvation of the believer.

"Forever, O Lord, Thy word is settled in heaven." (Psalm 119: 89): and to the simple hearted believer HIS WORD SETTLES ALL.

"Hath He said, and shall He not do it? or hath He spoken, and shall He not make it good? (Num. 23:19).

"I need no other argument,

I want no other plea.

It is enough that Jesus died -

And that He died for me."

The believer can add -

"And that God says so."

"But how may I be sure that I have the right kind of faith?"

Well, there can be but one answer to that question, i.e.: Have you confidence in the right person? — i.e. in the blessed Son of God? It is not a question of the amount of your faith but the trustworthiness of the person you repose your confidence in. One man takes hold of Christ, as it were, with a drowning man's grip; another but touches the hem of His garment; but the sinner who does the former is not a bit safer than the one who does the latter. They have both made the same discovery, viz.: that while all of self is totally untrustworthy, they may safely confide in Christ, calmly rely on His word, and confidently rest in the eternal efficacy of His finished work. That is what is meant by believing on HIM. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on Me HATH everlasting life." (John 6: 47).

Make sure of it then, my reader, that your confidence is not reposed in your works of amendment, your religious observances, your pious feeling when under religious influences, your moral training from childhood, and the like. You may have the strongest faith in any or all of these and perish everlastingly. Don't deceive yourself by any "fair show in the flesh." The feeblest faith in Christ eternally saves, while the strongest faith in anything else is but the offspring of a deceived heart — but the leafy twigs of your enemy's arranging over the pit of eternal perdition.

God, in the gospel, simply introduces to you the Lord Jesus Christ, and says, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." "You may," He says, "with all confidence trust His heart though you cannot with impunity trust your own."

"Blessed, thrice blessed Lord Jesus, who would not trust Thee and praise Thy name!"

"I do really believe on Him," said a sad looking soul to me one day, "But yet, when asked if I am saved, I don't like to say Yes, for fear I should be telling a lie." This young woman was a butcher's daughter in a small town in the midlands. It happened to be market day, and her father had not returned from market. So I said: "Now suppose when your father comes home you ask him how many sheep he bought today, and he answers, 'Ten.' After a while a man comes to the shop and says, 'How many sheep did your father buy today?' and you reply, 'I don't like to say, for fear I should be telling a lie.'" "But," said the mother (who was standing by at the time, with righteous indignation, "that would be making her father a liar."

Now, dear reader, don't you see that this well-meaning young woman was virtually making Christ a liar, saying, "I do believe on the Son of God, but I don't like to say I am saved lest I should be telling a lie," when Christ Himself has said, "he that believeth on Me hath everlasting life"! (John 6:47). "But, says another, "How may I be sure that I really do believe? I have tried often to believe, and looked within to see if I had got it, but the more I look at my faith the less I seem to have."

Ah, my friend, you are looking in the wrong direction to find that out, and your trying to believe but plainly shows that you are on the wrong track. Let me give you another illustration to explain what I want to convey to you. You are sitting at your quiet fireside one evening, when a man comes in and tells you that the stationmaster has been killed that night at the railway. Now, it happens that this man has long borne the character in the place for being a very dishonest man, and the most daring and notorious liar in the neighbourhood.

"Do you believe, or even try to believe that man?"

"Of course not," you exclaim, "I know him too well for that."

"But tell me how you know that you don't believe him? Is it by looking within at your faith or feelings?"

"No," you reply, "I think of the man that brings me the message."

Presently, a neighbour drops in and says, "The stationmaster has been run over by a freight train tonight, and killed on the spot." After he has left I hear you cautiously say, "Well, I partly believe it now for, to my recollection this man only once in his life deceived me, though I have known him from boyhood."

But again, I ask, "is it by looking at your faith this time that you know that you partly believe it?"

"No," you repeat: "I am thinking of the character of my informant."

Well, this man has scarcely left your room before a third person enters and brings you the same sad news as the first. But this time you say, "Now, John, since you tell me, I believe it."

Again, I press my question (which is, remember, but the reecho of your own), "How do you KNOW that you so confidently believe your friend John?"

"Because of who and what JOHN is," you reply. "He never has deceived me, and I don't think he ever will."

Well, then, just in the same way I know that I believe the gospel, viz. because of the One who brings me the news. "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which He hath testified of His son . . . He that BELIEVETH  NOT GOD HATH MADE HIM A LIAR: because he believeth not the record that God gave of His Son." (I John 5:9, 10). "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness." (Rom. 4:3).

An anxious soul once said to a servant of Christ, "Oh sir, I can't believe!" to which the preacher wisely and quietly replied, "Indeed, WHO is it that you can't believe?" This broke the spell. He had been looking at faith as an indescribable something that he must feel within himself in order to be sure that he was all right for heaven; whereas faith ever looks outside to a living Person and His finished work, and quietly listens to the testimony of a faithful God about both.

It is the outside look that brings the inside peace. When a man turns his face towards the sun, his own shadow is behind him. You cannot look at self and a glorified Christ in Heaven at the same moment.

Thus we have seen that the blessed Person of God's Son wins my confidence; HIS FINISHED WORK makes me eternally safe; GOD'S WORD about those who believe on Him makes me unalterably sure: I find in Christ and His work the way of salvation, and in the Word of God the knowledge of salvation.

But if saved, my reader may say, "How is it that I have such a fluctuating experience — so often losing all my joy and comfort, and getting as wretched and downcast as I was before my conversion?" Well, this brings us to our third point, viz.

THE JOY OF SALVATION

You will find in the teaching of Scripture, that while you are saved by Christ's work and assured by God's word, you are maintained in comfort and joy by the Holy Spirit who indwells every saved one's body.

Now you must bear in mind that every saved one has still within him "the flesh," i.e. the evil nature he was born with as a natural man, and which perhaps shows itself while still a helpless infant on his mother's lap. The Holy Spirit in the believer resists the flesh, and is grieved by every activity of it in motive, word, or deed. When he is walking "worthy of the Lord," the Holy Spirit will be producing in his soul His blessed fruits — "love, joy, peace," etc. (See Gal. 5: 22). When he is walking in a carnal, worldly way, the Spirit is grieved, and these fruits are wanting in a greater or less measure.

Let me put it thus for you who do believe on God's Son:-

Christ's Work and Your Salvation

stand or fall together.

Your Walk and Your Enjoyment

stand or fall together.

If Christ's work could break down (and blessed be God it never, never will) your salvation would break down with it. When your walk breaks down (and be watchful, for it may) your enjoyment will break down with it.

Thus it is said of the early disciples (Acts 9:31), that they "walked in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost."

And again in Acts 13:52 — "The disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Ghost."

My spiritual joy will be in proportion to the spiritual character of my walk after I am saved.

Now, do you see your mistake? You have been mixing up enjoyment with your safety — two widely different things. When through self-indulgence, loss of temper, worldliness, etc. you grieved the Holy Spirit and lost your joy, you thought your safety was undermined. But again, I repeat it -

Your safety hangs upon Christ's work FOR you. Your assurance upon God's word TO you.

Your enjoyment, upon not grieving the Holy Spirit IN you.

When as a child of God you do anything to grieve the Holy Spirit of God, your communion with the Father and the Son is, for the time, practically suspended; and it is only when you judge yourself and confess your sins that the joy of communion is restored.

Your child has been guilty of some misdemeanor. He shows upon his countenance the evident mark that something is wrong with him. Half an hour before this he was enjoying a walk with you around the garden admiring what you admired, enjoying what you enjoyed; in other words, he was in communion with you, his feelings and sympathies were in common with yours.

But now all this is changed, and as a naughty, disobedient child, he stands in the corner, the very picture of misery.

Upon penitent confession of his wrong-doing you have assured him of forgiveness, but his pride and self-will keep him sobbing there.

Where is now the joy of half an hour ago? All gone. Why? Because communion between you and him has been interrupted.

What has become of the relationship that existed between you and your son half an hour ago? Has that gone too? Is that severed or interrupted? Surely not. His relationship depends upon his birth; his communion, upon his behaviour.

But presently he comes out of the corner with broken will and broken heart, confessing the whole thing from first to last, so that you see he hates the disobedience and naughtiness as much as you do, and you take him in your arms and cover him with kisses. His joy is restored because communion is restored.

When David sinned so grievously in the matter of Uriah's wife, he did not say, "Restore unto me Thy salvation," but "Restore unto me the joy of Thy salvation." (Psalm 51: 12).

But to carry our illustration a little farther.

Supposing while your child is in the corner, there should be a cry of "House on fire!" what would become of him then? Left in the corner to be consumed with the burning, falling house? Impossible.

Very probably he would be the very first person you would carry out. Ah, yes, you know right well that the love of relationship is one thing, and the joy of communion quite another.

Now, when the believer sins, communion is for the time interrupted, and joy is lost until with a broken heart he comes to the Father in self-judgment, confessing his sins. Then, also he knows he is forgiven, for His word plainly declares that "if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9).

Oh, then, dear child of God, ever bear in mind these two things, that there is nothing so strong as the link of relationship; nothing so tender as the link of communion.

All the combined power and counsel of earth and hell cannot sever the former, while an impure motive or an idle word will break the latter.

If you are troubled with a cloudy half-hour, get low before God, consider your ways; and when the cause that has robbed you of your joy has been detected, bring it at once to the light, confess your sin to God your Father, and judge yourself most unsparingly for the unwatchful, careless state of soul that allowed the thief to enter unchallenged.

But never, never, NEVER, confound your safety with your joy.

Don't imagine, however, that the judgment of God falls a whit more leniently on the believer's sin than on the unbeliever's. He has not two ways of dealing judicially with sin, and He could no more pass by the believer's sin without judging it than He could pass by the sins of a rejecter of His precious Son. But there is this great difference between the two, viz. : that the believer's sins were all known to God, and all laid upon His own provided Lamb when He hung upon the Cross at Calvary and that there and then, once and forever, the great "criminal question" of his guilt was raised and settled — judgment falling upon the blessed Substitute in the believer's stead, "Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree." (1 Peter 2: 24).

The Christ-rejecter must bear his own sins in his own person in the lake of fire forever. Now, when a saved one fails, the "criminal question" of sin cannot be raised against him, the Judge Himself having settled that once for all on the cross; but the communion question is raised within him by the Holy Spirit as often as he grieves the Spirit.

Allow me, in conclusion, to give you another illustration: It is a beautiful moonlight night. The moon is at full, and shining in more than ordinary silvery brightness. A man is gazing intently down a deep, still well, where he sees the moon reflected, and remarks to a friend standing by: "How beautifully fair and round she is tonight; how quietly and majestically she rides along!" He had dust finished speaking when suddenly his friend drops a small pebble into the well and he now exclaims: "Why the moon is all broken to shivers, and the fragments are shaking together in the greatest disorder."

"What gross absurdity!" is the astonished rejoinder of his companion, "Look up man! the moon hasn't changed one jot or tittle; it is the condition of the well that reflects her that has changed."

Now, believer, apply this simple figure. Your heart is the well. When there is no allowance of evil, the blessed Spirit of God takes of the glories and preciousness of Christ, and reveals them to you for your comfort and joy, but the moment a wrong motive is cherished in the heart, or an idle word escapes the lips unjudged, the Holy Spirit begins to disturb the well, your happy experiences are smashed to pieces, and you are all restless and disturbed within, until in brokenness of spirit before God, you confess your sin (the disturbing thing), and thus get restored once more to the calm sweet joy of communion.

But when your heart is all unrest need I ask, Has Christ's work changed? No, no! Then your salvation has not altered. Has God's Word changed? Surely not. Then the certainty of your salvation has received no shock.

Then, what has changed? Why, the action of the Holy Spirit in you has changed, and instead of taking the glories of Christ and filling your heart with the sense of His worthiness, He is grieved at having to turn aside from this delightful office to fill you with the sense of your sin and unworthiness.

He takes from you your present comfort and joy until you judge and resist the evil thing that He judges and resists. When this is done, communion with God has again been restored.

The Lord make us to be increasingly jealous over ourselves, lest we "grieve the Holy Spirit of God, whereby we are sealed unto the day of redemption" (Eph. 4: 30).

Dear reader, however weak your faith maybe, rest assured of this, that the blessed One who has won your confidence will never change.

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and FOREVER" (Heb. 13: 8).

The work He has accomplished will never change. "Whatsoever God doeth, it shall be FOREVER: nothing can be put to it, nor anything taken from it" (Eccles. 3: 14). The word He hath spoken will never change.

Thus the object of my trust, the foundation of my safety, the ground of my certainty, are alike ETERNALLY UNALTERABLE.

Once more let me ask, WHICH CLASS ARE YOU TRAVELLING? Turn your heart to God, I pray you, and answer that question to Him.

"Let God be true, but every man a liar" (Rom. 3: 4).

George Cutting

"Canst thou by searching find out God?"

"Canst thou by searching find out God?"

Henry Wilson, Inkongo.

CANST thou by searching find

The Almighty God? Can puny man

Take in the One who was ere time began,

With his own finite mind?

I use a microscope, and scan

A tiny parasite,

Brought to the light

Of my research and vision as a man;

Yet is that tiny mite

Unable quite

To understand that I not only see

And know it, but control its destiny.

So it would seem that puny finite man

Can never scan

Or know the mighty God, who fills eternity.

Some say God can be found

In Nature; and 'tis true indeed

We there His wisdom and His might can read,

And see His skill abound.

The tiny animalculae,

More wonderful by far

Than man's inventions are,

Display His handiwork with certainty.

Each plant that grows

Most plainly shows

The imprint of a wise Creator's hand,

On viewing which amazed and awed I stand.

But 'tis His work, not God Himself I see,

Nor can it be

That viewing Nature only I shall understand.

Behold the starry sky!

What human mind can comprehend

Where the beginning is or where the end

Of such immensity?

What do the many names convey?

The 'Serpent' shining bright,

The 'Cross,' emblazed in light,

The 'Crown,' the 'Wounded Conqueror,' what are they?

Again I stand amazed;

The mind is dazed

Before the sky's expanse, so great, so wide:

And yet one's longing rests ungratified;

And life's hard problems and its deepest need

Remain indeed

Unsolved, unmet. The heart is not thus satisfied.

Turn now and view with me

A group of humble men gathered around

A central One, for in that One are found

A lofty majesty,

Surpassing wisdom, gentleness,

A knowledge of men's needs,

A tenderness that heeds

The faintest cry of sorrow or distress.

Then Philip speaks this word-

'Show us the Father, Lord,'

And thus the Lord replies with voice serene

'He that hath seen Me, hath the Father seen.'

O wondrous, glorious mystery, that God,

The eternal God,

Has revealed Himself in this our earthly scene.

Then onward to the Cross,

Displaying God's great love to you and me,

Behold the Lord, advance unflinchingly,

Unmoved by shame or loss.

But, risen now at God's right hand,

Upon His glorious face

God's glory we can trace,

And seeing Him, our hearts can understand.

He knows our every need,

And He can read

Even the longing we can scarce express,

And knowing, 'tis His great delight to bless,

The weary heart can find in Him its rest,

And, fully blest,

Be filled with heavenly peace and joy and happiness.

While He is still away,

His people here are left to set Him forth,

And show His glory and His matchless worth,

And God Himself display.

We well may own with grief and shame

How much we fail to show

God's nature here below,

And how we do dishonour to His Name.

Yet let us fix our gaze

On Him, whose rays

Will brighten, change us, cause us now to be

More like Him, so that all around may see

In us a little of that radiant light,

And glory bright,

Which we shall bear throughout a glad eternity.

Christian Privileges

Christian Privileges.

"They took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly." Acts 18: 26.

New Edition.

G. Morrish, 20, Paternoster Square, London, E.C.

Contents.

Safety, Certainty, and Enjoyment

Salvation

Ye Must Be Born Again

The Blood of Christ

The Forgiveness of Sins

Cleansed from All Sin

Peace by Jesus Christ

Law and Grace Exemplified

The Advocacy of Christ

Christ as the Revealer of the Father

The Children of God

Our Identification with Christ

The Coming of the Lord

Do All in the Name of the Lord Jesus

What Is the Unpardonable Sin?

The Four Judgments

Not Under the Law

The Peace of God

The Two Resurrections

Safety, Certainty and Enjoyment.

If a Believer, Why not sure of Salvation

If Saved, Why not happy

"Which Class Are You Travelling?"

What an oft-repeated question! Let me put it to you, my reader for travelling you most certainly are from time into Eternity, and who knows how very, very near you may be this moment to the Great Terminus?

Let me ask you then, in all kindness, "Which class are you travelling?" There are but three. Let me describe them, that you may put yourself to the test as in the presence of "Him with whom you have to do."

1st Class. ? Those who are saved, and who know it.

2nd Class. ? Those who are not sure of Salvation, but anxious to be so.

3rd Class. ? Those who are not only unsaved, but totally indifferent about it.

Again I repeat my question, "Which class are you travelling?" Oh, the madness of indifference, when eternal issues are at stake! A short time since a man came rushing into the railway station at Leicester, and, while scarcely able to gasp for breath, took his seat in one of the carriages just on the point of starting.

"You've run it fine," said a fellow-passenger. "Yes," replied he, breathing heavily after every two or three words, "but I've saved four hours, and that's well worth running for."

"Saved four hours!" I couldn't help repeating to myself; "four hours" well worth that earnest struggle! What of Eternity? What of Eternity? Yet are there not thousands of shrewd, far-seeing men to-day, who look sharply enough after their own interests in this life, but who seem stone-blind to the Eternity before them? Spite of the infinite love of God to helpless rebels, told out at Calvary; spite of His pronounced hatred of sin; spite of the known brevity of man's history here; spite of the terrors of judgment after death, and of the solemn probability of waking up at last with the unbearable remorse of being on hell's side of a "fixed" gulf (Luke xvi. 26), man hurries on to the bitter, bitter end; as careless as if there were no God, no death, no judgment, no heaven, no hell! If the reader of these pages be such an one, may God this very moment have mercy upon you, and while you read these lines open your eyes to your most perilous position, standing as you may be on the slippery brink of an endless woe!

Oh, friend, believe it or not, your case is truly desperate! Put off the thought of Eternity no longer. Remember that procrastination is like him who deceives you by it, not only a "thief," but a "murderer." There is much truth in the Spanish proverb which says, "The road of 'by-and-by' leads to the town of 'Never.'" I beseech you, unknown reader, travel that road no longer; "Now is the day of Salvation."

"But," says one, "I am not indifferent as to the welfare of my soul. My deep trouble lies wrapped up in another word ?

Uncertainty;

i.e., I am among the second-class passengers you speak of."

Well, reader, both indifference and uncertainty are the offspring of one parent ? unbelief. The first results from unbelief as to the sin and ruin of man, the other from unbelief as to God's sovereign remedy for man. It is especially for souls desiring before God to be fully and unmistakably sure of their salvation that these pages are written. I can in a great measure understand your deep soul-trouble, and am assured that the more you are in earnest about this all-important matter, the greater will be your thirst, until you know for certain that you are really and eternally saved. "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Mark viii. 36.

The only son of a devoted father is at sea. News comes that his ship has been wrecked on some foreign shore. Who can tell the anguish of suspense in that father's heart until, upon the most reliable authority, he is assured that his boy is safe and sound?

Or, again, you are far from home. The night is dark and wintry, and your way is totally unknown. Standing at a point where two roads diverge, you ask a by-passer the way to the town you desire to reach, and he tells you he thinks that such and such a way is the right one, and hopes you will be all right if you take it. Would "thinks," and "hopes," and "may bes" satisfy you? Surely not. You must have certainty about it, or every step you take will increase your anxiety. What wonder, then, that men have sometimes neither been able to eat nor sleep when the eternal safety of the soul has been trembling in the balance!

"To lose your wealth is much,

To lose your health is more,

To lose your soul is such a loss

As no man can restore."

Now, dear reader, there are three things I desire, by the Holy Spirit's help, to make clear to you; and, to put them into Scripture language, they are:

The Way of Salvation. (Acts xvi. 17.)

The Knowledge of Salvation. (Luke i. 77.)

The Joy of Salvation. (Psalm 51: 12.)

We shall, I think, see that, though intimately connected, they each stand upon a separate basis; so that it is quite possible for a soul to know the way of Salvation without having the certain knowledge that he himself is saved; or, again, to know that he is saved, without possessing at all times the joy that ought to accompany that knowledge.

First, then, let me speak briefly of the Way of Salvation.

Please to open your Bible, and read carefully the 13th verse of the 13th chapter of Exodus; there you find these words from the lips of Jehovah: "Every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck: and all the firstborn of man among thy children shalt thou redeem."

Now come back with me in thought to a supposed scene of 3000 years ago. Two men (a priest of God and a poor Israelite) stand in earnest conversation. Let us stand by, with their permission, and listen. The gestures of each bespeak deep earnestness about some matter of importance, and it isn't difficult to see that the subject of conversation is a little ass that stands trembling beside them.

"I am come to know," says the poor Israelite, "if there cannot be a merciful exception made in my favour this once. This feeble little thing is the firstling of my ass, and though I know full well what the law of God says about it, I am hoping that mercy will be shown, and the ass's life spared. I am but a poor man in Israel, and can ill afford to lose the little colt."

"But," answers the priest firmly, "the law of the Lord is plain and unmistakable 'Every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and thou wilt not redeem it, them thou shalt break his neck.' Where is the lamb?"

"Ah, sir, no lamb do I possess!"

"Then go, purchase one, and return, or the ass's neck must surely be broken. The lamb must die, or the ass must die."

"Alas! then all my hopes are crushed," he cries; "for I am far too poor to buy a lamb."

While this conversation proceeds, a third person joins them, and after hearing the poor man's tale of sorrow, he turns to him, and says kindly, "Be of good cheer, I can meet your need," and thus he proceeds: "We have in our house, on the hill-top yonder, one little lamb, brought up at our very hearth-stone, which is 'without spot or blemish.' It has never once strayed from home, and stands (and rightly so) in highest favour with all that are in the house. This lamb will I fetch." And away he hastens up the hill. Presently you see him gently leading the fair little creature down the slope, and very soon both lamb and ass are standing side by side.

Then the lamb is bound to the altar, its blood is shed, and the fire consumes it.

The righteous priest now turns to the poor man, and says, "You can freely take home your little colt in safety; no broken neck for it now. The lamb has died in the ass's stead, and consequently the ass goes righteously free. Thanks to your friend."

Now, poor troubled soul, can't you see in this God's own picture of a sinner's salvation? His claims as to your sin demanded a "broken neck" ? i.e., righteous judgment upon your guilty head; the only alternative being the death of a divinely-approved substitute.

Now you could not find the provision to meet your case; but, in the person of His beloved Son, God Himself provided the Lamb. "Behold the Lamb of God," said John to his disciples, as his eyes fell upon that blessed, spotless One, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." (John i. 29.)

Onward to Calvary He went, "as a lamb led to the slaughter," and there and then He "once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God." (1 Peter iii. 18.) "He was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification." (Rom. iv. 25.) So that God does not abate one jot of His righteous, holy claims against sin when He justifies (i.e., clears from all charge of guilt) the ungodly sinner who believes in Jesus. (Rom. iii. 26.) Blessed be God for such a Saviour, such a Salvation

"Dost thou believe on the Son of God?"

"Well," you reply, "I have, as a condemned sinner, found in Him one that I can safely trust. I do believe on him."

Then I can tell you that the full value of His sacrifice and death, as God estimates it, He makes as good to you as though you had accomplished it all yourself.

Oh, what a wondrous way of salvation is this! Is it not great, and grand, and Godlike, worthy of God Himself ? the gratification of His own heart of love, the glory of His precious Son, and the salvation of a sinner, all bound up together? What a bundle of grace and glory! Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has so ordered it that His own beloved Son should do all the work, and get all the praise, and that you and I, poor, guilty things, believing on Him, should not only get all the blessing, but enjoy the blissful company of the Blesser for ever and ever: "O magnify the Lord with me, and let us exalt His name together." (Ps. xxxiv. 3.)

But perhaps your eager inquiry may be, "How is it that, since I do really distrust self and self-work, and wholly rely upon Christ and Christ's work, I have not the full certainty of my salvation?" You say, "If my feelings warrant my saying that I am saved one day, they are pretty sure to blight every hope the next, and I am left like a ship storm-tossed, without any anchorage whatever." Ah! there lies your mistake. Did you ever hear of a captain trying to find anchorage by fastening his anchor inside the ship? Never. Always outside.

It may be that you are quite clear that it is Christ's death alone that gives safety; but you think that it is what you feel that gives certainty.

Now, again, take your Bible; for I now wish you to see from God's word how He gives a man

The Knowledge of Salvation.

Before you turn to the verse which I shall ask you very carefully to look at, which speaks of how a believer is to know that he has Eternal Life, let me quote it in the distorted way in which man's imagination often puts it. "These happy feelings have I given unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life." Now open your Bible, and, while you compare this with God's blessed and unchanging word, may He give you from your very heart to say with David, "I hate vain thoughts; but Thy law do I love." (Ps. cxix. 113.) The verse just misquoted is the 13th verse of the 5th chapter of the 1st epistle of John, and reads thus in our version: "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God: that ye may know that ye have eternal life."

How did the firstborn sons of the thousands of Israel know for certain that they were safe on the night of the Passover and of Egypt's judgment?

Let us pay a visit to two of their houses, and hear what they have to say.

We find in the first house we enter that they are all shivering with fear and suspense.

"What is the secret of all this paleness and trembling?" we inquire; and the firstborn son in- forms us that the angel of death is coming round the land, and that he is not quite certain how matters will stand with him at that solemn moment.

"When the destroying angel has passed our house," says he, and the night of judgment is over, I shall then know that I am safe; but I can't see how I can be quite sure of it until then. They say they are sure of salvation next door, but we think it very presumptuous. All I can do is to spend the long, dreary night hoping for the best."

"Well," we inquire, "but has the God of Israel not provided a way of safety for His people?"

"True," he replies, "and we have availed ourselves of that way of escape. The blood of the spotless and unblemished first-year lamb has been duly sprinkled with the bunch of hyssop on the lintel and two side-posts, but still we are not fully assured of shelter."

Let us now leave these doubting, troubled ones, and enter next door.

What a striking contrast meets our eye at once. Peace rests on every countenance. There they stand, with girded loins, and staff in hand, feeding on the roasted lamb.

What can be the meaning of all this tranquillity on such a solemn night as this? "Ah," say they all, "we are only waiting for Jehovah's marching orders, and then we shall bid a last farewell to the taskmaster's cruel lash and all the drudgery of Egypt!"

"But hold! Do you forget that this is the night of Egypt's judgment?"

"Right well we know it; but our firstborn son is safe. The blood has been sprinkled according to the wish of our God."

"But so it has been the next door," we reply; but they are all unhappy, because all uncertain of safety."

"Ah!" firmly responds the firstborn, "but we have more than the sprinkled blood, we have the unerring Word of God about it. God has said, 'When I see the blood I will pass over you.' God rests satisfied with the blood outside, and we rest satisfied with his word inside."

The sprinkled blood makes us safe.

The spoken word makes us sure.

Could anything make us more safe than the sprinkled blood, or more sure than His spoken word? Nothing, nothing.

Now, reader, let me ask you a question. "Which of those two houses, think you, was the safer?"

Do you say No. 2, where all were so peaceful? Nay, then, you are wrong.

Both are safe alike.

Their safety depends upon what God thinks about the blood outside, and not upon the state of their feelings inside.

If you would be sure of your own blessing, then, dear reader, listen not to the unstable testimony of inward emotions, but to the infallible witness of the word of God.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on Me hath everlasting life." (John vi. 47.)

Let me give you a simple illustration from everyday life. A certain farmer in the country, not having sufficient grass for his cattle, applies for a nice piece of pasture land which he hears is to be let near his own house. For some time he gets no answer from the landlord. One day a neighbour comes in, and says, "I feel quite sure you will get that field. Don't you recollect how that last Christmas he sent you a special present of game, and that he gave you a kind nod of recognition the other day when he drove past in the carriage?" And with such like words the farmer's mind is filled with sanguine hopes.

Next day another neighbour meets him, and in course of conversation he says, "I'm afraid you will stand no chance whatever of getting that grass-field. Mr. ? has applied for it, and you cannot but be aware what a favourite he is with the Squire ? occasionally visits him," etc. And the poor farmer's bright hopes are dashed to the ground, and burst like soap-bubbles. One day he is hoping, the next full of perplexing doubts.

Presently the postman calls, and the farmer's heart beats fast as he breaks the seal of the letter; for he sees by the handwriting that it is from the Squire himself. See his countenance change from anxious suspense to undisguised joy as he reads and re-reads that letter.

"It's a settled thing now," exclaims he to his wife; no more doubts and fears about it; "hopes" and "ifs" are things of the past. "The Squire says the field is mine as long as I require it, on the most easy terms, and that's enough for me. I care for no man's opinion now. His word settles all!"

How many a poor soul is in a like condition to that of the poor, troubled farmer ? tossed and perplexed by the opinions of men, or the thoughts and feelings of his own treacherous heart; and it is only upon receiving the word of God as the word of God that certainty takes the place of doubts and peradventures. When God speaks there must be certainty, whether He pronounces the damnation of the unbeliever, or the salvation of the believer.

"For ever, O Lord, Thy word is settled in heaven" (Ps. cxix. 89); and to the simple-hearted believer His Word Settles All.

"Hath He said, and shall He not do it? or hath Ire spoken, and shall He not make it good?" (Num. xxiii. 19.)

"I need no other argument,

I want no other plea,

It is enough that Jesus died,

And that He died for me."

The believer can add ?

"And that God says so."

"But how may I be sure that I have the right kind of faith?"

Well, there can be but one answer to that question; viz., "Have you confidence in the right person; i.e., in the blessed Son of God?"

It is not a question of the amount of your faith, but of the trustworthiness of the person you repose your confidence in. One man takes hold of Christ, as it were, with a drowning man's grip. Another but touches the hem of His garment but the sinner who does the former is not a bit safer than the one who does the latter. They have both made the same discovery; viz., that while all of self is totally untrustworthy they may safely confide in Christ, calmly rely on His word, and confidently rest in the eternal efficacy of His finished work. That is what is meant by believing on Him. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on Me hath everlasting life." (John vi. 47.)

Make sure of it then, my reader, that your confidence is not reposed in your works of amendment, your religious observances, your pious feelings when under religious influences, your moral training from childhood, and the like. You may have the strongest faith in any or all of these, and perish everlastingly. Don't deceive yourself by any "fair show in the flesh." The feeblest faith in Christ eternally saves, while the strongest faith in aught beside is but the offspring of a deceived heart; but the leafy twigs of your enemy's arranging over the pitfall of eternal perdition.

God, in the gospel, simply introduces to you the Lord Jesus Christ, and says: "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." "You may," He says, "with all confidence trust His heart, though you cannot with impunity trust your own."

Blessed, thrice blessed, Lord Jesus, who would not trust Thee, and praise Thy Name

"I do really believe on Him," said a sad-looking soul to me one day, "but yet, when asked if I am saved, I don't like to say yes, for fear I should be telling a lie." This young woman was a butcher's daughter in a small town in the Midlands. It happened to be market-day, and her father had not then returned from market. So I said, "Now, suppose when your father comes home you ask him how many sheep he bought to-day, and he answers 'ten.' After awhile a man comes to the shop, and says, 'How many sheep did your father buy to-day?' and you reply, 'I don't like to say, for fear I should be telling a lie.'" "But," said the mother (who was standing by at the time), with righteous indignation, "that would be making your father the liar."

Now, dear reader, don't you see that this well-meaning young woman was virtually making Christ out to be a liar, saying, I do believe on the Son of God, and He says I have everlasting life, but I don't like to say I have, lest I should be telling a lie." What daring presumption!

"But," says another, "how may I be sure that I really do believe? I have tried often enough to believe, and looked within to see if I had got it, but the more I look at my faith, the less I seem to have."

Ah, friend, you are looking in the wrong direction to find that out, and your trying to believe but plainly shows that you are on the wrong track.

Let me give you another illustration to explain what I want to convey to you.

You are sitting at your quiet fireside one evening, when a man comes in and tells you that the stationmaster has been killed that night on the railway.

Now, it so happens that this man has long borne the character in the place for being a very dishonest man, and the most daring, notorious liar in the neighbourhood.

Do you believe, or even try to believe, that man? "Of course not," you exclaim.

"Pray, why?"

"Oh, I know him too well for that!"

"But tell me how you know that you don't believe him. Is it by looking within at your faith or feelings?"

"No," you reply, "I think of the man that brings me the message."

Presently a neighbour drops in, and says, "The station-master has been run over by a goods train to-night, and killed upon the spot." After he has left, I hear you cautiously say, "Well, I partly believe it now; for to my recollection this man only once in his life deceived me, though I have known him from boyhood."

But again I ask, "Is it by looking at your faith this time that you know you partly believe it?"

"No," you repeat, "I am thinking of the character of my informant."

Well, this man has scarcely left your room before a third person enters, and brings you the same sad news as the first. But this time you say, "Now, John, I believe it. Since You tell me, I can believe it."

Again I press my question (which is, remember, but the re-echo of your own), "How do you know that you so confidently believe your friend John?"

"Because of who and what John is," you reply. "He never has deceived me, and I don't think he ever will."

Well, then, just in the same way I know that I believe the Gospel; viz., because of the One who brings me the news. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God that He hath witnessed of His Son. He that believeth not God hath made Him a Liar; because he believeth not the witness that God gave of His Son. (1 John v. 9, 10.) Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. (Rom. iv. 3.)

An anxious soul once said to a servant of Christ, "Oh, sir, I can't believe!" To which the preacher wisely and quietly replied, "Indeed, Who is it that you can't believe?" This broke the spell. He had been looking at faith as an indescribable something that he must feel within himself in order to be sure he was all right for heaven; whereas faith ever looks outside to a living Person, and His finished work, and quietly listens to the testimony of a faithful God about both.

It is the outside look that brings the inside peace. When a man turns his face towards the sun his own shadow is behind him. You cannot look at self and a glorified Christ in heaven at the same moment.

Thus we have seen that the blessed Person of God's Son wins my confidence. His Finished Work makes me eternally safe. God's Word about those who believe on Him makes me unalterably sure. I find in Christ and His work the way of Salvation, and in the word of God the knowledge of Salvation.

"But, if saved," my reader may say, "how is it that I have such a fluctuating experience, so often losing all my joy and comfort, and getting as wretched and downcast as I was before my conversion?" Well, this brings us to our third point; viz.,

The Joy of Salvation.

You will find, in the teaching of Scripture, that while you are saved by Christ's work and assured by God's word, you are maintained in comfort and joy by the Holy Ghost, who indwells every saved one's body.

Now, you must bear in mind that every saved one has still with him "the flesh;" i.e., the evil nature he was born with as a natural man, and which perhaps showed itself while he was still a helpless infant on his mother's lap. The Holy Ghost in the believer resists the flesh, and is grieved by every activity of it in motive, word, or deed. When he is walking "worthy of the Lord," the Holy Ghost will be producing in his soul His blessed fruits ? "love, joy, peace," etc. (See Gal. v. 22.) When he is walking in a carnal, worldly way the Spirit is grieved, and these fruits are wanting in greater or less measure.

Let me put it thus for you who do believe on God's Son:

Christ's work and Your Salvation stand or fall together.

Your walk and Your Enjoyment stand or fall together.

When Christ's work breaks down (and, blessed be God, it never, never will), your salvation will break down with it. When your walk breaks down (and be watchful, for it may), your enjoyment will break down with it.

Thus it is said of the early disciples (Acts ix. 31), that they "walked in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost."

And again in Acts xiii. 52: "The disciples were filled with joy, and with the Holy Ghost."

My spiritual joy will be in proportion to the spiritual character of my walk after I am saved.

Now do you see your mistake? You have been mixing up enjoyment with your safety, two widely different things. When, through self-indulgence, loss of temper, worldliness, etc., you grieved the Holy Spirit, and lost your joy, you thought your safety was undermined. But again I repeat it ?

Your safety hangs upon Christ's work for you.

Your assurance upon God's word to you.

Your enjoyment upon your not grieving the Holy Ghost in you.

When, as a child of God, you do anything to grieve the Holy Spirit of God, your communion with the Father and the Son is, for the time, practically suspended; and it is only when you judge yourself, and confess your sins, that the joy of communion is restored.

Your child has been guilty of some misdemeanour. He shows upon his countenance the evident mark that something is wrong with him. Half-an-hour before this he was enjoying a walk with you round the garden, admiring what you admired, enjoying what you enjoyed. In other words, he was in communion with you; his feelings and sympathies were in common with yours.

But now all this is changed, and as a naughty, disobedient child he stands in the corner, the very picture of misery.

Upon penitent confession of his wrong-doing you have assured him of forgiveness; but his pride and self-will keep him sobbing there.

Where is now the joy of half-an-hour ago? All gone. Why? Because communion between you and him has been interrupted.

What is become of the relationship that existed between you and your son half-an-hour ago? Is that gone too? is that severed or interrupted? Surely not.

His relationship depends upon his birth.

His communion upon his behaviour.

But presently he comes out of the corner with broken will and broken heart, confessing the whole thing from first to last, so that you see he hates the disobedience and naughtiness as much as you do, and you take him in your arms and cover him with kisses. His joy is restored, because communion is restored.

When David sinned so grievously in the matter of Uriah's wife, he did not say, "Restore unto me Thy salvation," but, "Restore unto me the joy of Thy salvation." (Ps. 51: 12.)

But to carry our illustration a little farther. Supposing while your child is in the corner there should be a cry of "house on fire" throughout your dwelling, what would become of him then? Left in the corner to be consumed with the burning, falling house? Impossible!

Very probably he would be the very first person you would carry out. Ah, yes, you know right well that the love of relationship is one thing, and the joy of communion quite another.

Now, when the believer sins, communion is for the time interrupted, and joy is lost until, with a broken heart, he comes to the Father and confesses his sins.

Then, taking God at His word, he knows he is again forgiven; for His Word plainly declares that "if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John i. 9.)

Oh, then, dear child of God, ever bear in mind these two things, that there is nothing so strong as the link of relationship; nothing so tender as the link of communion.

All the combined power and counsel of earth and hell cannot sever the former, while an impure motive or an idle word will snap the latter.

If you are troubled with a cloudy half-hour, get low before God, consider your ways. And when the thief that has robbed you of your joy has been detected, drag him at once to the light, confess your sin to God, your Father, and judge yourself most unsparingly for the unwatchful, careless state of soul that allowed the thief to enter unchallenged.

But never, never, NEVER, confound your safety with your joy.

Don't imagine, however, that the judgment of God falls a whit more leniently on the believer's sin than on the unbeliever's. He has not two ways of dealing judicially with sin, and He could no more pass by the believer's sin without judging it, than He could pass by the sins of a rejecter of His precious Son. But there is this great difference between the two; viz., that the believer's sins were all known to God, and all laid upon His own provided Lamb when He hung upon the cross at Calvary, and that there and then, once and for ever, the great "criminal question" of his guilt was raised and settled, judgment falling upon the blessed Substitute in the believer's stead, "Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree." (1 Peter ii. 24.)

The Christ-rejecter must bear his own sins in his own person in the lake of fire for ever. Now, when a saved one fails, the "criminal question" of sin cannot be raised against him, the Judge Himself having settled that once for all on the cross; but the communion question is raised within him by the Holy Ghost as often as he grieves the Spirit.

Allow me, in conclusion, to give you another illustration. It is a beautiful moonlight night. The moon is at full, and shining in more than ordinary silver brightness. A man is gazing intently down a deep, still well, where he sees the moon reflected, and thus remarks to a friendly bystander: "How beautifully fair and round she is to-night! how quietly and majestically she rides along!" He has just finished speaking, when suddenly his friend drops a small pebble into the well, and he now exclaims, "Why, the moon is all broken to shivers, and the fragments are shaking together in the greatest disorder!"

"What gross absurdity!" is the astonished rejoinder of his companion. "Look up, man! the moon hasn't changed one jot or tittle. It is the condition of the well that reflects her that has changed."

Now, believer, apply the simple figure. Your heart is the well. When there is no allowance of evil the blessed Spirit of God takes of the glories and preciousness of Christ, and reveals them to you for your comfort and joy. But the moment a wrong motive is cherished in the heart, or an idle word escapes the lips unjudged, the Holy Ghost begins to disturb the well, your happy experiences are smashed to pieces, and you are all restless and disturbed within, until in brokenness of spirit before God you confess your sin (the disturbing thing), and thus get restored once more to the calm, sweet joy of communion.

But when your heart is thus all unrest, need I ask, Has Christ's work changed? No, no. Then your Salvation has not altered.

Has God's word changed? Surely not. Then the certainty of your Salvation has received no shock.

Then what has changed? Why, the action of the Holy Ghost in you has changed, and instead of taking of the glories of Christ, and filling your heart with the sense of His worthiness, He is grieved at having to turn aside from this delightful office to fill you with the sense of your sin and unworthiness.

He takes from you your present comfort and joy until you judge and resist the evil thing that He judges and resists. When this is done communion with God is again restored.

The Lord make us to be increasingly jealous over ourselves, lest we grieve "the Holy Spirit of God, whereby we are sealed unto the day of redemption." (Eph. iv. 30.)

Dear reader, however weak your faith may be, rest assured of this, that the blessed One who has won your confidence will never change.

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever." (Heb. xiii. 8.)

The work He has accomplished will never change.

"Whatsoever God doeth it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor anything taken from it." (Eccles. iii. 14.)

The word He has spoken will never change.

"The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: but the word of the Lord endureth for ever." (1 Peter i. 24, 25.)

Thus the object of my trust, the foundation of my safety, and the ground of my certainty, are alike Eternally Unalterable.

"My love is ofttimes low,

My joy still ebbs and flows;

But peace with Him remains the same,

No change Jehovah knows.

"I change, He changes not;

God's Christ can never die;

His love, not mine, the resting-place;

His truth, not mine, the tie."

Once more let me ask, "Which class are you travelling? " Turn your heart to God, I pray you, and answer that question to Him.

"Let God be true, but every man a liar." (Rom. iii. 4.)

"He that hath received His testimony has set to his seal that God is true." (John iii. 33.)

May the joyful assurance of possessing this "great salvation" be yours, dear reader, now and "till He come."

WHAT transports then will fill our heart

When Thou our worthless names wilt own;

When we shall see Thee as Thou art,

And know as we ourselves are known;

And then, from sin and sorrow free,

Find our eternal rest with Thee.

Salvation.

"The salvation of your souls." ? 1 Peter 1: 9.

"Work out your own salvation." ? Phil. 2: 12.

"Now is our salvation nearer." ? Rom. 13:11.

The above scriptures show that the word salvation, as used in the New Testament, has more than one meaning.

The first speaks of believers having received the salvation of their souls, which salvation is as complete now as it will be when they are with the Lord in glory.

From the second believers learn that they are to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in them both to will and to do of His good pleasure; that is, by the power of the Holy Spirit of God in them they are to refrain their "feet from every evil way." (Ps. cxix. 101.) The Christian starts with the salvation of his soul. He is not told to work out that. It was wrought out by the Lord Jesus when He died, "the Just for the unjust, to bring us to God." (1 Peter iii. 18.)

The third refers to the glory that believers will enter into when they are caught up to meet the Lord in the air. (1 Thess. iv. 16, 17.) It was in view of this that the apostle said, "Now is our salvation nearer than when we believed." (Rom. i. 16; Phil. i. 19; Heb. v. 9; ix. 9, 28.)

Ye Must Be Born Again.

When Nicodemus went to our Lord for instruction, he was met instantly by the solemn word, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John iii. 3.) It behoves therefore every anxious soul to consider this searching divine word; because we at once learn, that whatever the anxiety of soul ? earnest desires, profession of faith ? if there has not been wrought this great change, the "new birth," there is no life in the soul, and consequently no salvation.

Who was it then to whom the Lord addressed these words? We learn only half the truth when we answer, Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; for, in fact, this tells us nothing beyond his name and official rank, and these things have no weight before God, and no significance for the seeking soul. It is in the connection of the third chapter with the second that we shall find the real answer to our question. We read, "Now when He [Jesus] was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast-day, many believed in His name, when they saw the miracles which He did. But Jesus did not commit Himself unto them, because He knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man: for He knew what was in man. But" (as it should be read) "there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews," etc. (John ii. 23-25; iii. 1, etc.) There was thus a number of Jews who believed on Jesus when they saw His miracles, and Nicodemus was one of that number. But Jesus did not commit Himself to them, because He knew what was in man; because, in fact, their faith was nothing more than a natural conviction, wrought by the evidence of the miracles, of the truth of the claims of Jesus. There was no bowing of heart before God in all this; there was nothing more than a natural or intellectual belief in the name of Christ. When therefore Nicodemus came to Jesus by night, no doubt in quest of something more, and expressed this belief, "Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him," Jesus answered him at once by stating the necessity of being born again. It was as if He had said, "You may believe in me as a divine teacher, and yet be lost. You must be born again before you can enter into the kingdom of God."

We thus get a most solemn warning, as well as a needed caution. The warning is, "Beware of being satisfied with a profession of belief in Christ." The caution is, Never forget that everything is useless if you have not been born again. You may be most earnest, most religious, a model of activity, in high repute for sanctity of life, or for works of usefulness, and yet be a lost soul; for unless you are born again, you cannot even see the kingdom of God."

Why then must a man be born again? The answer to this question brings us to a most important part of our subject. We have already shown that all men are sinners; but it is not only that they are sinners, but they have an evil, corrupt, depraved nature; and this incurably corrupt nature is the tree which produces all the evil fruits of sin. The acts of sin reveal the character of the nature; and this nature is totally unfit for God's presence. This is the purport of our Lord's words in this chapter, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh." (v. 6.) All therefore that we are as natural men, as children of Adam, is flesh; and in this flesh there dwelleth no good thing. (Rom. vii. 18.)

"Are we to understand that all men, without exception, are thus totally corrupt, hopelessly evil?"

"Yes. Such is the verdict of God upon human nature. 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh.'"

"But is it possible, for example, that all the noble deeds recorded in history, or all the kind, generous, and beneficent actions which we meet with in daily life, are all these done by those who have a totally depraved nature? Surely there must be a difference ? degrees in our natural condition; for how is it possible to class such actions with open and flagrant sins?"

It matters not what may be the outward character of the actions of men, whether such as will elicit the applause or draw down the condemnation of their fellows; for as long as they proceed from men who have not been born again, they are nothing but evil in the sight of God, for a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit. "For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes." (Luke vi. 43, 44.) The word of God is most explicit on this question. "The carnal mind" (the mind of the flesh) "is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God." (Rom. viii. 7, 8.) It is thus, as Luther said, not a question of doing, but of being; not a question of the character of actions, but a question of nature, and this nature God declares to be flesh, and the flesh is nothing but evil in His sight, and consequently "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." (1 Cor. xv. 50.)

Herein therefore lies the necessity of being born again. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh. . . . Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." (John iii. 6, 7.) This necessity is universal in its application. It concerns every one born into this world, the dutiful, obedient child, as much as the prodigal son; the active, zealous philanthropist as much as the convict in his cell. For the flesh is flesh, and cannot enter the kingdom of God. There must therefore be a new nature and a new life; for if there be not these, whatever a man's moral repute, he will be for ever outside of the kingdom of God.

How then must a man be born again? This, in substance, was the question of Nicodemus. "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (John iii. 4.) This question, rigidly construed, means undoubtedly, How is it possible for a man to be born again? But our Lord, in His answer, does not notice it in this form, but points out the way in which a man is born again. "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (v. 5.)

(1) Water. Much difficulty has been occasioned by special attempts to wrest the meaning of this symbol. Ritualists of many shades have persistently endeavoured to support their false teaching of baptismal regeneration from this passage. But if we confine ourselves to the Scriptures, we shall find that the difficulty will disappear. Now it is very evident that Nicodemus should have understood what our Lord meant; and if he did not, that he was expected to understand. For when he replied, "How can these things be? Jesus answered and said, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?" (John iii. 9, 10.) And if we turn to one of the prophets (with whose writings Nicodemus, as one of Israel's teachers, should have been well acquainted), we shall find a distinct foreshadowing of this teaching of our Lord. Speaking of the future restoration of Israel, the prophet says, "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you: and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them." (Ezek. xxxvi. 25-27.) Here we have the same conjunction of the water and the Spirit, and a radical change following upon its application; for nothing less than this can be implied by "a new heart." Not only so, but the water in this passage is used in the most familiar of all senses to the Israelites, in connection with cleansing. With this passage then before us, what, we ask, is the import of the water? Turn to Psalm cxix. 9, and we get this question: "Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed thereto according to thy word." We read also in the New Testament of the "washing of water by the word" (Eph. v. 26); again, "Now ye are clean through" (or because of) "the word which I have spoken unto you." (John xv. 3; read also John xiii. 5-41.) The water therefore is a well-known symbol for the word of God. Hence we find the Word constantly associated in other passages with the new birth. "Of His own will begat He us with the word of truth." (James i. 18.) "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away; but the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the Word which by the gospel is preached unto you." (1 Peter i. 23-25.) The apostle Paul makes an allusion to the same thing when he says to the Corinthians, "In Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." (1 Cor. iv. 15.) The word of God, preached in the gospel, is the first means of the new birth which our Lord here sets forth under the type of water.

(2) And [of] the Spirit. "It is the Spirit that quickeneth." (John vi. 63.) "The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life." (2 Cor. iii. 6.) The Spirit acting in and through the word of God quickens dead souls, and they are born again.

The Word cannot do this in and by itself; nor does the Spirit of God act alone, but He wields the Word as the instrument, so that by it He may bring souls out of death into life, producing in them both a new nature and a new life. Many illustrations of this might be collected from the Scriptures. Take the most prominent of all ? that afforded by the day of Pentecost. The crucifiers of the Lord Jesus were gathered round about Peter and the other apostles. Peter proclaimed the word of God to them, and said, "Let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." (Acts ii. 36.) At the beginning of the chapter we read of the descent of the Holy Spirit; and it is said of the apostles that "they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." Peter was therefore speaking in the power of the Spirit, and that same Spirit clothed the word of God with mighty power, and the effect was that a multitude were born again, the change wrought upon them being indicated by the fact that "they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter, and to the rest of the apostles, Men [and] brethren, what shall we do?" (v. 37.) So it is now when men are born again. It is always through the Word, by the Spirit of God. There is no other way.

Dear reader, have you been born again? You surely, with this testing word before you, can have no difficulty in answering the question. If you are, your whole soul will go out in thanksgivings to God for the gift of His only begotten Son. If you are not, let me again warn you that it matters not what you are besides ? you may be a good son or daughter, a loving husband or wife, a kind father or mother, and yet, not being born again, you are outside the kingdom of God, hopelessly undone and lost. Will you be satisfied in this condition? What had been the consequence if the bitten Israelites had refused to look to the serpent of brass, saying, "We may perhaps recover"? They would have died in their anguish and their sin. And so if you refuse to look to Christ, to believe in Him (Heb. xii. 25), instead of having eternal life, you will for ever perish. But if you bow to this divine necessity of being born again, acknowledging your true condition before God, and look to Christ in simple faith, you will immediately pass from death unto life.

ALL that we were ? our sins, our guilt,

Our death ? was all our own:

All that we are we owe to Thee,

Thou God of grace, alone.

Thy mercy found us in our sins,

And gave us to believe;

Then, in believing, peace we found,

And in Thy Christ we live,

The Blood of Christ.

Supposing now that those of whom we speak ? "anxious ones" ? have bowed to the judgment of God upon their condition, their immediate concern will be to know by what means they can obtain the pardon of their sins. The blood of Christ is the only way by which the guilt of sin can be removed. "Without shedding of blood is no remission." (Heb. ix. 22.) Herein lies the necessity for the death of Christ; the need, in fact, for the whole work of redemption. And hence it is of the first importance that this truth should be rightly understood.

We have already pointed out that death has "passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." (Rom. v. 12.) Adam first incurred the penalty through his disobedience to God. He had been warned not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Gen. ii. 16, 17.) Adam disregarded the divine command, and fell under the awful sentence of death ? the penalty which God had annexed to disobedience. Thus "by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." (Rom. v. 12.) There is therefore no difference; all alike are sinners; and hence every child of Adam's race is subject to the penalty of sin, which is death. Yea, death already reigns (see Rom. v. 13-21) over the whole human family; every individual member of it (saving those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ) being under the righteous judgment of death because of sin. "But God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." (Rom. v. 8.) He "so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John iii. 16.) Being rich in mercy, He sent His own Son to die, "the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God." (1 Peter iii. 18.) Just as when Abraham was about to sacrifice his son, God provided a lamb to be offered up in his stead, that Isaac might be rescued and live (Gen. xxii.), so God has provided a Lamb to be offered up in the sinner's room and stead ? "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." (John i. 29.) This is the secret and meaning, in this aspect, of the death of Christ. He died as the sinner's substitute, bore the sinner's judgment, expiated the sinner's guilt.

