Table of Contents

"Teaching of the Twelve Apostles."

"The first resurrection"

Revelation 20: 5.

Abel's Sacrifice.

Genesis 4; Hebrews 11.

The Achill Herald Recollections

The

Recollections.

APPENDIX TO THE NOTICE OF THE

RECOLLECTIONS.

Appendix to the Notice of the

Recollections.

A Letter on Romans 6 and 1 John 1. 7.

Alms.

Matt. 6: 2-4.

W.H.D.'s "Appeal."

As Having Authority.

Matt. 7: 28, 29.

Recent Baptismal Agitation.

The Birds of the Sky.

Matt. 6: 26, 27.

"'The Brethren': A Historical Sketch."

The Calling and Hope of the Christian.

Ephesians 1: 3-14.

Compromise.

Brief Notes of Two Addresses on Dan. 8, 9 and 11.

The Archdeacon of Durham on certain religious errors.

Christ — the End of the Law.

Endowment.

Love Your Enemies.

Matt. 5: 43-45.

Eternal Life: notes of a lecture.

Fasting.

Matt. 6: 16-18.

A Forgiving Spirit.

Matt. 6: 14, 15.

The Early Chapters of Genesis.

GENESIS 10: 1.

GENESIS 10: 2.

GENESIS 10: 3.

GENESIS 10: 4.

GENESIS 10: 5.

GENESIS 10: 6.

GENESIS 10: 7.

GENESIS 10: 8-10.

GENESIS 10: 11, 12.

GENESIS 10: 13, 14.

GENESIS 10: 15-18.

GENESIS 10: 18-20.

GENESIS 10: 21.

GENESIS. 10: 22.

GENESIS 10: 23.

GENESIS 10: 24.

GENESIS 10: 25.

GENESIS 10: 26.

GENESIS 10: 27.

GENESIS 10: 29.

GENESIS 10: 30.

GENESIS 10: 31.

GENESIS 10: 32.

GENESIS 11: 1.

GENESIS 11: 2-4.

GENESIS 11: 5-7.

GENESIS 11: 5-7.

GENESIS 11: 8, 9.

GENESIS 11: 10-26.

GENESIS 11: 26.

GENESIS 11: 26.

GENESIS 11: 26.

GENESIS 11: 27, 28.

GENESIS 11: 29, 30.

GENESIS 11: 31, 32.

Giving.

Matthew 5: 42.

"Glory and virtue."

2 Peter 1: 3.

The Gospel of the Glory of Christ.

Haslam's "The Lord is Coming."

Hold Fast That Which Thou Hast

Revelation 3: 11.

The Christian Hope Consistent with Events Revealed in Prophecy.

The Intermediate State.

"The Interpreter": A Church Monthly Magazine.

The Catholic Apostolic Body, or Irvingites.

John 14: 1-3

The Last King of the North.

Dan. 11.

Your Heavenly Father Knoweth.

Matt. 6: 31, 32.

The Latest Sect.

NOTE TO "THE LATEST SECT."

Letter on the Lord's Supper.

The Light of the World.

Matt. 5: 14-16.

Christian Life in the Spirit.

Philippians 2, 3.

The Lilies of the Field.

Matt. 6: 28-30.

Notes of an Address on Matthew 24: 45 - 25: 13

The Ministry and the Minister.

Modern Millenarianism.

Nothing But Christ.

"There is one body and one Spirit."

Ephesians 4: 4.

Perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Matt 5: 46-48.

The Dealings of God with Peter.

Matthew 14: 22-33

John 13: 1-11.

John 13: 1-11

Luke 22: 50-62.

John 20, 21.

John 21.

Acts 3-9.

Acts 10.

Acts 11, 12.

Philippians 3: 1-11

Prayer.

Matt. 6: 5,6.

Resist Not Evil.

Matthew 5: 38-41.

Jesus and the Resurrection.

The Revelation as God gave it.

Review of Four Letters to the Christians Called Brethren.

The Righteousness of God.

"Smite the rock."

Exodus 17: 6.

"Speak ye unto the rock."

Numbers 20.

On the Revised New Testament.

1 THESSALONIANS.

2 THESSALONIANS.

1 TIMOTHY.

2 TIMOTHY.

Hebrews 1-12.

JUDE

Rev. 1 - 5.

Rev. 5: 10-Rev. 9.

Rev. 10, Rev. 11.

Rev. 15, Rev. 16.

Rev. 17, 18.

Rev. 19.

Rev. 20.

Rev. 21: 1-8.

Rev. 21: 9-27.

Rev. 22: 1-5.

Rev. 22: 6-21.

On the Revised New Testament: American Corrections.

MATTHEW.

MARK

LUKE.

JOHN.

ROMANS.

1 CORINTHIANS.

2 CORINTHIANS.

GALATIANS.

EPHESIANS.

PHILIPPIANS.

COLOSSIANS

1 THESSALONIANS.

2 THESSALONIANS.

1 TIMOTHY.

2 TIMOTHY.

TITUS

HEBREWS.

JAMES.

1 PETER.

2 PETER.

1 JOHN.

2 JOHN.

3 JOHN.

JUDE.

REV. 8-22.

The Salt of the Earth.

Matt. 5: 13.

Gathering or Scattering.

Luke 11: 23.

"Christian Science" (falsely so-called).

The Sermon on the Mount as a Whole.

Matt. 5 - 7.

Jesus, the Son of God.

John 1: 29-43

"Sorrowful Words from a Sorrowful Heart

to beloved brethren in the Lord."

C. H. Spurgeon's "Winning Souls for Christ";

And "Driving away the Vultures from the Sacrifice."

Bishop Strossmayer on the Speech.

Copyright

Sufferings of Christ.

The Talmud.

Teulon's Plymouth Brethren.

The Morrow

Matt. 6: 34.

The Treasure, and the Heart.

Matt. 6: 21.

The Types of Scripture.

Letter to an Unbeliever.

On Recently-discovered Uncial MSS. Of the Apocalypse.

"We have this treasure."

2 Corinthians 4, 5.

Scripture Queries

John Wesley

On "Hopes of the Church" J.N.D.

Whitefield's Journals.

Scripture Queries and Answers.

Bible Treasury, 1857-1906.

Volume 1 (3/18 JND)

Volume 2 (12/39 JND)

WKELLY - Articles from the Bible Treasury

Bible Treasury [1]

William Kelly

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) (2011)

"Teaching of the Twelve Apostles."

W. Kelly.

The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, etc. By Canon Spence,

Second Edition. London: Nisbet & Co.

(B.T. Vol. 19, p. 95-96.)

Such is the title of a recently discovered Greek MS.; or perhaps, more literally, the longer and more pretentious form, "Teaching of the Lord, through the Twelve Apostles, to the Gentiles." Meagre and incorrect, it serves to manifest the melancholy and rapid decline of the second century from revealed truth. The MS. is of the 11th century, and was found a few years ago by Philotheos Bryennios, who afterwards became Metropolitan of Nicomedia, in the library of the Patriarch of Jerusalem in Constantinople. Any scholar can see the strong analogies between it and both the Epistle of the Pseudo-Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, which have been generally referred to the beginning and middle of the second century. Some have argued for its priority even to the former; but even the enthusiastic discoverer does not contend for so early a date as either. The sole value of them all is their united yet unwitting evidence how grievously the church had fallen through Judaism. The exaggerated estimate of the late discoveries, formed by men of various schools in our day, demonstrates the same thing now. In the whole treatise of sixteen chapters, if we except the Lord's prayer and a few texts substantially drawn from scripture, there is not one sentence of weighty truth, not out, which indicates the enjoyment of the liberty of Christ, no distinctness as to redemption, not an inkling of the presence of the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven, nor of the heavenly relationship of the church, nor of the special privileges of the christian.

It is worse than defective, as may be shown by a brief notice of chap. 1 only. In it the law usurps the place of the gospel from first to last. Clearly the writer bad before him, besides the Old Testament the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, the Gospel of John, the Epistles to the Romans and the Corinthians, and that of James; but where is true intelligence of any thing? All is letter, and not spirit. There is no testimony how souls receive life, so is to take its way and refuse the broad road of death; no right sense expressed of that grace which alone keeps by the power of God through faith. What a contrast with Rom. 5 or 8, which last shows us how the righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled in those that walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit 1 So it is with Rein. 13 where love, in us impossible apart from faith and life in Christ, is truly said to be the fulfilment of the law, which the law itself never did make good. Still less is the doctrine an approach to that in the Epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians and in the First of John.

The writer interpolates "fasting" unwarrantably into his citation of Matt. 5: 41, and holds out a false promise to those that love such as hate them ("But love ye those that hate you and ye shall have no enemy"). Had the author never weighed the death of Stephen, or of James the son of Zebedee, or of others who were slain for Christ's sake, to say nothing of Himself, the substance and test of all truth? It is amazing that any christian should think that this weak and even false expectation could be a probable oral tradition of the Master's words, No doubt as an ordinary rule those zealous of good disarm the injurious, as 1 Peter 3 shows from Ps. 34. But the, same apostle teaches that our place is to. do good, suffer for it, and take it patiently, which is certainly not law but grace; as Christ also suffered for us, leaving an example that we should follow His steps. Even this Teaching goes on to cite words quite incompatible with his preceding comment; but when he adds "for thou canst not," he exaggerates, unless he means consistently with grace. Indeed his remarks are singularly poor everywhere and in no case suggest a single oral tradition worthy of the Saviour. How strange, in the face of Matt. 5: 42, to fancy some traditional commandment of the Lord on the subject of giving! And it is really too bad for any sensible christian to say of the closing sentence ("Let thine alms sweat into thy hands, as long as thou knowest to whom thou givest") that it clearly refers to some unwritten saying of authority spoken by our Lord! or by one of His near followers. Most men instructed in the truth and at home in the scriptures will rather judge it as vulgar in style, as beneath inspired sentiment. Indeed it is hard to reconcile with what goes before or with our Lord's words.

There is little or nothing noteworthy in chaps. 2, 3, save perhaps the sentence which Clement of Alex. quotes as scripture from this treatise, "My child, be not a liar, for a lie leads to theft." It would be as true to say, "Be not a thief, for theft leads to lying." Neither sentiment is scriptural, but wholly beneath its tone. But chap. 4 opens with a call to honour him that speaks God's word as the Lord or Jehovah (for it is anarthrous) and for the strange reason, for, when the lordship is spoken of, then the Lord is. Soon after, in urging liberality, comes the word, "If thou professest, by thy hands thou shalt give ransom, or redemption, for thy sins." What sort of doctrine is this? Not God's but man's. It is in vain to refer to Dan. 4: 27, where the prophet exhorts the vain and self-willed king, not to ransom, but to break off his sins by righteousness (the LXX say "by alms"), and his iniquities by showing mercy to the poor (or afflicted), "if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquility." How sober is the divine word, as man's is wild and false! I am aware of the effort to make the Chaldee version utter a similar error, and how Greek and Latin and other superstitions minds seized it, But De Dieu and others long ago refuted the heterodoxy, and on linguistic ground. The A. and R. Vv. are right. It is useless to pursue the review into less weighty questions; but in these, too, the treatise departs from scripture.

"The first resurrection"

Revelation 20: 5.

W. Kelly.

The First Resurrection does not mean all rising exactly at the same moment. This is a mistake. We know that the change of all those caught up takes place in the twinkling of an eye; but it does not follow that various bodies are not raised at different times. For certain there are two great acts of resurrection-one when the Old Testament saints and the church are caught up to heaven, the other when Satan was bound after the beast and false prophet were thrown into the lake of fire, as well as Babylon judged. Thus (without speaking of the resurrection of the wicked at the close) there were certainly more acts than one, not to speak of the two witnesses put to death and caused to rise after three days and a half, when the spirit of life entered them, and they not only arose, but went up to heaven, as we know (Rev. 11). I speak not of anything that might be deemed exceptional or peculiar, but of two acts of raising saints.

From the manner in which resurrection is referred to in Scripture, does not God leave room for this? "I will raise him up at the last day." "At the last day" does not mean merely an instant of time. Whether it were the Old Testament saints and the church, or the Apocalyptic saints, if I may so distinguish them, it was in an instant that each were raised, but there was some space of time between them. What is there to hinder it? There is no expression in the word of God which binds all to rise at the same instant. Those that do rise at the same time rise, no doubt, in a moment; but that there are to be various acts of resurrection is not only not contrary to scripture, but required by its own descriptions. This verse declares it, and there is no other interpretation that can stand even a moment's fair discussion.

"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."

W. K.

Abel's Sacrifice.

Genesis 4; Hebrews 11.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. 17, p. 321-323.)

If we take the history of the garden of Eden as a whole, we shall see in it a real whole, and in brief a complete picture of the ways of God. Man placed under responsibility and even under law was sinful, and an actual sinner; and he was driven out from the place of sojourn, where God visited him for fellowship. But God did not send him out to begin anew world away from Himself without giving the fullest testimony to the sovereign grace that has met the evil. Man's nakedness was the expression of innocence being gone. Shame and guilt, and a guilty fear of God's presence, were now man's state: God in sovereign grace met this. He clothed Adam with that which came from death, and His eye had His own work before Him. This did not say man was not naked in himself, but that God Himself, having taken knowledge of it in grace, had covered his nakedness. The present state was perfectly provided for in full, and the power of evil judged in the future. Hereafter the power of the serpent's seed would be destroyed.

But man, thus driven out from God, with innocence gone, began a new world; and the question necessarily arose, Can man have to say to God, and how? Now it is clear, that if God wrought in men, He could not for a moment he indifferent to what had happened; and still clearer, that God could not he indifferent to the state of evil which had brought man where he now was, and was expressed by what he was in sin and away from God. That which was the sad effect for man God saw as the evil state in him.

The driving him out of paradise had placed man in a judicial way in this place though not irrecoverably. He was in it morally, and the question arose: Could he approach God? Now he could not really, while insensible to the state he had got into; he would still be as far from God as ever; and in God's public government and testimony, God could not give witness to His so receiving him. And this is the new platform of Cain and Abel — approach to God when in a state which was the result of being driven out from His presence. Do we approach God as if nothing had happened, in connection with the everyday circumstances and duties of the place we have got into, or in the sense of the sinfulness of this state, the sense of our fall, and looking up to God in our consciences as those who have got these by sin? Every christian knows. And here note, it is not committed sin, but the consciousness of our true standing before God. Cain goes with the fruit of his toil (man had been sent forth to be a tiller of the ground) — the actual practical state of man driven out. In Abel faith had its perceptions. Sin had come in, and death by sin: faith recognised it. "Now once Christ appeared in the consummation of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." This was not the clearing of the individual's sins actually committed. These are spoken of immediately after as a distinct subject, adding judgment, but a judgment passed for those that look for Him, seeing He has borne our sins Himself, Who becomes Himself the Judge (Heb. 9: 26-28).

We have four worlds, so to speak, in this aspect: the garden of Eden; a world no longer innocent, but man departed from God and driven out where sin reigns and Satan; a world in which Christ reigns in righteousness; and the new heavens and the new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. We have an innocent world (now gone) tested without evil in it by simple obedience. The final world as based on righteousness, which in its nature never changes, cannot change in its moral stability.

But the moment sin had come in and characterised the world and the state of man, the terms on which man could be with God must be changed, because God could not change. That a holy God and a sinful creation should be on the same terms as an innocent one could not be. Free and happy communion would be impossible. Cry for mercy there might be — challenge on what ground he was there, but. no free intercourse. That God is love does not alter this. His love is a holy love, for He is light; but "men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil" (John 3: 19).

Now I admit and believe that the free sovereign self-originated love of God is the source of all our joy and hopes and blessings, eternal and infinite as they are. But God exercises that love by bringing in a Mediator in death: not here by bloodshedding to meet guilt, but in perfect self-surrender to God in that which was death, as such, and the fruit of sin. Fat was offered (Gen. 4: 4) as much as blood, yet not offered as such for forgiveness but for acceptance in Another, Who gave Himself wholly to God in death which had come in. And mark this was that souls might approach to God: each came with his offering.

Cain came, as if nothing had happened, so much so that he brought to God, as offering, what was the sign of the ruined state into which he had got, but which he did not reckon as rain. There was no faith in it. In Abel's there was. He offered by faith, which recognised that death had come in by sin, but that Another had given Himself for him, an offering made by fire of a sweet savour. For there are two things: "unto Him That loveth us and washed us from our sins;" and "Christ also loved us and gave Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour." One was to clear foregone sins; the other, the value and preciousness of Him in Whom we are accepted — "accepted in the Beloved." Now this was a question of acceptance in coming; and God did not accept Cain. He did accept Abel; but the witness was borne to his gifts. He was accepted, but God's testimony was to that which he brought, the life of another in all its energies and perfectness given up to God in death.

Another thing we have to remark here; it was not God setting forth anything to the sinner. That was "a mercy-seat (ἱλαστήριον) through faith in His blood." Here it is Abel presenting himself to God, but coming by the acceptance and perfectness of another who had given himself for him. And this is propitiation. Now to say that God could receive a sinner as He received an innocent person is to say that God is indifferent to good and evil. And note here, it was not, by the eye of God resting on an inward change that a difference was made (there was such a change, for faith was working in Abel's heart), but a judicial estimate on God's part of the gifts he brought, Christ in figure, Christ offered in sacrifice; and for this we have the express authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews. It was a propitiatory sacrifice as ground of acceptance; or the whole basis of the standing of a fallen world is gone — the whole moral basis of the preference of Abel to Cain.

That love, electing love, may have been there is admitted; but the ground of acceptance, as stated in scripture (see Heb. 11), is gone, if propitiatory sacrifice be not accepted. To win secure righteousness before God, and for the believer's acceptance, according to the value that is in Christ, He offered Himself absolutely without spot for God's glory. "Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in Him. If God be glorified in Him, God shall also glorify Him in Himself, and shall straightway glorify Him." Faith believed in it then and found its fruit. Abel was accepted, and distinctively on the ground of what he brought — his gifts. Cain brought no such offerings; he had to be accepted in himself only, and he was not. Faith looks to this sacrifice, and finds acceptance and blessing according to the value of Christ in the eyes of God.

I only add now that God gave Christ to us for this end. He "sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." The self-originating work of love is in it, but the effectual work of suffering is to make good in righteousness that love. God forbid that I should weaken confidence in the Father's love. "He that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him." "And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us."

It is certain then, that, man being fallen, Abel sought God's face and acceptance by a sacrifice, to the value of which God bore testimony, "by which he obtained testimony that he was righteous." It was a sacrifice which recognised death as come in, but which, as so presented, bore the character of perfect self-offering to God's glory. Not actual sins were in question, but the state of man and his acceptance on the ground of mediatorial death, in which God's own glory alone was sought on man's part in obedience, and in which the highest gift of grace shone out on God's part in love.

But here, immediately connecting itself with our subject, is another point, less abstract, narrower possibly in effect, but dealing more immediately with conscience, and hence of present necessity. If a man believes in heart (that is, as convinced of guilt) in the Lord Jesus Christ, he will not come into judgment; he knows he is forgiven and justified, he has peace with God, rejoices in hope of His glory, and trusts God for the road auto the end. "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity" — not that he has not done any, but that it has been borne by Another. Another has been substituted in his place by grace, Who has taken the charge of it on Himself, "Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree." It is not here the basis on which the race is before God, as in Abel's case, and which as a general principle recognises the whole truth; but actual sins committed, which are dealt with and put away out of God's sight by One "Who was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed" (Isa. 53: 5).

Now this, call it by any word you please, was One person put in the place of another, and then in such sort taking the sins and their consequences on Himself that they should not come at all upon the person, who was himself guilty, in judgment or penal consequences. Upon all who are not under this substitutionary benefit they do come, and with such God enters into judgment concerning them. For God's people it is said, "according to this time," not what, men wrought, but "what hath God wrought!" (Num. 23: 21- 23.)

Thus substitution is as certain a truth as scripture can afford; that is, one person standing in another's place, Christ bearing his sins in His own body on the tree, bruised for them instead of the guilty one, who is healed by Christ's taking the stripes. For "all we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all" (Isa. 53: 6).

The Achill Herald Recollections

The

Achill Herald

Recollections.

Nos. I. to VIII.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. 6, p. 254.)

My attention having been drawn to these remarks, I will content myself with a very few words of comment. Can these good men, whether of the English Magazine or of the Irish Journal, be aware, first, that the writer of the tracts on "Darbyism" is thoroughly unsound, in one or more of these very tracts launching out against Brethren so-called because they refuse in fellowship with his denial of eternal punishment? He holds the notion of the annihilation of the wicked. Is it a dishonour to be the object of such men's attacks? Secondly, it is utterly false that Mr. Darby has fallen into Mr. Newton's heresy. In the January Number of the Bible Treasury for this year, page 205, a very recent document of Mr. N. was cited, which attacks those he too styles the Darbyites," instead of welcoming them as converts, and (what is more serious perhaps) coincides in doctrine with the late assaults on Mr. D. Like them, Mr. N. denies any sufferings of Christ besides atoning ones. Thirdly, the Collected Writings of Mr. D., now in course of publication, utterly disprove the statements of the Achill Herald as well as of the Rainbow; for they show that from the earliest days of the movement till now the same principles were asserted, the same object was avowed. Take the very first part as a witness, and the second article, "Considerations on the Nature and Unity of the Church of Christ." (Dublin, 1828.) This is as fresh and distinct as possible, and in a practical point of view. It would be impossible for any godly soul who accepted that paper as a just application of divine truth to the actual state of Christendom, to continue a churchman or a dissenter. And in fact neither the writer nor those who felt with him is to this remained at that date in the denominations of which they had previously been members or ministers. Fourthly, the statement that one of the "Brethren's" leading characteristics from the commencement was to reject an ordained ministry hardly agrees with the preceding allegation. This must of itself separate them from all the denominations. But the most singular appendix to this is that these men seem to blame Brethren because, as a consequence of rejecting what they regard as an unscriptural innovation, it becomes a question of the best qualified men taking the lead in their assemblies. Is not this God's will? Would they think it wiser or more scriptural to own as guides the worst qualified? "Hoc Ithacus velit, et magno mercentur Atridae." But we have learnt that the Lord gives gifts to His servants, to every man according to his several ability.

I must add, however, that no brother of intelligence demurs to ordination by those who are really called to ordain. We own it as of God when a Paul or a Titus appointed elders; but not having the title of either, we refuse to go beyond our measure and only do what our power from God enables us to do according to His word, pretty much as the assemblies did in early days when they had not the advantage of being visited by an apostle or an apostolic man. Is not this a humbler and truer position than national or dissenting makeshifts for proper apostolic or equivalent appointment? Our friends have neither apostles nor their delegates one whit more than we; yet they assume to ordain without that due ordaining power. Who then are most right? Who are guilty of insubordination?

The great mistake made by our friends is their oversight of the fact that in the primitive state, according scripture, there was an open door for the exercise of every gift from the Lord, both within and without the christian assembly, whether or not there happened to be elders in this or that particular assembly. Modern practice, Established or Dissenting, forbids this free action of God's Spirit, which was certainly and confessedly the order even when apostolic order reigned.

"Brethren" believe that God has revealed this for action at all times; for this, unlike ordination, does not demand the presence or mission of an apostle. That is, we in this simply act as members of Christ's body; our friends (who are equally members with us) neglect this which is open to them and their duty, while they set up to ordain, which none can do legitimately but an apostle or his deputy. Which of the two courses then is most lowly and obedient?

As to the sorrowful divisions of "Brethren," we grieve deeply over them and still more over the want of faith and spirituality which was, of course, their cause. But our brethren will agree with us, surely, that no failure on the part of individuals can justify our abandoning the will of God, supposing now that it is His will that we should meet according to His word and looking to His ever present Spirit to guide. They may be assured also that if they knew better the facts, they would judge  more kindly. Is it righteous to credit every evil tale which disaffected or excommunicated individuals say of us?

The three questions at the end of No. I. seem to us questions of unbelief. The only question is, What is God's will for His children? Does He not set out in His word one body as well as one Spirit? Does He not condemn schism and denominations in principle? Is His will or word changed now? Is it a hopeless thing to obey it? None will condemn separation to follow individual teachers more strongly than "Brethren." The only right course for teachers or taught is to follow the Lord. Will our friends help us to do this more fully? Are they willing to follow Him more fully themselves? Let us pray for each other, as well as set forth the truth without fear.

No. II. need not detain us. If the writer does not think that subordination is sought, found, and valued among "Brethren," he is in error. That we fail in this as in all other excellent things is our sorrow. But is this peculiar to us?

The writer, however, is still more wrong in implying that we deny appointment of elders as well as of deacons. He has mistaken "Fundamental Principles;" but in fact (through inadvertence, I am sure) he has not borne a true witness to it. 1 Tim. 3, 4: 14,* and Titus 1: 5, 9, 10 do not speak of ministry as such, but of elders or bishops. These last required and received due external appointment. Such is the uniform teaching of the book censured. Let a single passage be produced to the contrary. But in the early Church Scripture shows a number of gifted men exercising their ministry in the word, besides elders whose business was local rule, though, of course they might labour in the word and doctrine if they had suited gift. It is therefore our friend (the Editor, probably, of the Achill Herald) who mistakes both our principles and the light of scripture. Rejection of invalid and unauthorized appointment is a consequence of our adhering to the word of God; but we are not so childish as to refuse the principle of outward appointment, nor the fact where it is duly carried out. Do they not know that "Brethren" have had hands laid on them according to Acts 13, which does not involve the claim of apostolic authority? The basis of what they call our system is nothing of this sort, but the recognition of the continued presence of the Holy Ghost in God's assembly on earth to give power, as working in it and the members in their several places in it, to do God's will according to His word.

* 2 Timothy 2: 2 speaks of communicating doctrine, not authority. That has nothing to do with imposition of hands, which accordingly is not hinted at there, it is in fact a principle "Brethren" carry out continually in one form or another.

The case of R. I. cannot judge of, save that, though an eloquent and pious man, according to the writer, he was certainly impulsive and unwise. This may account for his return to Anglicanism, as well as for his temporary appearance among "Brethren." Whatever may be the estimate of the good man with others, be must have been little known among us; else some tradition must have been left behind.

Will the writer in the Achill Herald permit me to assure him that the experience. of many among us is that there is too great backwardness to speak even among very competent men, rather than the forwardness which so offended him when he attended? If it was because they were poor and uneducated men, I do not sympathize with the feeling. such were some of the chief apostles. Nor did the power of the Spirit set aside the evidence of their lack of human polish, as we gather from Acts 4: 13. It is in vain to allege that they were inspired; for I am speaking, not of writing scriptures, but of God's sovereignty in calling whom He will to serve in His Church. It may be pleasanter for refined and even for vulgar people to hear men of education; but it is impossible to defend from scripture the plan of confining to such the ministry of the word either in or out of the congregation. Nor is any amount of knowledge in a real Christian what scripture calls gift, which may be now, as of old, given of our Lord to a poor man as well as a rich. If not, why not? Without gift the ministry of any man is a sham; while the exercise of gift by the humblest Christian is real ministry. Compare Rom. 12; 1 Cor. 12, 14, 16; 2 Cor. 4, 5; Eph. 4; Col. 2; Phil. 1; 1 Peter 4.

No. III. calls for even less notice. The story of R. fills the imagination of the writer, with the added tale of some lady who, by his account, acquired a most unseemly influence in his congregation. The Achill Herald way be more or less exact in his statements, which are much too vague for any careful mind to conclude from. All I can say is, that though I know for a good many years those called "Brethren," abroad as well as in Great Britain and Ireland, I never heard of such persons or such doings, save as coming under discipline when the least approach to them was attempted.

Our reason for separation from the Establishment and Dissent is, not merely because of practical evils existing in these bodies, but mainly because they are not and never were (what alone we see in scripture) assemblies of those received as accredited believers, gathered unto the name of Jesus (not peculiar views, or nationalism), and looking to Him as Lord to act by His Spirit according to His word in their midst. It is a very rare thing for "unruly and vain talkers" to rise in the midst of the assemblies; but if they should there is ample provision to deal with such scripturally: their "mouths must be stopped;" and so they are. Our faith in the presence of the Holy Ghost does not weaken our hands, but the contrary; and God is faithful both in hearing prayer and in giving power to convince (in private, and, if necessary in the last resort, also in public) the gainsayers. We believe that ministry is both a divine and a permanent institution, is certainly as the Church or assembly is. We believe that a few are gifted to minister in the word to the many; we believe that some are gifted to rule or exercise oversight, who may or may not be called of God to preach or teach. But there is not the smallest abandonment of our faith either in owning that individuals may sometimes speak in the flesh, not in the Spirit, in the assembly, or in using such means of repressing this as scripture provides. Cannot the writer see that the case of the assembly as having the Holy Spirit to direct it stands on ground precisely analogous to the individual Christian? The one, like the other, is God's temple; neither is infallible, both are bound to act in the Spirit by the word. Just as the Christian may fail (as we all do individually, the Editor of the Achill Herald, no doubt, like ourselves) so the assembly is liable to the failure of individuals in it as well as corporately, but it is none the less under the responsibility of the Holy Ghost's presence and guidance, which in both cases is the most powerful means both of judging the wrong and of supplying power to walk aright.

The writer is totally misinformed as to the real facts both of "Brethren" and of the seceders who have recently attacked them. But I have said enough to convince fair minds, even among those opposed to us, that our censor is in collision with scripture, no less than with those who are today acting on it at all cost.

No. IV. consists chiefly of a notice which seems intended to decry "Brethren" through exposing the alleged infirmities and faults of a valued and now departed servant of Christ, who "was intimately known to the writer, and greatly esteemed and beloved as a brother in Christ, for his many excellent and amiable qualities."

It seems that when some Roman Catholic boatmen were rowing them in Dublin bay, J-'s countenance once betrayed grief when the writer himself spoke strongly to some Roman Catholic boatmen about errors of Popery! J- may have been right or wrong; but what has this to do with "Brethren?" Are they morbidly shy of error in Popery or Protestantism? Again, J- refused fellowship at the Lord's table to a Christian whom he believed to be compromised by communion where Christ was deeply dishonoured, though not himself charged with holding false doctrine. Is neutrality right in such cases? Lastly, when the Achill Herald writer once complained of his trials in the Achill work, J- said he counted his own among "Brethren" far greater. The rest of the paper attacks "Brethren" for their want of missionary zeal, especially in the Achill mission, and somebody who censured the writer for seeking a magistrate's protection from Popish violence. What is the weight of all this? The delicacy too of the allusions to the deceased may be questioned, and the writer's measure of himself as compared with his friend. I confess I should be disposed to draw an inference unfavourable to the living rather than to the dead, and to impute part of the misleading influence to the party-spirit and self-importance so hard for a clergyman to escape.

No. V. tries to contrast apostolic labours with "Brethren's." Let me say a few words. First, the apostles in going forth to preach the gospel far and wide had not to do with such a system of corrupted Christianity as we see around us now-a-days. Secondly, if work among heathen is the one right labour, why does the Achill Herald press it among Roman Catholics? If right among misguided Papists, its it wrong or uncalled-for among misguided Protestants? Thirdly, it is a mistake that "Brethren" do not labour, nor contribute to the support of labourers, among both heathen and Roman Catholics. But we hold that the preacher lowers the dignity of the Lord's call by being the employee of a society or even a so-called church — that he is and should be simply the Lord's servant. In scripture "service of the Church" is quite distinct from ministry in the word. We hold too that the yoking of believers and unbelievers in the professed work of the Lord is forbidden by God's word (2 Cor. 6), contrary to the practice of the existing religious societies, which take and seek from the Gentiles all they can get. At the same time while I have no sympathy with the false expectations and the vainglorious reports of most of these societies, I am free to confess how short we ourselves come in living only to serve the Lord and spending all we have in helping on His work. I would that "Brethren" and all other saints were incomparably more devoted and self-denying in the fellowship of' the gospel and the Lord's objects generally than they are. With those Christians who live at their case, I have no sympathy, least of all where they ought to know and do best.

Nos. VI. and VII. betray the total incompetency of the Achill Herald for the task it assumes. The writer talks of Mr. Newman as a "rival leader of the Brethren!" This will be as new to our readers, as that Mr. Darby was separated from "for denying the imputation of Christ's righteousness to his believing people!" People so ignorant ought to learn or be silent.

I must add that the writer's knowledge of our views is as glaringly at fault as of facts and persons: is his knowledge of scripture more accurate? Where does God's word make ordaining elders to be a standing institution? Where does it guarantee the permanence of the requisite authority? That "gifts" are secured as long as Christ's body needs them is allowed; for gifts never required ordination by man, but come direct from Christ. On these gifts depends ministry, which we fully allow to be continued by the Lord now as of old. But scripture never speaks of elders appointed without apostles or apostolic delegates. You cannot, therefore, have the one without the other: if you have no apostles, how scripturally can you have elders in due form? It is ridiculous to suppose that, because a society or even the law of a country calls a man a bishop, he can ordain like Titus or Paul.*

* The Anglican service for "the ordering of priests" furnishes ample evidence how ill-instructed in scripture were its framers, and what a mass of confusion (to say the least) is bound on those who are thus ordained. They read as the epistle Eph, 4: 7-13 and Matthew 9: 36-38 as the gospel, with John 10: 1-16, none of which applies to the charge of a presbyter; then, after exhortation, questions and answers, prayers, etc., the Bishop and the priests present lay their hands on each candidate, and the former says, "Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained," etc. One might denounce the profanity of a Bishop appropriating the words of our divine Saviour in John 20: 22, 23; no apostle is ever represented as thus taking up His language. But I confine myself now to the egregious blunder of confounding the Lord's words on His resurrection-day with what they call "the office and work of a Priest." Do they not know that the act and words of Christ on that occasion have nothing to do with any such office? This misapplication involves singular ignorance and serious error, as every intelligent believer cannot but discern and own, if he be honest. Yet every Anglican presbyter enters on his functions by sanctioning this grievous ceremony, and subscribes an article which denies that this and the other kindred services have anything that of itself is superstitious or ungodly? Certainly the world's bondage is hard and bitter, and the Christians who submit to it are to be pitied as well as blamed. Would that they might all go forth unto Jesus without the camp, bearing His reproach!

But there is such a thing as spiritual power. An evangelist proves his gift by the conversion of souls so does a teacher by edifying exposition of scripture as an exhorter does by urging truth home. A pastor toils in love to the sheep and lambs of Christ, repressing the unruly, and encouraging the timid, and helping souls in general. There is no real difficulty, as a general rule, in discerning these gifts where they exist, any more than in forming a conviction as to converted and unconverted. Of course there may be mistakes in both respects; but God is faithful and knows how to correct where He is leaned on.

Hence "Brethren" eschew the religious radicalism of dissent, and fully own gifts differing among the members of Christ's body. They hold that some are called to rule and that no one is free to be unruly. Nothing is simpler, therefore, on their principles than the dealing with "unruly and vain talkers," should such arise among them, which is comparatively rare. Of this class, I fear, a considerable part of the clergy, national and dissenting, against whom their congregations have no godly resource. Their "orders" maintain them, spite of ignorance and worse. Scripture, as ever, shows the more excellent way. And so it is found in fact among us, unless with a morbid soul here or there who suffers "agony," instead of acting in faith and using the power the Lord has given him for common profit and blessing.

The account of D., a zealous baptist, does not call for notice. We can reprove eccentricities in good men, but must bear the reproach of the Achill Herald if we do not exclude them from christian fellowship. Would he really have us do so? These are a part of our trials, but we share them with our blessed Master.

It is difficult to suppose a man serious who contends that the English Establishment ever admitted the sovereign action of the Spirit in the Christian assembly. Nor can I acquit the writer of trifling when he argues that faith in Christ can consist with denying the divinity and personality of the Holy Ghost. We hold that the right line is to do as the early Church did-to receive all who make a credible confession of living faith in Christ; and then to maintain among those received godly discipline in doctrine and conversation. I think the allusion to "the cave of Adullam" as against us is the less happy, when one remembers that, though the outward pomp and power might be found in Saul's court, God's king, God's prophet, and God's priest were with the poor despised company in that cave.

Was it better with the Church in the days when they walked as we seek to do now, holding to all the word of God in the power of the Spirit; or when the Church began to protect herself by human creeds and confessions?

As for the account of "Brethren" the writer gives, he must forgive my saying it is wholly erroneous. It is untrue that there is any "section" which denies eternal punishment; nor is Mr. Newman at the head of any. So the other "section" is equally misunderstood. And why the rash speeches of zealous but unformed young evangelists (many of whom are not and never were in fellowship with us) should be thrown in, it would be bird to understand, if the writer were not often careless of his facts and statements in his zeal as accuser of the "Brethren."

It is false that "Brethren" now or at any time claimed to be "the very body of Christ." What really distinguishes them is practically and in principle contemplating all the members of that one body, and receiving them frankly, while they appear to us to walk after a godly sort, to the Lord's table; in separation from the world, in a scriptural way. This is obviously impossible in the English Establishment or in dissenting societies. We do desire purity of life for ourselves and all saints, and we exercise discipline according to scripture, as far as we have light and power from God., and we believe that, our position being scriptural, this is practicable amongst us, not where the ground taken is unscriptural and human rules are the guide. But as to denying that there have been painful falls among those received, this be far from us. These have always been true of christian assemblies, whether rightly gathered or wrongly, and we never expected to escape them. Do we deal with them scripturally when they occur in our midst? This is the only just question, which does not occur to the Achill Herald. But it seems to me that they greatly dishonour Christ who retail such cases against us, instead of according to us their help and sympathy. Are they so blind as not to see that the early assemblies at Rome, Corinth, Colosse, etc., had just the same sources of shame and sorrow as we have now? What must we think of him who would rake such things together in order to condemn what God owned as His assemblies? It is not the entrance of evil which is incompatible with the character of a true assembly of God, but the inability or refusal to exercise discipline according to His word. Where any assembly amongst us so refuses, we disown that assembly. But it is not uncommon, first, to collect and print scandal against "Brethren," and, next, to sympathize with those who do not exercise discipline rather than with those who do. How does all this appear in the sight of God? To call "fruits of separatism" the cases of moral evil which we have judged solemnly by God's word, I believe to be iniquity which God will judge. It is also wrong to say that we think there is no danger either of sin or of self-deception.

No. VIII. objects to sect-making. So do we most earnestly; and of course to old sects, as well as new. The question is, What is a sect? Is not the English Establishment one? Must a Christian belong to a sect?

"The main body of the baptized" is, I suppose, Popery. Idolatry is not the only evil that justifies separation. No Christian is free to sanction any evil or error in what claims to be God's Church. But the grand point is that neither the Establishment nor Dissent ever took or even contemplated the original ground of God's assembly. As to the railing tracts by angry men cited in the Achill Herald, they are best left in silence. If such tracts as these can overthrow us, we deserve to fall; but my opinion is that the condescension to use such weapons shows the moral state of our adversaries, and can only injure themselves. Those, within or without, who can be influenced by such reasoning, we can well spare.

APPENDIX TO THE NOTICE OF THE

ACHILL HERALD

RECOLLECTIONS.

(B.T. Vol. 7, p. 14-15.)

The author's charges differ from the Bishop of Kilmore's. There is no reason for evading either — least of all for not meeting the more violent of the two. I have replied to Dr. Verschoyle elsewhere, and now proceed to refute the rector of Skreen.

(l.) Mr. Nangle's statement is, that those he calls Darbyites "reject a ministry set apart by the laying on of hands to rule and teach the Church, as laid down in St. Paul's epistles to Timothy and Titus, and various other parts of the New Testament. That they do reject such a ministry is notorious, and the apologist of the sect does not dare to deny it." It is evident that he does not understand the matter; nor should one be surprised at this.

All is confusion in Christendom on the point. The Roman Catholic does not allow the validity of Anglican orders, though the Anglicans own those of Rome, for a recanting Romish priest never undergoes presbyterial ordination within the English Establishment. The Presbyterian reckons episcopacy a fiction. The Independent rests the essence of his call on the choice of the congregation, as the Presbyterian does in a measure. Thus for the most part the theories and practice of Christendom, if applied and held fast, are mutually destructive; one only could be true.

"Brethren" believe that not one of these conflicting schemes is according to God's word; because even those who have a measure of right, in upholding the truth of apostolic authority as the sole adequate ordaining power, falsely pretend that the modern bishop succeeds to this authority. If "Brethren" arrogated such a claim to themselves, they would be as wrong as their neighbours; but as long as they bold to the truth in this respect, they will avoid this error of' Christendom. They leave it to others, who have as little real ground as themselves, to imitate an apostle or an apostolic delegate. Instead of aspiring to an authority which "Brethren" frankly own they do not possess, and which they firmly believe neither Roman Catholics nor other Episcopalians possess one jot more than themselves, they thank God for the gifts which remain, being amongst themselves more or less as also among the members of Christ's body everywhere.

I flatly deny, then, that they reject a ministry set apart by the laying on of hands, as laid down in 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and elsewhere. It is notorious that they on the contrary hold so tenaciously to the due scriptural order as to reject the poor and baseless imitations of this current among modern Episcopalians, and still more the substitution of the popular voice for it, which passes among Dissenters. But they hold that the Lord (as from the first, even whilst apostles and their delegates appointed elders) gives such gifts (evangelists, pastors, teachers, etc.) is are needed for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. From the beginning, there was the free exercise of gift within and without the Church, beside the local charges of elders, etc., which needed orderly appointment. Have gifts ceased, because apostolic authority no longer exists?

(2.) I am grieved to say that the charge of evasion under the head of confessing sins is inexcusable, not to say worse. The Bishop of Kilmore was misinformed if he thought "Brethren" held that the confession of sins is to be laid aside by those who have already received forgiveness; for they would support himself in resisting that grave error. Mr. N.'s hostility forthwith suspects evil couched underneath a straightforward denial: any candid gracious soul would be gratified by it, because he loves to bear good of his brethren and rejoices to have a prejudice removed. What does Mr. N. say and feel? "We have here another evasion put forth as a reply to my charge. I never denied that the Darbyites, as a body, insist on the duty of a believer to confess his sins; but I did and do charge them with the grievous error that a believer needs not daily to pray for the forgiveness of his sins." How comes this shifting of the point before us? Why does he charge the reply to Dr. Verschoyle with "evasion" because his own different statement was not answered? Did he forget that the reply was to Dr. V. not to himself? Again, why did he "adopt" the Bishop of Kilmore's words on this head if he never believed of "Brethren" what the Bishop imputes? Was this upright? Is it lawful to use another's words against the "Brethren," which, when exposed, you deny that you ever held, and then to substitute quite a different statement, with a confident accusation that your charge (which was not in question) is evaded? This is what Mr. N. has done. I do not think any worthy members of his own party will approve of it.

No intelligent Christian objects to the Common Prayer Book on the ground here alleged, but to the merging saints and sinners in a common petition and confession of sins, to the exceeding detriment of the converted, to the imminent peril of the unconverted, and above all to the trampling under foot of the primary idea, the express design, and revealed character of God's Church.

To be precise, let me add, first, that "Brethren" do ask forgiveness of their sins; secondly, that confession goes beyond this. Who does not know, save the thoughtless, that it is far easier to ask forgiveness than to confess honestly and thoroughly? Have you never felt it? Have you not seen it in your child? For what are sins confessed, if not to seek forgiveness from our Father?

(3.) Neither is there any evasion as to the Lord's prayer. I have never hinted that it was used at meetings of "Brethren," though there is no rule expressed or understood against such a thing. It is evident that the Lord gave it for the closet use (Matt. 6: 6) of His disciples, who were regenerate at that very time and had not yet received the gift of the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete. I believe that it abides for such use on the part of disciples in a similar condition; but that it never was intended for souls after they were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise and possessed (not merely the title, but) the Spirit of sonship. This vast change is, I am convinced, the teaching of our Lord Himself in John 16: 24-26. The disciples had been no doubt for a long time using the Lord's prayer; yet the Lord tells them "Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name." "At that day ye shall ask in my Name." "That day" is now come: are we as the disciples were? or, having received the Comforter, are we asking the Father in Christ's name? To my mind this distinction is clear and certain; but Mr. N. counts it "shuffling by which your correspondent endeavours to exonerate the sect from this sanctimonious blasphemy," and then talks about the distinction already pointed out in such a style as to show himself wholly in the dark on this subject. "If any man be ignorant let him be ignorant."

From these bold and bitter, but powerless words, in the face of our Lord's declaration and the evident facts of scripture, it is refreshing to turn to the excellent and learned Dr. John Owen. None can say that Cromwell's Vice-Chancellor of Oxford Plymouthized; none can deny that for spiritual judgment he is incomparably beyond any of the adversaries of the "Brethren." His orthodoxy and his piety are unimpeachable; yet his doctrine (as far as it goes), and no doubt his practice, as to the Lord's prayer, accords with ours. "Let it therefore be taken for granted that our Saviour did command that form to be repeated by His disciples, and let us then consider what will regularly ensue thereupon. Our Saviour at that time was minister of the circumcision, and taught the doctrine of the gospel under and with the observation of all the worship of the Judaical church. He was not yet glorified, and so the Spirit was not as yet given; I mean that Spirit which He promised unto His disciples to enable them to perform all the worship of God by Him required at their hands, whereof we have before spoken. That, then, which the Lord Jesus prescribed unto His disciples for their present practice in the worship of God, seems to have belonged unto the economy of the Old Testament. Now, to argue from the prescription of, and outward helps for, the performance of the worship of God under the Old Testament, unto a necessity of the like or the same under the New, is upon the matter to deny that Christ is ascended on high, and to have given spiritual gifts unto men eminently distinct from and above those given out by Him under the Judaical pedagogy." (Works, Vol. xv., p. 14, Goold's ed.) Of course, I attach not the smallest authority to Dr. O.; but it suffices to evince the abuse and lack of knowledge on our accuser's part.

(4.) It is in vain to appeal to 1 John 2: 3, 1 John 3: 18, 19 to prove that scripture makes the full assurance of our acceptance to depend on our works or our experiences. The apostle treats of a wholly different question and assumes, in this very epistle, that the former was already settled even for the babes of the family of God. See 1 John 2: 12; 1 John 5: 13. There were those who sought even in that early day to set up Gnostic conceits, to despise love and holiness, and to assert the necessity of their teaching for the children of God. Hence, not to raise internal questions, but to comfort the true saints, and to expose these aspiring false teachers, the apostle says, "Hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments." There is no thought of insinuating an inquiry whether their own faith was real. So in chapter 3 it is expressly a question of "assurance of heart;" not of ascertaining one's individual interest in Christ, but of keeping our confidence toward God unbroken. But I quite agree that without holiness (practically) no man shall see the Lord; and that carelessness of ways even in a real saint is always destructive of spiritual enjoyment.

(5.) So far is it from being true that individuals among "Brethren" are insensible to discipline, that one of the greatest hindrances we know is from the spirit of insubjection which prevails generally over Christendom. When the high-minded among us receive censure beyond their grace to endure, sometimes they resent it by going back to the country whence they came out, or by making a party of their own. It is commonly alleged against "Brethren" that they take "the best" from the various religious societies. Others are perhaps better judges of this. We can thankfully say that none but our worst or weakest leave us to join any denomination. The singular fact is, that our adversaries do not seem to perceive how serious for themselves are both these allegations if true. And who can deny them?

(6.) I am sorry that the most prejudiced Christian should judge it wrong, when souls established in Christ are taught any truth they need, particularly what is so near to Christ and so practically necessary to our walk and worship as the nature of God's Church. But 1 can well understand why some are sensitive on this head.

I had almost omitted to add that our reason for not putting forth creeds, or articles of faith, is not in the smallest degree because of diversity of opinion. Tracts and books, however, by men respected among us are abundant and accessible. Why not quote fairly from them, instead of imputing to "Brethren" sentiments which they abhor? First, it is evident to us, that symbols of faith do not secure unanimity in Mr. N.'s system, which affords to all men the spectacle of compelling men to sign what they openly deny, without an approach to the right use of ecclesiastical discipline (though the second part of the Homily for Whitsunday declares this to be one of the three notes or marks whereby the true church is known). Secondly, it is equally clear that the Church of God walked without these Egyptian reeds during its best days here below, as we are seeking to do now by the grave of the Saviour.

As to the reproach of being a conglomerate of the errors of the Quakers, the Anabaptists, and the Antinomians, with supplemental errors increasing and special, it is not worth more answer than that of our scandalous immoralities. I retort nothing; I appeal to those who have knowledge and conscience.

Appendix to the Notice of the

Achill Herald

Recollections.

W. Kelly.

The author's charges differ from the Bishop of Kilmore's. There is no reason for evading either — least of all for not meeting the more violent of the two. I have replied to Dr. Verschoyle elsewhere, and now proceed to refute the rector of Skreen.

(1.) Mr. Nangle's statement is, that those he calls Darbyites "reject a ministry set apart by the laying on of hands to rule and teach the Church, as laid down in St. Paul's epistles to Timothy and Titus, and various other parts of the New Testament. That they do reject such a ministry is notorious, and the apologist of the sect does not dare to deny it." It is evident that he does not understand the matter; nor should one be surprised at this.

All is confusion in Christendom on the point. The Roman Catholic does not allow the validity of Anglican orders, though the Anglicans own those of Rome, for a recanting Romish priest never undergoes presbyterial ordination within the English Establishment. The Presbyterian reckons episcopacy a fiction. The Independent rests the essence of his call on the choice of the congregation, as the Presbyterian does in a measure. Thus for the most part the theories and practice of Christendom, if applied and held fast, are mutually destructive; one only could be true.