The marvellous efficacy of the blood of Christ, as meeting the sinner's need, flows from the character of His person and the nature of His death. His blood is the symbol of His death, of His life poured out; for the life is in the blood (see Lev. xvii. 10-14), and hence His blood cleanses from sin, because of the value of His death before God in the sinner's place and behalf. God has condescended to teach us this by type and illustration, as well as by direct statement. Look at the Israelites in the land of Egypt on the passover night. God was about to execute judgment upon the land of Egypt; and when once He began to deal in righteousness, Israel was as much amenable to the penalty of sin as the Egyptians. How then spare the former when the latter were to be judged? "I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord. And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt." (Ex. xii. 12, 13; also vv. 21-23.) The ground (mark it well) of difference on this night between Israel and Egypt was the blood. It was not what Israel was in comparison with the Egyptians, but it was the blood that stayed the destroyer's hand ? the blood on the outside of their houses; for the Lord had said, "When I see the blood, I will pass over you." The blood of the lamb ? for the lamb had been slain ? cleansed them typically from guilt, so that God could righteously spare Israel while He righteously destroyed Egypt. The same lesson is taught by the great day of atonement, of which we have the record in Leviticus xvi. For Aaron was directed to sprinkle the blood of the bullock and of the goat of the sin-offerings, both upon the mercy-seat and before the mercy-seat, where God dwelt between the cherubim; "for on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord." (Lev. xvi. 30.) All these things were but shadows of the efficacy of the blood of Christ. Thus we read: "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us" (1 Cor. v. 7); and again, "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood, He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (Heb. ix. 12-14.) Accordingly we are taught, that "the blood of Jesus Christ His [God's] Son cleanseth us from all sin." (1 John i. 7.)

We may, then, now point out distinctly the teaching of Scripture as to the blood of Christ in relation to sin. (1.) It is the only means of cleansing from guilt. This is the divinely-appointed and the divinely-given way. It is therefore exclusive of all other methods. "Though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord God." (Jer. ii. 22.) "If I wash myself with snow-water, and make my hands never so clean; yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch, and mine own clothes shall abhor me." (Job ix. 30, 31.) It is only the blood of Christ which can make the sinner whiter than snow. (2.) It is the blood in and by itself alone which possesses this efficacy. There cannot be any addition to it. It is not the blood and something else. Add to it in any way, whether by feelings, prayers, penitence (all of which have their proper place), and you mar its cleansing power. (3.) God has provided the blood. It was He who delivered up His Son to death. This provision for the sinner's need is one therefore entirely of God's grace, and consequently a provision outside of the sinner altogether. God in His infinite mercy, and because He so loved the world, provided the Lamb for the sacrifice and now the precious blood of that Lamb avails for every one who believes. (John iii. 16.) There is no limit whatever in its application, excepting in the sinner's unbelief. It is provided for all, and every one may be the subject of its blessed cleansing power through faith.

Beloved reader, you have confessed your need of cleansing; and God has provided that which alone can meet your need. Do you ask, But how am I to obtain the application of the blood to myself? Solely and entirely by the obedience of faith. Let us go back to the passover night. (Ex. xii.) It was not enough that the lamb was slain, and that the blood was in the basin; but the Israelite was directed to sprinkle the blood for himself upon the lintel and the two side-posts of his door. With the bunch of hyssop in his hand, the sign of his humiliation before the righteous judgment of God, he sprinkled the blood, thereby confessing his own desert of death, and his faith in the blood as the means to avert the stroke of the destroyer, of sheltering him from the wrath of the Righteous Judge. So now. The Lamb has been provided, and slain; His blood has been shed. But the fact of His blood-shedding does not secure your safety. The question is, Are you under the shelter of the blood? Do you again ask, How can this be? By bowing in humiliation, like the Israelite, before the judgment which God has pronounced against sin; that is, by taking the place of a sinner, and by looking to the blood of Christ to secure you from the righteous doom and meed of sin. The moment you do this, the blood of Christ is upon you in all its value, between you and judgment, sheltering you completely and for ever from the consequences of sin; for the blood has met and satisfied all the claims that a holy God had against you. For God hath set forth Christ a propitiation through faith in His blood. (Rom. iii. 25.) There is therefore absolutely nothing for you to do; not even have you to gather the hyssop and sprinkle the blood. You have simply to believe the word of God, to look in faith to the blood already shed, as the only means of protection from death and judgment, and God instantly sees you as covered with all its efficacy and value ? cleansed from guilt and whiter than snow. Delay not, then, to seek the protection of the precious blood of Christ. At midnight the Lord smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt; and as suddenly and unexpectedly will judgment overtake the rejecters of Christ, "for when they shall say, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them . . . and they shall not escape." (1 Thess. v. 3.) To-day, then, hear the entreating voice of the love of God, which bids you to flee from the wrath to come, and to "behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." (John i. 29.)

To Him that saved us from the world,

And washed us in His blood,

Called us to share His glorious throne,

As kings and priests to God;

To Him let every tongue be praise,

And every heart be love!

All grateful honours paid on earth,

And nobler songs above!

The Forgiveness of Sins

All forgiveness is founded on the blessed work of the Lord Jesus. Without the work of Christ, a holy and just God, yea, a God of truth, must have held man to be what he really is ? a guilty sinner, who must be judged according to his works; and we know beforehand from His word that there is none righteous, no, not one. The love of God, great as it is, so great that for us He did not spare His Son, could not say that sin was not sin, or that He was indifferent to good and evil; for He is not, and in His own nature cannot be; and if He judges, and makes man himself answer for what he has done, He must judge him righteously.

Besides, we are alienated from God in heart and mind, and so really already lost. I do not now mean finally, nor that we cannot be saved out of that state; but if we can, it is because Christ came to seek and to save that which was lost. Judgment, if we come unrepentant, unbelieving, before the judgment-seat of Christ, will be according to our works, and therefore to condemnation; for all have sinned.

But God is love ? "God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." God has thus anticipated, in grace, that day of judgment. The same blessed Son of God, who will as Son of man sit on the judgment-seat, and judge the quick and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom, has already, before that day, come as a Saviour, and died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and "he that believeth on the Son of God shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be condemned." Solemn as that warning is, I shall not say more of these last. The statement is plain enough and solemn enough without adding anything to it. They die in their sins, and are doubly guilty; they have not only sinned against His holiness, but despised His mercy.

Supposing now we do really in heart believe in the Son of God, with a faith wrought in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, and a conscience which feels the need of grace and forgiveness; for that is the great point ? a faith which has wrought true repentance, that godly sorrow and sense that we have deserved to be condemned which make Christ and His grace and His work precious to us. I suppose we have been all brought up to believe in what is written of the blessed Lord Jesus as a divine history; but that is very different from believing in Him as meeting the need of an awakened conscience.

But supposing I have this true faith in Him, then it behoves me to be able to say what He has done for me.

He has died for our sins according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. xv. 3); He has borne our sins in His own body on the tree (1 Peter ii. 24); He died, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God. (1 Peter iii. 18.)

So that here is our question: Supposing I have true heart-faith in Him, Christ having thus died for me, what is the effect or efficacy of His death for me?

I have a perfect and eternal forgiveness and redemption according to the glory of God. I do not speak of those who neglect this great salvation; they are doubly guilty; but of what the value of His work is for those who have really a part in it. "Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: and by Him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." (Acts xiii. 38, 39.) "In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace." (Eph. i. 7.) "Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God." (Rom. iv. 25; v. 1, 2.) "By the obedience of One shall many be made righteous." (Rom. v. 19.) "Whom He justified, them He also glorified." (Rom. viii. 30.) "By His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption." (Heb. ix. 12.) And its effect is complete ? "How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (v. 14.)

But is this valid for ever?

We have seen that it is eternal redemption, that it purges the conscience from dead works, and gives peace with God; but Scripture is more explicit. Christ is always at the right hand of God, and has presented His precious blood to God. It is always before His eyes; but Scripture is very explicit on this point ? "But this [man], having offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down at the right hand of God." Not like the Jewish priests, standing continually at the altar offering sacrifices which could never take away sins. (Heb. x. 11.) He sat down because, for redemption and forgiveness, He had done already the whole work; for (Heb. x. 14) "by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." He sits there at the right hand of God till His enemies be made His footstool; then He will come to deal with them in judgment. But all is done for His friends; that is, true believers, and He has sat down, having finished the work, so that those who come by it have no more conscience of sins. (v. 2.) "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will impute no sin." "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered." (Rom. iv. 7, 8.) And is it only some of them? No, that were useless. "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth no sin;" and the Holy Ghost testifies of it clearly in that same chapter from which we have quoted, "And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." (Heb. 10: 17.) And so plainly does He put it that He declares that "where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." (v. 18.) So that, if all were not completely pardoned and effaced, there could be no remedy.

The more we consider it the more plain it is. Christ is the Judge, and if now I can say by faith, He has loved me and washed me from my sins in His own blood, how can He, when I stand before the judgment-seat, impute to me the sins He has Himself borne and put away? He would be denying the value of His own work, which is impossible.

Again, if we are believers, we are raised in glory (1 Cor. xv. 43); nay, Christ shall Himself come to bring us to Himself ? "Who shall change our body of humiliation that it may be fashioned like unto His body of glory." If Christ comes to fetch us, and puts us in glory, where is the place for raising any question then about our sins? And this is clearly said in John v. 24: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation [judgment]; but is passed from death unto life."

Is it because God is indifferent to their sins? Impossible! But He has given His Son for us. Christ has borne them already, and cannot impute them to those who believe in Him and in the Father who sent Him in love. We know that the Lord says, "If ye do not believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." (John viii. 24.) But if we believe in Him we have the forgiveness of our sins, not of some to be condemned for the rest. "Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more," because "by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." And we possess the blessedness of this word ? "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man to whom Jehovah will not impute sin." Hence repentance and remission of sins were to be preached in Jesus' name. The Christian has a new life from Christ, and this will show itself in his walk. He is born of the Spirit, and the faith in Christ by which he has forgiveness makes Christ everything to him, as it is written in Colossians iii.: "Christ is all, and in all" ? the "everything," that is, of our hearts, and He is our life.

But I now confine myself to redemption and forgiveness.

There is, then, a forgiveness identified with redemption and the abiding value of Christ's blood, so that our sins are none of them imputed to us: God remembers them no more. We have part in this through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and the door by which we enter is repentance toward God, which faith in the word of Christ always produces. We have our eyes opened, we are turned from darkness to light, from the power of Satan unto God, and we receive remission of our sins and an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith that is in Jesus. (Acts xxvi. 18.)

Under the Old Testament, among the Jews, this full forgiveness was not known; they got a kind of absolution for each sin they committed; they were shut out from entering into the holiest by the veil, which hung before the place where God revealed Himself. Thus in Hebrews ix. it is written, "The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing." But we learn, when the real work of which all these things were figures was accomplished in the death of the Saviour, that the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom (Matt. xxvii. 51); and we are exhorted (Heb. x. 19), in virtue of the work of Christ and the remission of our sins (vv. 17, 18), "having boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way, which He hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, His flesh," to "draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience." That one work done once for all, never to be repeated, and effectual to give peace to the conscience, is the ground on which we have eternal redemption, full forgiveness, so that God remembers our sins and iniquities no more; an entrance into God's presence, and a part in the everlasting inheritance of God's children in glory.

This great difference in the state of believers before and after the death of the blessed Lord is celebrated by Zacharias at the birth of John the Baptist, Christ's forerunner. "To give knowledge of salvation unto His people, by the remission of their sins." (Luke i. 77.) So the repentant thief went straight into paradise with Christ; so to the repentant woman in the city that was a sinner the Lord said, not only, "Thy sins are forgiven thee," but, "Thy faith hath saved thee." (Luke 7: 48-50.)

There is then for faith a present but eternal forgiveness, founded on Christ's bearing our sins in a work which can never be repeated, its value never diminished, nor anything added to it. God has proved His estimation of its worth in setting Him who did it at His right hand in glory, where He was with Him as Son of God before the world was. "Without shedding of blood there is no remission." This cannot be repeated. "Christ is not entered into holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: nor yet to offer Himself often . . . otherwise He must often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the consummation of ages He hath appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment; so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time apart from sin unto salvation." Those whose sins were put away the first time, He comes to take into glory, as to them having no more to do with sin, which He put away the first time.

FORGIVENESS, 'twas a joyful sound

To guilty sinners doomed to die:

We'd publish it the world around,

And gladly shout it through the sky.

'Twas the rich gift of love divine;

'Tis full, effacing every crime;

Unbounded shall its glories shine,

And know no change by changing time.

"Cleansed from all sin."

1 John i. 7.

"Shall we not be perfectly holy when we are cleansed from all sin?" This is a question often asked by some who imagine that they can be gradually cleansed from "inbred sin," until at last there is no sin left in them, and they have reached a state of perfect holiness or sinless perfection.

They quote that precious word in 1 John i. 7 ? "The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin" ? and say, "Does not that verse show that we can be cleansed from all sin?"

Of course it does, thank God; and what is more, if you are under the efficacy of that blood you are "cleansed from all sin" now, and so is every true believer, even the babe in Christ, and that from the first moment that he took refuge in the blood.

"But," some will say, "if that were the case, if I, for instance, were cleansed from all sin, I should not feel sin in me as I do, and should never give way to temptation."

To such we would reply, You are confounding the work of Christ for you with the work of the Spirit in you, and you do not understand what Scripture means by cleansing by the blood.

Let us therefore look at one or two passages which explain it, and may God interpret His own word to us, so that we may get rid of our own thoughts, and have the truth.

Now in Leviticus xvi. 30 we read, with reference to the great day of atonement, "On that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord;" and on examining the chapter we find not only that the people did nothing, but that the priest, who did everything for the people, did nothing to the people; he did not even sprinkle the blood upon them, and yet he made atonement for them, and cleansed them, and they were clean from ALL their sins before the Lord. Ah! there is the point; they were clean before the Lord, not in themselves, and that is just the meaning of the verse already quoted ? "the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." It is before the Lord, before a holy God. It cannot mean that we are clean in ourselves; for in the very same chapter (v. 8) it says, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

"But," you say, "do we never read of the blood being sprinkled on the people?" To be sure we do, and in Heb. ix. x. we see the meaning of it. Did it not cleanse them? Yes, it cleansed them, but in what respect? Did it cleanse their natures? No, it cleansed their consciences. The blood of bulls and goats could only satisfy for a time, but the blood of Christ purges the conscience completely and for ever, so that the worshippers once purged (no repetition, remember) have "no more conscience of sins." Mark, it does not say "no more consciousness of indwelling sin," but "no more conscience of sins." The conscience no longer charges with guilt, because all the guilt has been imputed to the One who died in my stead, and He is risen and gone into heaven "by His own blood, having obtained eternal redemption," and "by one offering perfected for ever" (as regards the conscience) "them that are sanctified."

The cleansing virtue of the blood may be further illustrated by referring to Numbers xxiii. 21, where God compels Balaam to say, "He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath He seen perverseness in Israel," and that at a time when they were as perverse as could be in themselves; but the blood was on the mercy-seat, and God's eye rested on that blood which spoke to Him of a perfect sacrifice for sin, and therefore He would not allow the enemy to curse, or even to accuse, His people, though He chastened them for their faults as a people who ought to have been as holy in their ways as in their judicial standing. Of course all was typical and imperfect under the law, but now it is absolutely and eternally true that God does not impute sin to those who are under the shelter of the blood of Christ.

But perhaps you will say, "What about Psalm li. and Ezekiel xxxvi.? Surely we get the thought of being 'inwardly cleansed from sin' in such scriptures as these?" Well, it is quite true there is such a thing as inward cleansing; but where that is attributed to the blood it has reference, not to the nature, but to the conscience, which is only thoroughly cleansed or purged when the blessedness is enjoyed of the man "whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered," and "unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity" ? a blessedness which David described in Psalm xxxii. and longed for in Psalm li., but which could only be fully known when Christ had accomplished the work of redemption.

When, however, the psalmist prays, "Create in me a clean heart, O God," and when the prophet Ezekiel speaks of what the Lord will do for restored Israel in the latter day, "then will I sprinkle clean water upon you," etc. (Ezek. xxxvi. 25-27), we have brought before us the cleansing power of the word of God, and this is typified by water not only in Ezekiel, but also in John iii., and many other parts of Scripture.

The word when applied by the power of the Holy Ghost does create in us a clean heart, and renew a right spirit within us. When first a man is brought under the life-giving power of the Word he is born again ? "of water and the Spirit;" an entirely new life and nature, holy and sinless, is imparted to him, and those whose hearts were hard as stone, "alienated and enemies in their minds by wicked works," are reconciled to God.

This is a very different thing from saying that the old nature is purified or rooted out, either all at once or by degrees. Such a thought is foreign to Scripture, in which you cannot find a single instance of any one professing to have attained to a state of sinless perfection, or teaching the possibility of it. On the contrary we read, "I count not myself to have apprehended" (Phil. iii. 13); "I delight in the law of God after the inward man: but I see another law in my members." (Rom. vii. 22, 23.) The old nature remains unchanged and unchangeable, side by side, so to speak, with the new nature ? "The mind of the flesh is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be" (Rom. viii. 7); "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves." (1 John i. 8.) And indeed the folly of those who have so deceived themselves will sooner or later be manifested, and often has been made evident by an outburst of passion, a display of pride, or a grievous fall.

Do not, however, suppose for a moment that we contend for a constant state of bondage or a fruitless struggle against sin. Far from it. "Sin shall not have dominion over you" (Rom. vi. 14): "Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh." (Gal. v. 16.) But the flesh, you see, is there to lust; for as long as the Adam-life lasts the Adam-nature remains in us; but when the Christ-life has been grafted into us, and the Holy Spirit has taken up His abode in us, we have liberty and power to cultivate the Christ-nature, and so to have our "fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life."

Thus by watchfulness, dependence, and subjection to the Word, keeping the eye on Christ in glory, and keeping the foot on the old man by the power of the Spirit, made good to us through Him who ever liveth to make intercession for us, "whose grace is sufficient" for us, and whose "strength is made perfect in weakness," we may seek to "walk even as He walked," and thus to be as clean through the Word in our daily walk as we are through the blood "before the Lord."

"In many things we all offend" (though we have no excuse for it), and "there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not." (Eccles. vii. 20.) But "if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." (1 John ii. 1.) And He who washed His disciples' feet still washes our feet to keep us in communion with Him by the constant application of the Word, reminding us of the cost at which He has purchased us, even His own precious blood once shed, and which never loses its value.

Peace by Jesus Christ.

Acts 10: 36.

If you are enquiring how "peace with God" is to be procured, the holy word of God answers, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done" (Titus iii. 5), but by believing on the Son of God, who came "preaching peace to all" (comp. Acts x. 36; Eph. ii. 17), having made it "by the blood of His cross." Again: "Being justified by faith, we have (now) peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ." Rom. v. 1. And the Holy Ghost has proclaimed, by the mouth of the apostle Peter, that "there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts iv. 12. But perhaps, dear reader, you are ready to say, "I do believe on the Son of God; I believe that He came into the world, took our nature upon Him, and died upon the cross for sin, and was raised again the third day, and that there is no other name by which a sinner can be saved, but His name." Well, this is a very sound confession as far as it goes; but are you in the enjoyment of the results of all this? If you really believe all this, then you possess eternal life, and divine righteousness. 2 Cor. v. 21. He that believeth on the Son of God hath eternal life; and again, "By Him (Jesus) all that believe are justified from all things." Acts xiii. 39. For one to say that he believes all this, and yet that he does not know his perfect justification before God, is a complete contradiction. If I am amongst the "all that believe," I am assuredly "justified from all things." God says so, and therefore I am bound to believe it, and rejoice in it. The completeness of the justification is founded upon the completeness of Christ's work. Faith owns this, and the soul is filled with joy and peace. I know that my sins are forgiven, and my conscience gets rest. It is deeply important to see that we are privileged to know the forgiveness of our own sins. There are many who, every first day of the week, declare their belief "in the forgiveness of sins," and yet who would regard it as presumption for one to say he believed in the forgiveness of his sins. "We know that we have passed from death unto life." 1 John iii. 14.

Is it presumption to take God at His word? God hath said, "He (no matter who) that believeth on the Son hath (now) everlasting life." John iii. 36, v. 24; 1 John v. 12. Mark, it is not said, be shall, or may, have it, but he "hath" it. "Because ye are sons, God hath, sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, [nothing less than] Abba, Father." Gal. iv. 6. Is it not far greater presumption "to make God a liar"? (1 John V. 10), which you are doing, if you are not rejoicing in the knowledge of the forgiveness of your sins. Jesus Christ did not come to put us in the way of making peace for ourselves; He came to make peace, and to give it to us as a free gift, "without money and without price." Isaiah 55. May this blessed message of "peace and good-will" be published far and wide, that sinners may hear and live.

But let it never be forgotten, that though the grace of God, that brings a full and free salvation, has appeared to all men, yet wherever it is received it teaches to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, and to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world. Titus ii. 11, 12. If we are not showing out the latter, we may rest assured we do not fully understand the former. Living faith in the living Son of God, crucified for sin, and risen, is the grand source and root from which all good works must spring, and whatsoever work or religious service springs not from this is selfishness ? an abomination in the sight of God no matter what we ourselves or others think of it, God has said, "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." Rom. xiv. 23.

May you, dear reader, have this precious faith; and may "the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, keep your heart and mind through Christ Jesus." Amen.

Law and Grace Exemplified.

Deut. xxi.. 18-21, and Luke xv. 11-32.

In looking through the various laws and ordinances of the Old Testament, we cannot fail to observe the intense spirit of holiness which they breathe; the most trifling ordinance, apparently, was calculated to impress Israel with a sense of holiness. God's presence in their midst was ever to be the spring of holiness and separation to His people. Hence we read in this passage of the book of Deuteronomy, "So shalt thou put away evil from among you." And again, in the ordinance of the manslayer, we read, "Defile not therefore the land which ye shall inhabit, wherein I dwell: for I the Lord dwell among the children of Israel." (Num. xxxv. 34.) God's dwelling-place must be holy; and "without holiness no man shall see the Lord." There can be no alteration in this. Dispensations may change, but God, blessed be His name, can never cease to be "the holy, holy, holy Lord God of Israel;" nor can He ever cease to make His people like what He is Himself. Whether He speak from amid the thunders of Mount Sinai, or in all the gentleness and grace of the blood-sprinkled mercy-seat in the heavens, His object is still the same; viz., to make and keep His people holy.

Very different, however, is the mode of acting in the law, from that which we find in the gospel. In the law, God was calling upon man to be what He desired him to be; He set before him a high and holy standard, no doubt, but yet a standard to which man could not attain. Even though he might aspire most ardently after what the law set before him, yet, from the very fact of what he was, he could not attain to it. All his efforts were based upon the unholiness of a nature which was perfectly irrecoverable. The law was like a mirror, let down from heaven to show to all who would only look honestly into it, that they were, both negatively and positively, the very thing which the law condemned and set aside. The law said, "Do this," and "Thou shalt not do that;" and man's only response, uttered from the very depth of his nature, was, "O wretched man that I am!" In short, the law, like a plumb-line, measured the human character, and showed out all its crookedness and imperfection. It was not, by any means, its province to make the sinner better. No; its province was to reveal his sins, and put him under the curse. "The law entered, that the offence might abound." And again, "As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse." This is very plain. Have anything to do with law, and it will prove you to be a poor, helpless sinner, and put you under the curse. It can really do nothing else, so long as God and man, holiness and sin, continue to be what they are. We may seek to confound law and grace, in our ignorance of the true genius of each; but it will prove, in the end, to be most thoroughly vain. As well might we seek to cause light and darkness to mingle, as to make law and grace combine. No; they are as distinct as any two things can be. The law can only point out to man the error of his ways ? the evil of his nature. It does not make him straight, but only tells him he is crooked; it does not make him clean, but only tells him he is defiled. Nor was the law designed, as is often imagined, to lead sinners to Christ. This idea is founded upon an erroneous quotation of Galatians iii. 24. It is not said, "The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ," but "the law was our schoolmaster unto (or until) Christ." The words "to bring us" are in italics, and do not appear in the original. This is important, as helping my reader to understand the nature, object, and scope of the law. How could the law bring a man to Christ? All it did for him was to shut him up under the curse; his finding his way to Christ was the result of quite another ministry altogether. The law acted the part of a schoolmaster from the time it was given until Christ came, by keeping souls under a restraint from which nothing could deliver, save the spirit of liberty imparted through the gospel of Christ.

However, by a simple comparison of the two scriptures which stand at the head of this paper, we shall have a very striking proof of the difference between the law and the gospel. The case presented in each, is that of a son who was disposed to do his own will and enjoy his own way. This is no uncommon case. The prodigal desired to have his portion, and to be away from under the eye of his father. But, ah how soon he was called to learn his folly! When he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want." Just so; how else could it be? He had left the only place in which all his need could be supplied, even the father's house. He had made his portion and the father's to be separate things, and hence he was compelled to learn that the former was capable of being exhausted. We can get to the bottom of all human circumstances and resources. There never was a cup of human or earthly happiness ? be it ever so deep ? ever so abundant in desirable ingredients ? which could not be drained to the bottom. There never was a well of human, or earthly refreshment, of which it could not be said, "He that drinketh of this water shall thirst again." Not so, however, with the cup which redeeming love puts into our hand ? not so with the wells of salvation from which the gospel invites us to draw. These are exhaustless, eternal, divine. As the countless ages of eternity roll along, God's cup shall be full, and His wells shall send forth their streams in immortal freshness and purity. My reader, how sweet ? how ineffably sweet ? to partake of these!

But the prodigal "began to be in want." And what then? Did he think of the father? No. So long as he had any other resource, he would not think of returning home. "He went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine." This was terrible. Thus does Satan crush the spirits of his votaries. Every one who is not walking in communion with God and subjection to the gospel of Christ, is thus engaged in the service of Satan. There is no middle ground. Reader, whom are you serving? Are you serving Christ or Satan? If the latter, oh, remember the end! Remember, too, the Father's love ? the Father's house. Remember that God does not will the death of a sinner, but rather that he should turn from his evil ways and live. This you may learn from the prodigal. The moment his necessities led him to think of returning home, that home was open wide to receive him. And, observe, it was simply his need that caused him to say, "I will arise and go to my father." It was not any longing desire for the father's company, but merely for the father's bread. Many are vainly looking within for some rising emotions of affectionate desire after God, not knowing that our very necessities, our very miseries, our very sins, render us suited objects for the exercise of divine grace. Grace suits the miserable, because the miserable can magnify grace.

And here we have arrived at a point at which we may appreciate the contrast between our scriptures. How would the law have dealt with our prodigal? The answer is simple. "Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; and they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear." The law could speak of nought but judgment and death. Mercy was not within its range, nor at all in accordance with its spirit. "The soul that sinneth it shall die," was its stern language. And again, "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."

But how does grace deal with its object? Oh for hearts to adore our God, who is the fountain of grace! "But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him." In short, the mode of treatment is the very opposite. The law said, "Lay hold on him;" the gospel said, "Embrace him;" the law said, "Stone him;" the gospel said, "Kiss him;" and yet, be it remembered, we meet the same God in both. The God of Israel speaks both in Deuteronomy and in Luke; and, moreover, we must remember what has already been stated; viz., that we trace the same object in both, which is, to give full deliverance from the power of evil. The stone of judgment and the embrace of love were both designed to put away evil; but, ah! how much more fully was the latter in sympathy with the divine mind than the former. Judgment is truly God's strange work. It was far more congenial to Him to be on the neck of the poor returning prodigal than to be within the enclosure of Mount Sinai. True, the prodigal had nothing to commend him. He had proved himself to be all that the law condemned. He had been "a glutton, and a drunkard," the rags of the far country were upon him, and were the law but to take its course, instead of the affectionate embrace of love, he would have to meet the stern grasp of justice, and instead of the father's kiss he would have had to meet the stone of judgment from the men of his city in the presence of the elders. Hence we see the contrast between law and grace; it is most striking.

But here let us ask, How could all this be? How can we reconcile the marvellous difference in the principles of acting here set before us? Whither must we turn for a solution of this apparent contradiction? How can God embrace a poor sinner? How can He shield such from the full action of justice and the law? In other words, how can He be "just and the justifier"? How can He pardon the sinner steeped to the lips in iniquity, and yet not "clear the guilty"? Where, my reader, shall we find an answer to these questions? In the cross of Calvary. Yes; there we have a precious, a divine reply to all. The Man nailed to the tree settles everything. Jesus bore sin's tremendous curse upon the cross. He exposed His own bosom to the stroke of justice; He drained to the dregs the cup of Jehovah's righteous wrath. "He bore our sins in His own body on the tree." "He hath made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him." Was not this a vindication of the law? Did ever the words, "So shalt thou put evil away," fall with such impressive solemnity upon the ear as when the blessed Son of God cried out from amid the horrors of Golgotha, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Oh, never, never! All the stones that were ever cast at offending sinners, all the penalties that were ever inflicted, yea, we shall proceed further, and say that the eternal punishment of the wicked in the lake of fire could not afford such a solemn proof of God's hatred of sin as the scene on the cross. There it was that men and angels might behold God's thoughts of sin, and God's thoughts of sinners; His hatred of the former, and His love for the latter. The very same act which shows out the condemnation of sin shows out the salvation of the sinner. Hence the cross, while it most fully vindicates the holiness and justice of God, opens up a channel through which the copious streams of redeeming love can flow down to the guilty sinner. "Mercy and truth met together, righteousness and peace kissed each other," when the Son of God offered up Himself as a sacrifice for sin.

And if it be asked, What proof have we of this? What solid ground of assurance have we of the full forgiveness and perfect acceptance of the believer? The answer is, Resurrection. Jesus is now at the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens; and there, moreover, on behalf of the believer. "He was delivered for our offences," and, could we go no further than this, we might despair; but it is added, "He was raised again for our justification." Here we have full peace, full emancipation, full victory. When God raised Jesus from the dead, He declared Himself as "the God of peace." Justice was satisfied, and the sinner's Surety was set down at God's right hand; and all who, by the operation of the Holy Ghost, believe in His death and resurrection, are looked at in Him, and seen to be as free from every charge of sin as He is. Most marvellous grace! Who could have conceived such a thing? Who could have thought that He, who is "the brightness of God's glory, and the express image of His person," should come down and put Himself in the sinner's place, and bear all the wrath, curse, and judgment due to sin, in order that the sinner might be set down in the very presence of God, without "spot or wrinkle or any such thing," so that God might be able to say of him, "Thou art all fair; there is no spot in thee"? My reader, was ever love like this? Truly we have here love in its fountain, love in its channel, and love in its application. The Father is the eternal fountain, the Son is the channel, and the Holy Ghost is the power of application. What divine completeness! What perfect peace! What a solid resting-place for the sinner! Who can raise a question? God has received the prodigal, has clothed and adorned him, killed the fatted calf for him; and, above all, has given utterance to the words, "It was meet that we should make merry and be glad" ? words which ought to dispel every shadow of fear and doubt from the heart. If God can say, in virtue of the finished work of Christ, "It is meet," who can say it is not meet? Satan may accuse; but God's reply is, "Is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?" In short, the soul that believes in Jesus is lifted into a perfectly cloudless region, where, it may be truly said, "there is neither enemy, nor evil occurrent;" and in that region we can see no one so exquisitely happy in the divine results of redemption as the blessed God Himself. If the prodigal could possibly have retained a feeling of doubt or reserve, what could have so effectually banished it as the father's joy in getting him back again? Neither doubt nor fear can live in the light of our Father's countenance. If we believe that God rejoices in receiving back a sinner, we cannot harbour suspicion or hesitancy. It is not merely that God can receive us, but it is His joy to do so. Hence we not only know that "grace reigns through righteousness," but that heaven rejoices over one repenting sinner. "Thanks be unto God for His unspeakable gift!"

GRACE is a mine of wealth

Laid open to the poor;

Grace is the sov'reign spring of health,

'Tis life for evermore.

Of grace then let us sing!

(A joyful, wondrous theme!)

Who grace has brought, shall glory bring,

And we shall reign with Him.

Then shall we see His face

With all the saints above,

And sing for ever of His grace,

For ever of His love.

The Advocacy of Christ.

1 John ii. 1.

The question often arises in the minds of the Lord's people, especially of those who are young in the faith, "What is to be done if we commit sins after we have been saved?" Many a child of God has said, "I know that I have believed in Christ, and see that my sins were put away by His blood; but what troubles me is the sins I commit now, and what am I to do with them?" The direct answer to this question is found in 1 John ii. 1, 2, "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and He is the propitiation for our sins." This is clearly written to believers, for the apostle addresses them as "my children;" that is, those who have been born of God. And again, "We have an advocate with the Father," as it is only those who are born again who can call God their Father.

The first thing for us to see is, that, as believers in the Lord Jesus, all our sins are put away before God by the one offering on the cross, as we get fully brought out in the epistle to the Hebrews; because till this is seen there must always be confusion in the mind, confounding our knowledge of forgiveness of sins with the work of Christ that put them all away when they were all future. In Hebrews x. 11, 12, 14, we read, "And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: but this Man [Christ], after He had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God. . . . For by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." The priests, under the law, stood and offered "oftentimes the same sacrifices, which could never take away sins," therefore their work was never done; but this Man [Christ] offered one sacrifice, and "for ever sat down on the right hand of God." Do you see, dear reader, that there is only one sacrifice for sins, and that there never will be another? So that if all your sins were not put away then, they never can be, for Christ is not going to die again.

People often say, "I know that my sins were put away up to my conversion;" but Scripture never speaks in that way, When did Christ bear your sins? On the cross. Did He bear a part of your sins, or did He put them away up to the day of your conversion? No; if He bore one, He bore them all when they were all future, when you had committed none of them; for, blessed be His name, He offered the "one sacrifice for sins," and then "for ever sat down on the right hand of God." This word "for ever" is not that which is used for everlasting, but it has the sense of continuously, uninterruptedly, never to rise up to offer another sacrifice or to complete the work; and the reason that He is so seated at the right hand of God is, that, "by one offering He hath perfected for ever (same word) them that are sanctified." He has perfected us for ever, therefore He has sat down for ever. The value of His one offering, which put away all our sins, is for ever; therefore He has nothing more to do throughout eternity with regard to the putting away of the sins of those that believe in His name.

Of course, when a soul is first awakened by the Holy Spirit, it could only be past sins that are brought to his knowledge, and that he knows are forgiven; but then, when we get the knowledge of forgiveness, we see that the work that put our sins away was accomplished when they were all future, and the value of that one sacrifice was not only up to the day of our conversion. Now we see the One that did the work "for ever sat down on the right hand of God," because He has perfected us for ever by that one offering; and God says, "Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." (Heb. x. 17.) Forgiveness of sins is the common portion of all Christians, as we read in 1 John ii. 12, "I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for His name's sake." There would be no sense in saying our future sins are forgiven, for we have not committed them, and we ought not to contemplate sinning in the future; but we can always say, as Christians, as in Colossians i. 14, "In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins."

But many have thought, "If we have the 'forgiveness of sins,' why do we read, in 1 John i. 9, 'If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins'?" There is another sense in which Scripture speaks of forgiveness; when a child of God has sinned, and his communion has been interrupted, and he confesses his sin, he gets forgiveness, not in the sense of non-imputation, as in Rom. iv. 7, 8, but of communion and joy being restored, which had been interrupted by the sin. The above verse (1 John i. 9) is a general statement, and would apply either to a sinner first coming to God and confessing his sins, and so getting forgiveness once for all on the ground of the death of Christ, or to a child of God who has sinned and confesses, and gets forgiveness as a child by the Father. The one might be called justifying forgiveness in the case of the sinner; and the other, Fatherly, or governmental, forgiveness in the case of a saint; and it is very important to distinguish between the two.

Christ as the Revealer of the Father.

God has been pleased to reveal Himself in various ways and under different characters in every age and in all dispensations. Before the cross He had made Himself known to Adam, to the patriarchs, and to His people Israel; but it was not until Christ came, and had glorified God on the earth, and finished the work which had been given Him to do, that all was told out, that the Father-name of God could be fully revealed. Ere this, clouds and darkness were round about Him; but as soon as atonement had been made by the death of Christ on the cross, the veil was rent, and believers could thereafter be set down in the light as God is in the light. All distance and concealment were now abolished, and all that God is, together with the name of Father, was fully displayed. Christ Himself, Christ as the eternal Son, but as the Word that became flesh and dwelt among us (John i. 14), was Himself the revelation of the Father (John xiv.); but until the descent of the Holy Ghost there was little, if any, power on the part of those before whose eyes the revelation was passing to apprehend it. There were a few anointed eyes who beheld His glory as of an only begotten with a Father, but John the Baptist knew Him not, except by the appointed sign of the descent of the Holy Ghost upon Him, and even Philip had to be told, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father."

Practically therefore there was no knowledge of God as Father until after Pentecost. This will be plain to the reader if we trace a little the successive revelations of God which were made to His people in the Old Testament. To Abraham, God said, "I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect" (Gen. xvii. 1); to Moses, "I AM THAT I AM: and He said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you" (Exodus iii. 14); and when He entered into distinct relationship with His chosen people, it was under the name of Jehovah, and that was ever His covenant name with Israel. Search indeed the whole of the Old Testament Scriptures, and not even the word father will be found more than five or six times as applied to God, and in most of these cases it is used rather as indicating the source of existence than as implying relationship. All the Old Testament saints were undoubtedly born again. This is to be insisted upon, for without a new life and a new nature they would not have been able to converse with God; but it is equally true that they never knew God as Father, and therefore that they could not be in the enjoyment of the relationship. One word from Scripture definitely and conclusively settles this point, "Neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him." (Matt. xi. 27.)

It is then abundantly proved that God was not revealed as Father before the advent of Christ. And passing now to the New Testament, it will be seen, as already stated, that Christ Himself was the revealer of the Father, and that it is in the Gospel of John He is presented to us in this character. In the very first chapter of this gospel it is said, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him." (v. 18.) Not only, indeed, does this scripture inform us that the only begotten Son declared the Father, but it also teaches that none other but Himself could have done so, and this because of the position He ever occupied ? the place of intimacy and communion which He ever, and He alone, enjoyed, as marked by the words, "in the bosom of the Father." This place He never left; He was in it (for it is a moral expression) as much when He was the Man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief, as when He possessed the glory which He had with the Father before the world was; and on the cross itself He was still there, for He Himself said, "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again" (John x. 17) ? His death in obedience to the commandment which He had received, supplying as it were a new motive for the expression of His Father's love. Later on in the gospel, we find one of His disciples permitted to lean on His bosom, and this same disciple was the chosen vessel to unfold in his gospel the eternal Sonship of Christ ? Christ as divine; and this in some measure may aid us in understanding that none but He who was ever in the bosom of the Father could unfold Him in this character and relationship. In divine things it is ever true as an abiding principle, that we can only tell out to others that which we ourselves know in our own souls. If we are not in the power of the thing spoken of, our words, clear as they may seem to be, will convey but little significance. The Lord Himself laid down this principle when He said, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen." (John iii. 11.)

Let us then enquire in what way the Lord revealed the Father. He Himself has answered the question. "If," said He to the Jews, "ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also" (John viii. 19); and again, speaking to Thomas, "If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know Him, and have seen Him. Philip saith unto Him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of" (from, literally) "myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, He doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake." (John xiv. 7-11.)

WELL may we sing! with triumph sing

The great Redeemer's praise!

The glories of the living God,

Revealed in Jesu's face.

The love of God it was that sought

From sin to set us free;

That gave the Son, whose precious blood

Has wrought our liberty.

In Him we read the Father's love,

And find, eternal peace;

We meet in Him a Saviour-God,

And fear and terror cease.

Then gladly sing, and sound abroad

The great Redeemer's praise;

The glories of the living God,

The riches of His grace!

The Children of God.

Gal. iii. 26.

We have already seen that Christ as the Son was the revealer of the Father; and as soon as the Father is declared it is of necessity that there should be those who are in the enjoyment of the relationship; in other words, the Father must have His children. Accordingly we find the family in the very same gospel that contains the declaration of the Father's name. There are, it may be said, three notices of it to which we may call attention.

The first is contained in chapter i.; but we turn now to that found in chapter xi. After the resurrection of Lazarus the Jewish authorities assembled together for consultation. They could not deny the miracle that had been wrought; but, shutting their eyes to its divine significance and their consequent responsibility, and caring only for their own selfish interests and advantage, they determined to rid themselves of the One who so disturbed their peace, and who was making so many disciples. They thought in their wicked counsels only of themselves; but God was behind the scene over-ruling their thoughts, and was about to make their wrath to praise Him in the accomplishment of His own eternal counsels of grace and love. He thus used the mouth of Caiaphas to prophesy that Jesus should die for the Jewish nation, this being God's purpose from eternity; and to that prophecy the Spirit of God added another in order to embrace the full character of the death of Christ, by the hand of John, who writes, "And not for that nation only, but that also He should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad." (John xi. 49-52.) We thus learn that not only was the heart of God set upon His children, but that also the death of Christ was requisite ? requisite for the glory of God as for the redemption of His people, as the foundation on which the Spirit of God could, through the entreating message of the gospel, go out into every land, and gather in one by one those who should constitute the Father's family, and as such be heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. As the Father could only be fully revealed by the life and death of Christ, so likewise the children could only be sought out, found, and gathered through that death.

The second reference is in chapter i. 12, 13, and points out the way in which we become children ? the only possible way ? and this must be entered upon more fully. It is stated at the very outset in accordance with the character of the gospel. In the three preceding gospels ? generally termed the synoptical gospels ? Christ is presented to His people for acceptance, and we see Him rejected in the course of the narrative. This is true of all three, though there are characteristic differences. In John, on the other hand, Christ is introduced as already rejected. He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not." The world was ignorant (knew not God, as in 2 Thess. i. 8), and the Jew rejected Him (did not obey the gospel, as also in the scripture cited). Hence we find a fuller display in John of the person of Christ, and the introduction of the cross with its blessed teachings at the commencement (chap. iii.) instead of waiting for the historical relation at the close. We have therefore, following immediately upon the statement of His rejection, a class indicated who received Him, and who in receiving Him received power (right or authority) to become (to take the place of) the children of God; and then, to dispel all uncertainty as to the nature of the change thus wrought, it is added, "Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (v. 13.) It is a divine and sovereign operation effected by a power and through agencies outside of man, and with which man, though he may be the subject of their energy, can have nothing to do.

But the consideration of this will lead us back to the very fountain-head of the existence of the children of God. They are born of God. In chapter iii. the Lord tells Nicodemus, that "except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (v. 5); and here we find another truth, that those who are born again through these instrumentalities are brought into relationship of children with the Father. Combining then these scriptures, we shall have before us the whole truth of the process by which the family of God is formed.

Its origin is in God Himself; and this same apostle tells us another thing, not only that believers are born of God, but also that their blessed place and relationship flow from the heart of the Father. "Behold," he exclaims, "what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons (children ? tekna) of God" (1 John iii. 1); so that the very fact of our being children is the expression of the Father's heart. He desired to have His children for His own satisfaction and joy; and if we add another scripture, we shall see that in a past eternity He formed this blessed counsel of grace. "Having," as St. Paul writes, "predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, wherein He hath made us accepted in the Beloved." (Eph. i. 5, 6.) We cannot dwell too much upon this outflow of the heart of God, on the fact, we repeat, that our being children is but a simple consequence of the Father's love. And when in connection with this we consider what we were, the state we were in, our utter alienation from God, the bitter enmity of our hearts towards Him, we shall in some measure enter into the meaning of John's cry, "Behold, what manner of love!" Yea, it is love unspeakable, unbounded, and divine, having no motive for its expression except in that blessed heart whence it has flowed. Well indeed might we be humbled before it when we think that we ? once poor sinners of the Gentiles ? have become its object, and have been brought into its enjoyment, and that for eternity.

FATHER! we, Thy children, bless Thee

For Thy love on us bestowed;

Source of blessing, we confess Thee

Now, our Father and our God.

Wondrous was Thy love in giving

Jesus for our sins to die,

Wondrous was His grace in leaving,

For our sakes, the heavens on high.

Now the sprinkled blood has freed us,

Hast'ning onward to our rest,

Through the desert Thou dost lead us,

With Thy constant favour blest.

Our Identification with Christ from the Cross to the Glory.

I want to ask you to look at a few scriptures which unfold to us with great clearness and simplicity our identification with Christ from the cross to the glory.

We often find, in course of conversation, that people do not know the difference between "sin" and "sins." Were you asked what the difference is, perhaps you would say, "'Sin' is singular, and 'sins' plural." Such an answer is frequently given, but that is not what Scripture means by "sin" and "sins." Sin is the evil nature we brought into this world; sins are the things which that nature is guilty of committing. Sin is like a crab-tree, and sins the fruit that appears on it. It is just as much a crab-tree if it has only one crab-apple on it as if it had a thousand. When you are clear as to the difference between sin and sins, you will find that the Epistle to the Romans will help you in a remarkable way. The first part of Romans, from chap. i. to v. 11, is about sins we have been guilty of. From verse 12 of chap. v. it is a new subject, and the question of sin is taken up, not "sins." In chap. vi. sin is mentioned seventeen times; "sins" not once. Death is also presented in one form or another seventeen times in the same chapter. The moment the Holy Ghost mentions sin, He mentions in connection with it death! Why is this? Because nothing short of death would meet what is due to sin ? nothing but the death of Christ.

Have you found out that your evil nature is so bad you cannot make it any better? "Oh, no!" you say. "I pray, fast, and do all kinds of things to improve it!" Well, have you succeeded? You know you have not. If Satan has not stupefied your conscience with some of his opiates, you will have to own, like the woman in the gospel, that you are nothing better, but rather grown worse. Perhaps another says, "I have tried, and I find that I cannot make it any better." Like the man in Mark v., it cannot be kept bound with chains, or tamed, no matter what restraint you put it under. And this just proves the incorrigible badness of the first Adam nature. Now we come to a second question, more startling than the first, Have you found the flesh to be so bad that it cannot be made any worse? "No." Well, you will have to own this to be true if you bow to God's word. "Where is your scripture for it?" you say. In Rom. viii. 7. The natural mind ? the mind of the flesh ? is "enmity against God."

For 2500 years, from the time Adam and Eve were exiled from the garden, man was on his trial, and became so bad that God had to sweep him away by the flood. Afterwards He put man under law for 1500 years, and finally sent His Son, when they said, "This is the heir; come, let us kill Him." God had said, "Thou shalt not commit murder," and they murdered God's Son, the Saviour of sinners. With that deed the world's probation ended, and man, guilty and lost, is only awaiting the hour of judgment.

Why the cross if man could be made better? Why the propitiation for sins and substitution for sinners if the flesh could be improved? It is an awful, solemn demonstration of the fact that the flesh cannot be improved; it was brought to an end judicially in the death of Christ. "Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." We were the serfs, vassals, slaves of sin ? tyrannized over by it, but we have died to sin in the death of Christ.

Rom. vi. 6 is the broad statement of the fact that our old man is crucified with Christ; Gal. 20 is the soul individually believing it, planting the foot of faith firmly on the magnificent fact, and getting out of it all that God intends. It is intensely individual, the soul making it its own. It is true of all believers, though not enjoyed by all. A man may have a fortune left him of ?500,000 a year, but if he does not believe it he may go on trying to eke out a miserable existence on ?1 a day. The fortune is his, but he gets no enjoyment from it because he does not credit the fact. "I am crucified with Christ nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me" (Gal. 2: 20) ? is just the soul saying, "I believe what God says about me in Romans vi., and I live in the enjoyment of it."

A crucified man is a man come to an end on a cross of wood. I am crucified, and now I have a new life, entirely outside and apart from Adam, a life that he had nothing to do with. God utterly ignores my standing in the first man Adam, and does not recognize me in it. (Rom. viii. 9.) If I am a child of God, I am before Him in Christ. Christ is my life. "This is the true God and eternal life," and Christ lives in me. I feel how great a thing it is for any of us to be able to say, "I am crucified," yet I am alive; I have got life, I am a living being, "yet not I, but Christ liveth in me." Well may we ask, What manner of persons ought we to be? And, in regard to our practical life, what is to come out? Simply what is in Christ ? one ceaseless flow, in all our words, our work, our ways, of Christ, because He is in us. It is intensely individual. Can you look up to heaven and say, "He loved me, and gave Himself for me"?

When preaching in Ireland, I once mentioned that verse, and a young lady said to me, "if only that had been pointed out to me years ago what I might have been spared! I thought that I had to love Him. I tried one thing and another without success; but when you were preaching in my brother's cottage you said, 'He loved me.' I can rest there. I was incapable of loving Him, but He was capable of loving me. He has done it, and I believe it." Is your faith anchored there? Do you believe it?

I don't know that I need say more on the first point, but pass on now to the other identifications with Christ. The first is in death; we, "our old man," are crucified with Christ. If you accept that, you will never think you can make the old nature better. The people who do are to be pitied. If you had a piece of land, and sowed it with seed, and got no crop, what would you do? Get fresh seed. Then supposing you got no crop the second time, what would you do? Get fresh seed again. And supposing there was no crop the third time, after you had manured and husbanded the land in every way, you would say, "I will waste no more seed upon it; it is bad ground, and produces nothing." That bad ground is the old nature. Don't sow a thought, or word, or look upon it; for God has set it aside as a worthless thing. Why then should you try to get any good from it?

The flesh is incorrigibly bad, and the only remedy is to reckon yourself to have died "unto," not through sin, or in sin, but "unto" sin. (Rom. vi. 11.) You have died, and now you are risen. God reckons it true of you, and if you want to be in the power and enjoyment of it, you must reckon it true as well. Did you notice that little word "also"? You will get no blessing if you don't reckon with God. Now I pass on to the second. You are dead. What do you do with dead people? Bury them out of sight.

Having died, and been buried out of sight at Christ's burial, and buried with Him by baptism, which is a figure of death, we are raised with Him, and that brings us to our third identification.

In Romans man is looked at as alive in sins; in Ephesians ii. he is "dead in sins," in the lowest possible condition. Think of God coming to us there. We are quickened with Christ; it is a most wonderful thing! Not only is Christ quickened, but I am quickened too. In connection with the first Adam you come in for death, judgment, and condemnation; in connection with the last Adam you have life, righteousness, and glory. I don't ask you if you fully understand it. Who does? But we can just pause and think over such a love to you and me, not more true of the oldest than of the youngest, not less of the youngest than of the oldest; we are quickened with Christ.

Fourthly, "we are raised with Him." (Col. ii. 12.) We are risen with Christ. (Col. iii. 1.) There is the life of the believer who has died in the death of Christ ? "Ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God," Did God ever say that of anybody before the death and resurrection of Christ? How could any one have died with Christ when He had never died Himself? That is a characteristic of Christianity. It was not known, and was never true before Christianity, that our life is hid with Christ. Do you believe that you are raised together with Christ? That is the point. Would it not have power over you if you believed it? What a power to separate from the world! I long for the Holy Ghost to apply it, and make it good in our words, our walk, our ways, and our lives. We are resurrection men and women ? not risen as to our bodies; for that we wait till He shall come, and take us to Himself; but we are in resurrection life now.

How am I to prove that I belong to the resurrection family, that I am a child of resurrection? "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above." Why? Because we are dead; our life is hid with Christ, and this is the practical effect of it.

Eph. ii. 6: "Raised us up together;" that is, He has raised up Jew and Gentile. "And made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus." "We are seated." That is our position, not standing, but seated in restful enjoyment of our present blessings in Christ.

You will find the sixth, seventh, and eighth identifications all in one verse ? Rom. viii. 17 ? "And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together." "Co-heirs," or "heirs together." Think of that. It never says that of the archangel; never does God say of any of the heavenly intelligences that they are heirs together with Christ. But we, poor Gentiles, who were afar off and not nigh, think of it ? we are heirs with Christ.

"I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." (John xvii. 23.) The same love that the Father bears to His beloved Son is the love with which He loves us. "All things are yours." Why? Because ye are Christ's. Life, death, etc., all things are yours, because you are heirs together with Christ. Don't talk about your poverty; you are richer than the archangel ? heirs of an inheritance in which the archangel will never share: we are heirs with Christ. We don't half count up our possessions and blessings through being one with Christ. We have received the Holy Ghost and everything in Christ. Now it is only as you are consciously enjoying your oneness with Christ in the heavenlies, by the Holy Ghost in you, that you will be proof against the attacks of Satan against the truth. May God give us to hold the magnificent fact that we are one with Christ ? co-heirs.

Every child of God taught by the Holy Ghost accepts what the Father says about him in the first six; but when we come to the seventh ? "suffering with Christ" ? people begin to question, Why must we suffer? Why should we make ourselves singular, and bring down suffering on ourselves by being peculiar? "All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." Just in proportion as we represent Christ, we shall be hated by the world as He was. Are we so living as to represent Christ by the power of the Holy Ghost that people can say of us, "There is a man representing Christ"? That is what we get in Phil. 1: "To me to live is Christ." Nothing but Christ; feeling nothing that touches self, only what touches Him. How many there are who cannot bear a word! They are exquisitely sensitive as to what touches self; but when anything is said touching Christ, they feel it no more than would a marble statue ? they are not touched at all by it.

"Unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on Him, but also to suffer for His sake." It is a real gift. The apostles rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer for Him; and in Heb. xi. we get, "Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt."

Are you going to shirk rejection with a rejected Christ? You will never have such a moment again; you are left down here to share in His rejection. "If we suffer we shall also reign with Him." Suffering and reigning go together. Many kick vehemently against this, but you don't know what a loss it is not to get it. It is a real gain to suffer for Him. On the road to glory we are left down here to share His path, and to say ?

"Master, we would no longer be

Loved by the world that hated Thee."

Can you say ?

"I'd not have joy where He had woe,

Be rich where He was poor"?

Have you got hold of these words ? "They are not of the world"? It is true. God give us to accredit it!

Lastly, "glorified together." What an end to the chain of our identifications with Christ! What a prospect! When I hear saints talking of their trials and troubles, I say, What are they in comparison to glory? Who has ever been through what Paul went through, and what does he say? "I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed." Everything you can see is passing away. Are you living in the changeless, eternal things which are yours? You are going to be glorified together with Christ.

"We two are so joined,

He'll not be in glory, and leave me behind."

He will not be in glory alone. Look at Rom. viii. and see those five links stretching from eternity to eternity. Think of it. "Whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate . . . whom He did predestinate, them He also called: whom He called, them He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified." There it is, a wonderful chain, hanging from side to side of the throne, beginning with foreknowledge and ending with glory. Do you believe it? Are you in the enjoyment of this truth? Receive it on the authority of God's word, and then you will have the enjoyment of it, and power to carry it out.

Now let us just go over these eight points of identification:

1st. Crucified together with Christ.

2nd. Buried together with Christ.

3rd. Quickened together with Christ.

4th. Raised together with Christ.

5th. Seated together in Christ.

6th. Heirs together with Christ.

7th. Sufferers together with Christ.

8th. Glorified together with Christ.

This last is our sure unfailing prospect, and we were never so near the glory as now. A few more steps through the trackless, waste, wild, howling wilderness, and then the Father's home.

"And how will recompense His smile

The sufferings of this little while."

The Lord give us to live in the enjoyment of the wonderful things which are to be ours throughout eternity, for His name's sake.

The Coming of the Lord that which Characterizes the Christian Life.

Notes of an Address.

I purpose to take up a subject which I feel to be deeply important ? the coming of the Lord Jesus and to take it up, not proving it as a doctrine, but showing that it was originally a substantial part of Christianity itself. The groundwork is Christ's first coming, and His atoning death but when we look beyond the foundation, then we see that the coming of the Lord Jesus is not merely a bit of knowledge, but a substantive part of the faith of the church of God, and that on which the moral state of the saints, and indeed of the church of God, depends. You will see, in going through the passages which I will now quote, that it connects itself and is mixed with every part of Christianity, characterizes it, and connects itself with every thought and feeling of the Christian. A person could not read the Scriptures with an unprejudiced mind without seeing it.

I take conversion. People say, What has that to do with the Lord's coming? That is part of what they were converted to, "to wait for God's Son from heaven" This waiting for God's Son from heaven characterized their conversion: they were converted to serve God surely, but also "to wait for His Son from heaven." (1 Thess. i. 10.)

The Christian's position as to the coming of the Lord is, that he is waiting for Christ to come according to His promise. People say He comes at death. I reply, Do you make death the same as Christ? If this were the case we should have Him coming hundreds of times, whereas we only read of His coming twice. (Heb. ix. 28.) Shall I tell you what will happen when Christ comes? Resurrection! This is quite a different thing from death. The coming of Christ is, for the saint, to be the end of death ? exactly the opposite. I believe nobody can find a trace of the thought in Scripture that Christ comes at death. Instead of Christ's coming being death, it is resurrection; we go to Christ at death, it is not Christ who comes to us. Blessed it is "to depart and to be with Christ." "Absent from the body, present with the Lord." But I am to show that this thought of the coming of Christ mixes itself with and characterizes every part of Christian life.

In the first place we have it in conversion, as already said. They were converted to wait for God's Son from heaven. I will turn to other passages in support of it, but I will go through Thessalonians first. In the second chapter of the first epistle, at the end, the apostle speaks of what his comfort and joy in service were. He had been driven away by persecution from the midst of the Thessalonians, and writing to them speaks of His comfort in thinking of them. But how? "For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at His coming?" He cannot speak of his interest in them and joy without bringing in the coming of the Lord Jesus. Again, as regards holiness: "The Lord make you to increase and abound in love . . . to the end He may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all His saints." (1 Thess. iii. 12, 13.) As to the death of a saint, they were so thoroughly looking for the Lord that if a person died they thought he would not be there ready to go to meet Him. They were wrong in this, and the apostle corrects their mistake. But now people say, when a saint dies, We shall go after him, we shall follow him. Here there is not a word about it. Suppose I were to go and say to a Christian now, who had lost some one dear to him, "Do not be uneasy, Christ will bring him with Him," he would think me wild, or find it utterly unintelligible and yet that is the way the apostle comforts them. Them also which sleep through Jesus will God bring with Him. (Chap. iv.) He then shows the way He will do it. "We which are alive . . . shall not prevent them which are asleep." "Prevent" is an old word for anticipate or go before. The first thing the Lord will do when He descends is to raise the sleeping saints. He is going to bring them with Him. If they have fallen asleep in Him, their spirits will have been with Him meanwhile; but then they will receive glory, be raised in glory, be like Him, as they had been like the first Adam, and going to meet Him in the air, will be for ever with Him; and when He appears He will bring them with Him, and they will appear with Him in glory. You get it in a general way in the fifth chapter, where he desires their whole spirit and soul and body may be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. This hope then is a part of the Christian state in every aspect. Conversion, joy in service, holiness, a believer's death, the goal of blamelessness, all are connected with the coming of the Lord.

Turn now to Matthew 25. The wise virgins take oil in their vessels, but they all go to sleep and forget that the Bridegroom was coming. But what I have specially to inquire here is, What was the original calling? The statement, clear and positive, is, that they went out to meet the Bridegroom, but while He tarried they all slumbered and slept ? they all forgot His coming, the wise as well as the foolish. But at midnight the cry is heard, "Behold, the Bridegroom!" The thing that roused them up from their sleep was the cry, "Behold, the Bridegroom!" The original object then of the Church was to go to meet Him who came; but even true believers forgot it. And, further, what awakes them from their sleep is their being again called out to meet Him at His coming. Then you get in "the talents" the same thing in regard to service and responsibility. He takes His journey and tells them, "Occupy till I come."

Another very striking fact as to this truth is, it is always presented as a present operative expectation. You will never find the Lord nor the apostles speaking of the Lord's coming, with the supposition that it would be delayed beyond the life of those to whom they spoke. It might be at cock-crowing, or in the morning; but they were to be waiting for God's Son from heaven. In the parables referred to, the virgins who went to sleep were the same virgins as those who awoke up. The servants to whom the talents were entrusted were the servants who rendered an account of them at His return. We know centuries have passed; but He will not allow any thought of delay. "In such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh." "Blessed are those servants whom the Lord, when He cometh, shall find watching." Again, what was the cause of the Church's ruin? It was, "My Lord delayeth His coming." It was not saying, "He will not come;" but "He delayeth His coming." Then the servant began to beat the men-servants and maid-servants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; and this brings on his judgment. If the bride loves the Bridegroom, she cannot but wish to see Him. Her heart is where He is: When the Church lost this she settled down to enjoyment where she was; she got worldly; she did not care about the Lord's return.

Turn now to Luke 12, and you will find how this waiting for Christ characterizes the Christian, and therewith the serving Him while He is away. "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." They were to have their loins girded, their lights burning. Such was the characteristic of a Christian. They were to be as men that waited for their Lord, to open to Him immediately; their affections in order and full profession of Christ, but watching for their Lord's return. It is not having the doctrine of the Lord's coming. The blessing rests on those who are watching, "like men that wait for their Lord." "Blessed are those servants whom the Lord, when He cometh, shall find watching." They must be girded, and have their lights bright while He is away, and watch for His return; and then He makes them sit down to meat, and girds Himself, and comes forth and serves them. Now they must be girded, and watch; our rest is not here. "But," says the Lord, "when I have things all my own way, you shall sit down to meat, and I will gird myself and come forth and serve you. I will make you enjoy all the best that I have in heaven, and I will minister it to you; only be found watching."

Christ is for ever in grace a servant according to the form He has taken. He is girded now according to John 13. They would naturally think that if He were gone to heaven in glory there was an end of His service to them; but He tells them, "I am going away; I cannot stay here with you, yet I cannot give you up; but as I cannot remain on earth with you, I must make you fit for me in heaven. 'If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.'" It is water here, not blood. "He that is washed needeth not, save to wash his feet." Life-giving conversion, as well as salvation, is fully wrought; but if we pick up dirt in the way, even as to communion and the walk, grace and advocacy are there to wash our feet and have us practically fit for being with God where Christ is gone. Growth there is or ought to be; and as to the unchangeable cleanness of the new man, this is certain. But if I have not been watchful, I shall pick up dirt in my path. I cannot have this in heaven, nor in communion with what is there; and the Lord says in effect, "I am not going to give you up because I am going to God and glory, and so I must have you in a state suitable to that, and washed as you are (though not all, for Judas was there), keep you fit, restoring you when you fall. But you must be watching while I am away."

It is a comfort to me to know that all the virgins woke up in time, and I believe all His saints will wake up before the Lord comes. The difficulty to the heart in looking around is that so many do not receive it. But the true service of the Lord is connected with watching. That is the state to which the blessing and the heavenly feast are attached. Then you find another thing ? serving while He is away; and the result of this is, "Of a truth I will make him ruler over all I have." It is far better to eat, as is said of Israel, of the finest of the wheat, and that in the Father's house; but if we suffer with Him, we shall also reign with Him. With the serving in His absence, I get the ruling; as the heavenly feast with watching. The Lord then goes on to what we had in Matthew, the saying, "My Lord delayeth His coming."

What the Lord is pressing as to watching and serving is, "I am coming again. You must be watching for me, as men that wait for their lord." That was to be their character as Christians. Supposing all the people in this town were actually watching, waiting for the Lord from heaven, not knowing the moment He would come, do you think the whole town would not be changed? A person once said to me that if everybody believed that, the world could not go on at all; and the Christian cannot, in a worldly way.

If people were waiting for the Lord from heaven, the whole tone and character of their life would be changed. I may have the doctrine of Christ's coming, when I am really not looking for Him; but I should not like to be heaping money together when the Lord comes.

Turn now to Philippians 3. Paul was running a race. "Forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before." And how does he speak of Christ at the close of that chapter? "Brethren, be followers together of me . . . for our conversation" (our living association) "is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ," etc.

The Lord's coming affects all the truths of Christianity. Christ is not now on His own throne at all. He is sitting now, according to the word in Heb. 10 (and also in Psalm 110), at God's right hand, sitting on the Father's throne, as He says Himself in the promise in Laodicea. He has settled the question of sin for them at His first coming, and they have no more conscience of sins; they are perfected for ever. And to them that look for Him shall He appear a second time without sin unto salvation. He is expecting in the heavens till His enemies be made His footstool. Why does He say "His enemies"? Because He is sitting down after He has finished all for His friends; that is, those that believe in Him. Have all your sins been put away out of God's sight? If not, when will it be done? (1 Peter ii. 24.) That you grow in hatred of them all ? all right! But if they are not borne and put away on the cross, when will it be done? Can you get Christ to die again? Can you get anyone else to do it? If it is not done, it will never be done at all. Beloved friends, if the work is not finished, it will never be done at all. But it is done, and therefore He says, the worshippers once purged "have no more conscience of sins. . . For by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." (Heb. x. 2, 14.)

If you look now at Col. 3, you will find the same thing in its full result held out as our hope. "When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with Him in glory." The first promise He gave the disciples when going away was His coming again. "Do not be troubled, I am going to prepare a place for you. Do not be uneasy, I cannot stay with you, so I must have you up there with me" and the first thing is, "I will come again, and receive you unto myself." It is not one by one by death, but by resurrection for the dead, and change for the living, His actual coming to receive them, raised or changed, to be with Himself where He was gone, and like Himself, that we shall be in glory with Him.

Again, at His departing from His disciples left down here, what was the last they saw of Him?

They saw Him go up before their eyes, and the angel said to them, "Why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus . . . shall so come in like manner." His coming is wrought into the whole texture of the Christian life.

What is Scripture's last word? "Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus." in the same way you get it at the beginning, with warning and threatening, Jesus Christ, Faithful Witness, the First-begotten, etc. "Behold, He cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see Him." "I, Jesus, have sent mine angel," etc. "I am . . . the bright and morning star." Now I get what these saints who were watching, and those only, see. There is no star to be seen when the sun is risen; they see the morning star while it is yet early dawning, for the night is far spent, the day is at hand. Here He calls Himself "the root and offspring of David; the bright and morning star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come." If the bride has got the sense of being the bride of Christ, she must desire to be with the Bridegroom; there is not proper love to Christ unless she wants to be with Him. Abram said of his wife, "She is my sister;" then the Egyptians ? the world ? took her into their house. I just add that you get here the whole circle of the Church's affections. "The Spirit and the bride say, Come; and let him that heareth say, Come." That is, the Christian who has beard the word of his salvation joins in the cry. Then those who thirst for some living water are called to come. The saints of the Church can say, though they have not yet the Bridegroom in glory, that they have the living water, and so call, "Let him that is athirst, come," and then address the call universally, "Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." This they have, though not the Bridegroom. What I find then is, that in the word of God the thoughts and feelings and conduct and doings and affections of Christians are identified with the coming of Christ. Take all these things, and you will find that they are all identified with the coming of the Lord.

Take the first epistle of John, chapter 3, "Behold, what manner of love," etc. "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is." Beloved friends, we are "predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son." This is what God has purposed for us. When are we to be like Christ in the glory? When He comes. It is not when a person dies, and the spirit goes to be with Christ; for then he is like Christ when Christ was in the grave; and I do not want to be like Christ when Christ was in the grave. But if I die, I shall be like Christ as to that, but this is not what I want, though blessed in itself. I want to be like Him in the glory. When will that be? When He comes He will change our vile bodies, and fashion them like to His glorious body; so here it doth not yet appear what we shall be, but when He shall appear we shall be like Him. (Phil. iii. 20, 21; 1 John iii. 2.) Now mark the practical consequences upon the man that has been in his faith brought up to God's purposes. "He that hath this hope in Him, purifieth himself, even as He is pure." I know I am going to be perfectly like Christ in the glory, therefore I want to be as like Him as possible down here. You find here again what the Holy Scriptures are explicit in teaching, that holiness also is always referred to conformity to Christ in glory. I shall have that likeness to Christ in glory, and nothing else is my standard. You will find one passage already quoted, "To the end He may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all His saints." The perfection of the Christian is to be like Him when He comes. What again I find as to a Christian's body in 1 Cor. xv. is, "It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory." We have the blessed assurance that accompanies true assured hope of the first resurrection and its results.

We shall be perfectly like Christ when we are raised from the dead. We give an account of ourselves, but it is when we are like the Person to whom we are to give an account. The full efficacy of His first coming has been lost, and therefore people are not comfortable when thinking of His second coming. But for the saint "Christ is the first-fruits, then they that are Christ's at His coming." Is Christ the first-fruits of the wicked? Surely not. Just as Christ's resurrection was the public testimony of God's approval of Himself and His work, the resurrection of the saints will be a testimony of God's approval of them as in Him. As we find in Luke xx. 35, 36, "They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: neither can they die any more: but are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection."

Could anybody show me a single passage about a general resurrection? There is no such thought in Scripture. You get the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew quoted for it, that the goats and sheep represent the two classes; but He has come in His glory down here. He is not sitting on the great white throne: before this heaven and earth flee away. Here He is come, and sits on His throne. When He does come, and sits there, He gathers all the Gentiles ? the nations ? to judge them. It is the judgment of the quick or the living. You have three sets of people, not two; and you have nothing of resurrection. You have sheep, goats, and brethren. (Matt. xxv. 40.) So far from its being a general resurrection, there is no reference to resurrection at all; it is quite a different subject. Further, the only question is, How have they treated His brethren? The ground of judgment does not apply to ninety-nine out of a hundred of those who are to be judged, if it were a general judgment. Those that have had the testimony of the kingdom before He comes to judge the quick will be treated according as they have received God's messengers, but such only are in judgment.

And now the point I return to is, that the coming of the Lord influences and forms the whole life of the Christian. You cannot separate anything in the whole course and ways of the Christian from the coming of the Lord Jesus; and there is but the first coming, and the second coming. He has appeared once in the end of the world, and to them that look for Him shall He appear the second time unto salvation. It is true that He comes and dwells in us; but we speak with Scripture of actual coming. If you take holiness, or service, or conversion, or ministry, or a person who has died, they are all connected with Christ's coming. He warns them to be found watching.

I might quote other passages, but I have quoted enough to show that the Lord's coming is connected with everything in the Christian life. When we see Him as He is, then, and then only, shall we be like Him, according to God's purpose. And now I only ask, Are you waiting for God's Son from heaven?

His bearing the sins of many is the only ground of hope for any sinner; that is, the finished work which enables us, through faith, to look for Him when sealed by the Holy Ghost. Then, I say, what am I waiting for? I am waiting for God's Son from heaven. Can you say, "I am watching for Christ"? I do not know when He will come. "Blessed are those servants, whom the Lord, when He cometh, shall find watching." I do not ask you, "Do you understand about the coming of the Lord?" To wait for Him was the thing they were converted to. The thing that woke the virgins up was, "Behold, the Bridegroom!" Are you actually waiting for God's Son from heaven? Would you like Him to come to-night? Peter explains the delay. He says His long-suffering is salvation, not willing that any should perish. What would you think if He were to come to-night? Would it just be what your soul was looking for? People think that it would stop the gospel to be waiting for God's Son from heaven. Did the acceptance of God's testimony about the deluge stop the preaching of Noah? Far from hindering, it was what gave edge to all. May the Lord give us to be ready, when He comes ? found watching for Him.

"Do all in the name of the Lord Jesus." Col. iii. 17.

"Whatsoever ye do, in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him." (Col. iii. 17.) Here I get the whole course of everyday life. There are constantly difficulties that I find in passing through this world. I say, Ought I to do this thing or that, or not? I am uncertain as to the right course, or I may find great hindrances to doing what I think to be right. Now, if ever I find myself in doubt, my eye is not single; my whole body is not full of light, therefore my eye is not single. God brings me into certain circumstances of difficulty until I detect this. It may be something that I never suspected in myself before which hinders me from seeing aright; but it is something between me and Christ, and until that is put away I shall never have certainty as to my path. Therefore "whatsoever ye do, in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus." This will settle nine hundred and ninety-nine cases out of a thousand. If you are questioning whether you shall do a thing or not, just ask yourself, Am I going to do it in the name of the Lord Jesus? It will settle it at once.

Thus if a person says, What harm is there in my doing such and such a thing? I ask, Are you going to do it in the name of the Lord Jesus? Perhaps it may be something of which you will answer at once, Of course not. Then it is settled at once. It is the test of the state of the heart. If my eye is single, if the purpose of my heart is all right, I get here what settles every question ? it tests my heart. I wanted to know the right path, and it is as simple as A B C. If my heart is not upon Christ, I shall endeavour to do my own will; and this is not God's will. There is the constant uniform rule which clearly judges every path and circumstance. Am I simply doing it in the name of the Lord Jesus?

But what do I find with it? "Giving thanks to God the Father through Him." In another place it is said, "In everything give thanks." (1 Thess. v. 18.) Where my heart can take Christ with me, my mind is on God, and I can say, "He is with me," even if it is tribulation. I have got the path of God, I have got Christ with me in my path, and I would rather be there than in what is apparently the fairest and pleasantest thing in the world. As it is said in Psalm lxxxiv., "In whose heart are the ways of them."

This chapter (Col. iii.) begins with the great truth, that we are dead and risen with Christ ? the judgment of the old man absolutely and completely, and our reckoning it practically to be dead. People have talked about dying to the flesh, and of its being a slow death, etc., which is all nonsense. It is a simple fact that is true already; and if I died with Christ, I shall live with Him. It is the power of this that works in my soul. The root of all Paul's doctrine is, that we have been crucified with Him (Rom. vi. 6; Gal. ii. 20), and have died with Him (Rom. vi. 8); and it is not now we who live, but Christ that lives in us. Then Christ becomes the object of this life. Having laid that ground ? that the old man is put off and the new man put on (Col. iii. 9, 10), which is Christ ? he draws the consequence of the blessing in which we stand, and the fruits which spring from Him; and then there is this simple but blessed rule for him that is in earnest ? to do nothing but what can be done in the name of the Lord Jesus.

One great thing here practically put before us is this ? Christ is all. He is in all; but this is the great thing we have to look to, Is He practically all? Can you honestly say, Though a poor weak creature, notwithstanding that, I am not conscious of having a single other object in the world but Christ? You find many difficulties, you are not watchful enough, your faith is feeble, you know your short-comings; but can you, notwithstanding all this, honestly say, I have no object in the world but Christ?

First, the root of all is Christ as the life; then we pass over to the outward conduct in the man's walk. And let me remark, that while a person may be walking outwardly uprightly and blamelessly, it may be very feebly as a Christian, and without spirituality. You will find many a true Christian who has Christ as his life, and nothing to reproach him with as to his walk, and yet is not spiritually-minded. (Rom. viii. 6; 1 Cor. iii. 1.) You talk to him about Christ, there is nothing that answers. There is, between the life that is at the bottom and the blamelessness that is at the top, between him and Christ, a whole host of affections and objects that are not Christ at all. How much of the day, or of the practice of your soul, is filled up with Christ? How far is He the one object of your heart? When you come to pray to God, do you never get to a point where you shut the door against Him? where there is some reserve, some single thing in your heart, that you keep back from Him? If we pray for blessing up to a certain point only, there is reserve; Christ is not all practically to us.

O MAY Thy Spirit guide our souls,

And mould them to Thy will,

That from Thy paths we ne'er may stray,

But keep Thy precepts still!

That to the Saviour's stature full

We nearer still may rise,

And all we think, and all we do,

Be pleasing in Thine eyes.

What is the Unpardonable Sin?

Amongst the many devices employed by Satan to discourage souls, and lead them astray, is that of beguiling them into the thought that they have committed the unpardonable sin. It is sad indeed to see the distress into which some are plunged through listening to this suggestion of the wicked one. But, before proceeding to say a few words in the endeavour to help those who may be in this painful condition, we would earnestly remind them of Satan's real character, as declared by the Lord Jesus Christ: "He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." (John viii. 44.)

Now, as long as men are careless and worldly, living without God, Satan leaves them undisturbed in the enjoyment of the pleasures of sin; but the moment the soul becomes awakened to its responsibility to God, and the cry of the heart has gone forth, "What must I do to be saved?" than he does his utmost to hinder them from coming to Christ, to blind them to the abounding grace of God, and to make them believe that they are too sinful to be saved.

In order to understand the passage which treats of the unpardonable sin, we would invite our readers to carefully consider the whole context. Christ had been casting out unclean spirits, when "the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth He out devils. And He called them unto Him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house. Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: because they said, He hath an unclean spirit." (Mark iii. 22-30.)

Any careful reader of the foregoing passage may see at a glance what the unpardonable sin is. It is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. And in what did the blasphemy consist? We are distinctly told, in verse 30, that it was "because they said, He hath an unclean spirit." That is, these wicked scribes said that the Holy Ghost was the devil. Horrible wickedness And does not your soul, beloved reader ? you who may be sorely troubled about this sin ? revolt at the very suggestion of such a thing? How, then, can you have committed it? Those wicked men saw the work of the Holy Ghost before their very eyes, and yet, in their blindness and wickedness, ascribed it to Satan, saying, "He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth He out devils." But did you ever see the Lord cast out devils, and say of Him, "He hath an unclean spirit"? Surely you would never allow the thought that He wrought miracles by the power of Satan, or that the Holy Ghost was Beelzebub, the prince of the devils. Again we ask you, then, How can you have committed the unpardonable sin? Impossible! It is simply Satan's lie to make and keep you miserable. Foolish soul, listen to him no longer; give him no place; resist him, and he will flee from you. (Eph. iv. 27; James iv. 7.)

But if Satan find that you are beginning to see through, and to escape from his snare, he will very probably change his tactics, and suggest, as he does to some, that if you have not blasphemed the Holy Ghost you have at least sinned against Him. But what saith the Scripture? We nowhere read that sin against the Holy Ghost is not forgiven; or who could be saved? For is not all sin against Him, in that the Holy Ghost is God? And all sin is against God; and God forgives all manner of sins and iniquities. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is the alone exception. Of every one that believeth He says, even the God that cannot lie (Titus i. 2), "Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." (Heb. x. 17.) Again, "It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth?" (Rom. viii. 33, 34.) And again, "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." (Rom. iv. 8.)

Matthew xii. 31, 32 might still present a difficulty to some troubled soul. We read, "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come."

Another and more exact translation of this passage is as follows: "For this reason I say unto you, Every sin and injurious speaking shall be forgiven to men, but speaking injuriously of the Spirit shall not be forgiven to men. And whosoever shall have spoken a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age nor in the coming one."

We see then, from this, that speaking injuriously of and speaking against the Holy Ghost are the same as blaspheming against Him, which we have already sought to explain.

Some tried one, however, may say, "But, oh, I feel I've grieved the Spirit so often!" Well, that of course is wrong. It is sin, but not blasphemy. Where does God say that grieving the Holy Spirit is an unpardonable offence? Can Satan quote or misquote a scripture for that? What does the word of God say? "Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." (Eph. iv. 30.) Now God gives the Holy Spirit to those that believe. "After that ye [or having] believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise." (Eph. i. 13.) The Holy Spirit takes up His abode in the body of the believer. "Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost?" (1 Cor. vi. 19.) And He is the abiding Comforter. (John xiv. 16.) He does not come and go; but once He dwells in the believer, He remains with him. We are sealed unto the day of redemption. If we sin, we grieve the Spirit, but He does not leave us. It does not say we are sealed until we sin, or even until we die, and our bodies go to corruption, but until the day of redemption. If we should die (or fall asleep), He ceases to dwell in us ? on the earth, of course ? and our bodies do go to corruption. But what the Scripture says (and it is all-important to keep close to it) is, "Whereby ye are sealed unto [or for] the day of redemption;" that is, the coming of the Lord. (Rom. viii. 23; Phil. iii. 20, 21.)

David as a godly Jew could rightly pray, "Take not thy Holy Spirit from me." (Ps. li. 11.) But since the gift of the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, at the day of Pentecost (Acts ii.), once He makes the believer's body His abode, he is sealed till the day of redemption. It is on the ground of this very truth that we are exhorted not to grieve Him. What can be more miserable than to live in a house with a person who is grieved with your ways, and who is constantly showing his disapproval of them. And how unhappy the state of a Christian who is grieving the Spirit by lax and unholy walk and ways. He is the Holy Spirit, and is grieved by all unholiness. Knowing, then, that He dwells in us, how careful, watchful, and prayerful this should make us, that we should not grieve Him, but that rather we should be filled with the Spirit (Eph. v. 18), have the love of God shed abroad in our hearts (Rom. v. 5), and be filled too with all joy and peace in believing. (Rom. xv. 13.)

If we grieve the Holy Spirit of God, then, He does not leave us, but at once makes us sensible of His grief, and our failure and sin. Communion is interrupted and joy lost, to be restored only through the advocacy of Christ and the confession of sins. (1 John ii. 1, i. 9.) But our salvation, thanks be to the God of all grace, is eternal. (Heb. v. 9.) And when a soul is sealed, it is on the ground of the infinite worth of the finished work of Christ, the value of which ever abides in its lasting efficacy before God. Hence we are sealed for the day of redemption.

There is one more passage which we may connect with our subject, as it sometimes troubles souls. It is in 1 John v. 16, 17, and speaks of a sin which brings down the chastisement of God upon the offender. God deals in government as well as in grace, and one of His children may so commit himself that, though the subject of grace, he may be taken away from the world in the government of God.

In 1 Cor. xi. 28-32 we have a confirmation of this. Christians at the Lord's table were committing grievous sin, and partaking of the supper unworthily. Hence they were eating and drinking judgment to themselves. The hand of God was heavy upon them in consequence. "For this cause," says the apostle, "many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world."

And now, dear reader, if you are one that hitherto has been harassed and perplexed by the onslaught and fiery darts of the wicked one, and thinking that your case is hopeless, we would earnestly entreat you to heed no longer the lie of the arch-enemy of your soul, who belies the character of God, but rest in child-like simplicity of faith upon the sure word of God. "The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin." (1 John i. 7.) Listen to the word of Christ, in one of the very passages that has been troubling you, "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." (Matt. xii. 31.) Mark it once again, the only exception is the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, and this you have not committed. The false accusation comes from the father of lies. Heed him. not. God has said, "Their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more."

1 Corinthians 10: 13.

WHEN Satan appears

To stop up our path

And fill us with fears,

We triumph by faith;

He cannot take from us,

Though oft he has tried,

The heart-cheering promise, ?

The Lord will provide.

He tells us we're weak,

Our hope is in vain,

The good that we seek

We ne'er shall obtain;

But when such suggestions

Our spirits have tried,

This answers all questions, ?

The Lord will provide.

The Four Judgments.

Notes of a Lecture.

The subject of the four judgments is taken up with a desire to help those who have been lately converted, and who have confused thoughts about judgment. Some think that all are going to be judged together at the end of the world, but we learn from God's word that there are four distinct judgments; and this is not a theory of any particular school of theology, but the teaching of the Holy Ghost in the word of God.

The first judgment is passed. Christ bore it on the cross. It is most blessed to see that. He "His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree." (1 Peter ii. 24.) He there "suffered for sins, the Just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God," who now justifies every one that believes on the Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Peter iii. 18; Acts xiii. 38, 39; Rom. iii. 26.)

In John v. 24 we have a positive statement as to the fact that we shall not come into judgment. The word translated "judgment" in verse 22 is exactly the same as that rendered "condemnation" in verse 24, and damnation in verse 29. The changes were made by the translators to avoid repetition; but the word in each case should be judgment.

Verse 24. This is a golden chain, composed of five golden links.

"Heareth my word." Have you heard it? It makes dead souls live.

"Believeth on Him that sent me." Do you believe on Him that sent Christ?

"Hath everlasting life." Have you got everlasting life? Perhaps you say, "I don't know I should like to know." "Do you believe Him that sent Christ?" "Thank God, I do." "Then you have everlasting life." It is a present thing; and as to the future, do not be afraid.

"Shall not come into judgment." Christ says so, and He never contradicts Himself.

"Is passed from death unto life." God will not bring two persons into judgment for the same thing. Christ has borne the judgment. It is a thing of the past, behind the Christian's back, borne 1800 years ago; and there is but a step between him and the glory.

There are five more links in Rom. viii. 29, 30. "Whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate . . . Whom He did predestinate, them He also called: and whom He called, them He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified." When we see Him we shall be instantly transformed for all eternity into His own blessed likeness. (1 John iii. 2.) Imagine, when we are raised in glory, Christ putting us before the judgment-seat to see if we are fit to be in glory. If Christians saw how they were going to be raised they would never think of being judged, because they will be raised in glory. (1 Cor. xv. 42-57.)

We will now turn to the second judgment. In Romans xiv. 10 it is declared that all shall stand before the judgment-seat of Christ. Who are all? Every one, saved or unsaved, in the world. It does not say that all will stand there at the same time, or for the same purpose. As to believers, the question of everlasting life is settled for eternity: the question of rewards will be settled before the judgment-seat of Christ. (2 Cor. v. 10.) Believers will stand there first, before Christ's appearing; but unbelievers at the great white throne, after the millennium, and just before the end of the world. If the thought of standing before the judgment-seat terrifies you, it shows that you are not established in the grace of God, and the sooner you get good ground under your feet the better. Enter not into judgment with thy servant, O Lord. (Ps. cxliii. 2.) He has entered into judgment with our Substitute. Is He free from sins? So are we. Is He free from death? So are we. Is He free from judgment? So are we. When before the judgment-seat to have your works judged, before whom will you stand? Him who is your life, your righteousness, your peace.*

{*"We have to remember that at our appearing before the judgment-seat we are already glorified." (1 Cor. xv. 51, 52.)}

In 1 Cor. iii. 8-17 it is a question of reward. Marvellous honour! Deep responsibility! When the apostle preached Christ he laid the foundation, and the different characters of service are put in the order of their preciousness in God's sight.

Gold, silver, and precious stones all stand fire, but the three others will burn ? none of them stand fire. There may be a beautiful building, a fine stack of hay, a great stack of stubble, but they will all burn up. Man is manifested already. The works will be made manifest; the day will not declare him, but his work. It will be revealed by fire, by judgment of a searching character.

We have first (v. 14) a good man and good works, and there is a reward. Eternal life, forgiveness, salvation, righteousness, glory, the Holy Ghost, are all gifts. You will have glory with Christ as sure as He has it; that is no reward. But look to your work. Are you building according to the pattern in the Bible, or according to your own thoughts? A builder might build a most beautiful house, but if not guided by the architect's plan it would be condemned. You may get the praise of men, but if you are not building according to the divine Architect's plan your work will be condemned. A good man does good work, and he gets a reward.

Next (v. 15) we get a good man and bad work, and it is all burned up. He may have made a great show ? erected a large building, a large stack of hay, a larger stack of stubble; he is a good man, but has worked according to his own thoughts. Get your plans from the divine Architect, and take care to let no man come between your Master and yourself. This is a good man, but his work all goes, yet the man himself is saved out of the very fire that consumes the whole of his work. See to it that you are working according to the wonderful ways of God laid down by the Holy Ghost in Scripture. Suppose salvation was by works, this man must go to the lake of fire; for he has not a shred of good works left; but away he goes to glory through sovereign grace. We do not work for salvation, but from love to our Master. Salvation is by grace, not by works.

Rev. xxii. 12: "My reward is with me." Again we see that the second judgment is no question of life ? that is a settled thing ? but of rewards.

1 Cor. vi. 1-3. There is a good deal of misconception as to this scripture. It simply means that the saints of God were going to law before the unjust instead of before the Church of God, and they were told to let the saints arbitrate. Why? Because the saints are going to judge the world. It is a common idea in Christendom that the saints are going to be judged with the world, but they will be there as judges quite a different thing. What a wonderful honour. It is most solemn. Think of Christ coming to take His saints to glory, and coming back with us to judge the world ? dear ones, perhaps, who are part and parcel of ourselves, but who are finding their joy here. All saved people in this dispensation are saints. In Jude 14, 15 we find that Christ is coming back with ten thousands of His saints. How could He come with them if He had not fetched them first? He will fetch us first, then there will be the great tribulation. Then, when we have been with Him in the Father's house for a period of time, He is coming back, and we are going to be associated with Him in the judgment of the world.

The third judgment is at the introduction of the millennium. Millennium is a Latin word, and means a thousand years. In Rev. xx. "thousand years" occurs six times. The Lord is coming to fetch His people; then a thousand years will roll between His coming with His people to reign over the earth and the end of the world.

Joel iii. 2, 9-14; Matt. xxv. 31-46. Here they are all living people. Nations always mean living people. This is the judgment of the living, when Christ comes back with us.

Let me ask you, Where do you get the doctrine of a general resurrection and general judgment in Scripture? How could this be a general judgment when they are all living people, and there is no resurrection? It is not the judgment of the dead, but of the living.

Three classes are mentioned ? "sheep," "goats," and "my brethren." The sheep are saved Gentiles; the goats, those who have rejected the Lord Jesus Christ's own Jewish brethren, and their message. It is not the great white throne. When that is set up there is no mention of Christ's coming, because He has been there reigning over the earth a thousand years already. Christ might come to-night and take His own blood-bought people to glory; and you who are unsaved might live through the tribulation, and be here to be judged when Christ comes with His saints. (2 Thess. i. 7-10.)

We have looked at three sets of scriptures ? the first proving that one judgment is past, the second showing that believers will not come into judgment, and the third that, instead of being judged with the world, they are going to judge the world.

Rev. xx. 11-15. The fourth and last judgment is of the dead. The thousand years will have rolled their course, the millennium will be over, the great white throne will be set up. There will be nothing there but judgment and condemnation. All who stand there will be those who are dead in trespasses and sins ? the ungodly ? and they will be judged according to their works; and every one will leave the great white throne to go to the lake of fire.

What effect ought this to have on us? May God use it to make us see what manner of people we ought to be! We were never so near to Christ's second coming as we are to-day. May it give a colour to our work and ways!

Dear unsaved one, whilst He is waiting for us, and we are waiting for Him, look to Him, come to Him, receive Him by faith, and you will be saved; you will have rest, and will be a child of God, and ready to go to Him; or if Christ comes first you will be ready to meet Him, and to go to be with Him for ever, and if left in this poor world a little longer it will be to live and labour for Him who loved us and gave Himself for us.

"Not under the law."

Romans 7.

In this chapter the apostle first of all establishes the great principle that the believer is "dead to the law." Then he describes the workings of a quickened soul, which, knowing that the "law is spiritual," still feels "under the law," and is therefore compelled to exclaim, "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?"

Now, dear friends, let me ask you, "Am I, or is my state, the object of faith?" No; surely not. Faith never makes what is in my heart its object, but God's revelation of Himself in grace. If we stop half way, and see nothing but the law, it will just discover to us our condemnation, and prove us to be "without strength." If God allows us to know enough of the law, and of the experience described in this chapter, to show us what is our true state, that is just where grace meets us.

It is not that the conflict here spoken of will not continue; grace could not be known at all where conflict is not known (Gal. v. 17); the unconverted only are without it; but that which will not continue when grace is fully known, is that bitterness of spirit in which, while the conflict is going on, the person judges of himself, seeing the law to be "spiritual," but himself "carnal, sold under sin." The love of God is not realized as his own, and therefore this causes him to cry out, "O wretched man that I am!"

It is quite clear that while there is this experience felt, there is not simple faith in God's grace ? there is not a clear view of what God is towards me in Christ; for when the soul apprehends that ? when the faculties of the new man are exercised on their proper object, there is perfect rest. And though there is still conflict, yet the soul is at peace ? the battle is not ours, but the Lord's.

But how am I to know what is God's mind towards me? Is it by judging of it from what I find in myself? Surely not! Supposing that I even found good in myself, if I expected God to look at me on that account, would that be grace? There may be a measure of truth in this kind of reasoning; for if there be life in my soul, fruit will be apparent; but that is not to give me peace any more than the evil that is in me is to hinder my having peace. That, too, is true reasoning where the apostle says, "The law is spiritual; but I am carnal. . . O wretched man that I am" but there is nothing of grace in it.

But does the certainty of grace take us out of all trouble? No; I am not at all denying the fact that there is, and, while we are in a sinful body, that there ever must be, conflict going on between the flesh and the Spirit. But then it is a very different thing to have this conflict going on in the conscious certainty that God is for me, because I am "under grace," to having it in the fear that He is against me, because I am "under law."

If I see evil in myself (and this I always shall whilst here, in the root, even if it be not manifested in its fruit), and if I think that God will be against me because of it, I shall have no strength for conflict, but be utterly cast down ? groaning as to my acceptance. But if certain that God is for me, the consciousness of this will give me courage and victory; nay, even enable me to say, "Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my thoughts; and see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting." In the confidence of the love and grace of God, I can ask Him to search out all my evil, what I otherwise dare not do, lest it should overwhelm me with despair. God is for me, against my own evil.

The apostle speaks (chap. viii.) of the "carnal mind" being "enmity against God;" but then God, in the gift of Jesus, has brought out this blessed truth, that when man was at enmity against God, God was love towards man ? our enmity was met by His love. The triumph of grace is seen in this, that when man's enmity had cast out Jesus from the earth, God's love brought in salvation by that very act ? came in to atone for the sin of those who had rejected Him. In the view of the fullest development of man's sin, faith sees the fullest manifestation of God's grace. Where does faith see the greatest depth of man's sin and hatred of God? In the cross and at the same glance it sees the greatest extent of god's triumphant love and mercy to man. The spear of the soldier which pierced the side of Jesus only brought out that which spoke of love and mercy.

The apostle then goes on to show that those once at enmity with God, are now become His heirs; and that the knowledge of this is founded on the knowledge of grace ? "Ye have not received the spirit of bondage again," etc. Grace first makes us children of God, and then gives us the knowledge of it, and that we are heirs of God.

But what is the extent of this grace towards us? It has given us the same portion that the Lord Jesus has. We are "heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ." It is not only certain that grace has visited us, has found us when we were "in our sins," but it is also certain that it has us where Christ is ? that we are identified with the Lord Jesus in all but His essential glory as God. The soul is placed thus in the consciousness of God's perfect love, and therefore, as it is said in chapter 5, "we joy in God."

I have got away from grace, if I have the slightest doubt or hesitation about God's love. I shall then be saying, "I am unhappy, because I am not what I should like to be." But, dear friends, that is not the question; the real question is, whether God is what we should like Him to be ? whether Jesus is all we could wish. If the consciousness of what we are ? of what we find in ourselves, has any other effect than, while it humbles us, to increase our adoration of what God is, we are off the ground of pure grace. The immediate effect of such consciousness should be to make our hearts reach out to God and to His grace as abounding over it all.

It is better to be thinking of what God is, than of what we are. This looking at ourselves, at the bottom, is really pride ? a want of the thorough consciousness that we are good for nothing. Till we see this we never look quite away from self to God. Sometimes, perhaps, the looking at our evil may be a partial instrument in teaching us it; but still, even that is not all that is needed. In looking to Christ it is our privilege to forget ourselves. True humility does not so much consist in thinking badly of ourselves, as in not thinking of ourselves at all. I am too bad to be worth thinking about; what I want is to forget myself and to look at God, who is indeed worth all my thoughts. Is there need of being humbled about ourselves? We may be quite sure that will do it.

Beloved, if we can say (as in chapter vii.) that "in me, (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing," we have thought quite long enough about ourselves; let us then think about Him who thought about us with "thoughts of good, and not of evil," long before we had thought of ourselves at all. Let us see what His thoughts of grace about us are, and take up the words of faith, If God be for us, who can be against us?"

O LORD, Thy love 's unbounded ?

So sweet, so full, so free ?

My soul is all transported,

Whene'er I think on Thee!

Yet, Lord, alas! what weakness

Within myself I find,

No infant's changing pleasure

Is like my wandering mind.

And yet Thy love's unchanging,

And doth recall my heart

To joy in all its brightness,

The peace its beams impart.

Yet sure, if in Thy presence,

My soul still constant were,

Mine eye would, more familiar,

Its brighter glories bear.

And thus Thy deep perfections

Much better should I know,

And with adoring fervour

In this Thy nature grow.

Still sweet 'tis to discover,

If clouds have dimmed my sight,

When passed, Eternal Lover,

Towards me, as e'er, Thou'rt bright.

The Peace of God.

Phil. 4: 7.

Peace is our portion. There is a "counsel of peace" (Zech. vi. 13) which belongs to us, an assured peace; peace indeed in the midst of present trouble, but still God's peace. If it were not God's peace, it would be good for nothing. I may, it is true, have my spirit much disturbed, and know trial of heart, but still I have a title to perfect peace amidst it all ? not only peace with God, but peace concerning every circumstance, because God is "for us" in it all.

Had not man been in rebellion against God, there would have been no need for "the counsel of peace." Adam in paradise needed it not. But man has rebelled, and, though its modifications may be various, rebellion against God is still the characteristic of the unconverted heart. Such was his rebellion, that peace between man and God seemed impossible. But now, wondrous grace! we see that there is not only peace, but a "counsel of peace" ? thoughts of God concerning peace, thoughts which Jesus alone could meet ? "Lo, come to do thy will, O God." (Heb. x. 9.)

Supposing God had made peace with Adam, the peace could not have lasted; the enmity in the heart of man, or that produced by the power of circumstances thwarting his will, would very soon have broken it again. Look at Israel. They were placed in outward peace with God, owned as His people, favoured in every way, and yet what was the result? continual murmuring on their part, constant rebellion. As to moral peace with God, they had scarcely undertaken to keep His law, than they set up a golden calf to worship, and thus failed directly. And it would always be the same. It must be so; for the very will of man is altogether wrong. "The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." (Rom. viii. 7.)

But now "the counsel of peace" is between God and Jesus, instead of man, and hence security. It is not merely peace, but "the counsel of peace." The word "counsel" implies deliberate purpose. What solidity must there be in that peace which. God had a "counsel" about, and all the engagements of which the mind of Jesus fully entered into and accomplished.

I have said that peace is our proper portion as the children of God ? peace both as to sin, and as to circumstances. Now, it is true that the latter we have not outwardly yet; but God is taking up all that concerns us, and has taken upon Himself to make "all things work together" for our good; and the knowledge of this gives peace (if we will use our privilege) in all circumstances, be they ever those of trial, perplexity, and sorrow. Was it not so with Jesus? Who can be tried so as

He? "Consider Him that endured such contradiction of sinners against Himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds." Yet He had always peace. And so might we. "Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee." (Heb. xii. 3; Isa. xxvi. 3.)

But then it is most important to see that "the counsel of peace" is entirely between God and Jesus. The moment we begin to rest our peace on anything in ourselves, we lose it. And this is why so many saints have not settled peace. Nothing can be lasting that is not built on God alone. How can you have settled peace? Only by having it in God's own way. By not resting it on any thing, even the Spirit's work, within yourselves, but on what Christ has done entirely without you. Then you will know peace, conscious unworthiness, but yet peace. In Christ alone God finds that in which He can rest, and so is it with His saints. The more you see the extent and nature of the evil that is within, as well as that without and around, the more you will find that what Jesus is, and what Jesus did; is the only ground at all on which you can rest.

Our peace is established in what He did, and "the counsel of peace" is "between them both." Jesus has accomplished that which God purposed towards us.

In order to this, it was needful that He should "bear our sins;" and this He did as the "sin-offering." "He hath made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him." (2 Cor. v. 21.)

In the sacrifices, when the offerer laid his hand upon the head of the victim, there was in that act the complete identification of himself with the victim. Now there are two great characters in the sacrifice of Christ ? the one that of the burnt-offering; the other, that of the sin-offering. We lay our hands on Him as the "burnt-offering," thus identifying ourselves with Him. "Accepted in the Beloved," all His perfectness, all His "sweet savour" unto God, is ours. But then, as to the "sin-offering," it is just the reverse; the hand laid upon the victim, it became identified with my sins, charged with my guilt.

Well, beloved, the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus had this double character. He has completely accomplished the purpose of God, all that which was in "the counsel of peace." This "counsel of peace" was not between me and God, though I have, as the fruit of it, the enjoyment of the peace. I had not to do with it in any sense; it was "between them both." All is done, and Jesus, both the accomplisher and the accomplishment, has sat down, in proof that all is finished, on the throne of God. (Heb. x. 12-14.)

But, then, in order that we may have the enjoyment of these things, He is acting in another way as priest. Having the Spirit of Christ dwelling in us, we consequently see many things in ourselves contrary to Him ? many things that would hinder fellowship with God. Now here it is that the present ministry of Christ comes in. We need His priesthood in order to maintain our communion with God; we need Him in our daily sins, as it is said, "If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." We need the presence of perfect righteousness on our behalf before God, and He has ever before His eyes, and that "for us," the accomplisher of "the counsel of peace" ? "Jesus Christ the righteous."

Here then is "the counsel of peace" which was purposed between God and Jesus. Here, and here only, have we peace. If ever our souls have any idea of rest except in that which is the perfect rest of God, if ever we are looking for peace anywhere else, be it where it may, we have got out of God's way of accomplishing peace, off the ground of this "counsel of peace." He has not called us into "the counsel;" it is that which is entirely independent of ourselves ? "between them both" ? accomplished and everlastingly sure. Nothing can ever touch it. God has publicly owned His acceptance of Christ's work by seating Him at His own right hand. The Holy Ghost is sent to witness to us that Jesus is now "on the throne of God," having "by one offering perfected for ever them that are sanctified."

We may have a great deal of trial (we know we shall) ? trial from circumstances around, trial from within, exercise of conscience and the like; but still we have the perfect certainty of God's favour; "and if God be for us, who can be against us?" (Rom. viii. 31.) With Paul we may reckon, because of His having given Jesus for us, along with Jesus upon everything. This is the true way to reckon upon His kindness. "Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus." (Phil. iv. 6, 7.) Observe, he says, "the peace of God." Again, the word is, "Be careful for nothing." If one single thing were excepted, God would not be God. Well, if exercised and troubled in spirit, tempted to be "careful," let us go to God about it. Our wishes may possibly be foolish wishes, still let us go and present them to God; if they are so, we shall very soon be ashamed of them.

LORD, while our souls in faith repose

Upon Thy precious blood,

Peace like an even river flows)

And mercy, like a flood.

The Two Resurrections.

A Better Resurrection.

The Resurrection of the Just.

The Resurrection of Life.

This is the First Resurrection.

The Children of the Resurrection.

Heb. xi. 35; Luke xiv. 14; John v. 29; Rev. xx. 5; Luke xx. 36.

The resurrection of the saints at the coming of the Lord is distinct from the resurrection of the wicked; and the coming of the Lord is itself the hope of the Church.

The idea that Christians generally have, is that of an indiscriminate resurrection; the righteous and wicked being, as it is supposed, to be raised at the same moment, and that moment absolutely at the end of time ? after the millennium ? at the close of the entire course of God's dealings with this earth on which we dwell. This was the idea, which Martha, the sister of Lazarus, had. Desolate and sorrowful through the loss of her brother, our Lord, to comfort her heart, said to her, "Thy brother shall rise again." What was her reply? "I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Martha's faith as to the resurrection was exactly that of the bulk of professing Christians now; true, doubtless, as far as it goes, but stopping far short of the precious fulness of truth revealed in the word of God respecting it. There is indeed to be a resurrection; and that resurrection is to be at the last day. But "the day of judgment," "the day of the Lord," and, I would add, "the last day," each expresses, not a literal, actual day of twenty-four hours, but a lengthened period. The "last day" begins before the "day of judgment" ? "the day of the Lord" ? but it seems to us to embrace the whole period from the coming of Christ to receive His saints, to the time when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God the Father; when He shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. The resurrection at the last day embraces thus the resurrection both of the righteous and the wicked; but this does not in any wise prove that they are both at the same moment; and we shall see just now from the plain testimony of Scripture that they are not only distinguished from each other, but separated by an interval of a thousand years.

The first passage to which I would refer you is Luke xiv. 14, which simply distinguishes these two resurrections as to their character. Our Lord having exhorted those with whom He was sitting at table, when they made a feast, to call the poor, the maimed, the lame, and the blind, proceeds to enforce the exhortation thus: "And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be, recompensed at the resurrection of the just." Would any one, not previously possessed with the prevailing notion, gather the impression from this passage that the resurrection of the just and that of the wicked was an indiscriminate event? Would not the natural impression of the passage on any unprejudiced mind be, that the resurrection of the just is an event perfectly distinct? ? "thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just."

In Phil. iii. 10, 11 the apostle represents it as his great endeavour, his arduous, his continual endeavour, to know Christ, and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being made conformable unto His death, "if by any means," says he, "I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead." But if the only resurrection be an indiscriminate resurrection both of righteous and wicked, a simple act of God's power, apart from all questions of spiritual condition and character, how could it be Paul's solicitude "by any means" to "attain unto the resurrection of the dead"?

In John v. 28, 29 we have another important passage, in which our blessed Lord distinguishes between the resurrection of the righteous and that of the wicked. "Marvel not at this: for the hour is corning, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation." Here our Lord speaks of two resurrections, distinguishing them by the sources from whence they respectively flow, and by which they are thus respectively characterized; life in the one case, judgment in the other. "The resurrection of life" and "the resurrection of judgment." "Yes," you may perhaps be saying; "but both are in one hour." I anticipated this objection when I referred to the passage; and it is as much to meet this objection that I ask your attention to the passage, as to show you the positive proof it contains of the doctrine we are considering. "The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth." People infer from this that all rise together. And this would be a just inference, if the word "hour" meant a literal period of sixty minutes. But if you look back to verse 25 of this very chapter, you will see that the word is used in quite another sense. Jesus had been speaking of the quickening of dead souls, how he that hears and believes has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment (or condemnation), but is passed from death unto life. He then says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live." The hour is coming, and now is. It had commenced when our Lord spake. There is an "hour" in which the Son of God is quickening dead souls ? the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live. How long has this "hour" lasted? It had begun when Jesus spake thus; it has not terminated yet! Already do we know this "hour" of quickening dead souls to be of more than eighteen hundred years' continuance. For anything, therefore, that the word "hour" proves to the contrary, the "hour" in which Christ will quicken dead bodies might last as long as this present "hour" in which He is quickening dead souls. The passage before us does not determine how long the period is. It teaches plainly that there is a "resurrection of life," and a "resurrection of judgment." There is an "hour" coming, in the which both these will be accomplished; and we read, in the immediate context of this passage, of another "hour" which has unquestionably lasted for nearly two thousand years. What the period actually is that intervenes between these two resurrections we have to learn elsewhere in Scripture; and in another passage we are plainly told that it is one thousand years.

It is in Revelation xx. that we learn this. We find there that the duration of the "hour" in the which these two resurrections take place is one thousand years. The resurrection of life is at the commencement, the resurrection of judgment is at the close.

"And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, and cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season." People say that this is figurative language; and it is granted that it is so, at once. No doubt the key of the bottomless pit, and the great chain in the angel's hand, and the binding of Satan, and the setting of a seal upon him, are all figures. But what are they figures of? Are they expressions without meaning because they are figurative? Or is the meaning necessarily uncertain and indefinite? What do they all teach us, but that Satan will be forcibly restrained, and that in his own abyss, for a thousand years? So restrained that he shall deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years are fulfilled. What difficulty is there in understanding the force and meaning of figures like these?