"Brethren" believe that not one of these conflicting schemes is according to God's word; because even those who have a measure of right, in upholding the truth of apostolic authority as the sole adequate ordaining power, falsely pretend that the modern bishop succeeds to this authority. If "Brethren" arrogated such a claim to themselves, they would be as wrong as their neighbours; but as long as they bold to the truth in this respect, they will avoid this error of' Christendom. They leave it to others, who have as little real ground as themselves, to imitate an apostle or an apostolic delegate. Instead of aspiring to an authority which "Brethren" frankly own they do not possess, and which they firmly believe neither Roman Catholics nor other Episcopalians possess one jot more than themselves, they thank God for the gifts which remain, being amongst themselves more or less as also among the members of Christ's body everywhere.

I flatly deny, then, that they reject a ministry set apart by the laying on of hands, as laid down in 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and elsewhere. It is notorious that they on the contrary hold so tenaciously to the due scriptural order as to reject the poor and baseless imitations of this current among modern Episcopalians, and still more the substitution of the popular voice for it, which passes among Dissenters. But they hold that the Lord (as from the first, even whilst apostles and their delegates appointed elders) gives such gifts (evangelists, pastors, teachers, etc.) is are needed for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. From the beginning, there was the free exercise of gift within and without the Church, beside the local charges of elders, etc., which needed orderly appointment. Have gifts ceased, because apostolic authority no longer exists?

(2.) I am grieved to say that the charge of evasion under the head of confessing sins is inexcusable, not to say worse. The Bishop of Kilmore was misinformed if he thought "Brethren" held that the confession of sins is to be laid aside by those who have already received forgiveness; for they would support himself in resisting that grave error. Mr. N.'s hostility forthwith suspects evil couched underneath a straightforward denial: any candid gracious soul would be gratified by it, because he loves to bear good of his brethren and rejoices to have a prejudice removed. What does Mr. N. say and feel? "We have here another evasion put forth as a reply to my charge. I never denied that the Darbyites, as a body, insist on the duty of a believer to confess his sins; but I did and do charge them with the grievous error that a believer needs not daily to pray for the forgiveness of his sins." How comes this shifting of the point before us? Why does he charge the reply to Dr. Verschoyle with "evasion" because his own different statement was not answered? Did he forget that the reply was to Dr. V. not to himself? Again, why did he "adopt" the Bishop of Kilmore's words on this head if he never believed of "Brethren" what the Bishop imputes? Was this upright? Is it lawful to use another's words against the "Brethren," which, when exposed, you deny that you ever held, and then to substitute quite a different statement, with a confident accusation that your charge (which was not in question) is evaded? This is what Mr. N. has done. I do not think any worthy members of his own party will approve of it.

No intelligent Christian objects to the Common Prayer Book on the ground here alleged, but to the merging saints and sinners in a common petition and confession of sins, to the exceeding detriment of the converted, to the imminent peril of the unconverted, and above all to the trampling under foot of the primary idea, the express design, and revealed character of God's Church.

To be precise, let me add, first, that "Brethren" do ask forgiveness of their sins; secondly, that confession goes beyond this. Who does not know, save the thoughtless, that it is far easier to ask forgiveness than to confess honestly and thoroughly? Have you never felt it? Have you not seen it in your child? For what are sins confessed, if not to seek forgiveness from our Father?

(3.) Neither is there any evasion as to the Lord's prayer. I have never hinted that it was used at meetings of "Brethren," though there is no rule expressed or understood against such a thing. It is evident that the Lord gave it for the closet use (Matt. 6: 6) of His disciples, who were regenerate at that very time and had not yet received the gift of the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete. I believe that it abides for such use on the part of disciples in a similar condition; but that it never was intended for souls after they were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise and possessed (not merely the title, but) the Spirit of sonship. This vast change is, I am convinced, the teaching of our Lord Himself in John 16: 24-26. The disciples had been no doubt for a long time using the Lord's prayer; yet the Lord tells them "Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name." "At that day ye shall ask in my Name." "That day" is now come: are we as the disciples were? or, having received the Comforter, are we asking the Father in Christ's name? To my mind this distinction is clear and certain; but Mr. N. counts it "shuffling by which your correspondent endeavours to exonerate the sect from this sanctimonious blasphemy," and then talks about the distinction already pointed out in such a style as to show himself wholly in the dark on this subject. "If any man be ignorant let him be ignorant."

From these bold and bitter, but powerless words, in the face of our Lord's declaration and the evident facts of scripture, it is refreshing to turn to the excellent and learned Dr. John Owen. None can say that Cromwell's Vice-Chancellor of Oxford Plymouthized; none can deny that for spiritual judgment he is incomparably beyond any of the adversaries of the "Brethren." His orthodoxy and his piety are unimpeachable; yet his doctrine (as far as it goes), and no doubt his practice, as to the Lord's prayer, accords with ours. "Let it therefore be taken for granted that our Saviour did command that form to be repeated by His disciples, and let us then consider what will regularly ensue thereupon. Our Saviour at that time was minister of the circumcision, and taught the doctrine of the gospel under and with the observation of all the worship of the Judaical church. He was not yet glorified, and so the Spirit was not as yet given; I mean that Spirit which He promised unto His disciples to enable them to perform all the worship of God by Him required at their hands, whereof we have before spoken. That, then, which the Lord Jesus prescribed unto His disciples for their present practice in the worship of God, seems to have belonged unto the economy of the Old Testament. Now, to argue from the prescription of, and outward helps for, the performance of the worship of God under the Old Testament, unto a necessity of the like or the same under the New, is upon the matter to deny that Christ is ascended on high, and to have given spiritual gifts unto men eminently distinct from and above those given out by Him under the Judaical pedagogy." (Works, Vol. xv., p. 14, Goold's ed.) Of course, I attach not the smallest authority to Dr. O.; but it suffices to evince the abuse and lack of knowledge on our accuser's part.

(4.) It is in vain to appeal to 1 John 2: 3, 1 John 3: 18, 19 to prove that scripture makes the full assurance of our acceptance to depend on our works or our experiences. The apostle treats of a wholly different question and assumes, in this very epistle, that the former was already settled even for the babes of the family of God. See 1 John 2: 12; 1 John 5: 13. There were those who sought even in that early day to set up Gnostic conceits, to despise love and holiness, and to assert the necessity of their teaching for the children of God. Hence, not to raise internal questions, but to comfort the true saints, and to expose these aspiring false teachers, the apostle says, "Hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments." There is no thought of insinuating an inquiry whether their own faith was real. So in chapter 3 it is expressly a question of "assurance of heart;" not of ascertaining one's individual interest in Christ, but of keeping our confidence toward God unbroken. But I quite agree that without holiness (practically) no man shall see the Lord; and that carelessness of ways even in a real saint is always destructive of spiritual enjoyment.

(5.) So far is it from being true that individuals among "Brethren" are insensible to discipline, that one of the greatest hindrances we know is from the spirit of insubjection which prevails generally over Christendom. When the high-minded among us receive censure beyond their grace to endure, sometimes they resent it by going back to the country whence they came out, or by making a party of their own. It is commonly alleged against "Brethren" that they take "the best" from the various religious societies. Others are perhaps better judges of this. We can thankfully say that none but our worst or weakest leave us to join any denomination. The singular fact is, that our adversaries do not seem to perceive how serious for themselves are both these allegations if true. And who can deny them?

(6.) I am sorry that the most prejudiced Christian should judge it wrong, when souls established in Christ are taught any truth they need, particularly what is so near to Christ and so practically necessary to our walk and worship as the nature of God's Church. But 1 can well understand why some are sensitive on this head.

I had almost omitted to add that our reason for not putting forth creeds, or articles of faith, is not in the smallest degree because of diversity of opinion. Tracts and books, however, by men respected among us are abundant and accessible. Why not quote fairly from them, instead of imputing to "Brethren" sentiments which they abhor? First, it is evident to us, that symbols of faith do not secure unanimity in Mr. N.'s system, which affords to all men the spectacle of compelling men to sign what they openly deny, without an approach to the right use of ecclesiastical discipline (though the second part of the Homily for Whitsunday declares this to be one of the three notes or marks whereby the true church is known). Secondly, it is equally clear that the Church of God walked without these Egyptian reeds during its best days here below, as we are seeking to do now by the grave of the Saviour.

As to the reproach of being a conglomerate of the errors of the Quakers, the Anabaptists, and the Antinomians, with supplemental errors increasing and special, it is not worth more answer than that of our scandalous immoralities. I retort nothing; I appeal to those who have knowledge and conscience.

A Letter on Romans 6 and 1 John 1. 7.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. 8, p. 175-176.)

Dear Sir, — I am indebted to you, my unknown donor, for a tract by "Adelphos." Like many others, it calls for no notice in itself. There are attacks whose only importance is that they serve to show the state of those who make them; and this is one of that class. The morbid, disappointed, and unruly may sympathize with the writers; but every generous soul rejects their insinuations without an answer to expose them.

It has nevertheless appeared to me that, without interposing in others' battles, it might serve the Lord and the truth to give a specimen of "Adelphos's" charity and competency. I will therefore transcribe, from the note to page 17, enough to put in evidence the tone of the writer, who is plainly one of a small knot of malcontents, whose mission seems to be Ishmaelitish indeed — the effort to fasten revolting charges of false doctrine on their brethren. "One of the most offensive instances of this wrong division of the word of truth that I have lately seen occurs at page 7 [it should be 11] of a tract entitled, 'The Salvation of God,' where we may read that 'the blood of Christ effaces the sins, but it does not meet the question of sin that is working in the believer after he is brought to God. What does? Do you not know that you are dead to sin?' Is then, it must be asked, the blood of the Son of man to be no longer 'drink indeed' to believers after they are brought to God? The exact contradiction of this rash assertion by the Spirit in 1 John 1: 7 will suggest itself to every thoughtful and unfettered mind. To expose fully the objectionable nature of such teaching would require much more than a note. I can here only warn the reader of its direct tendency to foster carnal security in Christians and to obscure and depreciate the true doctrine of the cross."

Now here I join issue distinctly with these men, and I affirm that it is they, not we, who are despising the full work of Christ and flatly opposing the word of God. For not even "Adelphos" can deny that the incriminated tract places the sinner within the doors sprinkled with the Lamb's blood as the only possible refuge for him in his guilt. The question discussed is the distinctive force of the Red Sea and of Israel's passage across it. To this the answer is brought from Romans 6. The believer is there taught that he died with Christ, and consequently had to count himself dead to sin and alive in Jesus Christ to God. Is not this the truth? Is it not the special object of the chapter to show that grace does not foster carnal security or cloak a bad walk? It is "Adelphos" who flings away the divine safeguard. Who does not know that this is the crying vice of evangelicalism? Their tradition, even where it does not tack on the law as a rule of life, directly tends to make the blood of Christ the exclusive provision for the soul; especially when it goes the length of repeated sprinklings and reiterated recourse for restoration, as a guilty Jew again and again brought his sacrifice with a fresh confession of his sin.

The question discussed there is what gives power against the dominion of sin in practice. The answer, as repeated in the tract but denied by " Adelphos," is, not that we are come to the blood of sprinkling (true and precious and indispensable as this is); not that we must not be led into other and further truth in Christ (which is what his argument here assuredly sets aside), but just the contrary — that we need and have more in our blessed Lord and His infinite work; that, besides His blood, "so many of us as were baptized into him, baptized into his death," and thus, like as He was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. He that died (this is the point) is justified from sin. The question of the remission of our sins we have had already fully settled in Romans 3 - 5: 11.

I grant indeed that death with Christ "Adelphos" and his companions never seem to comprehend. This lies at the root of much of their bitter hostility. They set themselves to decry a revealed truth, which they themselves do not appreciate. This, in the words of "Adelphos," I should call truly "rash," and "most offensive;" and I have good reason to know that the same spirit and similar opposition, even to a principle so elementary and of the deepest moment for practical walk, pervade the party and their doctrine. Is it sound? Does it promote holiness? Is such a course really of God? Are they too stiff to learn?

Again, he asks, "Is the blood of the Son of man to be no longer 'drink indeed' to believers after they are brought to God ?" I answer, most assuredly; it is the sweetest food of faith. Eating His flesh and drinking His blood, we dwell in Him and He in us. If "Adelphos" is an older man than the young brother he rebukes, he is so much the less excusable for putting such a question, which is equally misleading in what it suppresses and in what it suggests. For he might, not to say must, know that those he assails love to show forth and dwell on the death of the Lord. For my own part, much as I delight in the power of His resurrection, and in His heavenly glory, my heart ever turns, not to our union with Him, but to His death, in which all the moral being of God was glorified, even in respect and in spite of sin, as it was and could be nowhere else, through the grace of the Lord Jesus. This joy of entrance into His dying abides ever here, as I believe it will be not less but perfectly known in heaven.

Hence we see that, as the passover is really deeper morally than the Red Sea as a type, so Romans 5: 1-11 goes beyond Romans 8 in this that the former is more simple and absolute in its presentations of sovereign grace and God Himself, while the latter is no doubt richer in its display of what we are in Christ, and of what Christ is in us by the Spirit of God, closing triumphantly with God for us, rather than setting Him as the object before us in whom we exult. The note ignores the beautiful consistency of scripture, arrays one truth in which we all agree against another, which is all-important in its own divinely ordered place. This the tract sought to state simply, and thus supply a most evident lack, which the resistance and the party spirit of its censor unwittingly confess and only confirm. But where is Christ's glory, where the guidance of the Spirit, in such tactics?

But "Adelphos" is as mistaken in his use of scripture as we have seen him unconscionably censorious. For I must ask in my turn, Is drinking the Son of man's blood laid down in scripture as the principle of a believer's walk and watch against the sin that is in him breaking out in his ways? Or is it not, as I have shown, "How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein?" Under the pretence of guarding the value of Christ's blood, it is really an effort to undermine another truth of God, bound up with Christ dead and risen, of which he has yet to learn the power.

Finally, 1 John 1: 7 is not "the exact contradiction" of the statement as to Romans 6, nor does it touch the question. "Adelphos" reasons from the Authorized Version, which may be correct enough for ordinary use. But it is as bad scholarship as it is bad doctrine to apply it to ridding the believer from indwelling sin, or giving him practical power against it. The true force is, "the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from every* sin" (ἀπὸ πάσης  ἁμαρτίας).† No unbiassed scholar who weighs the passage will deny this; as no person open to the bearing of truth will deny that the truth here laid down connects itself with Romans 5 and the passover, rather than with Romans 6 and the Red Sea.

There is this brand on the assailing brethren that they have all condemned in strong terms, and separated themselves for years, from that laxity in ecclesiastical walk, which they would now excuse if not commend; and that they in general yielded to the pressure of old friends what they once (as we thought with godly sincerity) believed to be a question of Christ. Can any dispassionate doubt what was the true source and nature of the change? Perhaps "Adelphos" too has not forgotten one in particular whose lack of singleness of purpose exposed him to go out and come in over and over again? I have no wish to wound needlessly; but was it too much to hope that one so infirm of purpose might learn both to distrust himself and to watch against that censoriousness which is ever suspecting evil in what is not understood? Take for instance, the repetition in this tract of the outcry about "smiting," the Lord's death, atonement and life in resurrection. Do not think that I am going to refute what always seemed to me to carry along with it its own refutation. It is a melancholy witness how far the heated feelings of retrograde hearts can fling out charges which their authors possibly believe themselves, and a very few followers who believe what they believe. I could wish them all a happier lot than the detective line of things to which they have addicted themselves. The Lord alone can give that subjection to His word in a sense of His grace which can so far keep us right.

Your servant in the Lord, W. K.

* So I believe it is rendered in the recent and exact version of Mr. T. Sheldon Green, who will scarcely be charged with "Exclusive" proclivities. The only wonder is that any scholar should have taken the passage otherwise.

† If I understand the use made of Acts 20: 7 in pp. 23, 24, "Adelphos" seems rather short in textual criticism; for no one acquainted with the comparative value of the witnesses ventures to prefer τῶν μαθητῶν το ἡμῶν.

___________________

(B.T. Vol. 8, p. 130.)

If I trust to my own strength in the hour of temptation, I break down: but if I have learnt, through grace, to cast myself on Christ, I find all in Him to help me, and to go through the temptation unscathed. I must learn the lesson. If I learn it with the Lord, I am spared the sifting but if not, I must be sifted. If not in intercourse with the Lord, it must be with Satan. "Nevertheless," saith the Lord, "I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not." It is blessed to believe that God loves us, notwithstanding all our failure. It is worth (not any sin but) any sorrow to learn this.

Alms.

Matt. 6: 2-4.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. N5, p. 22-23.)

The Lord takes for granted that His disciples would walk righteously before God in alms, prayer, and fasting. He is not satisfied with bidding such give to him that asks, as in the preceding chapter (Matt. 5: 42), and from him that would borrow not to turn away. It is by the grace of Christ in contrast with legal narrowness. Here we have the single motive of pleasing our Father that is in the heavens. Thus would their light shine in Christ as believed and confessed by them, not their righteousness be done before men to be seen of them, which is the object expressly forbidden. As in alms we have the needy and distressed of mankind directly brought before us, we have this followed up by prayer to our Father in the closet, fasting subjoined to set aside self-indulgence for the body and leave room for humiliation before Him: thus dealing with man, apostles, self and God, in ways suited to the Father revealed by the Son.

"When therefore thou doest aims, sound not a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be glorified by men. Verily I say to you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth; so that thine alms may be secret, and thy Father that seeth in secret will repay thee."

It is not the habit of giving or lending in liberality of heart, unstintedly and unselfishly, but that merciful consideration of the wretched and suffering, which becomes those who serve God in a fallen world (James 1: 27). Each duty has its place. Both, adorn the teaching that is of our Saviour God, as we are called to do in all things. Prudence may question, common sense hesitate; but faith acts on His word, and without faith it is impossible to please Him. It is no question of doing another's will, but of Christ's will.

In all cases the snare is ostentatious, doing our righteousness before men to be seen of them. Otherwise, says our Lord, ye have no reward of your Father that is in the heavens. He lays the utmost stress on the manner and the motive with which the act is done. Display in the doing of alms He compares to sounding a trumpet before the doer, and denounces it as what the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, within and without where people meet and pass. Can anything be conceived baser than a son of God playing a part to win the notice and approbation of men? How solemnly He adds, Verily I say to you, They have got their reward!

How elevating it is for the soul, in having to do with the relief of distress among men, to act in secret, and in the sight of the Father that seeth in secret as the One to repay! It is not enough to exclude other men. To bring Him in and in secret is essential to the purity of the case. It is He who is above all, and through all, and in us all; and the least of His gifts to us is what enables us to help the suffering and the needy. To leave Him out is the essence of unbelief. To bring Him in is what we as His children owe Him in love and honour, the witness of our dependence, of our gratitude, and of our loyal service.

We have only to look at the ways of men in Christendom, in order to learn where neglect of the Saviour's teaching leads His disciples, and the influence of self, not only on the world but on the godly swayed by the spirit of the age. What notoriety! What emulation! What boasting or pride, and even ambition! What a contrast with Him who being rich for our sake became poor, that we by His poverty might be enriched! And how striking that not in rich Corinth but in the poor churches of Macedonia, scripture tells us of the grace of God bestowed in this way; how in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded to the riches of their free-hearted liberality! It was not even according as the apostle hoped, but beyond; and the secret of it was, that they gave themselves first to the Lord, and to us by God's will. Thus is genuineness of love proved.

But there is another invaluable word of the Lord as to this which calls for our heed. "But thou when thou dost alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth; so that thine alms may be in secret, and thy Father that seeth in secret will repay thee." It is not only from others but from ourselves that such doings should he hidden. Self is a subtler evil than men. The action of grace is defiled and becomes a poison to me and a dishonour to God when I think of it with complacency. If rightly done, it was passed to our Father for His remembrance, not ours.

Here lay Job's failure, which no inflictions of Satan, nor unsympathy, nor yet suspicion, of friends even touched. He was a most gracious man, but he thought of it, and not of God only who wrought in Him. To this he must be and was brought: to boast only in God, judge himself, and submit with all his heart. Part of the lesson was that his left hand should not know what his right hand did. This on the contrary, up to the end of his appeal (Job 31), he knew only too well. But all was changed when, instead of looking at fruits of grace in himself, he saw God in very faithfulness withering up all self-satisfaction. "I had heard of Thee by the hearing of the ear, but now mine eye seeth Thee: wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes" (Job 42: 6).

Thus we hear that even in alms the Father in secret must be the motive in order to make it acceptable to Him. The Lord insists on inward truth. O my fellow-sinner, how can this be while you are dead in trespasses and sins? "Ye must be born anew;" and life, this new life, is in Christ only. But He is the object of faith set for this purpose by God. "He that believeth hath life eternal;" and as Christ is the source, so is He the strength of that life. "I live; no longer I, but Christ liveth in me."

W.H.D.'s "Appeal."

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. 6, p. 252-254.)

Dear brother,

This "Appeal," which I had not seen when your letter reached me, was brought me by a brother to whom it was sent unsought. Brethren must change woefully from what I have known them, if its perusal affect them otherwise than with real grief for the writer, his companions, and any Christians who may be credulous enough to receive statements which I refrain from characterizing as they deserve.

Nothing can be simpler than the doctrine for which I am responsible, which seems to me unquestionable. No doubt W. H. Dorman holds the same at bottom, though he may prefer his own way of putting it and I beg leave to cleave to my own. But I have no wish to impute to him what he hates. I have never taught or implied that Christ's death was unatoning; I have nowhere explained away or denied the intrinsic character of anything previously stated. I assert openly and decidedly that the blood or death of Christ is viewed in some scriptures as through man's sinful deed, and consequently as bringing judgment on him, in others as the fruit of God's grace in judgment of sin, and so the basis of all blessing to the believer. "His blood be on us and on our children," and "a propitiation through faith in His blood" may illustrate both points, for which many proofs might be produced from Scripture. I believe too that God's smiting, &-c., in every scripture in which it is used of Christ (Psalm 69: 26; Daniel 9: 26,and Zech. 13: 7), can be demonstrated to be on the side of judgment rather than of grace, the contextual connection proving it to he no question of atonement. But while unwavering in this conviction, I treat no man as unsound who does not see it. Is it a new thing for such as are wrong in their views to be violent in their denunciation of those who are more right than themselves? Is nobody else to see more than they see? They are not asked to see or to say they see, if they cannot; but do they want to hinder others? This is what it comes to.

This "Appeal" will not convince any fair-minded Christian that the dignity of Christ's person is lost sight of by those it attacks; nor do I think that Crantz's Greenland or Brainerd's Journal will help the writer much to understand the point in dispute. No one doubts that it is not a matter for preaching to the unconverted: are we as Christians never to go beyond the good news? The editor of Present Testimony needs no defence of mine. But for myself, I do hold to the proposition that God's word connects having nothing with the Messiah cut off in Daniel 9. Is this the effect of atonement? It is of His cutting off.* Does any one then cavil at the antithesis, that cutting off is the loss, as atonement is the gain, of all? W. H. D. is silent on Psalm 69: 26: had he been equally reserved on Zechariah 13: 7,† it would have been no' damage to his new tract or his old one. He may think it only proper spirit to allow himself the license he takes in page 19 and elsewhere; but to me it is as clear as light whose intelligence is at fault. Compare John 11: 52. Does not this verse speak of Christ's death, His atoning death, that He should gather to-ether in one the children of God that were scattered abroad? Compare also John 10: 15, 16 with the passage in Zechariah 13: 7. On the other hand, who can see people gathered to eternal life in John 5: 24? This is to interpolate, not to interpret. It is scripture which makes scattering the effect of smiting, and treats death in atonement as the forerunner of gathering. Israel too will be gathered when the Lord applies that atoning death to them. The scattering of the disciples when Jesus was smitten was a sample, the beginning of that which befell the Jews at large not long after. The gathering of the Church was based on the same death viewed in grace, as that of Israel will follow by and by. The argument which essays to weaken this is mere wrangling and beneath notice; but it is instructive as indicating the writer's state and tone, as well as his feeling toward those he does not (perhaps, cannot now) comprehend.

*"And after the threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off and shall have nothing" (as in margin). Such seems unequivocally the true rendering: literally, "and there shall not be to him." The common version (i.e., the text of the English Bible) "but not for himself" is an error from a violent effort to make it speak about the atonement.

† The learned reader may see, if he pleases, that the able Venema (Comment. ad. lib. proph. Zach. in loc. cit.) treats the smiting of the Messiah as the broad fact of His being given up to the power of man, substantially as I have done, and not according to the narrow modern view to which some would shut us up. C. B. C. may see more to the same effect in the "Critici Sacri."

But there is another statement of mine which has been attacked with sufficient heat and din of words to stun those who can be alarmed by sound. Now I believe that atonement demanded that Christ should suffer the judgment of our sins, and that God should forsake Him when thus made sin on the cross. Where all was marvellous, this is the great marvel which bows our hearts before that suffering One, the mighty God, yet crucified in weakness. Do they want scripture for it? This infinite fact is what I sought to convey in the incriminated sentence: "That which was properly expiation or atonement was not the pure, however precious, act of Christ's death." I used, as I was entitled to use, the word "pure," in its idiomatic sense of mere, nothing but; and I meant then, as I am bold to repeat now, that even the precious blood of Christ, the Word made flesh, is atoning because He bore our sins and their judgment on the cross. The whole force of my remark was levelled against severing His death from that stupendous expression of sin-bearing and infinite suffering at God's hand. Alas! it seems that these men would like to think us guilty of treason against Christ and His cross.

Here I go farther than as to "the smiting." Many servants of God, probably Brainerd and the Moravians, have interpreted smiting of the atonement. I may think them mistaken as an exact exposition of scripture; but as they are substantially right, I should not in such a case notice a flaw of phrase. For in the smiting of Christ atonement was wrought. But the man who denies the judgment of our sins and God's consequent abandonment of Christ on the cross, separating these from the act of death and His blood that was shed (the good Lord pardon any sounds of discussion on so holy a theme!), seems to me most seriously wrong, and evidences how meagre is his own perception of the hatefulness of sin before God, because be thereby slights the true revealed character and consequence of Christ's suffering for us.

"The pure .... act of Christ's death," in my sentence, does not mean His death (p. 11). When scripture speaks of His death as reconciling us to God, or of His blood cleansing us from all sin (to refer to the various scriptures this tract cites), it never means what I called the pure act of His death (i.e., His death apart from the judgment of our sins by God); but, on the contrary, His death efficacious according to the perfection of God's moral dealing with our evil on the cross. This, therefore, gives in one sentence the simple and conclusive answer to all the noisy declamation, and, I must add, the groundless slander, of W. H. D.'s new tract. I hurl back the shameless taunt of holding or teaching the unatoning death of Christ. What I declared and do affirm, is that His atoning death is not merely because He died, but because God made Him to be sin, and that so He died and shed His blood for us. He who hesitates about this truth appears to me a man to hesitate about. Does not W. H. D. believe it? I trust and believe he does; yet his rash and alienated spirit dared to say over and over that "atonement is the bare (pure) act of Christ's death." Now either he used my words in my sense, or he did not. If he did not, it was a fraud; if he did, he said over and over what he does not believe (namely, that atonement consists in Christ's death without our sins being judged by God's forsaking Him on the cross). This indeed would be to mutilate His cross and to divorce atonement from His death. But no! I will vindicate W. H. D. from this at least, against his own "too strong" feelings, and against his own unguarded and unwarrantable words. He did not mean, any more than I meant, what he says. But oh! is this a brother's love? Is this jealousy for the truth, or for what?

As to the statement that to interpret the Psalms of the Jewish remnant and of Christ's special connection with them is a fifth gospel and a development, the writer had better have let it sleep. The apostles had the Psalms as we, and they had the Holy Ghost too. There was no need of a fresh interpretation; but that they knew nothing of their bearing on the Jewish remnant is what no man is warranted to say. All the talk about authoritative, or the New Testament only, is nothing to the purpose, or a mistake. Who makes J. N. D.'s exposition of authority? All this is the language of ill-will, no less than confusion.

I have not thought it worth while to speak of the uncommon preoccupation of the writer, who seems to deem his own opinions indisputable, and the worst possible construction of those he reviews (save B. W. N.) absolutely settled. Is this righteous or decent? I am content to have shown briefly that the gist of the pamphlet is a mere blunder, which is in no way relieved by entitling it "A solemn appeal," or by calling on his brethren to judge as heretical that which it is all but a heresy to deny.

But I must point out ere I conclude, that even plain matters of alleged fact cannot here be safely taken on trust. Thus the writer says (p. 11) that Christ's smiting from God "is now allowed by Mr. Darby to have been only on the cross, though formerly contended against." Is this the truth? When and where was it contended against? I have always heard the same statement and never understood what is insinuated here. In the "Sufferings of Christ," which raised the question, Mr. D. stated exactly what he states now-that the act of smiting took place only on the cross, though the spirit of it was realised before, especially from the last Passover. The same mis-statement occurs again in page 21. It is untrue, therefore, that it is a concession now, for it was always so explained.

Let me add that the writer goes much too far in his notion of "an impossible mental conception." Had he said impossible to himself, it might be true. Is his mind the measure of the possible? I am satisfied that there are many Christian men and women who find the conception in question perfectly intelligible to them.

Possibly the writer never had faith in God as to the path he followed his leader in for eighteen years: such at least is the melancholy portrait he presents of himself, though I see no sign of humiliation and self-distrust, but, on the contrary, morbid suspiciousness of others and no small acrimony now. Is this the temper to enter on the consideration of stale calumnies against his brethren, which in a happier mood he used to despise? He ought to know what "second-hand" means; and the new regime some will think a change for the worse. As he reminds us, "Ye shall know them by their fruits." What a painful comment on the text is his own tract! Happier they, in my opinion, who by grace have known how to walk across difficulties and in face of dangers, with loving respect for the worthy but with none the less independence of judgment before God.

The moral I gather from this fresh sorrow is, that the spirit of unbelief works, first, in giving up all uncompromising judgment of all allowance of heresy; secondly, in calumniating Is heresy that which is real and important truth. It was reserved for the present "Appeal" to fall into the absurdity of trying to fasten the semblance of heresy on a truth which, I cannot doubt, its writer himself holds. The issue for the assailed I for one can happily leave in the Lord's hands; and I can ask my brethren to join me in beseeching His pitiful mercy on the assailants.

I am, dear Brother, yours faithfully,

THE WRITER OF "REMARKS ON THE GOSPEL OF MARK"

As Having Authority.

Matt. 7: 28, 29.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. N5, p. 228-229.)

From first to last of the words of righteousness on the mountain, the Lord had spoken as none but a divine person was entitled to do.

"And it came to pass, when Jesus concluded these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his doctrine, for he was teaching them as having authority, and not as their scribes."

The Lord, alone on earth, was qualified to speak with authority peculiar to Himself. Beyond all others He knew what was in man (John 2: 25): He alone here below knew what was in God (John 3: 11). On one side He is the Man whom God raised from out of dead men, marked out by God as judge of living and dead, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and make manifest the counsels of the hearts. On the other hand no one hath seen God at any time, the Only-begotten Son that is in the bosom of the Father — He declared Him. He is thus in every way qualified to speak with authority; yet who so lowly?

But the Jews ware used, now that the Prophets of Jehovah for four centuries had ceased, to lean on their rabbis. Indeed they had shown the same unbelief in the days of prophets of the highest character; as Isaiah bears witness (Isa. 29: 13). It was with them in Israel, as afterwards in Christendom, a sea of uncertainty, and a conflict of learned or rash opinions. How could it be otherwise when they were thus cheated to give up God's word for man's ideas? So our Lord cites this very oracle in His day, "In vain they do worship me, teaching as doctrines men's precepts."

But not so the Lord Himself as He sat on the mount, and taught the disciples, within the hearing of the crowds. This Matthew was inspired to present continuously and in orderly relation for permanent use. He began with the characters, the blessed characters, of such as enter the kingdom of the heavens. Four are righteous, three gracious, each class with its consequent persecution, as being in the age where evil still runs on (Matt. 5: 3-12). Their position follows, righteous and gracious, toward those outside (13-16).

Then from ver. 17 to the end of the chapter He proceeds to show that far from coming to make void the law or the prophets, He was here to give the fulness of God's mind therein, the light of the kingdom before it is established in any for those who bow to Him. The unbelieving and unsubject shall not enter on the new privileges. Not a tittle should in any way pass from the law till all come to pass. To enter the kingdom a real and inward righteousness, of which Christ is the perfection, must be, far exceeding that of the scribes and Pharisees.

Next He goes farther, not merely "for verily I say to you" (18) and "for I say to you" (20) but with all the emphasis of superior divine light, worthy of God's Son, "Ye heard that it was said to the ancients, Thou shalt not kill . . . But I say to you" (21-26), and "ye heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say to you" (27-30); and incomparably more searching commandments are applied to the law's prohibition of violence and corruption only in their extreme forms.

After that the Lord deals with divorce, and oath in ordinary converse (not judicial), putting all in the same highest place of God's light, with no allowance of human weakness (vers. 31-37). These were matters of righteousness.

In what follows He looks at the higher and deeper claims of grace. Instead of retaliation as in the law of "eye for eye and tooth for tooth," we hear "But I say to you, not to resist evil," etc. (38-42); and instead of "Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy," He urges "But I say to you, Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that ye may be sons of your Father that is in the heavens," to the point of your being perfect (i.e. in grace), as your heavenly Father is to evil and good, just and unjust (43-48).

In Matt. 6 He points out the true spirit of the life in alms, prayer, and fasting toward God (their Father that seeth in secret before them) (1-18); again in calm confidence above the world's anxiety in ordinary things (19-34): righteousness and grace are here also.

Lastly, in Matt. 7 He guards against evil thoughts of brethren, and communion with the unclean world; and He counsels confiding dependence on their Father, acting toward others as they desired from them, and holding to the narrow gate and the straitened way (1-14). He solemnly warns against false prophets, whose fruits betray them notwithstanding their fair speech (15-20). The vanity of profession without vital reality is pressed even where service and gift are pleaded. It is finally compared to the folly of building on the sand, instead of on the rock of genuine obedience to Christ's words (21-27).

To any anxious soul let me say, Do not mistake. The Lord is not here showing how the sinner is to get pardon and peace. He is teaching His disciples how they are to walk and please their Father. Confusion here denies salvation by grace, is itself mere error, and can only endanger and ruin souls.

Recent Baptismal Agitation.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. 9, p.14-16, 32.)

To Mr. W. T. B.

Dear Brother, — You are not alone in speaking strongly of some tracts lately published. They are condemned not only by all who differ from the author's views, but (what is of more importance) by wise and sober brethren who accept that which may be called the same side of the question. How grievous to have to speak of sides in the least of divine things! But so it is

I have for many years said little on the matter, save where clearly called for. Every one who loves the Lord Jesus and serves the church has probably more or less observed the keen feelings and strong language the discussion of baptism is apt to excite, in utter disproportion to its relative place and as usual most heatedly among such as least understand its nature and consequences. It has seemed the plain path of grace and wisdom, not to say of truth and righteousness, to set one's face resolutely against party-spirit, and so against the zealots of either side. They both tend to make a sect of their own, the horror of which, to me, is Done the less, because the sect would fight under Baptist or Paedobaptist colours. Indeed if there could be a shade of difference, where both tend to a common evil result, one ought to feel most where most truth was thus perverted. Those who thank God for the apostle Paul's gospel should not forget his thankfulness on this score (1 Cor. 1: 14-17); and the value of these words of the Spirit appears to me so much the more plain, weighty, and urgent in the actual weakness of the saints and confusions of Christendom.

It would be well for all to avoid one-sided and exaggerated statements. There is no doubt for instance that Baptists generally take wrong ground in advocating what is due to this institution of the Lord. They plead the instance of John the Baptist and our Lord's example for us also to accomplish all righteousness. they insist on the baptism of believers as a matter of obedience; they dedicate their babes meanwhile till they are converted and seek baptism for themselves. Granted that all this proves distressing ignorance not of christian baptism only but of christianity; but is it not forgotten that no less ignorance in these very particulars, involving the most fundamental principles, rests on the great mass of Paedobaptists, save that they talk of dedicating their children to God in baptism?

The only fair inference therefore is that the legal or Judaizing view complained of is quite independent of this question, attaching to the general creed and practice of Christendom, and surely developing itself in ordinary Baptists and Paedobaptists alike, though in a slightly different form and phrase. On a fair comparison I am afraid the statements about baptism made by the ancient fathers in general were no better than Tertullian's, and that the Mennonites are no worse than Lutherans or Calvinists or Anglicans. The departure from christian truth lies far deeper than this question; and the Paedobaptists generally are surely not less legal and superstitious than the mass of Baptists. Nor is there ground save for anguish and humiliation in considering the words and ways of them all as one weighs what Christ is to us and has called us to. Why then mix up all this with the question? The common Paedobaptist is as ignorant as the Baptist of the difference between John's baptism and the christian one; they both know as much or as little of death and resurrection with Christ.

Again, which of the two has been the most guilty of erasing from Christian baptism its character of privilege conferred, by erecting it into a saving ordinance obedience to which is peremptory? Both have one far away from the revealed word, but not least the Paedobaptist

So, as to the meaning of baptism, it will hardly be argued gravely that Paedobaptists ordinarily enter into it one whit better than Baptists. It was the former, not the latter, who invented the flattest possible contradiction of its character. It was not the more despised of the two who spread everywhere the dreadful error that baptism is the sign and even the means of new birth. At the same time I frankly allow that they both equally misunderstand death with Christ. It is therefore unfounded and unfair to reason against the Baptist system as the culprit when in fact Paedobaptism proves equally open to the same charges. The fault common to both lies elsewhere. They have both alas! forsaken to an enormous extent the fountain of living Waters, and they have each hewed out broken cisterns of a different pattern that can hold no water.

For my part I rejoice when brethren who have had a bias one way or other in days of law have learnt of the Lord to meet and go on in grace, whereto they have already attained walking by the same rule, and, if in anything differently minded, confiding in the God of all grace to reveal even this to them, Hence it is a joy to see that, spite of ruin, all simple-minded men agree that baptism is the initiatory institution of Christianity, and that believers, if they have not been, should be at once baptized as the sign of having part with Christ in His death and resurrection. A true and loving and large heart seeks not to widen the breach, but rather to expose and rebuke, as of the enemy, all such efforts.

This is my reason for deploring the last of these tracts, which you justly say is the worst of the kind one has ever seen. I have in my time read not a few painful productions of Papists and Protestants; but I confess that not one occurs to my memory lower, looser, or more systematically perverting the scriptures. Were F. Xavier the famous Jesuit missionary alive, he would smile at such a justification of his procedure from such a quarter; and Charlemagne might have found a two-penny tract as useful is the sword to induce the Saxons to enter the river and be baptized.

For the doctrine broached is that faith before baptism is more wrong than right! that not believing but baptism is the means by which the nations were to be discipled! that they must be brought into the sphere of the church or assembly to receive not only the Spirit but His testimony concerning Jesus! and that this ground, which is Popish as far as it goes, is God's order!! To believe and be baptized is out of His order!!! To make sure of the meaning we are told that Peter did not tell the Jews at Pentecost to believe but to repent. "They were to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ that they might believe on Him!" etc. Hence even their receiving Peter's word is restricted to " Repent and be baptized," etc., and thus the men repenting after a Methodist sort without being true believers were added to the house over which Christ is Lord, so that they could own Him such, "for of course they must be in the sphere of His lordship before they can own Him Lord."

By this strange doctrine evangelizing is annulled and the purity of God's assembly destroyed. For the notion insisted on throughout is that adults not only may but ought to be received by baptism in order that they may believe and be brought to the Lord where the remission of sins is. Baptism to get life is not only the strangest want of intelligence but fundamentally false doctrine. "SCRIPTURE TEACHES BAPTISM UNTO CHRIST, who is the life, IN ORDER TO GET LIFE," p. 13. Scripture never teaches this, but on the contrary that the believer has part with Christ in death, and this by baptism as its sign. Nowhere do I remember from any one called a brother such a rash, not to say heartless, sacrifice of the gospel and the assembly of God to a novel idea, which after all is only the revival of an old error which has already corrupted Christendom. Can any notion of Baptists be worse?

I have not reasoned on the various scriptures, to every one of which the grossest violence is done, as indeed must be in order to silence their true sense and force a meaning completely opposed. It is to be hoped that few if any are prepared to endorse statements so erroneous and unholy, and that brethren everywhere will know what their duty is in dealing with such heterodoxy. It would be easy to expose the ignorance of God's word and the false reasoning, habitually displayed. My object for the present and in this periodical is simply to protest publicly against a dangerous and offensive production.

There are reasons why I desired to say not a word; but called on as I am by appeals from north, south, east, west, I could no longer hesitate to address myself to you the last of these applicants. May no love of party betray even one into indifference to Christ and the truth. Yours affectionately, W. K.

_______________________

It seems due to such is doubted the need for the Editor's remarks on the recent baptismal agitation, to say that the writer censured has not only confessed his grave error, but justified what was written in exposure of it. "I accept his letter, as being fully warranted by certain expressions I have made use of, and I own also that the statements I have made tire of such a nature as to fully justify the publication of his letter, even after I had withdrawn my tract." Those therefore who, in the face of this, complain of severity cannot be supposed to judge the false doctrine involved: else they would see more love in reproving than in palliating or cloaking it. May we thank God for what His grace has given, and look for yet more!

The Birds of the Sky.

Matt. 6: 26, 27.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. N5, p. 165-166.)

The Lord appeals to the disciples, in view of the creature subjected to man, against personal anxiety. It is humbling but wholesome for them to draw lessons of dependence thence. And first, He points to the winged class, familiar everywhere to human eyes, as objects of divine care and dependent on His beneficent provision. How much more are not His own in their incomparably higher and nearer relationship to Him! and how powerless too is their anxiety to effect relief!

"Look at the birds of the heavens, that they sow not, nor reap, nor gather into barns; and your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not ye of much more value than they? And which of you by being anxious can add one cubit to his stature?" (vers. 26, 27.)

The birds are of a large class and of immense variety; so much so that the famous Cuvier had to confess his dissent from all the scientific systems he had seen. Can any competent naturalist since deny that an adequately true arrangement still awaits its discoverer? He in his "Règne Animal" proposed six orders with far more numerous genera; Temminck, sixteen orders; Latreille, seven, with 252 genera. Though some few excellent observers as Willughby and Ray preceded and have followed since these distinguished French writers, there is no end as yet to that controversy.

But our Lord drew His invaluable lessons, not from the recondite secrets, still less from the uncertainties of the science, but from the patent and undeniable facts of God's creation and providence, which none but the perverse can cavil at even in this age when the whole creation groans together, but not without hope that deliverance shall come from on high. All disciples can therefore understand and feel what He meant, and they need. The birds neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your (not their) heavenly Father feeds them. They may share the consequences of a fallen world, as other animals, and man more than any, as being their head, a moral creature, and deeply to blame directly and indirectly. Nevertheless without means and without the least carking care, our heavenly Father feeds the birds, as the plain and beautiful and instructive rule.

Hence of old the Psalmist (104) celebrated Him that sent forth springs into the valleys, that run among the mountains, and not for man only, or for every beast of the field, and the wildest of them, but for the birds that utter their voices among the branches where a dead silence prevails, broken now and then by loud shrieks of anguish so different from their cheerful strains. The stately spreading cedars were planted not for man's use only, not for taste or pride, but for the birds also to make their nests, unless the taller firs suit some better still. Nor are the creatures of the sea great and wide overlooked. These all look unto Thee, that Thou mayest give them their food in its season: that Thou givest they gather. Thou openest Thy hand: they are filled with good. Thou hidest Thy face: they are troubled. Thou takest away their breath: they expire and return to their dust. Thou sendest forth Thy Spirit: they are created; and Thou renewest the face of the earth.

But here the Lord guards His own from anxious thoughts in their daily life. Sparrows, as He taught later, are cheap enough; yet as not one of them shall fall to the ground without our Father, so He preserves thorn and other birds great or small without foresight of their own.

If such creatures, the unclean as surely as the clean, are the habitual recipients of His beneficence, how much must His sons be? It is an argument from the comparatively mean and distant to those whom grace deigns to bring into the nearest relationship with Himself. And the Lord's aim is to impress on His disciples, so favoured, the obligation of confiding in the love of their Father without a doubt or a fear, Why should they not, instead of yielding to the anxiety natural to such as either know not God at all like Gentiles, or own Him in an altogether lower way like the Jews?

It seems almost needless to say that the words afford not the least ground for those who alleged a discrepancy with Prov. 6: 6-8. For the latter impresses the common duty of industry, and therefore reproves the sluggard from the text of the laborious ant. The former calls the believer to cherish faith's reliance on the Father's care, without an anxious thought. The one is as true as the other; but the latter goes deeper and rises higher because of the revelation of the Father's name to those who believe on the Son.

Then again a strange set of fanatics, both in rather early and in later days of Christendom, made abstinence from labour a counsel of perfection. They claimed to be in a peculiar degree men of prayer, and were called Euchites by those who condemned them. Their boast was neither to sow nor reap; but they could not escape the reproach that they liked the barn and to have it well filled. The germ of this selfishness showed itself among the Thessalonian saints. But it did not fail to receive immediate discouragement and a heavy blow from the apostle, who could appeal to his own work with his hands where it made for the Lord's glory. But he also ruled such a claim as unworthy of Him, and a dishonour to such as were ensnared in cheat. "Now we enjoin you, brethren, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw from every brother [not rising to superior spirituality but] walking disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us. For yourselves know that ye ought to imitate us, because we were not disorderly among you, nor did we eat bread of any one for naught, but with labour and toil working night and day, that we might not burden any of you. Not because we have not authority, but that we might give ourselves an example to you, that ye should imitate us. For even when we were with you, this we enjoined you that, if anyone will not work, neither let him eat. For we hear of some walking among you disorderly, working not at all, but busy-bodies. Now such as those we enjoin and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ that working quietly they eat their own bread" (2 Thess. 3: 6-12).

The question in ver. 27 exposes impressively the impotence of anxiety to add to our stature the familiar unit of measure. Yet many moderns incline to length of life, instead of "stature." But this is hardly the place to discuss such a question. The general sense at all events is clear to the simplest.

"'The Brethren': A Historical Sketch."

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. N5, p. 223-224.)

This booklet of 30 pages has been sent by a reader of the B.T. who asks, "Is this book true or false?" To call it "false" might imply that the writer (whose name is purposely suppressed) stated what he knew to be untrue; but there need be no hesitation to say that it is in every respect unreliable. Like many party-men he is so shortsighted and onesided as to see nothing right but his own mistakes. "Separation" is his bugbear, "fellowship" his idol, not with the Father and the Son, but brotherly, which is often wrong. Scripture is decisive that "love" brings in what is of God; whereas "brotherly affection" may become faulty and faithless (2 Peter 1: 7). Nor has the truth the first place for his soul. The great sin to him is not keeping together and welcoming everyone charitably hoped to be a, brother. Christ's glory in the church and the saint by the word and Spirit of God, does not sway him.

Yet our leaving nationalism and denominationalism, as all but our weak ones did, if scriptural condemned all sects as opposed to God's will; if unscriptural condemns our aim and position, which is a return to "what was from the beginning." I admit the writer had no such principle, nor any other; for by his own account (p. 11) he bargained when coming into fellowship to stick to his clergyman's ministry, and those who had to do with his reception were accommodating enough to exceed his demand. This was no doubt amiable on both sides; but God's will or way was forgotten by all concerned. This looseness is what he admires; to me it is caring for self and not Christ. I, as earlier than the writer, can say that it was not the rule in those days, though not disposed to question what he. states of his own personal experience.

About 1843 or 4 I remember a brother asking me what was to be done, if evil got the upper hand among those gathered to the Lord's name, as of old after the apostles; and replying that we must adhere in faith to what unfaithful souls compromised. So 2 Tim. 2: 19-22 teaches. Alas! the need arose at Plymouth itself soon after, where a leader with several coadjutors came to the conclusion that "Brethren" were wrong ("Christian Witness," and all). Instead of going quietly out, as uprightness must have dictated, they chose to leaven the meeting there with his independent church system, ministerialism, and judaising (of the hope especially), to say nothing of personal conduct. Mr. Darby did all he could in vain to have this judged; and when the mass stuck to local majority, and gave up all sense of the Spirit's unity, and common consistency, he withdrew as did others, that they might be subject to the word and Spirit as before. Not long after a system of heterodoxy was discovered secretly at work in the same party. This was exposed to the deliverance of many and the scattering of the unworthy. But a part of western England really sympathised with the Plymouth system of independency, ministerialism, and the earthly hope to supplant the heavenly; and this is what the booklet tries to defend without knowing what was at stake.

Even if the alleged facts were correct (which they are far from being according to my information), the writer's notion of fellowship is a fallacy without a divine principle-neither truth, holiness, nor love. His ideal is a free-and-easy religious club with licence to roam at will, spiritual nothingarianism, and exclusion of anything to try conscience as "contentious." Where the Lord's name is a living centre, Christians grow and correct themselves by the word and Spirit of God. Brethren, even when they met in Aungier St. (Dublin), used to settle on Saturday night for the scriptures and hymns on Lord's day! Later still at Plymouth an elder's chair was occupied at the Lord's table. But they learnt ere long that "the gifts" of Christ are permanent; whereas "elders" required apostolic nomination direct or indirect. Now the writer seems not to have learnt this or anything else, making a tradition of lax ways however wrong. "The word of our God shall stand for ever;" though even this we can only use to His glory by the Holy Spirit.

The Calling and Hope of the Christian.

Ephesians 1: 3-14.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. 7, p. 89-92.)