"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection." Observe these last words, my brethren "This is the first resurrection." There may have been figures employed in the passage; no one questions it. But when the Holy Ghost is pleased to interpret the figurative language He has employed ? when He is pleased to tell us what it means ? are we to evade the force of all He says, by making His interpretation figurative also? "This is the first resurrection," is the Holy Ghost's explanation of the figures or symbols by which it had been set forth. "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years." Nothing can be more evident than what the simple, definite impression of this language would be on any mind not prepossessed with thoughts of another character. The way in which it is commonly sought to evade the plain, obvious meaning of the passage is by explaining it thus: that the resurrection of the martyrs, which John beheld, denotes a revival of the principles for which they suffered; that, having suffered death for Christian principles, the revival, and universal spread and ascendency of these principles, is set forth by the symbol of those who had been beheaded living and reigning with Christ a thousand years. Such is the popular interpretation of this passage. But it breaks down at every point. Those who have been beheaded are those who reign. Are they principles or persons that have been beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the word of God? Then again, supposing that the reign of principles might be set forth by the resurrection and reign of those who had been martyrs for them, how are we to account for their priesthood? "They shall be priests of God and of Christ." As one has said, in substance, somewhere, "You may speak of the reign of principles; but can you make principles into priests as well?" Then again, "on such the second death hath no power." What is the second death? It is explained in verse 14 to be "the lake of fire." And could there be any question of the second death, the lake of fire, having power over Christian principles? The lake of fire is for the punishment of evil persons; and it is one element in the blessedness of those who have part in the first resurrection that "on such the second death hath no power." Then further, the first resurrection is so linked in this chapter with what all admit to be a literal resurrection of dead bodies at the end of the thousand years, that you cannot explain away the one without explaining away the other. When John has witnessed the vision in verse 4, which is explained to him in verse 5 to be "the first resurrection," we are told of certain who have no part in it; "but the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished." In the verses which ensue we have a rapid glance at the events which occur when the thousand years are expired ? Satan is loosed ? the nations are again deceived ? fire comes down from God out of heaven and destroys them ? the devil who had deceived them is cast into the lake of fire, where the beast and the false prophet are (having been cast there alive a thousand years before, see chapter xix. 20); and then what follows? "And I saw a great white throne, and Him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." Is this figurative too, my brethren? If so, where is there Scripture authority for the doctrine of the resurrection at all? And if this be not figurative, why should the account of "the first resurrection at the beginning of the chapter be set aside as figurative? If it be allowed, which it must be, that the resurrection of the wicked dead at the close of the chapter is a literal, actual resurrection of dead bodies, on what principle can it be maintained that the first resurrection at the beginning of the chapter is figurative, and denotes the revival of dead or dying principles? What says the Holy Spirit? "This is the first resurrection." "But the rest of the dead lived not again," etc. The rest of the dead what? ? principles? ? or persons? Surely the "rest" must bear some relation to those from whom they are distinguished. If it be a revival of principles which constitutes the first resurrection, "the rest of the dead who live not again till the thousand years are finished" must be principles also. And if it shocks you to trifle thus with God's holy word ? if it be certain that the dead who are raised and judged before the great white throne, are dead persons, not principles; then is it equally certain that the first resurrection is a resurrection of persons too. If the first resurrection be one of principles, then must the second also. If the second, that before the great white throne, be a resurrection of persons, the first must be a resurrection of persons likewise. Nothing can be more evident and simple than this.

This chapter, then, demonstrates that there is an interval of at least a thousand years between the resurrection of life and the resurrection of judgment. "The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of judgment." That "hour" lasts a thousand years; the "hour" in which Christ quickens dead souls has already lasted more than eighteen hundred years. The "hour" in which He shall raise dead bodies commences with His coming to change His living, and raise His sleeping, saints; it closes with the resurrection of the wicked dead, and their judgment before the great white throne ? "the resurrection of judgment." I commend the whole chapter (Rev. xx.) to your patient, attentive, and prayerful perusal in your closets before God.

THAT bright and blessed morn is near

When He, the Bridegroom, shall appear,

And call His bride away.

Her blessing then shall be complete,

When with her Lord she takes her seat

In everlasting day. Rev. iii. 21.

The days and months are gliding past,

Soon shall be heard the trumpet's blast

Which wakes the sleeping saints.

The dead in Christ in glory rise,

When we with them shall reach the skies

Where Jesus for us waits.

What wonder, joy, and glad surprise

Shall fill our hearts as thus we rise,

To meet Him in the air; 1 Thess. iv. 17

To see His face, to hear His voice,

And in His perfect love rejoice,

Whose glory then we'll share,

O may this hope our spirits cheer,

While waiting for our Saviour here;

He'll quickly come again. Rev. xxii.

O may our hearts look for that day,

And to His word responsive say,

Lord Jesus, come. Amen.

Our Father's Will: Being a Short History of the Text of the New Testament

Our Father's Will

Being a Short History of the Text of the New Testament.

"The word of our God shall stand for ever."

London: G. Morrish, 20, Paternoster Square.

[Apology is made for the inaccuracy of the quotations in cursive Greek. We do not have the tools for writing Greek punctuation, breathing, diacritic and subscript marks in html. The letters themselves should be accurate.]

Contents.

Introduction

No need for alarm

The various forms of Evidence

The Material of the Greek Manuscripts

The Style of Writing

Causes of Variations

List of Greek Copies

List of Uncial Manuscripts

Cursive Manuscripts

Lectionaries

The Fathers

The Versions

Age and Families of Manuscripts.

The Editor at work

Review of a few passages

Various Readings in the Revelation

Printed Greek Testaments

The Order of the Books

Divisions of the New Testament

Headings and Subscriptions to the Books

The Canon of Scripture

The Authorised Version of 1611

Verbal Inspiration

Introduction.

There was once a large family — a very large family — of several generations, all descended from one common father. He was very great, and he had enormous possessions, which he had bequeathed to various branches of the family.

Some years since — though the various descendants were in possession of and enjoying their several estates — a strong desire arose to possess a more correct copy of their father's will. Communications were made with different branches of the family in various places, inquiring into the subject.

They discovered that the original writing was lost, but various copies existed. These were collected together, and compared, but the family were surprised to find that no two copies exactly agreed. At a cursory glance they were found to agree in the main. The estates of A were not given to B; nor the estates of B to C, etc. And some of the family thought that as the copies agreed in the main, there should be no further search.

Others thought it best to say nothing about the various differences. It might unsettle the minds of some of the younger members of the family, who were happily ignorant of their existence. If they heard of these differences they might doubt of the execution of the original altogether.

Others were startled at the discovery, and asked, Do we hold our estates only on a tenure that will not bear investigation? Pray let us endeavour to get at the real truth. If these differences exist, let us know the full extent of them. Although the few copies we have may not differ in the main, further search may bring to light greater differences. We are building for the future upon the supposed stability of our titles; we must know whether these titles are good. Nothing now will satisfy us but a thorough and searching inquiry.

Others took another line. They did not doubt of the stability of the titles to their estates; but they desired to read the heart of their great father. He had not only given them estates, but he had expressed his interest and affection for them. They desired to get at his very words — to enter into his affection for them, and to understand his thoughts of love concerning them.

Others also greatly desired to read his very words that they might better understand his wisdom. He had given them the benefit of his great insight into the character of men and things, with cheering encouragement on the one hand, and solemn warnings on the other. They feared lest anything should be lost, even what might appear to some to be the least.

Others knew that their great father had spoken to them a good deal about himself, and they were convinced that they should endeavour to obtain every word he had said.

Thus for these and other reasons it was judged to be highly desirable that a very extensive search should be made for copies of the will; that those found should be carefully compared, and all the alterations noted. They should endeavour to account for the alterations; and above and beyond all they should endeavour to ascertain what was the exact wording of the will.

With these objects, one here and another there set diligently to work at their task. The task was indeed laborious: they obtained many copies and proceeded to compare them carefully and note all the differences.

But they were soon struck with the fact that some copies were much older than others, and the older they were, the nearer they were to the original, and so were of course the more valuable.

But of some it was no easy matter to judge the age. It was known that at a certain period the style of writing had been decidedly changed. This fact led to the division of the copies into two distinct classes; but as to which was the oldest in each class was not so easy. The material on which the document was written was scrutinized, and every little variation in the writing noted that would in any way throw light upon its age.

There were also other branches of the inquiry. One was this. It was ascertained that in certain documents, written by some of the family, they had given extracts from the will: and some of these turned out to be of an early date. These were of great value, because they proved what was in their copy of the will at the time the quotation was made.

Further, it was ascertained that some of the family had journeyed into foreign parts, and had settled there, and for their benefit the original will had been translated into foreign languages. On inquiry, it was ascertained that some of these translations had been made very early. These were of great use, as they shewed what was in the translator's copy when the translation was made.

With all these and other materials the labour became immense. All had to be compared, and the variations carefully noted; the documents being separated and valued according to their various ages.

The next step was to endeavour to ascertain the cause of the variations. In many places it was, purely accidental. The writers had in some places mistaken one word for another. In others, words were accidentally omitted; and in others, words were added. In other places the alterations appeared to be done purposely. Apparently the copier had thought he could improve the wording, without perhaps thinking of the importance that would be attached to the identical [original?] words of this famous will.

Now the ascertaining of the cause of the variations was at once the means of removing a great many of them as variations. They were ascertained to have been accidental alterations, and were dismissed accordingly. But this would not clear up all. In some the preponderance of the evidence was overwhelming for one reading over another so as to settle indisputably which was correct, and this decided many questions. Still, a few remained in which it was difficult to decide which was the word actually used in the original.

On the whole, the result was highly satisfactory. The investigation has stamped an absolute certainty upon the will. Not a single point of importance is left in doubt or is surrounded by difficulty, and there remain only a few places where the actual words cannot be ascertained.

The family have great cause for thankfulness. Their estates are sure to them: they can read the heart and learn the intentions of their great father to them in his own words: they can profit by his wisdom, by his instruction, and by his warnings. And all this not simply in generalities, but in his own words. As if he was now speaking to them, they listen, and they hear his accents of love, and they learn himself. Thus are they happy and are blessed.

This will is the word of God. This family is the saints of God.

All scripture was given by inspiration of God, and it was written; but the original has been lost. There are many copies in existence; but they all more or less differ.

There have been and are men who have spent the best part of their lives in comparing the various copies: they have duly considered the value of each, and have carefully sought to discover the true text as it stood in the original.

The above is in no sense an exaggerated account of the history of the text of the New Testament. For many years the question lay entirely dormant. It was not until the year 1514 that the printing of the first Greek Testament — the Complutensian — was finished; but before it could be printed, the question had to be considered, "What copy shall be taken?" And although it was known that the manuscripts differed, yet, the fact that there were in existence a great many Greek copies was not known, and the nature and the extent of the variations had not then been fully ascertained. What copies were actually used for that edition is not now known, but they must have been comparatively few.

Other printed editions followed in rapid succession, by various editors, each one referring, as he had opportunity, to an increased number of manuscripts, with the various other sources of evidence. By degrees all evidence began to be valued, and to be used for deciding on the true text of that which God had caused to be written.

But, as we have intimated above, this caused alarm in the minds of some Christians, and they felt it their duty to protest against the making public the variations in the Greek manuscripts, judging that it was unsettling scripture, and, as John Owen called it, an attempt "to correct the word of God." Dr. Whitby was another who felt alarmed at that which was being brought to light. We can give them and others credit for their zeal for God's word, but they were certainly mistaken, as we hope to make plain as we proceed with our inquiry.

No need for Alarm.

We have seen how important it is that we should endeavour to get at the true text of "Our Father's Will," or, in other words, of "the word of God," though our present inquiry will only embrace the New Testament, and we have briefly glanced at the difficulties which have stood in the way.

Many have supposed that to procure a Greek Testament was to procure a copy of the true text as God caused it to be written; but, of course, a printed copy must have been made from some other copy; and it may have been copied from some one manuscript, or it may be a copy of what some editor (who has compared many manuscripts) judges to be the true text. Thus we are led back to the manuscript copies, and, as we have said, there are many of these, and no two of them are exactly alike.

This at first sight may seem to be a great calamity, throwing a doubt upon the blessed word of God, but on a closer investigation this will be seen not to be so. Of course, God could have preserved for us a faultless manuscript, but He has allowed it to be otherwise; the New Testament has gone through the various perils that any other old writing has been subject to, though with this difference, that it has been watched over by its living Author.* God, of course, could by a continued miracle have preserved to us the very copies that were written by the inspired penmen; but He has not done so. Who could have held them, and what would other Christians have done without them? As it is, all, scattered over the known world, had copies of the original from the first.

{* It has been estimated that in the writings of Terence, a book not nearly so large as the New Testament, if existing copies were examined with care equal to that bestowed upon the New Testament, at least 50,000 variations would be discovered.}

Besides, the New Testament has now the indisputable stamp of antiquity upon it. It is known, apart from the manuscripts of the New Testament, that, say, in the fourth century Greek was written in a particular manner, and it is known that various changes gradually took place in writing that language, (points, accents, and breathings being introduced,) until the same passage written in the fourth century, and written in the tenth century, do not look like the same language. Well, we have portions of the Greek New Testament, believed to have been written in the fourth century, and then each century after, with those very changes introduced as they are known to have been made. To those who value external evidences, there cannot be a stronger proof that the New Testament was written soon after the time of our Lord; indeed, the evidence is so strong, that we are not aware that it has ever been called in question, even by the most sceptical.

And, further, as one has said, "It is a good providence and a great blessing that so many manuscripts of the New Testament are still amongst us; some procured from Egypt, others from Asia, others from the Western churches. For the very distance of places, as well as numbers of the books, demonstrate that there could be no collusion, no altering, nor interpolating one copy by another, nor all by any of them."

It is important, too, to see that the variations in the manuscripts affect none of the great doctrines of Christianity. The divinity of Christ, His spotless life, His atoning death, His resurrection and ascension, all remain untouched. The fall of man, the glad tidings of salvation, the eternal security of the believer, and the eternal punishment of the unbeliever, all remain intact. The descent of the Holy Spirit, and the second advent of our Lord, remain unshaken. Indeed, as the same writer has said, "even put them [the various manuscripts] into the hands of a knave or a fool, and yet with the most sinistrous and absurd choice, he shall not extinguish the light of any one chapter, nor so disguise Christianity, but that every feature of it will still be the same." (Bentley.)

Yet there is the fact (and it must be remembered that by speaking of it we do not create it — it is the same, whether we know it or not) that there are hundreds of Greek copies, and no two of them are exactly alike. Any one complete copy would give us all we need for salvation; but, as we have said, because the New Testament is from God, we want to know every word. All He does, He does perfectly. He caused the book to be written, and the right words to be used; and surely it is a laudable desire for us to seek to have the very words He caused to be written.

Such is our desire, and such was the desire of certain zealous men who have spent many a long year in poring over old manuscripts, using various means to bring to light what, in many cases, had become invisible to ordinary eyesight. They are called editors. Let due honour be given to those who have devoted the best part of their lifetime to these arduous duties.

We cannot do what they have done; and if we had all the materials at hand, not one in a thousand is qualified to duly weigh all the evidence for and against a reading, giving to each its proper weight. But God bestowed gifts suited for such a work on one here, and another there; and they have laboured diligently, and have told us what they believe are the words which God caused to be written.

The Various Forms of Evidence.

Of course, age is that which gives value, in a general way, to any evidence. Then the evidence is divided principally into four divisions.

1. The existing Greek Manuscripts.

The earliest copies date in the fourth century, and then run down to the time of printing, in the fifteenth century; so that, from the time each of the books of the New Testament was written, till the fourth century, there is a blank, as far as Greek manuscripts are concerned, but which period is in a measure bridged over by other evidence.

For fifteen centuries the word of God was handed down by the use of the pen; and although there were such persons as writers who were paid for copying manuscripts, there can be no doubt that many hundreds of copies of the New Testament were made by the monks in their cells, after the monastic order came into existence. Whatever abuses were connected with that order — and they grew to be many and serious — this good was done by them. Amid changes and revolutions, they preserved the sacred writings, and perseveringly increased their numbers by the use of the pen.

It has been thought by some that the monks introduced the decoration of manuscripts; but this is not correct, it came early in vogue. Jerome, in the fourth century, complained that too much space was occupied with the ornaments. It began with ornamental initial letters, which were increased in size, until they became very large; then they had long ornamental pendants, and some made to trail along the bottom of the page also, thus occupying three sides of the page. Some of these ornaments were elaborate works of art, interspersed with rich colours and gold.

Strange as it may seem, it is yet true, that the ornaments to the early manuscripts form strong evidence as to the corruption of the Romish church. In the decorations to the early manuscripts by the monks there is no trace of the worship of the Virgin, the invocation of saints, purgatory, etc.; but when we come to the eleventh century and onwards, these and other corruptions are all interwoven with the ornaments executed by the monks. Thus, though good work was done in the cloisters, as the monks came to be corrupt, they left their "dirty finger-marks" upon the copies they made.

Some manuscripts were written entirely with letters in gold and silver. One of the Gothic versions of the New Testament is written in silver, with the initial letters in gold. It was executed about the fifth century, and is now preserved in the royal library of Upsal. It is known as the "Codex Argenteus," the silver copy.

2. The Versions; that is, the early translations of the New Testament into other languages.

These in a measure bridge over the period between the writing of the books of the New Testament and the Greek manuscript. While the earliest Greek manuscript is of the fourth century, the earliest version is of the second century, the Syriac being the oldest. The Thebaic dates in the third century, and others in the fourth.

The use of these Versions is great, not to tell us the meaning the various translators attached to certain Greek words (though they are also useful for this at times, but), because they tell us what was in the Greek copy at the date the translation was made. For instance, each early Syriac version lets us know what was in his copy in the second century, and of course his copy must have dated still earlier; so that we get by this means within, perhaps, a hundred years of the date when some of the Epistles were written.

That the Versions have come down to us more ancient than any Greek manuscript is perhaps owing to the violent persecution commenced by the Roman emperor Diocletian, who made a special point of demanding every copy of the sacred scriptures, on pain of death. All that were obtained were burned.* This persecution extended A.D. 303-312, and it has been seen that our earliest Greek copies date in the fourth century, so that it seems doubtful if we have any that escaped that fiery persecution. When peace was restored to the church, the copies would have been rapidly increased.

{*Those who gave up their copies were called traditores, "deliverers up." This is doubtless the origin of our word, traitor.}

3. The Fathers; that is, the early writers in the church, who quoted scripture in their writings.

It may be thought that these are open to suspicion, on account of the early heresies that crept into the church; but it must be remembered that, as we have seen, the New Testament was translated very early into other tongues, and was thus widely circulated, so that if a man had quoted scripture falsely, he would surely have been detected, and put to shame. We are not aware that any were charged with doing this; they rather sought to explain it away in some manner. It is true that in some cases the Fathers may have quoted scripture, as we often do, from memory, but this may be often detected and guarded against by a careful comparison.

In the Fathers we get to a date yet earlier than any version. We reach up to some who are believed to have been instructed by the apostles personally, and who came into contact with many who had seen our Lord. The few who are accredited to have lived in the time of the apostles, called Apostolic Fathers, and who are referred, to as quoting scripture, are,

1, Clement, supposed to be the one named in Philippians 4: 3

(now called Clement of Rome, to distinguish him from Clement of Alexandria).

2, Polycarp, martyred A.D. 169.

3, Barnabas, first or second century.

4, Ignatius, martyred A.D. 107.

Thus we see that we have the gaps, in a measure, filled up. The Fathers go back to the first and second centuries; the Versions to the second and third centuries; and the Greek Manuscripts to the fourth century.

4. The Lectionaries; that is, the manuscript service-books used in the church, which consist of portions of scripture. Some contained portions from the Gospels only; and others, from the Acts and Epistles.

Of the Lectionaries alone there are some hundreds, and they have as yet received comparatively little attention. The other three branches of evidence have been used freely. And though, as we should naturally think, the Greek manuscripts have the greatest weight, yet the Versions, and the quotations from the Fathers, must by no means be neglected, some of these, as we have seen, being older than any Greek manuscript that is spared to us. None of the Lectionaries are older than the eighth or ninth century, and carry, of course, less weight.

The Material of the Greek Manuscripts.

The first thing is the material on which the copies were written. In the word itself we read (2 John 12) of "paper and ink." This alludes most probably to the papyrus of Egypt. This was known to have been used before the time of Christ; but being frail and brittle, it did not endure the ravages of time. The specimens now in existence owe their preservation to being buried in tombs or ruins of cities.

The rolls found in the tombs had been placed under the arms or between the legs of the deceased, and sometimes on the stomach. There seems to be no doubt that these rolls were considered somewhat like passports to bliss. In the collection of Trinity College, Dublin, there is a papyrus which contains a rubric to this effect, as interpreted by Dr. Hincks: "If this book be recited on the earth, and this chapter be put in writing upon a person's coffin, he shall be manifested in the light with all the honours due to him: when he goes to his house he shall not be turned back; there shall be given to him bread, liquors, and the choicest meats on the altar of Osiris; and he shall go to the fields of Aalon." From this we learn that the delusions of Satan not only embraced the quieting of the conscience for time but extended to a hope of eternal bliss. How blessed to be delivered from his delusions!

There was a good trade done in the funeral papyri. Many are preserved which prove that they were prepared beforehand, and a blank left for the person's name, which in some cases has been filled up evidently by a different hand from the body of the writing, while in some cases the name was not inserted from some cause, and the blanks remain to this day.

This papyrus was made from an Egyptian plant. Underneath the coarse exterior rind of the plant lie a number of successive thin layers of the inner cuticle, about twenty in number. These were separated from each other, and two of them pasted together transversely, then pressed, dried, and polished. By joining the leaves together they were made into a long roll.*

{*The "paper reeds" in Isaiah 19: 7 is not now considered to be the best translation. It is rendered "The 'meadows' by the brook," etc.}

There are no manuscripts of the Greek Testament now in existence on the papyrus, (except a few leaves containing a portion of 1 Cor. 6, 7.) nor in the form of rolls; but this particular form explains the "book" referred to in Revelation 5. It will be noticed that this is said to be "written within and on the back side." It was usual to write only on one side of the roll, which was placed on two rollers. One was held in each hand, and by gradually unrolling with one hand, and rolling up with the other, the entire manuscript could be read. It was the duty of the librarian to re-roll them ready for the next reader, as of course they could only be read one way. But it occasionally happened that the whole writing could not be got in on one side, and in that case a portion was written on the back. The roll in the Revelation, being written within and on the back, pointed out the full revelation God was going to make of His future actings.

Another point of interest is that the book had seven seals, and the breaking of each seal was followed by a further revelation. This is easily explained by the above roll. As we may say, a portion was written, rolled up, and sealed; another portion written, rolled up and sealed, and so on to the seven. By opening one seal a portion of the roll was able to be read, containing the first revelation: then another seal presented itself, which had to be broken open before the second portion could be read, and so on. It was God's seven-sealed roll, containing seven revelations.

Further, in 2 Timothy 4: 13, we read of the "books" and the "parchments." The oldest copies of the Greek Testament now in existence are written on vellum or parchment, and the three oldest of them are remarkable for the beauty of the vellum on which they are written, later copies being on that which is thicker and coarser. The Codex Sinaiticus is believed to be written on vellum from the finest skins of the antelope or ass, and the pages are so large, that it is estimated the skin of an animal would not furnish more than two leaves. This will give some idea of the value of sufficient parchment to form a New Testament. The name "parchment" is supposed to have been derived from Pergamos, where it was first made.

Paper made of cotton is believed to have been invented about the ninth century A.D. There is a Lectionary in existence, written on vellum, of about that date, but in which two leaves are inserted on paper made of cotton, and which appear to have been written on by the same hand as the vellum. About the twelfth century a much finer paper was made of linen: when highly finished it much resembled vellum.

The supply of papyrus was abundant from the Egyptian market during the early part of the Roman empire, but on the complete division of the empire this supply was in a measure stopped, the intercourse with the East being both difficult and irregular. This led to a revival of the practice of rubbing out from the parchment anything that was not valued by the owner in order to put thereon what he desired to commit to writing, or it might have been done simply as a matter of trade, clean parchment being always saleable.

Unfortunately, as we say, some portions of the New Testament have been served in this way. The word of God has been rubbed out, and something comparatively worthless written in its place. In some instances a third writing has been placed on the same parchment. In 1476 one of the early editions of the Clementine Constitutions was actually printed on a parchment from which the writing had been erased.

But fortunately this erasing has not been thoroughly effected, so that the parchment still shews in faint outlines the original writing, which often, by great labour, and sometimes by chemical means, has been deciphered.

To comprehend the process of restoration it must be understood that there were two methods employed by the ancients in effacing the original writing — the wet and the dry. The first consisted in moistening the surface of the parchment, washing it with a sponge, and rubbing it with pumice stone. Of the dry there were different forms: either the entire line was scraped away with a broad tool or blade, or the operator followed the course of each separate letter and obliterated each in succession with the point of the tool. The ink again was of three kinds metallic (which was that commonly used), vegetable, and mineral. And as the action of the ink, whatever may be its composition, was not entirely confined to the surface, it is found that even after the superficial trace of colour has been partially or entirely removed, its unobserved presence may still be detected by careful scientific treatment.

The method frequently adopted by Mai was simply to wash the page with an infusion of galls, and expose it to the action of light and air. This was in many cases successful; in other cases however it blackened the parchment so that neither the first nor the second writing could be read.

The more recent mode is to carefully wash the parchment with water, then dip it in diluted Hydrochloric acid, and finally in Potassium ferrocyanide. This in many cases has proved entirely successful. (Encyclopedia Britannica.)

There is at Paris a famous manuscript of this description, which contains large portions of both the Old and New Testaments, over which have been written some works by St. Ephraem the Syrian. It is called the Codex Ephraem.

Such manuscripts are called rescripts, "written again," or palimpsests, "scratched or scraped again."

We give a specimen of one of these rescripts. It will be seen that in this case the leaf had been folded in half, and the second writing placed transversely. In other cases the two writings run in the same direction. Here only a portion of the original is covered by the second writing; but in other places and in other rescripts the entire original is covered. This, however, will shew how difficult it is to read the first where it is covered by a second writing, and in some places the original is much more indistinct than in our copy, being read in places only with great difficulty. The most difficult to read are those re-written line upon line, where the characters blend and run into one another.

Facsimile of a rescript from the Codex Nitriensis showing part of Luke 20: 9, 10.

Our specimen is from the Codex Nitriensis. It was brought from a Nitrian monastery in Egypt, and is now in the British Museum. It contains large portions of Luke's Gospel, which are judged to have been written in the sixth century. These have been written over in Syriac by Severus of Antioch, against Grammaticus in the ninth or tenth century. The specimen contains a portion of Luke 20: 9, 10, and in the common Greek type reads thus: αμπελώνα, και εξέδοτο αύτόν γεωργεις, και απεδημησε χρύνους ίκανούς. και εν καιρώ (a vineyard, and let it out to husbandmen, and left the country for a long time. And in [the] season).

The ink that was used for the earliest of the manuscripts has not stood its colour during the lapse of ages. It has often turned brown, or a sort of red, or become very pale. On parchment the ink does not sink into the material so much as on paper, and in some places it seems to have peeled off altogether; yet even there the text can sometimes be made out by the indentation left in the vellum, the writing having been made apparently by a metal pen (called a stylus, used for writing on tablets covered with wax). The coloured inks have maintained their colours better than the black. The ruled lines by some sharp instrument are also still visible in some places. These ruled lines and columns enabled the copies to be written very regularly, some having almost the uniformity of a printed copy, and which has led some to suppose the letters must have been stamped instead of written.

In the papyrus scrolls the lines were very short, so as to be the more easily read as they were unrolled; but, when books instead of scrolls began to be made, the writing gradually took the form of longer lines. The Codex Sinaiticus is the nearest in appearance to the papyrus copies, having four columns on a page; the Codex Vaticanus has three; and the Alexandrinus has two. This however cannot be taken as a sure criterion of age, as manuscripts with three columns have been discovered as late as the eighth and ninth centuries. We believe the Codex Sinaiticus stands alone in having four columns. The length of the lines may be seen in our specimen on page 28. Four columns made a good size quarto page, which was the usual form for the earlier copies, a few being in folio, and some in octavo. The sheets were folded into small sections of a few leaves, each section being numbered on the first or last page.

The Style of Writing.

For about the first ten centuries the copies were written all in capital letters, called Uncials, and afterwards in the small letters called Cursives. The word 'uncial' is supposed to be from uncia, an inch, not that the letters were really an inch in size (though in some copies the initial letters are over half an inch); 'cursive' is from cursus, a running, because the letters run together as in common writing. These two styles of writing divide the Greek manuscripts into two great classes; but of course it was desirable to fix the date of each copy as nearly as could be in its class. Though we have no cursive Greek manuscript earlier than the tenth century, yet that style was used for common purposes long before. It is even found in the Herculanean rolls in places where apparently rapidity was sought rather that elegance.

Greater attention has been given to the uncial copies with the view of fixing the date of each. "By studying the style and shape of the letters on Greek inscriptions, Montfaucon was led to conclude that the more simple, upright, and regular the form of uncial letters; the less flourish or ornament they exhibit; the nearer their breadth is equal to their height; so much the more ancient they ought to be considered. These results have been signally confirmed by the subsequent discovery of Greek papyri in Egyptian tombs, which vary in age from the third century before the christian era to the third century after that epoch, and yet further from the numerous fragments of Philodemus, of Epicurus, and other philosophers, which were burned [buried?] in the ruins of Herculaneum in A.D. 79. The evidence of these papyri indeed is even more weighty than that of inscriptions, inasmuch as workers in stone were often compelled to prefer straight lines as better adapted to the hardness of their material, where writings on papyrus or vellum would naturally flow with curves." (Scrivener.)

The Rosetta stone, now in the British Museum, and supposed to have been executed in the second century before the christian era, contains, besides the hieroglyphics, the record in Greek uncials, which gives a good specimen of the style of writing at that period, as it was done on stone. Its letters differ little from the specimen we are about to give from a Greek manuscript, except in the formation of three or four of the alphabet. The Rosetta stone does not divide the words, and has no breathings, accents, or marks of punctuation.

Further, the upright letters are more ancient than those written leaning, and the absence of any larger initial letters shews high antiquity. in nearly all the copies letters are huddled up together at the end of the lines in smaller characters, or the words contracted, in order apparently to get in each line as much as was in the copy used. This can also be seen in the specimen we give.

We will now shew the reader some of the difficulties that presented themselves in attempting to decipher the early Greek manuscripts. These will be more easily perceived by a facsimile of one of the manuscripts. This is copied from the Codex Sinaiticus. It is John 6: 14, 15.

Facsimile of John 6: 14, 15 from the Codex Sinaiticus

Being written all in capitals would not have created any difficulty, but the practice of running the words on together without any spaces between them certainly did. And besides this, the words were often divided at the end of the line without any regard to syllables, and without any mark to shew that the word was divided.

We give the passage in modern Greek cursive characters divided into words, shewing also where the words have been divided at the ends of the lines

ησεν σημειον έλε-

γον' 'ουτός εστιν

αληθως 'ο προφή-

της 'ο εις τον κόσμω

'ερχόμενος'

'Ις ουν γνους 'οτι

μέλλούσιν έρχε-

σθαι καί άρπάζειν

αύτόν καί άναδι-

κνύναι βασιλέα

φεύγει πάλιν είς το

όρος μόνος αύτός.

As nearly as it can be put into English, it would stand thus (disregarding for the present the corrections by a later hand). The reader will see how difficult it would be to read a book printed in this style.

HEDIDASIGNTHEY

SAID•THISIS

TRULYTHEPRO

PHETWHOINTOTHEWORL

ISCOMING•

JSTHEREFOREKNOWINGTHAT

THEYWEREABOUTTo

COMEANDSEIZE

HIMANDTOPRO

CLAIMKING

ESCAPESAGAININTOTHE

MOUNTAINALONEHIMSELF•

Now it is easy to see that, when copies were made, mistakes might occur by dividing some part wrongly into words. This may be well illustrated by an anecdote, which though well known will bear repeating. An infidel, lying on a bed of sickness, to sustain himself in his infidelity, wrote on a piece of paper

GOD IS NOWHERE.

His child coming into the room, her father asked her if she could read what he had written on the paper. She began to spell the words: G, O, D, GOD — I, S, IS — N, O, W, NOW — H, E, R, E, HERE — God is now here. It was used to her father's conversion, through the grace of God. It well illustrates the fact how that by dividing a word in a different place the sense may be entirely altered.

And where the meaning is not entirely changed it may be altered by the division of the letters differently. To take an instance that has occurred we may quote Acts 17: 25. Along with the different division of letters, a letter was sometimes added or omitted to endeavour to make good sense.

The letters stand thus KAITAΠANTA, which have been divided thus:

ΚΑΙ ΤΑ ΠΑΝΤΑ and all things

ΚΑΤΑ ΠΑΝΤΑ in respect of all things.

There can be no doubt the first is the correct reading.

Sometimes one letter was also changed for another, or perhaps it could not be well deciphered. Thus in 2 Thessalonians 2: 13 are the letters ΑΠΑΡΧΗΣ. These have been divided thus:

ΑΠ' ΑΡΧΗΣ from [the] beginning

ΑΠΑΡΧΗΣ [the] firstfruits.

There can be no doubt that the first is the correct reading.

Added to this was another difficulty, namely, the habit of contracting the words. For instance, instead of writing JESUS in full, they would at times write the first and last letters, with a line over the top to shew it was a contraction: thus JS; or in Greek ΙΣ (as it is in the fifth line of our specimen). But it might be in some cases that the line drawn over the letters was not so thick as were the letters, so that with the age of the manuscripts the line would become invisible, though the letters remained visible. In that case, these letters would naturally be taken to be a part of either the word that went before or the word that came after, or a word in itself, the copyist making the best sense he could.

In other cases they judged differently as to what the word was which was contracted. Thus in Romans 12: 11, there stands in the Codex Sinaiticus ΚΩ, which some have judged to be ΚΑΙΡΩ, season, "serving in season;" and others have judged it to be intended for ΚΥΡΙΩ, Lord, "serving the Lord." Without doubt the latter is right.

Another difficulty was occasioned by single letters being omitted and a line drawn over the top to shew the omission (as at the end of the fourth line of our specimen); but the letters might be visible yet not the line, and the omission be thus overlooked.

In some cases, the letter Θ, because of the line in the centre becoming invisible, was taken for Ο.

Perhaps the most important and trying question brought about by this means is in 1 Timothy 3: 16: "God was manifest in the flesh." Here the word for 'God,' contracted, is ΘΣ, but in two of the principal manuscripts (A and C) it cannot be told with certainty whether they were originally as above, or ΟΣ, 'who' — 'who was manifest in flesh.' It will be at once seen that the variation may have been brought about by the two short lines becoming invisible. א reads ΟΣ, but has been altered by a later hand to ΘΣ; P has ΘΣ.

In other cases the similarity of letters caused variations when age made them indistinct. Thus Α, Λ, Δ; Ϲ (the ancient form of Σ) Ο; Є, ϴ, etc.

Another point that added to the difficulty was that there were in the oldest copies few if any points. There are three in our specimen, but in other places they are entirely omitted. This also was a cause of passages being read differently, especially when the letters were not divided into words.

Another difficulty, and which has caused great labour, is that most, if not all, the older manuscripts have been altered from time to time by various correctors, and as age gives value to the writing, it is of importance to ascertain when these corrections were made. The style of the letters has to be carefully studied, and the colour of the ink, and which one is over another. By these means these correctors are classified into first hand, second hand, etc., often called by 'primâ manu,' 'secundâ manu,' etc., or, in short, p.m., s.m. Thus A would stand for the original of a manuscript. A1, or Ap.m. would be the first corrector; A2, or As.m. would be the second corrector, and so on. The corrections of the first hand may be sometimes as ancient as the original, and by the same hand.

To give an idea of the labour caused by these correctors, we may state that Tischendorf after careful study, considers that in the Codex Sinaiticus there are not fewer than ten different hands. All these had to be studied, and a relative value set on each, and, above all, to endeavour to find out the original readings.

By referring again to our specimen the reader will see two of these corrections. In the ninth and tenth lines the words και αναδικνύναι (and to proclaim) have dots over them, and in the margin the words 'ινα ποιησωσιν (that they may make) written to replace them. Again in line 11 the word αυεχωρησεν (withdrew) is intended to take the place of φεύγει (escapes). Both these corrections are judged by Tischendorf to have been made by the corrector whom he calls Ca (about the seventh century), who may be said to be the seventh who went through the manuscript to correct it after it was written. This corrector often altered the manuscript in a way that made it agree with the common text we now have. Both the above corrections did so.

There is one thing peculiar in the first of the above corrections, namely, that the writer in adding the word INA in the margin only wrote the last two letters, and used the last letter of the line as it stood for his I, drawing a line through the Δ that preceded it. Such a thing as this had, of course, to be carefully noted, for if the word originally written had made sense without the Ι it might be thought to have been added by the corrector: in this instance the dots over the Ι prevented any mistake.

It is supposed that each manuscript had a comparer, sometimes the original scribe, who compared the manuscript with the copy after it had been written, and a corrector who revised the manuscript, perhaps by a second copy. This was useful and necessary labour to ensure accuracy. Some copies have a note at the end saying by whom and where it was revised. After this of course the manuscript might fall into other persons' hands who might have the opportunity of comparing it with a third copy, and so on, until a copy had passed through perhaps a dozen correctors, which, as we have seen, gives great labour to distinguish the various hands, and assign a date to each as near as may be.

Now though all these difficulties may appear to be disadvantages, on the other hand they are, as we have already seen, an unanswerable proof of the antiquity of the New Testament. Suppose, for an instant, that the oldest copy we have at present had no such marks of antiquity, the sceptic would say that it was a modern invention, there was not a single proof of its early existence, such as they had for the writings of Homer and others. But this he cannot say. The oldest copies shew undoubted proofs of antiquity. In the old papyrus Greek manuscripts the letters are all capitals, not divided into words, with no points, no accents, no breathings. Well, we have copies of the New Testament with all these and many other marks of antiquity, written too on a material only used of such quality and texture in very early ages. God has caused that such copies should be preserved down to this our day, which no one has or could call in question as being the genuine monuments of antiquity.

Causes of Variations.

Besides the dangers that existed of mistakes being made in copying the ancient manuscripts, because of the way in which they were written, we must point out how other mistakes arose where the copy was not indistinct.

A large body of variations come under the head of what are called Itacisms [a name probably from the interchange of eta (η) for iota (ι)]; that is, a change of vowels; as ει for ι, and aι fοr ε. This may have been caused by a different pronunciation coming into use; or from some copies being written from dictation; or from mere preference of spelling a word in a different manner. Thus a great many of these variations may be dismissed as of no consequence, and indeed they cannot be called various, (or different) readings, being only a different mode of spelling a word; in a similar way to which some prefer to write honor for honour, color fοr colour; or, as another class of words, wroth for wrath; spake for spoke, etc.

This however does not account for and dispose of all the cases where only a single letter has been changed. When we remember that the inflexions of nouns and verbs are effected in Greek (as other languages) by a change of some part of the word itself, the alteration of a single letter may materially alter the sense of the passage.

Take for instance Matthew 23: 32, different copies read

πληρώσατε aorist imperative active, 6 'fill ye up.'

πληρώσετε future indicative active, 'ye will fill up.'

By one letter the sense is materially altered. Without a doubt the first is the right word.

In Matthew 10: 19 different copies read,

λαλήσετε future indicative active, 'ye shall speak.'

λαλήσητε aorist subjunctive active, 'ye should speak.'

In Romans 5: 1, a serious difference occurs by the alteration of a single letter:

'εχομεν present indicative, 'we have.'

'εχωμεν present subjunctive, 'we should have, or 'let us have.'

A similar alteration occurs in 1 Corinthians 15: 49: 'we shall bear' or 'let us bear.'

Also in Hebrews 12: 28: 'we have grace,' or 'let us have grace.'

Sometimes the sense is altered by such variations and sometimes it is not.

There are also many variations where two or three letters are different, some of little consequence and some more material.

There are also mistakes from two or three letters being added or omitted at the ends of words, which may seem to us singular mistakes, but which were easily made when there were no spaces between the words: thus in Luke 7: 21,

έχαρίσατο βλεπειν, 'he granted to see.'

εχαρίσατο τό βλεπειν

The first line would stand thus in the old copies: ΕΧΑΡΙΑΤΟΒΛΕΠΕΙΝ, which has been copied as above, and divided into three words, where there were but two. The sense is not altered.

In Matthew 16: 18 there are the words

και πύλαι, 'and gates.'

και αι πύλαι, 'and the gates.'

The latter is incorrect, being merely an error of the copyist.

In Revelation 14: 8,

παντα έθνη, 'all nations.'

παντα τα έθνη, 'all the nations.'

Here the latter is correct, the article being omitted by mistake.

Some such errors occur only in two or three copies, leaving no doubt as to which is the true reading.

Other variations have been caused by the similar appearance of words, especially when they were written in capitals. Thus in Mark 5: 14 we have ΑΝΗΓΓΕΙΛΑΝ, 'announced,' for ΑΠΗΓΓΕΙΛΑΝ 'told;' and in Luke 16: 20 ΗΛΚΩΜΕΝΟΣ for ΕΙΛΚΩΜΕΝΟΣ, both 'being afflicted with sores.'

Many variations occur by the transposition of words, but which in most cases do not affect the sense. The words Jesus Christ are often changed for Christ Jesus. Doubtless most of these are through carelessness and with the thought that it was of no consequence so long as both words were inserted, indeed some might have thought it an improvement if they read of 'Jesus Christ' in one verse to make it 'Jesus Christ' in another to make it uniform. But surely God does not make a difference without a reason. Without doubt there is a reason why Jesus is put before Christ in some places and after it in others. It is for us to discover why it is; certainly not to alter what God had caused to be written.

Another class of mistakes has been caused by omissions. Whole words or sentences have been omitted. These mistakes have been caused sometimes by what has been called Homoearkton, or similar beginnings, which may be illustrated thus:

Blessed are the poor in spirit:

for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they that mourn:

for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek:

for they shall inherit the earth.

Suppose a person was copying the above and he had read off the first two lines, when he had written them in looking to the copy again his eye might catch the third 'blessed' instead of the second, and he would write the third clause, and omit the second altogether. Thus in Hebrews 2: 13 there are two clauses commencing with και παλιν, 'and again,' two copies in existence omit the part after the first καί παλιν, the eye having gone to the second by mistake.

Another class of mistakes are called Homoeoteleuton, similar endings; that is, where two lines end with the same word, or there are two words of which the end letters are the same, the eye in returning to the copy catches the second word instead of the first, and omits the piece in between. Omissions from similar endings are much more frequent than from similar beginnings.

An instance of this is in 1 John 2: 23, which stands in our Testament with the last half of the verse in italics as not being in the Greek; but it is in many Greek copies (except the word 'but') and is undoubtedly genuine. Its omission is believed tο have occurred because both clauses end with the words τoν πατέρα έχει, 'has the Father.'

Another class of variations are generally believed to have been caused in this way. Some one reading his Greek Testament made a remark in the margin, intending it only as a note (a practice which is common with some people). But when a copy was made from that Greek Testament the copyist, supposing the note in the margin to be a part of the text which had been left out by mistake, would forthwith insert it as a part of the scripture. This is perhaps the explanation of the clause added in 1 John 5: 7, 8. It has often been a difficulty to understand how additions could be made to scripture: omissions might occur, as we have seen; but who would think of adding to the word of God? Well, additions may have been made in the manner above suggested. It is certain that comments were made in the margins, and it is quite possible they found their way into the text by mistake.

1 John 5: 7, 8, would stand thus if read without the words in brackets: "For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth], the Spirit, the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

This may also account for single words being added. Such, for instance, as the word "unworthily" in 1 Corinthians 11: 29, which some believe to be an addition; the word being supposed to be an 'explanation' placed in the margin, and from thence copied into the text. Some of the oddest MSS omit the word.

Another source of various readings has been caused by dividing the gospels into portions to be read in the churches. If a portion commenced by "And he said," they would alter this into "And Jesus said," so as to make it apparent who was speaking. This accounts for the addition of the words "And the Lord said" at the commencement of Luke 7: 31. Instead of commencing "Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation," they made it begin, "And the Lord said, Whereunto," etc.

In those days there was perhaps no copy of the scriptures in an assembly but that which was publicly read; and from a good motive these alterations were made to render the sense more intelligible to the hearers. Still they are alterations, and have to be corrected in order to be exact.

Another source of many vexatious variations is the attempt to make the Gospels harmonize, as it is called. Thus, if a scribe in copying one of the Gospels had noticed a particular passage, and in copying a second Gospel he noticed a passage similar, but different, he would perhaps think that they ought to be both alike and so would alter the second. Some persons may have compared the Gospels one with another in a more systematic manner and made alterations; and some of the alterations may originally have been marginal notes. In some way or another many such alterations have been made in the Gospels. Of course they are only in some of the Greek copies; and we have other Greek copies by which to correct them. We need point out only one or two of such alterations that have crept into the Authorized version.

The last two words of Matthew 9: 13, "to repentance," have been added, probably from Luke 5: 32. The words, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots," have been added to Matthew 27: 35, doubtless copied from John 19: 24.

Thus the harmonizers have done a great deal of mischief. For the most part they did it innocently, for but few have seen that the differences in the gospels were of God; but it was doing mischief; for God caused the gospels to be written as it pleased Him, and with a wise purpose. It is for us to ask for wisdom to discover what the purpose is, and not to alter them as we please.

Another mistake made was to alter the quotations from the Old Testament in the New, generally by adding to them.

Thus in Luke 4: 18 the words "to heal the broken in heart" is an addition of this sort. And in Romans 13: 9 the words "Thou shalt not bear false witness" are also an addition. Some doubtless thought that the quotations would be better if made fuller, and so to rectify what they judged to be omissions they added the pieces named.

These many causes of variations will give the reader some idea of the actual state of the manuscripts still in existence. Thus having many manuscripts is a great blessing; because they correct one another. A variation may be in a few copies only; and there may be abundant evidence to prove that it is not the correct reading. Everything is very earnestly to be avoided that in any way unsettles the word of God; but carefully and prayerfully attending to the variations is not to unsettle the word of God, but to settle it. It is surely not the work of every one nor of many; but it is the work of those whom God has gifted and called to the work. We enter into their labours and reap the fruit. Still it is important to know that everything respecting the word of God will bear the fullest investigation, when set about in a right and reverent spirit. Nothing has to be avoided; nothing to be hidden. The word of God has come to us through the various vicissitudes attending ancient books in general; each manuscript has its mistakes, which are corrected in a similar manner as in other books, by comparing copy with copy. But, as we have seen, its Author lives and has watched over and preserved His book from the beginning.

List of Greek Copies.

The Codex Sinaiticus. As this is the last-discovered Greek manuscript of great value, we give its history. The finding of it is remarkable. Professor Tischendorf was travelling in 1844, under the patronage of the king of Saxony, in search of manuscripts. At the convent of St. Catherine, on Mount Sinai, he espied in a waste paper basket some odd leaves of vellum, which turned out to be a part of the Old Testament in Greek. The style, etc., convinced him that they were of very early date, and so were of great value, and yet here they were placed in a basket of waste paper, destined to light the fire in the stove. These were readily given to Tischendorf, and consisted of forty-three leaves. He learnt that there were more of these leaves but, on his telling the monks that probably they dated back as far as the fourth century, they were immediately taken away, and he was only allowed to copy one leaf more than he had already.

He carried away the forty-three leaves, and published them in 1846, under the name of the "Codex Frederico-Augustanus," in honour of his sovereign's name, Frederick Augustus, of Saxony

In 1853 he again visited St. Catherine, but could not obtain any tidings of the leaves he had previously seen, and so concluded that some one else had been more fortunate than himself, and had carried them off. In 1855 he published the two leaves he had copied. These were also a part of the Old Testament — indeed, he did not know at that time that there was any but the Old.

In 1859 he again visited the East, and again tarried at St. Catherine. He had been there five days, and was thinking of leaving, when, on taking a walk with the steward, the conversation turned on the Greek Old Testament, and on their return to the convent, the steward brought from his cell a bundle of leaves, wrapped in a red cloth, such as is used for that purpose in the East, and shewed them to Tischendorf. The scholar now saw that there was not only some more of the Old Testament, but the entire New Testament. This was a great deal more than he expected, or had hoped for. He had to be exceedingly cautious not to let his joy be seen, lest the precious pages should again be taken from him. For very joy he could not sleep all night, and copied out during the night the Epistle of St. Barnabas, which was added at the end of the New Testament.

Nothing would satisfy Tischendorf but to copy the whole, and he at length obtained permission to do this. The manuscript was carried to Cairo, and there he was allowed a few leaves at a time, and had two to help him to copy. But this was uncertain and unsatisfactory work, and Tischendorf began to think how he could best contrive to get possession of the manuscript. He told the monks that it would be a fit and valued present to the Emperor of Russia, who was now his patron and theirs. This they concurred in, but just then the See of Sinai was vacant, and until a successor was appointed, the gift could not be completed. However, after some opposition, he procured the loan of the manuscript for the purpose of having it correctly copied.

He carried it to St. Petersburg, and the Emperor of Russia, at a great expense, had an elegant edition printed, in commemoration of the thousandth anniversary of his kingdom. Cheaper editions were also published, that none might be debarred the privilege of knowing its contents. It proved to be one of the oldest, and so one of the most valuable, of all our Greek Testaments. It is called Sinaiticus, because it was found in the convent at Mount Sinai.

This manuscript contains all the marks of extreme age: namely, the fineness of the vellum, the four columns in a page (in imitation of the papyrus copies), the absence of larger initial letters, the absence of accents and breathings by the first hand, few points, etc.

To add to the interest of this volume it may be named that after it had been introduced to the public, a man named Constantine Simonides came forward and declared that it was not an ancient manuscript at all, but that he himself had written it comparatively lately; that it was with no object to deceive, but being a good penman he had made the copy at the request of his uncle. His tale was so plausible that he found some who gave it credit, and the savants were not a little laughed at that they could have been so easily deceived in judging of the age of a manuscript. But the savants declared that they were not deceived. Every fresh examination of the relic convinced them that it was what they believed it to be. There was the fineness of the vellum, the various hands that had corrected it, the difference in the colours of the inks, etc. Besides, from what could it have been copied? for it agreed in every particular with no other copy in existence. All this was confirmatory evidence. The rebutting evidence as given by Simonides as to when and where it was written, etc., also would not bear investigation. Dates did not agree; persons declared they never knew such a man, etc. Scholars could come but to one conclusion, that the man was false and the copy was a true relic of antiquity. It was supposed that he made the declaration out of spite to Tischendorf, because he had exposed an attempt Simonides had made to pass off a spurious manuscript.

Dr. Scrivener tells the following anecdote of this same Simonides, which also well illustrates the fact that some who are used to examine old manuscripts seem intuitively to know an old copy from the best imitation. Simonides went with manuscripts to Mr. H. O. Coxe, librarian at the Bodleian. "He produced two or three, unquestionably genuine, but not at all remarkable for age . . . . he then proceeded to unroll, with much show of anxiety and care, some fragments of vellum, redolent of high antiquity and covered with uncial writing of the most venerable form. Our wary critic narrowly inspected the crumbling leaves, smelt them, if haply they might have been subjected to some chemical process; then quietly handed them back to their vendor, with the simple comment that these he thought might date from about the middle of the nineteenth century." Simonides made his exit from Oxford, but succeeded in deceiving one less wary.

Codex Alexandrinus (A). This important manuscript was given by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, to Charles I. of England. It was placed in the British Museum in 1753, where it is now exhibited, in a glass case, in the Manuscript room. This manuscript also contains the Old Testament. The New Testament is complete, except Matthew 1: 1 to 25: 6; John 6: 50 to 8: 52 (two leaves); 2 Corinthians 4: 13 to 12: 6 (3 leaves). It is in quarto, about 13 inches by 10, having two columns on a page. This differs from א and B in having larger initial letters, and it has, the Ammonian Sections and the Eusebian Canons, complete.* Scholars are pretty well agreed in fixing its date in the fifth century. Because of its importance it has been published in full.

{*These will be explained as we proceed.}

Codex Vaticanus (B). This valuable manuscript is in the Vatican Library at Rome (whence its name). It is mentioned in the earliest existing catalogue (1475), but how much sooner it was in the library, or what is its previous history, no one knows. As to age and value, it stands about on a par with Codex Sinaiticus, some giving the Vatican copy the preference, and some the Sinaitic. It is a quarto volume of 146 leaves, ten and a half inches by ten. It has three columns on a page. Its total want of larger initial letters, the fineness of the vellum, and the absence of the Ammonian Sections, point out its antiquity. A later hand (judged to be about the eighth century), has retraced nearly the whole of the manuscript, who, made alterations, adding initial letters, breathings, accents, and points.

The manuscript has been kept with great care too great a care, for those who would have collated it well were not allowed. In 1810 the manuscript was found at Paris, and could have been collated by Hug, but he let the opportunity slip. It had been collated by others, but by no one thoroughly, at least the collations did not agree. Tregelles, in 1845, attempted a new collation, going armed with a letter from Cardinal Wiseman. But he says, "They would not let me open it without searching my pocket, and depriving me of pen, ink, and paper;" and the two attendants (clergymen) kept up a loud conversation and laughter to distract him, and if they thought he looked at a passage too long, they snatched the book out of his hand. Tischendorf was more successful. Cardinal Mai had published an edition, but very inaccurate, and in 1866 Tischendorf succeeded in convincing the pope of this fact, and obtained leave to examine the manuscript for fourteen days, of three hours each. He published an edition, presumedly more correct than any previous. The pope has since also published an edition. The manuscript contains the Old Testament as well as the New. The New is complete down to Hebrews 9: 14, but contains the Catholic Epistles, which were placed after the Acts.

Codex Beza (D). This contains the Gospels and Acts only, and those imperfect in places. This manuscript is in the New Library at Cambridge. It was presented to the University by Theodore Beza, whence its name. It is both a Greek and Latin copy, each filling the page, the Latin being on the right hand. The copy is remarkable in having readings which do not agree with any of the other ancient uncials, and the Latin has less agreement with the Vulgate than any other. Of the curious readings may be named the following, which occurs after Luke 6: 4: "On the same day he beheld a certain man working on the sabbath, and said unto him, Man, blessed art thou if thou knowest what thou doest; but if thou knowest not, thou art cursed, and a transgressor of the law." Its date is assigned to the end of the fifth or the beginning of the sixth century. It has been published in full. It is a quarto volume, 10 inches by 8. It has only one column on the page.

Codex Claromontanus (D of Paul's Epistles). This bears a resemblance to Codex Bezae, and gives both Latin and Greek (the Greek being on the left hand page). It contains the whole of Paul's Epistles, except a few leaves. Its letters are square and regular, with initial letters but slightly larger than the others. The breathings and accents now in the copy were certainly added by a later hand. Though resembling Codex Bezae in appearance, it is considered a far purer copy and worthy to follow the four great uncials. Its date is fixed at the sixth century. It was edited by Tischendorf in 1852, who judged that it had been corrected by nine different hands. It is a small quarto, and has only one column on the page.

Codex Ephraemi (C). This is a palimpsest, and is in the National Library of Paris, on account of which it is often called the Paris Rescript. Over the writing of the New Testament had been written some Greek works by St. Ephraem, the Syrian Father, of A.D. 299-378. The chemical agents applied to the vellum have turned some of it dark brown and black, rendering the deciphering very difficult. It is in a single column on a page, has initials of increased size, and its letters are a little smaller than A or B. Its date is assigned to the fifth century. It being odd leaves only of the original manuscript, it contains but portions both of the Old and New Testament; the parts preserved of the New extend from Matthew to Revelation. This has been published in facsimile.

It would be out of place to give a detailed account of all the various uncial manuscripts. We have described the few great authorities (Aleph A B D), and also C, which is equally valuable, but of which we have only fragments. There are other fragments of great value. We add a list of the principal manuscripts for reference, giving the portions of the New Testament contained in each, where the copy now is, and the century to which its date is referred. Some of those named are merely fragments — in some cases a few leaves only; and in other cases, where more complete, it must be remembered that leaves are missing here and there, so that in no case can a manuscript not named for a reading be taken necessarily against the same, as the part in which the variation occurs may be wanting.

It must also be noticed, that, on account of the quantity of parts of the New Testament, the same letter is given to two or three different copies; thus E in the Gospels refers to one copy, in the Acts to another, in Paul's Epistles to a third. So that it must be remembered what part of the New Testament is under consideration before it can be ascertained to what copy E refers. The importance of this will be at once seen by referring to B. In the Revelation B refers to a copy dated the eighth century; but in any other part of the New Testament it refers to one of the earliest copies we have.

Another disadvantage is that different editors give different names to the same manuscript. Sometimes one is named after the place where the copy is, and sometimes by the name of the person to whom it once belonged, or who introduced it to the public. Thus A is called by Tischendorf Codex Oxoniensis because it is now at Oxford, but by English editors it is called Tischendorf III.

It must also be observed that some few of the manuscripts are now referred to by different letters from what they once were. See Codex Angelica Bibliothecae under the letters G and L in the following list.

List of Uncial Manuscripts.

א Sinaiticus. Whole of New Testament. (St. Petersburg.) Century iv.

A Alexandrinus. The whole. (British Museum.) Century iv. or v.

B Vaticanus. Matthew to Hebrews, including Catholic Epistles. (Rome.) Century iv. or v.

Vaticanus 2066 (or Basilianus). The Revelation complete. (Rome.) Century viii.

C Ephraemi, a palimpsest (often called Paris Rescript). Portions of the whole. (Paris.) Century v.

D Bezae (Greek and Latin) . Gospels and Acts. (Cambridge.) Century v. or vi.

Claromontanus (Greek and Latin). Paul's Epistles. (Paris.) Century vi. or vii.

E Basiliensis. Gospels. (Basle.) Century viii. or ix.

Laudianus (Greek and Latin). The Acts. (Oxford.) Century vi. or vii.

Sangermanensis (or Petropolitanus). Paul's Epistles in Greek and Latin. (St. Petersburg.) Century xi. Judged to be a copy of Claromontanus (D).

F Boreeli. Gospels. (Utrecht.) Century ix. or x.

Augiensis. Paul's Epistles. Latin and Greek, (Cambridge.) Century ix.

Fa Coislinianus. Fragments of New Testament. (Paris.) Century vii.

G Seidelii Harleianus, or Wolfii A. Gospels. (British Museum.) Century x.

Angelicae Bibliothecae, or Passionei. G in Acts and Catholic Epistles, and J in Paul's Epistles. (Rome.) Century ix. (Now called L.)

G. Fragments of the Acts. Century vii.

Boernerianus. Paul's Epistles, in Greek and Latin interlinear. (Dresden.) Century ix.

H Wolfii or Seidelii. Fragments of the Gospels. (Hamburg.) Century ix.

Mutinensis. Acts. (Modena.) Century ix.

Coislinianus. Fragments of Paul's Epistles. (Paris and St. Petersburg.) Century vi.

Tischendorf II, a palimpsest. Fragments of the New Testament. (St. Petersburg.) Century vi.

Ib Same as Nb.

K Cyprius. The Gospels complete. (Paris.) Century ix.

Mosquensis. Catholic Epistles and Paul's Epist1es (known from Matthaei's collation). Century ix.

L Regius. The Gospels. (Paris.) Century viii. or ix.

Biblioth. Angelica A. Acts, Catholic and Paul's Epistles. (Rome.) Century ix. (See G.)

M Campianus. The Gospels complete. (Paris.) Century ix.

Ruber (also called Uffenbachianus). Fragments of 1 Corinthians and Hebrews. (Hamburg, etc.) Century ix. (Named Ruber from its red ink.)

N Purpureus, or Vindebonensis. Fragments of Gospels (in various places). Century vi.

Petropolitana. Fragments of Galatians and Hebrews. Century ix.

Nb Musei Britannici, a palimpsest, two Syriac works being written over the Greek. Portions of John. Century iv. or v.

O Fragments of Gospels (some at Moscow). Century ix.

O and Ob. Fragments of 2 Corinthians and Ephesians.

P Guelpherbytanus A, a palimpsest. Portions of Gοspels (Wolfenbuettel.) Century vi.

Porphyrianus, a palimpsest. The Acts, all the Epistles, and Apocalypse. (St. Petersburg.) Century ix.

Q Guelpherbytanus B, a palimpsest. Portions of Luke and John. (Wolfenbuettel.) Century v. or vi.

Papyrus. Parts of 1 Corinthians 6, 7, on papyrus, the only fragments remaining on this material. Century v.

R* Nitriensis, a palimpsest. Fragments of Luke. (British Museum.) Century vi.

{* This is not the R of Griesbach and Scholz, nor the R of Tischendorf, 1849, but what is now referred to as R.}

S Vaticanus 354. The Gospels complete. (Rome.) Century x. This is the earliest dated manuscript, being written A.D. 949.

T Borgianus I. Fragments of Luke and John. (Rome.) Century iv. or v.

Twoi (From Woide). Fragments of Luke and John. (Supposed to be a portion of the same manuscript as Τ.)

Tb, Te, Td. Fragments of Gospels. Century vi. and vii.

U Nanianus I. The Gospels complete. (Venice.) Century x.

V Mosquensis. The Gospels to John 7: 39. (Moscow.) Century viii. or ix.

Wa, Wb, Wc, Wd, We. Separate Fragments of the Gospels.

X Monacensis. The Gospels. (Munich.) Century ix., x.

Y Barberini 225. John 16: 3 — 19: 41. (Rome.) Century viii.

Z Dublin Rescript. Portions of Matthew. (Dublin.) Century vi.

Γ Tischendorf IV. The Gospels. (Oxford and Petersburg.) Century ix.

Δ Sangallensis. The Gospels complete, except John 19: 17-35. (St. Gall.) Century ix. This copy has an interlinear translation in Latin, not the old Latin, but Jerome's, altered, and is of no independent value. Judged by some to be a portion of Codex Boernerianus, G of Paul's Epistles.

θa, θb, θc, θd, θe Fragments of the Gospels.

Λ Tischendorf III. Luke and John. (Oxford.) Century viii or ix.

Ξ Zacynthius a palimpsest. Portions of Luke. (Bible Society, London.) Century viii.

Π Petropolitanus. The Gospels. (Russia.) Century ix.

Cursive Manuscripts.

As has been already explained, the uncial manuscripts may be said to date from the fourth century to the tenth, though some are actually later than this; so also the cursive manuscripts, in the common running hand, date from the tenth to the sixteenth century, the two branches overlapping each other somewhat.

The cursive copies, complete and in parts, are so numerous that it would be useless, in such a work as this, to give even a list of them. They number in all about 1600 copies, though perhaps not more than twenty-five contain the whole New Testament.

They are referred to by the various editors by the figures 1, 2, 3, etc., as well as by the small letters, a, b, c, etc., which at once distinguishes them from the uncial copies for which the capital letters are always used, as may be seen in the foregoing list. Those referred to by a, b, c, etc., are mostly those collated by Dr. Scrivener, and are sometimes referred to thus Scr. a, Scr. b, etc. He collated many cursive manuscripts, and where all, or nearly all of those available for any part of the New Testament agree in a reading, editors sometimes express this by Scr.'s Mss. The manuscripts referred to by figures are those collated by Scholz and others. As with the uncials, so with the cursives the same figure does not always refer to the same manuscript. Thus one manuscript is called 35 in the gospels, 14 in the Acts, 18 in Paul's epistles, and 17 in the Revelation; so that it must be always remembered what part of the New Testament is under consideration before it can be known with certainty what Greek copies are referred to.

When we come to consider the families of manuscript, it will be seen that a cursive copy may be of great value. The great mass of them may be but duplicates of other manuscripts, while some are found to be far from this. On a few of the cursives special value has been set, and this not because of their date, but because they are believed to contain a more ancient text than that of the great mass. Thus, Tregelles who seeks to form a text from ancient evidence alone, quotes in the Gospels cursive manuscripts 1 (tenth century), 33 (eleventh century), and 69 (fourteenth century). In his list of authorities he places these before several of the later uncial manuscripts, though of earlier date than the above cursives.

A short notice of two or three of the cursive manuscripts will not be without interest. The first is

No. 33. This has been called "the queen of the cursives," because of containing, as is supposed, many of the most ancient readings where the manuscripts differ. Its name is Colbertinus, and it is now in the National library at Paris. Though it is number 33 in the Gospels, it is number 17 in Paul's Epistle, and number 13 in the Acts and Catholic Epistles. It has not the Revelation. It is on vellum, in folio size, and is judged to belong to the eleventh century. It had been shamefully neglected, so that the damp caused some of the leaves to stick together; and on separating them the ink from one page adhered to the opposite one, and can only now be read by the set off on the wrong page. In some places portions of a leaf have decayed away entirely, yet what was on these Places can sometimes be read by this set off.

No. 38. This is a copy of the Apocalypse, and is supposed also to contain many ancient readings. It is on cotton paper, and of the thirteenth century. It is valuable because of the comparative scarcity of manuscripts of the Revelation.

No. 1. This is a manuscript at Basle. It contains all the New Testament except the Apocalypse. It is supposed to be of the tenth century, but is judged by some tο be of a mixed character; and that while its gospels are of great value, all the rest is not equally so.

No. 69, called the Codex Leicestrensis because of belonging to the city of Leicester. This contains the whole of the New Testament, with numerous parts missing. This is written in folio, both on parchment and paper, having two of the former then three of the latter alternately. It is attributed to the fourteenth century, but is remarkable for containing many variations from the common Greek text, and thus not being a mere copy of the mass of manuscripts has had the more attention. Though it is 69 in the Gospels, it is 31 in the Acts and Catholic Epistles; 37 in Paul's Epistles; and 14 in the Apocalypse.

No. 61. This is called Montfortianus, because it once belonged to Dr. Montfort, of Cambridge: it is now at Dublin. It contains the whole of the New Testament, but is judged by some to have been originally different manuscripts and not all of the same date. It has acquired interest by containing the famous passage in 1 John 5: 7, known as the Heavenly Witnesses,* and is believed to have been the identical copy which caused the passage to be inserted by Erasmus in his Greek Testament, and thence into the authorized version. It is written on paper, and is judged to be as late as the sixteenth century. It is 61 in the Gospels; 34 in the Acts and Catholic Epistles; 40 in Paul's Epistles; and 92 in the Revelation.

{* See chapter 'Causes of Variations'}.

This must suffice for the cursive manuscripts. As we have said, they are 1600 in number, and all are more or less valuable: many of them have not been thoroughly examined, and thus their intrinsic value is in a great measure unknown. Of course, as a class, they rank below the uncial copies, but in some places they add material evidence for or against a reading.

Lectionaries.

These resemble the lessons read in the synagogues from the Old Testament. As early as the fifth century, Euthalius divided the Acts and Epistles into lessons to be read on various festivals, to which the Gospels were afterwards added. Shorter divisions were subsequently adopted by the Greek church. To make these divisions easily accessible the copies of the New Testament were marked in red ink where the lessons begun, where they ended, and what portions were to be omitted.

This led to manuscripts being written especially for this purpose, which were called Lectionaries to distinguish them. These would contain some passages more than once, and be arranged according as the festivals fell; other parts would be omitted altogether. Some contained the Gospels only, and were called Evangelistaria; others had the Acts and Epistles; and others Paul's Epistles only.

Though these books were introduced among the Latins as early as the fifth century, it is believed they were not adopted among the Greeks until the eighth. Some are extant in uncial characters, though it is believed lectionaries were continued to be written in this style after the cursive writing came into use.

One copy is described as containing lessons for every day in the year, with services for "the holy week," the great festivals, and saints' days, with gospels set apart for special occasions.

To make the ordinary manuscripts available for use, a list of lessons was added to some copies. These were called Synaxaria and Menologia. Scholz published copies of such lists in his Greek Testament, taken from some Paris manuscripts.

As has been already intimated, the commencement of the lessons were often altered to make them more intelligent to the hearers (such as substituting "Jesus said" for "He said") yet some of the Lectionaries are of considerable value.

Of Codex z, Dr. Scrivener says, "Besides the gospels in full, several portions of which are always written more than once in an Evangelistarium, this copy is remarkable for containing among the services for the holy week, four passages from the Septuagint version (Isaiah 3: 9-13; 52: 13 — 54: 1; Jer. 11: 18 — 12: 15; Zech. 11: 10-14;) and four from the Pauline Epistles (Rom. 5: 6-10; Gal. 6: 14-18; 1 Tim. 6: 11-16; Heb. 10: 19-31.) . . . . Few copies of the Gospels contain more numerous and interesting, yet minute variations from the printed text than Codex z but in many places it stands almost, often quite alone. Thus the patient student will find it a document of singular importance, well meriting his best attention." The portions named above will give the reader some idea of what were selected as "Lessons" in those early days.

The Lectionaries are generally classed with the cursives, and referred to by small letters (Scrivener's x, y, and z; for instance, are lectionaries, though x is an uncial), or by figures: Lec. x., or Lec. 1, being quite sufficient to distinguish them from anything else.

The Lectionaries are also interesting as shewing that at that early date the reading of the scripture in public was a constant thing. According to the Apostolic Constitutions two lessons out of the Old Testament and two out of the New were read every Sunday. And if a sermon followed it was nothing else but the exposition, says Cave, in his Primitive Christianity, "of some part of the scriptures which had been read before, and exhortations to the people to obey the doctrines contained in them, and commonly were upon the lesson which was last read, because of that being freshest in the people's memory."

The Fathers.

The evidence to be gathered from the Fathers is of great value. Doubtless they at times were satisfied with giving the sense of a passage as is often done now, but it is beyond dispute that they often made direct quotations from their copies of the scripture, which is surely good and weighty evidence as to what was in the copies from which they quoted. This too increases in weight when we remember that the Fathers date back to the second century — some being undoubtedly associates of the apostles, being about two centuries earlier than any Greek copy now remaining to us.

Further, some of the early Fathers are known to have had their attention called to variations even then existing in the manuscripts. Thus Irenaeus argues that the number of the beast in Revelation 13: 18 should be χξς (666) and not χις (616) as it was in some copies. He attributes the difference to an error in the copyist, and adds, "To those who have done this simply and without evil intention, we suppose pardon to be granted by God." This proves that he was not indifferent to the true readings of scripture in the second century.

Origen also (in the third century) writes, "It is now manifest that the diversity of the copies has become great, whether from the carelessness of certain scribes, or from the rashness of some who make corrupt emendations, or also from those who in emendation add or take away what they think fit."

Marcion, to serve his own evil purposes, attempted to make a new gospel out of the Gospel by Luke. He altered and cut out what he pleased. This caused the Fathers Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Ephiphanius to compare carefully Marcion's gospel with that by Luke and point out the alterations.

These things naturally caused the Fathers to exercise the greater care and watchfulness over the text of the word of God, and would have caused them to be the more cautious in making their quotations. Some of them may have fallen into errors themselves, but they wished to pass off as orthodox, and did not attempt to alter the word of God as Marcion had done.

It will be manifest from the above quotation from Origen that the state of the various manuscripts shewed similar variations to those we now have, yet we may fain hope that as then the copies were nearer to the originals and had thus been copied much fewer times, the variations were much fewer in number. Care is needed, as has been stated, to ascertain whether the Fathers quoted the exact words in their copies, or gave the general sense only. Where a quotation is the former, and where it is supported by good Greek copies of the New Testament now available to us, and perhaps by early versions, it undoubtedly has great weight.

For reference, we give a list of the principal Fathers, the date when they died when not otherwise stated, and the contractions under which they are generally referred to. The names in italic are Latin Fathers.

{*From Scrivener's Introduction.}

Ambrose Bishop of Milan, A.D. 397 (Ambr.)

Ambrosiaster, the false Ambrose, perhaps Hilary the Deacon of the third century, (Ambrst.)

Ammonius of Alexandria, 220 (Ammon.)

Andreas of Crete, 7th century (probably not the same person as)

Andreas Bishop of Caesarea, 6th century? (And.)

Arethas Bishop of Caesarea Capp. 10th century? (Areth.)

Arnobius of Africa, 306 (Arnob.)

Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria, 373 (Ath.)

Athenagoras of Athens, 177 (Athen.)

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, 430 (Aug.)

Barnabas, 1st or 2nd century? (Barn.)

Basil Bishop of Caesarea, 379 (Bas.)

Basil of Seleucia, fl. 440 (Bas. Sel.)

Bede the Venerable, d. 735 (Bede.)

Caesarius of Constantinople, 368 (Caes.)

Canons Apostolic, 3rd century (Canon.)

Cassiodorus, 575 (Cassiod.)

Chromatius Bishop of Aquileia, 402 (Chrom.)

Chrysostom Bishop of Constantinople, 407 (Chrys.)

Clement Bishop of Alexandria, fl. 194 (Clem.)

Clement Bishop of Rome, fl. 90 (Clem. Rom.)

Constitutiones Apostolice, 3rd century (Constit.)

Cosmas Indicopleustes, 535 (Cosm.)

Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, 258 (Cypr.)

Cyril Bishop of Alexandria, 444 (Cyr.)

Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem, 386 (Cyr. Jer.)

Damascenus John, 730 (Dam.)

Didymus of Alexandria, 370 (Did.)

Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, 265 (Dion.)

Dionysius (Pseudo-) Areopagita, 5th century (Dion Areop.)

Ephraem the Syrian, 378 (Ephr.)

Epiphanius Bishop of Cyprus, 403 (Epiph.)

Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea, 340 (Eus.)

Euthalius Bishop of Sulci? 458 (Euthal.)

Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116 (Euthym.)

Evagrius of Pontus, 380 (Evagr.)

Fulgentius, 5th century (Fulg.)

Gaudentius, 4th century (Gaud.)

Gregory of Nazianzus, the Divine, Bishop of Constantinople, 389 (Naz.)

Gregory Bishop of Nyssa, 396 (Nyss.)

Gregory Thaumaturgus Bishop of Neocaesarea, 243 (Thauma.)

Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, 605 (Greg.)

Hieronymus (Jerome), 430 (Hier.) or (Jer.)

Hilary Bishop of Poictiers, fl. 354 (Hil.)

Hippolytus Bishop of Portus, fl. 220 (Hip.)

Ignatius Bishop of Antioch, 107 (Ign.)

Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons, 178; chiefly extant in an old Latin version (Iren.)

Isidore of Pelusium, 412 (Isid.)

Justin Martyr, 164 (Just.)

Juvencus, 330 (Juv.)

Lactantius, 306 (Lact.)

Lucifer Bishop of Cagliari, 367 (Luc.)

Marcion the heretic, 130? (Mcion), cited by Epiphanius (Mcion-e), and Tertullian (Mcion-t.)

Maximus Taurinensis, 466 (Max. Taur.)

Maximus the Confessor, 662 (Max. Conf.)

Methodius, fl. 311 (Meth.)

Nonnus, fl. 400 (Nonn.)

Novatianus, fl. 300? (Novat.)

Oecumenius Bishop of Tricca, 10th century? (Oecu.)

Origen, b. 185, d. 254 (Or.)

Pamphilus the Martyr, 308 (Pamph.)

Peter Bishop of Alexandria, 311 (Petr.)

Photius Bishop of Constantinople, 891 (Phot.)

Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna, 166 (Polyc.)

Primasius Bishop of Adrumetum, fl. 550 (Prim.)

Prudentius 406 (Prud.)

Rufinus of Aquileia, 397 (Ruf.)

Severianus, a Syrian Bishop, 409 (Sevrn.)

Socrates, Church Historian, fl. 440 (Soc.)

Sozomen, Church Historian, 450 (Soz.)

Suidas the lexicographer, 980? (Suid.)

Tatian of Antioch, 172 (Tat.)

Tertullian of Africa, fl. 200 (Tert.)

Theodore Bishop of Mopsuestia, 428 (Thdor. Mops.)

Theodoret Bishop of Cyrus or Cyrrhus in Comagene, 458 (Thdrt.)

Theophilus Bishop of Antioch, 182 (Thph. Ant.)

Theophylact Archbishop of Bulgaria, 1071 (Theophyl.)

Tichonius? the Donatist, fl. 390 (Tich.)

Titus Bp. of Bostra, fl. 370 (Tit. Bost.)

Victor of Antioch, 430 (Vict. Ant.)

Victor Bp. of Tunis, 565 (Vict. Tun.)

Victorinus Bp. of Pettau, 360 (Victorin.)

Vigilius of Thapsus, 484 (Vigil.)

The Versions.

By The Versions are meant the early translations of the New Testament from the Greek into other languages. These are valuable, inasmuch as they let us know what was in the copies used by the various translators. Being translations they are not available, as may readily be understood, for every minute variation. In places where there are only shades of meaning they may not avail; but where the sense is materially altered, or where important words are inserted or omitted, they are of great weight. They go back too to the second century, thus in a measure bridging over the gap formed by the distance of our present Greek copies from the time when they were written.

Another disadvantage is that some of the early versions can be read even now only by comparatively few others being obliged to be content with Latin translations of the same. The Syriac, Egyptian and Aethiopic have but few readers. In minute points this naturally increases the difficulty.

We cannot suppose that such a book as the New Testament would be translated in those early times by anyone who did not value its contents, and therefore we may conclude that according to the light a translator had he faithfully performed his work.

We may start with the Latin copies, and these, as with the Greek, gradually shewed many variations, which went on increasing until the time of Jerome, who set to work thoroughly to revise the Latin translation. This naturally divides the Latin copies into distinct parts, namely, those before Jerome's revision and those after he had completed his work.

Latin Copies before Jerome.

These have been at times referred to under the names of the Old Latin and Italic. The latter name was given to those ancient documents because they were naturally supposed to have had their origin from Italy. But this has now been proved to be a mistake. Mr. Westcott says, "As far as we can learn, the mass of the poorer population [of Rome] — everywhere the great bulk of the early Christians — was Greek either in descent or speech. . . . When Paul wrote to the Roman church he wrote in Greek; and in the long list of salutations to its members with which the Epistle is concluded, only four Latin names occur. Shortly afterwards Clement wrote to the Corinthians in Greek, in the name of the church of Rome. . . . Justin, Hermas, and Tatian published their Greek treaties at Rome. The Apologies to the Roman emperors were in Greek. . . . Even farther West Greek was the common language of Christians. . . . The first sermons which were preached at Rome were in Greek: and it has been conjectured with good reason that Greek was at first the liturgical language of the church of Rome."

Those who have examined minutely the language used in the Old Latin copies declare that they must have originated in North Africa. But inasmuch as the old copies do not agree, the question has arisen whether when in Italy they began to use Latin copies, did they make a new translation (or were indeed several made) or did they adopt the one already made in Africa? Those able to decide such a question have come to the conclusion that new translations were not made, and that all the variations found were rather alterations made to the original African version. Of course copies may have been compared with Greek manuscripts differing from those from which the original was made, and alterations made accordingly, or some one understanding both Greek and Latin might have thought in places the Greek was but defectively represented, and attempted to improve the same. Certainly many alterations were made, until they made a formidable array in the time of Jerome in the fourth century. The term Italic is now given to only a portion of the Old Latin.

The following is a list of the Old Latin copies. It will be seen that some of them are not separate copies, but refer to the Latin that accompanies some of the Greek copies. These, or some of them at least, are not considered to be the Old Latin version, already spoken of, but are simply old in age. Italic letters serve to point out the Old Latin copies. We give their names also, as single copies are often referred to by their names. Of course from their great age all are more or less defective.

a. Codex Vercellensis. Contains the Gospels, and dates in the fourth century. It is considered to be one of the most valuable of these copies. It is preserved in Vercelli, and has been published by Bianchini.

b. Codex Veronensis. Contains the Gospels, and perhaps dates a little later than a. This is also a good specimen of the Old Latin. It has been published by Bianchini.

c. Codex Colbertinus. This contains the whole of the New Testament, but only the Gospels are the Old Latin, the other parts being a copy of Jerome's version. Although it dates the eleventh century, it is considered to be one of the best copies of the Old Latin. It was published by Sabatier.

d. Codex Bezae. This is the Latin which accompanies the Greek copy D, and is considered of comparatively little value. In some places however it does not agree with its Greek companion, and in these places it is of some value. It contains the Gospels and the Acts, and is of the sixth or seventh century.

d. Codex Claromontanus. This is the Latin text of the Greek copy D of Paul's Epistles. It ranks higher than the Latin of Codex Bezae. It is of the sixth or seventh century.

e. Codex Palatinus. Contains the Gospels, but with many parts deficient. It is of the fourth or fifth century. It contains a mixed text: in some places having the old version, and in others Italian revisions.

e. Codex Sangermanensis. This contains Paul's Epistles. It is the Latin text of the Greek copy E, but is considered to be but a copy of Codex Claromontanus, and not an independent witness.

f. Codex Brixianus. This contains the Gospels, and is of about the sixth century. Augustine had spoken of an Italian text, and this would seem to be a good specimen of that to which that Father refers, though it actually dates after him. It thus shews the revised and altered text rather than the original version. It was published by Bianchini.

ff. Codex Corbeiensis. Contains the Epistle of James.

ff1 and ff2. Codices Corbeienses 1 and 2. These contain portions of the Gospels, and consist of a sort of mixed text. They have been published by Bianchini.

g. Codex Beornerianus. This is the interlined Latin text to the Greek copy of Paul's Epistles G. Tregelles describes it as "barbarous in the extreme," and only occasionally of any critical value.

g1 and g2. Codices Sangermanenses. These contain the Gospels. Both have been collated by Sabatier. They both contain a mixed text. "Very ancient."

gue. Codex Guelferbytanus. Fragments of Romans. Sixth century.

h. Codex Claromontanus. It contains the Gospels, but the Gospel of Matthew alone is the Old Latin, and that in a measure mixed, the rest being Jerome's. It is of the fourth or fifth century.

i. Codex Vindobonensis. Contains fragments of Luke and Mark of about the fifth century. It is said to be a good specimen of the Old Latin, unaltered.

j. Codex Sarzannensis. This contains portions of John's Gospel and is of the fifth century. Its text is peculiar.

k. Codex Bobbiensis. Contains portions of Matthew and Mark, of about the fifth century. It contains many ancient readings, but in other places has been altered.

k Codex Bobbiensis. This consists of only a few leaves, containing fragments of the Acts and Catholic Epistles.

1. Codex Rhedigerianus. Portions of the Gospels of the seventh century. Its text is mixed.

m. From a "speculum." This is a remarkable work for the age (the sixth or seventh century). It contains a large number of christian doctrines as heads, under which are arranged quotations from the Old and New Testaments without any note or comment. The quotations are generally African as distinguished from Italic. It is remarkable also in containing twice the disputed passage of 1 John 5: 7, known as "the heavenly witnesses."

n. Codex Sangallensis. The Gospels; of the fourth or fifth century.

o. St. Gall. Fragments of the Gospels; of about the seventh century.

p. St. Gall. Fragments of the Gospels; seventh or eighth century.

q. Codex Monacensis. The Gospels; of the sixth century. An important copy.

r. Codex Frisingensis. Paul's Epistles; of the fifth or sixth century.

s. Codex Mediolan. Fragments of Luke.

s. Codex Bobbiensis. Fragments of the Acts, James, and 1 Peter, of about the fifth century.

δ. The interlinear Latin of Cod. Δ.

The Latin of Jerome. — The Vulgate.

This revision came about by the solicitation of Damascus, Bishop of Rome (A.D. 366-384). We have seen that revisers had been busy at work before this, and it was not an unholy desire to obtain a more correct translation, and one that should carry weight with it, and stay farther revisions.

Jerome procured the best ancient Greek copies he could, and doubtless had the pure African Latin text as well as that now called Italic. In A.D. 384 he had finished the Gospels; and the rest of the New Testament followed. Many years after he was still engaged on the Old Testament.

Jerome did not do his revision very uniformly, making alterations more freely in some parts than in others. In his Commentaries he speaks of some emendations which he preferred, but which, for some reason, he did not put into his text.

The effort to make a new translation of the scriptures was even in those early days not without its dangers. Jerome's New Testament was a revision; but his Old Testament was a translation from the Hebrew, the Old Latin of the Old Testament having been made from the Septuagint. This Augustine advised him not to do, fearing the change would have a bad effect on the mass of the people; and related to him the following instance "A certain brother bishop of ours, when he introduced the reading of thy version in the church over which he presides, something attracted notice on the prophet Jonah, which thou hadst rendered in a manner very different from that which was habitually familiar to the minds and memories of all, and which was consecrated by use through such a succession of ages. Such a tumult arose among the people, especially from the contention of the Greeks, and from their vociferating a charge of falsification, that the bishop was compelled (it occurred in a city) to require the testimony of the Jews. But, whether from ignorance or malice, they replied that in the Hebrew copies there was found the same that the Greeks and Latins had, and used. What next? Why the poor man was forced, after much danger, to be willing to correct this as though it had been false in order not to remain without the people.*

{* Tregelles, in Horne's Introduction.}

The reader will no doubt be curious to know what could have caused such a commotion. It would appear that one word especially attracted the attention of the audience. The passage being read was that referring to the "gourd." From this the Old Latin (made from the LXX) was cucurbita 'gourd,' which Jerome (he translated from the Hebrew) replaced by hedera, 'ivy.'

But to resume: As might be expected, when Jerome's version began to be copied variations appeared, until there were again many differences. From time to time some attempted to restore the original text of Jerome, but it was the copy of the scriptures (except what scholars might have had here and there) available in Western Europe during the middle ages — say for a thousand years — and becomes thus of great interest. In course of time some attempted (as Erasmus) to form new translations to take its place. Robert Stephens made an endeavour to restore Jerome's text, and in 1528 printed an edition, which was followed by even better editions; but as then the Greek text began to come into prominence, a mere translation began to lose its value.

The Roman authorities however sought to have an authorized edition of the Vulgate, and under Sixtus V. an edition was published in 1590, and all printed Latin Bibles after that were implicitly to follow this version. But, as one has well said, there is no royal or papal road to Biblical criticism, and so it turned out that this guide to all others had to be corrected with the pen in some places, and in others a piece of paper was pasted over, containing a correction or a totally different reading, and even this was done so incorrectly that one copy did not agree with another. The edition had to be recalled.

In the meantime Sixtus V. had passed away, and, in two years after, another edition was published under Clement VIII. In several hundred places this differs from that of Sixtus V., though to this day, in order to save the credit of the papacy, the title page bears the names both of Sixtus V. and Clement VIII. The Catholic edition is often called the Latin Vulgate: Jerome's revision has also the same title; they must not however be confounded, for they are not one and the same.

It is commonly thought that the Roman Catholics have grossly corrupted the word of God; but this is not borne out by unprejudiced examinations as far as the Vulgate is concerned. Bentley says that though those who revised this edition were unequal to the task, and not able to judge correctly as to the age and value of manuscripts, he did not discover anything 'dolo malo,' by evil artifice. It is declared to be substantially the version of Jerome; but still with many alterations, the changes being always for the worse!

There are a few good copies of Jerome's version in manuscript.

Codex Amiatinus (am). This copy contains both the Old and New Testaments, in one volume, is in very good condition, and with but few defects. It was written about the year A.D. 541. The New Testament is printed in full with Tregelles' Greek Testament, and is judged to be the best manuscript of Jerome's version.

Codex Fuldensis (fuld or fu). This is also counted to be of the sixth century. It contains the whole of the New Testament. Lachmann gives the variations of this manuscript in the Latin appended to his Greek Testament.

Codex Forojuliensis (for). This is a very good copy of the Gospels of the sixth century. It is stated that Mark's Gospel was removed from this copy and taken to Venice and there passed off as the actual copy of Mark's Gospel. written by himself! Of course it only imposed upon those who did not know that Mark wrote his gospel in Greek instead of Latin.

Codex Augiensis (aug). This is the Latin portion of the Greek copy F of Paul's Epistles. The Hebrews is in Latin only. It is a good copy of Jerome's version, modified in places.

Codex Toletanus (tol). Contains both Testaments in Gothic characters. It is judged to be of the eighth century.

Codex Harleian. (harl). Contains the Gospels. It dates about the seventh century. An important manuscript.

There are other copies, but they are only fragmentary.

Syriac Versions.

The Syriac is mentioned as a distinct language in 2 Kings 18: 26, though it is supposed to be alluded to as early as Genesis 31: 47, where the heap of stones was called by Laban, 'Jegar-Saha- dutha,' and by Jacob 'Galeed,' the former being Aramaean or Chaldaean (the same family of tongues as the Syriac) and the latter being Hebrew: both mean "heaps of witness." The language is still preserved as their sacred tongue in several Eastern churches.

It is pretty generally admitted that the New Testament was translated into Syriac as early as the second century. Eusebius says that Hegesippus speaks of quotations from 'the Syriac;' and Ephraem the Syrian in the fourth century speaks of 'our version,' which had evidently been then long in use.

1. This version is called the Peshito, which is interpreted to mean simple, but which some take to mean "faithful." It has been called "the queen of versions," as being the oldest and best, and is declared to be a most excellent translation. It was long since translated into Latin for the use of those who could not read Syriac. It has since been translated into English. The pure Peshito wanted 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and the Apocalypse.

The Curetonian Syriac. This copy was discovered in the British Museum by Canon Cureton. It contains the following fragments of four gospels: Matthew 1: 1-8: 22; 10: 32-23: 25. Mark 16: 17-20. John 1: 1-42; 3: 6-7: 37; 14: 10-12; 16-18; 19-23; 26-29. Luke 2: 48 - 3: 16; 7: 33 - 15: 21; 17: 24 - 24: 44. It is found not only to be a different translation from the Peshito (though others judge them to have had a common origin) but also to have been made from a different text. It is judged to be of the fifth century. It has been published by Dr. Cureton with an English translation.

The Philoxenian Syriac. This is stated to have been made by Polycarp, and was revised by Thomas of Harkel in the year A.D. 508 (and is sometimes quoted as the Harclean version). The translation is very literal, to the destruction of Syriac idiom. This version has received considerable attention from some one, being marked with asterisks and obeli. It is supposed that when an addition was thought to be needed an asterisk was put, and when a part was to be omitted an obelus was placed; the corrections being placed in the margin. It is a matter of question whether these various corrections were made by comparing this version with the older Peshito, or with various Greek copies; they may indeed have been made from both sources. It is necessary in quoting this version to distinguish between the version itself and its marginal corrections. This version contains all the New Testament except the Revelation.

The Karkaphensian Syriac. It is not known from what this Codex took its name, and it is supposed to be the same as Syr. Vatican 153. It is dated A.D. 980, but may have been copied from an earlier translation. It contains the same as the Peshito, but in the following order: Acts, James, 1 Peter, 1 John, Paul's fourteen Epistles, and then the Gospels. The translation closely resembles the Peshito, but is not simply a copy of that recension.

Besides the above, there are copies of a later Syriac version containing the parts missing in the Peshito.

There is also a Lectionary of the Gospels, in Syriac, called the Jerusalem Syriac, because of its peculiar dialect. It bears the date of A.D. 1030, but is supposed to have been copied from a translation of the fifth or sixth century. It differs from all of the above, and abounds in barbarisms.

Egyptian Versions.

Various names have been given to the Egyptian versions. At first only one version was known, and then it was called the Coptic; but when other copies were discovered, and one was traced to Lower Egypt, the term Coptic did not apply, seeing that name is from Coptos, a city in Upper Egypt. Sahidic was another name applied to the version of Upper Egypt; but now other terms are used for both Upper and Lower, the version of Upper Egypt being called Thebaic (or Sahidic), and that of Lower Egypt Memphitic (or Bahiric).

As Christianity spread, the desire for the scriptures in the vernacular tongue naturally arose, and there is good reason for believing that certainly not later than the fourth century the New Τestament was translated into Egyptian dialects.

1. The Thebaic Version. This is considered to be the more ancient of the two, and has been set down by some as belonging to the second century. It abounds in Greek words, and is set down as an unpolished dialect, the language of the common people, but it is thus all the more valuable in some respects. There are several manuscript fragments in this dialect.

2. The Memphitic Version. This is the dialect of Lower Egypt, and is judged to have been made when the language became more refined, and that it eventually superseded the Thebaic version in ecclesiastical uses. There are many manuscripts containing portions of this version.

3. The Bashmuric Version. This is in another dialect from either of the above, and is an independent translation.

The Gothic Version.

This was made by Ulphilas, bishop of the Goths, in the fourth century. He was an Arian, but it has not been ascertained that this caused him to corrupt the scripture in his translation (except perhaps in Phil. 2: 6). The scriptures were too widely spread for this, and any such dereliction would be sure to have been discovered; the Arians rather contented themselves with interpreting the scriptures in a way that would seem to support their error.

One famous copy of the Gospels is called the Codex Argenteus, because is was written in silver with some parts in gold. It has many defects, but some of these have been supplied from other manuscripts. Other copies also supply Paul's Epistles (with defects) except Hebrews. The Acts, the Catholic Epistles and the Revelation are also missing.

The Armenian Version.

An attempt was made to make a translation of the New Testament in the Armenian language from the Syriac; but in A.D. 431 a copy of the Bible in Greek was obtained from Ephesus where the Council was held; and with this the work was recommenced; but the translators found that their knowledge of the Greek language was too imperfect to accomplish such an important work, and therefore three of them repaired to Alexandria to acquire the language. On their return they commenced their third translation. It dates therefore the fifth century.

The question naturally arises as to how far this translation has reached us unadulterated. Certain Armenian editions have been printed, but in 1668 an edition was published which contained the disputed passage of 1 John 1: 7, which raised a suspicion that the original translation had been corrupted. Dr. Rieu, of the British Museum, endeavoured to clear the text of its alterations putting the various readings in the margin. Dr. Rieu says that out of eighteen manuscripts used by Zohrab, a former editor, only one (written in A.D. 1656) had the above disputed passage.

The Aethiopic Version.

A Text of this was published in Walton's Polyglot with a Latin translation. An edition was also issued by Mr. Platt for the British and Foreign Bible Society, for use by the Abyssinian church. In doing this Mr. Platt consulted such manuscripts as were available to him. Mr. Prevost of the British Museum has compared this edition with the one in Walton's Polyglot and noted the variations, which compilation forms the materials available for Biblical purposes.

Later Versions.

The versions besides those above named are of comparatively recent date and of much less critical value. Still as they are sometimes referred to by Editors, they may be named.

1. Arabic Versions. It has been a disputed point whether these have been taken from the Greek or the Latin; one version is supposed to have been made from the Egyptian. Nothing certain is known of the dates.

2. The Slavonic Version. The oldest known manuscript is A.D. 1056, though printed editions may have referred to earlier ones.

3. The Persian Gospels. These are of recent date (one is A.D. 1341) and are of no critical value.

4. The Gregorian Version. This was published at Moscow in 1743, and is considered of little weight.

5. The Anglo-Saxon Gospels. These are more interesting than useful for textual criticism. They were made from the Latin in one or other of its forms.

6. The Frankish Version of St. Matthew.

The Age and Families of Manuscripts.

We have stated that a manuscript is naturally of more or less value according to its age. This needs a little further consideration. We can easily understand that the more ancient a copy is, the fewer hands it has passed through, and the nearer it is to the original. We will try and illustrate this by a diagram.*

Diagram

{*It may perhaps be necessary to caution the reader that in this diagram the letters A, B, C, are used merely to shew that from one original manuscript there may have issued three separate and independent streams or families. The above letters in no way refer to the particular manuscripts generally referred to as A, B, and C.}

Suppose that Μ represents the copy of Mark's Gospel that he wrote. This was copied by A, who in copying made a certain number of mistakes. A was copied by A1 and A2, each of whom copied those mistakes of A (where they had no means of correcting them) and made more mistakes of their own. Then if A2 was copied by two others, each following the mistakes in his copy and making more mistakes of his own, we can understand that the farther a copy was from the original the more mistakes we might expect to find, and the less weight would be attached to it. But mistakes did not multiply in the same ratio as the copies were removed from the original; because the errors began to be found out, and were corrected by different hands before further copies were made. Thus, as we have seen, the Codex Sinaiticus (though classed among the earliest of our manuscripts) had passed through the hands of nine or ten correctors. So that we do not find the later copies so incorrect as otherwise we should do.

Another question arises as to how far each copy can be treated as an independent witness. This will be understood by looking again at the diagram. Mark's gospel was copied by A who made some mistakes, but it was also copied by B, who also made mistakes, but not the same mistakes that A made. Now we can easily understand that all the copies made from A might be free from the mistakes B made, and all the copies made from B, might be free from the mistakes that A made. And if we suppose that A was carried into one country, and B into another, the readings of the one would be the less mixed up with the readings of the other. This will illustrate what is called time theory of recensions or "families" of manuscripts. All that were copied from Α are of one family and all that were copied from B are another family. The importance of this is that A1, A2, up to A7 are not independent witnesses as to the mistakes A made. They copied his mistakes without knowing it. And therefore to say I have seven witnesses to prove that B is wrong would not have the weight of seven independent witnesses, for they are merely copies of one witness (A).

Thus to correct A we want B or its family; and to correct B we want A or its family. And when copies are found to be members of a family they do not form separate and independent witnesses, except as to mistakes made by each individual; but must be sometimes treated as one witness and not as many.

Then, later on, one person might have a copy of the A family and also a copy of B family, and correct one by the other, and thus would be produced copies that were not strictly A nor B, but had some peculiarities of both. This is what is actually found in the Greek manuscripts; and indeed this exists to such an extent that some have doubted the existence of separate and distinct families altogether.

On the other hand, some have thought that there were several different families; but they are now mostly confined to two, called "Alexandrian" (or Eastern, from the city of Alexandria), and Constantinopolitan (or Western, from the city of Constantinople). Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus would be the former, and Codex Alexandrinus the latter in the Gospels (notwithstanding its name); though it is said to belong to the other family in the Epistles.

As has been said, there is a break in the classification of manuscripts about the tenth century. From the first to the tenth the uncial copies (those written all in capitals) were in use; after that the cursives (those written in the ordinary Greek, not in capitals) came into use: and it has been a serious question as to how far attention should be paid to the cursives as evidence. Some pay no attention to them, considering that it is best to pay attention to the uncials only; and indeed some almost discard the later of these, attempting to obtain a true text from the older uncials only.

Now without questioning that the older a copy is the more valuable it is as a witness, it is important to see that some of the later copies may be right and of great value where the older copies differ. For instance, by referring back to the diagram, we have spoken of Mark's gospel being copied by A and B; but suppose it was also copied by C; and although C has been lost, yet we have some that have descended from that copy, but in cursives only. Now suppose that A and B differed in a reading (as the two families named often do), the reading of C, though only a cursive, may be of great value in determining which is right; especially if it was found not to belong strictly to either of the above-named families. Thus a person who confines himself to the earliest Greek copies will miss this class of evidence, because he pays no attention to the later uncials and the cursives.

It may be compared to a trial in a court. It almost always happens that some witnesses are much more valuable than others, but a wise counsel calls all he has; the evidence of all being needed to make his case complete. On the contrary side all are also called. But it often happens that some little thing from one of the non-important witnesses, as some might have been supposed, gives the key to a right judgment, or adds material weight in coming to a conclusion.

So it would seem in judging of a reading, it is not right to judge by a few witnesses only, and shut out a great many. It may be that one of those shut out gives the key to the true reading, being confirmed by one or more of the uncials, by ancient Versions and Fathers.

Before leaving the subject of "Families" of manuscripts it must be noted that each Family has been sought to be discovered not simply by mistakes, but by peculiarities in spelling, grammar, etc., of which the Editors make out lists, but some of which at least have had to be abandoned after having been made. It is sufficient for our purpose to state how the principal manuscripts are now generally arranged. The following has been drawn up by Tregelles: to which we add א.

Alexandrian:

א Β Ζ

C L 1 33

P Q T R Π N R

X Δ 69.

Constantinopolitan (or Western)

A

K Μ Η

E F G S U V Γ A

The manuscripts are placed in the above order as a sort of genealogy of each Family; but anything like scientific accuracy is not claimed for the above. D stands alone. The Latin is classed with the Western.

The Editor at Work.

Those persons are called Editors who, with whatever evidence is at their disposal, study to ascertain, wherever the Greek manuscripts differ, what the text was originally.

The reader will have seen that such a work was necessary, and this not simply for important alterations, but for those more minute. To make this more obvious we will examine in detail the small portion copied from the Codex Sinaiticus given in our specimen in the chapter 'Style of Writing'.

1. It omits ο 'Ιησους, reading, 'he had done,' instead of 'Jesus had done,' as in the common text. Tischendorf, Tregelles and Alford also omit 'Jesus.'

2. It omits óτι, 'that,' 'they said, That this is,' etc. This word is often omitted in the translation, but generally found in the Greek. The Editors retain the word.

3. It reads είς τον κóσμον ερχόμενος, 'into the world is coming.' The common text, confirmed by the Editors, places the words, ερχόμενος  είς τον κóσμον. The sense is not affected.

4. It reads καί αναδιχνυναι βασιλεα, 'and to proclaim [him] king.' The common text reads

ίνα ποιησωσιν αυτόν βασιλεa, 'that they may make him king.' The Editors adopt the common text, except that they leave out aυτον, 'him.'

5. It reads φεύγει, 'escapes.' The common text has ανεχώρησεν, 'withdrew,' which is adopted by the Editors, except Tischendorf, who prefers 'escapes.'

6. It reads μόνος αυτός 'alone himself.' The common text, confirmed by the Editors, transposes the words. The sense is the same.

Thus in this short piece there are six variations from the common text; in five of which we may say the Editors judge the Codex Sinaiticus to be incorrect and the common text to give the true reading. And this is so notwithstanding that this Codex is one of the oldest manuscripts we have; indeed it is declared to abound with mistakes, which of course have to be corrected by other manuscripts, as already explained.

To judge therefore of the true text in every detail is no easy task; the reader will have had a glimpse of the immense amount of evidence that is now available for an Editor of the Greek Testament. As we have seen, it is not everyone's province to attempt such work; and it is only those who have a special gift for such labour should approach it.

To most persons such a mass of evidence would be bewildering in the extreme; and in some cases, instead of all the witnesses being either for or against a reading, some may give a third reading, and some a fourth. To give each particle of evidence its own proper weight, and no more; to see which are independent witnesses, and which are only repetitions; to see how the age and family of each affects a question — are some of the points that have to be decided, and borne in mind all through.

The Editors have made for themselves, or adopted from others, certain rules for their guidance, which rules they call canons. We give a few of them, as they are given by various Editors.

1. No conjecture, without manuscript authority, is ever on any consideration to be entertained.

2. Though Versions and Fathers are of little authority when they differ from the Greek manuscripts, yet when the Greek copies of equal weight differ from each other, those have the greatest weight with which the Versions and Fathers agree.

3. The mere number of witnesses does not decide, but their age must be considered, and also whether they are independent witnesses, or merely copies of one another.

4. Where two readings have equal weight, the most difficult is the correct one; for we can easily conceive of a difficult passage being altered into an easier one; but it is presumed no one would alter an easy one into a difficult one.

5. Of two readings a shorter one is mostly preferable to a larger one; the tendency being in difficult cases to attempt to explain the meaning by enlarging the sentence.

6. In difficult readings, that one is generally preferable which will account for the others, or from which the others can have been taken.

7. In judging of a reading, attention must be paid to the style of the writer; it being judged that each writer had a style more or less peculiar to himself.

Other rules have been laid down by various editors, but perhaps it is not too much to say that not one has kept strictly to his rules. Every variation had to be tried upon its own merits, scarcely any two being exactly alike.

Perhaps the most difficult part of an Editor's work is touching internal evidence. Where there is a great preponderance of external evidence for a reading, internal evidence would not be allowed a voice; but where the evidence for and against a reading is very nicely balanced, it becomes a serious question how far internal evidence may be called into question, and also what may be called internal evidence. For instance, Dr. Scrivener, in describing such cases of difficulty, says, "By internal evidence we mean that exercise of the reason upon the matter submitted to it, which will often prompt us, almost by instinct, to reject one alternative and to embrace another."* In other places he speaks of "common sense" as greatly helping to decide such questions. With all deference to the indefatigable doctor we cannot help thinking this very dangerous ground. We cannot find any such thing set up as a guide in the New Testament.

{* Six Lectures on the Text of the New Testament.}

On the other hand, we doubt not a person in such difficulties should duly weigh the context, and see if any light could be thrown upon it therefrom. Here, of course spirituality would be of the greatest value. He who can enter best into the spirit of the passage will have an immense advantage over one who cannot.

But there is also this difficulty in deciding by internal evidence, that there is nothing to shew for it. The reasons that may operate in one mind may have no weight with another. We may expect that if the Holy Spirit leads one intelligently to a decision, it will commend itself to other Christians who also have the Holy Spirit as their teacher and guide; still there are degrees of spiritual intelligence, and what may be quite clear to one may be beyond another.

But the majority of variations have to be considered by external evidence; internal evidence only having a voice when the external is more or less nicely balanced.

Perhaps the reader will get a better idea of the work that has been done for him by looking at a few passages, and seeing the evidence for and against the readings.

Review of a Few Passages.

1. Mark 1: 2. This variation will illustrate the fact that mere numbers of Greek copies (even if uncial) will not always outweigh a smaller number of greater weight.

The common Greek text reads "in the prophets;" and the variation gives "in Esaias the prophet."

For 'in the prophets,' there are A E F H K M P S U V Γ Π (twelve Greek uncials).

For 'in Esaias the prophet,' there are א B D L Δ (only five).

Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford and Wordsworth all adopt the latter reading. It will be seen by turning back to the Families of Manuscripts (a previous chapter) that nearly all in favour of the common text are Constantinopolitan, and the four others (omitting D as neither) are all Alexandrian; to which may be added the two important cursives 1 and 33, also of the same family.

Besides the above, there are for the common text the Philox. Syriac and the Aethiopic versions, and Fathers Chrysostom and Photius.

For 'Esaias the prophet' there are the Latin copies, the Peshito and Jerusalem Syriac; the Coptic, Gothic, and Armenian versions; and Fathers Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Basil, Titus of Bostra, Victor of Antioch, Severianus, Jerome and Augustine.

In this case we doubt not that the three great uncials א, B, and D have decided the question with the Editors, the reading being supported by the Latin and Peshito versions, and so many of the Fathers.

2. Mark 16: 9-20. The question involved here touches the importance of retaining or rejecting a long sentence of eleven verses. Some copies close the gospel with the words "for they were not afraid" (ver. 8), an ending which would strike every person, one would think, as very strange and undignified. Still of course such questions must be decided by the evidence.