The right application of the truth of the Church in both its calling and its hopes depends, more than many Christians are aware, upon the spiritual condition of the soul. I doubt not, indeed, that spiritual condition has much to do with all apprehension of divine truth, but of this beyond all others, for the simple reason that the Church's privileges are so boundless and so special that the mind of mail and even the heart of the believer find no small difficulty in accepting them simply in their integrity. The very conscience of the believer makes a difficulty unless there be a child-like acceptance of the word and grace of God. We can easily understand this; for it is natural even to the believer to mingle the question of his own feelings of acceptance with the reception of the truth of God. He examines himseIf, but finds only unworthiness; he feels painfully, humiliatingly, day by day, his own shortcomings and positive faults. Such being the fact, it looks a hard thing to receive the astonishing truth that grace has given even him oneness with Christ.

Yet the great distinctive feature of the Christian's calling is found in these very words, "Together with Christ." Sovereign grace can alone account for it. As God claimed and exercised the title, at all times, to bless according to His good pleasure, so now He puts the members of Christ's body in the place that seems good to Him. He looks for unqualified sub. mission in our hearts. And in proportion as we are simple in bowing to God, His grace and truth open far more largely and more distinctly on our souls. Now the bearing of this will soon be seen as I make a few remarks upon the scripture just read. The subject is the Church's calling and hopes — the latter, of course, in connection with the coming of the Lord. The Holy Ghost opens the subject with a kind of allusion to Israel's place. They were the chosen people, but it was on earth and for the earth. I do not deny that there were elect men in Israel, upon whose hearts brighter hopes dawned. No doubt Abraham was but a sample of the faithful. And indeed in the dealings of God, before there was a people called, there were those who looked by faith beyond the earth, who saw what is brighter than earthly hopes. But here we have a different character of blessing: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ." The heavenly places are clearly in contrast with Israel's earthly place. Now Israel looked, and rightly looked, to be thus blessed here below; indeed, it is to disparage the word of God to lose sight of this: God will make it good to them in a future day.

But we ourselves are in the same place as these believers, addressed by the Apostle Paul, — "Blessed with all spiritual blessings . . . . in Christ." That little word, "in Christ," is the key to it all. In one sense a Christian is nothing in himself; in Christ he has everything. Let my heart only get hold of this precious truth. Christ now shows what a Christian is in the presence of God. No doubt, besides being the risen man, He is also God, the object of worship, equal with the Father. He has a divine right to all, yet is He pleased to possess all as the glorified man by right of redemption. He came into this world. He had the only claim as man, for He alone bad accomplished God's will. He was the perfect manifestation of what man ought to be to God under law, and He was the perfect manifestation of what God is to man in love, he was above law — it was grace. If the law dealt with evil, it must destroy. Grace takes the, supremacy. It shows grace to those who do not deserve it. Christ as under law showed perfectly what God's will was. Then He manifested what God is to man. It was His place to manifest perfect grace and truth. Christ takes the inheritance neither as man or God only, but as Redeemer. He suffered on the cross that He might have others to share it, others to say, "Truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ." It was only in resurrection that the Lord Jesus took all things. When upon earth He did not take the inheritance; He took sorrow, He took shame, He took suffering-every kind of hatred from man. He took God's judgment about sin. In this He was alone upon the cross, because there the wonderful problem was being solved, how sin could be put away. Christ abolished sin that God might justly justify, that God might manifest all His character.

Here, however, it is a larger measure than merely justifying. God blesses with all spiritual blessings in Christ. He had never uttered such language before. In the Old Testament there is not such a thought as Christ having members. You have a king reigning in righteousness, and nations blest through Christ that blessed One who will take all things from God. What we have here is quite different. It is God not only pardoning, and not merely justifying, but making Christians to be the members of Christ, of His flesh, and of His bones. Here we have language rising above everything that believers had before redemption. There is no disparagement of the privileges of saints before, but what I am anxious to show is that Christians are not generally alive to their own privileges.

The first thing to point out is this, "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Mark the language. It is God acting in this especial manner of relationship. He means to bless the believer as He blesses Christ. That is, not as Christ is blest as a divine person — that would be blasphemy. Here we have what is bestowed upon Him as man in heaven. "The glory which thou gavest me I have given them" is a kindred truth. Christ as the risen man is exalted on high, having glory conferred on Him as the risen man that by the grace of God had died. The risen man is also God, but we must never confound His deity with His humanity. As thus risen He said, "I ascend unto my God and your God, unto my Father and your Father." Here we have His and our God and Father, and the apostle shows that we reap infinite blessing from each of these relationships. As God of our Lord Jesus, He gives us to partake in the divine nature, holy and blameless before Him in love. He means to have men in heaven along with Jesus. To have that blessed glorified man there is not enough. He gives Jesus companions. These companions of His must have, of course, the divine nature morally. (2 Peter 1.)

Again, angels are servants: they never rise above the nature of servants. The archangel even never rises above the place of a servant. The angels are called the sons of God in a certain sense, as all men are by virtue of creation. Angels are a spiritual class of beings, but they have not the intimacy of those born of God, the place of children, the Spirit of adoption, etc. Now I call your attention to this, because it is but feebly understood by Christians in general. It is not presumption to know that our sins are forgiven. I would ask any person who knows the name of Christ, who loves Him, On what ground is it that you take the place of a believer? On what ground have you received favour from God? Do you believe in Jesus as One that suffered for sins? I ask you, Has He done the work perfectly or has He not? There is no believer who would not at once answer, Yes — perfectly. Then as surely as you are a believer, you have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins. If you have not this forgiveness, when can you have it? Christ will not suffer again. Suffering and offering go together. They must go together in the mind of God. Once purged is the word for a Christian — once, because it has been done perfectly, done for ever. Now I maintain that it is done for every Christian. Every Christian owes it to Christ to believe unhesitatingly that He has done perfectly the work of putting away sin. There may be failures. Far would I be from saying that a believer should not confess failure always. Daily failure calls for daily humbling before God. Still the fact of redemption remains unchanged. Take the case of a child: he may offend and offend grievously, but he remains your child all the same. The more you enforce on him that he is your child, the more is his failure felt, as it is the worse in itself. In the same way, instead of the holding fast our relationship, really weakening the sense of sin, it is the very and only ground of' judging it aright. It is that which makes sin to be most exceedingly sinful.

We have here the full roll of christian privilege. How striking it is in all this passage there is not a word said about our original condition a sinners. In the Epistle to the Romans it is quite another method. In Ephesians 2 we have a deeper character of sin than we have even in Romans — "dead in trespasses and sins," etc. But first we find God unfolding His counsels which refer to the Christian. It was a purpose of God in Christ before the foundation of the world, entirely from man's condition upon earth. We find here the very blessed truth that redemption is no mere remedy, it was the first choice of God. God counselled and determined in Himself, before there were any creatures at all; He determined to have beings in heaven capable of fellowship with Himself and with His Son. Then He allowed man to be tried upon earth. This took place with Israel, etc. When the wickedness of the world rose to its height in the cross of Christ, at that very moment when Jew and Gentile united to kill the Lord of glory. God answered their awful conspiracy by bringing out His richest grace. God showed through and in His Son a salvation that not only meets man ruined upon earth, but that would give man an everlasting portion with Christ in the presence of God. The Church consists not merely of persons pardoned and saved, of people looking to heaven; it has a deeper character of relationship; it implies union with Christ in heaven. This is what God imparts to believers now.

The next thing taken up here is that God not only brings us into this astonishing place of blessing, but opens His secrets: "Having made known unto us the mystery of his will." Thus, first of all, He makes us holy in Christ; next, He gives us the place of sons to Himself; and then He makes known to us what He is going to do. And what is that? To put the entire universe under Christ, to have all in heaven, all on earth, put under the glorified man. This is the first part of the secret of God's will; the next is, that the believers now — all believers in Christ — are made joint-heirs with Christ over this inheritance. Not that we are the inheritance the Jewish people will be a part of the inheritance but the peculiar character of Christians, that is, they are heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ.

As to this, the simple question is, What does scripture say? What is the teaching of God on this head? It is said to be a mystery, which means that which could not be found out by the wit of man, but what can be understood when revealed. "The mystery of Christ" consisted in this — Christ, the centre of all God's dealings, and believers now united to Him. There is nothing wonderful in the Son of God being over all things. God the Father could not be said to confer anything upon God the Son as such: it would deny His supreme deity. But yet it is perfectly certain from scripture that Jesus now receives all from God the Father. A man is at the right hand of God! — a man is the object of heaven's delight and adoration! But more. By the Holy Ghost the Church is united with this glorified man, the spiritual Eve of the last Adam. The Church is the bride, the Lamb's wife, as it is the body of the glorified Christ who is Head over all things. Thus it is written at the end of this chapter. Christ is said to be "Head over all things to the church, which is his body." The Church is really associated with Christ over all things, "the fulness of him that filleth all in all."

The wonderful mystery is here made known — the Church called into oneness with Christ. Into this one body we are baptized by the Spirit now; and now is the time that the believer is responsible to receive it into his soul, and to manifest it in his ways. Of course it is a matter of faith; for, as to his body, He is the same as any other man. He can only triumph through Christ; but he his Christ in glory not only as his righteousness but his life, yea, one with Him. All that God confers upon Christ, Christ shires with the Church. The effect is immediate and immense. Suppose a person were to wake up to the fact that he was the queen's son, would it not have a mighty influence practically on him? So, to be given now to know not merely that a person is saved, but that be shares with Christ all that He possesses, that he is a member of His body, that he is viewed now as perfect by God in Christ such is the position of a Christian. It is not that one does not take into account a Christian's failure: I do, but the way to feel our failure most is to hold fast our relationship to Christ. Upon christian doctrine is founded christian practice.

As the believer even now is set in this blessed place of enjoyment, God has sent down the Holy Ghost to dwell in him, in such a sort as never was before. There never was a time when the Holy Ghost did not work; He beyond all doubt is the active agent in all the dealings of God from creation downwards. There could be no power of God at work in man without the Spirit of God. But not the less do I maintain along with this, that the Lord Jesus Christ prepared the disciples for a greater blessing than either they or others had ever known before. He told them "it is expedient for you that I go away," etc. What could make up for such a loss? The answer is, "if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." It is contrary to Scripture or even sense to suppose that it was merely prolonging something they possessed before. Nay, there was a deeper blessing. It was the same Spirit that had made them born anew, but He was now for the first time sent down from heaven to dwell in the saints.

Who had ever been thus blessed before? Yes, there was One who had enjoyed Him thus. Who was that One person who bad been the temple of God upon earth? It was Jesus. Upon Him the Holy Ghost came not as a flame of fire, but as a dove, the witness of the perfect spotlessness of Jesus. The humanity of Jesus being absolutely pure and holy (Luke 1), there was not the least hindrance to the dwelling of the Holy Ghost in Him. We can understand Jesus being bodily the temple or habitation of the Holy Ghost; but how could it be true of us, evil and defiled as we are by nature? Christ has so perfectly put away the sin and sins of a believer, that it is as though the evil, root, branch, and fruit, had never been. Hence the Holy Ghost has come down from heaven, and actually now dwells in the believer, as the proof and result of the perfect putting away of sin by Christ's sacrifice.

The saints of old were waiting for what was coming; they knew there were good things to come. "Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven." (1 Peter 1: 12.)

Manifestly then there is a special blessing in the gift of the Spirit consequent upon redemption. When we know and weigh what redemption is, there will be less difficulty. It is a poor partial notion of redemption as an accomplished fact that makes people ask, Why should not God always act in the same way? The right understanding of its infinite work teaches us, that God sees such virtue in the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ that He reserves a special blessing for that hour. The believer now is blessed with, and will share, His supremacy over all things.

What makes us members of the body of Christ? We are made so by the Spirit, and not by faith only. Of course, no one but a believer has this place; but it is nowhere said to be by faith, but by the baptism of the Holy Ghost. (1 Cor. 12.) The saints of old time were not baptized into this one body. There was nothing of the kind. The Jew preserved his separate place; the Gentile might come in (as a proselyte), but there was no identity: still less was either one or other made one with Christ. In Christianity these distinctions disappear. There was faith among the Old Testament saints, but there was no "one body" yet; not even when our Lord was upon earth. He told the disciples that He was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The cross of Christ, on man's side of it, was a joining of all men (Jew and Gentile) in wickedness; on God's side it led to a joining of Jew and Gentile in common blessing by grace. In Matthew 16, Peter answers Christ's demand with the confession, "Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God." Christ says, "Upon this rock I will build my Church." What does He mean by this? Peter confesses His glory not only as Messiah or the Christ, but as Son of the living God. He was marked out the Son of God by resurrection from the dead." He is the head of the body, the Church: who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead.

What hope is suited to such a calling? Jesus says, "Let not your heart be troubled. I go to prepare a place for you; and if I go, I will come again and receive you unto myself." The portion that Christ has is the portion of a Christian. Even now He is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. As He took our portion on the cross, so we have His portion in glory. He will bless the Jews on earth. God promised to do so. Whereas, He has in title blessed us with Christ in heaven. Some think the mystery was that the Gentiles were to be called, but this is plainly referred to in the Old Testament. The mystery goes much farther, namely, that all who now believe, Jews and Gentiles, should be united together as the one body of Christ, head over all things.

Our hope is for Christ to come and take us to be with Himself in the Father's house. This implies the highest scene of enjoyment even in heaven. Can any place there be too high for Christ? Assuredly not. The Father manifests His love for His Son thus. If God gives us ouch a place in Christ we ought to believe it; and this is not merely for ourselves, but for every believer, for every Christian. This, and nothing less than this, is the portion of all who believe the gospel. Christ will come Himself, that where He is, there we may be also. We shall be with Himself, in that glory which is entirely above the world. "The Spirit and the bride say, Come." (Rev. 22: 17.) To say "Come," depends not on great knowledge, but on His great salvation and love.

It cannot be too much insisted on that there is no difference between the standing of one believer and another. When you come to a question of faithfulness, there are degrees; but to suppose a difference in the whiteness of the robe, or the righteousness we are made, is to suppose a various value in the blood of Christ, or uncertainty in the power of His resurrection. There is no difference as to sin in one sense, all being equally dead in trespasses and sins. So there is no Such thing as one saint being brought nearer to God by redemption than another; it denies the work of Christ. All believers now are equally, i.e., perfectly, made nigh as to standing, though bad teaching does much to darken the truth, and lack of spirituality hinders holy enjoyment, even where the truth may have entered. Besides, we are made one with Christ, but for this the gift of the Spirit was requisite.

Compromise.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. N1, p. 376-378.)

In divine truth compromise has no place. It would be the surrender of God's authority and manifest rebellion. We are sanctified by the Spirit to the obedience of Jesus Christ, not more surely than to the sprinkling of His blood. We are not left to our desires after good or our devices to give it effect. He that hath Christ's commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Him. Nor is this all. The new life is exercised; the love that is of God grows. And it is not only His "injunction" that governs the heart: His "word" forms it in obedience and is a deeper test of it. Therefore the Lord adds (John 14), "If anyone love me, he will keep my word; and my Father will love him; and we will come unto him and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my words; and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's who sent me."

In matters of outward arrangement, or of moral indifference such as questions of time and place, there is ample room for grace in mutual consideration and in special care of the poor, the weak, and the suffering. Here the principle applies, though in another sense, that the strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please themselves: rather, that everyone of us please his neighbour for good to edification. The strong may well afford to seek unselfishness and make it sweeter for all. And here Christ is our blessed pattern, Who in glorifying His Father never sought His own will, though it was all untainted and holy, and pleased not Himself, but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached Thee fell on Me.

But where the will of God is expressed, there is no option for ought else. Our duty then is clear and unqualified: we have only to obey Him. Of His own purpose did He beget us by the word of truth that we might be a kind of first-fruits of His creatures (James 1). All else are under sin and ruin, under death and judgment. This new and divine nature, of which His grace has made us partakers (2 Peter 1: 4), rejects all filthiness and superfluity of malice, receiving with meekness the implanted word which has the power of saying our souls, assuredly not in mere hearing but in practising the word. Thus it becomes the perfect law of liberty; for as the new life craves the revealed word, so the word exactly suits the life one has in Christ; not the old I, each believer can say, but Christ, living in me. Undoubtedly this life is not independent of its source, but lives independence on Him. For what I live now in flesh, I live in faith that is in the Son of God Who loved me and gave Himself for me. All is the grace of God, whether it be Christ's death or life thus given.

What shall we say then? should we continue in sin that grace may abound? Far be it from us! We who died in sin, how shall we live longer therein? Or know ye not that so many of us as were baptised unto Christ Jesus were baptised unto His death? Therefore were we buried with Him by baptism unto death, that even as Christ was raised out of the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we were identified with Him in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in [that] of resurrection; knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be annulled, that we should no longer serve sin. For he who died has been justified from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, being raised out of the dead, dies no more: death has no more dominion over Him. For in that He died, He died to sin once for all; and in that He lives, He lives to God. So do ye also reckon yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body unto obeying it in your lusts, nor render your members to sin instruments of iniquity; but render yourselves to God as alive out of the dead, and your members instruments of righteousness to God. For sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under law but under grace.

Such is the apostle Paul's handling of this great matter in Romans 6; and he is as far as possible from compromise as to either the principle or the power. We are baptised to Christ's death as the principle; we are not under law but grace as the power. In both, sin is triumphed over and wholly disallowed. Delivered from sin but enslaved to righteousness, enslaved to God, we have our fruit unto holiness, and the end life eternal. Our condition is mixed no doubt, which indeed is to say but little of the sad reality; but this is not to enfeeble the absolute truth of our deliverance on the one hand, or of our responsibility on the other. Compromise is excluded; and no wonder, for Christ is dead and risen. Further, the Holy Spirit s given to us.

So in 1 Cor. 3 we are no longer to walk as men, but as sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints called.  Once we were all "the unrighteous," some this horror, some that; but receiving Christ, we were washed, sanctified, justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. For know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit that is in you, which ye had from God, and ye are not your own? For ye were bought with a price. Glorify then God in your body (1 Cor. 6). There is no compromise here.

As it is in these two great Epistles, the one very markedly individual, while the other is also ecclesiastical or corporate, so it is in every other part of the Christian deposit we are bound to keep. There is no sanction of laxity; grace condemns sin more solemnly and profoundly than law. We are Christ's epistle, responsible to be so known and read of all men. Consistency with Christ, with the truth, with holiness, is obligatory on all saints even the weakest. Compromise here is altogether a sin and nothing but shame.

Is there, again, any latitude allowed in the ministry of the Spirit? Is there licence of unfaithfulness in those that preach or teach Christ? May we in the Lord's work associate with known inconsistency, with deliberate playing fast and loose, with divine ways openly set at nought? So the Corinthians thought, and for a while rose up rebelliously against the apostle whom God had blessed to their souls. For a while they were haughty and alienated from the true, abjectly listening to the false teachers who brought them into bondage with their own objects. Was it not a grief and scandal that such things should be done by such as claimed to be the Lord's servants? For what can one think of any professing fidelity joining hands with unrepented evil ways? what of the deplorable and unholy scheme of fancying that such union is of God to get wrong-doers right? Can the simplest believer fail to see that it is doing evil that good may come? whose judgment is just.

But may not the object be good? So say all religious guides, and many of them sincerely, however differing or even opposed. It would he uncharitable to doubt of many that they ate each in earnest with their methods, and more or less satisfied with the cause they plead. But this only makes evident that an apparently good object is not the least guarantee of either truth or holiness.

Were the aim ever so excellent, it is essential that it be prosecuted according to the Lord's mind; and this can only be in obedience to His word. To oppose it is courting destruction, to do without it is self-will. In His work compromise is evil. The Lord is jealous that the known walk be consistent with His testimony. His servant is bound to have clean hands, and not to partake of other men's sins. How contrasted is God's way for His servants!

Therefore, seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not, but have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God"; and again, "Giving no offence in anything, that the ministry be not blamed, but in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God in ranch patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, in stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; by pureness, by knowledge, by long-suffering, by kindness, by the Holy Spirit, by love unfeigned, by the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left." Indeed all of 2 Cor. 6 is worthy of the consideration of all God's servants and His saints. But this may suffice to point out what His word en. joins to the total uprooting of that compromise which is man's device in His work, as offensive to His Spirit as it is defiant of His word.

Brief Notes of Two Addresses on Dan. 8, 9 and 11.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. N7, p. 307-310.)

In the second chapter of this book the four great world-powers are described under the type of metals; in the seventh, as wild beasts. But here in chap. 8 the second and third of the four monarchies, namely, Medo-Persia and Greece, are designated, not under the symbol of "a bear" and "a leopard" respectively as in the previous chapter, but as a "ram" and a "he goat," and these two quadrupeds are distinguished from the ravening wild beasts as. being "clean" animals, which the others were not. Why then, it may be asked, have we this difference of description here? It is not that there is any change in the character of these world-powers as such, but that Persia and Greece, who alone were kind to God's ancient people, are here marked off, because of their treatment to Israel, in contrast with the other powers who were cruel. If the Babylonians took Judah captive, Cyrus the Persian it was who gave commandment for the remnant to return; and so he is not only honoured by having his name recorded in the word of God, but by having it placed there some two hundred years before he himself appeared. In the vision, it is not the "saints of the high places" that are seen, but "the host of heaven" and "the stars" — the whole people are before us, not the godly ones only.

Do we wonder that God should speak in such terms of poor, sinful Israel? Let us remember how He has spoken of us. "Herein is love with us made perfect." Where do we find such language used of Israel? And the result!-"that we may have boldness in the day of judgment!" Why? "Because as he is, so are we in this world." In these chapters of Daniel we shall find that the figures become more distinct as we go on. From dead types we pass to living; from unclean to clean, till in Dan. 9 the figures are dropped, unless indeed we can call "weeks" of years figures!

Here, then, we see the ram with two horns (symbols of power), the dual kingdom of Media and Persia, the higher coming up last. Persia rose after Media, and far surpassed it in power.. The kingdom spread and became great till its adversary, Greece, arose. This had one horn (Alexander, which overthrew and stamped on the ram. But when "he was strong the great horn was broken." Alexander died a young man at Babylon. The horn — not the goat — was broken, and four horns came up in place of the broken horn. After Alexander's death his generals quarrelled, and at last they divided his empire among four of themselves. From one of these arose a "little horn," to be carefully distinguished from the Roman or western little horn of Dan 7. for this one comes from Greece. Antiochus Epiphanes was a typical personage, fore-shadowing the one who shall come, for we are distinctly told the judgment  falls on him " at the last end of the indignation," after the tribulation and the destruction of antichrist.

In Dan. 9 we find Daniel a student of prophecy. He is studying Jeremiah. Instead of being puffed up and delighted by the near approach of the return from captivity, he (knowing the mind of God) mourns and weeps. He confesses his own sin as well as the nation's, for the nearer a man is to God the more he feels his own sin, while the proud cold heart can hardly acknowledge its fault, however great. And Gabriel is sent to tell the prophet more details. "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city," etc., evidently Jerusalem, though who but God would call it "holy"! But when have all the following events been accomplished, as far as Israel is concerned? Never. The Jews still look for their fulfilment; they own that all is wrong, and they wait for it to be put right. The command to restore and to build Jerusalem was given by Artaxerxes. And we have the book of Ezra to give us the command, while Nehemiah shows us how it was carried out. So we possess both the prophecy and its fulfilment. Seven weeks (during which the remnant were settling in the land) are divided from the sixty-two, but together make sixty- nine, until Messiah. "After" (not In) "the threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off." Space is left here, and dates cease. A break occurs;" Messiah shall be cut off and shall have nothing" (the margin is correct). He is raised from the dead-not to the throne of David, but — to the throne of God, an entirely distinct thing.

"The people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary." Who did destroy Jerusalem? The Romans. Thirty years ago there was no prince of Rome, but God, in His providence, has allowed that there should be one now. "And he shall confirm a covenant with the many for one week" — "the many" being the apostate nation. The future head of the Roman empire will make a covenant with antichrist to restore the temple service, and so help him against the king of the north. What can we say of those who suppose our Lord would make a covenant for seven Years? When He makes one, it is everlasting. But seven years is a long time for this wicked man — too long — for he breaks it in the middle of the seven years, and brings in Gentile abominations — idolatry. The Jews think they are safe from idolatry now, but none are safe but those who are on the Rock, the tried Stone, the precious Corner- Stone, the sure Foundation.

___________________

Throughout the book we have seen the visions rising from inanimate figures to living ones then to clean beasts. For the unclean "bear and "leopard" of Dan. 7 are seen in Dan. 8 as the "ram" and the "he goat." Not, as has been already pointed out, that their character was changed, but because of their kindness to Israel. Cyrus the Persian sent the captives back; Alexander, "the first king" of Greece (Dan. 8: 21), put them on a level with his Macedonian subjects, and God marks this conduct here. Then in Dan. 9 symbols are discontinued for the time, for plain language has come, the Lord Jesus being brought before us — Messiah the Prince, and He cut off.

Our chapter (Dan. 11) tonight is historical the only really and truly historical prophecy in the word of God. Though with breaks in the history, yet are the main features here given more clearly than by any human, though later, historian. " Behold there shall stand up yet three kings of Persia." We know from chap. 10 that Cvrus was reigning at the time of the vision ; he was succeeded by his son Cambyses, an unworthy son of a great father, and was followed by an usurper, Smerdis, a Mede who sought to upset Persian policy, and was the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4, who listened to the enemies of Israel. He was destroyed, and Darius the Persian (not the Mede), known in history as Darius Hystaspes, reigned. He was followed by Xerxes, "richer than they all," who led (including camp followers) 5,000,000 people across the Dardanelles into Greece, but to be defeated, and in his turn invaded by Alexander, "a mighty king." Broken at the zenith of his power, Alexander's kingdom was divided into four parts — his widow and son being murdered that his possessions might not be "to his posterity."

The terms "king of the north" and "king of the south" must be taken in relation to the land of Palestine. Egypt was to the south, and Greco-Syria (the present Turkey-in-Asia) to the north — the Ptolemies and Seleucidae being the lines of kings mentioned. During the period of the history of these kings we find the Romans coming into power; and a Roman consul was the "prince" of ver. 18 who ordered the king of the north to go home again. The Romans are also seen as the ships of Chittim in ver. 30.

"The abomination of desolation" (ver. 31) was the first placed there by Antiochus Epiphanes, but is not the one spoken of by our Lord in Matt. 24. That we find in chap. 12: 11 at the time of the end. The Maccabees did "exploits" — they were heroes, not martyrs, and God used them as such, for they were faithful to His word. But those of "the end" will be saints, not heroes, and will perish, as we find from the Revelation. The cross comes between, and alters these things.

Ver. 35 brings us to another break, and then "the king" abruptly comes in. Who is he? Not of either north or south, for both these come against him (ver. 40). He is the king of Isa. 30: 33, and "the man of sin" of 2 Thess. 2 — the great antichrist. Daniel speaks of his political, Paul of his religious, character. He is a Jew, for "neither shall he regard the God of his fathers (Jehovah), nor the desire of women (Messiah), nor regard any god," yet he is an idolator. He invents a god. "And he shall cause them (his party) to rule over [the] many, and he shall divide the land for gain." Only one land, where the eyes of Jehovah can rest, is called "the land" — the land of Palestine.

"At the time of the end." This is his epoch. He is not spread over centuries, as a line of kings, but only appears at the end. The king of the south pushes at him, the king of the north too, and it is the latter that is the subject of the close of the chapter. We know why. The Lord Jesus, by the brightness of His coming, destroys antichrist just at the time when the king of the north goes in great annoyance to fight against meddling Egypt; for "he shall overflow and pass over." This is his first invasion of Jerusalem spoken of in Zech. 14: 2, Three countries escape him. Edom, Moab and Ammon, because they are reserved for Israel to deal with (Isa. 11: 14), and they will not escape their hand. But tidings out of the east and out of the north "trouble him," and he goes back to plant his tabernacles between the seas (the Great, or Mediterranean, and the Dead Seas), in the glorious holy mountain Jerusalem. Then comes the fulfilment of Zech. 14: 3, 1. Jehovah goes out to fight at the head of His people. He alone destroys antichrist from heaven. Here His feet stand on the earth, the mount of Olives. And Olivet owns the presence of its Creator and parts asunder. It is not riven yet — a proof that this prophecy awaits fulfilment. But the valley thus formed affords a way of escape for Israel; they flee by it, and the natural ordinances of day, and night are changed — "at evening time it shall be light," to enable them to gain the victory.

W. K.

The Archdeacon of Durham on certain religious errors.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. 9, p. 96.)

To A. M. P.

Dear Brother,  - It is a pity, that Archdeacon Prest should have entered the field with (to say no more) so little information on the points in question. Those who have provoked him, however zealous, seem to me rather ill-taught souls who, having but a small spice of truth commonly seen among "Brethren," are using it in ways which "Brethren" would deplore as decidedly as the Rector of Gateshead. The "Tyne Evangelist" you have sent me is a sorry sample of christian teaching.

But the Archdeacon, if he deemed it wise and right to censure these people at Gateshead, should not have ventured to speak of Christians elsewhere of whom he knows so little. He quotes extracts from the British and Foreign Evangelical Review, as unfounded in statement as can be, written (I presume) by an Irish Presbyterian Minister called Croskery. When a dozen or so of his charges were cited by Mr. Isaac Ashe in the Record some time ago, I gave them a distinct contradiction. Not a word more was heard of them then; one is sorry to see a respectable Christian repeating such things now. It is false that "Brethren" hide from the converted their convictions on ministry, the law, baptism, or any other truth. It is true that with the unconverted they adhere as exclusively as possible to the gospel of God's grace or His warnings for despisers. What but malice or ignorance could put an ill-construction on that which is so plainly according to God?

As to the detailed charges Mr. P. makes, let me say in few words, that no brother known to me (and I know them well for nearly thirty years) holds sanctification in the sense which excludes personal and progressive holiness. We all insist on practical growth in this respect, but we also hold, what most now deny, absolute sanctification from the beginning of God's vital work in the believer. (1 Peter 1: 2 ; 2 Thess. 2: 13.) Probably the best refutation ever written of Wesley's "Christian Perfection" came from the pen of a brother. I do not believe one person in communion with us holds the perfectionism in flesh which is here imputed to us as a whole. Next, we should put away (as we have put away) anyone for denying the duty of confessing our sins to God. Again, I have myself  written an exposition of the Lord's Prayer, in which it is. expressly laid down that "forgive us our sins" belongs only to those who can truly say "Father;" as it is a question of His daily government with His children, not of the unrenewed who have never found remission of their sins by faith in Jesus. The prayer was for the disciples' use, before the Holy, Ghost given; afterwards they were to ask the Father in Christ's name, as we do now. As to the law, I am not surprised at the want of knowledge displayed about both the scriptures and our views. Suffice it to say here that we abhor Antinomian license as heinous iniquity, and acknowledge our unqualified obligation to obey every word of God, more especially or distinctively to have our mind, walk, and worship, framed and governed by the New Testament or apostolic scriptures. But this does not warrant the assertion of the law as the christian rule of life. On the contrary, scripture is explicit that by them who are under the law" the Spirit intends the Jews (Rom. 3); as we are distinctly said to be "not under the law but under grace," where the apostle is discussing christian walk, and net justification. (Rom. 6.) But we should denounce him who would disparage the law, which is good if a man use it lawfully: whether the Archdeacon does so may be doubted by those who will gravely compare 1 Timothy 1: 9 with his use of it. Further, when he says that we exclude children, servants, and other unconverted persons from family prayer, he is confounding us with the Separatists or Walkerites, the very antipodes of "Brethren," and is grossly deceived. So he is as to ministry: for we hold it to be a permanent and divine institution, though we deny the corruptions of it among Romanists and Anglicans as well as Dissenters. He combats a phantom; for nobody among us holds that all are teachers or preachers, or any save those whom the Lord gives and sends. At the same time Mr. P. is wrong to put ministry on the ground of common sense; for it really is a matter of faith, and, like every other christian privilege, depends on the Holy Spirit who glorifies Christ. Again, as to baptism, it is enough to say that Mr. Prest is wholly in error in supposing that it is ever done among us as a sign of leaving, a denomination for "Brethren." We should all repudiate such an enormity with one heart and mind. Many among us baptize the children of believers; many not satisfied that christening of infants is scriptural have been baptized as an individual question (and this I have known in the English Establishment and elsewhere too). But all repudiate re-baptism. The pamphlet of which Mr. P. speaks emanates from a party opposed to us, unless I am greatly mistaken: certainly "Brethren" are in no way, responsible for it. I purposely abstain from commenting on irrelevant matter; but the Archdeacon will own that I have joined issue fairly on the charges made. Ample disproof of them he will have already received in the form of tracts, etc. sent by book-post. There is but one course under such circumstances open to conscience and candour, not to speak of love.

Ever yours in Christ, W. K.

Christ — the End of the Law.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. 8, p. 308.)

Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. The two righteousnesses are then contrasted. Moses describes the one, saying, "The man that doeth these things shall live by them." The law was man's righteousness; it was God's perfect rule for a creature. It required man to give a righteousness to God; if he did, be lived by it.

The righteousness of faith, on the other hand, brings a righteousness to man. A man has not to ascend up to heaven, to bring Christ down from above; He has come down even to death. A man has not to go down into the deep, to bring Christ up from the dead; He has risen: God has raised Him. A dead and risen Christ is set forth as the display of God's righteousness, in direct contrast to human righteousness, which would be keeping the law. We have seen what the righteousness of faith does not say; now let us see what it does say: "The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth and in thy heart; that is, the word of faith, which we preach, That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." With the heart man believes unto righteousness; with the mouth confession is made unto salvation, as scripture says.

Man confounds human and divine righteousness together; God distinctly divides them. We have Seen man's righteousness is, "The man that doeth these things shall live by them." Christ, as man, fulfilled it; but that is not the righteousness of God. The righteousness of God, or the justice of God (for it is the same word), is His own character as such, displayed in His own acts, viz., the death and resurrection of Christ (see also Psalm 71: 19, 20), and handed over in Christ to the sinner who lays hold of it by faith, and is justified by it. Truly, O God, thy righteousness is very high; as high as heaven: no one can reach it! But God Himself has come down to settle His own claim: Christ has been delivered for our offences, and God has Himself judged sin itself, in the person of His Son, on the cross. He has shown Him great and sore troubles on account of man's sin. I look at sin; I look at the dread darkness; I bear the bitter cry, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" I see the blood gush forth; I ask, Why is this? The only answer is, sin is the cause. God there judged sin in the flesh on the sin. less One. I say, That is righteousness! It is the Judge passing judgment. God's righteousness against sin is displayed. I look again: I hear a great earthquake; the stone is rolled away from the sepulchre; the guards become as dead men: I see a holy, spotless One — holy and spotless as ever He was — rising from the dead. I ask, Why is this? I hear the answer, Righteousness requires that that man who has glorified God in every way, whether in life or death, should be given the first place in the glory. Who is that man? It is Christ, the Second Adam, the Lord from heaven. He of God is made unto us righteousness. God and man are linked together in one person, even in the person of the Christ. They were ever together from the incarnation, but in one man. There is no such place for us except in resurrection. (John 12: 23.) On the cross I see the sinner's substitute- marvel of marvels — forsaken of God. The veil is rent, and access is given to every sinner who believes in Jesus, into the very holiest. The believer's position is now Christ before God. Thus God is for us, as revealed in His own acts in Christ. Faith appropriates it all, and gets Christ's position before God. Is Christ dead? the believer is dead. Is Christ risen? the believer is risen. Is Christ the righteousness of God? the believer is made the righteousness of God in Him. With his heart he believes unto righteousness; with his mouth confession is made unto salvation. He believes, he is not ashamed; he calls on the name of the Lord, he is saved.

Endowment.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. N3, p. 174-175.)

There is a danger, growing out of the tendency to imitate what is without or the same unbelief which originated that departure, against which we need to watch. Were we realising that we are not of the world as Christ is not, and looking day by day for His coming, the evil would be seen and judged. But herein we are so apt to fail that the exhortation to watch is ever wholesome.

The danger we now refer to is to settle down on earth, and to escape from dependence on God corporately as well as individually. This sometimes takes the shape of acquiring a freehold meeting-room, or at least some arrangement practically equivalent. It saves the trouble of a constant rent to pay, perhaps the need of self-denial and of drawing on the liberality of others to lighten our own burden. Where is there such a scheme in scripture? Where a hint leading to it?

There is nothing to hinder individual grace either in providing a building, or in diminishing rent where poverty is great. But it is a false principle and a dangerous practice for the assembly to possess itself of the room wherein they meet. It cannot in law belong to the Christians assembling there. They must, in order to legal security, become a recognised body with the dogmas and the polity wherein they differ from all others; in other words, they must be a distinct sect, like the rest of Christendom. They must forfeit the position of fidelity to the one body and one Spirit. They must abandon the confession that they are but a feeble remnant cleaving to the immutable truth of the church's unity in the midst of ruin. For such a plea could command no tenure before this world's judicature, and would expose those who affirmed it to nothing but derision. If dissension sprang up among those assembling, and scattering ensued, to which would it belong? Those who are under grace could not fight for such a thing; the unruly would be sure to claim it with violence; and those who had too easily desired or consented to the first wrong must find out their error too late.

In our pilgrimage let us be content to hire a needed room or building. To pay the rent is the witness that we are content with a tent and an altar in spirit. Let those who do not wait for Christ possess and build for ever. What if there be difficulty here or there? Have we not God to lean on and expect from? Is there not brotherly kindness on the part of those who have to help those who have not? Besides, those who walk in a spirit separate from the world have far fewer claims than those who love the world and its things. Rare will it be that they cannot pay the rent of a suitable room. In the case of a very few, has no one the grace to  the use of a private room? How much true worship has often gone up thence? How many souls have therein heard and received the word of life, to say nothing of the open air and its almost unlimited opportunities?

To frame a title-deed which gives legal safety (the one aim of every title-deed) to the assembly, I do not say to one or more individuals, there must be, especially in the present condition of Christendom, the definite position of a sect. But to assume such a position is to surrender what we have learnt of God about His church. And to assume to be His church in due and full standing, instead of being the witnesses of His grace and faithfulness as a few of its members meeting on His ground of faith, and no other, would be the abandonment of our intelligent actual duty. Individual property is the escape from the dilemma, where we pay our dues according to the righteous or gracious arrangement with him to whom it belongs. But to seek corporate possession as brethren is a slip from what scripture tells us, an inconsistency with our hope, a worldly or selfish desire, and a temptation to the violent or lawless when dispute arises, as experience shows not without sad example.

Love Your Enemies.

Matt. 5: 43-45.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. N4, p. 355-356.)

This word of our Lord demands our earnest heed; for it is as foreign to the feelings of men in Christendom as to Jewish disciples. But here is nothing that goes beyond the word of the beginning of Christ, nothing that supposes the work of redemption accomplished, or the Holy Spirit given to the believer. Yet the presence of the Lord brought in no little change.

"Ye heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say to you, Love your enemies, and pray for those that persecute you, that ye may be sons of your Father that is in [the] heavens; for he maketh his sun to rise on evil and good, and sendeth rain on just and unjust" (vers. 43-45).

In vain some essay to impress those words of Christ on men in general, on such as are not born of God. Now the language assumes that those addressed did believe in Christ, and had a new life of the Spirit as being born anew. But this is not so in our country or any other, even if as favoured in the possession of an open Bible. Yet the divine speaker takes for granted, what was true then and is still, that the mass of men, the nations (and the Jews are at least as bad), seek after what pertains to this life, eating, drinking, clothing, money, ease, honour : baptism, or the profession of Christ, in no way delivers from or lessens it. Therefore He warns that wide is the gate and broad the way that leads unto destruction, and many are they that enter through it; that narrow is the gate and straitened the way that leads unto life, and few are they that find it. It is therefore a total and dangerous misconception thus to overlook man's existing state of ruin.

But others, who seem aware of human inability to obey the law of God, and are accustomed to regard even believers still, as like Israel of old, doomed to failure under law, naturally conclude, that such requirements as the Lord urged on the mount are to man impossible and more condemnatory than the Ten Words of Sinai. They therefore settle down, like the believer in Rom. 7, overwhelmed as he sees himself struggling against the evils of his old nature, and ignorant of emancipating grace in the power of a dead and risen Christ, who can only cry, O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me out of this body of death? Hence the tendency to tone down our Lord's words in these three chapters, or even to deny that they have a living claim on the saint now. Others again contend that they are Jewish and had only to do with the disciples when the Lord was here in the days of His sojourn. They are really His words to men taught of God, and with a new life which desires and delights to walk according to His revealed will.

To love our enemies, to pray for those that persecute, is wholly above the law or the duty of a people in the flesh. An Edomite or an Egyptian was not to be abhorred, and their children might enter into the congregation of Jehovah in the third generation; an Ammonite or a Moabite only in the tenth generation, like a bastard. But Christ brought in grace and truth. In the light of the Son of man all were lost, even the sheep of Israel. As He was come to seek and to save that which was lost, those that were His were to love their enemies and to pray for their persecutors. It was the mind of heaven for His saints on earth, applicable to them and to none but them. They receive life, His life, in receiving Him, and are called to show it thus. It is as incumbent now as when the Lord thus spoke;  and His resurrection made it clearer and stronger, as the Holy Spirit when given made it of power. Thus were the disciples to be sons of their Father in the heavens.

What renegades, if not from Christ, at least from His words and will, if any bearing His name seek to fritter away so plain a call! This they cannot avoid, if they justify the ways of Christendom, where the world rules and the language is of Ashdod, where men fail to show their Father's name, and boast of their comprehending all the mixed multitude. For it is now a question of a far higher than Israel and of a separation deeper and nearer to God. It is a true and present calling of grace, inalienable from the Christian if loyal to the Lord. For we are all God's sons by faith in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3: 26). If we have the relationship and title, we cannot be absolved from the responsibility. Yea, it would be violence done to our new and divine nature (2 Peter 1: 4).

Let us therefore be in earnest to keep up the family character. Does not our Father that is in the heavens make His sun to rise on evil and good? does He not send rain on just and unjust? If His sons, it is not presumption to cherish feelings above human nature; it is our new status, and should be our delight. Grace alone can make it good. But Christ has procured all that is needful and efficacious to this end; and the Holy Spirit is here to see to it and guide us to Christ's glory.

Be not deceived, brethren beloved in the Lord. The enemy is sleeplessly active, and only too successful. This is My beloved Son, says the Father: hear ye Him. What is the chaff to the wheat? It is not enough to have life in Him, and our sins forgiven through His blood. We are called to hear His voice and to follow Him, separate from the world that crucified the Lord of glory.

Eternal Life: notes of a lecture.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. N5, p. 61-62.)

To avoid personality both lecturer and publisher are not named. But it is due to the Lord and His own to warn against what is calculated in this tract to deceive the simple. If it were an honest recantation of the recent error, all would hail it; but it is a crafty effort to adopt as far as possible the language of those who can say that Christians have life eternal now, while denying that they have it in any real sense, and confounding it with Christ's raising us up at the last day when its result is made good for the body. The late defender of this false doctrine was candid, compared with, the new one; "It used to be commonly said, I know that I have got eternal life. Why? Because scripture says, 'He that believeth hath everlasting life.'" Alas! no reason could be better, if there were living faith too. But that defender openly at least avowed his unbelief, and thought he had persuaded people to think that no believer has the thing itself but only a promise, not the thing promised. The present defender of the same unbelief laboriously tries to make people believe that they can say and unsay, and think this is upright instead of being a cheat.

He starts with saying, "You must never confound the Gospel of John with the Epistle;" but he is all wrong himself. For not only does the Epistle speak of the eternal and only-begotten Son like the Gospel, but the Gospel is throughout the unfolding of the Person become Man on earth; and the Epistle as truly as the Gospel, though briefly, as a divine Person with the Father before His incarnation. Again both Gospel and Epistle alike testify His present glorification. But as the Epistle followed the Gospel and supposes it known, so it even more subtly and beautifully identifies Christ with God, purposely passing from Him to God and from God to Him in a way which all false doctrine ignores, and which orthodox theology does not understand or enjoy.

As to confounding eternal life with everlasting existence, who does this but the grossly ignorant or heterodox men who talk of conditional immortality? Perhaps however those whom he addressed may have needed this elementary truth, Hence he turns to confounding the new birth with eternal life. But here he is again utterly wrong. The Lord did unfold life eternal in its Christian fulness as now revealed. It is a false inference that the O.T. saints in being born anew had not life in the Son, though they knew it not as we do, or ought to do. What is this life but eternal, as no one ever questioned till of late? Those must be ill-instructed indeed, who are "accustomed to think of life as only the vital spark."

Our Lord Himself, in John's Gospel (John 6: 35-40, John 10: 10) makes it certain that the use found here of John 5: 24, John 17: 3, or any other text is mere human reasoning to oppose the truth, if "involves" means that the believer could not have life eternal till the new creation (John 4: 9, 10). So does the Epistle refute the thought. He that ate of the living bread, that is, Himself incarnate, had life eternal; and if it were a work of the Spirit, he went on to eat His flesh and drink His blood (51-59), when he was also assured of having that life, instead of its being annexed to Christ's ascension (63) where it is not said, as there was no need to say it. But this system, if true, ought to have it exclusively there. Hence also the absurdity of saying, "' That which was from the beginning' supposes the first man set aside," save in God's mind. It was Christ incarnate, before the work was done, or Himself the risen man in glory. Is it not impudent, and misleading for such a defender to speak thus, "you say you have eternal life: no one disputes it for a moment;" when he knows well, that this is the very truth which was not only disputed but denied? Alas! it is what one has seen before: when the truth is lost, untruthfulness follows; especially where the desire is to shirk a plain profession of what has been exposed and discredited.

Nevertheless this defender does here and often contradict his late leader. For he utterly denied eternal life as a present possession for any: it "is God's purpose for you" — "mine in title, but to say that I have it is another matter." This is given up by the lecturer, who dares to say that "no one disputes for a moment" what exactly contradicted it. Think of another glaring contradiction. It was then taught that "eternal life refers to earth (!) I don't think we should talk about eternal life in heaven"(!!) with the wild talk about a sphere. Here on the contrary the change is complete, and heaven is insisted on as "the sphere, or home, of eternal life."

In p. 10 the cloven foot appears. Even for the believer now to be born again is severed from life eternal, and has it not yet till redemption, and the Spirit's gift. It is quite true that no one is indwelt by the Spirit till he is by faith washed from his sins in Christ's blood. But to say that eternal life and the Holy Ghost go together is the system, and unscriptural. Where does Scripture couple them thus? In Scripture faith in Christ is associated with eternal life, and in the most immediate way "hath," and not merely shall have. But the gift of the Spirit is consequent on faith in Christ's work, His blood or redemption, not on life eternal; for it is allowed that even John 4: 14 looks on to the glorious result, whatever the intermediate joy.

Again, it seems a pity that one who used to be a fervent evangelist should, in setting up for a teacher, alas! be a false teacher, and extremely inconsistent too with the system he was supposed to defend. For the system ostensibly expounded, and never repudiated, was, that "there is a gulf between you and it [eternal life], and you have to pass over that gulf," and again that "there is no truth in the assertion that eternal life was communicated this side of the bridge," and that "the gift of the Holy Ghost" is what is communicated, not life eternal, but He the well of water springing up to eternal life. What wretched cloaking, and tinkering, and concealing the change in most important respects, while still pretending to be the same!

Take further the lecturer, with his "objective and subjective," which he either misunderstands or misapplies. If we have life in the Son, it is not objective but subjective. It is our new being and a divine nature we never had before; and it is or ought to be in exercise throughout our life. "I am crucified with Christ, and no longer live I, but Christ liveth in me," etc. This is not called life eternal as it was from Paul's pen; but it is what is so called by the apostle John, to whom this great truth was given to make known. It is also a mere blunder to say that the indwelling Spirit (and this is the question) is subjective; for though He has a subjective place like Christ even in life, He is regularly and truly revealed as a real objective Person, witnessing with our spirit, helping our infirmity, interceding for us according to God, guiding into all the truth, and thus glorifying Christ in every way as regards us.

The remarks on 1 John 5: 13 seem only brought in apparently to support his leader, while on the contrary they really oppose. What then is the meaning of "it says so," and in italics? The notion that "knowing" there is objective, as first conveyed to faith, is merely an error, whoever "said so." It is on the contrary inward and conscious, which the apostle desired for the family of God. But the system, here revised and altered by its defender, denied any possible inward consciousness, because it did not allow but refused any real present possession for the soul.

So far one may hail a rent in this flag of unbelief, though totally without the candour to acknowledge its departure from the system. It is partial homage to the truth; yet its apparent design is to deceive the simple folk who think that there is no change. It is to be hoped that the lecturer is not so far gone as to follow his leader in holding that Christ became (instead of was) the Word, the Eternal Word, or that, in becoming man, He became an incomplete and imperfect man (if He had no soul), but had His personality in the divine Word or Son: Monotheistic heterodoxy without doubt and never yet purged out, but hidden leaven still at work.

Fasting.

Matt. 6: 16-18.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. N5, p. 70-71.)

It remains for us to weigh our Lord's words on fasting, as the third part of His teaching on "righteousness" (not "alms") in the first verse of the chapter. Prayer holds the intermediate place between alms and fasting, the pious and holy basis to guard the other two, binding them up with faith against formality.

"And when ye fast, be not gloomy-faced as the hypocrites; for they disguise their faces, so that they may appear to men fasting. Verily, I say to you, They have their reward. But thou while fasting anoint thy head, and wash thy face, so that thou mayest not appear to men fasting, but to thy Father that [is] in secret; and thy Father that seeth in secret will recompense thee."