What makes this instance a little more embarrasing is that some copies have another ending differing also from the common text, and one copy at least has both endings. Thus, L gives, at the end of verse 8, "And this also is somewhere extant: 'And they briefly announced all that was bidden them to Peter and his company. And after this also Jesus Himself from the east even to the west sent forth through them the holy and incorruptible proclamation of eternal salvation.' And this also is extant after 'for they were afraid,' and then follow verses 9 to 20 as in the common text.

There can be no doubt that the shorter ending given above may be dismissed as without authority; though it is found in a few copies of minor weight; the only real question is, are verses 9 to 20 to be retained or rejected?

The evidence for the passage is A C D* (three of the great uncials) E F G K M S U V Χ Γ Δ; all the cursives; the Cureton, Peshito, Jerusalem, and Philoxenian Syriac; the Memphitic, some copies of the Old Latin and the Vulgate, with later versions. The passage was known to Irenaeus in the second century; to Hippolytus in the third; and to Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Augustine, and Chrysostom in the fourth.

{* D contains only a portion of the passage, being defective from verse 15.}

Against the passage are א B (two of the great uncials). In B after verse 8 there is a large blank left (which is quite unusual in this manuscript), as if the passage was in the copy from which B was taken, but was left for further consideration as to whether or not it should be inserted; the passage being marked with an asterisk in some copies. So that B is sometimes claimed for the passage rather than against it. Why was the blank left, if there was nothing to fill it in the copy from which Β was taken? L has already been mentioned as containing two endings. The Old Latin k gives a loose translation of the note in L, which note is also found in some of the versions.

With so much for and so little against, one might well wonder why any one could advocate its expulsion. One reason is that it was doubted by some of the Fathers. The earliest one is Eusebius, who in forming his canons for harmonizing the Gospels (hereafter to be considered) found a difficulty in reconciling the resurrection as given in Matthew 28: 1 with that in Mark 16: 9. Eusebius says some copies end the gospel at the words "they were not afraid." "At this point, in nearly all the copies of St. Mark's Gospel, the end is circumscribed. What follows, being met with rarely in some, but not in all, would be superfluous, especially if it contained a contradiction to the testimony of the other evangelists. This [any] one would say if he deprecated and would entirely get rid of a superfluous question."

Others of the Fathers have also written disparagingly of the passage, but their testimony is most probably but an echo of what Eusebius had stated.

Strangely enough, some of the Editors who have not ventured to cut out the passage take a sort of middle path, and admit the passage as scripture, but hold it to be a subsequent addition and not by St. Mark, alleging that the style is not that of the evangelist. But mere style of composition is very uncertain ground on which to judge of the genuineness of a passage, especially in so short a portion.

The passage is omitted by Tischendorf, and marked as doubtful by Alford, upon what, we must think, is most shallow evidence. The passage is unquestionably genuine.

3. Luke 14: 5. This is a variation in which the evidence is nearly equally divided. The common text reads, "Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit?" The variation reads 'son' for 'ass.' This reading of 'son' is startling, and seems so strange an association that Dr. Scrivener says "common sense" forbids even a moment's hesitation as to which to choose. Let us look however as to how the evidence stands.

For "ass:"

א (one of the four great uncials) K L Χ Π Greek uncials,

A host of Greek cursives,

The Memphitic and Jerusalem Syriac,

Three of the best copies of Old Latin (a, b, c) and two others,

The Vulgate, Armenian, Aethiopic versions.

For "son:"

A B (two of the four great uncials) E G Η M S U V Γ Δ Greek uncials,

A host of Greek cursives,

The Peshito, Cureton, and Philoxenian Syriac,

The Thebaic and Persic versions,

Three of the Old Latin (e, f, g),

Some Slavonic manuscripts,

Titus of Bostra, and Clement of Alexandria of the Fathers.

C is defective here, and other copies and versions read differently from either of the above; one (D) having 'sheep or ox,' and one 'son or ox or ass.' There can be no question that the evidence for 'son' is very strong. A and B belong to two families, and where they agree in a reading it is mostly judged to be the true one. And further, the Canon No. 4 would apply here. Unquestionably 'son' is the more difficult reading: we can the better suppose that 'son' has been altered to 'ass' because of the difficulty of the former, than that any would alter 'ass' into 'son.' Of course it may have been a mistake in a copyist; but in the old copies it stands thus: ONOC for 'ass,' and YIOC for 'son,' two words which are not very much alike. Of modern editors Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, and Wordsworth choose 'son;' Griesbach chose 'ass,' but marked 'son' as probable.

If 'son' is adopted, it would be in the sense of 'if a son fell into a pit, or even an ox;' but there is no word for 'even;' it is simply 'a son or an ox.' Tregelles refers to Deuteronomy 5: 14, where the sabbath is binding on two classes persons, headed by 'son,' and animals, headed by 'ox.' Our Lord takes the two heads, and says if either fall into a pit on the sabbath it would be rescued.

It is perhaps best to consider the reading as doubtful, though the five Editors named above give 'son' without any such limitation.

4. John 5: 3, 4. This is a question of admitting or rejecting the moving of the waters by the angel, commencing with the words "waiting for the moving of the water" (verse 3) and the whole of verse 4.

The evidence is not exactly the same for the whole passage; some copies which omit the words in verse 3, retain verse 4.

For the words in verse 3 there are A2 D; for verse 4 A; for both portions, C3 F G E I K L M U V Γ Δ; the mass of the cursives; the Latin, Peshito and Jerusalem Syriac, Armenian, and Aethiopic versions; Tertullian, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Cyril, and Augustine of the Fathers.

Against the portion in verse 3, A1 L; against verse 4, D; against both portions, א B C1; a few cursives; the Cureton Syriac, the Memphitic, Thebaic, and some of the Old Latin versions.

Two theories have been started. One, that the passage is a gloss, or a series of glosses, written by persons in the margins of their Testaments, from which they have found their way into the texts, some taking one, and some another, and some all. It is supposed the glosses were added because of something being needed to explain why the people waited in the porches, and in what way the waters were troubled.

On the other hand, it has been supposed that the passage was originally in the text, but was omitted by some as too strange an occurrence to be true.

The passage is omitted by Tischendorf, Tregelles and Alford, but we think without sufficient authority. It is found in some of the earliest of the versions, and is in the great majority of manuscripts. If it had been an invention we cannot but think that the inventor would have accounted for the troubling of the water in some other way than by the descending of an angel. To insert marginal notes to try and explain doctrines is a very different thing from inventing a story of such a supernatural visitation.

5. John 7: 8. In the passage "I go not up yet," some omit the word 'yet.'

For the word are B (of the great uncials) E F G H L S T U V X Δ Λ; the mass of cursives; the Peshito, Jerusalem, and Philoxenian Syriac, the Thebaic, a few Old Latin, and some of the Vulgate.

Against the word are א D (of the great uncials) K M Π; four cursives; (Jureton's Syriac, the Memphitic, the best of the Old Latin (a, b, c, e, etc.), the Vulgate, Armenian and Aethiopic versions; Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and Cyril of the Fathers.

A and C are both defective here.

This is one of the passages on which the infidel Porphyry attacked the truth, alleging that our Lord said He would not go, and yet went. Jerome answered the objection; but it is evident that in the copies they had, there was no word 'yet,' or it would have been referred to.

Both readings have very respectable external support. It is hardly a variation that could have occurred accidentally, because it is ούπω 'not yet,' or ούκ 'not,' and not simply the omission of a word. Here Canon No. 4 would come to our assistance. Unquestionably the 'not' is the more difficult reading, and while preferring to mark it as doubtful, we fear the 'not yet' has been substituted to remove the difficulty.

6. John 7: 53 — 8: 11. This is the well-known record of the woman taken in adultery, and is another instance where a whole passage of several verses has been called in question.

Here it must be conceded at once that the preponderance of external evidence is against the passage; but it is just one of those instances where mere weight of evidence may give way to the many witnesses.

As we have already seen, many copies were used for reading in the congregation, besides the Lectionaries which were specially written for that purpose, and it has been suggested that this passage might have been judged to be a tolerance of immorality, and be omitted on that account. In the Lectionaries it is placed to be read on the days set apart to penitent women. In some Greek copies the passage is put at the end of the Gospel, and in others it is put at the end of Luke 21.

This shifting of the passage into various places is, we think, evidence rather in its favour. Where did the passage come from originally if not written by John? And if he did not write it, why was it not at once expunged? Instead of this, in some copies where it stands in its right place it has marks apparently to point it out as doubtful, while in others it is banished to other places by men who, though rash, were not wicked enough to take it from the word of God.

The actual evidence for the passage is D (one of the great uncials), E F G H M K S U Γ Λ also uncials, being marked as doubtful in E M S Λ. Over 300 cursives, in some being marked as doubtful, and in about ten being put in a different place. Some of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, Arabic, Persian, Jerusalem Syriac, Aethiopic, and many copies of the Memphitic versions. Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome, of the Fathers, and the Apostolic Constitutions.

Against the passage are quoted א A B C (of the great uncials) L T Χ Δ. Of these A C are defective here, but by a careful calculation of the space the passage would occupy they are quoted as not containing it. In L and Δ there are spaces left after 7: 53, and in Δ the copyist had begun to write 8: 12 but drew a line through the words he had written. About fifty cursive copies omit the passage. Some of the Old Latin, the Cureton, Peshito and Harclean Syriac, and the Armenian versions omit it. The early Fathers are silent on the passage. Against the passage must also be named that in the manuscripts which contain it there are many variations, D having a sort of abridged form of the narrative.

That the passage was expunged because it was thought to give a licence to sin, is not what is thought now simply. Augustine (A.D. 354-430) and Nicon (century x.) both give this as the reason why the narrative was excluded. But to go further back we find that Tertullian (died A.D. 200) was very strong on the question of adultery, and devoted many pages to prove that if committed after baptism, it admitted of no pardon. The bishop of Rome had issued an edict that the sin of adultery and fornication were to be remitted on the guilty one's repentance. This drew forth a sharp rejoinder from Tertullian. "Where," said he, "shall this liberality be posted up? On the very spot, I suppose, on the very gates of the sensual appetites, beneath the very titles of the sensual appetites. . . . Far, far from Christ's betrothed be such a proclamation? She, the true, the modest, the saintly, shall be free from stain even of her ears. She has none to whom to make such a promise; and if she have had, she does not make it; since even the earthly temple of God can sooner have been called by the Lord a 'den of robbers' than of adulterers and fornicators. . . . Whatever authority, whatever consideration, restores the peace of the church to the adulterer and the fornicator ought to come to the relief of those who repent of murder or idolatry." The reader will surely see how such a passage as the one in John's Gospel would stand in the way of one of such unbending sternness.

On the whole we think good reasons can be assigned for the passage not being found in many copies: the quotation from Tertullian clearly evinces how hard a lesson it is to learn what grace is. His treatise is quoted to prove that the passage was not in his copy of the Testament, or he would have referred to it when speaking on the subject. Perhaps so; but it also shews for what reason the passage may have been expunged: for we must believe either that it was added or expunged by some one. We have seen why it may have been the latter, but we know of no motives that could have induced any to add the passage. It may also be noted that in one copy (Codex Veron.) some one was so anxious to get rid of the passage that he tore out the leaves which contained it, though in doing this he had to destroy what preceded and what followed it.

Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford all omit the narrative; Griesbach marks it as doubtful, and Wordsworth inserts it in his Greek Testament, but does not believe it to be canonical, a mode of action which strikes us as singularly inconsistent.

One thing which seems to have weighed with the critics is, that the style of the Greek in this portion is judged to be different from John's writings generally. But, as we have remarked. on the passage in Mark 16, this is very unsafe ground for rejecting a passage.

We believe the passage to be genuine, and to have a divine stamp upon it which has never been found in any human production. Who could have discovered such a way out of the apparent dilemma in which our Lord was placed? Grace triumphed in a marvellous way.

7. Acts 8: 37, "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

This verse is omitted by most modern Editors. Of the five oldest Greek copies, it is omitted from four (A B C א), and the other (D) is defective here. Η L P and many cursives also omit it. Most of the ancient versions also omit the verse.

On the other hand, E inserts the verse, with many cursives, some of the Latin copies, one of the Syriac, the Armenian, and the Arabic versions. It is quoted by Irenaeus in the second century, by Cyprian in the third, and by Jerome and Augustine in the fourth.

As we have said, the verse is omitted by most modern Editors (Wordsworth retains it). Alford accounts for its insertion thus: "The insertion appears to have been made to suit the formularies of the baptismal liturgies, it being considered strange that the eunuch should have been baptized without some such confession." On the other hand, it has been argued that because of infant baptism this verse was sought to be got rid of by those who had loose ideas of the inspiration of the scriptures. The preponderance of evidence is decidedly against the passage.

8. Acts 13: 19, 20. The common text reads, "By lot. And after that he gave [to them] judges, about the space of four hundred and fifty years." Some copies read, "By lot about the space of four hundred and fifty years. And after that he gave judges." It will be seen, by comparing the two readings, that it is but a transposition of the words; yet one that alters the sense materially. The one passage says they had judges for four hundred and fifty years; and the other that the judges were given after the four hundred and fifty years. The question of the judges existing for this period has always been a difficulty with those who have studied the chronology of the Old Testament; indeed one may say that volumes have been written on this point; but the variation removes at once the difficulty: yet the question is, was the variation made to remove the difficulty, or was it there originally?

For the common text there are D2 E H L P; the Aethiopic version.

For the variation there are א A B C; the Vulgate, Memphitic, Thebaic, and Armenian versions.

D1 does not transpose the words, but, though otherwise like the common text, it omits the words 'after that,' so that it is claimed as a witness rather for the variation than the common text.

Here the Canon must not be forgotten that the more difficult text is often the correct one; still this must not be pressed too far. If the variation were an alteration made in the original, it would scarcely have found its way into four of the great uncials, embracing both the Alexandrian and Constantinopolitan families. This reading is adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Wordsworth, and we think it is most probably the correct reading.

9. Acts 16: 7. The common text reads "the Spirit suffered them not." Another reading is, "the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not."

For the common text there are H L P, many cursives, one copy of the Vulgate, and the Thebaic versions; Chrysostom and Theophylact of the Fathers.

For the words "of Jesus" there are א A Β C2 D E; nine or ten cursives; the Vulgate, Aethiopic, some of the Armenian, the Syriac and Memphitic versions.

The latter reading is adopted by nearly all modern Editors, and we believe rightly. All the great uncials are in its favour; and we think the words "of Jesus" are a great deal more likely to have been omitted (because of the seeming strangeness of the expression in this connection) than that they have been added.

10. Acts 20: 28. The common text reads, "To feed the church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood." At first sight the readings here are very embarrassing. Some copies read the church of the Lord; others 'of Christ;' others 'the Lord Christ;' and others 'the Lord and God,' etc. But all may be dismissed as without any weight except the readings 'of God,' 'the Lord,' and 'the Lord and God.'

For 'God' we have א B; about 14 cursives; the Vulgate and Philoxenian (text) versions.

For 'Lord' there are A C1 D E (the Latin versions of the last two agreeing with the Greek), about 16 cursives; the Memphitic, Thebaeic, Philoxenian (margin) and Armenian versions.

For 'Lord and God' are C3 H L P, more than a hundred cursives; the Slavonic version.

What makes this variation of importance is the latter part of the sentence, "which he hath purchased with his own blood." The question is, does this refer to God, or the Lord, or the Lord and God? At first sight the word 'Lord' would seem to be more appropriate, because of the thought of 'the blood of God;' but this may be the key to the variation. If the early Christians staggered at such an expression, they might have attempted to soften it by altering 'God' into 'Lord.' And others, finding some copies read one way and some the other, combined the two into 'the Lord and God.' The external evidence is very nearly of equal weight for 'God' and for 'Lord,' as will be seen above; but unquestionably 'God' is the more difficult reading; we can see no reason why this should be substituted for 'Lord,' whereas the converse is probable.

The Fathers come in here to help the solution. Both Tertullian and Ignatius use the expression "the blood of God," which they would scarcely have done had they not had this apparent sanction from scripture. Basil the Great and Epiphanius also use the word 'God.' Others of the Fathers differ.

We believe the common text to be correct; though it has been judged that the harshness of the expression may be softened in the translation; and instead of "which he hath purchased with his own blood," it may be rendered "which he hath purchased with the blood of his own."

11. 1 Corinthians 3: 14. This will illustrate the intricate questions an Editor is called upon to decide. The common text reads "If of anyone the work abides;" which a variation alters to "If of anyone the work shall abide." It will at once be seen that there is here only a shade of difference in the meaning, yet it has to be decided as to which is the best reading. This is an intricate question, inasmuch as the first is μένει, and for the second μενεί; and seeing that all the great uncial copies have no accents except those supplied by later hands, none can be called as witnesses. And though Versions and Fathers may give definitely one or other of the tenses, yet whence did they get what they give, seeing that the uncial copies, from which all must have emanated, decided nothing?

Still Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford, and Wordsworth all decide for "shall abide."

12. 1 Corinthians 11: 24. "This is my body which is broken for you." Here the question is whether the word 'broken' should be retained or omitted.

For the word 'broken' א3 C3 D2 E F G K L P; 37, 47, and nearly all cursives; Peshito and Harclean Syriac, one Armenian and Gothic versions; Βasil, Damasc. Oecum. and Chrysos. of the Fathers. D1 may be also claimed for the word 'broken,' though it gives a different Greek word (θρυπτόμενον).

For the omission of the word are א1 A Β C1; 17; one Armenian; Cyril of Alexandria, Athanasius, and Fulgentius of the Fathers.

Though the four great uncials omit the word by the first hands, and form thereby a strong evidence against the word, it is on the other hand supported by later hands of א, C, and D; and the Peshito version. The Liturgies of the fourth century also retain the word.

The passage has evidently been tampered with: while the four uncials give no other word in the place of 'broken,' D', as we have seen, supplies another Greek word; the Vulgate, with Cyprian and Ambrose, gives 'delivered' (tradetur); while the Coptic and Armenian have 'given.'

The word may have been left out or altered because it was thought to clash with John 19: 36 "A bone of him shall not be broken;" but we cannot see that it clashes with this: in some of the sacrifices the bodies were divided, but a bone was not broken; in the Psalms too we have strong expressions; such as "all my bones are out of joint:" the broken bread too prefigures the broken body. Christ took bread, broke it, and said, "This is my body." On the whole, we should prefer to mark the reading as doubtful.

Various Readings in the Revelation.

The book of the Revelation in the common Greek text — from which was made in the main the English Authorized Version — having been edited from very few manuscripts, more various readings have been introduced by the Editors into this book than elsewhere. This has been occasioned by the discovery of further evidence. We give therefore a list of the principal of these various readings, and the authorities for and against them. It will be seen that in some places the weight of evidence is overwhelming for the amended readings; indeed in some instances we have been obliged to say "? any manuscripts," because no Greek copies are known to exist for such readings.

It must be remembered that of the Revelation the uncial manuscripts are even now comparatively few in number; still we have א A C of the great uncials, and B of the seventh century (which must not be confounded with B of the Gospels), and P of the ninth century. There are nearly a hundred cursives, varying from the tenth century. No. 38 is esteemed more valuable than many. The Syriac of the Revelation is about the sixth century (the Peshito and the Cureton Syriac not having the Revelation). C, it must be remembered, contains only portions of the book, namely, Revelation 1: 1 to 3: 19; 5: 14 to 7: 14; 7: 17 to 8: 5; 9: 16 to 10: 10; 11: 3 to 16: 13; 18: 2 to 19: 5.

The authorities for each reading will easily be understood by referring to the foregoing pages. The order is 1, Uncials; 2, Cursives; 3, Versions; , Fathers. Vulg.-ed. refers to the printed Vulgate of Clement viii.; Vulg.-am. to the Amiatinus manuscript.

Chapter 1: 5. "Loved," P; many cursives; the Vulg. Memph. Arm. and Aeth. versions; Andreas, Arethas of the Fathers. "Loves," א A C B; many cursives; the Syriac.

"Washed," B P; some cursives: Vulg. Memph. Aeth.; Arethas. "Freed," א A C; some cursives; Syr.

Verse 6. "Kings and priests," P; some cursives. "A kingdom, priests," א A C; some cursives; Vulg. Syr. Merph; Areth. Victorinus. B has "a palace, priests."

Verse 8. "Beginning and ending," א 1; some cursives; Vulg. Memph. Omit, א2 A C B P; many cursives; Syr. Arm. Aeth.; Areth. Ambr. Primas.

"The Lord," one or two cursives. "[The] Lord God," א A C B P; most cursives, and versions and fathers generally.

Verse 9. "Of Jesus Christ," some cursives. "In Christ Jesus," B; nearly fifty cursives; some of the Vulg. Syr. Arm.; Areth. Primas. "In Christ," A and one cursive. "In Jesus," א C P; one cursive; some of the Vulg. Memph.; Orig.

"Testimony of Jesus Christ," א3 B; some cursives; Memph. Arm. Syr.; Areth. Primas. Omit Christ, א1 A C P; some cursives; Vulg. Aeth.; Dion.

Verse 11. "I am the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and," P; some cursives; Arm. Omit, א 1 A C B; some cursives; versions generally; Areth. Primas.

"Which are in Asia," ? any manuscripts; Memph. Omit, א A C B P; cursives generally; Vulg. Aeth. Syr.; Andr. Areth. Primas.

Verse 18. "Amen," א 3; most cursives; Syr. Areth. Omit א1 A C P; a few cursives; Vulg. Memph. Aeth.; Iren. Orig.

Chapter 2: 5. "Quickly," B; most cursives; Syr.; Andr. Areth. Prirnas. Omit, א A C P; Vulg. Memph. Aeth. Aug. Jer. Vict.

Verse 9. "Works and," א B; most cursives; Syr. Arm. Areth. Omit, A C P; some cursives; Vulg. Memph. Aeth.; Primas.

Verse 13. "Thy works and," B; most cursives; Syr.; Arm. Andr. Areth. Omit, א A C P; one or two cursives; Vulg. Memph. Aeth; Jer. Primas.

Verse 15. "Which thing I hate," P; a few cursives; Arm. "In like manner," א A B C; many cursives; Vulg. Syr.; Areth. (P has both readings.)

Verse 20. "A few things," one or two cursives; Vulg. Omit, A C B P: many cursives, and versions generally. א reads "much."

"That woman," א C P; many cursives; versions generally. "Thy wife," A B; many cursives; Syr.; Andr. Areth. Cypr. Primas.

Verse 22. "Their deeds," A; some cursives; Arm. Memph. Aeth.; Cypr. Primas. "Her deeds," א C B P; many cursives; Syr. Areth. Tert.

Verse 24. "And to the rest," ? any manuscripts; Vulg. Omit "and," א A C B P; cursives and versions generally.

Chapter 3: 2. "God," one or two cursives; Arm. "My God," A C B P; cursives and versions generally.

Chapter 4: 11. "O Lord," one or two cursives. "O Lord and our God," A B; many cursives; Syr. "O Lord our God," P; some cursives, and versions generally. "O Lord, the Lord and our God," א

Chapter 5: 4. "And to read," some cursives; Arm. Omit, א B P; many cursives, and versions generally.

Verse 8, "Harps," many cursives; Vulg.; Cyp. Primas. "A harp," א A B P; many cursives, and versions generally.

Verse 9. "Redeemed us," א B 2; many cursives; Vulg. Memph. Arm. Syr.; Hipp. Cyp. Omit "us," A; Aeth. one or two cursives.

Verse 10. "Made us," ? any manuscripts; Vulg.-ed.; Areth. Made them," א AB; many cursives, Vulg.am. Syr. Arm. Memph. Aeth.

"Kings," B; cursives generally; Syr. Arm. Aeth.; Andr. Areth. "A kingdom," א A; Vulg. Memph.; Cyp. Primas. Fulg.

"We shall reign," ? any manuscripts; Vulg.-ed.; Primas. "They shall reign," א P; some cursives; Vulg.-am. Memph. "They reign," A B; some cursives; Syr. Andr.

Verse 14. "Four and twenty," ? any manuscripts; Vulg. ed.; Primas. Omit, א A B P; many cursives; versions generally; Andr. Areth.

"Him that liveth for ever and ever," ? any manuscripts; Vulg.-ed.; Primas. Omit, א A C B P; cursives and versions generally; Andr. Areth.

Chapter 6: 1, 3, 5, 7. "And see," א B (B omits in verse 3); and omitted by A C P, with other authorities for and against in each place.

Verse 17. "His wrath," A B P; most cursives; Memph. Arm. Aeth.; Andr. Areth. Primas. "Their wrath," א C; one or two cursives; Vulg. Syr.; Fulg.

Chapter 8: 7. "Angel," some cursives; Vul. Memph. Arm. Aeth.; Andr. Primas. Omit, א A B P; many cursives; Syr.; Areth.

"Earth," a few cursives; Memph. Add "and the third part of the earth was burnt up," A B P; many cursives; Vulg. Syr. Aeth. Arm.; Andr. Areth.

Verse 13. "Angel," P; some cursives; Arm.; Vict. "Eagle," א A B; many cursives; Vulg. Syr. Memph. Aeth.; Areth.

Chapter 9: 4. "Only," a few cursives. Omit, א A B P; many cursives; Syr. Memph. Arm. Aeth.; Andr. Areth.

Verse 13. "Four," B P; most cursives; Vu1g.-ed.; Andr. Areth. Cypr. Omit א 3 A; Vulg.-am. Syr. Memph. Aeth. א1 reads "a voice from the golden altar."

Verse 18. "Three," two or three cursives. Add "plagues," manuscripts and versions generally.

Chapter 10: 1. "A rainbow," א3, P; some cursives. "The rainbow," א 1 A C B; many cursives; Areth.

Verse 5. "His hand," A; a few cursives; Vulg. "His right hand," א C B P; many cursives; Syr. Memph. Aeth. Arm.: Andr. Areth. Primas.

Verse 7. "Should be finished," B; some cursives. "Was finished," א A C P; many cursives; Memph.

Chapter 11: 1. "And the angel stood," א 3 B; many cursives; Syr. Arm.; Vict. Omit, א1 A P; many cursives; Vulg. Aeth. Memph.; Areth.

Verse 2. "Within," א; a few cursives; Vict. "Outside," A B P; many cursives; Vulg. Memph. Arm. Aeth. Syr.; Andr. Areth. Primas. Ticho.

Verse 4. "God," a few cursives; Arm. "Lord," א A C B P; many cursives; Vulg. Syr. Memph.; Hippol. Areth. Vict. Primas.

Verse 8. "Our Lord," one or two cursives. "Their Lord," א3 A C B P; most cursives; versions generally; Orig. Andr. Areth. Primas. א 1 reads "the Lord."

Verse 17. "And art to come," a few cursives; Vulg-ed. Memph. Arm. Omit, א A C B P; many cursives; Vulg. am. Syr.; Areth. Cyp. Primas.

Chapter 12: 12. "The inhabiters of," a few cursives. Omit, manuscripts and versions generally.

Verse 17. "Christ"? any manuscripts; Vulg-ed.; Primas. Omit, manuscripts and versions generally.

"I stood," B P, most cursives; Memph.; Andr. Areth. "It stood," א A C; a few cursives; Vulg. Syr. Aeth. Arm.; Vict. Tichio.

Chapter 13: 7. "Tribe," a few cursives; Memph. Arm. Add "and people," א A C B P; most cursives; Vulg. Aeth. Syr.; Andr. Areth. Iren. Primas.

Verse 17. "Or the name," a few cursives; Vu1g.-ed; Omit "or," A B P; many cursives; Vulg.-am. Memph. Arm. Aeth. Syr.; Hippol. Andr. C reads "the mark of the name;" א "the mark of the beast, or his name."

Chapter 14: 1. "A Lamb," P; some cursives; Arm. Andr. "The Lamb," א A C B; many cursives; Memph. Syr.; Orig, Meth. Areth.

"Having," P; one or two cursives. Add "his name and," א A C B; cursives and versions generally.

Verse 3 "As it were," A C; a few cursives; Vulg. Omit, א B P; many cursives; Syr. Memph. Arm. Aeth. Syr.; Orig. Meth. Areth. Primas.

Verse 5. "Before the throne of God," ? any manuscripts; Vulg.-ed. Omit, manuscripts and versions generally.

Verse 13. "And their," B; many cursives; Andr. Areth. "For their," א A C P; a few cursives; Vulg. Syr.; Primas.

Chapter 15: 2. "Over his mark [and]," a few cursives; Andr. Areth. Omit, א A. C B P; many cursives; Vulg. Syr. Memph. Arm. Aeth.

Verse 3. "Saints," ? any manuscripts. "Nations," א 3 A B P; many cursives; Memph. Aeth.; Andr. Areth. Cyp. "Of [the] ages, א 1 C; a few cursives; Vulg. Syr.

Verse 6. "In . . . . linen," (א) (B) P; many cursives; Vulg.-ed. Arm. Syr. With a . . . . stone," A C; two or three cursives; Vulg.-am.

Chapter 16: 1. "Vials," P; a few cursives; Μemρh. Aeth. "Seven Vials," א A C B; many cursives; Vulg. Syr. Arm.; Andr. Areth. Primas.

Verse 3. "Angel," B; many cursives; versions generally. Omit, א 3 A C P; a few cursives; Vulg.-am. Aeth.

Verse 4. "Angel," a few cursives; Syr. Μemρh. Arm. Omit, א A C B P; many cursives; Vulg. Aeth.

Verse 5. "O Lord," ? any manuscripts; Vulg.-ed. Aeth. Omit א A C B P; the cursives; Vulg.-arn. Syr. Memph. Arm.

Verse 7. "Heard another out of the altar," ? any manuscripts; Vulg.-ed. "Heard the altar," א A C P; cursives and versions generally.

Verse 8. "Angel," א; some cursives; Vulg.-ed. Arm. Memph.; Andr. Primas. Omit, A C B P; many cursives; Vulg.-am. Syr. th.; Areth.

Verses 10 and 12. "Angel," some cursives; Memph. Omit, manuscripts and versions generally.

Verse 14. "Of the earth and," one or two cursives. Omit, א A B; cursives and versions generally.

Verse 17. "Angel," א 3; some cursives; Vulg.-ed. Omit, א1 A B; many cursives; Vulg.-am. Syr.

"Of heaven," B; many cursives; Arm.; Andr. Areth. Omit, A; few cursives; Vulg. Syr. Memph.; Primas. "Of God," א.

Chapter 17: 8. "And yet is," ? any manuscripts. "And shall be present," A B P; cursives generally; Arm.; Hipp. Andr. Areth. Primas. א 1 has "And shall again be present."

Verse 16. "Upon the beast," ? any manuscripts; Vulg.ed. And the beast," א A B P; the cursives; Vulg.-am. Syr. Memph. Aeth.; Hipp. Primas.

Chapter 18: 2. "Is fallen, is fallen," A; some cursives; Vulg. Syr.; Hipp. "Is fallen," א B; many cursives; Memph. Aeth.; Primas. Areth. Ρ reads "Is fallen" three times.

Verse 3. "Have drunk of," P; many cursives. "Have fallen by," א A C B; some cursives; Memph. Aeth.

"The wine of," א B (P); many cursives; Syr. Memph. Vulg.-ed. Arm.; Hipp. Areth. Ticho. Primas. Omit, A C; Vulg.-am.

Verse 6. "You," some cursives; Vulg.-ed. Omit, א A C B P; many cursives; Vulg.-am. Syr. Aeth. Memph.; Hipp. Cyp.

"Unto her," P; some cursives; Syr. Memph. Aeth. Omit, א A C B; many cursives; Vulg.; Hipp.

Verse 13. "Cinnamon," א3 B, many cursives; Vulg.-ed. Memph. Arm.; Primas. Add "and amomum,"* א1 A C 2; some cursives; Vulg.-am. Syr. Aeth.; Hipp.

{*"A precious ointment made from an Asiatic shrub, and used for the hair." — Alford.}

Verse 14. "Goodly are departed," one or two cursives. "Goodly are destroyed," א A C B P; most cursives; Vulg. Syr. Memph. Aeth.; Hipp. Primas.

Verse 20. "Holy apostles," C; a few cursives; Vulg.-ed. Arm. "Saints and apostles," א A B P; many cursives; Vulg.-am. Syr. Memph. Aeth.; Hipp. Areth. Tich. Primas.

Chapter 19: 1. "And honour," a few cursives; Memph.; Areth. Omit, א A C B P, many cursives; Syr. Vulg. Arm.

Verse 6. "God," A: a few cursives; Memph. Arm. Aeth. "Our God," א3 B P; many cursives; Vulg. Syr.; Areth. Ticho. "God our Lord," א1

Verse 17. "Supper of the great God," a few cursives; Arm. Aeth.; Andr. The great supper of God," א A B P; most cursives; Vulg. Syr. Memph.; Ticho. Primas.

Chapter 20: 9. "From God," א3 B P; many cursives; Vulg. Syr. Memph. Arm. Omit, A; a few cursives; Primas.

Verse 12. "God," one or two cursives; Andr. "The throne," א A B P; most cursives; versions generally.

Verse 14. "Second death," some cursives; Vulg.-ed. Arm. Memph.; Primas. Add "The lake of fire," א A B P; many cursives; Vulg.-am. Syr. Aeth.

Chapter 21: 2. "John," ? any manuscripts; Vulg.-ed. Omit, א A B P; cursives and versions generally.

Verse 3. "Heaven," B P; most cursives, and versions generally; Andr. Areth. "The throne," א A; one or two cursives; Vulg.; Iren. Aug. Ambr.

"[And be] their God," A P: some cursives; Vulg. Syr.; Iren. Ambr. Omit, א B; many cursives; Memph. Arm.; Areth.

Verse 7. "All things," one or two cursives. "These things," א A B P; most cursives; versions generally.

Verse 10. "That great city, the holy," some cursives. "The holy city," א A B P; many cursives; versions and fathers generally.

Verse 24. "And honour," B; many cursives; versions generally. Omit, א A P; some cursives.

Chapter 22: 1. "Pure," some cursives; Arm.; Andr. Areth. Omit, א A B P; some cursives; versions generally; Hil. Ambr. Ticho. Primas.

Verse 6. "Holy prophets," a few cursives; Arm. "Spirits of the prophets," א A B P; many cursives; Vulg. Syr. Memph.; Primas. Areth.

Verse 11. "Let him be righteous," two or three cursives; Vulg.-ed. Arm. Aeth. "Let him practise righteousness," א A B; many cursives; Vulg.-am. Syr. Memph.

Verse 12. "Shall be," B; many cursives; Andr. Areth. "Is," א A; a few cursives; Syr.

Verse 14. "Do his commandments," B; many cursives; Syr. Memph. Arm.; Cyp. Tert. Ticho. "Wash their robes," א A; a few cursives; Vulg. Aeth.; Ath. Fulg. Primas.

Verse 19. "Out of the book," ? any manuscripts; Vulg.-ed. Amb. Primas. "From the tree," א A B; most cursives; Vulg.-am. Syr. Aeth. Arm.; Andr. Ticho.

Verse 20. "Even so," many cursives. Omit, א A B; some cursives; versions generally.

Verse 21. "Our Lord," a few cursives; Vulg. Syr. Memph. Arm. "The Lord," א A B; many cursives.

"Christ," B; many cursives; Vulg. Syr. Memph. Arm. Aeth. Omit, א A; one or two cursives.

"You all," ? any manuscripts; Vulg.-ed. "All," A; Vulg.-am. "The saints," א "All the saints," B; many cursives; Memph. Syr. Arm.; Andr. Areth.

Printed Greek Testaments.

We have seen that there are many Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, which all differ more or less from each other. We have also glanced at the sort of work an Editor had to do in judging as to the true text where the manuscripts differ. We have now to look at the principal editions that have been published.

1. The Complutensian Edition. This was the earliest printed Greek Testament. It was edited by Cardinal Ximenes, Cardinal Archbishop of Toledo, in connection with his university at Alcala (Complutum). The printing of the New Testament was finished January 10, 1514, but the rest of the work (it embraced the Old Testament as well as the New) was not completed till 1517. The Cardinal died soon after this, and the work was not published till about 1522, though Leo X. authorized its publication in 1520. It is not now known what Greek manuscripts were used for this edition.

The Complutensian was printed in a remarkable style. Not only was the text given in double columns in Greek and Latin, but the words which corresponded in both languages were marked with the same letter, to assist those who understood either of the languages. The Greek had no breathings and the accents were according to a unique and fanciful system. The Latin had many contractions and was the modified Vulgate then in use.

We give a specimen in modern type.

βιβλος b γενεσεως c Ιησου

Liber b gnatiois c iesu d christi

d χριστου e υιου f δαυιδ g υιου

e filii f dauid g filii h abraá.

h αβρααμ. i αβρααμ k εγεννησεν

i Abraá k genuit l ysaac. m Isaac

τον l ισαακ m ισαακ n δε

n at o genuit p iacob. q Jacob

o εγεννησε τον p ιακωβ. q ιακωβ r δε

r aut s genuit t iudam: u et x fratres

s εγεννησε τον t ιουδαν u και

y eius. z Judas a autem

τους x αδελφους y αυτου. z ιουδας

b genuit c phares d et e zaram

a δε b εγεννησε τον c φαρες

f de g thamar.

d και τον e ζαρα f εκ της g θαμαρ.

Matt. 1: 1-3.

2. The Editions of Erasmus. Between the printing and the publishing of the Complutensian Edition Erasmus was solicited by Froben, a printer of Basle, to edit for him a Greek Testament. The request was made April, 1515, when Erasmus was in England, and the whole work was finished by February, 1516. He did it in reckless haste, as he says himself, to meet the views of Froben in order to publish it before the Complutensian Edition. He had none of the best Greek uncial copies, but used various cursives that were at Basle. One of these, embracing the Gospels (now called No. 1) was a valuable copy, but which he was afraid to follow where it differed from his other copies.

Erasmus inserted Acts 8: 37, though it was only in the margin of one of his copies; and stranger still he inserted in Acts 9: 5, 6 σκληρον σοι προς κεντρα λακτιζειν. τρεμων τε και θαμβων ειπεν κυριε τι με θελεις ποιησαι και ο κυριος προς αυτον, "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord [said] to him." Erasmus apparently added this from the Latin Vulgate alone, for it has not yet been found in any Greek manuscript. Yet, strange to say, it has been retained, and is in our Authorized Version. The Greek manuscripts, instead of the above passage, have merely the word αλλά, 'but,' reading, "I am Jesus whom thou persecutest; but arise," etc. On the other hand Erasmus omitted the passage in 1 John 5: 7, known as "the heavenly witnesses," because it was not in any of his Greek copies, though it was in the Latin. This brought a great storm of indignation upon him, and he promised that if the passage could be found in any Greek manuscript, he would insert it in future editions. It was found in a Greek copy, and Erasmus inserted the passage in his third edition in 1522, though now considered by almost all Editors as spurious. Erasmus published fine editions, making more or less alterations in each. To shew how badly off he was for Greek manuscripts compared to what Editors are now, it may be named that he had only one manuscript of the Revelation, which wanted the last six verses. These he had to re-translate from the Latin into Greek. As may be supposed, he used certain Greek words which are not in the best Greek manuscripts, if in any at all, and yet these have been retained and have influenced our Authorized Version.

3. The Editions of Stephens. Stephens was a printer at Paris. His first edition appeared in 1546. He says it was based on manuscripts found in the Royal Library, but it is evident that he followed the Complutensian and the last edition of Erasmus more than his manuscripts, copying his predecessors in some places where, as far as is now known, all his manuscripts were against him. In only about 37 places he departed from both the Complutensian and Erasmus's editions. Stephens's third Edition (1550) was his principal one, in which he gives in his margin various readings from fifteen different manuscripts. Still in this edition in places he alters from his former editions, and against all his manuscripts, to more uniformity with Erasmus. This is the edition that has been usually printed in England — the Greek text in common use. Stephens's fourth edition (1551) was the first that was divided into verses.

4. The Editions of Beza. His first edition was in 1565, but his third edition (1582) was his principal, though he had later editions. They were mostly a copy of Stephens's edition of 1550, being altered in places without apparently always good authority.

5. The Elzevir Editions. These editions were published in 1624 and 1633. They are mostly copied from Stephens's editions of 1550, corrected in places from Beza's editions. In the second edition they profess to give the text received by all, which is often referred to as the "textus receptus." This is the text commonly reprinted on the continent, though, as we have seen, the edition of Stephens 1550 is the common text in England.*

{*Some say that Mill's edition is the common text of England. But Mill copied Stephens, without any intentional alteration, though in a few places he seems to have adopted the variations of the Elzevirs without intending it.}

At this point there was a pause. Additional manuscripts came to light and some began diligently to collate the various differences. The common text had obtained a sort of standard, so that some were content to collect the material by which to correct the text; others became bolder and used the material in altering the text.

6. Mill's Edition, 1707. Mill gave the text of Stephens, but was remarkable for the material he gathered together, which shewed where the text might be corrected. He laboured for thirty years on his work, and died soon after its completion.

7. Bentley. This great scholar lamented that the text of Stephens should stand uncorrected as it did. He began to collect material for a critical edition and issued a prospectus, in which he aspired to great things, but died before he could accomplish his object, if indeed he had not found before he died that the difficulties were greater than he had expected.

8. Bengel. The pious Bengel, as he is often called, took great interest in the exact words of the New Testament, and collected as many of the variations of the manuscripts as he could. In 1734 he published his Greek Testament. It was mainly the common text, for he did not insert (except in the Revelation) any reading that was not to be found in some printed edition. The various readings he gave in the margin, and the authorities for and against, at the end of the book. Persons had become so accustomed to the common text that even the marginal readings exposed him to the bitterest attacks; and one of his opponents, curiously enough, requested him to admit that the various readings were given by inspiration, in order to meet the necessities of various readers! Bengel was the first to form the Greek manuscripts into "families."

9. Wetstein. Wetstein had been employed by Bentley to collect material for his proposed edition; but on his death Wetstein continued the work on his own account. He greatly increased the amount of material. His Testament was published in 1751-2. It was still the common text, with his proposed alterations at the foot, but which were not many. His principal work was to collect the material; but he shrank from or did not know how to use it when gathered.

10. Griesbach. After Bengel, Griesbach was the first to arrange the evidences systematically, and then seek to make a good use of them. His principal edition (his second) was published in 1796-1806, with a statement of the authorities; and a manual edition in 1805. He adopted the bold plan of altering the text from that commonly received, wherever he thought the evidence in hand warranted him in doing so.

He elaborated the system of families, arranging the manuscripts into three divisions, and then sought to deal with each division as one witness. The families were the Alexandrian, the Western, and the Byzantine. The text as given by Origen he took as the basis of the Alexandrian, and placed here the ancient copies A B C, L of the Gospels, the Egyptian and some other versions. The Western family was represented by D of the Gospels and Acts, and here he placed those which contained a Latin as well as Greek text; the Old Latin and Vulgate; and quotations in the Latin Fathers. The Byzantine embraced the great mass of other manuscripts, the Versions, and the Greek Fathers. This last family had less value with Griesbach than the other two.

Where two of the families agreed in a reading that decided its reception. Though laying aside the common text, he seems to have had a leaning towards it in cases of difficulty. His work was elaborately done, for he was not content with simply receiving or rejecting readings, but also inserted others, marking them as 'very probable,' and others as 'probable.'

By referring back to the chapter on Families it will be seen that more recent Editors do not class the ancient copies A and B in the same family, and now restrict themselves to two families instead of three.

11. Scholz. He published his Greek Testament in 1830-36. He is thought to have adopted a plan the very reverse of Griesbach, judging the Byzantine family to have the greatest weight; but he abandoned his principle before he died. His principal work however was to collect material, and it has been judged that he had nearly double the quantity that was possessed by Griesbach; but he did his work so badly that his readings, unless confirmed by other collators, cannot be relied on.

12. Lachmann. His principal edition was published in 1842-50. He was perhaps the first to set wholly aside the common text as of any weight, and to edit a text independent of that generally received. He endeavoured to confine himself as much as he could to evidence not later than the fourth century (not that he strictly kept to this date), which was to shut out a great deal of valuable evidence. Yet in many places he adopted readings which have since (with further material) been judged by other editors as the true ones. Scrivener describes him as "earnest, single-hearted, and a true scholar both in spirit and accomplishments."

13. Tischendorf. This scholar laboured for more than thirty years in collecting material and editing works bearing on the scriptures. His seventh edition (1856-9) is preferred by some to his eighth edition (1865-72), as he is thought to have made a sort of pet of the Codex Sinaiticus because he discovered it, and let it bias his mind against the best readings in some places. His Greek Testament gives the most elaborate collection of all available evidence, both for the readings he adopts and for those of the common text. Though some may differ from him in judgment as to the true readings in some places, most accord to him the first place as a biblical critic. He lived to finish his eighth edition, except the prolegomena.

14. Tregelles. For about thirty years this Editor laboured in collecting material and editing his Testament. The Gospels appeared in 1857 and the Revelation in 1872. He confined his attention almost exclusively to ancient copies. Illness prevented him quite finishing his last part, and he died soon after its issue.

15. Alford. In his commentary he publishes a Greek text, not remarkable for anything peculiar. In the majority of readings he goes with Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles.

16. Wordsworth. This Editor's Greek Testament is principally remarkable for its conservatism. He believes that God overruled the common Greek text (which has stood for three hundred years) and that it ought not to be departed from unless on good and sufficient authority. He therefore retains many readings which Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles and Alford agree in rejecting.

There have been many other editions of the Greek Testament, but these are the principal. And there is one by Doctors Westcott and Hort in preparation.

We hope, in considering the Authorised Version, to be able to give some practical hints in the use to be made of these Editors in determining the text.

The Order of the Books.

We now turn to a few subjects of interest connected with the arrangement of the books, with their various divisions, etc.

It becomes a natural and an interesting question as to how far, and in what way, importance is to be placed in the order of the various books of the New Testament.

As each book was written separately, of course the writers had no hand in placing the several books in one volume. As to their being placed at all comes under the head of the "Canon of the New Testament;" we are now merely considering the order in which they stand in our Testaments.

Some, considering the order of the books to be of God, have endeavoured to draw certain lessons from the way in which the contents of one book follow another as to their agreement, or their contrast, the gradual development of truth, etc. It becomes important, therefore, to see what light the history of the text throws upon the subject, and to ascertain the order of the books in the early copies of the New Testament.

In general, we may say that the early manuscripts do not place the books as we now have them, but generally in this order:—

The Gospels.

The Acts of the Apostles.

The Catholic Epistles (so-called).

The Epistles of Paul.

The Revelation.

We say "generally," for there are deviations from this order, and as many copies are only portions of the New Testament, we cannot gather from them the order of the whole. Codex Sinaiticus (א), with three or four others, places the Epistles of Paul before the Acts.

It is not easy to ascertain how the books became arranged as in our present order. If we refer back to the original copies of the common printed Greek text, we find our present order both in Stephens (1550) and the Elzevir (1624). But if we go farther back to the first printed Greek Testament (the Complutensian), we find the above order, namely, the Catholic Epistles placed before those by Paul. But inasmuch as this latter was not published until after the edition by Erasmus (this scholar having the honour of editing the first Greek Testament given to the church), the order of Erasmus — which is the same as in our Testaments — was afterwards followed, rather than that of the Complutensian.

If we come to details, we find that the old Latin copies generally put the Gospels in the order of Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. In the Codex Βeza (Greek and Latin) they are also in this order. In Greek copies generally they are in the order we have them. In the Syriac of Cureton they stand Matthew, Mark, John, Luke. Jerome, in revising the old Latin for his version, transposed the Gospels into the order of the Greek, in which we may say they have become fixed. In one manuscript the Apocalypse comes after the Gospel by John; and in two or three others the Gospels come at the end. But these are isolated cases.

We give a list of the books as they stand in the four oldest manuscripts, that our readers may have the earliest evidence before them.

By these lists the reader will see how the four oldest Greek copies differ in the order of the books. Not one has the same order that we have now. Those who first printed the New Testament, if they had had these copies, would have been perplexed as to which to follow, but they did not then possess them, and, as we have seen, how they determined the order is not now known. By examining these lists it will be seen that the principal transposition is by placing the Catholic Epistles before the Epistles of Paul, instead of after them; in transposing the Acts; and in putting the Hebrews before Timothy, instead of after Philemon. The four copies agree in this last with some of the cursives.

Codices.

Sinaiticus (א).

Alexandrinus (A).

Matthew

Matthew

Mark

Mark

Luke

Luke

John

John

Romans

Acts

1 Corinthians

James

2 Corinthians

1 Peter

Galatians

2 Peter

Ephesians

1 John

Philippians

2 John

Colossians

3 John

1 Thessalonians

Jude

2 Thessalonians

Romans

Hebrews

1 Corinthians

1 Timothy

2 Corinthians

2 Timothy

Galatians

Titus

Ephesians

Philemon

Philippians

Acts

Colossians

James

1 Thessalonians

1 Peter

2 Thessalonians

2 Peter

Hebrews

1 John

1 Timothy

2 John

2 Timothy

3 John

Titus

Jude

Philemon

Apocalypse

Apocalypse

Codex Vaticanus (B) agrees with A as far as Hebrews, after which all is lost.

Codex Ephraem (C) may also be said to agree with A; 2 John and 2 Thessalonians are lost.

Since the time of the first edition of Erasmus (1516), there can be no doubt that the order we now have has been very generally received and followed. How far this was overruled by God, doing so for the purpose of instruction (had we wisdom to discover it) is for the reader to judge; we are simply giving a sketch of its history. The Acts seems to follow more appropriately the Gospels than in any other place; and in the above lists we miss the Hebrews falling along with James and Peter; the former written to "the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad," and the latter to "the strangers scattered," etc. (the "dispersion"), which are brought together in our present order.

Divisions of the New Testament.

We are all familiar with the ordinary chapters and verses in our Bible, but these are comparatively a recent addition. When Paul wrote an Epistle, he would naturally write it without divisions of any sort, except, perhaps, breaking it up into paragraphs. The Gospels were doubtless written in the same style.

But though our modern chapters and verses are not found in the oldest manuscripts, yet they possess other divisions which we have not now. There were at first divisions marked in the margin, breaking a book into portions. But in these divisions the manuscripts do not agree. For instance, in the Codex Vaticanus, Matthew is divided into 170 parts, Mark 62, Luke 152, John 80, etc. It will be seen that these portions are much shorter than our chapters. By whom they are made is not known.

In the Codex Alexandrinus, and others, Matthew is marked for 68 divisions, Mark 48, Luke 83, and John 18. These are supposed to have been done by Titian, a disciple of Justin Martyr. These were called τίτλοι, titles, probably because each division had a title to it. Other portions were called κεφάλαια, divisions or chapters. It is supposed that these divisions embraced the first attempt at a "harmony" of the Gospels, that is, a system by which one continuous history could be read by taking a piece from each of the Gospels that appeared to relate to the same event or the same discourse, and reading them together; or simply for reference.

But these attempts gave place to a fuller system, by Ammonius of Alexandria, who, taking Matthew as his standard, drew up a table to form a "harmony," marking portions of the other three Gospels alongside each portion of Matthew, which he judged to refer to the same part of our Lord's life. These are commonly known as the Ammonian Sections.

This system was again attempted to be improved upon by Eusebius, whose plan is known under the title of Eusebius's Canons. It would appear that he used the divisions of Ammonius, and worked them out into a yet more elaborate system. He arranged the divisions into ten classes: thus,

I., those portions contained in the four Gospels.

II., those contained in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

III., those in Matthew, Luke, and John.

IV., those in Matthew, Mark, and John.

V., those in Matthew and Luke.

VI., those in Matthew and Mark.

VII., those in Matthew and John.

VIII., those in Mark and Luke.

IX., those in Luke and John.

X., those in one Gospel only.

The canon was arranged thus, which meant that the portion marked in Matthew 8 corresponded to the portion marked 2 in Mark, and to 7 in Luke, and to 10 in John. The passages, as marked, stand thus:—

Matthew

Mark

Luke

John

8

2

7

10

11

4

10

6

Matthew 3: 3

Mark 1: 3

Luke 3: 3-6

John 1: 23

Matthew 3: 11

Mark 1: 7

Luke 3: 16

John 1: 15

On referring to the Testament, the reader will see that the first line speaks in each of the Gospels of the saying by Esaias, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord;" and in the second line to John's saying that one mightier than he was coming. These references, therefore, correspond, as nearly as may be, to the references in the margins of our Testaments. Thus, at this early date — the fourth century — did the readers of the Gospels have this advantage of reference from one Gospel to another; and though such a system is generally called the harmony of the Gospels, it is useful in pointing out the characteristic differences of the Gospels, always remembering that those who formed these lists (whether ancient or modern) were liable to mistake, and to place two passages together which have no real connection.

These Canons are useful to us for another purpose, namely, to determine the age of the manuscript. As Eusebius did not draw up his canons until the fourth century, no manuscript containing them can be earlier than that date, unless, of course, they have been added by a later hand, but which can nearly always be detected.

If the reader will turn back to the printed specimen of the Codex Sinaiticus (chapter 'Style of Writing'), he will see in the margin these letters, NA, with a Δ underneath them. The Δ points to IV. of the Canon of Eusebius, which (as will be seen above) stands for passages contained in "Matthew, Mark, and John;" and NA stand for the Ammonian section 51. It stands in the Canon thus:—

John 51; Matthew 150; Mark 67;

which points out Matthew 14: 23b-27; Mark 6: 47-50; and John 6: 16-21. Tischendorf believes that these marks have been added to the Codex Sinaiticus by a later hand, though, for other reasons, the manuscript is dated the fourth century.

Most of the Greek manuscripts have these sections and canons, though some have only the Ammonian Sections, and in some they are left incomplete. They are inserted in coloured ink. Eusebius says vermilion, but they are sometimes blue or green. They have been copied into the modern printed editions of the Greek Testament of Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Wordsworth; and the last-named gives the Canon of Eusebius in full in his first volume.

The Acts and the Epistles were also divided into portions, but they appear to have been done at a later period. By the printed copies, it does not appear that the Codex Sinaiticus has divisions of any sort, except in the Gospels. The Codex Vaticanus has divisions marked throughout, but which are not found in the Codex Alexandrinus, nor Codex Ephraemi, of the fifth century.

Divisions were made in the fifth century to the Acts and Epistles, by Euthalius, deacon of Alexandria, but it is supposed that he adopted them from copies already so divided. The Apocalypse was divided still later.

Thus the copies remained, marked in different manners, or not at all, until about A.D. 1248, when an index of words was attempted for the whole Bible, by Cardinal Hugo, and then the books were divided into the chapters which we now have; and these again were subdivided (or rather marked in the margin) with the letters A, B, C, etc. These chapters were adopted in the Latin Vulgate, and became afterwards common in Greek manuscripts and printed copies.

Still there were no verses. Long before this there had been stichoi, στίχοι (called νersus in Latin manuscripts); but they appear to have been rather lines than verses, when an attempt was made to arrange the manuscripts into a sort of poetry, yet without measure or rhyme. Thus, at the end of 2 Thessalonians, the Codex Sinaiticus has στιχoν ρπ, "180 stichoi, or verses" (the manuscript has really 291 lines), none of these are marked in the margin, and it is not easy to see to what the 180 refers; other manuscripts put the number at 106.

It was Robert Stephens, the celebrated printer and editor of the Greek Testament, who, feeling with others, that for reference shorter divisions than those of Cardinal Hugo were needed, set to work to divide the chapters into short verses. This he did on a journey from Paris to Lyons — it is supposed at the various places at which he rested. Our present verses are the result of his labours. They were first published in Stephens's Greek Testament, 1551, and from thence copied almost universally.

There is still one other branch of the subject demanding a word, namely the divisions into paragraphs. We suppose we must say that the ancient Greek manuscripts have no paragraphs; not that they have no breaks which might have the appearance of paragraphs, but they have not this significance. Take, again, the specimen of the Codex Sinaiticus (chapter 'Style of Writing'), it will be seen that the sixth line stands out a little into the margin. Letters standing out thus occur very frequently, and often follow a short line, which has every appearance of marking a paragraph. But here it is at verse 15 (of John 6), where, we suppose, no one makes a paragraph. On the other hand, the common Greek text has a paragraph at verse 16, where Codex Siimaiticus has none. It has also one at verse 22, where Codex Sinaiticus has none. Codex Sinaiticus, however, has an apparent break at verse 23, where no one makes a paragraph.

Now this is not only interesting to us as students of scripture, but it has this importance, that we learn that none of the divisions of the New Testament have any authority. The divisions into chapters, paragraphs, and verses have all been made by man; God may have overruled it in the main, but it is believed that in some places better divisions might have been made, because the present ones destroy the connection. For instance, the last verse of Revelation 11 belongs to chapter 12. It would be better for chapter 11 to end with verse 18. Again the verses of Romans 8: 33-35 would have been better divided thus: "It is God that justifieth, who is he that condemneth? | It is Christ that died . . . . Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?"

The arrangement of the chapters and verses is not now attempted to be altered, on account of its use for reference, but each editor of the Greek Testament has to make paragraphs as he thinks best.

A paragraph Testament is best for common use as we are all too apt to read by verses or chapters, instead of the Gospels by sections, and the Epistles as letters. But the reader must understand that even in paragraph Bibles the paragraphs have no authority: the editors are not at all agreed as to where they should be placed. A spiritual-minded reader will be the best judge in such a question.

Headings and Subscriptions to the Books.

As nothing connected with the New Testament is without its importance, we devote a short chapter to the above subject.

As in other things, so in even the headings to the books, do the various manuscripts differ. As a rule, the more ancient the copy, the shorter the heading, the tendency being evidently to enlarge. Perhaps we shall better arrive at a true judgment by giving the headings of a few of the older manuscripts. It must be remembered that א A B C D are the oldest copies, and E F G, etc., more recent, but all we name are uncials.*

{*See 'List of Uncial Manuscripts' for these.}

Matthew. According to Matthew א B; Gospel according to Matthew C E K M S U V. Subscription. According to Matthew B; Gospel according to Matthew A D E H K U V; D adding "ended."

Mark. According to Mark א B F; Gospel according to Mark A D E H K L M S U. Sub. Gospel according to Mark א A C D E H K L U; D adding "ended;" According to Mark B (after 16: 8, omitting the rest of the chapter).

Luke. According to Luke א B F; Gospel according to Luke A C D E K L M S U X. Sub. According to Luke B; Gospel according to Luke א A2 C D K L S U; D adding "ended."

John. According to John א B; Gospel according to John A C D E F G H K L M U Χ. Sub. According to John B; Gospel according to John א A C D E G H S; D H adding "end," or "ended."

Acts. Acts א; Acts of Apostles B D. Sub. Acts of Apostles א B; Acts of the holy Apostles A E H L.

Romans. To [the] Romans א A B C; Epistle of the all-holy Paul the Apostle to [the] Romans P; Epistle of the holy and all-praiseworthy Apostle Paul to [the] Romans L. Sub. To [the] Romans א A B C D G P; G adding "ended;" P adding "Epistle of Paul." Epistle of the holy and all-praiseworthy Apostle Paul to [the] Romans, written from Corinth, by Phebe the deaconess L; B2 D3 P add "written from Corinth."

1 Corinthians. I to [the] Corinthians א A B C D F G P; P adding "Epistle of Paul;" F G adding "begun" (άρχεται); First Epistle of the holy and all-praiseworthy Apostle Paul to the Corinthians L. Sub. I to [the] Corinthians א A B C D F G P; D adding "ended" (επληρωθη); F G adding "ended" (ετελέσθη); I to the Corinthians, written from Philippi, by Stephanus and Fortunatus and Achaicus and Timotheus K L; B2 P add "written from Ephesus;" D2, "written from Philippi Macedon."

2 Corinthians. ΙΙ to [the] Corinthians א A B D F G K; D F G adding "begun." II Epistle of the holy Apostle Paul to [the] Corinthians L. Sub. II to [the] Corinthians א A B D F P; D F adding "ended;" B2 P adding "written from Philippi;" Second Epistle to [the] Corinthians, written from Philippi of Macedonia, by Titus and Luke K; L omitting "of Macedonia."

Galatians. To [the] Galatians א A B D F G K P; P adding "Epistle of Paul;" D F G adding "begun;" Epistle of the holy and all-praiseworthy Apostle Paul to [the] Galatians L. Sub. To [the] Galatians א A B1 C D; D adding "ended;" Epistle to [the] Galatians ended F G; To [the] Galatians, written from Rome B2 K P; End of the Epistle to [the] Galatians, written from Rome L.

Ephesians. To [the] Ephesians א A B D F G K P; P adding "of Paul;" D F G adding "begun;" Epistle of the holy Apostle Paul to [the] Ephesians L. Sub. To [the] Ephesians א A B D K L P; B2 P adding "written from Rome;" K L adding "written from Rome by Tychicus;" Epistle to [the] Ephesians ended F G.

Philippians. To [the] Philippians א A B K; so D F G, adding "begun." Epistle of the holy (P "all-holy") Apostle Paul to the Philippians L P. Sub. To [the] Philippians א A B K; so D F G, each adding "ended" (as in 1 Cor.); Epistle of the holy Apostle Paul to the Philippians L; K L adding "written from Rome, by Epaphroditus."

Colossians. To [the] Colossians א A B K P; so D F G adding "began;" P adding "Epistle of Paul;" Epistle of the holy Apostle Paul to [the] Colossians L. Sub. To [the] Colossians A B1 C K P; so D F G each adding "ended" (as in 1 Cor.); A adding "from Rome;" B2 P adds "written from Rome;" Epistle of the holy Apostle Paul to [the] Colossians L; K L adding "written from Rome, by Tychicus and Onesimus."

1. Thessalonians. I to [the] Thessalonians א A B K; so D F G adding "begun;" I Epistle of Paul to [the] Thessalonians P; First Epistle of the holy Apostle Paul to the Thessalonians L. Sub. I To [the] Thessalonians א A B1 K; so D F G, each adding "ended" (as in 1 Cor.); I Epistle of the holy Apostle Paul to [the] Thessalonians L; A B2 K L adding "written from Athens."

2 Thessalonians. II To [the] Thessalonians א A B K; so D F G, adding "began;" II Epistle of the holy Apostle Paul to [the] Thessalonians L. Sub. II To [the] Thessalonians א A B K P; so D F G, each adding "ended" (as in 1 Cor.); Second Epistle of the holy Apostle Paul to [the] Thessalonians L; A B2 K L P add "written from Athens."

1 Timothy. I To Timothy א A K; so D F G, adding "begun;" I Epistle of Paul to Timothy P; First Epistle of Paul to Timothy L. Sub. I To Timothy א A D P; A adding "written from Laodicea;" P "written from Nicopolis;" D adds "ended;" I Epistle to Timothy, ended F G; First (L adds "Epistle of the holy Apostle Paul") to Timothy, written from Laodicea, which is the chief city of Phrygia of Kapatiana (not Pacatiana, as Authorised Version) K L.

2 Timothy. II To Timothy א A D F G K P; D F G adding "began;" P adding "Epistle of Paul;" II Epistle of the holy Apostle Paul to Timothy L. Sub. II To Timothy א A C P; so D F G, adding "ended;" A adds "written from Laodicea;" P, "written from Rome;" Second (L adds "of the holy Apostle Paul") to Timothy, ordained first bishop of the church of the Ephesians: written from Rome when Paul was brought a second time before Nero Caesar of Rome, K L.

Titus. To Titus א A K; so D F G, adding "begun;" Epistle to Titus P; so H, adding "of the Apostle Paul;" The Epistle of the holy Apostle Paul to Titus L. Sub. To Titus א A C D F G K P; D adding "ended;" F G adding "Epistle ended;" A adding "written from Nicopolis;" P, "written from . . . .; "Epistle of the Apostle Paul to Titus H; so L, putting "holy Apostle;" H K L add, after "Titus," "ordained first bishop of the church of the Cretans, written from Nicopolis of Macedonia."

Philemon. To Philemon א A; so D F G, adding "begun;" Epistle of Paul to Philemon K L P; L adding "holy Apostle." Sub. To Philemon א C D K P; D adding "ended;" P' adding "written from Rome;" K adding "written from Rome, by Onesimus a servant;" Epistle of [the] holy Apostle Paul to Philemon and Apphian, master of Onesimus, and to Archippus, the deacon of the Colossian church: written from Rome, by Onesimus a servant L.

Hebrews. To [the] Hebrews א A B K; Epistle of Paul to [the] Hebrews P; written from Italy, by Timotheus: the Epistle to [the] Hebrews M; Epistle of the holy and all-praiseworthy Apostle Paul to [the] Hebrews L. Sub. To [the] Hebrews א A C K P; K adding "written from Italy by Timotheus;" A adding "written from Rome;" P adding "written from Italy."

James. Epistle of James B K; Catholic Epistle of the holy Apostle James L. Sub. Of James B; Epistle of James א A; End [of the] Catholic Epistle of the holy Apostle James L.

1 Peter. I of Peter B; I Epistle of Peter א A C K; I Catholic Epistle of the holy and all-praiseworthy Apostle Peter L. Sub. I of Peter א A B; I Catholic Epistle of the holy Apostle Peter L.

2 Peter. II of Peter א A B; II Epistle of Peter C K; Second Catholic Epistle of the holy Apostle Peter L. Sub. II of Peter א A B; catholic of Peter C; Second Epistle of the holy Apostle Peter L.

1 John. I of John A B; I Epistle of John א K; Catholic Epistle of the holy Apostle John L. Sub. I of John א A B; I Catholic Epistle of the holy and all-praiseworthy Apostle and Divine John L.

2 John. II of John א B; II Catholic Epistle of John K; Second Epistle of the holy Apostle John the Divine L. Sub. II of John א A B; II Epistle of John L.

3 John. III of John א B; III Epistle of John C; Third Epistle of the holy Apostle John L. Sub. III of John א A B; III Epistle of John C; III Epistle of the holy Apostle John L.

Jude. Of Jude א B; Epistle of Jude A C K; Epistle of the holy Apostle Jude L. Sub. Of Jude א B; Epistle of Jude A; Catholic Epistle of Jude C K; Epistle of the holy Apostle Jude L.

Revelation. Revelation of John. א C; Revelation of the Apostle and Evangelist John P. Title of A has perished, and these are all we have of the ancient uncials of the Revelation. Some of the cursives read, "Revelation of the holy Apostle John;" others add "the Divine." Sub. Revelation of John א A.

From the above it will be seen that the word "Catholic," to what are known as the Catholic Epistles, is not to be found in the oldest manuscripts. Also the copies differ as to where certain of the Epistles were written, and, of course, some cannot be correct. Paley says that six of the subscriptions in the Authorized Version are false or improbable — 1 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Titus. In some copies at the end of an Epistle, along with the subscription, was added the heading of the next Epistle. This prevented anything being intercepted between the two.

The Canon of Scripture.

Having said that everything connected with scripture will bear the fullest investigation, we must not conceal the fact that with some of the earliest copies of the New Testament there were placed other writings or epistles besides those now contained in our New Testament. And a very natural question is, if we take chiefly the old Greek copies for our guide as to the true text, how is it that we do not also take them for a guide as what is called the "Canon* of scripture;" that is, what books should be deemed to be scripture, and what should be excluded?

{*'Canon,' in the Greek and Latin, signifies 'a rule or standard by which other things are tried.' (Paul uses it in this sense in Gal. 6: 16, and Phil. 3: 16.) We commonly apply it to what we believe to be the true and complete list of inspired books. If our list is true and complete, it tries and condemns all others. We say our books are canonical and others are spurious or apocryphal.}

In the first place we must look at what books were placed with the early copies of the New Testament. They are as follows

א Codex Sinaiticus. With this copy were placed the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas; only a portion of the latter remains.

A. Codex Alexandrinus. With this were placed the Epistles of Clement of Rome. At present only the first Epistle is remaining, and a small portion of the second. The first Epistle is supposed to be a genuine work of Clement, but great doubt is entertained as to the second.

Codex Vaticanus. The latter portion of this manuscript is lost; therefore we cannot tell what was or was not appended to it.

Codex Ephraemi. Only portions of this manuscript remain, and will not help us.

Codex Bezae. This also consists only of fragments of the New Testament.

D. Codex Claromontanus. (D. in Paul's Epistle, not in the Gospels) contains Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, and the Apocalypse of Peter.

Now it will be seen from the above that of the early Greek copies which are complete all contain additional books, though of those which have other writings appended to them, no two copies agree in selecting the same books. Neither do those few here named comprise nearly the whole of the rejected books. There are about a score of different "Gospels," a dozen "Acts," a dozen "Epistles," and four or five "Revelations." Of the mass of these we suppose there can be no doubt among sober Christians as to their being uncanonical though most of them profess to have been written by one or other of the Apostles or their immediate successors.

Of course Barnabas may have written a letter or epistle, without in any way intending it as an "inspired" epistle. Indeed it seems to bear internal evidence of this; for he twice says that he had written 'to the best of his ability,' which is not in any way the language of one professing to be inspired.

Clement of Rome too may have written letters without dreaming of their ever being thought to be a part of scripture and being bound up with the New Testament.

The use others have made of these letters is another thing, but for that the writers may be in no way to blame.

Still the question arises why do we reject them, and how has the canon of scripture been formed? To this the common answer will be that the church determined the canon. But we must say that we do not consider this a sufficient answer, and it gives rise to the questions: When did the church settle it? Was it the church that settled it? and was the church in a fit state to settle such a question?

The church of Rome says that we cannot know what is scripture and what is not, except as that church tells us. After it has decided we can know but not before.

But if this were so, we should be obliged to receive the Apocrypha of the Old Testament, for the church of Rome has declared that to be canonical. This we cannot do.

And if we turn from the church of Rome, whence are we to turn for the church to decide such a question? If we go back before the church of Rome set up its claims, all is uncertain and in confusion.

We have seen that other epistles were placed along with the scripture; but besides this there is proof from the early fathers that Clement's epistles were read in most of the churches on the Lord's day, and that they were universally received. And also that the Shepherd of Hermas was read in many churches.

But the question becomes more serious if we appeal to the early church; for it is no longer a question of a few epistles, which we hope to prove to be spurious, but as to whether some of the real epistles are scripture or not: for while some received the spurious, they refused some parts of what we hold and maintain to be inspired.

We are not sure that any of our received books were omitted from any of the Greek copies, because many of them are only in fragments; but the early Syriac (the Peshito) did not contain 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. And it is the judgment of some of the best writers that the Old Latin copies did not contain all the books now received.

The following give some of the early fathers, and two of the Councils, who have given lists of the books of the New Testament.

Origen, A.D. 210. Is doubtful of James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John.

Eusebius, A.D. 315. His catalogue agrees with our Testament, but he says the Epistles of James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation, were doubted of by some.

Athanasius, A.D. 315. The same as ours.

Cyril, A.D. 340. Omits the Revelation.

Council of Laodicea, A.D. 364. Omits the Revelation.

Epiphanius, A.D. 370. The same as ours.

Gregory Naz., A.D. 375. Omits the Revelation.

Philastrius, A.D. 380. Omits the Hebrews and the Revelation.

Augustine, A.D. 305. The same as ours.

Jerome, A.D. 382. Speaks doubtingly of the Hebrews, but admits it.

Council of Carthage, about 400. The same as ours.

It will be seen that the majority give the list the same as we now have it in our Testament; but it appears a poor and unsatisfactory thing if we have nothing more substantial than this to rest our faith upon, as to what is scripture and what is not.

And if we come to the great Reformers in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, we are not much better off. Erasmus denied the apostolic origin of the Hebrews, 2 Peter, and the Revelation, but left their canonical authority unquestioned. It is doubtful what Erasmus would mean by this, for he might have meant by "canonical" that which was ordered by the 'canons' of the church; for he was very anxious not to break away from the church of Rome. It would have been better if he and others had referred to God, and said distinctly whether they believed that the books were from God or not.

Luther spoke disrespectfully of the Hebrews, Jude, James, and the Revelation, and set them aside at the end of his version. Melanchthon is believed to have sided pretty much with Luther. Carlstadt also had his list of doubtful books. Calvin doubted the authenticity of 2 Peter, James, and Jude. We will quote his words as to Jude, as a specimen of how this good man treated some parts of scripture: "Though there was a dispute among the ancients respecting this epistle, yet as the reading of it is useful, and as it contains nothing inconsistent with the purity of apostolic doctrine, and was received as authentic by some of the best, I willingly add it to the rest." As to whether it was of God or not, seems never to have entered the Reformer's mind.

Now, though we cannot refer back and say that the church, or those who seemed to be pillars in the church, have always counted our present list of books to be authentic, yet we can say that very early the list was completed as we now have it, and was believed to contain all the New Testament scripture, and nothing but the scripture; and, further, we doubt not that this has been the judgment and conviction of the great mass of Christians for centuries, altogether apart from any order of council that it should be so, and altogether beyond the doubts that any might attempt to throw upon any one of its books.

We doubt not this conviction has been of God. How very few could enter into the questions that have been raised as to the canon of scripture, but they are in no wise troubled about it and rightly so; they believe that God caused the book to be written, and they call it — all of it — the word of God, rest their faith upon what it says, and lay open their consciences to what it enjoins.

The question indeed is simple if we start with God. He caused a volume to be written. Can we suppose that He would be more indifferent than any human author would be as to whether any that He wrote was missing? or, on the other hand, whether anything should be palmed off as His which was not His? Surely not. No human author would allow this, and sure we are that God has not allowed this; but that He has in His wisdom caused all that He has had written to be collected together, and all that was not inspired to be rejected.

Faith then — faith in God — makes us certain, as to the canon of the New Testament, and we need no external evidence to prove it.

Here we might well let the matter rest, but in order to complete our sketch we would ask our christian readers to take a view of the beautiful symmetry of the New Testament. The four portraits of our Lord in the four Gospels — Son of David, Servant, Son of man, Son of God; the giving of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost; and the founding of the church in the Acts; Epistles on doctrine, the standing of the Christian, practical ordering of the church, the hope of the individual Christian in expecting his Lord, and his practical walk in the meanwhile: some addressed to various churches, and some to the Jewish converts who had peculiar difficulties to overcome, but containing principles necessary for all. Pastoral epistles for individual guidance when failure had begun to set in; and lastly, a prophecy of coming events, carried on to the end of time.

Is there any one of the books we could spare without leaving a deep chasm? Not one. Is there anything we need to be added? Nothing. There is no place to put it. Its symmetry is perfect. It cannot be added to; it must not be tken from. It is of God. Let us receive it with thankful confidence, and bow to its authority.

We may also profitably compare it with the Old Testament, and this all the more convinces us that but one mind runs through the whole; that one Person is the author of it all. And this is the more to be admired, when we remember that in some cases the writers were entirely unknown to each other, and many hundreds of years elapsed between the parts being written; yet there is no clashing, no variance, but a beautiful harmony running through it all. True it is that we need anointed eyes to see its beauties; but this should in no way discourage us, but rather urge us on to seek that anointing, that we may be able to see, and seeing to admire, that which is surely and emphatically the handywork of God.

We will, however, let our readers glance at two or three of the epistles which were bound up with the New Testament and read in the churches; and. we confidently believe that they will instinctively perceive that they are not a part of scripture.

The Epistle of Barnabas.

This is supposed to have been written by the companion of Paul, and is quoted by Clemens, Alexandrinus, and by Origen, apparently as scripture. Eusebius and Jerome also judged the epistle to be genuine, but not a part of scripture. It is now, however, much called in question whether it was written by that Barnabas.

We quote Barnabas as to the scape-goat: "How, then, ran the commandment? Give your attention. Take two goats of goodly aspect, and similar to each other, and offer them. And let the priest take one as a burnt-offering for sins [the Cod. Sin. reads 'one as a burnt-offering and one for sins']. And what shall they do with the other? 'Accursed,' says he, 'is the one.' Mark how the type of Jesus now comes out. 'And all of you spit upon it, and pierce it, and encircle its head with scarlet wool, and thus let it be driven into the wilderness.' And when all this has been done, he who bears the goat brings it into the desert, and takes the wool off from it and places that upon a shrub which is called Rachia. . . . Why, then again, is this? Give good heed — 'One upon the altar, and the other accursed;' and why the one that is accursed crowned? Because they shall see Him then in that day, having a scarlet robe about His body down to His feet; and they shall say, Is not this He whom we once despised, and pierced, and mocked, and crucified? . . . . But why is it that they place the wool among thorns? It is a type of Jesus set before the view of the church: that any one who wishes to bear it away, may find it necessary to suffer much, because the thorn is formidable, and thus obtain it only as the result of suffering." (Chap. vii.)

Now it may be, as to the scarlet wool on the goat, that Barnabas only followed the Jewish traditions, but he does not quote it as that (for he writes against the Jews), and he says "How ran the commandment?" Then he is quite wrong in saying one goat was for a burnt-offering, or a burnt-offering for sins. Both goats were a sin-offering, and had nothing to do with the burnt-offering. These things and the fanciful interpretation of the wool on the thorn stamp it emphatically as not being inspired, and not a part of scripture.

Barnabas writes concerning circumcision:— "Abraham, the first who enjoined circumcision looking forward in spirit to Jesus, practised that rite, having received the mysteries of the three letters. For it saith, 'And Abraham circumcised ten and eight, and three hundred men of his household.' The ten and the eight are thus denoted — Ten by I, and eight by H. You have Jesus [that is the first two letters in the Greek for Jesus, 'ΙΗΣΟΥΣ]. And because the cross was to express grace by the letter T, he said also 'Three hundred ' [that is, in Greek, T stands for 300, I for 10, H for 8 — in all, 318]. He signifies, therefore, Jesus by two letters and the cross by one. He knows thus who has put within us the engrafted gift of His doctrine. No one has been admitted by me to a more excellent piece of knowledge than this, but I know that ye are worthy." (Chap. ix.)

Surely this is trifling with scripture. And taking the last sentence of the quotation as true, we may dismiss Barnabas as not to be named along with scripture, wondering the more how it could have been placed in the same book with the word of God and how it could have been read in the churches.

The Epistle of Clement.

The first Epistle of Clement was written to the Corinthians, apparently on their consulting him amid great dissension in the church: he writes thus severely:

"It is disgraceful, beloved, yea, highly disgraceful and unworthy of your christian profession, that such a thing should be heard of as that the most stedfast and ancient church of the Corinthians should, on account of one or two persons, engage in sedition against its presbyters. And this rumour has reached not only us, but those also who are unconnected with us; so that, through your infatuation, the name of the Lord is blasphemed, while danger is also brought upon yourselves." (Chap. xlvii.)

A great deal is said about repentance, love, and good works; but sacrifices to be offered at Jerusalem by the high priest are strangely interwoven with the exhortations. In chapters xl. and xli., under the heading of "Let us preserve in the church the order appointed by God," is the following:

"These things, therefore, being manifest to us, and since we look into the depths of the divine knowledge, it behoves us to do all things in order. He has enjoined offerings, and service to be performed, and that not thoughtlessly or irregularly, but at the appointed times and hours . . . . Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed times, are accepted and blessed; for inasmuch as they follow the laws of the Lord, they sin not. For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve upon the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen . . . . Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered . . . . but in Jerusalem only . . . . that which is offered being first carefully examined by the high priest and the ministers already mentioned. Those, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is agreeable to His will, are punished by death. Ye see, brethren, that the greater the knowledge that has been vouchsafed to us, the greater also is the danger to which we are exposed."

As we have said, this is placed under a heading as to the order appointed by God in the church. And Clement writes the above to the Gentiles at Corinth. One has only to compare it with the Epistle to the Galatians to see how entirely unscriptural it is.

When speaking of the "ministers in the church" he speaks of bishops (or overseers), and deacons, being appointed and says, "Nor was this any new thing, since, indeed, many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the scripture, in a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'" (Chap. xlii.)

This is doubtless intended for a quotation from Isaiah 60: 17 from the LXX, but altered by Clement to suit his purpose: for the LXX reads, "I will make thy princes peaceable, and thine overseers righteous." The absurdity of quoting this passage to prove that bishops and deacons were not a new thing, must be obvious to all our readers.

As an emblem of the resurrection, Clement relates the heathen fable of the phoenix living five hundred years, and then rising again as a fresh bird from its own ashes. And then says that God "even by a bird shews up the mightiness of His power to fulfil His promise." (Chaps. xxv., xxvi.)

Surely these extracts are sufficient to prove that the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians is not inspired, and forms no part of the word of God.

The Shepherd of Hermas.

This is divided into Visions, Commands, and Similitudes. We give the substance of one of the Similitudes, that our readers may perceive how entirely different it is from scripture.

"Seest thou this vine and this elm? 'Sir,' said I, 'I see them.' This vine, saith he, is fruitful, but the elm is a tree without fruit. Nevertheless this vine, unless it were set by this elm, and supported by it, would not bear much fruit, but lying alone upon the ground, would bear but ill fruit, because it did not hang upon the elm: whereas, now, being supported upon the elm, it bears fruit both for itself and for that. See, therefore, how the elm gives no less, but rather more fruit, than the vine . . . . This Similitude, therefore, is set forth to the servants of God; and it represents the rich and poor man.

"I answered, 'Sir, make this manifest unto me.' Hear, said he, the rich man has wealth; howbeit, towards the Lord he is poor: for he is taken up about his riches, and prays but little to the Lord; and the prayers which he makes are lazy and without force. When, therefore, the rich man reaches out to the poor those things which he wants, the poor man prays unto the Lord for the rich; and God grants unto the rich man all good things, because the poor man is rich in prayer, and his requests have great power with the Lord . . . . They are, therefore, both made partakers of each other's good works. Whosoever, therefore, shall do these things, he shall not be forsaken by the Lord, but shall be written in the book of life. Happy they who are rich and perceive themselves to be increased: for he that is sensible of this will be able to minister somewhat to others."

Of this writer Origen says, "I fancy that that Hermas [mentioned in Romans 16: 14] is the author of the tract which is called The Shepherd, a writing which seems to me very useful, and is, as I fancy, divinely inspired [!]"

In dealing with the spurious books of New Testament times, it is well to remember the introduction of Luke's Gospel, which seems to imply that there were false accounts even then in existence: "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which, from the beginning, were eye witnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed." There being many (and they must be spurious because many, for God had caused only three others to be written, and John's is very generally believed to have been written later), he would write one, by which Theophilus might be certain of the things he had been taught.

Another reference in scripture to spurious writings is in 2 Thessalonians 2: 2: "That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand."

Here the apostle intimates that they may have been troubled by some message or letter purporting to come from him which he had not sent, and warns them not to be troubled by any such things.

In the end of the same epistle Paul says, "The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write." (Chap. 3: 17.)

It was the custom of Paul to employ an amanuensis to write his epistles, see Romans 16: 22 (the Galatians he wrote himself: Gal. 6: 11), but at the end he wrote a few words with his own hand, or, we suppose, signed his name, that it might be a token to them of its genuineness. (See 1 Cor. 16: 21; Philemon 19.)

Of the other pretended epistles besides these we have named, there is not one but is manifestly not of God.

Some mention events that happened a long while after the pretended author's death. Thus for instance, in the "Constitutions of the Apostles," there is reference to the controversy about the re-baptism of heretics, which did not arise till the third century.

Some mention persons that did not live until long after the pretended author's death. Thus the book under the name of Hegesippus (who lived in the second century), mentions Constantine and Constantinople which could not be before the fourth century.

The Questions and Answers under the name of Justin Martyr, mention Irenaeus and Origen, who both lived after his time.

There are, however, still one or two points to be cleared up touching the canon of the New Testament. The first is in Colossians 4: 16, we read, "When this epistle is read amongst you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea."

This last sentence, "read the Epistle from Laodicea," has given rise to the thought that Paul had written another Epistle to Laodicea which was to be passed on to the Colossians after being read at Laodicea, in the same way that the Epistle to Colosse was to be passed on to Laodicea. And if so, what has become of that Epistle? and is the canon of scripture complete without it?

In the first place it must be noticed that the word does not speak of an Epistle to Laodicea, but "the epistle from (εκ) Laodicea;" and may refer to

1. The Epistle to the Ephesians, which, perhaps, was being circulated from one to another, and was coming to Colosse, from Laodicea.

2. It may refer to a letter written from Laodicea to Paul, stating things of general interest, a copy of which Paul sent on to Colosse for them to read; or it might be a letter evincing a certain state of things at Laodicea which Paul judged would be well met by his letter to Colosse being read there also; and so Paul not only requested them to send on his Epistle to Laodicea, but also thus shewed them in fellowship the reason for his so doing.

3. It may have been an epistle written by Paul to Laodicea, and which was coming from thence to Colosse, a letter of general interest, but not inspired, and which was not intended to form a part of scripture. There is no reason for believing that we have all the letters that Paul wrote, or that all he wrote were inspired.

In none of these cases would the canon of scripture be touched, which is the point under consideration; and here we might be content to leave the matter but that there is in existence the copy of a letter entitled "The Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans," which some have contended ought to form a part of scripture.

We give a copy of this epistle, from an old manuscript at Padua in Venice, that the reader may judge whether such an epistle is at all likely to have been written by Paul; not that the wording is not generally correct and scriptural, but that on the whole there seems no special point or object in it; indeed, it is supposed to be merely a compilation of portions of the epistles by Paul gathered together and made into a separate letter. By the side of the epistle we give the places from which the extracts may have been taken.

The Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans.

1. Paul an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, to the brethren which are at Laodicea.

[Paul an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ," etc. (Gal. 1: 1.)]

2. Grace be to you, and peace from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

[Grace be to you, and peace from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ." (Gal. 1: 3.)]

3. I thank Christ in every prayer of mine, that ye continue and persevere in good works, looking for that which is promised in the day of judgment.

["I thank my God upon every remembrance of you . . . for your fellowship in the gospel, from the first day until now," etc. (Phil. 1: 3, 5.)]

4. Let not the vain speeches of any trouble you, who pervert the truth, that they may draw you aside from the truth of the gospel which I have preached.

["There be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ," etc. (Gal. 1: 7.)]

5. And now may God grant that my converts may attain to a perfect knowledge of the truth of the gospel, be beneficent, and doing good works which accompany salvation.

6. And now my bonds, which I suffer in Christ, are manifest, in which I rejoice and am glad.

[My bonds in Christ are manifest." (Phil. 1: 13.)]

7. For I know that this shall turn to my salvation for ever, which shall be through your prayer, and the supply of the Holy Spirit.

["For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ." (Phil. 1: 19.)]

8. Whether I live or die; [for] to me to live shall be a life to Christ; to die will be joy.

["Whether it be by life or by death, for to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain." (Phil. 1: 20, 21.)]

9. And our Lord will grant us His mercy, that ye may have the same love, and be like-minded.

["That ye be like-minded, having the same love." (Phil. 2: 2.)]

10. Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have heard of the coming of the Lord, so think and act in fear, and it shall be to you life eternal:

["Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, .... work out your own salvation with fear." (Phil. 2: 12.)]

11. For it is God who worketh in you.

["For it is God who worketh in you." (Phil. 2: 13.)]

12. And do all things without sin.

["Do all things without murmuring, etc., v. 15, that ye may be blameless." (Phil. 2: 14.)]

13. And what is best, my beloved, rejoice in the Lord Jesus Christ, and avoid all filthy lucre.

["Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. (Phil. 3: 1.)]

14. Let all your requests be made known to God, and be steady in the doctrine of Christ.

["Let your requests be made known unto God. (Phil. 4: 6.)]

15. And whatsoever things are sound, and true, and of good report, and chaste, and just, and lovely, these things do.

["Whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report," etc. (Phil. 4: 8.)]

16. Those things which ye have heard, and received, think on these things, and peace shall be with you.

["Those things which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen — do, and the God of peace shall be with you." (Phil. 4: 9.)]

17. All the saints salute you.

["All the saints salute you." (Phil. 4: 22.)]

18. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.

["The grace of our Lord Jesus be with your spirit. Amen." (Gal. 6: 18.)]

19. Cause this Epistle to be read to the Colossians, and the Epistle of the Colossians to be read among you.*

["And when this Epistle is read amongst you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise read the Epistle from Laodicea." (Col. 4: 16.)]

{*From Jones, On the Canon of the New Testament.}

The reader will see by the above how very improbable it is that Paul ever wrote such an epistle as this professing to be from him to the Laodiceans.

Another passage that has been thought by some to allude to a lost epistle is 1 Corinthians 5: 9 "I wrote unto you in an epistle not to keep company with fornicators." The first word is έγραψα, the aorist indicative, 'I wrote,' but some translate it 'I have written' — 'I wrote unto you in the epistle (εν τη επιστολη) not to mix with fornicators.'

The first question is what epistle is referred to? Does the passage refer to some part of this First Epistle, or does it point to an epistle sent before this First Epistle? Some refer to verses 2 and 7 of this same chapter as being the parts alluded to but they do not seem to be sufficiently to the point to justify the language "I wrote to you not to mix with fornicators." It is to be noticed that in verse 11 we have the same word for 'wrote' with the addition of 'now.' "But now I wrote to you," or "now I have written to you." Others think that verse 9 refers to a former epistle, and verse 11 to the present one; and they would translate the former 'I wrote,' and the latter 'I write,' 'now I write' (though the two words are precisely the same: the aorist). Others refer both verses to a former epistle, taking the word 'now' in the sense of 'this is my meaning.' And others refer both verses to the present epistle.

It should be observed that in the Second Epistle (2 Cor. 7: 8), there are the same three words as in our verse 9: εν τη επιστολη, 'in the epistle,' and these, by the context, clearly refer to the First Epistle: why, therefore, may not the same words in the First Epistle refer to one still earlier? Supposing this were so, let us see what would be involved.

The conclusion might hastily be formed that an epistle was lost, and the canon of scripture not complete. But let it be noticed that the same Greek word is sometimes used for a 'letter' as is used for an 'epistle' (see Acts 9: 2; 2 Cor. 3: 1), so that the references in 1 Corinthians 5 may refer to some letter which Paul wrote to the Corinthians, but which was not inspired and is not preserved as a part of scripture. As we have seen before, there is no reason to suppose that all the letters the apostles wrote have been preserved to us. All they wrote to form a part of "the word of God" are preserved, but they may have written much more than what was intended to form a part of scripture (see 1 Cor. 16: 3), as, in a similar way, our Lord did many things which are not preserved to us in the Gospels. (John 21: 25.) To this we need only add that there is in existence another Epistle to the Corinthians, said to be by Paul. It was not apparently known to the early Fathers. One thing is certain, it cannot be the letter above referred to; for in it there is no caution not to associate with fornicators — the subject is not touched upon. It is further proved to be a forgery by this sentence, "I, from the beginning, did teach you the very same thing which I received from the former apostles, who had constant conversation with the Lord." This is directly the opposite of what Paul said of his ministry. See 1 Corinthians 11: 23; Galatians 1: 12; Ephesians 3: 2, 3.

This is all we need say on the canon of scripture. In taking up the writings of the Fathers, one is struck with the strong contrast there is between "the word of God," and the writings of even the immediate successors of the apostles. While one grieves at what appears such a declension, on the other hand it is well that there should be a deep line of separation between that which is "the word of God," and that which is the writings of men.

It is indeed surprising to find human writings attached to the scriptures, and that they were read in the churches. The formation of the canon of scripture was doubtless a work of time, and great respect was naturally shewn to those who had been companions of the apostles; but it must not be forgotten that long after that canon was settled, passages from apocryphal books were read in churches, as indeed in the Established Church of England — read, as the Prayer Book says, "for example of life and instruction of manners," but not "to establish any doctrine." And this, after so many years, is more surprising than that it should have been done before the canon was settled.

To revert again for a moment as to the settlement of the canon. It may suffice most to say that all Christians, all over the world, receive the canon as we now have it. Or a Christian can base it on faith, and say, "I believe that God caused the book to be written, and that He has preserved it to us intact. He has told us that it must not be added to nor taken from." (Rev. 22: 18, 19.) And, as one has well said, "this method of faith — the simplest and the shortest for establishing the certainty of the canon — is also unquestionably the most beneficial and the surest;" (Gaussen) and, we add, it is the only method that is suited for the simple and unlettered Christian, while we believe it is the only solid ground for the learned.

The Authorised Version of 1611.

We now turn to our venerable Authorised Version, with a view to ascertain, as far as we can, from what Greek text it was taken, and also to see what light all that has come before us throws upon the question of its integrity. We will first glance at the original preface.

The translators feared that their work would be evilly spoken of, for no one had ever sought to do any good for the people, but had been maligned: "Whosoeuer attempteth any thing," said they, "for the publicke (specially if it pertaine to Religion, and to the opening and clearing of the word of God) the same setteth himselfe vpon a stage to be glouted vpon by euery euil eye, yea, he casteth himselfe headlong vpon pikes, to be gored by euery sharpe tongue."

But this did not daunt them: they well asked, "What pietie without trueth? What trueth (what sauing trueth) without the word of God? What word of God (whereof we may be sure) without the scripture?"

They had profound reverence for the scripture "The originall thereof being from heaven, not from earth; the author being God, not man; the enditer the Holy Spirit, not the wit of the apostles or prophets . . . the form, God's word, God's testimony, God's oracles, the word of truth, the word of salvation, etc. . . . happy is the man that delighteth in the scripture, and thrice happy that meditateth on it day and night."

But how could men meditate upon what they could not understand because of being in an unknown tongue? "Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain that we may look into the most holy place."

But then the question was raised, Was there any need of a new translation, seeing the Bible was already in the English tongue? "Hath the church been deceived, say they, all this while? Hath her sweet bread been mingled with leaven, her silver with dross, her wine with water, her milk with lime?" On the other hand, others said, "Why do they now mend it? Was it not good?" The translators explain that they had no desire to find fault with any of their predecessors, but thought it good to go over the same work again to seek to make it more perfect. As secular books had been gone over again and again, "What ought we not to bestow upon the vine, the fruit whereof maketh glad the conscience of man, and the stem thereof abideth for ever?" They did not seek to make a good translation out of a bad one, but "to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against."

They tell us that they translated the Old Testament from the Hebrew, and the New from the Greek; but do not tell us what Greek text they used. This we can only arrive at by comparing it with the Greek texts then in existence.

Of other matters they then speak. The first point is in favour of marginal readings in points of difficulty, rather than giving one sole interpretation.

The next point is that the translators refuse to be bound in any way to translate the same Greek word by the same English word, even when the sense is precisely the same. They defended their diversity very curiously: "For as it has been written of a certain great philosopher, that he should say that those logs were happy that were made images to be worshipped: for their fellows, as good as they, lay for blocks behind the fire! so if we should say, as it were, unto certain words, Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible always; and to others of like quality, Get ye hence, be banished for ever, we might be taxed peradventure, with St. James's words, namely, To be partial in ourselves, and judges of evil thoughts . . . . niceness in words was always counted the next step to trifling."

They commend the reader to God and to the Spirit of His grace, which was able to build them up further than the translators could tell or think; and thus warn their readers: "If light be come into the world, love not darkness more than light; if food, if clothing be offered, go not naked, starve not yourselves."

From other sources we ascertain that the following were among the rules laid down for the guidance of the translators:

"1. The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.

"2. The names of the prophets and the holy writers with the other names in the text, to be retained as near as may be, according as they are vulgarly used.

"3. The old ecclesiastical words to be used: as the word church not to be translated congregation, etc.

"4. When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place, and the analogy of faith.

"5. The divisions of the chapters to be altered either not at all, or as little as may be, if necessity so require.

"6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.

"7. Such quotations of places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit reference of one scripture to another.

[Then follow rules as to how the work was to be apportioned out to different translators and finally revised.]

"14. These translations to be used, when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible viz., 1, Tyndale's; 2, Matthew's; 3, Coverdale's; 4, Whitchurche's (i.e., Cranmer's); 5, The Geneva."*

{* Anderson's "Annals of the English Bible."}

It will be seen that the above rules do not give any intimations to the translators as to what Greek text should be taken. And indeed there was the less need for any such instructions, seeing that the Greek texts then in vogue differed little from one another; and anything beyond them was but little known at that time. Still variations were known to exist, and it is a little surprising that no mention was made as to what text should be used.

As to date, the Authorised Version came in between the editions of Beza and those of Elzevir, but it is clear that the translators did not keep strictly to any one text then in existence; for whereas their version mostly agrees with the edition of Stephens 1550, in some places they chose Beza's text in preference.

It will have been seen from the above that the Authorised Version was rather a revision of the Bishops' Bible, than an entirely new translation. Now the Bishops' Bible was made by Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, assisted by some fifteen known scholars, and published in 1568, about thirty years before the last edition of Beza's Greek Testament; so that there can be no doubt that the translators of the Authorised Version referred to the editions of Beza; but as to why they chose his readings in some places in preference to those of Stephens 1550, we are quite in the dark; and it may be that in other places they simply followed the Bishops' Bible.

That they did not adopt Beza's text to the exclusion of Stephens's is also evident, for where the two texts differ they adopted about a score of Stephens's readings; and, strange to say, in some places they agree with neither Stephens nor Beza.

We will refer to these places with an endeavour to ascertain what could have guided the translators.

Matthew 2: 11. A.V., "they saw," with Complutensian and the Bishops' Bible. Stephens and Beza have "they found." Stephens had "they saw" in his margin, and this reading has been fully confirmed by the researches of modern editors. The Vulgate has invenerunt, "they found."

Matthew 9: 18. A.V., "a certain ruler," with Comp. and Vulgate. St. and Beza omit "certain." Modern editors are divided as to its insertion.

Matthew 10: 10. A.V., "staves," with Complutensian. St. and Beza, "staff." Stephens had "staves" in his margin, but this reading has not been conclusively established by further evidence.

Mark 4: 18. St. and Beza have (a second) "these are" before "such as hear the word." Comp. omits the words; but the translators may have thought the sense complete without their repetition.

Mark 5: 38. A.V., "and them that wept," with Erasmus and Vulgate. St. and Beza omit 'and,' but all modern Editors add it.

Mark 9: 42. A.V., had "these little ones," (with Comp. and Vulgate), but modern editions have 'these little ones.' St. and Beza omit 'these.' Modern Editors are divided as to its reception.

Mark 15: 3. A.V., "but he answered nothing," with Comp., Stephens 1546, 1549, and Bishops'. But St. 1550, Beza, and modern Editors omit the words.

Luke 3: 31. A.V. had "Menam" (with Erasmus and Bishops'), but modern editions have 'Menan' St. and Beza have Μαϊνάν, some Editors Μεννά.

Verse 35. A.V., "Heber," with Erasmus and. Bishops'. St. and Beza have 'Eber.' Editors are divided. It is only the difference of breathing in the Greek Ε.

Luke 12: 56. A.V., "of the sky and of the earth," with Comp., Vulgate, and Bishops'. St. and Beza "of the earth and of the sky" with all modern Editors.

Luke 20: 31. A.V., "the seven also, and they left," with Erasmus and Bishops'. St. Beza omit 'and' (reading 'the seven also left') confirmed by all modern Editors.

John 8: 6. A.V. (with Comp., Stephens 1546, 1549, and Bishops') had "as though he heard them not," in common type (put in italics in 1769). St. 1550 and Beza and all modern Editors omit.

Acts 7: 16. A.V. had 'Emor,' with Erasmus and Bishops'; but now it is printed 'Emmor.' St. and Beza have 'Εμμoρ, but most modern Editors Έμμωρ.

Acts 8: 13. A.V., "Miracles and signs," with Erasmus and Bishops'. St. and Beza, with best modern Editors, "signs and miracles."

Acts 27: 29. A.V., "we should have fallen," with Comp., Vulg., and Bishops'. St. and Beza, "they should have fallen." Stephens had the reading of A.V. in his margin, and it has been fully confirmed by modern editors.

Ephesians 6: 24. A.V. omitted "Amen" (with Vulgate), but it is added in later editions. St. and Beza, with most modern Editors, omit the word.

2 Timothy 1: 18. A.V., "he ministered unto me," with Vulgate and Bishops'. St. and Beza, with all Editors, omit 'unto me.'

Philemon 7. A.V., "joy," with Comp., Vulgate, and Bishops'. St. and Beza, 'return thanks' instead of 'have joy,' the word for 'return' or 'have' remaining unchanged; but 'joy' is confirmed by all subsequent Editors.

Hebrews 12: 24. A.V., το 'Αβελ, "than that of Abel," with Erasmus. St. and Beza τον 'Αβελ, reading "than Abel."

2 Peter 1: 1. A.V., "Simon (Σίμων) Peter," with Comp. and Vulgate. St. and Beza, "Symeon (Συμεoν) Peter," with all modern Editors.

1 John 3: 16. A.V., "love of God," (with Comp. and Vulgate); but afterwards printed "love of God." St. and Beza, with all Editors,. omit 'of God.'

Jude 12. A. V., "feast with you," with Comp. and Bishops'. St. and Beza, with all Editors, omit 'with you.'

Revelation 11: 4. A.V., "the two candlesticks," with Comp. St. and Beza omit 'the;' but all modern Editors add the word.

Revelation 17: 4. A.V., "was arrayed," with Comp., Vulg., and Bishops'. St. and Beza omit 'was;' but niodern Editors add the word.

Revelation 18: 1. A.V., "another angel," with Comp., Erasmus and Bishops'. St. and Beza omit 'another;' but modern Editors add the word.

Verse 5. A.V., "have reached," with Comp., but St. and Beza have "followed." All modern Editors agree with the reading of A.V.

Revelation 19: 18. A.V., "both free and bond" (with Comp.), but later editions "both free and bond." St. and Beza omit 'both;' but modern Editors add the word.

Revelation 21: 13. A.V., "and on the west," with Comp., Vulg., and Bishops'. St. and Beza omit 'and,' but modern Editors add it.

It will be seen that the translators in two of the places named may have followed the margin of Stephens, and in the others, the Complutensian, the Vulgate, or the Bishops.

In the main, however, the translators followed Stephens and Beza; but Beza had copied Stephens for the most part, and Stephens had copied Erasmus. This latter fact is striking in a few places. For Stephens in his edition of 1550 in some places abandoned his former text and all his manuscripts, in favour of readings given by Erasmus, and these were mostly retained in our Authorised Version.

Mill quotes the following instances of this going back, not to manuscripts, but to the printed edition of Erasmus:

Matthew 2: 11: 'they found,' instead of the correct reading, they saw:' already alluded to, as not being following by the Authorised Version.

Matthew 3: 8: 'fruits,' wrongly, instead of 'fruit.'

Mark 6: 33: 'the people saw,' instead of 'they saw,' the correct reading.

Mark 16: 8: 'they went out quickly;' 'quickly' should be omitted.

Luke 7: 31: 'And the Lord said,' omit the four words.

John 14: 30: 'the prince of this world,' instead of the true reading, 'the prince of the world.'

Acts 5: 23: 'the keepers standing without,' omit 'without.'

James 5: 9: 'lest ye be condemned,' instead of the true reading, 'lest ye be judged.'

In all the above cases more recent researches have proved that Stephens made a mistake in leaving his manuscripts: they were right, and Erasmus wrong.

It might naturally have been supposed that as Beza had additional manuscripts, his text would have been purer than that of Stephens; but this is certainly not the case in all places. Romans 7: 6 is a remarkable instance of a false reading in Beza, and which found its way into the Authorised Version, although right in Stephens 1550. Beza gave αποθανόντος which makes the passage read that the law was dead; αποθανόντες is the right reading, and this makes the persons to have died: the difference is doctrinally of great importance. The false reading, though supported by no Greek manuscript and by no version, was copied into the Elzevir text.

This will help us in the consideration as to whether the Authorised Version needs revision. There are two things that must never be confounded. First, what are the true Greek words that ought to be translated? and, secondly, how are they to be translated? Our question is concerning the former only, and not the latter. While all speak highly of the Authorised Version as a translation, most admit that in this it may be improved in some places. The grave difficulties are, who are to make the alterations, and how much is to be altered, so that the work shall commend itself to Christians generally?

But our subject is the text to be translated. The above passage in Romans 7: 6 ought to convince any person that in some places a purer text ought to be taken. If our readers will also turn back to the variations in the Revelation, they will see that some of the readings in the Authorised Version have, as far as we have any means of knowing, absolutely no manuscript authority whatever. Surely such passages ought to be altered. But in many places the sense may not be affected; and if the text is to be altered, the grave question is, who is to do it, and do it in such a way that it shall, as in the translation, commend itself to all Christians? This is a much more difficult question than the translation of the text after that is fixed on. The translation may perhaps be amended to commend itself to most; but as to the text, only few are at all able to judge as to where the text needs altering, and will naturally cling to their time-honoured New Testament. If portions were left out, and others added, we can easily see how many good Christians would look upon the work with the greatest abhorrence, if not designate it as the work of Satan!

While this is being written, as is well known, there is a Committee of learned men revising the Authorised Version of the scriptures. Of course, they will have to consider both of the above questions; but we fear that of the two, their choice of text will be that which may give the least satisfaction, as it is undoubtedly the most difficult. Whether this revised translation will ever become the Authorised Version of this country remains to be seen.

But our readers will naturally expect that we should give them some sort of finger-post to guide them through the apparent labyrinth of the various readings shewn forth in uncials, cursives, versions, and fathers. First, let us repeat what we said at the commencement, that though there are thousands of various readings, they do not touch one of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. All these remain intact; still, as we need and desire to know the very words of our God, we should value every help that would lead us to a more correct text. To attain this we know of no better plan for the general reader than to be guided by the united judgment of the various editors. There have been men who have laboured diligently and faithfully in the task of discovering what was the text of the New Testament as God caused it to be written at the first. These laid down certain rules for themselves — one taking this path, and another that; but in many cases they all arrived at the same conclusion. Where this is so, we consider that the student of scripture will be safe in taking their united judgment as decisive for a reading.

As to the editors to be taken we should not advise going further back than Griesbach, and even since his day a great mass of evidence has came to light. Scholz may be omitted, for, as we have seen, he rejected his own plan of action before he died. We should say, take Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Green, and Wordsworth; and Westcott and Hort when published.*

{* The reader will find the readings of most of these editors in both Greek and English in the "Englishman's Greek New Testament" (Bagster).}

Of course we should recommend this for private study, and not for public use. We see no difficulty in the Authorised Version being used in public, as the Septuagint was used by our Lord and His apostles even where it is not an exact translation of the Hebrew — and only corrected where absolutely necessary. By this means we shall preserve the familiar and forcible language of the Authorised Version, and still be furnished by the above, together with some good new translation, which may also confirm the text to be used, with all we may need to arrive at a true text, and the translation of the same.

Verbal Inspiration.

We have still to consider the subject as to how far the variations of the manuscripts touch the verbal inspiration of the New Testament.