The Lord does not so much enjoin fasting as bring it like prayer under the Christian principle of having to do with our Father in secret. It falls under the individual life of faith. Yet He undoubtedly sanctions and approves of it when so practised; and this independently of the more open and united aim, such as we find in Acts 13: 2, 3, Acts 14: 23. He also intimates its value for spiritual power. Pious men have ever felt and must feel its appropriateness in chastening the soul before God, where public or private need called for humiliation. But even in Mark 9: 29 it is well to note that the two most ancient copies ignore "and fasting," as they with other authorities also the entire verse 21 of Matt. 17, nor is there a word corresponding in Luke 9. The apostle however who more than others was given to stand for liberty in Christ speaks (in 2 Cor. 6: 5, 2 Cor. 11: 27) simply and piously of "fastings" and "fastings often" in his service, to the rebuke of that levity which the Corinthian assembly betrayed, and which characterises modern Christianity, save where superstition and self-righteousness give it an artificial moment in very different eyes.

In Matt. 9: 14, etc. the Lord shows its true place and time in answer to the disciples of John saying, "Why do we and the Pharisees often fast, but Thy disciples fast not? And Jesus said to them, Can the sons of the bride-chamber mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them; but days shall come when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then will they fast." Neither those who were only disciples of John had any real appreciation of the Bridegroom's presence, nor still less the Pharisees filled with forms and self-righteousness. It was joy to the believing disciples of Jesus. Feeble as they were, they had left their all for Him, and they Lasted a divine bliss in Him wholly unknown to the others, who were wholly unprepared for the awful purport to them and the Jews of His being taken away, little as the true disciples as yet comprehended that solemn approaching fact with its immense consequence. The joy of Messiah's presence made fasting altogether inappropriate. Those who tasted none of it were blind to Him whom God's grace had given and sent. Greater still would be their darkness, when the Bridegroom should be taken away. Then would those that believed and loved Him fast, both spiritually and literally.

It might not be like Jews accompanied by rending of garments or with sackcloth and ashes, but deeper communion with God's mind than could be known before the Holy Spirit came to make it good. And fasting among Christians is all the more striking because of the peace, joy, and boundless delight they have in the love of Christ, and fellowship with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. Still if loyal to Christ we cannot but have the constant sense of His rejection, and of the judgment ever impending and certain to fall on the guilty world, and all the more because it pays Him the hollowest of lip homage. Yes, days are come when the Bridegroom thus ignominiously taken away is still absent, and fasting lends itself to mourners, whatever their even enhanced joy in being united to Him as members of His body, a privilege never dreamt of before, and the joy of grace in the revelation and active working of a Saviour God to lost sinners, Gentile no less than Jew.

But Christendom perverted fasting, through vain philosophy, into a reflection on the creative glory of God. And abstinence from meats, which He created for thanksgiving, was early turned into human merit, and the lie of inherent evil in matter. Grace and truth through Jesus Christ were thus denied; and days of fasting were imposed, as ecclesiastical history records, first by custom, and afterward by legal sanction. In the second century, if not in the first, the fatal error also drawn from philosophy was in full swing not for their life and complete cleansing by His blood, but of a twofold rule, the one for the despised flock of God, the other for the spiritual superior; the one the Precepts for all sorts, the other the Counsels of Perfection for those who aspired to a higher life, which issued in asceticism and grew into monasticism. Who can wonder that God poured contempt on these unbelieving efforts to improve the first man, by letting the flesh with all this inflation break out into the grossest immorality on one side, and legendary falsehood against God on the other? But this too was just what was found with older Platonists and Pythagoreans, who taught that it was not only lawful but commendable to deceive and lie, for the sake of truth and piety. Hence, even in  those early days the large harvest of forgeries which are coming to light in our days, the witness of the rapid departure from the Christianity taught by the inspired apostles, long before the papal system systematised it and enforced it on pain of death.

A Forgiving Spirit.

Matt. 6: 14, 15.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. N5, p. 100-102.)

The Lord was not content with this impressive call for practical grace in the prayer prescribed to His disciples: "Forgive us our debts, as we also forgave our debtors." He immediately after follows it up with emphasis.

"For if ye forgive men their offences, your heavenly Father will also forgive you [yours]; but if ye forgive not men their offences, neither will your Father forgive your offences."

There is such confusion in Christendom as to the forgiveness of sins that the true force of the Lord's solemn words is lost for the most part. The vast majority have so hazy a view of eternal redemption that they fear to believe in the full and abiding efficacy of Christ's work. The glad news, or the gospel, of God is thus for them shorn of its power. They are no better off than a Jew who brought his offering, confessed his sin, and went away with the comfort that it was forgiven. As he had to offer often, so the ill-taught Christian talks of his need to be resprinkled again and again with that blood, though expressly said to be shed once for all.

What blindness, if we adduce nothing else, to the testimony of Heb. 10! The perfect sacrifice has caused the imperfect to cease. The worshippers once purged have no more conscience of sins; in plain contrast with the Levitical sacrifices, wherein is made year by year remembrance, as the Christian is entitled to remission of sins. Christ came to take away the temporary, and to establish the everlasting. Therefore, when He offered one sacrifice for sins, He for ever [in continuity] sat down on God's right hand. He had done all perfectly to blot out the guilt of His friends (once His foes); and took His seat as its triumphant proof, from henceforth waiting till His enemies who reject Him and His work be set as footstool of His feet. Then He will come forth and tread them down in their open rebellion at the consummation of the age. But to the Christian the Holy Spirit testifies that their sins and their lawlessnesses God remembers no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no longer an offering for sin: every thing of the kind is superseded and more than fulfilled in that of Christ.

But here faith fails, because God's word is not received in its own divine and conclusive authority; and thus are souls defrauded of peace and joy in believing; and entire devotedness to God is curtailed, bought as we are with a price so incalculable. This unbelief is helped on by confounding things that differ, like our text with that complete redemption which rests solely on Christ's cross. Still more when such blessed institutions of Christianity as baptism and the Lord's supper were made saving ordinances, not figuratively but intrinsically; and a clerical class was made necessary and of divine right to apply them with due effect to the laity: a figment which outdid the highest claims of Jewish priesthood, and in principle denies the gospel.

But while the Lord does not, here or in any part of His teaching on the Mount, refer to that redemption which He was to accomplish, He has a weighty lesson to enforce on His disciples in cultivating a spirit of grace. It the Jew in general could not rise above the law in its distance from God, the fear which made the very mediator full of trembling, and the readiness to denounce and curse which it engendered, grace is the atmosphere in which the Christian lives and flourishes. No doubt it is through righteousness but withal it is grace reigning.

What was it that drew to the Lord Jesus even from John the Baptist? What was it that in spite of a legal environment at length blossomed and bore fruit so sweet in Peter and John and James and a noble army of martyrs and confessors? What was it that melted Paul's heart of steel and made him the most ardent and suffering witness to the world of Jesus Christ and Him crucified? What else could begin with the proudest, most self-satisfied, stiff-necked, and rebellious race, and transform them into the poor in spirit, the mourning, the meek, the hungering and thirsting after righteousness, yea the merciful, the pure in heart, the peace-makers, persecuted for righteousness' sake, and even for His sake, for whom the nation and its high priest judged crucifixion only His due, and so fulfilled the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets?

As it was the grace and truth which gave the disciples life, and would give it abundantly in the power of Christ's resurrection, so would follow that full and abiding remission which only His blood secures, and this uninterruptedly. But sin indulged does interrupt communion with our God and Father, and needs the advocacy of Christ to cleanse the feet thus defiled, by the washing of water by word. His blood retains intact its atoning virtue; but the word is applied by the Spirit in answer to Christ. on high, and he that sinned repents in dust and ashes. For this is He that came through water and blood. We need and have both, and cannot do without the water from first to last, as we have had the blood once for all. Whoever ignores, or (still worse) denies, the twofold provision of grace, undermines redemption and muddles the truth of God.

Now the Lord specifies an unforgiving spirit as intolerable to our Father in His daily government of His sons. And no wonder. It is to go back from grace to law, from Christ to wretched self. Hence, as in the prayer, He urges grace toward those who may offend us ever so painfully, and love which He commends to our loyal and tender warning of its lack practically as hateful in His eyes. "For if ye forgive men their offences, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your offences."

O you who keep up your resentment, and brood over the offences (often exaggerated if not imaginary) of others, beware. You, a Christian, if so, are in utter default of this characteristic duty, as unlike Christ as you can be. Need one say that you are as unhappy as you are hard? Is it nothing to your high spirit, degrading as this is to a Christian, that "your heavenly Father will not forgive you your offences"? Trifle not with so bad and proud a state, and no longer grieve the Holy Spirit of God who sealed you. Let not the sun set upon your wrath, nor give room for the devil.

The Early Chapters of Genesis.

W. Kelly.

(Bible Treasury Volumes N1 & 2, 1896-1898, [36 sections].)

GENESIS 10: 1.

This comprehensive, instructive, and interesting chapter, followed by Gen. 11: 1-9 which has its own special importance, is devoted to a description of a new element among mankind, its various nations divided in their lands, every one after his tongue. Before the deluge no such distinctions subsisted. Immense as the population might be, they were not thus associated any more than marked off one from another. Jehovah took care that the line of Seth should be guarded for His ways then, and for His purposes in the future. There were moral differences between Cain and his descendants from early days; and an awful form of creature lawlessness arose before God executed judgment on all flesh in an earth corrupt before Him, and filled with violence. But there was no government on the one hand yet established by God, nor was there any division into nations, nor yet diversity of language.

After the flood God had introduced the principle of government, committing the charge into the hands of men. As the next fact of the widest moment for the earth, the origin of the nations which were about to play their part is made known to us; and this with a special view to His choice of a people for Himself, and separated to Himself. Even it is seen first tried and failing through sin, as Adam had been in the world before the flood. Of this the O.T. is the ample witness and the awful proof, before His grace intervenes in the Second man and the Messiah of Israel to deliver both man and Israel, as He will the church and the universe, on the ground of divine righteousness and ever enduring mercy to the praise of Himself and the Lamb.

The fact is before all eyes. Nothing exists more notorious in ordinary and universal knowledge (save perhaps for the most isolated of savages) than the many races and tongues and peoples of mankind, each having its own separate bond of union. Yet how this fact began, so pregnant in history, not one of these nations can tell; nor do the most ancient — one does not ask of formal records, but — of incidental monuments go far enough back to explain. Yet here it is written with simple and calm dignity by the instrument God chose for the purpose. It was easy for Him, Who knew all from before the beginning, to make known distinctly and accurately what it seemed good in His eyes to reveal to His people. This He has done in the short compass of a single chapter, Gen. 10, with His moral ground for so separating mankind in the first paragraph of the following chapter. We shall find there an adequate, not to say absolutely necessary reason for His intervention at once for His own glory and on behalf of guilty man; unless we assume that He Who but recently instituted responsible government in man's hand was indifferent to a rebellion as slighting to Himself as ruinous to man. This drew out from Him a dealing equally simple and effectual, which issued in the scattering of man over the earth according to God's will, but in separate nationalities to the frustration of man's will against God.

As Israel then was to be His earthly people, God made known in a brief survey the sources of all the nations here below, having provided, laid down, and committed to man government in its root principle. None of these facts applies to the antediluvian earth, where all consisted of a vast indiscriminate population of one tongue and under no restraint of government, as it ended in all but universal lawlessness and a judgment that spared a family of only eight persons, including its head. He Who alone could reveal the primeval state when the first man and woman were made, and ushered then into an unstained earth, now deigned to tell the story of how nationalities began with their miraculously started distinct languages, spreading over different lands according to their families. His pleasure was both to bring to nought man's union for a name of pride and to set Israel in the most central spot, not more for righteous government than for shedding on all the earth the knowledge of Jehovah and His glory. So says Deut. 32: 8: "When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the children of Adam, He set the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the children of Israel." The people were redeemed first, then the land: all in view of Messiah and His redemption and reign in manifest glory, when they shall bow in faith who are still unbelieving, and living water issuing from the house eastward shall heal the Dead sea and gird the globe with blessing. See Ezek. 47, and Joel 3: 18; and Zech. 14: 8, 9 adds that half goes westward: the sign doubtless of universal blessing from the divine centre in that day.

The first chapter of Genesis presents the origin of the world, especially of the earth, sea and land, and its inhabitants, above all of man himself its head and God's representative; then in Gen. 2 the special relations of man with God, with the lower creaturehood, and with woman his counterpart, which necessitates for completeness and accuracy the special divine name of "Jehovah" Elohim. The slighting of these revelations exposes to Atheism or a powerless Theism. Science cannot penetrate the secrets of the beginnings by the confession even of one so self-confident and sceptical as J. S. Mill (in his Logic). The domain of science is either purely abstract or applied to what is already created; but how it came to be is outside its ken. Here in Gen. 10 we are given to survey a fact of immense importance to the government of the earth. The first rise of families into separate nations and tongues, history has utterly failed to indicate, as science fails, in the material realm.

Revelation, as it kept intact two chronological lines in Gen. 5, here too supplies the manifest and invaluable light of God with a special view to His earthly people, followed by the moral cause laid before us in Gen. 11 which brings in (as it ought) the name of Jehovah throughout its earlier paragraph; whereas it only appears exceptionally, though for good reason, in Gen. 10: 9. All the lessons and monumental records of all the earth combined are not to be compared for certainty or comprehensiveness with this sacred ethnography, grounded on genealogy, and linked with geography. God gave it by Moses as He alone could. Facts of great weight as to the antediluvians are related in Gen. 4, and, what to some may seem strange, in the family of Cain with religion but without faith. Therein arose city life, arts, and sciences, literary verse, among men who forgot the fall, ignored sin and the Saviour, and strove to embellish the earth into a worldly paradise. As the unity of the race was absolute at the beginning, so it was virtually in Noah after the deluge. The outward progress of mankind must have been all the greater because of their longevity. Whatever it was, the sons of Noah possessed all on their new start. No theory is more fallacious than the pretended ages of stone, bronze, and iron. Men, in their wanderings into rude forest life or other forms of savagery, fell into the circumstances of such facts, which still exist under similar conditions: to generalise them, as successive periods through which all passed, is mere myth, not history.

"And these [are the] generations of Noah's sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth; and sons were born to them after the flood" (Gen. 10: 1). This is the true place for such a statement given after Noah's fall and its remarkable consequences; just as the genealogy of Adam's sons followed in Gen. 5 after his sin and that of Cain led to the revealed state of the world before the flood. Noah lived on for centuries after, but is mentioned no more in the history, as Adam disappears after his sin, with Cain's crime leading to Seth given instead of Abel. One Spirit forms the narrative beyond the wisdom of Moses, and in total disproof of incoherent fragments pieced together, least of all at an epoch when all was crumbling to ruin among the chosen people. It was well ordered that none of Noah's sons had children till they emerged from the ark. So Adam became a father only after the fall and expulsion from paradise.

GENESIS 10: 2.

It will be noticed that the order of Noah's sons is now changed. Japheth has the first place, when we come to genealogic survey; and this is even explained when we arrive at the line of Shem (ver. 21), who for spiritual reasons had been uniformly set in that place of honour hitherto, even Ham being other wise put before Japheth. That many Jews, followed by others, should overlook the spirit of scripture, in their zeal for the progenitor of the chosen people, is easily understood; but some weighed the word with more care and less prejudice. So Nachmanides remarks that the enumeration begins with Yapheth, because he is the firstborn. It proceeds with Cham, although the youngest, and reserves Shem to the last, because the narrator wishes to enlarge on the history of his descendants. Rashi also, though admitting the doubtfulness of the phrase, decides similarly from comparing other scriptures:- "From the words of the text I do not clearly know whether the elder applies to Shem or Japheth. But as subsequently we are informed that Shem was one hundred years old and begat Arpachshad two years after the deluge (Gen. 11: 10), it follows that Yapheth was the elder. For Noach was five hundred years old when he began to have children, and the deluge took place in the six hundredth year of his age. His eldest son must consequently have been one hundred years old at the time of the deluge; whereas we are expressly informed that Shem did not arrive at that age till two years after the deluge."

We next come to the family of the firstborn. "Sons of Japheth: Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras" (ver. 2).

Here is presented the distinct statement of what scholars have regarded as the greatest triumph of modern research in comparative philology. The Asiatic Society instituted in 1784 at Calcutta gave the great impulse, Sir W. Jones declaring that "no philologer could examine the Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which perhaps no longer exists. There is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and Celtic had the same origin with the Sanskrit. The old Persian may be added to the same family." Long after this scholars were still incredulous, clinging to the heathen notion of aboriginal races with their respective tongues, modified by the thought of a Hebrew primaeval source. Hence, in his prejudice for the honour of Greek and Latin, so cultivated and able a person as the late Professor Dugald Stewart (Elements of the Philosophy of the Human Mind, iii. 100-137) denied the reality of Sanskrit as a tongue of the past! and imputed its forgery! to unprincipled Brahmans whom he supposed to have founded it on the model of the old classic languages to deceive the world. F. Schlegel however, though more a genius than a scholar, had scanned the secret early in the century when he gave the name Indo-Germanic to the Aryan tongues of ancient Persia (the Zend), Greece, Italy, and Germany. He might have included quite as surely Celtic, Scandinavian, and Sclavonian under the wider generalisation of Indo-European. They were the tongues of the Japhetic or, as moderns speak, the Aryan families. It was the task of Franz Bopp to set the matter on a sound basis of proof, not only in his essay of 1816 and others, but in his Comparative Grammar of 1833-1852. Others, as Eugène Burnouf in France and Max. Müller in this country, have contributed not a little since.

Now if the Mosaic account had been given its just place, the fact would have been known all through, which is far more simple and to the believer more authoritative than inferences ever so plain and sure drawn from the comparison of these many languages. For it became evident that Sanskrit, old as it may be, is no more the parent of these tongues than Greek, but that they were all sisters, derived from a language earlier than any of them. Thus the tongues were seen to have a family relationship no less than the races of mankind; and phonetic changes follow according to observed principle instead of the more obvious derivatory resemblance. That they had (as Sanskrit proved) in the east a common source was for the learned a recent discovery. But in our verse we are told authoritatively that Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras were sons of Japheth. Thus were they all linked together, dialectically distinct, but of common origin. Nor is it difficult to distinguish those races in general.

Thus Gomer embraces the Cimbri, or the more modern Kelts, who appear to have come first of the Aryan family to Europe from their early seat in the north of India. At one time they had a considerable hold on northern Italy, as well as Spain, Switzerland, the Tyrol, and south of the Danube; but Belgium, Britain, Gaul, were long their own; and even now the Welsh and the Breton dialects (and till recently the Cornish) attest the fact, as also the closely related Erse, Gaelic, and Manx. It was a body of marauders from Gaul, chiefly the three tribes of Tectosages, Tolistobogii, and Trocmi, who overran Asia Minor and gave their name to Galatia where they settled: a consideration not without considerable interest to those who weigh the Epistle addressed to them by the apostle Paul. They seem to have migrated to Asia Minor on their route to Europe, before this final return and settlement for some in that quarter.

Next, Magog (cf. Ezek. 38: 2) quite as certainly is identified with the land we call Russia (a name derived from the river Volga, called Greek  Ῥᾶ, as  Ῥῶς is their Greek title). To these must add Meshech and Tubal, races long known as Moschi and Tibareni: these are the Muskai and the Tuplai of the Assyrian inscriptions, who find their representatives in Moscow and Tobolsk. This is the Sclavonian branch.

Madai again is the unchanged name for the Medes and their country, with whom was the Persian race or Parsec, though Elam was Shemitic. Even to this day, the Persian tongue, though debased by Arabic importations, is essentially Aryan, as the older language, the Zend, was exclusively, and of course closely akin to Sanskrit.

Javan also is the proper Hebrew for Greece, as in Daniel 8 where we hear of the Medes and Persians. The less may be said as here no question can be. Details will follow in due course which confirm the general fact.

There remains but Tiras, which from the likeness of the name has been generally believed to mean the representative of the Thracians. Though they lacked cohesion and persevering purpose and so made little mark politically, it is well to remember that Herodotus set them next to the Indians as the most considerable nation in his day. The absence of the vowel "i" may be accounted for by its subscription in the Greek term. Still the question cannot be said to be settled, like all the others which precede.

The learning of the Greek was at fault at least as much as the tradition of the Jew. Scripture had not been weighed or trusted by either. And when the discovery of Sanskrit came, the issue was so startling that the erudite at first recoiled from that which not only brought in larger views, but shook to its foundations much they had been building up. The method of derivation alone had been trusted; whereas the newly ascertained facts pointed to parallel descents from a common parent in at least six great lines with their modern offspring. But this so revolutionised the entire groundwork as to show that erudition had been on a false scent, especially as to the inflexions and the conjugations of tongues ever so distant locally, which indicate affinity far more surely and thoroughly than isolated words. K. O. Müller was one of the first seriously to own the old position embarrassing; and G. Hermann before him had written sarcastically of those who sought light from "a sort of aurora borealis, reflecting the gleams of eastern illumination, and who, betaking themselves to the Brahmans and Ulphilas, endeavoured to explain Greek and Latin by the help of languages which they only half understood." K. A. Lobeck carried on the war in his celebrated works, Aglaophamus (1829), Paralipomena (1837) and Pathologia (1843), as Ellendt did in the Preface to his Lex. Sophocl. (1835). Yet the truth remains that God marks certain families of language in the great dispersion, and that with their specified differences they give sure evidence of a common kindred. The same grammatical framework belongs to them; and it differs totally too from that of the Shemitic tongues; as the varied Turanian group differs in this from them both.

The Jews, as is known, assign to Cush (translated Ethiopia ordinarily) not only his African seat but the opposite coast of Arabia and the southern shore of Asia generally into India. And this is well founded. But Arabia received also a large Shemitic population which gave character to their language; and this as we shall see not only from Joktan, Eber's son, but from Jokshan, Abraham's son by Keturah, and from Ishmael's twelve sons, with some of Esau's descendants. Even Homer (Od. ii. 23, 24) speaks of Ethiopians as divided into two parts, the most distant of men, some at the setting sun, and some at the rising. It was a Turanian race, which included the Turks, but not the Armenians who were rightly given to Japheth. But the Jews seem never to have realised the fact that the ancient Persian tongue (Zend) and that of northern and central India (Sanskrit) yield the fullest indication of Japhetic origin.

GENESIS 10: 3.

Of Japheth's sons two only have their descendants specified, Gomer the head of the Kelts, and Javan, from whom came the Hellenic-Italian races.

"And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah" (ver. 3).

Jeremiah (Jer. 51: 27) introduces Ashkenaz as one of three kingdoms set apart and called together with Ararat and Minni against Babylon, when the kings of the Medes also played their decisive part. There seems no sound reason to doubt that as Ararat and Minni were parts of Armenia, here as elsewhere falling under Togarmah, so Ashkenaz and Riphath occupied the peninsula of Asia Minor at that time and took their place with Cyrus the leader of these races during that notable struggle. But this in no way weakens the general fact that Gomer pushed westward and into Europe, allowing that at least Togarmah settled in Armenia.* For this is as sure as any fact of history; and scripture is decisive as to it, not only in the past, but for the future.

*It is generally accepted that Armenia is Har-minni," the mountains of Minni," though Ararat and Minni were distinct localities. Togarmah, being the name of the race, included all the land.

For instance, Ezek. 38 beyond doubt unveils the judgment of Russia at the end of this age, and lets us see its supporters compelled to follow and share the general ruin. Among those of the north are Gomer and all his hordes, and the house of Togarmah from the uttermost north and all his, as well as the southern races of Persia, Cush, and Phut under the same influence.

It is quite unfounded to pretend that this vast confederacy of the nations (or its overwhelming destruction) applies to any action under the Seleucidae, any more than the then state of the Jews in the land agrees. For it is clear that Israel previously has been brought back from the sword, gathered out of many peoples, and that they are dwelling in safety, though in a land of unwalled villages, having neither bars nor gates. Again, the position is made all the plainer by taking into account the two preceding chapters, Jer. 36 and Jer. 37. The prophet in the first declares that Jehovah will call them from among the nations, and gather them out of all the countries, and bring them into their own land. This restoration is to have a national completeness and a holy character beyond all precedent. "And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean; from all your uncleannesses and from all your idols will I cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and I will put a new spirit within you, and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and keep mine, ordinances, and ye shall do them. So ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God."

This new and mighty work of divine grace for Israel is clearly seen to be confirmed symbolically in the next: Jer. 37, where we see the valley of dry bones caused to live and stand up, an exceeding great army; then, under the two sticks made one in Jehovah's hand, the old rent of the divided tribes completely healed, and one nation made on the mountains of Israel with one king to them, as has never been since the days of Rehoboam. "And they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all. And they shall not any more defile themselves with their idols, or with their detestable things, or with any of their transgressions; and I will save them out of all their dwelling-places wherein they have sinned; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God. And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd; and they shall walk in my ordinances, and keep my statutes and do them." It is a bright and blessed prediction awaiting its fulfilment. In these circumstances will Gog lead his vassal hordes to perish signally on the mountains of Israel, and a fire shall also be sent on Magog and those that dwell at ease in the isles; and they shall know Who it is that thus judges them in the day that all Israel shall be gathered out of the nations into their own land, none to be left any more there.

The Rabbins have it that Ashkenaz subsequently migrated into that part of Europe which was afterward called Germany. And a learned German who has devoted much research to the details of this chapter comes to the same conclusion. But the evidence is far from being clear, though all agree that the Teutons are Japhetic and of Gomer. Herodotus indeed (i. 125) tells us of the Germanioi. as with other tribes an agricultural class, not pastoral like several, and distinct from the princely and noble, into which the ancient Persians were divided. It is probable that they were at any rate connected with Carmania, the modern Kirman, as Mr. W. S. Vaux suggests; so Agatharcides (Mar. Erythr. 27, Hudson) and Strabo (xiv. 723) use the name of Germania, for what Diodorus (xviii. 6) calls Carmania. But it seems only a curious coincidence. Besides, of old, "Germans" was not the name the Teutonic family gave themselves, but from without. Far less is the ground for applying Riphath to Great Britain as some have done, or to the Rhipaean mountains (in all probability a geographical dream of the ancient Greeks), though here again the rationalist coalesces with the Jewish doctors and labours to find in the Carpathian range a temporary seat for the Kelts or Gaels. But there is no good reason for doubting that those we call Germans were of Gomer, no less than the Kelts,

GENESIS 10: 4.

We have now to offer such explanation as we can on another branch of the Japhetic race. It may be premised that they come next after Madai. Of this last we have no details; only indeed of Gomer's sons, as now of Javan's, the. Keltic and the Italo-Hellenic, families respectively.

It has been already shown briefly on ver. 2 that Javan represents Greece. Ionia however, or Ionis, answers most nearly to the Hebrew name, a narrow district in Asia Minor, of which Greek colonies are said to have possessed themselves more than a thousand years B.C., some time after the Dorian conquest of Peloponnesus, and even after their advance toward Attica (Müller's Dorians, ii. 511, Tufnell and Lewis' Tr. 1830). Not only was Ionia remarkable for its commercial prosperity, but for excellence in art and poetry, in history and philosophy, before the mother-country attained any eminence in these pursuits (Smith's Dict. of Gr. and R. Geography, ii. 61, col. 1). Ezekiel 27: 13 speaks of Javan among the traffickers with Tyre: only we must distinguish from it Javan of Uzal in ver. 19, which seems to mean the capital town of Yemen or Arabia Felix. But those who migrated here and elsewhere were the race who long before were in Attica and in part of the Peloponnesus. Of course none can wonder at varied forms of mythical genealogy; but the fact is certain of the early predominance of the Ionian name, as Moses here gives it, for a general description of Greece (Thirlwall's Hist. i. 134). In fact Greece is so designated from Gen. 10 to Zech. 9. Homer in Il. xiii. 685, Aeschylus, in Pers. 176, 568, 948 and Suppl. 72, employ a word that approximates to the Hebrew term.

"And the sons of Javan, Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim" (ver. 4)*

* Dathe renders the verse, "Graecorum coloniae sunt Elis, Tartessus, Italia et Dodanaei," seen since this paper was written.

As Javan unquestionably answers to the Greeks in general and is represented in the Ionian race particularly, it is acknowledged that Elishah also belongs to that people. Ezekiel 27: 7 helps us to the conclusion that the isles or maritime parts pertained to his lot. Josephus applied the name to the Aeolians, as others to Hellas (which was adopted by J. D. Michaelis, Spicil. i. 79). But Bochart preferred the Peloponnesus as an extension of Elis. The commerce with Tyre points to the islands as well as to the Morea.*

* We may compare with this what the late Bp. of St. David's gives as a note to his Hist. of Greece, i. 40. "Welcker, Ueber eine Kretische Kolonie in Theben, p. 30, observes that Πελασγοὶ or Πελάγονες (for Πέλαγοι), signifying the illustrious, is most probably only another form of  Ἕλλοπες and Πέλοψ; and, having illustrated his proposition by a number of examples, concludes with the remark: 'Hence it appears that the forms, Ἕλος,  Ἕλλος,  Ἕλλην,  Ἕλαξ,  Ἕλακος or  Ἕλαγος (in Πελάγων, as well as in Σέλαγος, in Crete Σάλαγος, Paus. viii. 4, 8.) and have all one origin.'" The Hebrew name corresponding is more certainly Elishah, the eldest of Javan's sons, as we may add. Indeed Αἰολις, Αἰολεύς, κ. τ. λ. would seem to be but another class or form of the same fruitful stock; which, like the foregoing, Greek imagination personified, and developed into a variety of poetic myths. In scripture we have nothing but the simple and solid truth, as far as it fell in with the divine design to give it, in carrying out His plans for the earth, of which Israel will ever be found to be the centre, save in the abnormal state when through their apostasy they became Lo-Ammi as they are still.

Tarshish follows; and here it appears that we need not doubt an original settlement on the south shore of Spain, where also the Phoenicians later had factories, and whence by their ships they brought to Tyre silver, iron, tin, and lead, as Ezek. 27: 12 informs us. The ships of Tarshish were the most famous for merchandise in ancient times. Ps. 72: 10 is of itself sufficient to indicate a considerable stretch of country, not merely the well-known city of Tartessus at the mouth of the Baetis (or Guadalquiver). There is no valid ground to doubt that this was the region to which Javan's second son gave the name. There may have been another place so called in the south east or Indian ocean, to which Solomon's ships sailed from Ezion-Geber (cf. 1 Kings 9: 26, 2 Chron. 9: 21). For we have no ground to suppose the route round Africa by the Cape of Good Hope was then known; nor, if it were, could the south of Spain supply ivory, and asses, and peacocks, which point rather to India or Ceylon. Tarsus in Cilicia, which Josephus conjectured, in no way meets what is said in the references of scripture.

There is no difficulty as to Kittim, which is a term beyond controversy applied to two of the peninsulas of Europe, first Greece [or Macedon], then Rome or Italy. So the writer of Maccabees speaks of Greece (chaps. i. 1, viii. 5); as Dan. 11: 30 is decisive as to Rome. So in the prophecy of Balaam (Num. 24: 24) we learn of a fleet from the west afflicting Asshur, when all man's power comes to destruction. In Jer. 3: 10 and Ezek. 28: 6 we hear of the "isles" or sea-coasts of Kittim; which can hardly mean Cyprus, as understood Josephus and many since his day, though Gesenius approved. He allows however that a wider signification is called for as in not a few Scriptures here cited.

Dodanim remains, which some, from the similarity of sound it seems, would connect with the famous Dodona in Epirus; but the celebrity of an ancient oracle would scarcely give warrant for a place in this chapter. There is another reading which appears in 1 Chron. 1: 7, and Rhodians have been thought to correspond with it. The Sept. has the same people for Dedan in Ezek. 27: 15, which is assuredly an error. The learned Bochart suggests the Rhone, at whose mouth was an ancient Greek colony and emporium. More than one Targum understood the common reading of the Dardans; and Gesenius inclines to this view in his Monumenta Phoen. 432 and Thes. LL. Heb. and Ch. 1266. It was a branch of the widely spread Pelasgic stock. Curiously enough Strabo (vii.) preserves a fragment of Hesiod, of Dodona as a seat of the Pelasgians. See also Hes. Goettl, ed, alt. 295,

GENESIS 10: 5.

The general summary of the Japhetic distribution is given in the closing verse 5: "From these were separated the isles (or, maritime districts) of the nations in their lands, each (man) after his tongue, after their families, in their nations."

Of the seven sons of Japheth, we have the descendants of but two, Gomer and Javan; from Gomer, three, and from Javan, four; seven only specified of the second generation, as of the first. That Magog and Madai had sons cannot be doubted, for we hear of their posterity to the latest times as well as of Tubal and Meshech; and as little can we doubt of Tiras. But it did not here fall within the design to give details of more. The prophets speak of others who sprung from these early forefathers to figure in the latter day. It is clear also that the order of time is not in question here; for in the following chapter difference of tongues is shown to have been imposed suddenly by a divine act of judgment, only after the project of building a city and tower, and thus making themselves a name. Our chapter therefore anticipates what is historically set out in what follows, and so speaks of the sons of Japhet distributing their seats of settlement, as it does of the Hamite race and the Shemitic in their respective places. On the other hand the "dividing" of the earth in the days of Peleg (chap. 10: 25) should be distinguished. Dispersion preceded: a different term is employed in the Hebrew, as there ought to be in the translation. The isles are said here to be "separated," as the earth there is "divided." The orderly partition followed the confused dispersion.

Hence in Deut. 32: 8 we read,

When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,

When He separated the sons of Adam,

He set the bounds of the peoples

According to the number of the sons of Israel.

Israel is thus declared to be His earthly centre, though as yet we see not His glorious plan, which the prophets fully disclose. Hitherto no more appears than a passing but instructive shadow under David and Solomon, even these bringing in seeds of ruin, with occasional glimpses of better things in such as Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah, but as a whole gradual yet sure downfall till "there was no remedy," and the chosen people were by reason of their apostasy branded as Lo-ammi, Not-My-people. And so they are from the Babylonish captivity to this day. A remnant of Judah was according to prophecy restored to the land by Cyrus; and a further test of the first man followed, no longer under the failing sons of David, but in the presentation to them of Messiah Himself, the Righteous Servant. But those who had wholly broken down in violating God's law and even in persistent departure after false gods to their shame by the renunciation of one Jehovah, their only true God, proved themselves yet more inexcusably His enemies and the slaves of Satan by rejecting His anointed, though according to flesh of Israel — of Judah — He was, Who is over all, God blessed for ever, Amen. But Him they crucified in blind hostile unbelief by the hand of lawless men, and therefore are they dispersed to the ends of the earth. Beauty and Bands are severally both cut asunder.

But the cross of Christ in the wondrous wisdom of God is made His basis for the counsels of His grace, and the display of His righteousness, and the bringing out of His heavenly purpose, the hidden mystery or secret concerning Christ and concerning the church. For He is now in glory made Head, not merely over Israel or even all nations too, but over the universe, expressly over all things that are in the heavens and that are on the earth; and the church is united to Him as the Head of that one body which is soon to share His heavenly and universal glory. Yet shall the Jews, purged by disciplinary judgments, be brought to His feet, and see Him as their Deliverer Whom once they pierced, and all Israel be saved in God's mercy, to make good His plans, laid down from the first, accomplished at the last, to bless all the families of the earth, and fill it with the glory of Jehovah, and with the knowledge of it and of Him, as the waters cover the sea. So little is this chapter to be counted dry or unedifying; for barren as it may seem now, what fruit of righteousness shall be in that day through Jesus Christ unto God's glory and praise!

At present God is working in the gospel, and in the church, but it is for His heavenly purpose in Christ, Whose members suffer with Him and wait for Him. The sole dispensation now as to the kingdom is of the heavens in its mysterious form, While the earth-rejected King sits at God's right hand on high. He must come and appear. in glory to bring in the manifested kingdom, which alone the prophets predicted, when the daughter of Jerusalem shall have the first dominion here below, as Micah declared. Then, when the heavenly counsels have been completed, shall Jehovah make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: not according to the former Levitical one which they broke; but He will put His law in their inwards and write it in their heart, and He be their God, and they His people. Then, and not till then, shall Jerusalem be the throne of Jehovah; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of Jehovah, to Jerusalem; and they shall no more walk after the stubbornness of their evil heart. Instead of taking out of the nations a people for His name, as God is doing now by the gospel and in the church, the day will have come to destroy in the mountain of His holiness the face of the veil which veileth all the peoples, and the covering that is spread over all the nations. For Jehovah of hosts shall reign on mount Zion and in Jerusalem and before His ancients in glory: a state in strong and manifest contrast with all that goes on now, whether we think of God or man, of heaven or earth.

The word usually rendered "isles" not only admits of an application to coast-lands also (as to the Greek, Italian, Spanish, and Scandinavian peninsulas), but to settlements or habitations wider still, as Gesenius contends with ample consent of the more learned modern Jews; and such is the version of de Sola, Lindenthal, and Raphall in this verse. Again, the division is marked by four particulars: their lands, the tongue spoken, their family descents, and the resulting nation.

We shall see from Gen. 11 how little man's will had to do with the distribution. Here we have simply but clearly the fact. It was quite a new thing on earth, not only unprecedented before the deluge, but the very opposite was man's purpose after it; so that the replenishing of the earth could not but seem distant indeed, however fruitful Noah's sons might be. But the God of creation is the God of providence, and He knows how to give effect to His word; and here we have Europe, though not Europe only, the destined scene for the Japhetic line, of all the earth the most varied in contour, the fullest of coast-line as being the most deeply indented, and so the most accessible through its inland seas, and as well the most open to foreign connection. It was exactly suitable for him who was to be enlarged in his activity beyond his brethren. What a contrast with Africa or even Asia, and their more elevated highlands and extensive plateaus!

Yet contrary to this common purpose each country was allotted to its respective race, and in all this startlingly new fact of lands partitioned by families constituting nations, and distinguished by its tongue appears, as we have seen, the line of Japhet, which mainly and in due time settled in Europe. The remembrance of the deluge would not dispose men to separate. But God meant it to be, and so it was: one race of Adam, but with all the variety into which the several stocks were to divide and replenish the earth. And the immediate occasion was the opposing determination of man, and the practical end for which they united, as the history relates afterward, along with the simple and effectual way in which God confounded their vain and selfish purpose and accomplished His own.

Nor was the earth itself externally out of harmony with God's mind about man, but adjusted in general to his use who was to eat bread in the sweat of his face, and especially to the new condition, fitted to their separate life as nations with mountain barriers and river boundaries, till man's enterprise made even the seas the ready means of intercourse, commerce, and conquest.

Thus also the principle of government, which God laid on Noah and his sons, was to prove its great practical value, as its control could now be brought to bear far more readily when men were distinguished in their nations. If it was a fresh start for the race, it was not under one man, Adam. The post-diluvian earth began with three sons of Noah, and their three wives, besides Noah and his wife, all of them inheriting whatever was known and learnt in the long era before the deluge. Agriculture and live stocking were long familiar, city as well as tent life had begun, forging of copper and iron for instruments of every sort, with musical instruments for wind and hand, and metrical composition, from very early days. Since the flood God had entrusted to man's hand the responsibility of the civil sword (Gen. 9: 6), the root of government in restraint of human violence which includes the lesser rights in the greatest; and this well suited to the national bond of each independent nation which was now commencing. Families of course had been before in the midst of an undivided race. Henceforth in the new state of things they take their place in their lands by the lesser relation of their nations, each welded together by that tongue which severed him from others of different descent and locality, with their own associations and their independent interests and aims.

The importance, as well as the permanence, of this new condition of humanity will be felt all the more by comparing the prophecies of the O.T. and the Revelation of the New. In the former may be identified the descendants of the Japhetic line as well as those to follow of Ham and Shem. In the others, when the heavenly saints are transferred to their proper home on high, the question of the earth is raised and we hear of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, out of which the Lamb purchased saints to God by His blood, and the ensuing conflict for the inheritance here below. For Christ, the Son, is alone Heir of all things, and the day hastens when His rights shall be asserted with indisputable power.

GENESIS 10: 6.

The Holy Spirit now brings before us in a general way the descendants of Ham or Chain. As there seems prophetic significance in the name of Japheth ("may he spread"), and it was expressly claimed for Noah in Gen. 5: 29, there appears to be also in that of his younger son, which means "warm" or hot, and so "dark" or black.

"And the sons of Ham, Cush and Mizraim and Phut and Canaan" (ver. 6).

The prominent fact that strikes one here is that this is the branch of mankind which after the deluge distinguished itself by the earliest and most vigorous civilization; and this not in an isolated instance, but alike in Asia and in Africa. Scripture attests the truth; and even rationalism, though ever hostile, cannot dispute it. But along with material progress another characteristic is no less marked: the degradation of the race, their fall into ways and habits of savagery. Phut illustrates this as distinctly as Cush and Mizraim and Canaan showed themselves in different respects pioneers of earthly progress.

However opposite, both are effects of departure from God. In an unfallen earth and the innocence of man, there was room for neither the savage nor the civilised state. No dream of unbelieving poets is more remote from the truth than the pictures they have drawn of early human beings unable as yet to converse, and subsisting on acorns, wild fruits, edible roots scooped with difficulty out of the reluctant earth; at length imitating the birds, or rising from ejaculations, to express wants and feelings. Then in the course of time, instead of wandering after precarious food, some conceive the idea of collecting seeds, and cultivating their growth in patches cleared from the forest or brushwood; others, again, betake themselves to the chace, and so provide food and clothing for themselves, and begin also to barter with those that tilled the earth, who bethought them too of rearing the animals capable of domestication in order to their supply or exchange. Later in time rude huts and ruder rafts or canoes were made for land and water and with the long awaited social life villages and towns would arise and give birth to the useful arts in their variety, and to the unlimited refinements of life.

We have already seen how the inspired history contradicts this fanciful scheme. In God's account of man sinless in the paradise of Eden we see our first parents surrounded by every good thing, endowed with mind and moral feelings as well as speech, with a given sphere for activity, and placed under a defined responsibility to the only true God Whose presence and intercourse they enjoyed, and Who thus blessed them whom He tried as bound to obedience under penalty of death. It was a state of natural blessings enjoyed with thanksgiving to Him Who gave them. Alas! they disobeyed Jehovah Elohim, and were expelled from their earthly paradise, but not without a fresh revelation suited in God's mercy to their fallen condition, and directing their hearts to a Deliverer. He from the nature of the case could not but be divine, yet One Who in some wondrous way must be human also, to suffer indeed but to triumph over the mighty and subtle foe — the bruised Seed of woman to bruise the Serpent's head. Alone, with this hope did Jehovah Elohim clothe them with coats of skin — with that which had its origin in death: a thing suggestive, especially in connection with the revelation then given, of grave but comforting assurance to guilty man, in lieu of a merely natural device in vain adopted to cover their nakedness.

But it is equally sure, according to scripture, that the arts of civilisation began and were developed in that family which rejected God's revelation for nature; which resented His disapproval and vented hatred on the believing brother, as righteous as Cain was not; and which in despair and defiance betook themselves out of a bad conscience and its fears to civic life in its cradle, and sought to make, if not a paradise, a substitute for it in the elegant arts and letters that embellish society. This is surely civilisation in the germ; and we see it in Cain's line from the earliest age ever expanding, and recounted for our serious thought in Genesis 4. To impute its rise or progress to revelation is what none could do who reads believingly.

It is no less plain that Ham and his sons are as marked after the deluge by their progress in civilisation, as by the degeneracy into barbarism. To this, war would naturally expose the sufferers from superior power, fleeing into distant lands and forgetting at length what had once been familiar in the new sphere where they sought liberty.

Of Ham's sons Cush has the first place. According to scripture that stock settled in lands the most remote. There is without doubt an Asiatic as well as an African Cush. Gen. 2: 13 presents its difficulty, but it would seem to be anticipative like Havilah and Assyria; for it is certain that till the flood there was no actual settlement of lands in their nations. But we know from our chapter that a notable departure was first taken by one of the Cushite descent to possess himself of power by usurpation, and this not in Africa but in the plain of Shinar, of which there are details to follow. It was certainly not after their arrival in Africa that this ambitious movement took place, but early in that day of change; and in fact not a few traces exist, philological and historical, of early connection between Ethiopia, Southern Arabia, and the cities on the lower Euphrates, as may be seen in Rawlinson's Herod. i. 442, 443. No one doubts that in general Cush as a country lies beyond higher Egypt; but as a race they settled far more widely, as already pointed out. And this explains more than one passage, which is commonly and altogether misunderstood from not taking the facts into account no less than from holding fast the strict wording of scripture. Thus, Isaiah (Isa. 18: 1) says, "Ho! land shadowing with wings, which art beyond the rivers of Cush." It is absurd to infer that this means either Egypt or Ethiopia, any more than Babylonia. The object of the phrase is on the contrary to distinguish the land in question from either those lands or from any within those limits, which had in the past interfered with Israel. It is the prediction, not yet accomplished, of a land beyond the Nile in the south and the Euphrates in the north, which are the rivers of Cush. That unnamed land, described in striking terms as distinctly outside the Gentile powers which had hitherto acted on the chosen people, is to espouse their cause at a future day; but to no good effect, for the nations will oppose, jealous and hostile as of old, just before Jehovah takes up the matter and restores Israel to the place of His name, to Mount Zion. So in Zeph. 3: 10 we read, "From beyond the river of Cush my suppliants, the daughter of my dispersed, shall bring my oblation." Egypt or Ethiopia might be described as on one side of Cush, and Babylonia on the other; but Jehovah shall bring His dispersed from lands expressly beyond both.

There is no question as to the identification of Mizraim, and the great magnificence of its civilisation as of the Asiatic Cush in the remotest antiquity. The form of the word in Hebrew is the dual, which some would refer to higher and lower Egypt. However this may be, the context decides that both Cush and Mizraim mean men, and sons of Ham. Ephraim, born in Egypt, has also the dual form, but is none the less surely the name of a man.

Phut or Put exemplifies the more degraded stock of Ham's descendants in Africa, contiguous to Egypt and Ethiopia, and named with one or other at times. But Phut can hardly be the Libyan as A.V. makes out of Jer. 46: 9, or Libya as from Ezek. 30: 5, and Ezek. 38: 5 where it should be Phut as in Ezek. 27: 10. The Lubim as in Nahum 3: 9 point rather to the Lybians. The very obscurity which covers this African branch of Ham's sons serves to show how low they had fallen.

But Canaan, last named, has the most unenviable place of all, as the early object of curse, and the direst adversary of Israel in the land assigned according to promise: a highly civilised race, but steeped in shameless idolatry and every moral abomination, and therefore given up according to earthly righteousness to extermination, both because they deserved it, and as a safeguard lest Israel should be drawn into like iniquities; as indeed, failing to execute His sentence, they proved to their own sin, shame, and cost. More details we hope to have in due course.

GENESIS 10: 7.

The posterity of Cush we have next, as being Ham's eldest son. "And the sons of Cush, Seba and Havilah and Sabtah and Raamah and Sabtecha. And the sons of Raamah, Sheba and Dedan" (ver. 7; see also 1 Chron. 1: 9).

The man Seba gave his name to the country and people afterwards known as Meroë between Ethiopia and Egypt. The ruins of the metropolis also so called are not far from the Nubian tower of Dschendi or Shendy, as Gesenius tells us (Thes. Ll. H. and Ch. ii. 993). Bruce in his travels (See. Ed. v. 317) says, "If we are not to reject entirely the authority of ancient history, the island of Meroe, so famous in the first ages, must be found somewhere between the source of the Nile and this point where the two rivers unite; for of the Nile we are certain, and it seems very clear that the Atbara is the Asaboras of the ancients." In his vol. vi. 445, 446, he confirms the former statement, and gives its latitude as 16 deg. 26 min. for the city, adding that there are four remarkable rivers that contribute to form the island Meroe, the Astusaspes (or Mareb), the Astaboras (or Tacazzé), the Astapus (or White river), and the Nile (or Blue River). It is rather of course a Mesopotamian tract than an island proper; but no one need wonder that it was so called. Strabo (xviii. 823) corrects Diodorus Sic. (i. 23) in that 375 miles would be not the length but the circumference, and 125 miles the diameter. It was rich in mines of gold, copper, iron, and salt; possessed woods of ebony, date-palm, almond-trees, etc., and abounded in pasture-lands and millet fields of double harvest, to say nothing of forests where game and wild beasts were caught.

But its fame was long after the first ages of the Pharaohs; and the derivation (Diodorus Sic., Josephus, etc.), of Meroë from a sister of Cambyses who died during his expedition, is very doubtful. It is rather an adoption from the native designation Meru, which in ancient Egyptian means island, as shown in Smith's Dict. B. iii. 1189. Our Auth. and Rev. Vv. have "Sabeans," in Isa. 45: 14, where it should surely be Sebeans (Sebaim), as the country is named with Cush or Ethiopia in Isa. 43: 3. In Job 1: 15 the error occurs of calling the men of Sheba "Sabeans." Both Sheba and Seba are brought together in Ps. 72: 10; and we shall find a Cushite Sheba presently, as well as a Joktanite and a Jokshanite of the Shemitic line later on, both of whom found their settlements in Arabia, not in Africa.

There is far from the same clear evidence as to Havilah, the second son of Cush, and also another of similar name, the twelfth son of Joktan (ver 22). As we know there is a country so called in the account of the rivers of Eden (Gen. 2: 11), some have sought it in Colchis or in modern Georgia; or again to the north of Suez (cf. Gen. 25: 18; 1 Sam. 15: 7). From the scanty references to the Cushite Havilah in scripture, it is not possible to speak with decision; but there is no doubt that they found their way into southern Arabia; and it would seem that the difficulty is increased by their intermingling with the Shemites of the same name, where the district of Khäwlán is supposed to have been theirs. It is well known that Niebuhr the elder says there are two districts of that name (Descr. 270, 280); whence some have inferred one for each of the two races. But the second seems a town rather than another large district. There is more ground to look for the Cushite Havilah in the Avalitae on the African coast S.W. of the straits of Bab-el-Man-deb.