Many Christians fully believe that the very words of scripture are inspired; that is, that not simply the sense of scripture was directly from God, leaving the various writers to choose very much their own words, but that God also caused the writers to use His own words.

Without entering at any length into the question of inspiration, it may be well just to quote two or three passages that bear upon the verbal in spiration of scripture.

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Mark 13: 31.) "The words I speak unto you, they are spirit and are life." (John 6: 63.) "He that is of God heareth the words of God." (John 8: 47.) "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled." (Matt. 5: 18.) These passages may suffice, when taken with the passages usually quoted for the inspiration of the whole of scripture.

But those who disbelieve in the inspiration of the words of scripture, say, "Of what use is your belief in verbal inspiration, when we are not sure that we have the very words God caused to be written? The hundreds and thousands of variations in the manuscripts destroy your theory, or render it useless."

Now, in the first place, we must insist upon it that there are two separate and distinct questions to be considered — questions which should not be allowed to interfere with one another.

The first question is — Did God so control the writers of the scriptures that they wrote His words? We say, Yes. We have quoted some passages that speak of "words;" and we must hold this truth firmly. To give it up is to allow the thin end of the wedge of scepticism to come in between us and God as to His word. What distinct thought can we have, in speaking of a jot or tittle of the law not failing, if it is sufficient to consider its general sense? And how are we to arrive at the sense of scripture except through the words used? We consider that a Christian must hold with "verbal" inspiration, or he virtually gives up inspiration altogether at least in a way that is at all worthy of God, in giving us an infallible guide amid the surrounding darkness and error.

Now, if this point is once settled, it greatly simplifies the other, namely, "Have we a correct copy of that which God caused to be written?" Suppose for a moment I am obliged to say, "No, we have not a correct copy;" that in no way touches the other point, namely, that there were correct copies once. And if I believe that there were such, I naturally say, "I wish I had a correct copy." But, on the other hand, I have nothing to wish for if I deny that there ever were copies of "the words of God." If Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, gave only the sense of what God intended them to write, I have that in almost any Greek copy: why search any more? Why spend years of labour, and thousands of pounds, to get at that which never existed, namely, "the words of God?" I may labour diligently to get accurately what Paul wrote; but of what use is it, if, when I have arrived at it, I have Paul, and not God, except as to the general sense? This I have already in the common Greek text, and in the Authorised Version.

Thus we see that by believing in the verbal inspiration of the scripture is given the impetus to search after a correct text; but it surely is not worth the time and labour, if I have nothing to gain but the words of those who were merely the instruments. It is because God caused the writers to use His words that gives us the earnest desire to have a correct copy of these very words.

Now, with this desire before us, we must candidly admit that we may not have every word God caused to be written; that is what we desire and labour for. But if we have not every one, we have nearly all; there are places where we have not yet been able to say with certainty that we have the exact words. In some places the weight of evidence for two or more readings is so nearly balanced, that it is not for any one dogmatically to say what it was in the original.

As we have seen, the various readings do not touch one of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. These all stand out in their full lustre, as they came from the finger of God. But because it is the word of God, we want to know the words He used in every place. We do know them in the main; in thousands of passages there are no variations worth speaking of, nothing to disturb the commonly received version which has been in use in the church for so long. With the exceptions that have been named, we have the "words of God" as given in the New Testament. On these we hang our souls' salvation, and in these is the hope set before us, of soon seeing our blessed Lord, and being with Him, and like Him, for ever.

This is "Our Father's Will:" let us receive it devoutly; believe every word of it; and seek to obey it in all things.

You can have a happy life

You Can Have a Happy Life.

E. C. Hadley.

Index

Burden of Guilt

Dealing with Guilt

Seeking Peace

Obedience Needed

God Working

Peace of Mind

About Our Fears

Confessing Our Sins

Joy of Forgiveness

Path of Peace

Following the Shepherd

Adjusting Our Attitudes

Peace Assured

Trusting God

Provision of Prayer

Value of Thanksgiving

Example for Us

Learning from Him

Finding Rest

His Power

His Will

Searching Self

His Chastening

Examples of Chastening

His Purpose

Unselfish Service

Power over Sin

Happy Living

"These things I have spoken to you, that My joy may remain in you, and that your joy may be full." John 15: 11

Why are so many Christians restless, worried and unhappy, even though the verse above tells us clearly that this is not what God intends for His children? In this booklet, we hope to address this question to discover God's remedy so that we might be able to say with Paul, "I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content" (Phil. 4: 11).

BURDEN OF GUILT

One of the basic causes of unhappiness is a sense of guilt that burdens the conscience and robs the soul of peace. Before we can have true happiness there must be peace with God.

If there are any doubts about our peace with God, there can be no settled peace in the soul. If we are to succeed in finding peace, and the happiness that results from it, we must begin with this question of guilt and how it can be removed.

Guilt destroys happiness and peace. It breaks down self-esteem and robs us of self-confidence. How can we trust ourselves when we know that we have done many wrong things? We may try to run away from our conscience by pursuing earthly pleasure, or we may attempt to quiet its voice by reasoning that times have changed, and that now "everybody does it."

Still, there is that uneasy feeling that something is not right. We instinctively know that God has not changed and that sin never ceases to be sin. No matter how much we try to repress the guilty feeling, it is still there — making us restless, uneasy and fearful.

Coupled with a sense of guilt is a consciousness that we deserve to be punished. This increases our fear. God, who knows all about this, has said: "Be sure your sin will find you out" (Num. 32: 23). We cannot have peace and true happiness until the question of our guilt is settled in a way that is just.

Our God-implanted conscience, part of the moral nature of man, makes us feel guilty when we have done something wrong. It also makes us realize that we deserve punishment. Some try to ease their guilt by joining a church and getting involved in religious activities, but they know deep down that this will never bring peace.

DEALING WITH GUILT

Guilt produces a fear of God whom we know we have offended, and a fear of the punishment we instinctively know we deserve. There is only one way to lift this depressing sense of guilt and fear. It is through justification by faith in the redemptive work of Christ on the cross. In the epistle to the Romans, Paul deals directly with the question of our guilt and God's answer to it. There we read that all the world is guilty, but God provides the means for our justification: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus  -  that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom. 3: 23-24, 26).

In that same epistle, we also read of the results of that justification: "Having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ  -  And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation" (Rom. 5: 1, 11).  God's way not only lifts the depressing load of guilt but also gives us a consciousness of God's love that produces joy.

The guilt that once made us tremble at the thought of judgment now becomes the means by which we measure the love of God, who did not spare His own Son but delivered Him up for us. The memory of our guilt, becomes a wellspring of thanksgiving to God who redeemed us and justified us.

How can a guilty soul have peace with a holy God? The only answer is through the blood of the cross: "Without shedding of blood there is no remission" for sin (Heb. 9: 22). On the cross, Christ was made an offering for all our sins, and He bore the punishment due our sins (Isa. 53: 4-6, 10). This suffering and death of Christ are the only grounds upon which a righteous God and a guilty creature can be at peace.

SEEKING PEACE

Once a sinner acknowledges his sin, his first concern is how to obtain peace with God. But the great question is not, "How can a sinner make peace with his God?" It is, "How can a holy, sin-hating God make peace with this sinner?" God accomplished this by giving His Son as the sacrifice for sin: "Having made peace through the blood of His cross" (Col. 1: 20). It is not by any effort of the sinner that peace is made; God has already made peace through the blood of the cross.

Peace with God does not depend upon our feelings. We may deceive ourselves into believing we will come out all right in the end. But such false peace is the fruit of unbelief, for God plainly states, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3: 23). The only way to true peace is repentance; the Bible says, "Unless you repent you will — perish" (Luke 13: 5).

The first step to true peace then is to accept this fact. The next step is to believe God's evaluation of the sacrifice of Christ: "Who  -  when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high" (Heb. 1: 3). Peace is an accomplished fact; and God is so satisfied with that sacrifice for our sins that He has placed His Son at the right hand of His own throne in glory to prove it.

God always sees the believer as clothed in all the merits of that sacrifice, which washed away all his sins once for all and obtained eternal redemption for him (Heb. 9: 12). Therefore, God's attitude of peace towards the believer is unchanging because the sacrifice upon which it is based is perfect. However, the measure to which the believer enjoys it may vary greatly. If we get self-occupied we may lose the sense of it. We can only enjoy it as we rest in full assurance of faith in the sacrifice of Christ.

We may know that God is at peace with us through Christ and still not have a sense of the peace of God ruling in our hearts. Sin may bring us under the chastening hand of God. In chastening, He is only seeking to deliver us from those things which are robbing our souls of the enjoyment of His peace. (See Heb. 12: 5-11.) He chastens in love, not counting us as enemies, but always as His well-beloved children.

OBEDIENCE NEEDED

The conscience enlightened by the Word of God demands obedience to God who loves us and has redeemed us. If we do those things which displease Him, or if we leave undone things He wants us to do, our conscience accuses us and inward conflict results. We have no peace because we cannot quiet the voice of our conscience.

Besides the conscience, every believer in Christ also has the Spirit of God abiding in him. (See Rom. 8: 9, 15; Eph. 1: 13; Gal. 4: 6; 1 Cor. 6: 19.) One activity of the Spirit of God is to bring to our hearts the love of God, and to show the things of Christ to us (Rom. 5: 5; John 16: 14). Both give joy and peace to the soul, but "the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another" (Gal. 5: 17). The constant effort of the Spirit of God is to oppose the flesh and prompt us to do the will of God in obedience to the Word of God.

If we yield to the flesh we throw ourselves into conflict not only with our conscience, but also with the Spirit. On the other hand, if we yield to the Holy Spirit and to our conscience, He gives us the strength to do the will of God. And what happens then? Instead of inward conflict, we are in harmony with God, His Word, and His Spirit; and consequently we enjoy a deeper sense of His love and a fuller measure of His joy and peace.

When we walk in obedience to God's revealed will, we enjoy His love shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit (1 John 4: 9; Rom. 5: 5-8). Then we can say, "If God is for us, who can be against us?" (Rom. 8: 31). Trouble may be all around, but we will not fear because Psalm 4: 8 tells us: "I will both lie down in peace, and sleep; for You alone, O Lord, make me dwell in safety."

If we are disobedient, the peace of His presence will be lost and our conscience will accuse us while the Holy Spirit convicts us. When the Word of God is neglected, the soul does not enjoy peace. The power of God, which gave the heart confidence while walking with Him, will now work to humble us.

We will meet with disappointment. Plans will be overthrown. Things we thought would be sweet to the taste become bitter. He uses circumstances to make us taste the bitterness of disobedience and to break down self-will. His chastening hand is felt.

GOD WORKING

How graciously God works to bring us to our senses! Waywardness not only dishonors Him but also robs us of joy and peace. If God allowed us to continue in the path of disobedience, we would eventually have to reap the consequences. But in love, He lets us feel His chastening hand and uses circumstances to break down our rebellion to His will. Proverbs 3: 11-12 tells us: "My son, do not despise the chastening of the Lord, nor detest His correction; for whom the Lord loves He corrects, just as a father the son in whom he delights."

A loving Father may have to chasten His child for his own good. The child may doubt the motives of the Father, but the child's inability to discern the Father's purpose does not change the Father's love or methods. If the child had more confidence in his Father, he would believe Him — even though unable to understand. This makes it easier to yield to the Father's will and obtain peace as well. Confidence in God is necessary to enjoy peace.

The Holy Spirit speaks to our heart and conscience, through chastening and the Word, to bring us to confess waywardness and turn again to the paths of righteousness: "Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it" (Heb. 12: 11). Humbled "under the mighty hand of God" (1 Peter 5: 6), the soul is once more able to walk in the path of righteousness and reap its peaceable fruits.

If we learn the lesson of God's chastening, we acquire peace. If we keep His commandments, we gain even more, because "in keeping them there is great reward" (Ps. 19: 11). "Blessed are those who keep His testimonies, who seek Him with the whole heart! — Great peace have those who love Your law, and nothing causes them to stumble" (Ps. 119: 2, 165).

PEACE OF MIND

"These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world" (John 16: 33). When we read the account of the mock trial of our Lord, one thing really strikes us — Him standing peacefully in the midst of that mocking, hypocritical mob. How could He do it? He gives us His secret in John 16: 32: "I am not alone, because the Father is with me."

He was in perfect submission to His Father's will, whatever the cost. He was with His Father throughout the ordeal, and so His peace was never interrupted. His Father's plan was perfect and His faith looked on to the glorious results of that wonderful plan: "For the joy that was set before Him (He) endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God" (Heb. 12: 2).

Now He has overcome the world and sat down in the glory. All power in heaven and earth is given into His pierced hand. What peace for our hearts and minds! He has a perfect plan for each one of His own. Let us trust Him then, knowing that His will is best. When we walk with Him, there is blessing and peace in our future: "I will never leave you nor forsake you" (Heb. 13: 5).

Why do we complain about our circumstances when His pierced hands are guiding us and His infinite wisdom has planned the future for us? Either we don't trust Him or we don't want to go the way He is taking us. Our deceitful heart manifests itself by not trusting Him who died for us and into whose pierced hands all power in heaven and earth has been given.

For our own good, we must surrender to Him. The Potter is forming a useful vessel. Should the clay rebel when it feels the pressure of His fingers as He molds, turns and shapes it on the spinning wheel?

Trust in Him: "These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace" (John 16: 33). Our circumstances may not change, our sorrows may not be removed; but if Christ is brought into our grief, we will be able to say with the psalmist: "You shall preserve me from trouble; You shall surround me with songs of deliverance" (Ps. 32: 7).

His wisdom cannot err. His power cannot fail. His love can never change. Even His direct dealing with us is for our deepest spiritual gain. Knowing this should lead us to say in the midst of sorrow, pain, and loss: "The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord" (Job 1: 21).

ABOUT OUR FEARS

One of the greatest hindrances to peace and security is fear — of sickness, accidents, death, job loss, financial trouble and so on. How can we have inner peace in a world full of injustice, conflict and uncertainty, where life is one long struggle for existence?

Job confessed that even in his great prosperity he was harassed by fears: "The thing I greatly feared has come upon me, and what I dreaded has happened to me. I am not at ease, nor am I quiet; I have no rest, for trouble comes" (Job 3: 25-26).

If we had a father who was very wise, had inexhaustible resources, and would do anything for our good, wouldn't that calm our fears and give us a sense of security? As a child of God we have all this in our heavenly Father.

If He invites us to cast all our cares upon Him, because He cares for us (1 Peter 5: 7), why then can't we turn our fears over to Him? Is it because we are afraid He will let us down? Is it because we are not willing to submit our wills to Him? Are we letting the devil get the best of us by making us feel we would be the losers if we completely surrendered our lives to Him?

We cannot leave God out of our lives and have freedom from fear. In the deep recesses of our souls we know that God exists and has almighty power. If we are not giving God His rightful place, we will have fear even though we may refuse to admit it. Denying God produces fear. It's as simple as that.

Fear is the painful sensation that danger threatens. The danger may be real or imagined, but the fear is real. Anxiety and worry are forms of fear. Anxiety is fear of anticipated danger. Worry is a brooding over these anxious fears.

Fear, anxiety and worry sap our energy and undermine our peace of mind. They are like weeds that grow and crowd out the flowers in our garden of happiness. Where do these weeds come from? Is there no way of getting rid of them? Has God left us with no way to cope with them?

CONFESSING OUR SINS

The Bible traces these fears to their real source and gives us the only effective remedy: "God is love  -  There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love" (1 John 4: 16, 18). Nothing will cast out fear like confidence in God's perfect love. Since love has blotted out all our sins through Christ's sacrifice on the cross, we can be sure that God has forgiven them and will never again hold us accountable for them.

An accusing conscience, that says that punishment is due us, is one of the major causes of anxiety, fear and worry. Genesis gives us the first record of fear that man had. In the Garden of Eden, after he had eaten the forbidden fruit, the Lord said to Adam: "Where are you?" Adam's response was, "I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked" (Gen. 3: 9-10). He was afraid because he knew he had sinned and deserved to be punished.

Down deep we know that sin deserves punishment, and that there will be no deliverance until the things that are troubling our conscience are cleared up in a way that is satisfactory to God.

When our conscience is troubled, we may try to forget our sins. It is natural to push them out of our mind or repress them altogether. But we can never really succeed, because deep in the unconscious mind the memory of them keeps surfacing in one form or another.

We may not be fully conscious of the fact that sin and self-will are the cause of our anxious fears. It is so easy to deceive ourselves and make ourselves believe that someone or something else is responsible. However, we will never get rid of our fears or have any real peace until we admit the truth and get things right with God.

A young lady, brought up in a Christian home, began to do things that her conscience condemned. Unwilling to admit them and confess them to God, she began to persuade herself first that God didn't care, and then that there was no God. For several years she claimed to be an atheist. But the sin in her life gradually developed into anxiety and fear.

She finally felt like she was losing her mind and ended up in a mental hospital. Many remedies were tried, but no relief came until she faced the fact that she was trying to rule God out of her life. Once she confessed her sins and surrendered to God, she was able to leave the hospital with her anxieties and fears gone and her mind clear.

JOY OF FORGIVENESS

We have to be conscious of God's forgiveness and His perfect love to have our fears cast out. But we can't have confidence in Him until we are sure we are forgiven. We can't have this assurance while we are unwilling to confess our sins to Him: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:8-9).

There are three steps we must take to really get rid of anxiety and fear:

1. Recognize the sin that is at the root of our anxious fears.

2. Believe that God really does forgive our sins when we confess them.

3. Put our sins, along with the anxiety and fear they produce, out of mind. Whenever they do come to mind again, instead of feeling anxiety, we will be reminded and thankful that God has forgiven them all.

When we take these three steps, we will be able to say with the psalmist, "The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want  -  I will fear no evil; for You are with me; Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me  -  Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life; and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever" (Ps. 23: 1, 4, 6).

A little child awakened by a storm cries out in fear. His father comes and takes him in his arms. Soon the child is asleep again. The storm has not ceased but the child's confidence in his father gives him a sense of security and removes his fear.

PATH OF PEACE

What comfort and peace would come if we would just cast ourselves fully on Him and willingly let Him plan our life! His plan is infinitely better than anything we could ever work out for ourselves. His plan embraces all the details of our life here, and also has in view our eternal happiness.

What comfort to have Him as our Shepherd, Caretaker and Friend — to be able to say, "The Lord is my Shepherd; I shall not want." (Ps. 23: 1). Rest and satisfaction belong to the believer who is willing to trust and follow the Shepherd: "He leads me beside the still waters" (v. 2). The storms may rage around us, but when we are close to Him, we are at peace. If we are in a place of unrest, we can be sure He has not led us there, though He may let us pass that way to teach us how bitter it is not to listen to Him.

Are we listening to His voice in our daily life? Are we following Him step by step regardless of how rough the road? He says, "My sheep hear my voice — and they follow Me" (John 10: 27). What a comfort to have such a Friend going all the way with us in every trouble, great or small.

What a path the Christian is called to follow! The Almighty Creator and Sustainer of this vast universe gave His life for us and now ever lives to comfort, counsel, guide and lead us. How is it that we let Satan get our eyes off Christ and rob us of our peace, giving us unrest and fear instead?

Satan wants us to doubt and fear. Will we yield to him or to the loving hand of God? Which path will we follow? That of sight that sees only the storm upsetting our plans, or that of faith that sees our Good Shepherd's loving hand guiding us into a fuller communion with Himself?

Are we in trouble? Do we fear tomorrow? Are we sick, sorrowing or in debt? Dear child of God: Christ died for us! Do not distrust His love. By these very trials He is working out for us a deeper joy and happiness than we could ever have any other way.

Paul triumphantly shouts in the midst of great troubles and distresses: "We do not lose heart  -  For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal" (2 Cor. 4: 16-18).

The language of faith is brave because the eye of faith does not let the things seen occupy the mind. They are seen only as the elements that God is using to develop a richer, fuller spiritual life in us. We must keep our eye on Him who will lead us into  peace and out of fear.

Certainly, there are trials in the path of faith, but each trial is a door to richer joy and peace in Christ. Don't shrink back at the entrance. If we do, we will find that there are greater trials in the path of unbelief, which are always bitter and disappointing in the end.

Christ endured the cross for us. If He sees fit to lead us through trying times, He will sustain us so that our joy will be richer for having endured the trial. As Paul met new trials, his eyes were on the "far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory" that would come to him because of them. He was not looking at his troubles in the light of the present, but in the light of the future eternal results.

If our heart is not at peace, what do we think we need to make it so? Write down what it is and take a good look at it. Now honestly ask, "Would its attainment restore the peace and quiet we want in our soul?" Satan wants us to think, as Eve did, that what God has withheld is something to be desired. (See Gen. 3: 1-6.) Be sure that peace for our soul is found in our willingness to let God have His way in our circumstances.

FOLLOWING THE SHEPHERD

The Shepherd is waiting for us to follow Him. We will gain nothing by murmuring and rebelling against His purposes; we will only make our misery greater. But, if we yield to Him, then He will fill our heart with joy and peace. If there is failure and sin, we must confess it, and believe that He forgives it according to His promise: "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1: 9).

What comfort for the weakest child of God who is submissive enough to trust Him: "You will keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on You, because he trusts in You  -  In YAH, the Lord, is everlasting strength" (Isa. 26: 3-4). To the extent that we are able to do this, we will have a steady peace which changing circumstances cannot take away.

It is a great thing to be persuaded by the Lord's love. The Lord of heaven and earth loves us with an everlasting love, which fills the heart and casts out fears. There is no other remedy. We do not need to say, "I am resolved in the future to do better." That would be leaning on self. Don't do it! Just say over and over again: "The Lord is my Shepherd; I shall not want. All His resources are mine. I can lean on Him."

But if we refuse to hear His voice, His blessings will be far from us and we will have nothing but self to fall back on in the shifting circumstances of life. Whether we admit it or not, when we are out of touch with the Shepherd, we are in trouble. Is there anything then that we cannot submit to, if it is the will of Him who sacrificed Himself on the cross for us?

ADJUSTING OUR ATTITUDES

It is not circumstances that make us happy or unhappy, but our attitude towards them. We are always striving to control our circumstances, and are able to do so to some degree. But many circumstances are beyond our control. Our tendency is to become discontented or even bitter when things do not go the way we want them to go. We act like children, crying or sulking or throwing a tantrum when we can't have our own way.

On the other hand, some are able to make the best of what can't be changed, by adjusting to their circumstances. Paul said: "I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content" (Phil. 4: 11). A Christian knows he is a beloved child of God, and that His Father has all circumstances under control, allowing only those things that are for our greatest good: "We know that all things work together for good to those who love God" (Rom. 8: 28). This is true, without qualification.

We are able to face whatever circumstance comes up and say with  assurance: "My Father has a lesson for me to learn. He has a blessing for me in this. He's giving me a golden opportunity to exercise patience, submission, faith and confidence in Him as His child."

Read the life of Christ in the Gospels. Look at the circumstances He passed through. They were surely not what the natural man would like: fleeing for his life to Egypt as a baby (Matt. 2: 13-14); working as a carpenter in the despised town of Nazareth (Mark. 6: 3; John 1: 46); having nowhere to lay His head (Matt. 8: 20); called crazy by His friends (Mark. 3: 21); called a demoniac by the crowd (John 8: 48). What scoffing He endured! But He received all these circumstances from His Father's hand and found in them an opportunity to manifest His divine nature.

Now each child of God has been made a partaker of that same divine nature (2 Peter 1: 4). He has Christ as His life. So all the circumstances we are passing through are God-given opportunities to let Christ take over and live out His life through us. This is exactly what Paul meant when he said, "For to me, to live is Christ" (Phil. 1: 21).

This should be the Christian's attitude toward the circumstances of life. And what a different outlook it gives to everything! No longer are things seen by human standards as trying and distasteful. They are now golden opportunities to develop our spiritual life as "children of God  -  in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights" (Phil. 2: 15). Even afflictions when looked at this way become an occasion for thanksgiving: "Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you" (1 Thess. 5: 16-18).

A positive Christian attitude brings true contentment to the child of God. All things are viewed as coming from the tender hands of a loving Father and are opportunities to learn valuable lessons in self-control, patience, faith and obedience, while gaining a rich blessing. Outward circumstances don't make us happy or unhappy, but our inward attitude towards them and towards God in them. Song writer Bill Gaither puts it this way:

I found happiness, I found peace of mind,

I found the joy of living, perfect love sublime,

I found real contentment, happy living in accord;

I found happiness all the time,

Wonderful peace of mind,

When I found the Lord.

PEACE ASSURED

"The peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus" (Phil. 4: 7). Who does not desire such an experience: the perfect peace of God Himself filling our hearts and minds? But why just desire it when we can have it? It is there for every child of God who wants it enough to meet the conditions.

Our Creator is the only one who fully understands the workings of our minds and all those feelings that well up in our hearts. Some of us have more emotional stability than others and do not swing as far and as often between extremes. Yet how few really know much of the perfect peace so necessary for true happiness. No matter how much or how little we have experienced this sweet peace, we want more.

If we are hungry and neglect to eat the food God has provided to satisfy hunger, we can't blame others if we starve. Neither can we blame others if we are unhappy but don't make use of God's provision for happiness. The whole fault lies in us. It is important that we face this squarely; otherwise we will never make use of God's provisions.

In Isaiah 26: 3 we read His first provision, which is trust: "You will keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on You, because he trusts in You." In Philippians 4: 6-7 we find the other two, which are prayer and thanksgiving: "Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God; and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus."

These three things — trust, prayer and thanksgiving — can give peace of heart and mind only to those who have full assurance of salvation. Many have assurance of sins forgiven; they know they are saved and have no doubt about their eternal security through the finished work of Christ. Yet they are often unhappy because they do not have that peace they desire and which God intends for them. They are neglecting these three simple tools.

TRUSTING GOD

What hinders us from trusting God? To trust Him we must first surrender ourselves to Him. No child can trust his father while walking in self-willed rebellion against him. Neither can one confide in God while walking in disobedience to Him.  We know that He will not help us with something that is contrary to His Word.

Our failure to believe that God's way is always best makes it hard to yield fully to Him and trust Him with all our heart. With distrust comes lack of confidence. With lack of confidence comes restlessness and unhappiness.

When Satan talked Eve into believing that God was withholding something good from her, she began to distrust God.  He had told Adam that if they ate the forbidden fruit they would die (Gen. 2: 17). But Eve looked at the forbidden tree and decided that it was "good for food  -  pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise" (Gen. 3: 6). She relied on her own judgment instead of yielding to God's. What unhappiness she plunged herself into!

Today this is still the root cause of all the unhappiness in the world. Keep this fact clearly in mind: If we want happiness and peace we must stop thinking we know better than God what will make us happy. We need to be willing to yield to Him and let Him have His own way with us. His infinite love and His infinite knowledge assure us that He knows what is best for us. His infinite power guarantees His ability to make it happen.

We cannot let our thoughts go astray; we must keep them on Him. Isaiah 26:3 tells us the Lord will keep us in perfect peace if we keep our minds on Him and keep trusting Him. Why let our thoughts run wild with anxious fear? The Lord has all things under control. He is, after all, the One who is above all and able to change all; and He wants to do what is for our greatest good. If we trust Him completely and keep our thoughts on Him, we will have peace of heart and mind.

Notice in the Psalms how often David talked to himself about God's care for him when he was cast down and harassed with fears. He was taught by God to do this, and was inspired to write these experiences for our encouragement. For example, when depressed and fearful he wrote:

• "Why are you cast down, O my soul? And why are you disquieted within me? Hope in God; for I shall yet praise Him, the help of my countenance and my God" (Ps. 42: 11).

• "I was brought low, and He saved me. Return to your rest, O my soul, for the Lord has dealt bountifully with you" (Ps. 116: 6-7).

• "The Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?  -  Though an army may encamp against me, my heart shall not fear  -  For in the time of trouble He shall hide me" (Ps. 27: 1, 3, 5).

• "Whenever I am afraid, I will trust in You  -  In God I have put my trust; I will not fear. What can flesh do to me?" (Ps. 56: 3-4).

We can never go wrong if we follow David's simple method of exhorting our own souls. It is not only psychologically correct, but also scripturally sound. We need to learn these verses and repeat them over and over again when we feel depressed, fearful or discouraged. Doing this will work wonders for us just as it did for David and many others who have followed his example. It will help to keep our minds fixed on the Lord instead of on our feelings or circumstances.

PROVISION OF PRAYER

Prayer is a wonderful provision of God to ease our burdens, tensions and fears, and restore peace to our hearts and minds. The value of prayer as a vital factor in a life of peace and happiness can never be overestimated. (See Phil. 4: 6-7.)

When we speak of the relationship of prayer to happiness, we are not talking about a few minutes spent each day repeating a stereotyped form of petition. Scriptural prayer is pouring out our hearts to God in simple childlike trust: "Trust in Him at all times, you people; pour out your heart before Him; God is a refuge for us" (Ps. 62: 8).

A school child comes to his father and says, "Father, will you help me solve this problem? I don't understand it." From this honest, simple request we can learn seven simple steps that govern effective prayer:

1. The child is conscious that he is in the presence of another person.

2. This person has the ability to solve his problem.

3. There is a relationship that the child is sure of — he's talking to his father.

4. He has confidence that his father has a personal interest in him and his problem.

5. He openly confesses his need for help with the problem.

6. He states his problem as clearly as he can.

7. He confidently waits on his father to show him the solution.

When we take these same seven steps and apply them to our prayer lives, they become simple rules for effective prayer:

1. When we pray, visualize in our souls that we are addressing a Person who is just as present as any earthly father could be.

2. Think for a moment of who He is and of His infinite power, wisdom and ability to understand and solve our problems.

3. Be conscious of our relationship with Him: He has made us His children; He is our Father.

4. As our Father, He has a very personal interest in us and our problems — more than any earthly father ever could. If He gave up His dear Son to die on the cross for us, we can be sure He is ready to give all that we need for our good.

So often we believe our prayers will be answered only if we do something to merit an answer. Since we know deep down that we have not been faithful to God, we feel we don't deserve what we are asking for. Therefore, we don't have confidence that He will answer. We must change our thinking.

Never ask anything on the grounds of personal merit, but simply on the grounds of our relationship with a loving Father who takes a personal interest in us. After all, by His grace He made us His for eternity. The Lord Jesus said: "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!" (Matt. 7: 11).

5. Since we are relying on our Father's personal interest in us, and not our merits, we can freely confess our ignorance, our inability, and even our failure to Him. If there is any guilt weighing on our conscience, we should confess it to Him and get the burden lifted. He is more than ready to forgive, for He already settled the account when He gave His Son to die on the cross for us. Thus we can have confidence as we present our problems to Him. (See 1 John 1: 9.)

6. Tell Him what our problems are as honestly as we can. So often, when we don't really understand our problems, talking them over with our Father helps us get a clearer understanding of them. The very act of putting our problems into words gives us a clearer picture of them. Then too, telling Him about them gives Him an opportunity to give us a clearer picture of what our real need is.

He invites us to bring our requests to Him, but we are not telling Him something He does not already know. In fact, He knows them better than we ever will! By unburdening our hearts to Him, we get in touch with Him about them.

7. Confidently expect that, because of His personal interest in us, He will give us the solution to our problems at the right time. This attitude opens the way for Him to lead us into the right solution, or to solve our problems through divine intervention.

The invitation to bring our requests to God — "in everything by prayer and supplication" — does not necessarily mean long hours spent on our knees pouring out our hearts in prayer. While quiet times are important, we cannot overstress the importance of constantly talking to God about everything during our daily activities.

This is what is meant in 1 Thessalonians 5: 17: "Pray without ceasing;" and in Ephesians 6: 18: "Praying always." Habitually referring everything to our Father in the midst of our daily routine keeps us in touch with Him so that His peace can keep our hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.

VALUE OF THANKSGIVING

If we are sad and depressed, we need to try thanksgiving. If we are discouraged and feel like complaining, we must try praise. God tells us in His Word that we should be found "giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Eph. 5: 20). Let's discover how we can do this.

The prophet Jeremiah was greatly depressed as he listed many things that weighed him down: "He has set me in dark places  -  He has hedged me in so that I cannot get out  -  He has made my paths crooked" (Lam. 3: 6-7, 9). In all, he named some thirty complaints about his desperate circumstances, ending on this sad note: "My strength and my hope have perished from the Lord" (Lam. 3: 18).

He felt as though he was hopelessly sinking under his burdens. But then his thoughts suddenly turned to God and he broke out with another thought altogether: "This I recall to my mind, therefore I have hope. Through the Lord's mercies we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not. They are new every morning; great is Your faithfulness. The Lord is my portion  -  therefore I hope in Him" (Lam. 3: 21-24). What a change! And that's always the way it is when we turn to God in our troubles. We find there is so much to thank Him for.

We should take all our sorrows to the Lord, and give Him the opportunity to show us why these things are in our life; but we should never leave His presence without thanking Him for all our blessings. This will surely turn our complaining into praise, and our depression into rejoicing. Paul made no mistake when He wrote, "In everything give thanks." He knew what was needed to lift us up. The unconverted have nothing to fall back on in times of trouble. But we have the eternal God with unlimited resources who takes a personal interest in us.

How sad to see so many confused and burdened Christians disregarding the Lord's gracious offer: "Come to me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matt. 11: 28). How grateful we should be, knowing that He will sustain us when we come to Him with all our burdens. We should even thank Him for our troubles, since they bring us closer to Christ and are stepping stones to a higher spiritual plane. (See 2 Cor. 12: 7-10.)

Some of us bring our burdens to the Lord, but are still weighed down with them, because we do not heed the Lord's simple instructions to give thanks in everything. If we did this every time we talked over our troubles with the Lord, we would find our souls uplifted by the awareness of our many blessings. We remain preoccupied with our troubles, when instead we should go on our way rejoicing because we have a loving Father who never fails His children. Praise and thanks work wonders.

EXAMPLE FOR US

If the Lord Jesus exhorts us to give thanks in every situation, He is not asking us to do something He Himself did not do. We should never forget that He was tested in every point just as we are. When He was tested by that unrepentant generation, even after all His labors of love and mighty miracles, notice how He reacted: "I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth  -  for so it seemed good in Your sight" (Matt. 11: 25-26). And in Luke 10: 21, where the same incident is recorded, we find it also recorded that "Jesus rejoiced in the Spirit."

As always, in these trials He saw His Father's hand and heard His Father saying, "This is from me." He recognized that His Father had power over heaven and earth, so He willingly bowed to His ordering of these painful circumstances, giving thanks. If we yield to our Father, we too will find great relief from distressing circumstances and also find renewed strength in our souls.

If we are not inclined to answer and say, "Thank you, Father," it only proves that our own wills are not surrendered to His. We don't want Him to have His way with us, and so we fret and complain, making ourselves still more miserable.

Don't forget that in all circumstances, we respond to God who is speaking to us through them. Our response may be, "Thank You, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight." Or we may say, "Father, I won't thank You because I don't want what seems good in Your sight." We might be thinking, "I would never say such a thing to my heavenly Father." But if we fret and complain about our circumstances, our response has no other meaning than that to God.

When we learn the Lord's secret of rejoicing in adverse and painful circumstances, we will find rest for our souls. His delight was in His Father's will. We too will find happiness when we give up our will for His. But we must try it to see what a wonderful change it will make. Our painful circumstances may not change, but we will see a rainbow in the cloud and hear a song in the night.

Perhaps our Father has ordered our difficult circumstances just to teach us to yield to Him and say, "Not my will but Yours be done." If this is the case, when His end is achieved in our lives, He will alter our circumstances accordingly.

The Lord found peace in the midst of trials by submitting to them and thanking His Father for them. We will find peace too if we do likewise. There is no other way. We cannot get peace by worrying or complaining. The more we yield our will to His, the more we will find the peace and joy of Christ in our souls.

LEARNING FROM HIM

When the Lord says, "Learn from Me," it is as if He were saying: "I know what I am talking about. I am your Creator who became your Redeemer. Don't be deceived by your own reasoning or by the opinions of men. Learn from Me, and you will find rest. My yoke is easy and my burden is light. But the yoke of self-will and sin is heavy with conflict and bondage."

Would our loving Creator and Redeemer deliberately make it hard on us if we surrender our will to His? Of course not! As our perfect example, Jesus submitted to the Father when He said: "Father  -  not my will, but Yours, be done" (Luke 22: 42). We are called to do likewise: "I beseech you  -  present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God" (Rom. 12: 1-2).

Our will, if not surrendered to God, is self-will. And self-will is the root of all the sin, misery and unhappiness that has ever come into our lives. Don't be deceived: it is not Satan, other people or our circumstances that bring about unhappiness in our lives; it is self-will. But God's Son came into this world to do His Father's will in love for us that we might have rest and happiness. A will surrendered to God is the gateway to happiness.

FINDING REST

To have a happy life, it is essential to be at rest. In explaining the way to find this rest, our Lord says: "Come to Me  -  Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me  -  and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light" (Matt. 11: 28-30).

The One who asks us to take His yoke upon us, gave us an example when He submitted to His Father's will saying, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God" (Heb. 10: 9). To find rest we too must surrender our wills to God's. That's what it means to "take My yoke upon you." Have you ever seen a yoke of oxen? When they are yoked up, they submit their will to the master.

Sin is the cause of all unhappiness in God's universe, and the root of all sin is self-will, or substituting our will for God's. Not only does this bring us into conflict with our Creator, but it also creates a conflict within us.

A child of God receives a new, divine nature when he is born again. This divine nature loves God and hates sin. The Christian also has the Spirit of God dwelling within him. For these reasons, inner conflict arises when a child of God yields to self-will and sin.

When we make something, we have the right to govern its use. Likewise, God has a right to say what we should do, because He has created us. When we buy something, it belongs to us. God has purchased us with the blood of His Son: "You are not your own  -  you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's" (1 Cor. 6: 19-20). When a child is born, he is expected to obey his parents. When a person is born again, God expects obedience from him (John 3: 3; 1 John 5: 18; 1 Pet. 2: 1-2).

We cannot disregard God's threefold claim over us — as His creation, His possession and His children — and expect inner peace. We must recognize God's rights. Therefore, if we exert our self-will in rebellion against God's will, inner conflict results.

HIS POWER

The power of God is so overwhelming that it should strike terror in the soul that is out of harmony with Him: "Even the demons  believe — and tremble!" (James. 2: 19). The power of God causes them to tremble. The legion of demons that possessed the maniac of Gadara trembled when Jesus commanded them to depart from him, because they knew His irresistible power (Luke 8: 31). Only man is foolish enough to try to persuade himself that he has nothing to fear: "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Ps. 53: 1).

Paul knew of this latent fear in the heart of men and he used it to awaken them to their need for the gospel: "Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men" (2 Cor. 5: 11). There is an unconscious fear of God in every human being regardless of how ungodly he is or how much he tries to suppress it. Man's cursing, swearing and statements of unbelief are an effort to drown the innate fear of God that is troubling him because he knows he is out of harmony with God.

No one can ignore the power of God and expect to have peace: "God is greatly to be feared  -  and to be held in reverence by all those around Him" (Ps. 89: 7). It is this inherent fear of God latent in every human soul that Christ appeals to when He says, "I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him!" (Luke 12: 5).

He goes on to couple this fear of God's power with a sense of confidence in God's care for them: "Are not five sparrows sold for two copper coins? And not one of them is forgotten before God. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows" (Luke 12: 6-7).

The Lord continues to develop our sense of security with these examples of God's care: "Consider the ravens  -  God feeds them  -  How much more value are you than the birds?  -  Consider the lilies  -  If then God so clothes the grass  -  how much more will He clothe you  -  Your Father knows that you need these things  -  all these things shall be added to you" (Luke 12: 24, 27-28, 30-31). What a comfort to experience God's awesome power over us and His care for us. Elizabeth Cheney wrote:

Said the robin to the sparrow,

"I should really like to know

Why these anxious human beings

Fear and fret and worry so?"

Said the sparrow to the robin,

"Friend, I think that it must be

That they have no heavenly Father

Such as cares for you and me!"

HIS WILL

It is a self-evident truth that God's power is always subject to His will. If we are sure that we are His, then we can be sure that He is working out His will for our present blessing and our eternal good. He has irresistible power to carry out His wonderful purpose concerning us. With this in view then, let's look at three statements about God's will for His children.

First, in Ephesians 1: 4-5, we learn what God's will was for us even before creation: "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will."

Who could ask for a higher place than to be His sons brought into His eternal favor? Could anything be more blessed than this? Angels are creatures before the Creator, but we are beloved sons of our Father. And all this because it was the good pleasure of His will.

Second, we know His purposes concerning us in the ages to come from Ephesians 2: 4-7: "But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ  -  that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus."

Here God reveals that in the future, His will is for us to discover the exceeding riches of His grace. Surely, God could not give anything greater than this! Why should we fear His power when we know the good pleasure of His will concerning us? His power, in fact, is our guarantee that His purpose concerning us will be accomplished in due time.

Third, in Romans 8: 28 we find His purposes revealed in the events and circumstances that touch us in our daily lives: "And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose." Should we dread His irresistible power and sovereign will when we know that He is making all things work together for our present and eternal good?

How narrow-minded of us to complain about our circumstances in the face of such plain statements! What a shameful way to treat our God who has willed such marvelous things for us! We cannot have peace in our soul when self-will and a refusal to submit reveal our distrust in God.

Remember, we are fighting in vain when we fight against God: "Woe to him who strives with his Maker" (Isa. 45: 9). Putting our trust in the One "who works all things according to the counsel of His will" (Eph. 1:11) is the happiest thing we can ever do.

SEARCHING SELF

Can we pray this practical prayer from our heart? "How precious also are Your thoughts to me, O God! How great is the sum of them! If I should count them, they would be more in number than the sand  -  Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my anxieties; and see if there is any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting" (Ps. 139: 17-18, 23-24).

If we search, we will find that God, in His great love for us, will show us both what is causing our trouble and what is hindering our peace. Thinking about His will for us should bring great peace. And thinking about His power should assure us of His good purposes concerning us. However, if we are not submissive, we should tremble, because we will discover that self-will leads to grief.

The children of Israel were self-willed, and great sorrow resulted: "'Woe to the rebellious children,' says the Lord, 'who take counsel, but not of Me, and who devise plans, but not of My Spirit, that they may add sin to sin; who  -  go down to Egypt, and have not asked My advice, to strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh, and to trust in the shadow of Egypt!'  -  The Egyptians are men, and not God  -  When the Lord stretches out His hand, both he who helps will fall, and he who is helped will fall down; they all will perish together" (Isa. 30: 1-2; Isa. 31: 3). Now, contrast this to those who love and do His will: "Great peace have those who love Your law, and nothing causes them to stumble" (Ps. 119: 165).

HIS CHASTENING

It is foolish to think we can have happiness and peace while showing disrespect for God's power to chasten us: "For whom the Lord loves he corrects, just as a father the son in whom he delights" (Prov. 3: 12). As His children we should never disregard His authority. He is training His children: "If we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world" (1 Cor. 11: 31-32).

How foolish to ignore His will and expect to have peace! We know we can't break His natural laws and expect to get away with it. If we touch a live electrical wire we will get a shock. If we take poison we will suffer the consequences. Just as there are natural laws that operate in His physical creation, so there are moral laws that operate in His moral creation. We cannot ignore one any more than the other and expect peace and prosperity. It is foolish to try.

In fact, many of God's moral laws have both a moral and a physical effect. For example, anger not only produces unhappiness but also effects the functioning of our vital organs. The worry, anxiety and tension that follow a fit of rage make us feel miserable and depressed. One hour of worry can cause more physical exhaustion than a whole day's work. How many people are nervous, irritable and tired all the time simply because they are breaking the laws of God governing their moral being!

But apart from these laws which have a uniform effect upon both body and soul, there is also a direct dealing by God resulting in discipline, correction, chastening, and training for the practical holiness of His children, as well as for their peace and happiness: "Whom the Lord loves He chastens, and scourges every son whom He receives  -  Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it" (Heb. 12: 6-7, 11).

We should be aware that God's hand is behind everything that affects us in our bodies, our souls and our circumstances. It is surprising how many of God's children go through life oblivious to this important fact. No wonder we drift along making so little spiritual progress and having so little real peace. If only we were more interested in learning the lessons and reaping the benefits of His chastening, how much misery we could spare ourselves and how much happier our lives would be.

God never wants to harm His children. He wants to deliver us from those traits that are harmful and develop those habits that produce peace and happiness. For example, if we are inclined to be proud, God may allow someone to make a derogatory remark about us for our own development. But if we do not recognize this as God's discipline for our correction, we are likely to get angry and say or do something we may regret later. However, if we see how God is delivering us from pride and giving us an opportunity to show a Christ-like spirit of meekness, forbearance and grace, His chastening will make us happy and peaceful.

God is always teaching us to renounce pride, hatred, anger, irritability, resentment, jealousy, envy, worry and anxiety, because these make us miserable and unhappy. He uses circumstances to give us the opportunity to develop the Christ-like traits of meekness, humility, gentleness, goodness, patience and self-control, because these produce peace and happiness.

God's chastening allows us an opportunity to renounce self and develop that new nature we have as His children. If we yield to His chastening and cooperate with Him in it, the results will be inner peace and happiness. If we ignore His discipline and decide to rebel, our Father may chasten us through sickness, accident, loss or some other providential means. He loves us too much to allow us to go on in self-will which robs us of peace, joy and fellowship with Him. God cannot make His children happy while they ignore "that good and acceptable and perfect will of God" (Rom. 12: 2).

EXAMPLES OF CHASTENING

The Bible is full of examples of God's chastening. In the case of Jonah, God used a great storm, an east wind, a beating sun, a great fish and a worm to chasten and discipline His rebellious prophet (Jonah 1: 4, 17; Jonah 4: 7-8). God has all things under His hand, and can use something as insignificant as a worm for chastening when He so chooses.

He used leprosy when chastening Gehazi, Miriam and King Uzziah (2 Kings 5: 20-27; Num. 12; 2 Chr. 26: 16-19). The sword, revolt and adultery were used with David (2 Sam. 11-12). Storms, famines, sickness, locusts, wars, and so on were repeatedly used by God to chasten His people for sin and rebellion. In 1 Corinthians 11: 30, Paul states that many were weak and sick, and some even died under the chastening hand of the Lord because of their sinful conduct.

An example for us today is that of a young woman dying from cancer. As a child, her godly mother taught her to know the Lord; but after her mother's death she drifted far into the world. Her battle with cancer brought her to the point where she could say: "My suffering will soon end in death, but the Lord has been speaking to me through it. I know why I had to suffer, and it has resulted in happiness." After a few weeks of peaceful suffering, the Lord took her home. Only the Lord knows how much suffering she might have been spared if she had surrendered to Him sooner.

While God uses sickness, accidents, and other trying situations to chasten His children, we must never conclude that God is disciplining us only because of sin. (This was the mistake Job's friends made regarding his suffering.) The Lord often uses sufferings and trials to draw us closer to Him. He may seek to strengthen our faith by putting us in situations where we have to depend upon Him.

When others are suffering, it is never wise to think that God is chastening them for wrong doing. We are not to judge; that's God's business. However, when we are being chastened personally, we should ask God whether He intends it as correction, training for usefulness, or character development. If we do not get in touch with Him about His purpose, and cooperate with Him, we will not gain the happiness and peace He intends for us. Remember, God's dealings are a reality, and we will suffer great loss if we pass over them lightly. On the other hand, they will contribute greatly to our peace and happiness if we take them seriously. We can brighten our testimony for Him by cheerfully accepting our trials.

HIS PURPOSE

No matter what our circumstances, there is no reason to become upset or discouraged, because God is ordering them for our good (Rom. 8: 28). This is the blessed truth that God wants His children to grasp. With a surrendered will and a confident heart, the child of God should be able to take everything from his Father without fretting or fighting. Instead, we should look for the benefit in it.

Let's make a mental list of all the things that upset us. Are others hurting our feelings? Are our surroundings getting to us? Do we seem to be battling against overwhelming odds? Are we nervous, tense and unhappy? Doesn't the God who allowed these circumstances also have the power to change them? Then why doesn't He? Because we know He does not send trials just to see us suffer, we can be sure that He has some lessons for us to learn.

How did Christ act in the circumstances of his life? Was he upset by them? No, He took them from his Father with a  submissive heart, as an opportunity to display His own divine nature. Now He is abiding in us by the Holy Spirit as our source of power and strength for daily living. We need to let Him take over and live His life through us so we can find His peace and happiness. Like Paul, we want to be able to say, "For to me, to live is Christ" (Phil. 1: 21).

Nothing will give such peace and happiness as a life lived in conscious harmony with our heavenly Father's plan for us. Let's yield our lives to God and view our circumstances as ordered for our good. Let's see in them a God-given opportunity to live in harmony with His purposes for our lives. If we do this, we will experience His sustaining power and His peace. Our circumstances may never change, but our lives will take on new meaning that will make for peace, happiness and a life worth living.

UNSELFISH SERVICE

A self-centered person never serves others unless there is something in it for him. But how different is the service of the child of God who finds true satisfaction and happiness in doing unselfish deeds. His good deeds are a source of joy and a spontaneous expression of his new nature.

Every born-again child of God has been made a partaker of the divine nature. This new nature is implanted in the believer by God's Spirit through the Word. It finds its greatest pleasure in helpful service to God and man. The believer can only be happy as he lives this kind of life.

Why did God redeem us by sacrificing His own Son? Why was Christ willing to die for our redemption? Because His own nature found its pleasure in unselfish love and service to others. A child of God partakes of this same divine nature and so unselfish service makes him happy. But a self-centered life depresses the believer and makes him miserable and unhappy.

We can only be happy when we act in accordance with our new nature which always finds its greatest pleasure in unselfish service to God and to man. But to understand why a true child of God is often unhappy, we must remember that we have two natures with opposite tendencies: a new, divine nature that we have received from God when we were born again; and our perverted, fallen nature that we have received from Adam by natural birth. To the extent that we yield to the natural, we will be unhappy.

POWER OVER SIN

Sin is destructive to happiness because it conflicts with the divine nature of the believer. It produces a humiliating sense of defeat. When we do things that our conscience condemns we feel miserable. We may try to forget about it but that is no solution to our difficulty. Power over sin is the only thing that can make us happy. But how can we get that power?

Before he learns the secret of victory, every born-again believer commits sins that he hates but seems powerless to overcome. Here is Paul's description of this struggle that leads to finding victory in Jesus: "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells — For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God, according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God — through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin" (Rom. 7: 18-25).

There are three laws spoken of in these verses. The law of God is that revelation of His will for man. The law of the mind is the working of the new nature in every born-again soul that delights in the will of God and hates sin. The law of sin is the working of the old nature that always wants to have its own way in opposition to God's will. These two natures — the divine nature that every Christian receives from God, and the sinful nature derived from Adam by natural birth — are entirely opposed to one another. One loves and clings to sin, while the other loves and desires to do the will of God. Struggles result, and the believer is sad whenever he gives way to sin.

This experience of struggle and defeat, often prolonged for months and even years, is very humiliating and painful. But it brings the believer to realize two things: that there is no good thing in him by nature; and that even after he has been made a partaker of the divine nature he has no power in himself to carry out the will of God.

While learning these painful truths, of our utter sinfulness and powerlessness to combat sin in our own strength, we often cry out in desperation as Paul did: "O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" (Rom. 7: 24). We have to learn that if we are ever to get the victory over sin, the power has to come from a source outside ourselves.

As soon as we look outside for a deliverer, we discover Jesus Christ as the answer to our agonizing cry, "Who will deliver me?" He is the only One who can set us free from both the condemnation and power of sin.

HAPPY LIVING

Much of the misery of this struggle with sin is due to the conscience continually condemning the believer for giving way to sin. But the great and glorious fact of the gospel of God's grace is that though our conscience condemns sin, God never condemns us, because He sees us in Christ, who has already paid our penalty for sin on the cross. So we are free and beyond condemnation and judgment: "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8: 1).

The life we now have flows down from Him, its fountain and source, into our souls. "Because I live, you will live also" (John 14: 19), are His own words to us. Our response is: "Christ  -  is our life" (Col. 3: 4). This is the great soul-delivering truth of God. He does not see us in our old nature any more. He is done with that and sees us only in the new life we have in Christ. And He has given us His Spirit to dwell in us, to develop His new life in us and to give us His power over sin.

So Christ is the answer to all of our struggles. We must stop trying to overcome the sinful tendencies of our old nature in our own strength and begin to let Him work in us that deliverance and victory over sin we so much long for. Likewise, we have no power to produce fruit, even though in our new nature we long to do so. What relief from our misery when we come to the end of ourselves and begin to trust Him. When we realize our powerlessness and look to the Lord, He gives victory over sin and produces fruit that brings joy and peace.

Christ gave us a simple illustration of how this works: "As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing" (John 15: 4-5). Where did the branch get the power to produce such wonderful fruit? Not from itself, but from the vine which sends its invigorating sap flowing into the branch to produce fruit.

Never lose sight of the great fact that Christ is the answer for every trouble. Without Him we cannot overcome. The more we keep in touch with Him the more fruit we will produce. Without Him fruit bearing is impossible. Without Him we will never have true and lasting happiness. He is the source of all joy. In Him we can have a happy life!

"These things I have spoken to you,

that in Me you may have peace.

In the world you will have tribulation;

but be of good cheer,

I have overcome the world."

John 16: 33