The next son of Cush, Sabtah, is generally thought traceable among the Adramitae on the Red Sea coast of Aden, where we have the modern name of Hadramaut. Cl. Ptolemy and Arrian speak of them, and Pliny the elder (N. H. vi. 32) notices a city, Sabatha, which seems to recall their forefather. It is mentioned by Knobel (in his book on these peoples) that there is a dark race in that quarter though not confined to it, quite different from the ordinary Arab, and pointing to a Hamitic stock.

More distinct is the identification of Raamah, not only through his own name, but in his sons' too. Indeed Ezekiel names father and son as represented long after by the merchants from the eastern coast of Arabia. "The trafficking of Sheba and Raamah, they were thy traffickers; they traded for thy wares with chief of all spices, and with all precious stones and gold" (Ezek. 27: 22). These were pre-eminently products of Arabia Felix on the Persian Gulf. It is interesting to observe, as Mr. E. S. Poole points out in Smith's Dict. B. ii. 983, that the LXX. version of our text helps to trace Raamah's name,  Ῥεγμά in connection with the same in Ptol. (vi. 7) and with Ῥῆγμα in Steph. Byzant. (de Urb. ed. Berk. 653). Mr. Forster (Arabia, i, 62, 64, 75) thinks that the tribe's name, whether in Ptol. or in Pliny, is drawn from "Rhamanitae," and hence from their progenitor; and he says that Ramah is still the name of a town as well as of a tribe and a district in that region.

Sabtecha is the last-named of Cush's sons, of which scripture makes no mention beyond the genealogical list here and in 1 Chron. 1. Hence we cannot say anything sure, and need not repeat more than Bochart's conjecture that they found their way to Carmania on the Persian shore of the Gulf, and that the name seems changed to the Samydace of Steph. Byzant. In his Thes. Gesenius suggests  a yet less probable idea.

Of Sheba and Dedan, sons of Raamah, we may say more when we come to compare them with the same names in the Shemitic line. This only may be noticed that in Ezek. 27 Sheba occurs twice; first, with Raamah in ver. 22, which fixes him as the Cushite in the same part of Arabia; secondly, with Asshur, etc., in ver, 23, which points to the Shemitic line, confirmed by the distinct merchandise of each. In like manner the men of Dedan in Ezek. 27: 15 appear to be Cushites on the Persian gulf (where the isle of Dadan perpetuates the name) and with imports and exports accordingly; whereas we have Dedan distinguished in ver. 20, who seem to be Shemitic through Keturah. Compare Ezek. 25: 13.

The Jews therefore did not err in assigning to Cush, not only Ethiopia and the contiguous parts in Africa, but the opposite coast of Arabia and the southern shore of Asia generally unto India. But Arabia received also a large Shemitic population, as we shall see, which gave character to their language; and this not only from Joktan, Eber's son early, but from Ishmael's twelve sons, and from Jokshan, Abraham's son still later, with some of Esau's descendants. Even Homer (Od. i. 23, 24) speaks of Ethiopians divided into two parts, the most distant of men, some at the setting sun, and some at the rising. We shall find a Cushite element active early in Babylonia and Africa. It was a Turanian race which included the Turks, but not the Armenians whom they rightly gave to Japhet. But they seem never to have realised that the ancient Persian (Zend) language, and that of northern and central India (Sanskrit), disclose the same Japhetic source.

GENESIS 10: 8-10.

From the manner in which Nimrod is introduced, it would appear that he was a descendant of Cush rather than son in the strict sense. Why else should he be named after not only the five sons of Cush, but his two grandsons through Raamah?

"And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before Jehovah: wherefore it is said, like Nimrod a mighty hunter before Jehovah. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar" (vers. 8-10).

Nimrod then was assuredly a Cushite. This only it was of moment to communicate, because of a new departure which originated in him. And as we do not hear particulars of his immediate connection beyond that fact, so neither are we told of his descendants. Personal ascendancy is ascribed to him first, which made the brief notice of himself of sufficient interest to turn aside from the hitherto simple tracing of the genealogical lines, the origin of the various races. "He began to be a mighty one in the earth." It was no question of divine appointment or providential succession. His own right hand wrought on his own behalf. The Jews have as usual much to say where scripture is silent, and strive to fill up the outline of truth into a fabulous picture. So do others follow them in this natural propensity, which they represent as hoary tradition; so in Arab astronomy Nimrod is transformed into the constellation Orion, "Giant," in Hebrew "Chesil" (Job 9: 9, Job 38: 31, Amos 5: 8). We need not occupy our readers with the various hypotheses which have been reared on this latter word; but those curious in such speculations can find them in Michaelis' Suppl. ad Lex. Hebr. No. 1192.

But there is nothing mythical in the little that scripture says. Nimrod "began to be a mighty one in the earth." Not so had it been with Abel or Seth, with Enoch or Noah. What they enjoyed was God's gift. They looked for Him Who is coming; Nimrod sought great things for himself like Cain who was the first builder of a city in primeval days, as Nimrod was the first after the deluge, and on a large and repeated scale. Present power was his aim; and God allowed it apparent success.

We are further told that "he was a mighty hunter before Jehovah." There seems no sufficient reason to question that this is meant literally. It made a great impression on his contemporaries, so that his prowess as a hunter became proverbial. "Wherefore it is said, like Nimrod a mighty hunter before Jehovah." It evidently gave him the exercised skill and strength which passed at length into another field of far deeper interest and gravity.

Yet more important is it to note that Nimrod was the first to set at nought the patriarchal headship which hitherto prevailed, as it subsisted elsewhere for ages afterward. His ambition could not be bounded by the chase, and led him from wild beasts to mankind. "And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel." We have to wait for the chapter which follows to see the significance of this fact; and we learn from it and other remarks how little our chapter has to do with chronology. For though it does give the origin of races in their lands and tongues, it intersperses notices by the way which occurred not a little while after; and this episode of Nimrod is one of them.

It was among the Hamitic sons then that a kingdom was first set up among men. God was not in any of Nimrod's thoughts; He was not sought, nor did He give the least direction, in the case. Nimrod conceived the design through his own ambition, and executed it through the force of his will, and the address and skill he had acquired in his hunting. How different the way of Jehovah at a later day! For, when Israel would have a king in imitation of the nations and chose one who served himself, and brought no deliverance even from Philistines within their border who slew him and his sons, He took His servant David from the pasture, from following the sheep, and made him prince over His people, over Israel, to feed them, and assured him that his house and his kingdom should be made firm for ever before him — his throne established for ever.

But the present use made of this is not the perpetuity of that kingdom, secured as it did become in Christ risen, the sure mercies of David; but the beautiful preparation which pleased Jehovah Who chose him lay, as we have seen, in his lowly and tender care of the sheep, in marked contrast with the first king among men who made his mark in the snaring and slaying of wild beasts. The race of man had already proved how little it regarded aged Noah who was not only chief of all the saved from the deluge but set up by God with the sword of magistracy then first committed. And if he had through heedless self-indulgence fallen into an act whose effects put him to grievous shame, what wickedness in any near him to expose him to mockery who had covered all his own through the dangers of the flood! Of this line it was, though not of Canaan's descent, that Nimrod arrogantly set up first a kingdom. Terrible and dreadful we may say, as the prophet said of the Chaldeans, his judgment and his dignity proceeded from himself.

His kingdom Nimrod began with Babel. This is most characteristic. What recked he, if it had begun in impious self-will to centralise mankind in direct opposition to the divine design and command of replenishing the earth? or if it had been abandoned by the builders under a divine judgment which compelled them to scatter abroad upon the face of all the earth? The abandoned city and tower exactly suited his project of a kingdom for himself, not a universal commonwealth. So "the beginning of his kingdom was Babel." And success in his project encouraged him to go forward; "and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh in the land of Shinar" followed. As there is no doubt about Babylon, there need be as little that Warka (Irka, or Irak), some forty-three miles east of Babylon, answers to Erech, certainly not Gesenius' identification with Aracca on the Tigris, any more than Jerome's notion of Edessa (or Urfah). More weight is due to Jerome's report of Jewish judgment, that Accad was represented by Nisibis, the ancient name of which was Acar (Rosenmüller ii. 29). The Talmud identifies Calneh with Niffer, about sixty miles south-east of Babylon. Here Arab tradition revels abundantly; but their flights of fancy are not worth recounting.

GENESIS 10: 11, 12.

The important fact imparted to us, in the verses immediately preceding, we have seen to be the first establishment of royal power in the Cushite Nimrod; and this by force and fraud, transferred from hunting wild beasts to acquiring dominion over mankind for personal aggrandizement. His city building in Babylonia we have also seen, the earliest development of the kind since the deluge. Nor is any architecture more characteristic of race, as Mr. Ferguson has shown, than the massive monumental style of the sons of Ham.

This is confirmed by the true sense of Micah 5: 6, where "the land of Assyria" is expressly distinguished from "the land of Nimrod," which last was really the plain of Shinar. They were quite distinct and separated by the Hiddekel or Tigris. In "that land" i.e. Babylonia there were Shemitic and Japhetic elements no less than the Hamitic, which at first was predominant.

It is such an episodical notice as seems to account for the mention in this place of a counter movement on the part of the Shemite Asshur, of whom we read in his due place afterward. A step forward among men naturally finds imitation ere long. And the record of the new policy in the south is followed by that of a similar course in the north as far as the building of cities is concerned, though this may not have been at all contemporary but later than that. Their kindred nature sufficiently explains the mention of both at this point.

"From that land went forth Asshur, and built Nineveh, and Rehoboth-Ir, and Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah: this is the great city" (vers. 11, 12). It is not intimated that Asshur was driven out by the Hamitic race, but rather is it inferred from the language that the success of Nimrod set the example, and gave the impulse to a like ambition. How completely Noah's authority (for he still lived) was forgotten by all, is evident by all that is revealed. Patriarchal place yielded to men's thoughts and will.

Of these four cities, the first is beyond any just question. Yet it is late in the history of the world when we hear of Nineveh. Then in the days of Jonah it was a "very great city," according to some of still greater extent than Babylon when the "golden city" rose to its zenith. But human accounts of cities long passed away need to be read with caution, as the chroniclers long after were apt to stray through exaggeration. Still the Biblical intimation of its later existence is of immense extent, vast population, and exceeding splendour. The remains exhumed in our day attest that the words of scripture are here as reliable as everywhere else. Yet we need not conceive anything more when Asshur wrought his work than a little beginning of that which was at length to attain such power and magnificence. This it retained to triumph over the ten tribes of Israel and to menace Judah and David's house, when it received a blow so manifestly divine that it never troubled the holy land again. Ere long it fell never to rise, when God was pleased to bring forward Babylon from a provincial position, though with a king and sometimes independent, to become the mistress of the world, and the captor of the guilty capital and king and people of the Jews.

Rehoboth-Ir appears to be so specified to distinguish it from Rehoboth the Nahar — "of the river." This latter (Gen. 36: 37; 1 Chron. 1: 48) was unmistakably on the river Euphrates; and in fact the name is still found given to two places on the river, one on the western bank, eight miles below the junction of the Khabûr (Rahabeth, Chesney's Euphr. i. 119, ii. 610), the other with an added name (Rahabeth-Malik), which Gen. Chesney does not notice, but it is given in Mr. Layard's Nineveh, a few miles lower on the eastern bank. Rehoboth-Ir was in Assyria proper. Kaplan, the Jewish geographer, identifies Rehoboth of the river with Rahabeth-Malik, but distinguishes it from Rehoboth-Ir, which he believes to have disappeared (see Smith's Dict. of the Bible, iii. 1026, col. 1). As no trace of this city has as yet commended itself to any explorer, it may be worth naming, that Jerome, not only in the Vulgate but in his works (Quaest. ad Genesim), gives it as his opinion that it was part of what became Nineveh, meaning "the streets of the city" (i.e. plateas civitatis), This is a mere conjecture, which may be cleared up by better knowledge.

But Calah was too important a city to be so easily hidden. This the Septuagint renders Χαλάχ, and distinguishes from Halah in 2 Kings 17: 6, 18: 2, and 1 Chron. 5: 26, rendered  Ἀλαέ Chesney (i. 22, 119) appears to accept Sir H. Rawlinson's identification of Calah with the ruins of Holwáa, situated near the river Diyálah, and about 130 miles east of Baghdad. If so, it is now Sar. púli Zohab on the slopes of the Zagros, and in the high road leading from Baghdad to Kirmán Sháh, vol. ix. 36 of Royal Geogr. Journal (Chesney ii. 25). It seems once to have been the capital of the empire, the residence of Sardanapalus and others, till Sargon built a new capital on the site of what is now called Khorsabad. But it still retained importance till the empire fell.

Resen has been by some identified with the  Ῥέσινα of Steph. Byz and Ptol. (Geog. v. 18); this, however, was not in Assyria, but far west. Bochart (Geog. Sac. iv. 28) suggested the Larissa of Xenophon (Anab. iii. 4, §7) which call hardly be doubted to correspond with the remarkable ruins now called Nimrud. Mr. Rawlinson leans to the view that these ruins answer to Calah, and that Resen, therefore, lay between that city and Nineveh, and that its ruins are near the Selaimyeh of modern times, and cuneiform inscriptions at Nimrud give Culach as the Assyrian name of the place. This tends to support the claim of Calah rather than of Resen.

GENESIS 10: 13, 14.

Let us now look a little into the family of Mitzraim. "And Mitzraim begot the Ludim and the Anamim and the Lehabim and the Naphtuhim and the Pathrusim and the Casluhim (out of whom came the Philistines) and the Caphtorim" (vers. 13, 14). So it is also in 1 Chron. 1: 11, 12.

As there was a Shemite Lud (ver. 22), it is important to distinguish from him, the ancestor of the well-known Lydian race in the west of Asia Minor, those descended from Mitzraim, who spread themselves west of the Nile. They were archers as we learn from Isa. 66: 19, and Jer. 46: 9, where the African people seem enumerated and so described. It would appear to be the same in Ezek. 27: 10, and in Ezek. 30: 4, 5 also. In the Auth. V. of Jer. 46 is given the word "Lydians," as in Ezek. 30 "Lydia." This conveys the impression that our translators probably understood the Asiatic people. But there ought not to be a doubt that they were African.

We next hear of the Anamim, of whom nothing more is said in the Bible than in the two genealogical lists. It may perhaps be gathered, from comparison with the names which follow, that they were a race that settled in the Delta of Egypt. But it must be allowed that no reliable trace is known either in the ancient Geographers, or in the monuments hitherto deciphered. Here we have the unfailing record of God, Who alone saw the end from the beginning and has been pleased to communicate to us the truth otherwise unnoticed. The judgment of the habitable earth in a day which approaches will prove that the races are not extinct.

The Lehabim, called also Lubim in 2 Chron. 12: 3, 2 Chron. 16: 8, with the people called Phut, or Put, (if not Pul, as in Isa. 66: 19), answer to the ancient Lybians; save indeed that the ordinary usage of Lybia in olden time is vague, and extends far and wide to almost all Africa west of the Nile. The Phut of scripture apparently corresponds with the hieroglyphic bow, or Pet. This is also applied to a people, or rather confederacy of peoples, conquered by Egypt, and called "the Bows," or "Nine Bows," Na-Petu, though Brugsch understands simply "the Nine Peoples." This would seem to connect itself with the Naphtuhim immediately following the Lehabim, who are the same as the Lebu or Rebu of the Egyptian inscriptions, as Mr. R. S. Poole has shown, the Libyans proper. The A.V. renders Phut the Libyans" in Jer. 49: 2 ("handling the shield") distinguished from the Lydians, or Ludim ("handling and bending the bow"); and in Ezek. 38: 5 "Libya," again marked with other powers by the "shield." In Nahum 3: 9 we see Phut and the Lubim helpers of No-Amon (the god Amon of No, or Thebes of Upper Egypt), the ruins of which, in spite of Cush and Mitzraim, is set by the prophet as a warning to Nineveh. Again, and bearing on what is still future, we are told that when the last king of the north subdues and spoils Egypt, the Lubim and Cush shall be at his steps, though Edom and Moab and the chief of the children of Ammon shall be delivered out of his hands.

What plainer proof can there be to the believer that these races are yet abiding and to take their part in the great catastrophe of the latter day? The reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, directly or indirectly, did not extend beyond Dan. 11: 31, 32. That which we have pointed out is after the great break of ver. 35, and expressly supposes the renewal of the two powers of the north and the south, when "the king," the lawless one, is in "the land" between them "at the time of the end." Thus that time is as clearly future as sure. Compare Isa. 11: 14, which not only confirms the fact of tie old cognate but hostile races on the borders of the land, but declares their final subjection to Israel under Messiah "in that day."

Of the Naphtuhim a little has been already said when speaking of the Lubim. More is given in scripture respecting the next name of Pathrusim. From Isa. 11: 11 Pathros as distinguished from Egypt would seem to be the upper part of the land. Ezek. 29: 14, 30: 13-18 are supposed to point at the Thebais the desolation which the prophet declared should overtake all the land. The chief difficulty is, that Jeremiah speaks of Pathros (44: 1) in connection with cities in Lower Egypt, and in a yet more. general way later on (ver. 15). But there does not appear in the group anything so decided as to set aside our referring Pathros to the land farther south.

There remain the "Casluhim (out of whom or whence came the Philistines) and the Caphtorim." These races can hardly be doubted to have occupied the Delta before the Philistine migration to the Shephelah. Some suggest here a transposition; as Deut. 2: 23, Jer. 47: 4, Amos 9: 7, expressly connect the Philistine immigrants with the Caphtorim. Pusey, commenting on the last of these scriptures, inclines to the conclusion, that there were different immigrations of the same tribe into Palestine (as of Danes and Saxons into England, where they all merged into one common name). The first day have been from the Casluhim; the second in time but chief in importance from the Caphtorim; and a third of Kerethim (probably from Crete) in the era of the Judges added but a little to their strength (1 Sam. 30: 14-16). Of these last, Cherethites and Pelethites figure as lifeguards of King David, foreigners like the Gittites.

It is plain and certain that the architecture, whether of temples or of palaces, the sculpture and painting, and the various other monuments of Egypt for living or dead bear, like its original language, the marks of extreme antiquity and of, high civilisation. Idolatry flaunts us everywhere, but as Heeren remarks (African Nations, ii. 271, Oxford Talboys, 1832), "The first idea which presents itself from a view of these monuments must be that Thebes [the No, or No-Amon, of Scripture] was once the capital of a mighty empire, whose boundaries extended far beyond Egypt, which at some distant period comprised a great part of Africa, and an equally large portion of Asia. Her kings are represented as victors and conquerors; and the scene of their glory is not confined to Egypt, but often carried to remote regions. Prisoners of distant nations bow the knee before the conquerors, and count themselves happy if they can obtain their pardon . . . . This is further confirmed by the many examples which evince the refinement of domestic life, and the degree of luxury to which the people had arrived. The narrow valley of the Nile could not supply all the articles, such as costly garments, perfumes, etc., which we find here represented. An extensive commerce was requisite, not only to obtain all this, but also to produce that opulence, and that interchange of ideas, which constitute its foundation." Denon (Voy. dans la basse et haute Egypte, 1802), the great French Government work (Description de l'Egypte, 1811, 1815), Hamilton (Remarks etc. 1809), Belzoni (Narrative etc. 1822), Minutoli (Travels, 1824), and both series of Sir G. Wilkinson's Ancient Egyptians are the chief modern authorities.

GENESIS 10: 15-18.

The youngest branch of the Hamitic race now comes before us, already branded with curse (Gen. 9: 25), and a bondman of bondmen to his brethren. Yet no doom long seemed more unlikely. They were enterprising beyond any, and no more disposed to tarry at home than the sons of Cush. Who spread themselves abroad as they? Canaan, who naturally gave the general designation, had a more special application to the "lowlanders" of the country. They are carefully pointed out as races. which possessed themselves of the land destined for Israel. As the song of Moses so forcibly expresses it (Deut. 32: 8), "When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel. For Jehovah's portion is his people, Jacob is the lot of his inheritance."

This is a revelation of the highest importance for God's government of the world. Men willingly forget that the times of the Gentiles are in this quite abnormal. For He has no direct government of the earth, only providential, during their course. The only time when He governed immediately was when Israel afforded its theatre. To this end He chose the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as His people, and gave them the land of promise from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates. To Israel He made Himself known as Jehovah, the one living and true God, as He had to their pilgrim fathers as the Almighty God. But through the self-confidence of unbelief they forgot their redemption from Egypt and their preservation in the wilderness up to Sinai, all of grace; and then accepted law as their condition at Sinai, instead of pleading the promise. Hence their history became a history of sin and ruin, chequered by wondrous interventions of mercy, as well as solemn chastisements of their rebellious iniquity, till at length even the house of David led the last remaining tribe of Judah into abominable idolatry, and God delivered them as captives to Babylon, the first of the four "beasts," or Gentile imperial powers. Finally under the last of these bestial empires (the Roman), the Jewish remnant, which was permitted to return to the land for a fresh trial, rejected their own Messiah and even the gospel founded on His death, which was first sent to them, and wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.

It is in the Jewish people only that we have a kingdom of the earth set up by Jehovah Himself under the direction of His law. But even under its earliest and brightest phase, when David reigned, what failure and presage of downfall! yet not without shadows of abiding righteousness, power, and glory, as often seen in the psalms! And the man of peace, his son, outwardly more magnificent, brought in but plain evidence of ruin, even then come and far more approaching and sure till there was no remedy. Yet was the history full of instruction both of what man was as responsible under God's law, and of God's ways in blessing and punishing according to the principles of His earthly government.

All this was, however, only a witness in the hands of a people prone to evil and departure from Him. But God has in no way abandoned His purpose for the earth. He is using the interval, since His rejection of the Jews because of their rejection of Christ, to call a people out of both Jews and Gentiles, who put on Christ in Whom there is neither, to form a heavenly family in union with Christ, the body of the ascended Head, God's habitation in the Spirit. When this is complete, the Lord Jesus will come and receive us unto Himself and present us in the Father's house. He will also in due time appear executing judgment, not only on the fourth Beast revived and the Antichrist in the land, but on all hostile powers and peoples, delivering a remnant of Jews then righteous, the nucleus of the nation, believing and expectant, blessed and established for ever as a blessing to all the families of the earth. Such will Israel be under Messiah and the new covenant, and mercy endure for ever, as they will then sing in truth of heart. And the Gentiles will in that day cast away their idols of silver and gold, and everything high and lifted up, and lofty looks and haughtiness of heart, cordially bowing to the kingdom with Zion as its centre, and the mountain of Jehovah's house established in the top of the mountains and exalted above the hills. For Messiah will reign, the only perfect judge between the nations, who shall not lift sword nor learn war any more.

Now the races of Canaan occupied that land which Jehovah intended for Israel. Nor was this all. They were conspicuously vile, most of all the cities of the plain, whose wickedness was not to be named. They were therefore cut off by a sudden and manifestly divine infliction. But when the cup of the Amorites was full, and the land became so unclean that Jehovah must visit its iniquity, He was pleased to make Israel the executioner of His vengeance. What could be more righteous in itself? What wiser for His people, its destined heirs? All unnatural evils as well as idolatries (their very religion ever binding on them these abominations) had become their "customs," from which Israel must be kept. It was no question of cruelty; and it was Israel's fault not to exterminate as completely as Jehovah enjoined; so that the spared did not fail to ensnare and corrupt the chosen people into like infamy.

Of these races we need dwell on no more than the first two. These can be more easily severed, as they only are personal names, the rest Gentilic. "And Canaan begat Zidon [or Sidon] the firstborn, and Heth" (ver. 15). The name of the first means, like Saida its modern appellation, "fishing." The city was built on the northern slope of a spur projecting into the sea with its citadel behind on the south. The plain was narrower between Lebanon and the sea. But the daughter city of Tyre in time outshines it, as the later prophets indicate. In earlier days we hear of "great Zidon" (Joshua 11: 8, Joshua 19: 28). So even Homer, who repeatedly speaks of it and its people, never named Tyre. They were then skilled in manufactures, later celebrated for their marine and as merchants. But they corrupted even Solomon's house by their abominations.

The Hittites were of Heth or Cheth. Their daughters troubled Isaac and Rebecca, though we hear of Abraham friendly with them and others. They like the Jebusites and the Amorites betook themselves to the mountains from the south, and afterwards were outside in the valley of the Orontes. So in 1 Kings 10: 29 their kings are spoken of with "the Kings of Aram" or Syria; they seem without doubt to be the Khatti of the Egyptian inscriptions, on the western side of the Euphrates. They had however shared in the efforts against Joshua (9, 11) and suffered accordingly. In Ezek. 16: 3, 45, "thy mother was a Hittite" is no more meant literally than "thy father was an Amorite." They are the prophet's figures of moral reproach.

As for the races mentioned after these, little more is to be said than what lies on the surface of scripture: "And the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgashite, and the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite, and the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite" (vers. 16-18). The Jebusites held Jerusalem, though defeated by Joshua, but not dispossessed till David. The Amorite was in the mountain land of Judah, but pushed east where on their full or expulsion the two and a half tribes settled east of the Jordan. The Girgashites disappeared from view. Of the Hivites we have the remarkable tale the Book of Joshua tells, and of its consequences, at least of those in Gibeon; for there were others further north and outside, near whom settled the latter five families, or on the coast, and also in the isle of Aradus.

GENESIS 10: 18-20.

The notices of the Canaanite families are more minute, as God considered His people whose duty it was to execute judgment and dispossess them of the promised land. However they might be "spread abroad" or dispersed, and seen to flourish for a while, the curse was on them, from the first on moral grounds, aggravated at last by enormities against God and man which to His eyes called for extermination.

It may be remarked that we do not hear of Perizzites in this genealogical account, though the name occurs in Gen. 13: 7, Gen. 15: 20, Gen. 34: 30; Ex. 3: 8, 17, Ex. 23: 23, Ex. 33: 2, Ex. 34: 11; Deut. 7: 1, Deut. 20: 17; Joshua 3: 10, Joshua 9: 1, Joshua 11: 3, Joshua 12: 8, Joshua 17: 15, Joshua 24: 11; Judges 1: 4, 5, Judges 3: 5; 1 Kings 9: 20; Ezra 9: 1; 2 Chron. 8: 7; and Neh. 9: 8. This appears to imply that they were not a distinct race, but rather such as separated from the town-life, to which the Canaanites generally were addicted, and remained villagers; as in the later history of Israel those who were religious separatists were called Pharisees.

"And afterwards the families of the Canaanites spread themselves abroad. And the border of the Canaanites was from Zidon, as thou goest toward Gerar, unto Gazah; as thou goest toward Sodom and Gomorrah and Admah and Zeboiim, unto Lasha. These [are] sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, in their nations" (vers. 18-20).

The border is thus traced from Zidon on the N.W. of Gerar and Gazah on the S.W., and from the four doomed cities of the plain in the S.E. to Lasha (probably Laish or Leshem in the N.E.), though Jerome identifies it with Callirrhoe on the east of the Dead Sea, and Bochart with a city called by the Arabs Lusa in the south of Judah. Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim are specified on which fell fire from heaven in early patriarchal days, as recorded in this book, to their utter destruction: a dealing of Jehovah in His wrath, which was recalled to the warning of Israel from Moses (Deut. 29: 23) to Hosea (Hosea 11: 8) and Jeremiah (Jer. 20: 16).

In reviewing the posterity of Ham, this we cannot but see, that none sprang so early into prominence of earthly power and dominion, that none carried forward civilisation so rapidly and extensively in primeval times, that no other peoples were so distinguished at first with material grandeur, both in the plain of Shinar and in that remarkable country which lies along the Nile, that is, in both Asia and Africa; and that they were long the sole pioneers of commerce in west and east, north and south. But the true God was absent from their souls; nor this only: they out-ran all other races in their vain thoughts, ungratefully abandoning Him when they knew Him, and their foolish heart was soonest darkened. Professing to be wise they became fools and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds and quadrupeds and reptiles. Wherefore God gave them up to the lowest defilement and vile affections contrary to nature, and worse than brutish, reprobate. Their very mind had pleasure in evil. Such man became without God, none so audaciously, and shamefully as the Canaanites, whose judgment therefore was most righteous save to such as are more or less reprobate.

What an illustration is their history of the words of the apostle on the first man as contrasted with the last Adam! "That was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual." The book of nature man never did read aright, though he ought; and conscience, the monitor of fallen man, shows him his sins, but of itself never leads to repentance: only God's goodness does, above all revealed in Christ. But the Hamite races were the leaders of the departure from God, and none so flagitiously as the Canaanite.

GENESIS 10: 21.

The races which sprang from Shem come before us in the last place. This is quite independent of the respective ages of Noah's three sons. Ham, we know, is declared to be "the little" one (Gen. 9: 24), — generally translated "youngest"; and chronology shows that not Shem but Japheth was the eldest. Accordingly Leeser joins Mendelssohn in the rendering of the A.V. and the margin (not the text) of the R.V. The first place assigned to Shem, in the usual formula of "Shem, Ham, and Japheth," is due not to the order of birth, but to the spiritual purpose which gave Shem that position (Gen. 5: 32, Gen. 6: 10, Gen. 7: 13, Gen. 9: 18, Gen. 10: 1). When, however, "the generations" are given in detail, Japheth's sons are enumerated first; and a similar order prevails in 1 Chron. 1. If primogeniture here in Japheth had its honour, if precocity in his rising to political place and natural power is recognised in Ham, for Shem was reserved, though named last, the honour Godward. "And to Shem also were [sons] born: he [was] father of all the sons of Eber, brother of Japheth the elder" (ver. 21).

Undoubtedly the manner of Shem's introduction is so peculiar as to arrest attention. He had descendants like the other chiefs derived from Noah. But he is specified, on the one hand as the father of all the sons of Eber, and on the other as the brother of Japheth the elder (or, great one). Of the latter enough has been said; but we may compare Gen. 14: 13, "Abram the Hebrew," in order to understand better what seems meant. And here the LXX give περάτης, "the passer," as Aquila has ὁ περαΐτης. This at least gives a distinctive stamp, where as only tradition does it to Eber personally.

The head of that people, above all distinguished among those who sprang from Shem, passed the Euphrates on his memorable way. As Joshua said to all the people at the close of his service, and a little before his death (Joshua 24: 2, 3, 12, 13), "Your fathers dwelt of old on the other side of the river, Terah the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor; and they served other gods. And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the river, and led him throughout the land of Canaan," etc. "And now fear Jehovah and serve him in perfectness and in truth; and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the river and in Egypt, and serve Jehovah. And if it seem evil unto you to serve Jehovah, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods whom your fathers that were on the other side of the river served, or the gods of the Amorite in whose land ye dwell." Scripture thus lays a stress on that fact far beyond what it does to an ancestor who does not stand out from others in the genealogical line, save as the father of Peleg and Joktan. An important event marked Peleg's days; yet it did not concern the chosen people particularly but "the earth" at large.

That Gen. 14: 13 connects Abram in the passage of the eastern river, rather than his remote ancestor Eber, seems clear; for this was the regular Gentile name given to God's people by those without, not Israel but Hebrews, as we find from the earliest to later times. And it is intelligible that a tangible fact like that event would be patent and abidingly known.

It is another question whether "all the sons of Eber" can be legitimately connected with any other person than him of whom we read in vers. 24, 25, and Gen. 11: 14-17, with the corresponding list in 1 Chron. 1. In Num. 24: 24 we have the only other reference, I think, which can be connected with it: an early prophecy which looks on to the latter day. For there comes a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, not merely to cut in pieces the corners of Moab but to destroy all the sons of tumult. The great conflict of the future is contemplated, as nothing in the past quite meets all. "And ships shall come from the coasts of Chittim, and afflict Asshur, and afflict Eber; and he also shall come to destruction." West and East and Israel shall be in collision and suffer; but as the previous word runs, "Israel doeth valiantly, and one out of Jacob shall have dominion." That Eber is used figuratively for the Jews seems unquestionable; and that they arise to earthly supremacy, when the destroyers of the earth are destroyed and Messiah reigns, is what the prophets declare.

Herein lies the real and superior dignity of Shem. Messiah is to come of his stock; as Canaan was accursed, not Ham wholly, but Canaan; so the living oracle said, "Blessed be Jehovah the God of Shem." This was not predicted of the elder, but "God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem." And so it has been. How vast in His providence the spread of that energetic race! Have they not dwelt, too, in the tents of Shem, not as mere conquerors, but, among other ways perhaps, as sharers in that blessing which was shadowed so finely in Israel's "own olive-tree." Here in due time would be the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the law-giving, and the service, and the promises, and not the fathers merely but the Son, the Messiah with a personal dignity far beyond what Israel has owned — to their own deep loss as yet.

GENESIS. 10: 22.

The immediate descendants of Shem are next enumerated, it would seem in the order of birth, as Arpachshad, the progenitor of the chosen line, stands in the third place, neither first nor last, either of which might be done as elsewhere for special reasons.

"The sons of Shem, Elam, and Asshur, and Arpachshad, and Lud, and Aram" (ver. 22).

Elam, the first apparently in natural order, gave his name to that part of Khusistan, which the Greeks and Romans called Elymais, which had of old Shushan for its capital, of which we hear so much in the book of Esther (Esther 1: 2, 5; Esther 2: 3, 5, 8; Esther 3: 15; Esther 4: 16; Esther 8: 14, 15; Esther 9: 11, 15, 18; as also in Neh. 1: 1). There has been no little debate among men of learning on the precise locality, some contending (as Dean Vincent, Anc. Comm. i. 439) for Shuster on the Pasitigris or Kuran, others for Susan a good deal to the east of Shuster. But Mr. Loftus, following Sir W. F. Williams, appears to have set the question at rest in favour of Shush (to the north-west of Shuster), where only an immense mound of ruins remains of the once magnificent fortress and palace of the Persian monarchs, possessed before that by the king of Babylon, as Dan. 8: 2 attests. There it was that the prophet saw the vision of the Persian ram, and the Greek or Macedonian he-goat, though some will have it that the prophet was only there in vision. It is known that Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar, seized the land of Elam or Susiana, which succumbed afterwards to Cyrus; and Susa or Shushan became the regular residence of the Persian monarch for a part of the year. There is no reason to doubt that the excavations made in our day lay bare the plan, with certain remains of the palaces," indicating a structure, with its dependent buildings, which occupied a square of 1,000 feet each way, in a massive style of architecture with fluted columns, and those in the outer groups with bases like an inverted lily (which Shushan means).

In the days of Abraham we bear of Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, with his three allies coming 2,000 miles to punish his vassal kings in the vale of Siddim: a plain proof of early power, though signally chastised by the father of the faithful. It seems that subsequently the Hamites, who earlier still rose to power in the east as well as south-west, gave the name of Cissim to this district, as Herodotus (v. 49) and Strabo let us know. They were Cossaei, and Cushites.

But it is of importance to mention that Elam joined the Medes to overthrow Babylon, as we see predicted in Isa. 21: 2, the latter a Japhetic race, as the former was of Shem. In Jerusalem's day yet to come Elam will figure with its confederates against Jerusalem. For the mysterious succession here, as in Isa. 14, not applying to the past, looks on to the future, when the last Shebna shall give way to the anti-typical Eliakim, (Whom God hath appointed). Yet we know also from the assured word of prophecy, that however ravaged in the past (Ezek. 32: 24, 25, and Jer. 49: 34-38), Elam will have its captivity brought again in the latter days according to Jer. 49: 39.

On Asshur there is the less motive for dilating, as every reader of scriptural history knows how splendid a part their race played in the comparatively early history of the world, when the struggle for predominance seemed to lie between Assyria and Egypt. Of this we find authentic accounts in the O.T. especially when both came into collision, the Assyrian especially, with the chosen people in its decay through idolatry, sweeping away the kingdom of Israel, and menacing that of Judah. But the awful check given to Sennacherib in the height of his scornful pride soon proved no real opportunity to Egypt; for Babylon that joined in destroying Nineveh was destined of God to be the head of power, as all know according to God's word. Here again shall mercy triumph over judgment; and Isa. 19 is express that in the day of Messianic power and glory Israel shall be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth. We need not speak of Israel, but may say that this was never the case with Egypt and with Assyria in the past. Both wrought innumerable evils for man; both sinned shamelessly against God. But what cannot, will not, mercy work on God's part, even for the enemies of His guilty and chastised people? What a monument will not the trio be "in that day"!

Of Arpachshad we may say still less; for he leads directly down to the time of promise, about which the O.T. is almost wholly occupied.

Lud is the next son of Shem; and there is the more need of care, as there was another race of similar name which had its seat in Africa, the first named of the Mizraim or Egyptian peoples, of whom we have spoken (Gen. 10: 13). There was thus Ludim of Ham, as well as of Shem. Josephus (Ant. i. § 4) was justified in stating that the latter race settled in Asia Minor, the Lydians. Herodotus (i. 7) says indeed that the Maeones or early dwellers in the far from definite land called Lydia, for its extent changed greatly from time to time, afterward adopted the name of Lydians, being in fact as he thought the same people. But this was a mistake. Even Strabo (xii. xiv.) recognises on ancient testimony, that they were distinct races, as Niebuhr (Hist. of Rome, i. 32) and others in modern times are convinced. The Maeones were the early Japhetic settlers whom the Shemitic Lydians conquered. Indeed that careful historian, Dionysius (i. 30), notices that the Lydians had nothing in common with their Pelasgian predecessors. It can hardly be doubted that Jer. 46: 9 and Ezekiel 27: 10, Ezekiel 30: 5, refer to the African race, perhaps Isa. 66: 19, though this be not so certain. But they join in the great catastrophe of "that day." Of Aram we shall speak in considering ver. 23.

GENESIS 10: 23.

Aram is the last of the sons of Shem. His name was generally given to the high table-land north-east of Palestine, though applied also more widely in combination with other terms, as will presently be pointed out. In the A.V., following the Septuagint and the Vulgate, "Syria" represents that general use. In the largest sense it comprehended not only the watershed of the Jordan and the country north, west, and east, but that which stretched to the Tigris, with Armenia on the north down to Arabia on the south. In the S.E. quarter it is designated Aram-Naharaim, that is, Syria of the two rivers, the Euphrates and the Tigris, translated "Mesopotamia" in Gen. 24: 10, Deut. 23: 4, Judges 3: 8, 10. After 1 Chron. 19: 6, we have no longer that name, as the country so named passed under the dominion first. of Assyria, and last of Babylon where it attained its supreme place. In early days it was the country where Nahor and his family had a city after leaving Ur (the modern Musheir) of the Chaldees or Kasdim, a Cushite race.

The classic name of Syria was probably a mere abbreviation of Assyria, or Asshur, another name really, though akin, being alike Shemitic. But even Homer (Il. ii. 783) and Hesiod (Theog. 304) know only the name  Ἄριμοι, unless  Ἔρεμβοὶ also refers to the same (Od. iv. 84); so does Pindar in the fragment cited by Bockh (iii. 618) who corrects ἐν to εἰν as in Homer. As Virgil (Aen. ix. 7 6) speaks of Inarime Jovis imperiis imposita Typhöeo, the scholars are anxious to relieve the learned Latin, to say nothing of Ovid, Lucan, Sil. Ital., etc., from the imputation of a blunder in the words and transferring the scene from Asia to the volcanic regions of Italy and Sicily. But it is sure enough that Ovid does err in distinguishing Inarime from Pithacusae which were the same island, of late called Ischia. Heyne has written a learned note on the matter in his second Exc. on Aen. ix. (iii. 374-6, Lond. 1793).

At least five districts of Aram are referred to in scripture. (1) Aram-Dammesek or the Syria of Damascus appears in 2 Sam. 8: 5, 6; 1 Chron, 18: 5, 6. (2) Aram-Zobah, or Zobah only, to the N.E. of Damascus we find in 1 Sam. 14: 47; 2 Sam. 8: 3; 10: 6, 8; 1 Chron. 18, 19. (3) Arambeth-Rehob, or Rehob only, occurs in 2 Sam. 10: 6, 8. (4) Aram-Maachah, or Maachah only is mentioned in 2 Sam. 10: 6; 1 Chron. 19: 6. And Geshur in Syria or Aram we hear of in 2 Sam. 15: 8, bordering with Maachah on Argob (Deut. 3: 14, Joshua 13: 11, etc.). These small kingdoms of Aram seem. gradually to have merged in that which is first named; as Damascus grew itself in importance. But (5) Aram-Naharaim, or Padan-more correctly Paddan-Aram (called also Padan in Gen. 28: 7), the ploughed land of Aram became the most celebrated by far, familiar to us from the days of Jacob. To this Hosea alludes as the field or open country of Syria (Hosea 12: 12) almost wholly an immense plain, nearly 700 miles long and from 20 to 250 miles broad.

The north district is mountainous, where a chain (called Mons Masius of old) connects the ancient Amanus on the west with the Niphates in the east. Then about the middle the Sinjar hills cross, running nearly east and west from Mosul or thereabout to Rakkeh or near it. "This district," says Prof. Rawlinson, "is always charming; but the remainder of the region varies greatly according to circumstances. In early spring a tender and luxuriant herbage covers the whole plain, while flowers of the most brilliant hues spring up in rapid succession, imparting their colour to the landscape, which changes from day to day. As the summer draws on, the verdure recedes towards the streams and mountains. Vast tracts of and plain, yellow, parched, and sapless, fill the intermediate space, which ultimately becomes a bare and uninhabitable desert. In the Sinjar, and in the mountain-tract to the north, springs of water are tolerably abundant, and corn, vines, and figs, are cultivated by a stationary population; but the greater part of the region is only suited to the nomadic hordes, which in spring spread themselves far and wide over the vast flats, so utilising the early verdure, and in summer and autumn gather along the banks of the two main streams and their affluents, where a delicious shade and a rich pasture may be found during the greatest heats. Such is the present character of the region. It is thought, however, that by a careful water system, by deriving channels from the great streams or their affluents, by storing the superfluous spring-rains in tanks, by digging wells and establishing kanáts, or subterraneous aqueducts, the whole territory might be brought under cultivation, and rendered capable of sustaining a permanent population. That some such system was established in early times by the Assyrian monarchs seems to be certain from the fact that the whole level country on both sides of the Sinjar is covered with mounds marking the sites of cities, which wherever opened have presented appearances similar to those found on the site of Nineveh, If even the more northern portion of the Mesopotamian region is thus capable of being redeemed from its present character of a desert, still more easily might the southern division be reclaimed and converted into a garden. Between the 35th and 34th parallels, the character of the Mesopotamian plain suddenly alters. Above, it is a plain of a certain elevation above the courses of the Tigris and Euphrates, which are separated from it by low limestone ranges; below, it is a mere alluvium almost level with the rivers, which frequently overflow large portions of it. Consequently from the point indicated, canalisation becomes easy. A skilful management of the two rivers would readily convey abundance of the life-giving fluid to every portion of the Mesopotamian tract below the 34th parallel. And the innumerable lines of embankment, marking the course of ancient canals, sufficiently indicate that in the flourishing period of Babylonia a network of artificial channels covered the country."

It was in that region that the tower of Babel was reared (Gen. 10). It was there Nimrod made "the beginning of his kingdom" (Ibid.). Thence came the four kings to put down the rebellion of the five kings of the south Jordan (Gen. 14). Thence Chushan-Rishathaim reduced Israel to his over-lordship for eight years, soon after Joshua's death till Caleb's nephew, Othniel, broke it down; and David conquered the Syrians everywhere. Assyria then by decrees reached its highest ascendancy to the ruin of Israel, till Babylon rose in God's way on the overthrow of Nineveh, to world-power and swept away Judah, itself succumbing to Cyrus, and Medo-Persian supremacy followed.

"And the sons of Aram, Uz and Hul and Gether and Mash" (ver. 23). The first of them gave his name to the sandy soil south-east of Palestine, in the north of Arabia Deserta, and west of the Euphrates. We hear in Job 1 who lived there, of the raids of the Sabeans and the Chaldeans.

Hul seems to have gone farther north. His name we may trace in Ard-el-Huleh, and Bahr-el-Huleh, south of this district, the waters of Merom, or the lake Semechonitis as Josephus calls it, though he connects Hul with Armenia.

Gether may have lent his name to Gadara, rather than Geshur, as Kalisch thinks.

Mash would seem, as Bochart supposes (Phaleg ii, 11) to be represented geographically by the classical Mons Masius, the mountainous range which runs north of Mesopotamia between the great rivers, Euphrates and Hiddekel or Tigris. In 1 Chron. 1: 17 Mesech is the name, but not the one joined with Kedar, which was Japhetic. In the same genealogy these four sons of Aram are classed directly with the sons of Shem, including Aram, a compendious style not uncommon in such lists, for which verse 4 prepares the reader. The discrepancy is merely apparent.

GENESIS 10: 24.

The most important line of all Shem's stock, in its remote and even in its approaching consequences, through moral and divine associations, is the briefest in this genealogy; and this must now be noticed.

"And Arphaxad (Arpachshad) begot Shelah (Shelach) and Shelah begot Eber" (ver 24). Arphaxad was Shem's eldest son, born two years after the deluge.

It is to be observed that the inspiring Spirit led Moses to change his manner at this point, introducing Arphaxad and his family as a sort of fresh start. The same style is adopted also in 1 Chron. 1: It is no longer as before, "And the sons of -." As in evil a new departure was made for Cush and his descendants, so here for good where Arphaxad comes before us. Yet for the present little is said of the latter, unlike Nimrod who shot into immediate prominence, not content to be a mighty hunter before Jehovah, but thereon and after began to be mighty on the earth. Good is of rare occurrence here below and of slow growth, always excepting the One Who manifested its perfection, and all the more because He would not be designated by that which He claimed for God alone, unless indeed there was faith to see and own God in Him.

Josephus states in his Antiq. i. 6, 4 (ed. Hudson i. 19, 20) that Arphaxad gave his name to the Chaldeans. But this is erroneous. For the Chaldim, as they are called in scripture, or Kaldi as they called themselves, were a Cushite race, not Shemitic, and their tongue is said to have closely resembled the Galla or ancient language of the Aethiopians. This appears to have been retained as a learned tongue for erudite and religious purposes, at least; and we may see reference to it in Dan. 1: 4, even when the Shemitic type of language had superseded it for ordinary or evil usage as shown in the inscriptions of that region both Assyrian and Babylonian. The predominance of Nabopolassar and of Nebuchadnezzar his son gave the Chaldeans their established supremacy over the various races in Babylon; so that what was an old and special tribe at first got to be the more extensive designation of that conquering people, as well as to mark a peculiar class of learned and scientific religionists, etc., astrologers as we see in Dan. 2 of whom the prophet was constituted chief or master" (Dan. 4: 9; 5: 11).

Nevertheless it is very possible that Arphaxad may be traced in the name of the region called  Ἀῤῥαπαχῖτις mentioned twice by Cl. Ptolemy (Geog. ed. Wilberg, 387) in his account of Assyria, and in the City  Ἄῤῥαπα in the list with which that first chapter of book vi. closes. So Bochart concludes in his Geog. Sacr. ii. 4. This region, south of Armenia, was the early home of the Shemites, as afterwards Asshur prevailed there. But there also the Cushites were strong in early days, and a Japhetic element was not wanting in self-assertion. But the Shemites unlike the others were ever disposed to stay at home, which made the subsequent crossing the more remarkable in the progenitor of the Hebrews at the call of God.

Of Salah or Salach little can be said with certainty, because the Bible is silent. He was the father of Eber in the direct line of the chosen patriarch Abram, the depositary of promise. The name signifies shoot or extension, but to regard it therefore as fictitious ought to be too absurd for the credulity of rationalism. It is known that a place with a similar name in the north of Mesopotamia occurs in Syrian writings; to which Knobel refers in his well-known book.

Of Eber a little more may be said when verse 25 is examined. It is the more necessary to distinguish the true form, because in Luke 3: 35 it is confounded with the different name of "Heber," which is shared by no less than half-a-dozen persons wholly distinct. The latter reappears in the name of Hebron, the well-known city of Judah, as ancient as Damascus and rather older than Zoan, or Tanis as the Greeks called it, in Egypt. Scripture expressly intimates this (Num. 13: 22).

GENESIS 10: 25.

The verse which here claims our attention brings before us incidentally another of the great facts in those early days of man's renewed history, as we have had the characteristic account of monarchy begun in the Cushite Nimrod.

"And to Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg, for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan" (ver. 25).

In verse 21 a notable mark was set upon Eber, when his forefather was introduced in the unusual terms of "father of all the children, or sons, of Eber," though several generations after, not Arphaxad's, nor Salah's, but Eber's. So contrariwise, though not so strikingly perhaps, Ham had to bear the shame of being designated "father of Canaan" (Gen. 9: 18). Thus does God call us on the one hand to heed him who inherited the curse and was the instrument of the enemy in striving to hinder Israel in due time taking possession of the promised land; and on the other to learn the interest He took in giving us to look onward to those who stood in the first line of the heirs of Shem's blessing; for "blessed be Jehovah the God of Shem." One cannot safely run on so fast as the excellent Matthew Henry, in saying "Eber himself, we may suppose, was a man eminent for religion in a time of general apostasy, and a great example of piety to his family; and the holy tongue being commonly called from him the Hebrew, it is probable that he retained it in his family, in the confusion of Babel, as a special token of God's favour to him; and from him the professors of religion were called the children of Eber. Now, when the inspired penman would give them an honourable title, he calls him (Shem) the father of the Hebrews; though, when Moses wrote this, they were a poor despised people, bond-slaves in Egypt, yet being God's people it was an honour to a man to be akin to them." It is wise to say less, and surer to believe what is written than to suppose with ancients or moderns. Goodness, he adds, is true greatness; but in the case before us we may be content with ascribing both in the highest degree to the Blesser without being too confident sponsors for the blessed. The Lord teaches us to be jealous on that head for God, rather than for man as weak and poor as he is aspiring.

Of Eber we have two sons: Peleg, which means division, the first named, and Joktan his brother. In connection with the former a new and important fact is noted as to the earth and its future history. In the days of Peleg the earth was divided. Such is the meaning of Peleg's name; for as the rule the names then given to men were significant. The scattering of which we have the divine account, its moral reason and its chastening, in the next chapter (11) was historically previous; but our chapter 10 pursues its aim and gives the origin of the nations, everyone after his tongue, apart from time. But as we had (vers. 8-11) in Nimrod the assumption of power and the spread of dominion from Babel the beginning of his kingdom, so here we have in Peleg's days the earth divided. Here we are not told of human pride and power, nor yet of Jehovah's scattering men abroad through confounding their language, and their consequent inability to understand one another's speech. The division of the earth after that in the days of Peleg appears to have been done peaceably. But it is a fact which has subsisted ever, whatever the emigration of peoples through stress of circumstances or desire of bettering their lot

Of Joktan we leave the details till we consider the verses that follow.

GENESIS 10: 26.

The name of Eber's second son was, as we have seen, Joktan, "small," as distinguished from Peleg whose name, "division," marked as an epoch the more peaceful dividing of the earth, after the judgment of God necessitated the dispersion of mankind. There is no substantial reason to limit the "division" to the family of Eber himself, when the younger branch migrated into southern Arabia, the elder remaining in Mesopotamia. Had this mere family split been referred to, the younger son would more naturally have borne its name, not the elder who abode where he was. Besides, how can an event so ordinary meet the large terms employed — "in his days was the earth divided?" The Chaldee paraphrase on 1 Chron. 1: 19 suggests that Joktan derived his name from the diminution of human life at that time. Certain it is that then longevity sunk one half, judging by the recorded years of Peleg (Gen. 11: 18, 19) and of those that succeeded, diminishing by degrees to its ordinary range.

Joktan appears on abundant evidence of varied kinds to answer to the Arabic Kachtán. "Of them [the Beni Sad], and of the Kahtan Arabs, . . . . , Masoudy says in his work entitled 'The Golden Meadows,' that they are the only remnants of the primitive tribes of Arabia. Most of the other tribes, etc. But the two tribes above mentioned, the Beni Sad and Kahtan, are famed in the most remote antiquity, when Arabian history, for the greater part, is covered with complete darkness" (Burckhardt's Notes on the Bedouins and Wahabys,. ii. 47, 48, London, 1831). We shall see that the traces of his thirteen sons are almost all plain enough also. This had been doubted by some who conceived it to be a Jewish tradition adopted later by Mohammedan writers. Why should any one doubt that the Κατανῖται of Cl. Ptolemy (Geog. vi. 7) are the Beni Kachtán, or Kahtanys? In Pliny (vi. 28) and Strabo (xvi.) they seem spoken of as Catabani, and Καταβανεῖς, by an inversion not uncommon among Greeks and Latins. Dionysius Perieg. speaks of the same tribe under a name very slightly changed, of which no account appears in Smith's Dict. of G. and R. Geography. Modern research however has not only vindicated the fact, but explained probably why the change of the name was effected. Of his numerous sons we glance at the four named in the verse before us.

"And Joktan begat Almodad and Sheleph and Hazarmaveth and Jerah" (ver. 26).

The first enumerated corresponds with Mudad, or, as the word admits the article, El-Mudad. Bochart in his Phaleg (ii. 16) long ago connected the name with the  Ἀλλουμαιῶται of Cl. Ptolemy (vi. 7, § 24) who held a central position in Yemen or Arabia Felix. There seems no sufficient ground to heed Gesenius' idea that the name is a variant from Almoram, so as to trace it in the tribe called Morad living in a mountainous region of the same country near Zabid.

Next comes Sheleph or Shaleph. This name has been without reasonable doubt identified with the district of Sulaf or Salif in southern Arabia. The elder Niebuhr gives it as Salfie (in his map Selfia) (Descr. 215). More recently Dr. Osiander gives an account of the tribe Shelif or Shulaf, as Yakoot in the Moajam and other Arabic authorities which complete the geographical traces. Indeed Ptolemy (vi. 7) had of old told us of the Σαλαπηνοὶ or  Ἀλαπηνοί as the Greeks called the people. Here is therefore proof in this case still clearer than in some. Mr. G. Forster (Geog. of Arabia) in both his vols. labours to identify the modern Meteyr tribe with the Salapeni or sons of Σαλέθ as their chief is called by the LXX. They were close allies of the Beni Kachtan against the Kedarite Beni-Charb or Carbani

Hazarmaveth plainly answers to the district east of the modern Yemen, called by the Arabs Hádramäwt (court of death), also in the south of Arabia, situated on the Indian Sea, and, if unhealthy, no less famous for its rich spices. One of its ports was Zafári, the Sephar of which we read later in this chapter. Here again there is satisfactory evidence that the third in the list of Joktan's sons furnished the name, rendered Σαρμώθ by the LXX. and Asarmoeh in the Vulgate.

Jerah or Yerach "the moon" is the fourth, which Michaelis in his Spicileg. ii. 60 in the "low land of the moon," or in the "mount of the moon," both of which were near Hádramäwt. It  is needless and against all probability to follow Bochart's notion of the Alilaei dwelling near the Red Sea. Mr. E. S. Poole (Smith's Dict. of the Bible, i, 264) traces the name in a fortress (and probably an old town) mentioned as belonging to the district of the Nijjad, which is in Mareb at the extremity of the Yemen. Indeed Arab tradition, as we may see in Golius (sub voce) is in nothing ancient more unanimous than in styling this son of Joktan "Father of Yemen" (Abu Yemen). His name appears in the LXX. as  Ἰαράχ, and as Jare in the Vulgate. The Arab name may be represented by Jeshä or Serhä, giving the "h" its guttural pronunciation of "ch." G. Ptol. speaks of the Νῆσος  Ἱεράχων on the Arabian gulf, and of the   Ἱεράχων κώμη on a river near the Persian gulf, which appear to point to the same family, wide as they might be apart. Mr. Forster brings many other names under the same reference modified by slight changes of name and sound; just as Ptolemy's river Lar on the east coast seems no other than the Zar of present day, which the Latin geographers confirm who translate it Flumen Canis — Dog, which the Arabic means. The great region of Karjé, he argues, derives its name from Jerah according to an anagram quite common in their proper names.

GENESIS 10: 27.

After the four sons of Joktan already noticed, we have now before us three: "and Hadoram, and Uzal, and Diklah" (ver. 27).

The fifth son appears to have settled farther east in that part of the peninsula which has long been designated 'Omán, and gives its name to the lower waters of the Persian gulf, opening into the Indian ocean. The south-eastern headland of that deep bay is called Ras-el-Had, which must be carefully distinguished from Ras-Fartask or Fartaques, "the wild boar's snout," answering to its Greek designation of Σύαγρος ἄκρα (Ptol. vi. 7, §11). It is the more necessary to be on one's guard, as of old we learn from the Alexandrian geographer that the position of the latter was misconceived by his predecessor, Marinus; and in this Marcianus (Hudson's Geog. Gr. Min. i. 24) agrees with the correction. In modern times D'Anville, followed by many (as e.g. Long's Classical Atlas) confounded Syagros with Ras-el-Had. Dean Vincent in his earlier writings had been thus misled; but he corrected himself in his elaborate work on the so called Periplus of Arrian (ii. 331-351). The classical title of the headland we are occupied with is really Κορόδαμον ἄκρον, as the learned Bochart long ago conjectured from the name of the forefather therein disguised, i.e. from Hadoramum. So convinced is Mr. Forster of its soundness that he does not hesitate to say, the fact, unnoticed by Bochart, "is simply this, that the promontory now actually bears the name of Hadoram, under an ordinary abbreviation of the Arabic, in its modern appellation of Ras-el-HAD" (i. 140, 141).

It is indeed a confirmation not to be despised also that Commodore Owen's Survey "first gave the correct form of this bay, accompanied by what is more important for our present object, its Arabic name, Bundes Djuram or Doram, the Bay of Doram." Abbreviations of this kind are notorious in that tongue as in others, as Dûra or Dora for Adoraim, and Jok for Joktan. It appears too from the M.S. Journal of Captain Sadleir that there is still existing in the desert of Ul Ahsu on the northern confines of 'Omán the tribe Dreeman, which corresponds with the Drimati of whom Pliny speaks as being in this quarter. So he does of the Fons Dora and of the Darrae which last word has its analogue in a town and tribe at this day. Hadoram (in the LXX.  Ὀδοῤῥᾶ) seems not obscurely traceable in a race singularly unyielding.

It, may also be observed that, if we heed the statement of Dionysius, there was a district on the east of Arabia called Chatramis south of Chaldamis (Bahrein) opposite to Persia, which agrees with the north of 'Omán. This race must be distinguished from the Adamitae, or Chatametitae, that sprang from Hazarmaveth and lived in Hadramaut on the south. The town of Hadrama corresponds apparently.

Uzal (in the Vat. text of the LXX. Αἰβήλ, prob. err. for Αἰζήλ in others) is named in the sixth place, and gave his name in ancient times to the capital city of Yemen, afterwards and still Sanà. Mr. E. S. Poole cites the printed edition of the Marásid, which says "that its name was Oozál, and when the Abyssinians arrived at it, and saw it to be beautiful, they said, Sanà, which means beautiful, and therefore it was called Sanà." Arabic authors have compared this with Damascus for its waters and its fruits; as Niebuhr says its houses and palaces are finer than those of any other town in Arabia. The Jews, it seems, who are immemorially settled there, only know it by the name of Uzal. That there should be other traces of the name is natural; but we need not dwell on what is disputable, having a record so direct and clear. The Auth. V. of Ezek. 27: 19 has darkened an important reference, which stands no better in the Revised. Dr. Henderson and Mr. Darby present it thus: "Vedan and Javan of Uzal traded in thy [Tyre's] markets: wrought iron, cassia, and calamus were in thy truffle [or barter]." The LXX. render it "from Asel," the Syriac and Aquila "from Uzal." As ver. 17 gave Judah and Israel, it is possible that Dan or Vedan and Javan were of the Arab race, and Uzal their emporium. So Dathe renders the clause; and de Wette adds to them Mehusal (as the Vulgate Mosel) for a third trafficker. Diodati in his French as well as Italian Version preferred "Dan also, and the vagabond Javan" in its Greek application. Dr. Benisch has for Uzal "spun yarn," and Dr. Leeser "silken goods" according to other points.

Of Diklah, the eighth name, there is little to say. From signifying "palm-trees" some have looked to the city Φοινίκων in the north-west of Arabia Felix; but Gesenius after Bochart for a similar reason inclined to find his descendants in the widely spread people classically called Minaei. But Mr. Forster strenuously contends that they were of the stock of Jerah, and that the great region of Kerjé or Karjé is none other than an anagrammatic inversion (so common in Arab names) of the patriarch Jerah himself. Into this discussion we do not enter; but any one can discern in the Dulkelaitae, of whom Golius speaks in his Lexicon, a name that answers to the son of Joktan we are now tracing, from whom descended a people of Yemen between Sanà and Mareb. Pococke also refers to them as Dhu l'Chalaah. Yet Mr. Poole is unaware of any trace of Diklah in Arabic works, except the mention of a place called Dakalah in El-Yemameh, mentioned by Kamoos, where grew many palm-trees. Enough then appears to this day, even as to the least conspicuous of these early tribes of Arabia, not only to testify to the Mosaic account, but to demonstrate the gracious interest of God in the otherwise obscure and undistinguished races of mankind. We shall have occasion to speak of some not of the Shemitic stock who seem to have been the first that entered the peninsula as they also penetrated elsewhere the earliest after the dispersion. Also we have to take note of the repeated influx of the Abrahamic seed, outside those chosen and called, who settled in its wide domain and gave special form to a characteristic portion of its denizens. But this must suffice for the earlier names of Joktan's sons.

GENESIS 10: 28,

We have now to trace, as far as evidence reaches, the seats of Joktan's sons brought together in the verse before us, the eighth, ninth, and tenth names: "and Obal and Abimael and Sheba" (ver. 28). As before, some have left marks much more distinct than others; so it is in the present three.

Obal ("bare, or stript of leaves") is represented as "Ebal" (in the LXX. Εὐὰλ, in 1 Chron. 1: 22 Γεμιάν). Arabic pronunciation still more closely approximates the name to the Abalites of Pliny, who are evidently the same as C. Ptolemy's Avalites with a bay and emporium of the same name. Indeed Bochart pronounces them to be no other than the name of the eighth son of Joktan. It is true that the settlement which thus recalls the founder was on the African side of the Red sea, not in Arabia; but this is no insuperable difficulty. We way not be able to trace such as abode with the great mass in Arabia; while it is of interest to identify such as crossed the strait to Africa. Nothing binds us to confine all the progeny of Joktan, save as a general rule, to Arabia. And the coast which affords the apparent traces of Obal was severed only by the narrow strait, called by the Greeks Παλίνδρομος, as was the promontory adjacent, and by the Arabs Bab-el-Mandeb. It is a strait made still easier, if not for commerce or passengers, for immigrants into Africa by intervening islands, Cytis, etc. In fact, though on the western side of the Strait, they were but a few miles distant from the coast of Yemen where their kindred abounded pre-eminently. The Gebanites with whom Knobel would identify them were no doubt in a general way their kinsmen; but where is any real evidence to show that they were the offspring of Obal? What has been above given suffices to prove that their mark was left south of Berenice Epidires, a town built by the Ptolemies at a much later day, north of the indentation which was called Avalites Sinus, on the south of which bay dwelt the Avalitae.

Abimael ("father of Mael," taken as an appellative, "fatness ") is to be found, it would seem, on the east of Yembo (Jambia) and even of the town Ausura (C. Ptolemy) or El-Szafra of Burckhardt. Their town is called both Malai and Kheyf, and appears in Theophrastus (Hist. Plant. ix. 4), along with three others celebrated of old for its spices, under the form Μάλι. The Alexandrian geographer speaks of Malichae in the neighbourhood of Yathreb or Iathrippph, in after history famous as El-Medineh, "the city" in the eyes of Mussulmans, about ten days' journey north of Mekka. The people of Mali or Malai seem no other than the Malichae. To this day the district has a high reputation for its balsam; the sale of which is even now an active trade, and highly remunerative. But of old it was very much more so, when Egypt and the West, Rome especially, used aromatics largely and luxuriously; whereas at present Persia appears to be the chief consumer. But Bochart's identification of Abimael with this people on the edge of the great Arabian desert appears to be well founded.

Sheba needs the greater care because in the inspired history we hear of no less than three heads of tribes who bore the name, the tenth of Joktan's sons now in question, preceded by the Cushite Raamah's son (ver. 7), and followed by the Abrahamic son of Keturah, Jokshan, who begat another Sheba (Gen. 25: 2, 3).

But we may also distinguish Seba's posterity, Cush's eldest son, the Sebaim of eastern Arabia, to which they seem to have migrated from Chuzestan on the eastern side of the Persian gulf. They were dark-coloured, and very tall (Isa. 45: 14), the Dowaser or Danasir Arabs of modern times. C. Ptolemy draws the line between these, the oldest, or amongst the oldest, settlers, and Sabeans in the province of Sabié (who appear to be descended of Sheba, Raamah's son), and calls them Sabai as distinct from those in the east coast of Oman, whom he names Sabi (or Asobi, the common Arabic prefix). Of the Jokshanite Sheba the less need be said, as they had their seat far north and were more obviously distinct.

The race from Joktan's son Sheba had their kingdom in the S.W. of Yemen; and these were the Sabeans, familiar to the Greeks and Romans, who had high notions of their wealth attributed to their own products without adequate account of their Indian trade. Their capital was called by Eratosthenes Mariaba, and by C. Ptolemy Sabatha Metropolis. The Arabs used both Mâreb and Saba. It is Abulfeda, as Mr. Forster shows (i. 155, 156), who in his geography expressly states that Mâreb was the central seat of the Beni Kahtan, i.e. the sons of Joktan. This can only be Sheba's posterity when we come to specify to which of Joktan's numerous sons in particular it belonged.

Nor is there any reasonable doubt that the Queen of Sheba, or as our Lord said "of the south," whose visit to King Solomon holds so interesting a place in scripture, ruled the, Sabean kingdom of which we have last spoken. Indeed "Yemen" means the south generally, and that quarter of Arabia, Felix in particular. But scripture carefully distinguishes the Shemitic lines of Sheba, Joktanite or Jokshanite (distinct as they are in themselves), from the Rahmanite Sheba in Yemen and the kindred Seba on or near the Persian gulf. It was the last race which gave its name to the kingdom of Meroe, far as its seats might be apart. Pliny confounded these races, as if one and the same ruled the entire south of the peninsula from west. to east; but C. Ptolemy as usual shows more exactness and discrimination. The "Sheba and Raamah" of Ezekiel 27: 27 would seem to be the Cushite race in the west, as being spice merchants; whereas Sheba, Asshur, and Chilmad in ver. 23 point to the Keturah family as dealers in choice clothes or wares and bales of broidered work. This too was the Sheba that first plundered Job's possessions.

GENESIS 10: 29.

In addition to the sons already passed in review there remain three; "and Ophir, and Havilah, and Jobab: all these were sons of Joktan" (ver. 29).

The local habitation of "Ophir" has been contested most notably; but no sufficient ground appears to look for it outside the peninsula. Josephus (Ant. viii. 6-4) referred it to India, as did Vitringa (Geog. Sac. 114), and Reland in his dissertation on the question, and of late Lassen, Ritter, Bertheau; again, Sir W. Raleigh to the Molucca Islands; and Pererius, Sir J. E. Tennent, Thenius, Ewald and Gen. Chesney (Euphrates ii. 126) to Malacca and the adjoining tracts. On the other hand, Huet, Bruce, Robertson the historian, Heeren, and Quatremère placed Ophir in Africa; and Plessis and A. Montanus contended for Peru, arguing from the word "Parvaim!" But Michaelis (Spicil. ii, 184), Karsten Niebuhr (Descr. de l'Arabie), Gosselin (Rech. sur la Geog. des Anciens, ii. 99), Vincent (Comm. and Nav. ii. 265-270), Crawford (Desc. Dict.), Forster (Geog. of Arabia i. 161-175), Fürst, Kalisch, Knobel (Völk. 190), and Winer (Realw.), assign it to Arabia. The learned Bochart (Phaleg ii. 27) was inclined to two Ophirs, one in Arabia, the other in Ceylon; as D'Anville admitted two, one in Arabia, the other in Africa. Gesenius, both in his Thes. and elsewhere, thought that the balance of evidence between Arabia and India was so even that he declined giving a decisive judgment.

The fact is, however, that ever since the maps of Sale and of D'Anville, as Mr. Forster observes (i. 167), Ofor or Ofir appears as the name of a city and district in the mountains of Omàn, seated on their eastern side, near the source of the Omàn river, and within about a degree, or a little more, of the coast; and the adjoining coast, lying due east under Ofir, was still celebrated in the elder Pliny's time (Nat. H. vi. 32) for its traffic in gold, "littus Hammaeum ubi auri metalla." This answers to the town and coast of Maham, as laid down in modern maps for that precise locality.

One of the chief arguments against Arabia by those who looked elsewhere is the absence of gold as a known product of the country for many years. But Dean Vincent had anticipated the objection by his remark that silver is not now found at Carthagena in Spain, where the Phoenicians, Carthaginians, and Romans, obtained it in great abundance. Niebuhr (iii. 256) says of this very province Omàn, "there is no want there of lead and copper mines"; and Mr. Wellsted (Travels in Arabia, i. 315) states that the notion is untrue that Arabia is wholly destitute of the precious metals. "In this province we meet with silver, associated as usual with lead. Copper is also found: at a small hamlet, on the road from Semed to Neswah, there is a mine which the Arabs at present work; but the others are wholly neglected. Even in the vicinity of Maskat the hills are very metalliferous," In ancient times the testimony is distinct that Arabia was a gold-producing land. Thus Agatharchides the geographer who lived in the second century before Christ testifies to it (Hudson's Geog. Min. i. 60); a little later wrote Artemidorus, whose account Strabo reproduces (xiv. 18); Diodorus Sic. is no less plain in his Bibliotheca (ii. 50, iii. 44); and Pliny the elder as we have seen; to whom from Eusebius' Praep. Evang. ix. 30 we may add the testimony of Eupolemus before the Christian era: only that he affirms Ophir to be an island with old mines in the Erythrean sea, i.e., the sea that compassed Arabia, west, south, and east. At the least Ophir was the emporium whence not gold only but algum trees, red sandalwood or whatever else is meant, and precious stones, were brought.

No one denies that peacocks, apes, and ivory point further east than Arabia; but Ophir was their meeting place and mart. It is to be noticed that Uphaz, as equivalent to Ophir, means "isle of fine gold," if there was another such place besides the inland one still bearing the name.

The family of "Havilah" have left their mark in the country in a distinct manner, though the name is as usual somewhat disguised by the difference of pronunciation which prevailed when there was little of known pervading literature to fix it. Only we have to take into account that there was a Cushite Havilah which extended itself in its branches over the peninsula from the N.E. to the S.W. These we have to discriminate from the Joktanite tribe which found their place, it would seem, chiefly among their kindred. But as the names of their respective patriarchs were identical, so the same changes of form prevailed over tie descendants of each, and the places which derived their designation from them. Thus Khaulan or Haulan evidently sprang from Havilah, harder or softer, as also Hévila and Hali, and Strabo's Chaalla, as we may see in Niebuhr, So Dr. Wells long ago from Bochart noticed the Chaulothaei of Eratosthenes, the Chaulosii of Festus Avienus, the Chablasii of Dionysius Periegetes, and the Chavilei of Pliny. Mr. Forster puts the case yet more strongly that, when in Ptolemy we read Huaela or Huaila, and in Niebuhr Huala, or more correctly Hauilah, we have before us literally the Havilah of the Hebrew Scripture, Aval or Aual being a dialectic softening which prevails on the Persian Gulf. In Yemen, and north of it, it eau hardly be doubted that the Joktanite section of Havilah prevailed.

Nor is there any serious question as to the descendants of "Jobab" in the clan of Jobaritae. They are mentioned by G. Ptolemy as dwelling in the south and near the Sachalitae, who gave their name to the well known bay. Besides, we hear of the Beni Jobub or Jubbar of Niebuhr, as the existing name of a tribe S.E. of Beishe or Baisath Joktan, halfway between Uzal (Sanà) and Sabata (the modern Zebid). Thus there seems no sufficient reason to doubt the identification. The variations of form at most found in this casein no way hinder the recognition of the ancient designation; while the measure of change is no more than time brings about in the immovable east, even in a land so shut out from intercourse with mankind in general. It is truly remarkable that, for every member of Joktan's numerous sons, living representatives should be traceable, attesting in a simple but striking way the inestimable value of God's word, long before human records, even then few and failing till long after.

GENESIS 10: 30.

The verse we are now to consider demands close investigation, as it is not without importance and difficulty also. "And their dwelling was from Mesha, as thou goest to Sephar, a mountain of the east" (ver. 30). It is beyond question a general description of the limits within which dwelt the many sons of Joktan. We have already identified in detail their local habitation throughout Arabia, with the slight exception of those who crossed to the western shore of the narrow strait that severs their father's land from Africa. There is therefore, the best reason to reject the idea that they left, their original seats for dwellings between "Mount Masius in the south part of Mesopotamia and an imaginary" mount adjoining Siphare, a city in Asia, as Dr. E. Wells conjectured in his Help to the Holy Scriptures i. 77 (Oxford, 1728). In fact Mount Masius forms the northern boundary of Mesopotamia; but, this is a slight misapprehension to which the Μασσῆ of the LXX. may have led, in comparison with the chief error, as the Persian Siphare (city or mount) is still more untenable. And so must one think of Dr. C. Wordsworth's idea of Mesha as an island of the Tigris and of a Sephar on the Persian Gulf. Such limits do not include the dwellings of Joktan's sons.

Very different is the hypothesis of Bochart (Phaleg iii. 29) who identifies Mesha with Meza, which seems to be the same as Ptolemy's Μασσῆ (or Μοῦζα in the Periplûs), a little north of the Straits of Bab-el-Mandeb. But as he considers Sephar to be the mountain near Saphar in the hill-country between Yemen and Hadrámaut, it seems clear that such limits (little above 200 miles) are incompatible with the widespread dispersion of the sons of Joktan throughout the southern half of the peninsula. For "the east" seems no difficulty when we bear in mind its usage as in Gen. 25: 6.

Gesenius (Thes. i. 823) inclined therefore to the suggestion of J. D. Michaelis (Spicil. ii. 214, Suppl. 1561) of a Mesene (or Middle-land) between the mouths of the Pastigris. Hence he understood the last part of our verse to mean "from Mesha unto Sephar and (or as far as) the mountain land of Arabia." He lays it down as certain that "mountain in the east" is not to be joined in apposition with Sephar, but is some other third place to which the boundary extended. It is difficult to understand on what ground this consummate Hebraist so decidedly maintained a construction which seems extremely harsh; for his rationalism did not here intrude to bias him. Like many, he and of late M. Frèsnel (Lettres sur l'Hist. des Arabes) regarded Sephar as the metropolis of the region of Shehr, between Hadrámaut and Omàn; as the highland of the east he held to be the chain of mountains near the middle of Arabia from the Hedjaz on the Persian Gulf. It is called today Dhafàri or Dhafàr. But as of the ancient name, so of the modern, there are various places so called.

It becomes therefore a nice point to decide which is here intended. For there are, as C. Niebuhr and E. S. Poole say, no less than four places bearing the same name, besides several others bearing names that are merely variations from the same root. Now Niebuhr (Descr. iii. 206, 207) speaks both of the ruins of Dhafàr near Yemen, and of Sumara or Nak'l Sumara as the greatest and the highest mountain he had ascended in Yemen, and very probably the same that the Greek geographers called Climax (Κλίμαξ ὄρος of C. Ptol. vi. 7). This is near the Dhafàr which Bochart identifies with the Σαπφάρα μητρόπολις of Ptolemy, capital of the Σαπφαρῖται (vi. 6, § 25), and with the Sephar in our text. Dhafàr seems the same city a little disguised, which the author of the Periplus and Diodorus Sic. called Aphar, as others call it Tafar?

If then Sephar be traced to the Dhafàr on the border of Yemen and Hadrámaut in the S.W. of Arabia, this goes far to determine the site of Mesha as in the N. E. of the peninsula. This satisfies best the compendious summary of the Joktanite settlements, answering to the similar allusion to the Canaanite border, N. and S. in ver. 19, which follows the details of their several families. Now there is a mountain chain in the Nedjd, which was the boundary of the sons of Joktan in that very region, on the north of which wandered their adversaries, the sure indication of a distinct race.* The Beni Shaman or Samman, the sons of Mishma or Masma, son of Ishmael, being no other than the Μαισαιμανεῖς of Ptol. (vi. 7, § 21), jealously guarded mount Zames or Zametas (as the Alexandrian Geographer calls the mountain) against intrusion from the south, where lay the Κατανῖται or Joktanite races. Equally hostile were the Aenezes, or gang of Kenaz. Hence Chesney's suggestion of Mekkah for Mesha is untenable; for the tribe of Harb, the Cerbae, Darrae, etc., descendants of Kedar and enemies of the Joktanites, was paramount in the Hedjaz. The Kenezites, or sons of Kenaz, were of Edomite extraction and dwelt north of the Salapeni, or sons of Sheleph, a Joktanite,

* "These [the Metyr Arabs] strengthened their party by an alliance with the Kahtan Arabs; while the Aenezes were assisted by the Beni Shaman. Between these tribes an inveterate hatred subsisted; which every spring was the cause of much bloodshed and checked the commercial intercourse with the Hedjaz." (Burckhardt's Travels in Arabia, ii. 401).

It may be added that it was to Yemen the Greek and Latin geographers applied the epithet Εὐδαίμων, or Felix (Happy), which was at a later time extended more widely, as when one of our own poets speaks of "Araby the Blest." There was no little exaggeration in allowing the justice of such a claim, even allowing for the mystery in which the Arabian traders indulged with their western and even eastern customers, in attributing to their own country some precious imports from lands more distant still. For mendacity has long infected the Arab people like others of the east. Yet it is not improbable, as Oriental scholars suggest, that the designation may have been an accidental misnomer. Thus Felix was a mistranslation of El-Yemen, or the right hand, the fortunate side in usage of the Greeks, whom the Roman poets mostly followed, Notoriously, as the face was directed to the east, so the peninsula lay as compared with Syria, Esh-Sham, the left hand. Hence was Arabia said to be "fortunate" or "blessed" through a word of good omen, which was afterwards by a mistake construed of extraordinary wealth and fertility.

If Mohammedan fanaticism has for long centuries shut out Arabia and its numerous races from the free or friendly intercourse of the rest of mankind, it is interesting to note the striking help given by the Greek and Latin geographers before and since the Christian era to identify places and races with those which then existed. Of comparatively late years the travels of G. Niebuhr, Burckhardt, and Wellsted have contributed to prove that they still exist, though it also appears that the religious imposture has not failed to cover the land and the people with malignant and withering influence. For there are but traces and ruins where considerable tribes and cities once flourished. Happily for the object here in view in no part of the world do names abide more signally resisting change or surviving it, than among the sons of the east.

GENESIS 10: 31.

Subsequent statements in the Book of Genesis give particulars of other families of the Shemitic stock who entered the Arabian Peninsula. All that is intended here is to fill up the general view of its denizens, in order to complete the picture, in this measure anticipating what follows our chapter. As sons of Cush were the first to settle within it, chiefly on the Persian Gulf and the S.W. coast skirted by the Red Sea, before Joktan and his sons possessed themselves so largely of its borders and interior, we may notice first Ishmael and his sons as a most characteristic class of the dwellers in Arabia. No prediction of the kind has been more signally fulfilled than Gen. 16: 12: "He will be a wild ass of a man, his hand against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell before the face of all his brethren."

In vain has the sceptical Gibbon (Decline and Fall, chaps. 46 and 50) strained his ingenuity to get rid of their standing independence, felt alike by strangers and by natives. There it is to this day, as it has been through all history. Of whom else can it be pretended similarly? The overruling power of God, as always, has guarded His word. Ishmael, though in no way the line of covenant any more than Esau, has lived before Him. Other peoples, and conspicuously in their neighbourhood, have dwindled and disappeared, I do not say they are extinguished. Ishmael He made fruitful and a great nation. In this world as it is, no sane person denies checks or exceptions during the course of ages, when God was ignored or misrepresented. But even the infidel historian had to acknowledge that these exceptions were "temporary or local." "The body of the nation has escaped the yoke of the most powerful monarchies: the arms of Sesostris and Cyrus, of Pompey and Trajan, could never achieve the conquest of Arabia. The present sovereign of the Turks may exercise a shadow of jurisdiction, but his pride is reduced to solicit the friendship of a people, whom it is dangerous to provoke and fruitless to attack."

The wilderness of Paran was the earliest seat of Ishmael; but his posterity extended completely across the northern parts of Arabia, including the district of Sinai on the west to the Euphrates. In this district the sons of Keturah also dwelt, and thus Ishmaelites or Hagarites got mixed up with Midianites, as we may see in Gen. 37: 25-28, 36, Judges 8: 22-26, 1 Chron. 5: 20. Nebaioth, Ishmael's firstborn, gave his name to the large region of Arabia Petraea; where Josephus places all the other sons. But this is too limited; for they settled also south of what the ancients called Nabathea or Nabateus. They bred camels, and kept sheep, as they were also merchants in aromatics and other commodities. Like other rationalists, Gibbon imputes their love of independence to their accidental locality. It was rather their wild character which availed itself of rocks and deserts; and God so acted as to suit both to His word and will. Here too the Edomites, or sons of Esau, found their place in mount Seir.

The second of Ishmael's sons was Kedar (from whom Mohammed proclaimed his descent through the tribe of Koreish), the Cedrei of Pliny, Cadraitae or Kadranitae from time immemorial living in the Hedjaz; as the B'nei Kenaz dwelt and still dwell in the interior N.E. who are called in modern times the Aenezes, descendants of Esau, the largest (as Burckhardt says) of all the Bedouin tribes of Arabia, at constant feud with the Joktanites south of them, as their progeny are to this day. Some of the other sons of Ishmael may be more or less obscure; but this cannot be said of Dumah (who had also the characteristic title of B'nei Kalb, as the Kedarites were correspondingly styled B'nei Karb), and Tema, written large and deep in the northern part of the Negd, as the interior highlands of Arabia are called among themselves.

There is no intention at this point to give more than a general notion of the relation of the Ishmaelites and other Abrahamidae to the previous settlers in Arabia. But it is well to bear all in mind, as each race had its influence on the circumstances and history of a land remarkably divided.

"These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations" (ver. 31).

Blessing in the prophecy of Noah was assigned to Shem, or more strictly the word was "Blessed [be] Jehovah, the God of Shem." So it has been; so faith knows now; so it will be completely fulfilled, when Christ makes the truth indisputable in glorious results to every eye. This is not the design of God either by the gospel or in the church; it is reserved for the age to come.

The notion of such as Renan (Hist. Générale des Langues Sémit.), that the Shemitic races were to be in purpose or in fact monotheistic is a delusion. As the Adamic condition of innocence yielded to sin, so did the post-diluvian government of the world break down, and God's judgment of the earth with which it was preceded was soon darkened and perverted to serving other gods. Ham may lead the way, as beyond doubt the beginning of Nimrod's kingdom was Babel; but Asshur soon followed in the same path, not of ambition only but of idolatry; and the very family of him that was chosen to be the father of the faithful were thus corrupted when the call of God called him out to bless him and make him a blessing to all families of the earth (Joshua 24: 2). Thus no flesh can glory in itself or its ways. Let him that glorieth glory in Jehovah.

Even Max Müller, though far from believing reverence, is compelled by overwhelming facts to abandon the Rationalistic dream and to pay in a measure at least to the truth, as another has culled out of his "Chips out of a German Workshop," i. 345. "Can it be said that a monotheistic instinct could have been implanted in all those nations which adored Elohim, Jehovah, Sabaoth, Moloch, Nisroch, Rimmon, Nebo, Dagon, Ashtaroth, Baal or Bel, Baal-peor, Baalzebub, Chemosh, Milcom, Adrammelech, Anammelech, Nibhaz and Tartak, Ashima, Nergal, Succoth-benoth, the sun, the moon, the planets, and all the host of heaven." Shemitic races worshipped these and more.

In the same work M. M. goes farther still in his disproof. "Nor is it possible to explain on merely historical grounds how the Hebrews first obtained and so persistently clung to this grand first truth. Their chronicles show continual lapses into idolatry, and yet they always recovered themselves; till at last, after a bitter discipline of national calamities, they finally turned with enthusiastic devotion to the worship of Jehovah.

"Reference to a primitive religious instinct in mankind is as little satisfactory; for though there must have been such an intuitive sentiment in the earliest men as the basis of their future idolatries, it could only have impressed on them the existence of some Divine Being, but in no degree involved the conception of that Being, as one and one only, but as all history proves, tended to the very opposite. Nor can it be said that the Hebrew worked out the great truth by a profound philosophy; for no contrast could be greater between the Jewish mind and that of other nations of antiquity sprung from a different stock, than the utter absence from it of the metaphysical speculations in which other races delighted.

"Yet, while all nations over the earth have developed a religious tendency which acknowledged a higher than human power in the universe, Israel is the only one which has risen to the grandeur of conceiving this power as the One, Only, Living God." Better still is his closing confession: "If we are asked how it was that Abraham possessed not only the primitive conception of the divinity as He has revealed Himself to all mankind [a very questionable proposition, corrected anticipatively in Rom. 1: 19, 20], but passed, through the denial of other gods, to the knowledge of the one God, we are content to answer that it was by a special divine revelation" (ib. i. 372).

When the Anointed came, He tested this "enthusiastic devotion to the worship of Jehovah," and proved as Isaiah had testified long before, that in vain the people worshipped Him, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. For had they learned of the Father they would have come to Christ, but they knew neither the Son nor the Father Who sent Him. "Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is the Antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son hath not the Father either, he that confesseth the Son hath the Father also" (1 John 2: 22, 23).

The day is at hand when the worthlessness of Jewish devotion even to monotheism or rather to their Elohim, or Jehovah, will be manifest. For, as the rejected Messiah warned, the unclean spirit of idolatry which they then thought and still think exorcised for ever, will return to his house empty, swept, and garnished; and just because it is empty, instead of filled with His presence Who is Jehovah as well as Messiah. Yea more, he will take to himself in that day (for it is not yet fulfilled) seven other spirits more wicked than himself; and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man becometh worse than the first. Even thus shall it be also to this wicked generation (Matt. 12). To banish idols and judge idolatry for ever is reserved for the Lord in the day of His appearing.

GENESIS 10: 32.

In the concluding verse we have the still larger summary of the post-diluvian earth, which furnishes occasion for a general survey.

"These [are the] families of Noah's sons, after their generations, in their nations; and by these were separated the nations in the earth after the flood" (verse 32).

It is not only that mankind sprang from a single pair created innocent as Adam and Eve were. A fresh start for the race began after the deluge which judged the guilty mass. From Noah and his three sons preserved from destruction, conditions began which subsist today and will for their descendants till, with the clouds of heaven, the Son of man come to Whom shall be given dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all peoples, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. So recent comparatively is the history of man, and his tripartite separation of land and tongue, family and nation. For instead of beginning with a single line, we have three heads with their wives, three great families to renew the history of man on earth with the experience derived from the antediluvian earth.

What can be vainer than the dreams of men? From the only evidence we have, happily the highest, surest, and most authoritative of testimony we know that primeval man was as far as possible from savagery. He was set in a garden or park of delights, where grew every tree pleasant to the sight, and good for food. Even when transgression entailed man's expulsion from Paradise, and sons were in due time born, the elder was a husbandman, the younger a shepherd. Town life began for some, nomad habits for others, the forging of tools, bronze and iron, and the making instruments of music, wind and stringed all this before our first parents died.

It would seem in fact that it was after not only the deluge but the dispersion of the various families, that the more distant and isolated tribes degenerated into a savage condition. To this deserts and forests, marshes and mountains, would expose men, when they found themselves severed from others by distinct tongues, and the national barriers drew in their train opposing interests, and the difficulties of subsistence increasing with population. Hunting soon led to encroachment on human liberty, as our chapter has shown. There was corruption and violence before the flood, a great reason for it though by no means the only one; but there is no evidence of idolatry till after. We know it had set in even through Abraham's progenitors before his call. But idolatry, once introduced, spread like fire, and added enormously to the debasement of its victims.

The Japhetic race is first traced in the early verses (2-5), and with marked brevity. Japheth's sons present the great outline of those that possessed themselves of the north from east to west in Asia and Europe. From two only do we hear of descendants, though doubtless all had; but here we have only the sons of Gomer and of Javan. These were respectively the families which peopled Asia Minor, and Armenia on the east, and the sons of Javan whom we cannot fail to identify with the Greek or Hellenic families, extending to Spain, France, Italy and Sicily, the isles or maritime coasts of the nations.

Much more detail is assigned to Ham, who occupies verses 6 to 20. And with that holy boldness and candour which characterises the truth, this chapter hides not but sets before us plainly the early rise of kingly power in that race. The beginning of Nimrod's kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar; Nimrod was of Cush, Ham's eldest son. He and he alone is here described in terms so strong, even if we conceive that Asshur went out from that land, though of Shem's stock, and emulated Nimrod's ambitious example by building Nineveh and three cities more in Assyria. The sons of Cush include much beyond Ethiopia, but are distinct from Mizraim and Phut as well as Canaan, minutely enumerated, though none so much as that race accursed of God which Israel was responsible to blot out.

Last of all we come to Shem's descendants in vers. 21-31, singularly described as father of all the sons of Eber, brother of Japheth the elder. Eber led the way through Peleg in due time to the father of the faithful. If Shem had not the natural priority over Japheth, he pre-eminently had the blessing, as Canaan the curse. Elam is the first named son, progenitor of those east of Persia proper, occupying the province of which Shushan or Susa was capital. It early rose to power, but faded before the energy of Assyria and Babylon, till with Persia and Media it shared the power of the second world-kingdom. Arphaxad will find his developed place in Gen. 11. The Lydians answer to Lud, and Syrians to Aram. Attention is drawn under Peleg to the significant fact of the earth divided in his day. And the list closes with Joktan and his sons who fill Arabia from S.W. to N.E. as the Ishmaelites, Keturahites, and Edomites distinguish the north and west. But of these we have no particulars till later in the book of Genesis, so that we speak here only of the fact in general.

GENESIS 11: 1.

The last chapter gave us with minute detail the new fact on the earth of the sons of Noah after their generations, in their nations, after their tongues, and in their lands. Here were traits and arrangements, unknown to the world before the deluge, and in no degree seen for some time after. Gen. 10 casts invaluable light, found nowhere else, on the rise of those families distributed on the earth, every one after his tongue. It is only in Gen. 11 that we find the originating cause and occasion. The previous chapter comes in, not flowing according to historic time, but as a descriptive parenthesis between Gen. 9 and 11. It was of very great importance to give us inspired certainty where men had no adequate record, and no reliable tradition; where pride hastened to disguise or forget a divine judgment which effectually rebuked it. East or west, men set up claims to be indigenous from the first, sprung from their own soil; and if they believed that man was an outcast from Paradise, though in forms disguised by pride, setting up to speak the original language of our primeval parents.

The A.V. fails to express the two thoughts. The speech and the words were alike one. "And the whole earth was of one language (lip) and the words one" (or the same) (11: 1). The Latin Vulgate gives the literal reflection of the Hebrew text. Moses beyond doubt here goes back to the universal state of mankind for a certain period after the great catastrophe of the flood. Till then and after it, man had but one "lip" and the same words.

There had been ample space before the deluge for the development of many languages. Soon after the murder of Abel had furious Cain gone forth, an unrepentant despairing man, who failed to profit by Jehovah's patience, and dwelt in the land of Nod, away from the scene which even he could not face at ease or unabashed. There is no real ground to accept either von Bohlen's identification with India, or Knobel's with China. Enough for us to know that the land of his "Wandering," as it means, was toward or in front of the east of Eden. Still less can we identify the city Cain built and called "Enoch" after the name of his son. But the Holy Spirit plainly intimates the rise in his line (not of a rudiment of a different tongue nor of a distinct nationality which we in our ignorance might have thought only natural, but) of science and art, and even the fine arts. The holy wisdom of God took care to apprise His people of the true origin of civic life as well as of nomad, the latter not previous but posterior, of music and its practice in stringed and wind instruments, of the working in copper and iron, of polygamy, and self-occupied verse, the first recorded song of man. It is a picture of man's skill and energy, civilisation, letters, and luxury. The Pagans long after attributed these to their spurious gods but real demons. Here we have them shown to be the inventions of men far from God, vainly striving to make the earth of their exile a paradise of their own.

But here first do we learn how, when, where, and why it was that diversity of tongues superseded the "one lip" which had characterised the whole earth hitherto. The original unity of language prevailed for some time after the deluge, as uninterruptedly before it. This is an immense difficulty to such as reason from the existing multiplicity of tongues; for there are confessedly at least 900 in possession of the earth. Of late the researches of the learned have reduced them to families or groups, and have named these Aryan, Shemitic, and Turanian. But a deeper affinity has disclosed itself to patient, comprehensive, and minute study. For these family groups, whatever their strongly marked distinctions from each other, have been proved to yield decided proofs of common relationship, which cannot be thought accidental but indicative of one source. Thus were scholars forced to the conclusion, neither expected nor desired by most, but opposed strongly to the scepticism of many, that these languages point to a time when was spoken but one and the same tongue, whence all drew those common evidences of flowing from the same fountain-head.

Such was the judgment of A, von Humboldt. in treating of the prolific varieties of aboriginal American speech in his contribution to the "Asia Polyglotta," p. vi. (Paris, 1823). Such too was the conviction of Julius Klaproth in that erudite survey itself of the Asiatic tongues. It is the more striking because the latter's incredulity is daring and undisguised. Nor was any wish more from his heart than testifying in result to the truth of inspired history. Yet he declared that, in his comparative tables etc., "the universal affinity of languages is placed in so strong a light that it must be considered by all as completely demonstrated. This does not appear explicable on any other hypothesis than that of admitting fragments of a primary language yet to exist through all the languages of the old and new worlds" (Vorr. § ix.).

But the believer stands on an impregnable and unchanging vantage ground. He receives the fact on the word of God, and therefore in simple faith common to all who are led of the Holy Spirit, apart from all linguistic lore, apart from all historic investigation where so much is difficult and obscure, apart from philosophical discussion where vanity revels in opposing old hypotheses and inventing new ones of the day and the man. He knows the only true God, the Father, and Jesus Christ, His sent One; living of that life eternal he delights to honour that word which is open to Jew or Greek, bond or free. But he is not displeased to note how the adversaries of revelation are compelled to bow to the force of proofs which divine mercy leaves to convince inquirers, even though pursuing their own paths without a care for His truth or glory, perhaps not afraid to gainsay Him now and then, as they are estranged from the life of God by reason of the hardness of their hearts.

Is it objected that these were investigators early in the century? Though one distrusts the childish assumption that recent men have better knowledge or judgment, for such experts are rare, let them learn that in this field no living man has greater claim to be heard than Max Müller; that he is morbidly afraid of mixing up theological arguments with his "Science of Language;" and that his real object was not at all to assert revealed truth, but to show how rash it was to speak of different independent beginnings in the history of human speech, before a single argument had been brought forward to establish the necessity of such an admission. On the contrary he endeavoured to show how even the most distant members of the Turanian family (the one spoken in the north, the other in the south of Asia) have preserved in their grammatical organisation traces of a former unity. So later he says, in the enthusiasm of his theme, though in terms which a, believer could not endorse, "the Science of Language thus leads us up to that summit from whence we see into the very dawn of man's life on earth; and where the words which we have heard so often since the days of our childhood — 'and the whole earth was of one language and of one speech' — assume a meaning more natural, more intelligible, more convincing than they had before." This is so doubtless to himself and others like him on natural ground; but to him who sets to his seal that God is true, no evidences or reasonings of man can compare with the certainty, simplicity, or sweetness of God's testimony. If the child accepts it without question, the mature Christian finds in it truth which lifts him far above the summits of philology, and jarring or jealous disputes of philosophers, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth: possibility, probability, necessity are their respective idols, one as vain and unreliable as another.

GENESIS 11: 2-4.

How many dialects, how many languages, have on the one hand perished practically, or have on the other sprung really into being and the most extensive use, long since the Christian era! Yet here, on the shortest reckoning for nearly as many centuries since our first parents were created, we have the fact calmly and clearly revealed, which was nowhere else made known and wholly inconsistent with human experience as well as all scientific theory of languages, that there was but one "lip" or (as we and others say) one tongue, the "words" also one and the same. This we believe, without reasoning which is here out of court, from one qualified divinely to give us certainty. For Moses was distinguished above even all other prophets, who had a vision or a dream adequate in the power of the Spirit. But to him mouth to mouth did Jehovah speak openly.

So too did the Son of God, both in the days of His flesh and after He rose from the dead, attest Moses, not only as the channel but as the writer of the Law or Five Books (John 5, Luke 20 and 24). But if in presence of supernatural power sons of Israel "were not afraid to speak against" him living, we need not wonder that, in fallen yet haughty and unbelieving Christendom, professing Christians take their place with infidel Jews, in denying that he wrote aught but the merest shreds. These shreds some of these men do rather pretend (for there is no ground, but their self-sufficiency) to identify among the legends of an Elohist, and a Jehovist, with as many more imaginary hands in the patch-work as the pseudocriticism may invent to hide its empty and naked impotence. Not that any prophet failed to give the word of God; but Moses, besides the divine authority which attached to what he wrote as well as spoke from Jehovah, had a divine intimacy peculiar to himself, the fruit of which is in no part of the Law more conspicuous or of richer consequence than in the book of Genesis.

"And it came to pass as they journeyed [lit. pulled up their tent-stakes] east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. And they said one to another, Come, let us make bricks and burn (them) thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and asphalt had they for mortar. And they said, Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower, whose top [head] (may be) to the heavens; and let us make ourselves a name, lest we be scattered over the face of the whole earth." (vers. 2-4)

Things were no longer as before God's judgment in the deluge, when men were left, outside paradise, to their own ways without covenant or government. The law which tested innocent Adam in the garden did not apply to himself when an outcast or to his sons who were never there. As fallen men, however, they had conscience, that invaluable monitor universally possessed, which does not fail inwardly. to pronounce on right and wrong, or, as scripture says, "to know good and evil." Nor were they without revelation to and through their first father, brief indeed but of unspeakable moment to fallen man. Other divine intimations also followed, even to Cain, as well as Enoch, Lamech, and Noah: each of deep importance; all together not beyond what the fear of God in every one was bound to weigh, and fairly remember, and might fully profit by.

Only after the flood came in the great principle of divine government laid on man responsibly, never to be revoked to the eternal day. It was not creation left to itself in departure from God, but creation set under government in human hands. Noah walked with God. But Noah, preserved with his family from the destruction which befell the world of ungodly men, failed in an unwatchful hour to govern himself; as his sin and shame gave occasion to the heartless rebellious wickedness of a son, who brought on a curse narrowed to one line instead of overspreading all his seed. But the government, which from God through man abode unreversed, spite of personal flaws does still to this day. For there is no authority except what is from God; and those authorities that exist are established by God.

We have now a new development, in which not one or a few but the race displayed its state. God originally had in blessing men said, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it. After the deluge, His word to Noah and his sons still was, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. But mankind, though awed by that judgment, had no care to do His will. Their mind was to keep together. And assuredly they pitched on a region, by its great rivers on either side and its exceeding fertility, eminently suited for their purpose; which was to constitute themselves a universal republic without God. Was it then for man to live by bread alone? So at least they spoke and acted: God was in none of their thoughts. It was the first joint, and public, step of the post-diluvian race, They were without excuse, not only because of the witness to God's eternal power and divinity manifested to them, but from such knowledge of God as Noah, "preacher of righteousness," professed and testified, backed by such an intervention as the deluge itself fresh in their memory. They glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful. Into what folly in their inward reasonings this led them ere long need not be stated here. For we do not as yet hear of that new plague of Satan, idolatry; but it soon followed, as we way assuredly gather from Joshua 24: 2, Romans 1: 20-23.

But we do learn their united purpose, independent of God, yea, in defiance of His will that they should fill the earth. As stone and lime were not furnished by the plain of Shinar, they none the less resolved to build a city and a tower; and they had brick thoroughly burnt for stone, and asphalt, of which abundance was there, for mortar. But their aim (for this it is that mainly determines man's acts and life) — what was their object? "Come (said they) let us build ourselves a city and a tower, whose top (may reach) to the heavens; and let us make ourselves a name, lest we be scattered over the face of the whole earth." There is no need to conceive that more was meant in their aspiration, than in the depressing tone of the spies in Deut. 1: 28: "the cities are great and walled up to heaven."

Nothing was farther from their thoughts or from common sense than to rear a pile to save them from another deluge, as some have fancied for them. God had solemnly assured Noah that this was never to be again. If they had nevertheless dreaded it, the highest of lands might have been chosen with that foolish design; certainly not the low-lying plain they settled on. It was a deep-laid human scheme, ignoring God altogether, and in rebellious self-will; it was for "ourselves" throughout. It was not merely a city to live in (which had been from early days), but to "build ourselves a city and a tower," and with high-flown pretensions. But worse still, "let us make ourselves a name." What! poor sinners, saved by divine mercy, from the flood that swept all else away! Noah, they well knew, built an altar and offered Burnt offerings. The earth as a whole now changes all that. They sought to themselves a conspicuous centre for every eye; they would make themselves a name, though this belongs only to God, or to a head with all authority delegated of Him. What is man to be accounted, whose breath is in his nostrils?

Yet clearly had they, notwithstanding their self-sufficiency, the fear that accompanies a bad conscience; for what they sought was "lest they should be scattered upon the face of the whole earth." But therefore it was that Jehovah scattered them. Their forebodings were more than realised in a scattering, by Him Whom they willingly forgot, which immediately and completely dispersed them and their descendants till this day.

GENESIS 11: 5-7.

These verses are a striking example of the childlike simplicity which, as it characterised the ways of God with man in these early days, is reflected in the divine record, and nowhere more so than in the book of Genesis. There it was in the account of creation in itself (Gen. 1), and in its varied relations (Gen. 2). Nor was it only with Adam and Eve, innocent or fallen (Gen. 3), but with wicked Cain (Gen. 4) and with righteous Noah (Gen. 6-9). A similar feature prevails throughout the book, as the expression on the one hand of tender interest and on the other hand of His heart grieved by perverseness and rebellion in those that were the object of His great and countless favours. We see it even with such as Pharaoh (Gen. 12) and Abimelech (Gen. 21), not only with Abraham (Gen. 12-22), Isaac (Gen. 26) and Jacob (Gen. 28), but with Sarah. (Gen. 18: 15) and Laban too (Gen. 31), Hagar also (Gen. 16: 7-13), and Rebekah (Gen. 25: 23). The same simplicity characterises the ways as the words of God, and produced like effects on the faithful.

"And Jehovah came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of Man builded. And Jehovah said, Behold, the people [are] one, and have all one language (lip); and this have they begun to do; and now they will not be hindered in all that they meditate to do. Come, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech (lip)" (vers 5-7).

He Who is not the Creator only but the moral governor, Jehovah, came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of Man builded. No designation suited the occasion but this. For He it is Who concerned Himself with all who stood in moral relation with Him, as He had breathed into the nostrils of their first father the breath of life In the style of the account He would also impress His people with, His calm and full judicial survey of men's ways, though all was known to Him from the beginning (ver. 5). God was in none of their thoughts. They never thought of a temple to His honour being a centre for themselves. They built no altar to Jehovah, as Noah did on emerging from the ark. They called not on His name, neither sought they His will. On the contrary, "let us make us a name" was their purpose; "let us build us a city and a tower, whose top [is] unto heaven," their plan, "lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth."

It was Jehovah thrown off in open independency; and as He saw and said and wrought before the deluge, so did He now deliberately and righteously deal with this new and daring impiety. We may be assured that those who walked with God had no fellowship with a project of practical atheism. If they forgot Him, it is no wonder that Noah or Shem did not enter their minds. To the exclusion of God, the root of all infidelity, they would make themselves a public centre and a striking rallying-place. What did it matter to them that God called man to replenish the earth? Here on this fertile plain, watered by two noble rivers, would they dwell, and construct such a visible symbol of that union which is strength as would keep them together and guard against all danger of scattering. But Jehovah had His plan wholly differing; and at they abandoned both Him and His expressed will, so He made manifest their folly, and perforce scattered them by a simple, peaceful, and effectual means which subsists to this day. How vain is human wisdom in collision with God! How ineffectual is the prudence that trusts self and does without Him! What sin too!

"And Jehovah said, Behold, the people are one, and have all one language, and this have they begun to do; and now they will not be hindered in all that they meditate to do. Come, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech."

The race had dared to set themselves in direct opposition to Jehovah, Who, in answer to Noah's offering of sweet savour, had guaranteed the continuance of the earth with its seasons, the ground to be cursed no more for man's sake, nor any more every living thing to be smitten as by the deluge. It was not the day for the powers of heaven to be shaken, nor for the kingdom of God to come in power and glory for the earth. But as the principle of government had been set up in Noah, so Jehovah was content to confound man's scheme of union without God, themselves the makers of a centre the work of their own device and of their own hands! It was a universal socialism they sought, which Jehovah brought to nought by the confusion of tongues. This compelled them, not only to give up their godless project, but to disperse according to His will and replenish the earth.

What a contrast with God's work in the church! Therein grace gathered from every nation under heaven. There in honour of Him, the righteous Servant of Jehovah (Who suffered for our sins to the uttermost, died, rose, and ascended). His name was the God-given centre; and in virtue of one Spirit were we all baptised into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free, and were all given to drink of one Spirit. Thus was He Whom all in heaven adore made the object of worship and service for all that believe on earth: a worthy and divine centre; else it would have been an idolatrous rival and a derogation from the true God. But on the contrary it is His revealed word that we honour Christ as we honour the Father, Who is' only known and possessed by such as thus confess the Son. And in witness of the gracious power of God in Christ, while the government of men was left as it had been, and the effect of divine judgment in divers tongues still subsists, His love wrought in unlettered Jews, become Christians, to proclaim the wonderful works of God in all the tongues of Gentiles.

Still greater or at least wider and more conspicuous will the contrast be when the Son of man appears in the clouds of heaven, dominion and glory given Him, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages shall serve Him: His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. Even then manifestly all the peoples, languages, and nations remain, but in blessed harmony around the true centre to the glory of God the Father. Only in the eternal state will such distinctions vanish, when God shall be all in all, and His tabernacle be with men.

GENESIS 11: 5-7.

As the case of the Babel-builders is quite misconceived latterly by some of influence, it seems well to review the observations made by the late Abp. Whately in the third Preliminary Dissertation of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (ed. eighth). Here they are in extenso.

"There is reason to believe that the confusion which is recorded as having occurred at Babel* afterwards called Babylon,* and which caused the dispersion of mankind into various countries, was in reality a dispute among them as to their worship of some god or gods. This at least is certain, that the scheme mentioned in Gen. 11 was something displeasing to God, and therefore could not have been merely the building of a tower. And it is plain also from the Bible history, that some ages after the flood mankind had very generally fallen into gross idolatry, though we are not told expressly when and how it was introduced. As for the Tower of Babel, it is said indeed in our version that a number of persons joined together to build 'a tower whose top should reach to heaven' (our translators meant an exceeding high tower), in order that they might 'not be scattered over the face of the whole earth'; and that God sent on them a confusion of language, which 'caused them to cease building the tower, and scattered them.' But it is to be observed that the word 'reach' is supplied by our translators, there being nothing answering to it in the original, which merely says, 'whose top to the heavens.' And the meaning doubtless is, that the top of the tower should be dedicated to the heavens — that is, that a temple should be built on it to Bel, Belus, Zeus, or Jupiter; under which title the ancient Pagans worshipped the heavens, For we find the historian Herodotus (I. cxxxi.) who many ages later visited Babylon, expressly declaring that there was there in his time a very high tower, on the top of which was a temple to Belus; who, he says, was the same with the Zeus of the Greeks. The ancient Pagans, it is well known, were accustomed to erect altars to the Heavens, or to the Sun, on 'high places' (Numbers 33: 52), on the loftiest mountains. And as the land of Shinar is a very fertile plain of vast extent and quite level, it seems to have been designed to make a sort of artificial mountain on it — that is, a very high tower — and to build a temple on the top of this, to their god Belus, and so establish a great empire of people worshipping at this temple. The 'confusion' which God sent among them, and which caused the tower to be less lofty than originally designed, and dispersed many of the people into other lands, was most likely not a confusion of languages, but a dissension about religious worship. The word in the original literally signifies lip. And it is more likely that it was used to signify worship than language. A dissension as to that which was the very object of the building would much more effectually defeat the scheme than a confusion of languages. For labourers engaged in any work, and speaking different languages, would in a few days learn by the help of signs to understand one another sufficiently to enable them to go on with their work. But if they disagreed as to the very object proposed, this would effectually break up the community. As for the different languages now spoken in the world, there is no need of explaining that by any miraculous interference. For tribes who have not the use of letters, and have but little mutual intercourse, vary so much from each other in the language after even a few generations, as not to be able at all to understand each other" (465, 466).

*This is a mistake, the first being the Hebrew word, the second its Greek form. Hence the LXX give Βαβυλὼν in Gen. 10: 10 and translate Σύγχυσις. Confusion, in Gen. 11: 9.

Those who accept what has been said already on these verses will have no hesitation in pronouncing the whole statement a string of strange fancies, which supplant the truth, concluding with undisguised disbelief of scripture. Not a trace does the inspired narrative give of a dispute about worship. Not a word breathes a question about the true God, still less does it "about some god or gods." We hear of a city and a tower. A temple was as wholly absent from their minds as God Himself. This could not but be displeasing to God.

But there was far more here. They sought only their own glory. They wilfully hid from themselves His judgment of the antediluvian world, and His merciful preservation of a few, their own progenitors still living. They set their heart unitedly on a city, and a lofty tower which built on the plain should call attention all the more as a centralising object in the land of their settlement. The name of God was nothing in their eyes. "Let us make ourselves a name." Was this a peccadillo in the eyes of the archbishop? Their aim was the unity of man without God, and this avowedly in self-exaltation. What a tale it tells that a prelate should fail to understand how displeasing this must be to God! It was setting up a unity of man independently of God; it was claiming for themselves what alone can in truth belong to God, alone is due to His power and glory, to His righteousness and mercy. It was rebellion and usurpation. He alone is the rightful centre.

They did not yet set up "some god or gods." They left the true God out. They would make a name for themselves. It was not merely the building of a tower, but man's first collective effort after unity without God; to make himself a name round a self-made centre, instead of multiplying and replenishing the earth. The time would soon come when they would set up other gods beside and before God. The time will at last come when a man, energised by Satan, shall sit down in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. But to every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven; and neither of these had yet come.

It was however sad and evil enough, that, while the witnesses of a divine and universal judgment still lived to glorify God for his saving themselves through the deluge, the progeny could forsake the fountain of living water, and set themselves up, cisterns, broken cisterns, that could hold no water. The language of Jehovah confirms all this as the truth; not a word here points to strange gods or idols. "Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do; and now nothing Will be restrained from them — all which they purpose doing." It was irreligious combination, not false worship. "Once hath God spoken, twice have I heard this, that strength [belongeth] unto God." They had heeded not but forgotten Him. Their own union would be their strength, and a name of renown on earth. At the end punitive judgment must fall on the full results. But meanwhile Jehovah would bring their pride to nought, and would disperse them by a means as simple as effectual. He would there confound their language, that they should not understand one another's speech; and they would be compelled to scatter as they feared. But what mercy in their dispersion! Not a hair of their heads was lost.

It is utterly unfounded that ver. 4 can mean "a top dedicated to the heavens." This is perversion, and one so gross that no version however faulty known to me follows it, no scholar as far as I know has ever attempted to justify it. Nor can the testimony so late in the day prove any thing of the original tower, even if the site were the same. Not till afterwards was the worship of the heavens, as of the sun, or of Bel. Nor had dissension about worship the least to do with the bold builders of Babel, any more than the word translated "language" and "speech" (lit. "lip") means worship. Indeed it is a notion destructive of the plain sense of the history. If we assume it, what folly! Does Jehovah create ever so many forms of false worship? He certainly made the "one lip" to be many even if the wonder seemed too great for Dr. W. to believe,

The tower then was not designed for religion, but as a rallying centre for man in that great plain; which was thoroughly frustrated by the confusion of tongues. The Abp. talks of labourers learning signs of communication; but the sudden completeness of the divine measure overawed men too much, lest a worse thing might befall them. They had not yet learnt the rationalists' lesson. The fact that all as yet spoke one language, though men had lived some seventeen or eighteen centuries, not crowded together, nor boasting the use of letters any more than much mutual intercourse, makes only the more impressive Jehovah's dealing in the immediate introduction of different tongues. Yet was it a dealing tempered with wisdom and mercy; for each tongue was spoken by the same clan. They did not part (as might easily have been if God had so willed) from their families, but spread abroad after their generations; and national history thus began in their various lands. How paltry is the misreading, how worthy is the truth!

GENESIS 11: 8, 9.

Thus was the scheme of human self-will brought to nought. They had left out God and at best forgotten His word. They had dared to oppose His will Who commanded that they should fill the earth. They sought on the contrary to hold together in a region well suited for union, being alike fertile in itself and peculiarly adapted to receive supplies from all sides. There they proposed not only to build a city and a tower of imposing pretension, but to make themselves a name, that they should not be scattered over the face of the whole earth. Therefore Jehovah interfered, not yet in punishment of their rebellious audacity, but by a dealing which left no doubt of His hand and compelled their dispersion according to His declared mind.

"And Jehovah scattered them thence over the face of the whole earth. And they left off building the city. Therefore was its name called Babel (confusion); because Jehovah there confounded the language of the whole earth. And Jehovah scattered them thence over the face of the whole earth" (vers. 8, 9).

Thus it was that mankind spread everywhere after the flood. It came to pass after a certain lapse of time, not willingly but under the constraint of divine power. This so thoroughly and at once confounded them, that they might well dread the issue of any further effort to disobey. Thus nationalities began, each with its peculiar tongue, in their lands, but as mercy ruled according to their families. There was no confusion in Jehovah's ordering. Gen. 11: 1-9 is the key to the previous Gen. 10, the moral account thus graphically of what was there given as a fact.

It is sorrowful to find the lack of simple faith even in minds not at all unfriendly to revelation. But men suffer, partly through undue heed to tradition, partly through indulging in dreams of their own. Thus Jacob Bryant, in his New System, or Analysis of Ancient Mythology (vol. iv. 31-15, 3rd edition, 1807), strives to give a very different turn to the confusion of tongues. As his learned work may weigh with some, it seems well to notice briefly what he alleges for denying the general bearing of the event, which he would limit to the Cushite, and pare down in itself to a labial failure, so that the people affected could not articulate and thus failed to understand each other.

"This I take to be the true purport of the history: from whence we may infer that the confusion of language was a partial event; and that the whole of mankind is by no means to be included in the dispersion from Babel. It related chiefly to the sons of Cush, whose intention was to have founded a great, if not an universal, empire; but by this judgment their purpose was defeated" (37). Hence he distinguishes the scattering here as partial, from the earth divided to the nations in the days of Peleg as a general event in which all were concerned. "We must therefore, instead of the language of all the earth, substitute the language of the whole country"; also "a failure and incapacity in labial utterance. By this their speech was confounded, but not altered; for as soon as they separated, they recovered their true tenor of pronunciation; and the language of the earth continued for some ages nearly the same." For evidence Mr. Bryant sends us to M. A. Court de Gebelin's Monde Primitif Analysé et comparé avec le Monde Moderne, in nine vols. 4to (1774-1784): an ambitious effort of no solid value, any more than this speculation of our own countryman before us.

Now not a word in scripture belittles the fact or God's dealing as is here done. In Gen. 10: 8-10 we have the pride of power which a son of Cush betrayed early; but a wholly different phase is here, not individual usurpation, nor a kingdom or empire, but a sort of universal republic, as we have already remarked. In that chapter which is not chronological but descriptive we have simply the families of Noah's sons after their families and tongues, in their lands and nations. Here in Gen. 11 we have the moral cause, why Jehovah scattered them contrary to their perverse resolve to hold together in the land of Shinar. We have not a word about Nimrod or any other individual here. The force lies in its universality. Attention is expressly called to the whole earth being of one lip and of words alike also. Not a hint is dropped of one land in particular. There would be nothing to surprise in one country pervaded by one tongue; but we are reminded of the state that thus characterised all the earth, in order the better to appreciate the judgment which compelled men suddenly to speak diversely, and so not to understand one another's speech.

It is then an unsubstantial dream to fancy that it was only the Cushites, however numerously followed by others. — Not only is there no evidence of any specific family, but the inspired record excludes any such construction. Nimrod was subsequent to the scattering; for "the beginning of his kingdom was Babel," other cities following. He was not afraid to start his ambitious enterprise from a city branded by divine displeasure. The scattering had already taken place. It was a new form of man's will; for there was no thought or pretence of its being ordained of God. Nor was there any such mark of God's intervention as that which dealt with their purpose to unite unholily and to make themselves a name.

But it was no mere temporary fit of labial failure as Bryant imagined, again without a scrap of divine evidence. It was Jehovah confounding their language, so that men should be no longer one, but be divided into nations henceforth, though mercy took care that the tongues should not dislocate their families. It was Jehovah's doing, not nature nor circumstances, nor development, but a manifestly judicial and a lasting dealing of divine power. And the account is exactly suited to the inspired and only reliable Book of Origins; where man's history fails, and tradition is as puerile and misleading as pretentious philosophy, spinning cobwebs from within.

GENESIS 11: 10-26.

We are now presented with a genealogy which ends with Abram, and is followed in the next chapter with the mighty principle of grace, God's call. That prepares the way outwardly. But Jehovah shines through this dealing and revelation. Here we have the special line. It is no more an "endless genealogy" than that of Adam to Noah in Gen. 5. We may notice ten links in the chain of both chapters.

But there are notable differences to be noticed also. The sorrowful chime is heard throughout the earlier one, "and he died." — Not once does this sound in the later one, though as a fact all spoken of in chap. 11 did die; whereas there was in chap. 5 the conspicuous exception of Enoch, "who walked with God and was not, for God took him." Human life was so prolonged in those days, that it was all the more affecting to say of each with that exception, "and he died." In the latter half of chap. 11 we read of the line of blessing, and we are told of each succession down to Abram, the time when the promise was made, and the years were lived; but nothing is said of death. Let who will count either accidental, the believer can hardly avoid seeing a distinct purpose in each, which may well awaken serious but happy reflections.

Again, neither is drawn in the style of formal, legal, or historical documents. Each is suited to its own place where it is placed by inspiration, and either would be strange in any book but God's. Yet are they invested with such precise information over the earliest ages, before the Deluge and after it, without a gap, that no genealogical line for that period outside of scripture can be compared with it. But over and above reliable information as to every link in the chain, a special design on God's part governs in each case. This even now earthly learning fails to see, and it has no interest for those intent on literary questions. Yet how great a thing for those whose ears are opened to the voice and teaching of God! But a divine purpose is as far as possible from casual documents or floating traditions from ancient sources, nobody knows whence, pieced together at a later date. The fact of a deep and distinct moral design pervading these lists respectively refutes the notion of any such trivial accident.

"These are the generations of Shem. Shem was a hundred years old, and begot Arphaxad two years after the flood; and Shem lived after he had begotten Arphaxad five hundred years, and begot soils and daughters. And Arphaxad lived thirty-five years, and begot Shelah; and Arphaxad lived after he had begotten Shelah four hundred and three years, and begot sons and daughters. And Shelah lived thirty years, and begot Eber; and Shelah lived after he had begotten Eber four hundred and three years, and begot sons and daughters. And Eber lived thirty-four years, and begot Peleg; and Eber lived after he had begotten Peleg four hundred and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters. And Peleg lived thirty years and begot Reu; and Peleg lived after he had begotten Reu two hundred and nine years, and begot sons and daughters. And Reu lived thirty-two years, and begot Serug; and Reu lived after he had begotten Serug two hundred and seven years, and begot sons and daughters. And Serug lived thirty years and begot Nahor; and Serug lived after he had begotten Nahor two hundred years, and begot sons and daughters. And Nahor lived twenty-nine years, and begot Terah; and Nahor lived after he had begotten Terah a hundred and nineteen years, and begot sons and daughters. And Terah lived seventy years, and begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran" (vers. 10-26).

We may readily discern the speciality of this account by comparing it with what is said of the same progenitor in Gen. 10: 21. "And to Shem, to him also were [sons] born; he is the father of all the sons of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder. The sons of Shem: Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud and Aram." Here the aim is quite of another kind in a genealogy of Noah's sons parting into their several lands, every one after his tongue, family, and nation. Even so, it wears little or no resemblance to a document such as any human object might demand. For Elam and Asshur, though of celebrity among mankind (prominent also in the Bible and connected with Jewish story), are but named, though before Arphaxad, like Lud after him; and the apparently youngest, Aram, is introduced before Arphaxad. "And the sons of Aram: Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Mash."

Certainly the divine wisdom of the record is not at all questioned; but it is not man's fashion. Divine design is stamped on this case, as in the other lists, There is neither repetition nor oversight, still less the clashing of differing documents or writers. Not the slightest evidence of solid worth has ever been alleged to shake the fact that Moses wrote every one of them; but the truth still more precious to the believer, and most solemn for every other, is that God is the author of all, And we can perceive that the design in chap. 10 was not to pursue Arphaxad's line there beyond his grandson, Eber's son Peleg, to state the deeply interesting fact of his name's reference to the division of the earth in his days. Thence it branches off to his brother Joktan, and his sons who settled in the south of Arabia west and east.

Compared with his father Noah and those before him, Shem's years mark the growing diminution of human age after the flood. Yet it was given to him before he came near the end of his six hundred years to live into the days not of Abram only but of Isaac. Peleg, the fifth in this series, did not reach half the limit of Shem's term; and Nahor, the father of Terah, dwindled to a hundred and forty-five years. So that in God's providential arrangements man was coming by rapid steps to the span of years ordinary since the prayer of Moses (Ps. 90), himself an exception as there have been a few even in modern times.

GENESIS 11: 26.

At this point it seems well to look a little more closely into "the generations" which so frequently come before us in this book. Some remarks on them were made in looking at the verses preceding; but the matter well deserves further consideration.

No believer in God's plenary inspiration of the scriptures is under the least necessity of denying the incorporation of human documents, any more than of speeches or conversations of men who may have been godless or hostile. Thus in Acts 23 we have the letter from the chiliarch Claudius Lysias to Felix the governor; and in Acts 24 follows the speech of the rhetorician Tertullus accusing Paul. The speech was public, the letter private; but there this is, evidently just as it was written, as the Holy Spirit designed that we should know it. Yet there is no reason to imagine that the contents transpired through officers at Jerusalem or at Caesarea friendly to Paul. He who inspired Luke to give the private document as unerringly as the open speech is in no way limited to any such means; and it is unwarrantable, when we read of such things in scripture, to cast about for some conceivable way of a natural kind to account for them. The great fact is that in a world of evil, falsehood, and vanity, scripture gives us the truth, and this in relation to God as well as to man. Thus only can we have the certainty of His mind revealed to us, though we still need the guidance of His Spirit in its apprehension and application.

If then God led Moses, in writing the book of Genesis, to make use of documents written (say) by Noah, Shem, the Patriarchs, Joseph and any others, there could be no valid objection on that score. But the unity of style and plan, which pervades each part in the face of all that petty criticism has ever alleged to the contrary, does stand adverse to any such theory. The essential condition is that God should inspire His chosen vehicle to convey to us the truth as He intended it for His own. It cannot be denied on solid ground that the alphabet even of Greece and Rome points to a Shemitic source, though it may have reached them according to the common tradition through a Phoenician or an Egyptian channel. In the days of Moses, at least in the wilderness, the Bible bears testimony that reading and writing prevailed among the Israelites, not merely in a sacred or learned class, but even largely among the rest (Deut. 6: 9; Deut. 11: 20; Deut. 24: 1, 3). Thus from the earliest date of inspiration there was no difficulty of finding writers or readers.

Is it true then that the book of "Genesis is a compilation, and is stated so to be?" Is it the fact that these "generations" prove it to consist of so many separate documents, each beginning with this title? Let us see.

The first occurs in Gen. 2: 4: "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah Elohim made earth and heavens." Now it is plain that this opening verse of a new section of the book, characterised by a very special employment of the divine names* in the rest of Gen. 2 and in Gen. 3, also sums up the salient facts of Gen. 1. What went before gave creation completely. The new section does not speak of the creation of the heavens and earth. It is not a second, still less a different or discordant account, but the added revelation of man set in moral responsibility, tried by Jehovah Elohim; as he, and he only, is said here to become a living soul by His immediate communication of the breath of life. Hence here we have the park or garden planted by Jehovah Elohim; here the tree of life, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; here a simple test of obedience suited to innocence. Here too the relation of the man and the woman is given, and Adam's exercised authority over the lower creation, in contrast with his associate taken out of himself, his one meet companion, whose name he gave to mark the difference. Then in Gen. 3 under the same name of the Creator in moral relationship, the Temptation and the Fall, the present result in death and ruin, but with the revelation of the Deliverer in the woman's Seed: a wholly new presentation of the truth on the moral side, and grace too rising above sin, not the platform of creation as in what preceded (Gen. 1- 2: 3).

* Gen. 4 drops the combined form of the divine name, marking perhaps the henceforth ordinary ways of man under his moral government; save that Eve, having found out her haste and error in connecting Cain's birth with Jehovah, speaks only of Elohim on that of Seth (ver. 25).

Who but the Supreme could have made known the majestic course of creation, and in terms as simple for the hearer as dignified for the Speaker? Was Adam, or any of his sons, the man to announce the solemn yet profound message of his trial and fall, and of the yet future triumph of the bruised Seed of the woman? These assuredly are not casual fragments or "separate documents," but the words of the One Infinite conveying His mind on the immense foundations of divine truth, creation every whit good, and creation with its head ruined through sin and Satan till the Second man by redemption and in power vanquish the enemy, deliver those that believe, and reconcile all things to God's glory. The title is in the precisely right place. Had it been put as a heading to Gen. 1, it would have utterly marred the calm sublimity of the description. Where it stands, it is a suited introduction to the moral government that follows, while it seals the already accomplished grand material work, of the one true God; it shows us all coming to ruin that hung on the first man, and points to the Second and Last as the object of faith and destroyer of Satan.

Next in Gen. 5 we have and here only, and most appropriately, "the book"* of Adam's generations. It says Elohim throughout, save in Lamech's prophecy where His government comes in, and therefore we hear of Jehovah. It is a summary of the antediluvian world. Who could have drawn it up but Himself?

* The remark that "book" was unknown in those, days, if true, is nothing to the purpose. Books abounded in the days of Moses, as is, now certain to unbelievers from evidence no longer contested. The believer needs no other proof than Ex. 17: 14, which assumes the fact.

Then in Gen. 6: 9 we read, "These are the generations of Noah:" where the fitting ground is given for his exemption from the flood, with his "three sons and their wives; and "the book" of chap 5 would be out of place.

In Gen. 10 we have the generations of the sons of Noah," but there collaterally rather than successively unless in measure and for special reason, in order to set out an entirely new thing, the separation of the nations, after their families and tongues, and in their lands. The moral cause is explained in Gen. 11: 1-9; after which we find "the generations of Shem" in vers. 10-26, and those "of Terah" to complete the picture, and make way for Abram, the man of God's choice, call, and promise. Here we have, unlike any of those before, at least two genealogies side by side: the nations separate one from another, and the man separated to God with blessing and promise in him, and his seed natural or spiritual.

After Abraham's death in Gen. 25, we have also two genealogies — vers. 12-18 Ishmael's, and vers. 19-26 Isaac's — of the flesh, and of promise.

In Gen. 36 we have the generations "of Esau" still more pretentiously, ending in kings before there was such a ruler over the sons of Israel. Only it is untrue that the times of the Jewish monarchy, long after Moses' day, are spoken of. The kings of Israel are not alluded to historically; but not one had reigned in Israel when Edom had been thus ruled. To say the least, the eight named may all have reigned when Moses wrote. Did he not know from God (Deut. 17) that Israel would set up a king? if so, he had to charge Israel that he should not be a foreigner but a brother.

Genesis 37: 2 gives "the generations of Jacob," with Joseph the special object of interest and a plain figure of Him Who was rejected by His brethren and separated thence, but exalted of God and wielding the power of the throne over the Gentiles. In due time His brethren are brought to repentance and humiliation before His glory, and Himself made known to them. Even a mere man, to say nothing of a believer, must be a thoughtless reader of the O.T. in the light of the New, who fails to perceive the type of Christ rejected by His natural brethren, and condemned unjustly by the Gentile, yet the Interpreter of God's mind in humiliation, then raised to be the Saviour of both Jews and Gentiles outside the land, and at last owned by His own people. So in earlier days was Isaac, the beloved son, after the figure of Christ's death and resurrection (Gen. 22), shown us in Canaan only, and the bride brought across the wilderness for union with the heir of promise, to whom the father gave all that he had. Yet the others had gifts; none was forgotten. Ishmael lived before God, and had his twelve sons princes, as Esau had his kings, while the chosen family passed through the furnace and were oppressed in bondage for hundreds of years, Jacob himself typifying their wanderings and sorrows before their restoration and glory.

It is freely granted then that these genealogies are wholly different from those of human pride, and their style in harmony with God's book of beginnings, which adumbrate His ways even to the end of the age and of that to come. The misconception is that God deigns to write history any more than to teach science. But He has written the scriptures to make known Himself and His ways, as well as to let man learn himself as can be nowhere else save in His Son, the centre, substance, and display of all truth. To Him all scripture testifies from Genesis to Revelation. Even these genealogies, which seem strange to literary men and furnish materials for all sorts of speculation to such as lack the key of Christ for all the word, in the midst of much variety of form, testify to one and the same writer, even Moses, and bear the stamp of future purpose as on God's part. Surely it is most important, that we should not fail to recognise His wise and holy mind, but grow in grace and faith and the knowledge of Him Who is our all, but the Judge of all that believe not to their utter and everlasting condemnation. "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me: for he wrote of Me" (John 5: 46).

GENESIS 11: 26.

From the detailed comparison of the genealogies in this book, let us turn to the humbling crisis at this stage of man's sad story. Very interesting it is to note that we are indebted for it to the book of Joshua. In its last chapter we have him making a covenant with the people after his farewell charge at Shechem to the assembled tribes. Thus carefully but in our eyes peculiarly does God order His word. Is it not that we may search and cherish every part of it? Who beforehand could have looked for such important information about the father of Abraham in the book of the conquest of Canaan? Who yet more surprisingly could have anticipated in the Epistle of Jude the account of Michael's contention with Satan? The effort to reduce scripture to the merely human or historical method is vain, Its divinely inspired character is wholly inconsistent with such an aim. Man may not believe God; but he gives Him the lie at his own peril, and must justly suffer if he does not repent.

It is then in Joshua 24 we read that Joshua said to all the people, "Thus saith Jehovah, the God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt of old on the other side of the river [the Euphrates], Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor; and they served other gods." It is the first notice the Bible affords of idolatry; and this not when it began, but when it corrupted the immediate progenitor of Abraham. There was abundant and flagrant evil in the antediluvian world; but of serving other gods we never hear. Nor is there any hint of its existence after the deluge till scripture thus speaks of the fathers in Terah's day, though self-will wrought strangely in the race generally and in Nimrod particularly. God was in none of their thoughts. Human association only drew out dispersion; and individual energy subjugated mankind, as it had the beasts previously.

The judgment of God abides in the confusion of tongues; and man's age dwindles with comparative rapidity down to the common standard that subsists. The obedience or gathering of the peoples is reserved for Shiloh. In Him indeed it is God's purpose to head up all thinks, the things in the heavens, and the things on the earth. The entire universe shall find in Him the true centre; and we who are His shall share His exaltation Who is the Heir, as He was the Creator, of all things.

But the enemy at this point is shown to have taken a new step of daring moment. He establishes himself as God in the worship of mankind; and so successful were his wiles that, when first told of the fact, we hear of its prevalence in the fathers of Israel. Blessed, said Noah, be Jehovah the God of Shem; but now we find the sons of Shem, and in the most favoured stem, serving other gods. Had Ham been thus apostate, or Canaan, Shem's bondman, it were not so astounding. But no; it was not even haughty Japheth enlarging his border and in his earthly energy forgetting the only true God. It was Shem's descendant Torah, father of Abraham and father of Nahor; it was they that "served other gods." This too was the fitting moment to show how grace had shone on Abraham, when he and his brother and his father were walking thus evilly, separating him to be a witness of the true God. So the sons of Israel knew that they themselves were called to be His people and witnesses since Moses led them out of Egypt. But it is precisely therein lay their danger of returning to what they were called out of. This Satan ever seeks as the enemy of God and man: how successfully when God is forgotten! And Joshua appreciated the danger.

Genesis simply states the fact on God's part and on Abram's, and even in this delays stating it till Terah was dead, when Abraham acted on it freely and faithfully, for he had been hindered as long as Terah lived. It is only when Joshua was near his departure that we learn the deplorable evil, to which Jehovah applied in sovereign grace the separative principle of His call, choosing Abraham to enjoy His promise, blessed and a blessing to all the families of the earth, as will yet be proved in the fullest way when Christ comes.

Let us consider the unclean thing as scripture treats it. The deluge left mankind with the strongest impression of the living God's hand. But they soon ceased to glorify Him as God and were unthankful. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and, changing the truth of God into falsehood, they worshipped the creature more than the Creator Who is blessed for ever. Amen. When idolatry began, or by whom is not said, but that Terah and his sons were involved in it. Now in 1 Cor. 10: 20 the apostle, citing Deut. 32: 17, pronounces on what it really is, though the form may differ. The worship of the heavens and all its host, of the earth and the sea and their denizens, the serpent especially, or again of heroes and departed ancestors, or of fabulous beings and their images, soon laid hold of men's imagination, not only to shut out God but to debase their votaries to the uttermost. And no wonder. For both O.T. and New, as we have seen, declare that what they sacrificed they sacrificed to demons, not to God. Demons ware in effect behind the idols. If the idols were nothing in themselves, the demons were an awful reality of subtle and malignant evil to the ruin of such as paid the idols reverence.

Man was corrupt and violent, as before the deluge. But it was an awful advance in rebellion against God, when men not only did without Him absolutely, but chose as their gods many and lords many those who were only mightier rebels than themselves. What a deadly insult to the true God!

How humbling that the lesson is lost on philosophising linguists like Max Müller! In the second series of Lectures on the Science of Language (419-425) he mildly deprecates the strong language of the Bible just cited, and misconstrues God's word in Acts 14: 16 and especially in Acts 17: 22-31. He admits a great amount of incontestable truth in "hard words such as idolatry and devil worship," yet he "cannot help thinking that full justice has never been done to the ancient religions of the world (!) not even to those of the Greeks and Romans(!!) who in so many other respects are acknowledged by us as our teachers and models." It is to be feared that a classical taste has not been acquired without the moral degradation which accompanies idolatry, and not least that of Greeks and Romans. Alas! it has ever been apt to dispose the youth of Christendom toward the not less real but more guilty idolatries of Popery and her Greek and Oriental rivals. Augustine was right in believing the inspired warning that demons exercise real mischief in connection with idol worship; he was deplorably wrong in thinking that it was better for professing Christians, as they would get drunk on feast days, thus to indulge in honour of martyrs rather than at the altars of Jove or Bacchus.

So Prof. M. contrasts the language in Acts with that in 1 Cor. 10: 20, saying that the former "are truly Christian words" and that "this is the truly Christian spirit in which we ought to study the ancient religions of the world: not as independent of God, not as the work of an evil spirit, as mere idolatry and devil-worship, not even as mere human fancy, but as a preparation, as a necessary part in the education of the human race — as a race 'seeking the Lord if haply they might feel after him.'" Can infatuation or perversion be more complete? Fallen man has a conscience, which refers even in a pagan to God, and vainly sought satisfaction by sacrifices to the gods of its own imagining. Of this the apostle at Athens availed himself, by an altar 'to God unknown," to proclaim the true and only God. It is too plain that this learned man failed to see the perfect consistency of seeking to win the heathen by preaching the grace and truth of Him Whom they knew not, while sternly reproving the profane levity of the Corinthians in partaking of the table and of the cup at a Gentile temple, on the plea that the idol was nothing. The same apostle declares that to do so is communion with demons, and that he did not wish them to be in communion with demons. Think of Paul wishing them or any other Christians "to study the ancient religions of the world!" and to study them "as a preparation, as a necessary part of the education of the human race!" Such is the wisdom of this age, totally insensible to what God revealed to us through the Spirit, as it is to what the cross of Christ means.

GENESIS 11: 26.

The verse before us is a remarkable example of the manner of scripture which men are apt to mistake. Terah, it is written, lived seventy years, and begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran. So it was said, Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah begot Shem, Bare, and Japheth, The father's age was stated before naming any that were begotten. In neither case also was the elder named first but last, as the examination of other scriptures proves beyond just doubt. The first place in both cases was given to mark the special and spiritual honour God put on each respectively. We have already spoken of the relative seniority of Noah's sons. Here it remains to determine from scriptural facts that of Terah's family.

Now we are told in ver. 32 that Terah lived two hundred and five years. As the birth of his eldest occurred when he was seventy, it could not have been Abram; for he was but seventy five years of age as we are told in Gen. 12: 4, when he left Charan, after Terah's death. He was not begotten therefore till sixty years after the firstborn. It would seem from the history that Haran was the eldest son, born when his father was seventy. Thereby we can understand how Nahor married Haran's daughter Milcah, his niece, and (if the Jewish tradition were reliable that Iscah and Sarah are the same) Abram did also. We also apprehend more clearly how the granddaughter of Nahor became the wife of Isaac, Abraham's son. Nor is it hard to explain why Sarah should be spoken of as his sister, seeing that Lot is spoken of as his brother, though strictly his brother's son.

Nevertheless I cannot but believe that the words of Abram to Abimelech (Gen. 20: 12) point more naturally to Terah as Sarah's father by a second and later wife, as she was ten years younger than her husband. Scripture does not hide the facts which were at issue with the law given at a later day; but it is easy to see that the Jews might endeavour to soften or get rid of what was discreditable by a so called tradition, and might seek to confirm their wish by any phrase of scripture which could lend it colour.

Abram then, though the youngest son, took precedence in God's mind and word through the grace that was shown him. "The last was made first": a principle applied frequently in Scripture, and in the N.T. even more distinctly than in the Old, though there we see it every now and then from the earliest book to the latest. Nor need any wonder that Abram should be thus honoured. We have seen ample grounds for it already, and may observe more, In him God began a new headship, not like fallen Adam of mankind universally as they are, but of the faithful. He is the one of whom it is written, that "he believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness" (Gen. 15). It is not insinuated that Abel, Enoch, Noah, or others did not believe God before; but in him the privilege of faith was first publicly established, being brought out in a striking manner, as exercised on a. definite promise.

Abram had already been called out into separation by the appearing of the God of glory to him in Ur of the Chaldees; and it was to a very thorough separation from country and kindred and father's house. These associations might be and were the. providential arrangements subsisting still, as the general rule for all mankind since the confusion of tongues, families, countries, and nations; yet Jehovah called Abram to come out of them all. And more was added, not only in Gen. 15 but in Gen. 17, which gave him, to say this only, a unique place, as the starting-point of that line of promise and testimony, which the apostle compares to the olive tree in Rom. 11, reasoning on it at great length not in this Epistle only but in that to the churches of Galatia. For it came to light first in his seed after the flesh, who, accepting law as their tenure, and consequently their own righteousness, lost everything in the face of the patient and persevering dealings of Jehovah and all possible healing measures till there was no remedy. Even the advent of the Messiah served but to aggravate and seal their ruin on the ground of their responsibility; for they utterly rejected Him, as they do still, till in the latter day they repent and say, Blessed He that cometh in the name of Jehovah. Self will be renounced and judged; divine mercy in Messiah, all their confidence, rest, and boast. Meanwhile during the gap made by their rejection there is secondly not only the remnant according to the election of grace, but the call of Gentiles who believe and (being Christ's) become the seed of Abraham and heirs according to promise. He who was raised up to bring out that which rises far above all such hopes, the mystery concerning Christ and concerning the church, the apostle of the Gentiles, is also the most careful to clear the promise assured to all the seed, not only to that which is of the law, but also to that which is of the faith of Abraham who is father of us all.

Who can be surprised then that God's word should place Terah's youngest son before his older brothers? The reader is left to search out the facts there revealed for his soul's profit, where those we find honoured, who honour God, their haste confounded who doubt, and their faith confirmed who believe. How many and great are the errors of such as try to persuade themselves and others, that the Bible is to be treated like any other book! How could this if it be, as it claims to be, the word of God?

GENESIS 11: 27, 28.

We have seen then the immense importance of what God was pleased to accomplish in the call of Abram. But that which accompanies it is not without its interesting instruction, as a brief notice may help to show.

"And these [are] the generations of Terah: Terah begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begot Lot. And Haran died before the face of Terah his father in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldeans" (vers. 27, 28).

The order of the three sons of Terah reverses that of nature. Abram was in no sense the head of the family after the flesh, not even when his brother Haran died. The comparison of dates and facts makes it evident that Abram was the youngest of all, and as Haran was born when his father was seventy, so Abram only when he was one hundred and thirty years of age. His foremost place therefore was due to the choice of God.

We may dismiss the traditional dream (Ant. i. 7 § 2) which Josephus was too prone to interweave with inspiration, in order to aggrandise the head of the Jewish people and to commend him in the eyes of Greeks and Romans for wisdom and knowledge, as the teacher of monotheism to the Chaldeans, as well as of astronomy and mathematics to the Egyptians. He even quotes Nicolaus of Damascus, a contemporary of Augustus and therefore not long before his own day, for Abram's reign over Damascus, whither "he came with an army out of the land above Babylon, called the land of the Chaldeans. But after a long time he got him up and removed from that country with his people also, and came into the land then called the land of Canaan, and this when his posterity were become a multitude." Yet all this is not only without but opposed to scripture, which, brief as it may be, gives us to gather with certainty that the delay was in Charran or Harran, not in Damascus, and that Abram had no "posterity" till a much later day. The fact that he had a confidential and chief servant, Eliezer of Damascus, is a slender guarantee of any conquest there, whatever trophy of victory Dean Stanley may have fancied with others (Jewish Church i. 9).

Nor can we entertain for a moment the Jewish tradition which tells of Abram faithful to the true God from his boyhood. That Terah and his family served other gods, we know on divine authority. That Abram, when at fifty years and trusted to sell the idols which his father manufactured, took in hand the practical measure of demonstrating to Terah the sinful folly of idolatry, is a story suited for the credulity of the Jew Apella, even without the legend of Nimrod's punishing Abram in the flames, and the fountain springing up to extinguish them, with a delightful garden, wherein were Been angels sitting and Abram in their midst. Truth needs neither fables nor more miracles to exalt man. It humbles even those whom it blesses to God's glory. "The God of glory (says Stephen, Acts 7: 2) appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia before he dwelt in Charran." Here is the truth of God in its simple and sure and satisfactory light. It was he that believed and acted accordingly. Of Terah we are told nothing which gives happy confidence. Of Haran, father of Lot and of Milcah, we only learn that he "died before the face of his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldeans"; he did not reach Charran, the halfway sojourn in the migration; he died before any left their common Chaldean abode. Nahor, it is evident, did not relinquish Ur for Charran till a later day; but there he stayed, so that he made it "his city" in Aram-naharaim or Paddan-Aram.

Wholly distinct was Abram, but it was the sovereign call of God that made him so. "Look unto Abraham your father (says the prophet), and unto Sarah that bare you; God called him alone, and blessed him and increased him." Terah was of no account in this, nor even Lot though designated a "righteous man" in his day. But Abram was called "alone," whoever might accompany him, or share less or more the blessing which was his rich portion.

Still we do not well to confound his singularly honoured place, chosen and called out by promise to be father of the faithful, with that which is now distinctively given to the Christian as in Eph. 1 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, that blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies in Christ, according as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him in love." The difference in character is immense. It is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ Who blessed, not the God of any earthly father. Next, it is universal blessing and above all things of a natural sort on earth. Further, it has no connection with a land to be shown, or Canaan; it is a choice of us in Him Who is above every name. Then again it was not to meet the frightful departure of man when they gave up the true God for other gods who were nothing but puppets with demons behind them. There it was before the world's foundation, a choice not due to creature apostacy or any other evil in time, but flowing from God's own heart when no creature existed to affect it in any way. Nor was it simply to receive blessing or to be the channel for it to all families of the earth, but that we should be holy and blameless in His sight in love. He would surround Himself with partakers of His own nature and character, and this in love. Such was His choice in our case; and this "through Jesus Christ to Himself." What a pattern before Him "according to the good pleasure of his will unto the praise of the glory of his grace!" Could the true God rise higher than this ground and purpose?

GENESIS 11: 29, 30.

Not only is Haran's death "before the face of his father Terah" recorded, but the relationships the other sons contracted. We need not speculate on Haran's death. Enough for us to learn from this note of scripture how unusual it was for a son to die before his father's face in the land of his nativity. Had there been any divine lesson in the undisclosed details and facts, the goodness of our God would have given this also. It is as truly unbelief to imagine or to accept the imaginations of others, as it is to hesitate about the communications of the inspired word. Where scripture ceases to speak, let us learn to be silent. The attempt to conjecture is presumption, the refusal of it honours God and His word.

"And Abram and Nahor took wives: the name of Abram's wife [was] Sarah; and the name of Nahor's wife Milcah, a daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah and the father of Iscah. And Sarah was barren; she [had] no child" (vers. 29, 30).

God takes a beneficent interest not only in the persons who have to do with Him but in their relations, especially in that which, of all natural ties, is the most important for a human being. It may have been that those here in question on either side did not yet know Him; but He at least knew the end from the beginning and guided in His providence those who were to play an influential part in the future dealings of His grace. He registers it in that word of His which endures for ever. He would thus impress its gravity on all that fear Him for their own steps here below. He would have them above all to seek His guidance, now in particular since the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. For there His word assures a character of deeper intimacy than with a people chosen to be the theatre of His direct government, or even with the fathers resting on His promises. Nor is it only that His word is thus adapted to our calling; for He has now also given us the Holy Spirit in the power of personal indwelling, to speak of nothing else, which could not be till sin was judged in the cross, and the Saviour took His new place in heaven before God. Therefore if any one be in Christ, it is a new creation: the old things are past; behold, all things are made new. And all things are of God Who reconciled us to Himself by Christ.

Nor is this all. For the true and sound knowledge which grace gives us of God enables the Christian to vindicate Him as to the things of the old creation, instead of yielding to the teachings of demons which would put a slight on marriage or meats, as we read in 1 Tim. 4. Thus Satan way, to dishonour the Creator, affect a spurious holiness. But the truth delivers us from such reveries and insists that every creature of God is good, and that nothing is to be refused if received with thanksgiving, for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. Now we know every barrier gone in Christ's death: not divine compassion only come down where and as we were, but ourselves free to draw near to God in His victorious love, proved to the full, efficacious and everlasting. Unbelief may mock Christ and His work; it must another day take the bitter consequence in the face of the amplest possible evidence to convince and satisfy. But faith is entitled even now to enjoy divine goodness, both in the heavenly sphere where Christ sits, and in the scene where He was rejected, and we still are in our weakness, waiting for the appearing of His glory.

The name of Abram's wife was Sarai, of whom in due time we are told so much comparatively; and this not only in the O.T. history, but in the profoundly instructive comment of the great apostle in N.T. doctrine. Of Milcah we hear but little. She was Haran's daughter and Nahor's wife, and as Gen. 22 and 24 inform us, mother of Bethuel and seven other sons. Bethuel was father of Laban and Rebekah, of whom so much is said there or afterwards. No more of Iscah is known than that she too was Haran's daughter. But it is said here that Sarai was barren; she had no child. And this remained a painful fact for many years. Yet was she destined, after long patience of faith, chequered by some impatience of unbelief to bear Abram's heir, the child of promise. In Isaac should his seed be called, type of the "Child born" and — of the "Son given" in Whose name every knee shall bow and every tongue confess, yea, a type of Him even received from the dead in figure. Another woman in after years was to be His immediate mother (Luke 1) and she not barren, though a virgin of David's house when David's tabernacle was fallen down. Of her it was promised centuries before that Emmanuel should be born as He was, Who will assuredly raise up that ruin with every other that is for Jehovah's glory. Highly favoured was that maiden, blessed among women in good sooth. But, as He said (and His words are spirit and life) to a woman who lifted up her voice in blessing the mother, "yea rather, blessed [are] they that hear the word of God and keep it" (Luke 11: 27, 28),

GENESIS 11: 31, 32.

The chapter concludes with the interesting though brief notice here given of Terah and his household. It would be an unbelieving error to overlook the spiritual instruction that every Christian ought to derive from these words of the Holy Spirit. How indeed can men be blessed from above by that which they doom not only human, but even and often unreliable, haphazard and inconsistent, nothing more than tesselated and ill-assorted fragments of men's traditions? If we receive them is God's word, according to the Lord's teaching and example, we are entitled to look for divine light and certain truth as from no other book.

"And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot son of Haran, son of his son, and Sarai, his daughter-in-law, wife of Abram his son; and they set out together from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to the land of Canaan; and they came as far as Charan, and dwelt there, And the days of Terah were two hundred [and] five years; and Terah died in Charan" (vers, 31, 32).

In order to the sure understanding of the case, we do well to avail ourselves of the light afforded in Acts 7: 2-4, where Stephen interprets that which otherwise might easily be misunderstood. "The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia before he dwelt in Charan, and said to him, Go out of thy land and kindred, and come into the land which I will show thee. Then he came out of the Chaldeans' land, and dwelt in Charan. And thence, after his father died, he removed him into this land in which ye now dwell." The verses with which Gen. 11 close give simply the historical fact. Gen. 12: 1-4 give the clue to the failure in carrying out Jehovah's mind. So we saw in Gen. 11: 1-9 the hidden reason why the nations were formed and distributed after their families and tongues over the earth, of which we find only the fact in Gen. 10.

The call of Jehovah was not to Terah but to Abraham, who was called to go out from his kindred as well as his country. Here we learn that he failed. For "Terah took Abraham his son," etc. This was no right answer to the call of God. The consequence was that for the time it came to nothing. "They set out together," kindred and all, "from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to the land of Canaan." But into the land of Canaan they came not. "And they came as far as Charan, and dwelt there." But Charan was no more Canaan than Ur of the Chaldeans. It was an intermediate spot, and in no way the land which Jehovah was to show, and did in due time show Abram when faithful to His word.

But as yet a serious obstacle stood in the way. Abram obeyed only in part. Far from going from his father's house, his father who was not within the terms of the call took the lead, as indeed was but natural if he came with Abram. So we read not even that Abram took Terah, but that "Terah took Abram," thus making the word of God of none effect. Faith is no compromise; it receives and obeys the divine word. Abram was called to break from all that seemed naturally, yea from all that was naturally, dear to him. His first duty was subjection to Jehovah's call, Who would assuredly show him the land according to His promise. And so it ever must be for faith. The call of grace is paramount; and faith confides in God. It is no calculation of interest or ambition, but as Heb. 11 puts it, at length "he went out, not knowing whither he went," assured of God's love, wisdom, and power.

Whether Terah took up the call to Abram in his own strength, or Abram yielded to natural feeling and reason, we know not. But we do know that the attempt to unite the father's house with following the call was fatal to its effect. They might leave Ur, and reach Charan; but they got no farther. Terah died in Charan, aged two hundred and five years, Abram being now seventy-five years old. In the same year that Terah died, Abram departed out of Charan, 'as Jehovah had spoken to him,' though Lot went with him.

Faith was now cleared of its drawback. "And Abram took Sarai his wife and Lot his brother's son, and all the substance they had gathered and the souls they had gotten in Charan; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came" (Gen. 12: 5). The word of Jehovah was thus fully honoured, and the result was simple, pure, and bright accordingly. For it was no longer man essaying only to hinder: God was obeyed. It is not now "Terah took Abram," etc. but "Abram took Sarai," etc. "They went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came." It was the walk of faith, separate to Jehovah, Abram blessed and a blessing. Providence does not fail to watch over the country and the father's house left behind. But this is God's matter, not Abram's. The believer is to go out to Him that called him.

Giving.

Matthew 5: 42.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. N4, p. 340-341.)

In this verse we have a grand principle for the Christian. It comes in at the close of the exhortation to resist not evil, but rather to suffer it, privately, by perversions of law, or from public demand. Christ is the pattern for the disciple; and no sound exposition can explain His word away, however distasteful to flesh and blood. The new nature goes along with it loyally as the perfect law of liberty. Only the fleshly mind seeks evasion by every disingenuous means.

"To him that asketh thee give, and from him that desireth to borrow of thee turn not away." The disciple learns from God that he is a debtor to grace, not only in the outward mercies of every day which he shares with all mankind, but in that still deeper love which quickened him from moral death, death in offences and sins, when a child of wrath by nature. Here a Jew or a Gentile made no difference: as far as we all were concerned, it was a hopeless case of irremediable evil. But God who is rich in mercy, because of His great love wherewith He loved us, quickened us together with Christ, raised us up together, and made us sit down together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus; that He might display in the coming ages the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness upon us in Christ Jesus.

Those whom the Christ then addresses had tasted already that the Lord is good; but they were soon to be brought into its full compass when He died, rose, and ascended on high, and sent forth the Holy Spirit in glorifying Him to guide them into all the truth. The Lord, having before Him such fulness of grace which we were to receive, looks for our appreciation of it by faith and the action of the Holy Spirit on our souls correspondingly. As He said elsewhere, Freely ye received, freely give. It is the mind of heaven reproduced on that earth which was full of sordid selfishness. None were more characterised by covetousness than the Jews, who, having for the time lost their place as Jehovah's witnesses, sought a vent and excuse for their energy in heaping up wealth; to which end cheating their Gentile masters only gave a greater zest. No wonder that souls so blessed by grace should be called to an entirely new walk and an equally new worship, unintelligible to such as do not enter into the Christian calling and hope. Yet the apostle says plainly that we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works .Which God before ordained that we should walk in them.

But Christ came to save not only from wrath but ruin, not only from penalty but from sin, and to form a new character in those that hear His voice and follow Him. It was and could only be His own character. For what was that of Socrates, or of Antoninus Pius, of Gautama Buddha or of Confucius? Shades of vanity or pride, in. comparison with Him who never did His own will but that of God the Father who sent Him, His only-begotten. It was His to come into this world of sin and self to give Himself up as a sacrifice, thus bringing God into it to put sin out of it, as He assuredly will in power as the glorious issue of what He has already done and suffered.

Therefore, as a part of the spiritual process, He would impress on His own the character of grace, and not mere law like a Jew, in which He was the constant witness and blessed perfection. Was there ever a need, a want, a suffering presented to Him without an answer of divine grace and power, and in all human tenderness? He that was about to give Himself up to God for us, what of good did He ever withhold? Money was too small and mean to give, save as meeting the temple-tax. "Take that [from a strange bank!], and give it to them for Me and thee." Hence the words in Luke 6: 38, "Give, and it shall be given you, good measure, pressed down, and shaken together and running over, shall be given into your bosom; for with the same measure with which ye mete it shall be measured to you again." It is literally "they shall give," but so often in Luke impersonally stated, and really pointing to God. Thus as His grace produces its like, so will He never forget it, however man may.

Now, my dear reader, you know that this is far beyond your heart and life; and that, if you strove to emulate such giving, you would soon weary, and find it a law more fiery than the ten words of Sinai. Only Christ set the example; only Christ gives the power. But you must first be at His feet as a lost sinner, casting your soul with all your sins on Him for life, for pardon through His blood, and peace. It is in vain for you to think of giving of your means, till you have come to Him as the neediest of all to receive of His fulness. Only then, when you have Him as your unfailing treasure, will you have the faith and love to make to yourself friends with the mammon of unrighteousness. Only then will you, with single eye and liberal heart, "give to him that asketh of you, and not turn away from him that would borrow of you," be he of the world, or of the household of faith; only then not grievingly, nor of necessity, for God loveth a cheerful giver. And He is able to make every grace abound toward you, that, having in every way always all sufficiency, you may abound to every good work. When grace has saved you by Christ to God's glory, then it will be your joy to follow Christ; and you will shun and hate what is inconsistent with Him, both from your new nature, and in obedience to the word of God.

"Glory and virtue."

2 Peter 1: 3.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. 13, p. 12-14.)

There is an expression of the Spirit of God here that brings out our true blessedness now in contrast even with man before the fall. We are often in the habit, and rightly so, as it is with profit to our souls, of contrasting our place with man fallen; but it is also certain that the grace of God has given us a wholly different place from man unfallen. And there is an expression at the close of this verse that brings out the difference in a way that I think the Lord may use to help our souls and strengthen our faith. The whole runs thus: "According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to (by) glory and virtue." Now such was not at all the case with Adam in the garden. There he was made the head of creation, and everything around him was very good. God looked upon it, and pronounced it good, and Adam's place was simply to enjoy with thanksgiving. He was tested in one small particular, but still he was tested, adequately and wisely, by this point whether he would obey, as in the place of subjection to Him. To abstain from the fruit of one forbidden tree was no hardship, but a real acknowledgement of God's authority, in itself small indeed, so to speak, compared with what was left entirely and thoroughly at his disposal. Just as among men: it may be a person has a vast estate, and all he pays to the sovereign is a peppercorn — that is, it is a pure and simple acknowledgement that he is not independent. Certainly in divine relationships there is sought to be on man's part subjection to One above him, because without this man would be altogether wrong. This accordingly had to be remembered by man, and was maintained by God, who put him to the proof in this particular point. But for man otherwise it was a question simply of enjoying what God had given, and the only spiritual exercise that Adam or Eve could have known in such a state of things was thankfulness of heart in owning the gifts of God's bounty and goodness.

But there was no setting forth at all at that time of heaven or hell. God at first never said anything about either. He warned of death, but not a word more. There was no revelation about another world for man. Consequently their way of looking at God and "the things of God was wholly different from ours in every respect. The only point of contact between Adam in that state and a Christian now is this: God to be acknowledged with thanksgiving, God to be obeyed absolutely. In itself the test might be a very small point, and so it was. It was not all the giving oneself up to God in the way we are now called on to do, as dead to sin and alive to God in Christ. Obedience is now of a far more absolute nature than it could be then because it is tested at every point, instead of being only tested at one, There is not a single thing that we are called upon to do in the course of the day, but what is intended of God to exercise our hearts, not merely that the end should be to Him, but that the way of it should be always according to God too. And Christ is both the only means of knowing the end and the only one by whom we can see the way. He is the way, the truth, and the life. Now Christ was not unveiled to Adam at all; he, unfallen, had no knowledge of Christ whatsoever. He knew God above him, enjoyed the fruits of God's mighty hand, and his heart was to return in thankfulness to God for the enjoyment of all that was his, abstaining from that one tree in the middle of the garden which God had prohibited from his use.

But our place is wholly different. Now we find "his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness." There is no restriction whatever in what God gives us. He rises up in His own majesty, and in His divine power gives us all things that pertain unto life and godliness. We have not so much creature gifts for this life —  indeed these seem hardly included in what is here said to be given with a spiritual end in view. Outward mercies are around us; and we have whatever share of them God is pleased in His providence to give. We confide in His wisdom, and are sure that He knows what is the very best thing for us, and He never fails. He puts us exactly in that place which is the best for us, as well as for Him. Confidence in Him is what makes the heart perfectly happy, because, whatever comes, whether trial, or difficulty, or sorrow, we can never as believers suppose that it is haphazard. It comes from Himself, and there is not a single form of trial or grief but what God can turn, as He means that we by grace should turn it, to His own glory. This is a part of what He calls "all things that pertain unto life and godliness:" because the dispensation of trial and difficulty is the path in which that life has to be exercised, and that godliness to be maintained.

Here, too, we have the manner of it — "through the knowledge of him that hath called us by glory and virtue." It is not merely certain things around us. When the various animals came before him, Adam knew and gave the appropriate name for each animal that was put under his dominion. He discerned their nature, and assigned to them designations, according to the wisdom with which God endowed him. But our privilege is to know Him who has called us. It is the knowledge of God Himself, and of God Himself, not merely as a Creator, but as the God of all grace. "Through the knowledge of him that hath called us by glory and virtue." What did Adam know then about these things? There was not even a question of a "call" of God in Adam's case at that time. There could not be the call of a man unfallen. Calling does not apply to an innocent, but necessarily to a fallen, creature. because calling means that God speaks to take that creature out of the condition in which he then is, and put him into a better. Adam was to magnify God by honouring Him where he was, and by enjoying what was given around him, not by seeking something unseen or greater, and that was why Adam, seeking in disobedience to be greater, lost everything he had so bountifully. Listening to Eve, and really to the devil, he sought to be as God; but in this vain search after becoming as God, he became a sinner. In a certain sense he did become as God, namely, as knowing good and evil; but this is what the creature, as such, could not bear. Only God can have in Himself the knowledge of good and evil, without leaving the good and falling under the power of the evil. If the creature, left to itself, have the knowledge of good and evil, the result is that the evil overpowers and carries him away: he gives up the good, and falls a prey to the evil. The intuitive knowledge of good and evil, apart from law, was what Adam gained by sin. This is not lost to the Christian.

The believer is met by God in the midst of his ruined estate, and the grace of God sends a call to him. This is what God does in the gospel. He calls us, and we hear His voice, and come forth from the grave of our sins at His call, and we are thus the fruit of the resurrection-power of the Lord Jesus Christ. We are thus called out of that misery, and distance, and death before God into which our sins have plunged us. This does not apply to Adam unfallen. He, while innocent in the garden, was not at all in that state: and consequently there was no call to him. Afterwards there was a call. After he had sinned God did call to Adam, who trembled at the sound, and hid himself. There is where the call comes in; but the call of God is not to the conscience only, it is the revelation of His grace and as a deliverer. God's grace accordingly always wrought by the revelation of this coming Deliverer. But now He is fully revealed as well as come; and our chapter supposes this, but still brings in the great principle that is true ever since the fall, though brought out incomparably more fully since the Lord Jesus Christ and redemption have been revealed. We are now called to (or, rather, by His own) glory and virtue; Adam was not. He was simply to enjoy what he had, and what God had given him: but we are called out of everything here, and the force of Christianity, as a practical thing, depends upon our souls entering into this. A man of the world is one that sets himself down to enjoy present things. He has got his good clothing, and his good food, and his good retinue, and everything good around him, or at least what he calls good. But he has not a thought or feeling that all has passed under sin; and it is in his case sanctified in no respect by the word of God and prayer.

All this is a denial of the fall, and this is the whole character of man's course here below. When fallen, he denies the fall. He acts in a way that would have been suitable if he were not a fallen creature. It was Adam's place to enjoy what was around him, and to own God in it, and the worldly man now has his own way of owning God's hand. He perhaps says grace before a meal, or gets another to do it for him, for he generally likes to do religion by deputy. Such is fallen man. There is no real knowledge of God, no knowledge of Him that calls, because, in point of fact, he is not called, he has never heard the voice of God — never met Him in his conscience to own his sins to God, or God's grace to him —  and so he is entirely outside the grace of God; having heard with his ears, he has not heard. It has not entered mind, heart, or conscience — nothing but the outward ear. Now the Christian has heard, and he is called through the knowledge of Him that has called him by His glory and virtue. He is called not to repair the world, not to improve man, not to make a better state of present things; this is not the place of a Christian, but the very reverse. It is just what infidelity attempts to do, because it does not believe in the ruin that sin has brought in, or in God's judgment, any more than His grace in Christ. And wherever a Christian is carried away by the world, he always slips into this.

If any of us who are in this place were to tamper with such thoughts and efforts, we should become worse than anyone else. We should be doing so in the face of truth that condemns it all, and with better knowledge of what God's mind is; and therefore should go back from all we have heard and confessed as the testimony of God. There are none that would so completely bring shame on the truth, and who would lose all conscience, so much as those who are familiar with truth without obedience. The persons who dishonour the Lord most are those who know the truth, but are not subject to it. We find this in the case of the Corinthians. They were true saints of God, and yet there was evil amongst them, such as was not even named among the Gentiles. This did not at all surprise the apostle. It horrified him, but did not take him at unawares. The greater the truth you know, if you deal lightly with it, the worse will be your conduct; and therefore no persons require so earnestly and perseveringly to watch against sin, and to use every means, whether of prayer or of the word of God, for the purpose of our souls being kept pure, simple, and uncompromising. Adam was simply to enjoy what he had in his unfallen state. Man, now fallen, attempts to do the same, which is contempt of God in every way. The character and full picture of this we see in the rich man with Lazarus: "Thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things." There we have the selfishness of the heart blotting out God and man, and only living to gratify self. Is it not an awful, but a common, spectacle in a ruined world?

But the Christian is called to another thing altogether, perhaps to be as Lazarus; but, whether he have evil things or not, he is called by God's glory and by virtue. And, oh, may we think of this, and lay it to heart, that this is what we are called to, every day of our lives! God has, by and in Christ, unveiled heaven to us; His own presence there is our hope. He does not give present enjoyment of things around us. And there is what the grace of God brings out of the fall, or rather from the fall out of Jesus Christ the Lord. Thus has God. so to speak, taken advantage, in His own unbounded grace, of the fact that sin has spoilt the first creation, to bring in a better one. There is no good around us now to act on our souls, nothing but vanity and vexation of spirit; but God has unveiled to our hearts in Christ above a scene where vanity will never enter, and where vexation of spirit cannot be known. And therefore, instead of this being something that will bring praise to ourselves, it is entirely His grace and His calling — "by the knowledge of him that hath called us by his own glory and virtue." Thus does He put His own presence in glory before us, and calls us out by faith thereby. This is why it is said in Romans 3, "All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" — an expression that has perplexed many. Before there was sin, no such thing as the glory of God was set out in any way before man; but when sin came in, this is the standard and measure; and for this Christ's  work fits us. It is not a question of whether I am fit to stand on the earth — sin has spoilt that; but am I fit to stand in the glory of God? The answer is, that only the man who has received Christ, with faith in His blood, is fit for that glory. We are called out of all that we see and are in; we regard and love Christ, who first loved us, as our only Saviour and Deliverer. He is in the glory of God, and we rejoice in hope of it.

Following, but along with this, comes the "virtue," or moral courage, which does not allow the gratification of self, which does not turn the grace and the promises of God to a selfish account. Does faith ever say, Now that I have in hope the world of glory, I must try and enjoy the present world of self? He has called us by His own glory and by virtue. If saved by hope, we have, as the treasure of our hearts, Christ and the glory before us, it is incompatible with Him to seek this world also. The best of this world is a thing to be slighted for Christ, even if we could command all its treasures. And I pray God that we may live upon that which is unseen, assured that, having Christ, we can well afford to be forgotten and cast off, because we cleave to the name of the Crucified in the glory of God.

The Gospel of the Glory of Christ.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. N2, p. 352.)

In the law we must remember that we have only the shadow of good things to come. The great principles of the heavenly scenes are depicted, but not the change by the rending of the veil through which we enter boldly into the holiest, Christ being in glory at the right hand of God, and that through an eternal redemption. Also, the Son not being come, the Father's name and relationship does not apply. For us the veil is rent: a very great difference; and we are children with a Father. We are accepted in the Beloved. God must raise Christ and place Him at His right hand in consideration of that which He had done in glorifying God as to sin and our sins; and we are cleared from our sins according to the perfectness of God, between Whom and Christ alone this work was accomplished. He having entered into God's presence as man in virtue of that work, since He has carried in His blood, we also, objects of His work, are through it accepted as He is. We see the glory unveiled in His face, and approach boldly; because the glory in His face is the proof of redemption and the perfect blotting out of our sins. For He Who bore these has them not on Him in the glory.

Haslam's "The Lord is Coming."

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. 18, p. 61-2.)

This little book, like others of the author, contains not a little truth put simply and earnestly, but a good deal also that is crude and misleading.

Part 1. sets forth the coming of the Lord for His saints. The parable of the ten virgins is effectively applied. The church is imperfectly understood, though there is a true if vague glimpse of it far beyond current views. Our brother speaks of saints in pre-reformation times, after the church fell from its due estate, knowing "nothing whatever about the Lord's second coming " (p. 38). This is too strong. They all looked for His coming; but they were as confused about it as the great majority of believers are still who misplace it or overlook its character. The fact is that the same deficiency applies to all other truths, save perhaps the Trinity and the person of Christ. Therein even the darkest in most respects are firm and decided, which is a great mercy from God. Even God's righteousness is to them cloud-land, and God's church a mystery unknown, though revealed, as well as the personal abiding presence of the Holy Spirit: all has been and is at least as ill understood for near 1,800 years as the second coming of Christ.

It is in no way surprising that one who has been learning under difficulties and hindrances should err now and then. Of small mistakes we need not speak; but there are others more serious. It is wrong for instance (pp. 28, 29) to hold out a groundless hope to false professors, as if they may be reached by the "gospel of the kingdom" after the heavenly saints are caught up and before they with the Lord appear in glory. 2 Thess. 2: 11, 12 warns very differently. Those converted by the gospel of the kingdom appear rather to be from the nations outside Christendom, certainly not among such as may have refused the gospel of God's grace that is preached now.

Nor is it wise to enfeeble 1 Cor. 9: 24, 25; 2 Cor. 5: 10; but these are common oversights among fairly instructed brethren.

So again it is a mistake to suppose that the emblems of a judicial sort in Rev. 4 characterise what the Lord is to accomplish as Son of man; for it is as Son of man that He will appear in glory when His saints accompany Him from heaven. And this is also His revelation (ἀποκάλυψις). The division of the book is therefore erroneous, at least Mr. H.'s making the "revelation" of Christ to he Part II. and His "epiphany" or "appearing" to be Part III. They are all in substance also "the day of the Lord," as distinguished from His coming or παρουσία. The fact is that, after the seven churches, in the early judicial future that follows, Christ acts as "the Lamb," not as Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven till the harvest in Rev. 14. He is revealed also angelically (Rev. 8 - 10). It is quite true that from Rev. 4 the saints now waiting for Him on earth are translated to heaven, and intermediate judgments set in.

So far in a general way Mr. E. is not astray. But the details are inaccurate. Thus to confound Rev. 6: 1, 2 in any measure with Rev. 19: 11 is outrageous. The first seal is conquest, and comparatively bloodless conquest, as the second prefigures a subsequent scene of carnage and civil war; then the third is scarcity in what is most necessary to subsistence on earth; and the fourth is plague and other scourges of human life; and all these follow each other consecutively. The four horses and their riders may and do differ; but they are generically alike; and the Lamb, instead of being the agent of any of them, opens the four seals which represent those four initiatory forms of divine providence. They are all alike human instruments. The Roman empire is not revived till long after, as we see in Rev. 13 or at most Rev. 11. Hence the order of the visions is wholly upset by such an interpretation. Mr. H. sees important points, but does not at all understand the structure of the book, or its relative parts. His "plain narrative of prophetic events in their order" is, to be candid, plain disorder.

But there are dangerous doctrinal aberrations here and there. Take pp. 69, 70 as a sample. The gospel of the kingdom he contrasts with that of grace in this, that the latter. sets before men Christ's finished work and reliance on the risen Christ to keep us to the end, the former tells men to show (as if we were not!) their faith by their works, and to endure to the end in order to be saved! the one offering the robe of righteousness that needs no washing, the other requiring men to wash their robes in the Lamb's blood! This is very unhappy. Difference there is. But no soul ever was, or will be, saved by his own faithfulness. Grace does find its richest display now. By-and-by, in the Apocalyptic period of judgment, less light and truth will be enjoyed; but salvation is of the Lord and of grace always. We, no less than they, are delivered from the wrath to come; but it is true that we look for Christ to come and take us to the Father's house apart from judgments, they look for deliverance by the execution of destruction on His and their enemies on earth.

Mr. H. ought to have known (p. 87) that the unquestionable text of Rev. 5: 10 is (not "we," but) "they shall reign." It is the glorified rejoicing that these also are to reign who suffer after their translation. These are to have a higher place than either the sealed of Israel, or the palm- bearing Gentile multitude, or the followers of the Lamb on Zion, blessed as they each and all shall be.

The chief error prophetically is his confounding the head of the Beast or Roman empire with the Antichrist who is the head of the Jews in Palestine. No doubt the Western emperor will support the Jews, as the king of the north (the last representative of the Graeco-Syrian power as in Dan. 8) will oppose them. Mr. H. makes the Western emperor of Dan. 7, the Eastern horn or king of the north, and "the king" of Dan. 11: 36-39 to be the same individual. They are really three. distinct persons, two of them allied, the other hostile. The little horn of Dan. 7 is the head of the revived Roman empire, and consequently the one answering to the Lucifer of Isa. 14; for Nebuchadnezzar was the first representative of that imperial system, of which the little horn will be the last. But "the king" who abruptly appears in Dan. 11: 36-39 is the Antichrist, set up by Satan over the Jews in the land, and the object of assault to "the king of the north," who is the same power that is symbolised in Dan. 8: 9-12 and explained in ver. 23-25. It is the last Roman emperor who comes before us in Dan. 9: 27, "the prince that shall come," the future protector of the Antichrist.

What is said of the ephah of Zech. 5 and of a future Babylon seems nothing but imagination, and derived from no good source. Assuredly Antichrist will reign not there, any more than in Rome, but over Palestine, and be attacked by both Egypt and the Syrian power. Such is the plain sense of the closing verses of Dan. 11. It is the Western empire that is represented in Rev. 17: as upholding, till with his ten vassal horns he turns and rends, "the great whore." But this is not "commerce," any more than a future city in the plain of Shinar. It is Rome, that idolatrous and corrupt system which, pretending to be the bride of Christ, committed fornication with the kings of the earth, and made men drunk with her wine, and persecuted the saints to death.

The emperor of the West, and the Antichrist reigning in the Holy Land, are in the strictest alliance. but distinct, the one greater civilly, the other religiously, both the slaves of the dragon, the old serpent. It is the Antichrist, not the Western Beast, that is referred to by our Lord as coming in his own name, whom the Jews would receive, as they rejected Him Who came in His Father's name. The little horn of Daniel 7 becomes virtually the Beast, and is viewed in the Revelation as the last head of the Roman empire. "Tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble," not Antichrist but his enemy, the last king of the north (p. 151), See Dan. 11. Antichrist is the false prophet and king in the land. He does not attack his own people or capital; he is assailed by his north-eastern foe. And when the Beast comes to his aid, both are cast alive into the lake of fire, as is their great enemy subsequently. See the end of Isa. 30.

As Mr. H. is not at all free from the confusion which prevails as to the evil powers then to be on earth, so he misunderstands the distinct righteous companies in the Revelation. Neither the sealed Israelites nor the palm-bearing Gentiles in Rev. 7 are martyrs or even dead but living men, as are those on Mount Zion in Rev. 14. The earlier martyrs seen in Rev. 6: 9-11, the later in Rev. 15, both raised in Rev. 20: 4 after the translated saints come forth and sit on thrones.

It is really grave heterodoxy that any saints have to work and do for themselves what has been fully and freely done for us" (p. 138). This is no gospel at any time, but mere self-righteousness. What can Mr. H. (an evangelist too) be dreaming about? Is it not inexcusable error?

The sixth seal is wrongly applied to the Lord's appearing. It is quite an early judgment, which so alarms men that they say the day of His wrath is come. When it actually arrives, they are hardened and bold; but this is not till considerably afterward.

If these remarks wound, they are the wounds of a friend. If the flaws were corrected, the book would be much more helpful as well as a truer testimony in the Lord's eyes.

Hold Fast That Which Thou Hast

Revelation 3: 11.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. N12, p. 125.)

There is a striking coincidence in the facts of the word of God with the ways of God at this present moment. I daresay many have been struck with, and unable to account for, the circumstance — and I remember when it exercised my own mind many years ago — that God should have given such a setting forth of His grace in the twenty-first of Numbers, when the children of Israel were nearing the end of their journey. I think that we should have more readily thought of it at the beginning. But God is always wise. We may be exercised. He may bring in apparently a difficulty; but a difficulty overcome by faith, in the mind of God, a difficulty that has long been uncertain, when once apprehended, what a gain it is, not merely to our own souls, but for others, as leading into fresh confidence in God and His word!

And truly the word of God is a mighty thing, not merely for us but for Him at this moment, a moment when Christendom is abandoning it, and when its leaders, blindly, I am sure, and not knowing what they do, are doing what they can to undermine it. His grace has caused that word to shine out in fresh power. For I speak not only of the beauty of the word, but of its authority; and this has a most weighty place. By it God Himself puts and keeps us in subjection to the Lord Jesus Christ.

I would first ask, beloved brethren, whether we have not felt that which answers to it, that God has given the living power not merely of much in His word that we had not known, but also of fundamental truth that we knew imperfectly?

Has He not given us back again the gospel, and that which is the fruit of receiving it? Not that He has poured out the Holy Ghost again, as some have wrongly asked at His hand, but most assuredly He has given us back the truth of it again. I do not speak now of individuals. It has been very properly said, that when we are speaking of that which is the mind of the Lord, we must distinguish between that which is for His own glory and for the church at the present stage of it, and His special guidance and working in individual souls. It would hinder a little misunderstanding of thoughts very precious in themselves, but very capable of being misused.

It is the mind of the Lord at the present time to be forming and fashioning the church as the bride of Christ. It is His mind that we should be awaiting Him from heaven. But it would be a very grave mistake to substitute that which is His will for the individual, for that which is His mind for the church His body. It is the truth for us all — what the church should never have forgotten. But this does not in the least degree interfere with the particular work of the Spirit of God by each individual believer.

Therefore, whether in the fishing or the feeding [which we have had brought before us], servants have each their place — they in no wise supersede each other. When the heart is filled with Christ, the heart recovered to Himself personally, Himself as an Object before us, and Himself in His moral discerning power — for this is one of the most remarkable features of the way He reveals Himself to the church in Philadelphia — are the fishers to be less simple, earnest or devoted? is the feeding to be relaxed? The very opposite! There is a heavenly impulse given to it. There is also a freedom from excitement, a solidity and a separateness of character. Not a single want that is not met in the fulness of Christ. The love of Christ constrains.

Knowledge puffeth up, love buildeth up. You cannot separate love rightly from the truth. This personal revelation of the Lord Jesus at the present moment — this use of truth, not as putting something between us and the Lord, but putting away all that separates — is what we must all have found not only our deepest joy, but our best security.

Let me recall this word as a very solemn one. Do you think any are in such danger as the men of Philadelphia? I do not find that such a sifting goes on elsewhere. But I do not believe. that Philadelphia is gone. I believe that Laodicea is come, but that Philadelphia is not gone, and will never go until the Lord Jesus comes; and that what He has set forth as a testimony, by revelation of His person, will never be rendered void. I do not believe that Philadelphia will go, but that the souls that fall short of attachment to Christ there revealing Himself, will go, and that grace will bring others to fill up more worthily their place. Assuredly the grace of God which began will keep those that have been there and go on with Christ.

But further, it may be well to observe that the most painful elements in the forming of Laodicea may well have had their place in Philadelphia, when faith failed and flesh gave place to Satan. But if they were in Philadelphia (or separation to Christ), they never were of it. They were such as never appreciated the testimony of Christ; for my heart fully goes along with our beloved brother in the thought of the Lord having a present mind.

I believe that, while something more has come in, we must not allow that which we have to slip from us, as it would if we were to get under the clouding depression that Philadelphia has so failed that there is no longer now anything of that character. I am saying this as a word of supplement. I believe. this is on His mind, that those who are accounted of Philadelphia — surely not a mere question as to position but morally — do specially need His grace; for Satan uses all his arts to deceive and injure them. Where the heart is with Him, there He is all to the heart. But you have not Christ thus unless the Lord has led you back into understanding of what His church is to Himself. The most remarkable features of the appeal to Philadelphia suppose a knowledge of the truth and of grace found nowhere else. There must therefore be a very striking commentary within that Epistle. It is simply true. "Behold, I come quickly."

But we find that the Lord warns. "Hold fast that which thou hast, that none take thy crown." Do we not know, beloved friends, that never were men more liable to be carried away by feelings, and to be caught with novel teaching? People outside do not believe it; they think if you know one, you know all! We know a very different thing, and that as grace begin the thing, so grace alone sustains and completes it. If any people are liable to be moved, we are. The very fact of being alone with Christ, away from the various means of occupying (I might say, of entertaining) the saints of God — for what else could I call the excitement of gathering thousands, with the attraction of music, etc. — makes us seem ungenial and ungracious in these days of exposure to the efforts of Satan in ways most trying and delusive. Let us cleave to the evident truth of the Lord. It is a caution given to Philadelphia more than to any other. "Hold fast that which thou hast, that no man take thy crown." It is hard for love to look unamiable; but Christ should be beyond all to us, and His love is alone true.

There are other reasons. This I would add: If you look back over what the Lord has been doing, you find that when souls do slip away, it is rarely into Sardis, still more rarely into Thyatira, but Laodicea is the common direction into which those who fall from Philadelphia gravitate; and there you have that which is most painful, nay, repulsive, to the Lord Jesus. Self-complacency of knowledge abounds, but Christ is outside the door. It is not lapsing from first love, it is far worse than that. It is indifference to Himself, with total lack of spiritual discernment. What state is farther from the mind of God?

Philadelphia, I believe, according to marks that, to my mind, are incontrovertible and sure, will be found when Christ comes. I believe that as Sardis does not supersede Thyatira, the state abides, but, through the infinite mercy of God, I see in Philadelphia the saints enter there as a question of Christ. It is not merely a true thing here or there known, but the truth bound up with Christ is apprehended, and there only presented morally and in love. Now, this is in no way boastful. There is no man that is led by the Spirit and enters into the mind of the Lord as regards the church but is ready not only to live for it, but to die for it; but Christ is nearer still, not merely this particular service or that rendered; though God has been recovering the cream of the gospel, and putting it in quite another fulness. Who does not know the controversy as to the righteousness of God? The heart of each of us owes much to the recovery of that truth at the end.

Another thing it is well to bear in mind, for it is important for God's glory as for the saints. Christ leaves room for all liberty and variety; for "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." We must not set one, thing up against another. Evangelising is a special power, and the Lord calls upon us, as we are enabled, to spread the gospel, and not to teach only. We may be called to correct and be corrected, but our place, I am persuaded, is one of freedom and responsibility in individual service. So the apostle, in exhorting Timothy as to the last days, bids him do "the work of an evangelist." Nor can any who are not evangelists duly enter into the feelings or appreciate the mode of that work.

"I have a few names even in Sardis"; and suppose any of these came; suppose they misunderstand those who do not happen to be in their own circle, and apt to be fault-finding is not captious, would it not be humbling for those who are blessed to be offended by their remarks? If the Lord has borne much from us in many ways, and yet has shown the fulness of His grace, brought out in the greatness of His love, we too are called to answer to His mind. And what is it? There are many saints that pine for a better knowledge of His truth, and desire to enjoy the presence of the Lord who is very dear to them. We know that whatever He may give to some in His abounding grace, the true way to enjoy His presence is according to His word, to be where saints gather to His name. There His Spirit works freely.

He says to the angel of Philadelphia, "Thou hast kept my word, and not denied my name." I should feel it was making His word of none effect if we allowed that there was the same enjoyment of the presence of the Lord where His name was not the centre, and His word not maintained. He has brought out His truth in such activity that those who would follow Him fully now are called into the place of Philadelphia, to know Him who is holy, Him who is true, to hold fast His word, and not deny His name. Other things have come in. The most evil departure with good and bad together leads us in it. We would never forget that is what grows until Christ comes. We may let go that which we have! May we hold it fast! May it be true of us, "that no man take thy crown"!

The trials will be fierce and fresh. There are constant dangers and constant difficulties. Only one object keeps, as well as awakens, while in this world, and that is Christ. But there must be self-judgment, weighing truth and judging self solemnly, in order to communion. So only can we have Christ's power, in our weakness, resting on us. Who or what will make more complete shipwreck than the attempt to take up such truth as this in a mental way? Persons that seemed Philadelphians when they started, where are they now?

Yet I have no such thought as that Philadelphia will end before Christ comes, though individuals may come or vanish. It is precisely this which is so serious. We are on a ground where nothing can sustain us but the Christ who led us there. The word without the Spirit of God always ends in intellectualism, Sandemanianism, or rationalism; as the Spirit without Christ goes into fanaticism for a while, and fleshly form in the end.

What avails to offer the brightest visions possible of the church? Better have Christ with self-judgment. The grace toward the end of the journey teaches us how He recovers. The Lord at the beginning, and before the beginning of the church, gave us these very words: "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst"! Did He not contemplate our need at the end? Faith in them and Him thus really forms Philadelphia. I do not believe that we shall be ever driven to isolation, though desire after union will never keep us together — nothing but the power of His name. There may be a thinning of numbers instead of that increase which some complain of. All but Christ will fail, no flesh shall glory in His presence.

There is another word, and a weighty one — "The Spirit and the bride." The Holy Ghost has had His active presence and power confessed. It is a great thing to the Lord Jesus that the One sent down from heaven to glorify Him be owned, and this too in our proper nearness to Christ.

It is not that He does not bless where this is not so. But there is an immense difference between those that are merely blest by preaching and prayer, and those that own the Spirit's presence and action in the assembly also. For my part I see in verse 10 an intimation that there will be the expression of it going on until the end. Saints will be together, and not breaking up into mere units — "the Spirit and the bride say, Come." I do not say that all that ought to have it, have really the intelligence of the place. But there are those who do cleave to Christ thus by the grace of God, who prize it above all things here, and that because it is the grace of Christ.

"The Spirit and the bride say, Come." It is the due answer to the voice of the Lord Jesus who is coming. It is His word that gives the ground to faith. Such His grace will keep; keeping together, too, those who have kept the word of His patience. Where He is, He not only produces liberty, but sense of unity. It would be a most painful thing, and disheartening to our faith, for those for whom the Lord had interposed — separating them to His name — if they must think that all that is found henceforth would be merely Laodicea. Let none think so. Sardis will go on to the end, and Thyatira. But it is solemn enough and searching truth for us, and for others, I repeat, that while Philadelphia is not gone, Laodicea has come!

If the worldly-minded slip into Laodicea, God is working to bring out of it also, and into Philadelphia, just as those who become more simply set for Christ must do. May our Lord, beloved brethren, both warn our souls, and at the same time encourage our hearts, for His name's sake. Amen.

W. K.

The Christian Hope Consistent with Events Revealed in Prophecy.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. 9, p. 366.)

It is beyond controversy that the Lord Jesus set His disciples in the position of waiting for His return in glory, and that He attached the utmost value to the constancy their love in expecting Him habitually as their sure and proximate hope. "Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning; and ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately." (Luke 12: 35, 36.)

Precisely the same principle reappears in what the Holy Ghost gave by the apostle from first to last. Thus in his earliest epistle: "For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." (1 Thess. 4: 15-17.) Take a middle communication: "Behold I show you a mystery, we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, it the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." (1 Cor. 15: 51, 52.) Take a later. "For our conversation is in heaven; from, whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself." (Phil. 3: 20, 21.) Take one of his latest: "The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." (Titus 2: 11-13.)

Nor is it otherwise with the last surviving apostle who closes the canon of scriptures: "Behold I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown." (Rev. 3: 11.) "I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. And the Spirit and the bride say, come. And let him that heareth say, come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.... He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus." (Rev. 22: 16, 17, 20.) Accordingly as Christ's coming they knew not how soon was the hope laid down uniformly in the New Testament, so even scepticism owns that it was universally believed by the early Christians.

But time passed on, and faith became feeble, and hope deferred made the heart sick, and the taunts of incredulity, which looks not beyond appearances began to tell on souls that ceased to hold fast the grace and truth of Christ and thus gravitated toward the world out of which they had been called, not more surely to serve God than to wait for His Son from heaven; so in modern times many have been driven from this position by an improper use of the Lord's delay. They have been frightened by the adversary. They have shrunk from the world's unbelieving contempt founded on a very short and imperfect acquaintance with the word of God. Infidelity indeed is always superficial; and the children of God do not well to be thus moved. It matters not who the adversary may be, they should never yield the position regarding His word, nor allow themselves to be or seem ashamed of waiting for the Lord Jesus, which the New Testament shows was to have been given to and taken by the church of God, and that too, we must observe, in its brightest days, when the power of the Holy Ghost was ungrieved and the apostles who were the authoritative communicators of the mind of God still remained. It is under these circumstances we find the Christians of old habitually expecting the Son of God from heaven. Time passed on; the delay seemed long; and many a believer, judging from appearances which seemed to contradict their hope, gave up their constancy of expectation, giving way to their own reasonings and the influences around them. This is always unwise; it is worse, it is a sin, because it virtually arraigns God Himself, who maintains His authority now by His word. The day is coming when He will assert and vindicate it in power, when it will be no question of believing only, but those who dispute His authority and disobey His word will be judged. But now we are put to the test in a moral way by subjection to the written word of God.

At present I am undertaking to show that the simplest view is the truest, and that the lowly faithful cleaving to the words of the Lord Jesus will stand the severest test. In point of fact it is so constantly in divine things. For the church of God was never meant to be a school, still less to be confined to such as are of the highest form. The church forgets its commission when it affects to be a philosophical clique of disciples who flatter themselves that they at least are wise and intelligent. According to the mind of God it was intended to embrace every child of God walking as such. It was meant not merely to have them but to have them together — to have them as one; and in fact this miserable departure from the mind of God practically has given an immense impulse to unbelieving thoughts which slight and judge the word of God in respect to the ground, manner, measure and matter of our hope: for what indeed has been spared? Our subject, however, is the compatibility of the christian hope with the revelation of events according to prophecy; and I must show that no events predicted by the Lord, or the holy apostles and prophets, in the slightest degree set aside that hope, for the two things are perfectly consistent. I shall show further that these predicted events do not even modify the hope, but that the hope governs them; the true outlook for the soul being Christ's coming and receiving us to Himself, not my death but His return.. The prophetic intimations of events only fall into their proper place where that hope is kept firm.

The Jewish believers had long been accustomed to prophecy. We can understand this. They were an earthly people; and prophecy speaks of the earth, without opening heaven. He that came down from heaven as God, and went up again, not merely as God but as man, He it is who not only had the heavens opening on Him but by grace opened heaven for us. We belong to the opened heavens, because we belong to Christ who is there, on the footing of His work and not of His person only. For He came down in love and is gone up in righteousness, and this righteousness a justifying righteousness which gives us the very same title as Himself. Where this is understood, the difference between the christian hope and prophecy is seen. Heaven is characteristically the place belonging to the Christian, as earth was to Israel. God promised the best place here below to them, as well as every conceivable blessing, suited to such a people. He promised to mike them the most exalted nation on earth, not only blessed but a blessing. No faults of Israel can annul that promise in the long run. Certainly it is not yet fulfilled. As always, there is first the trial or responsibility of the creature, followed by sovereign grace on God's part. In Israel's past history, we have had the creature tried; the future will behold God's mercy (Rom. 11) accomplishing everything according to His word, and giving freely according to divine goodness.

On the other hand it is impossible for the earth to be a place of real joy and blessing except through Jesus and His redemption. For Israel were sinners like others, and if they are to be blessed, they must be saved, and there is no salvation but by Him who died and rose for us. But then there is more. The cross of the Lord Jesus is the fullest proof of Israel's iniquity and rebellion against God. Hence meanwhile God acts on it to open, by Him who is now gone into His presence on high, a nosy and living way into the holiest. This and more than this God had not promised to Israel or any other nation. He had never given away heavenly glory to any. He was free to bestow it on whom He would, and He now does give it to Christ and the church. Not that one doubts that the Old Testament saints, looked for it heavenly city; and I am sure that they will have it. If they looked for a better country, they will be there. But heaven is no small place. It cannot be measured by so many miles like the earth. Heaven is immense, and there will be ample verge and various scenes for the display of God's glory. The saints of Old Testament and of New Testament will be there. There is room enough and to spare for all. In the New Testament it is we find God bringing out all the elements of truth contained in the Old, but withal He brings out far more. He had secrets, things never divulged in the course of the earlier dispensation; but now they are. And the reason is manifest. Till the Son of God actually came, it would not have been suitable to the glory of God to have revealed what was to be specially between Him and His Son. The Holy Ghost sent down from heaven loves to bring out what the disciples could not bear before His resurrection. But now that redemption is accomplished, all is fully out, and very particularly that broad and deep and essential distinction which will nosy be set out, as God enables me, between the prophecy of events and the heavenly hope which the Holy Ghost has given us — a hope which was announced by Jesus, but which was to be explained with needed fulness by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven when the disciples could bear it. The great difference is that, as prophecy treats of the earth, so also it deals with times and seasons, with peoples and nations, with tribes and tongues, whereas the heavenly hope is independent of all that. Are these tribes and peoples and tongues on high? Is it any question there in the presence of God of days and weeks and times and years? The difference between earth and heaven is thus easily seen. The christian hope, as it is let into our hearts from heaven, so is it as completely different from any prospect connected with the earth as the light of heaven is from a lamp, which, however useful in the darkness of the world, is as nothing compared with the light of day.

Nor is the figure of the lamp compared with daylight a mere idea of mine, but expressly furnished in the word itself. The Apostle Peter points out the selfsame distinction by this very comparison. (2 Peter 1.)

In writing to Christians, who were once Jews and who were therefore familiar with prophecy, he tells them that they did well to take heed to the prophetic word. Their being Christians did not set aside what they had from God before. The Old Testament is in no way or degree, either as a whole or in part, blotted out by the New, but on the contrary shines more brightly and is understood incomparably better, when by the Holy Spirit the New is apprehended. Force is thus given to the Old, which enables the Christian to comprehend beyond the Jew. Take again the professing Christian that contends for Jewish forms, as a priest, sacrifice, or sanctuary now. Does he understand them? Not in the least So if you have ever talked with an intelligent Jew, say a Rabbi, on the Old Testament, you will have seen how utterly dark he is regarding his own scriptures; and the more intelligent be is, the more palpable his ignorance of all beyond letter or tradition; because the fact of his general intelligence proves that his state proceeds from want not of natural capacity but of divine light. No matter what his activity of mind or stores of reading may be, they only disclose the exceeding barrenness of the land. On the other hand the Old Testament is lighted up with a brilliancy unmistakeably divine, and its meaning is unfolded in its depth and fulness, when one enters into the true place of the church of God through knowing Christ Himself. And never is the church discerned apart from Christ; and if He be not seen as Head, in vain men essay to preach up the church; for though Christ may be truly known and enjoyed by the soul without seeing the church, you cannot in any case apprehend the church of God without seeing His headship of it. Thus Romanists and Catholics of all sorts are apt to talk much about the church; but they use it as a shroud, as a dense covering from sight of the glory of the Lord Jesus. There you have utter darkness; and yet the church is of all things the most put forward in pretension. When the place of Christ and the church is really known, we begin to understand the Old Testament better, and every part becomes to us full of light instead of the cloud it once seemed. But those that are under its forms (christened I may say) do not understand the Old Testament, but only such is know Christ and our relationship to Him as Lord and Saviour, Priest, and Head.

So it is in regard to the christian hope also. When the heart is filled with it, one understands prophecy a great deal better than those who have only prophecy before them. The Christians that had been Jews were first slow to enter at all into the heavenly hope; and, when they were beginning to get a little better knowledge, the confusion of the two exposed them to the danger of letting prophecy slip without taking in the christian hope. Such too is the state in which many christians are at the present day. They understand neither; they have not got hold of the christian hope, and they do not pretend to understand prophecy: perhaps indeed they think it cannot be understood at all. Probably the same persons would think it presumptuous to know their sins forgiven: seeing that they do not understand the gospel, it is hard to expect them to understand what is outside the soul. One could scarcely look for a soul to enter into the revelations of God in His word about other subjects so remote if they had not submitted to God's righteousness for their own souls. Once Christ is thus received, we begin to find what a key He is to unlock all the rest.

We see then that Peter, in writing to those christian Jews, contrasts the heavenly hope with prophecy; the difference between them, which really involves and settles the compatibility of the two things, depends on this very distinction. Thus he says, "We have also a more sure word of prophecy" (or the prophetic word confirmed) "whereunto ye do well that ye take heed as unto a light," really a lamp, "that shineth in a dark place until the day dawn and the day-star arise in your hearts.

Here prophecy is compared to the lamp that shines in a squalid place; the heavenly hope to daylight with above all the person of Christ as the day star, for that He is thus referred to cannot, in my judgment, be questioned. You will observe it is not "till the day come," "till the arrival of the day of the Lord " or the like. It is "till the day dawn and the day-star arise in your hearts." It is the heart getting hold of the heavenly hope; it is no more than a question of the heart. It is not the day arising as the sun of righteousness upon the world. It is the heart now having Christ as its constant hope, and so in the spirit and light of the day before it shines on the earth by and by. The apostle says that the lamp of prophecy is excellent until one has a better light, not the earthly lamp brighter, but a different kind of light, even that of day, and above all connected with the person of Christ, the day-star arising in the heart.

This contrast of the apostle gives us exactly the nature of the christian hope, because it is not merely a great change anticipated for mankind and creation; still less is it the illusion of the world being made better. It is not evil judged, or righteousness triumphant, however great and excellent. We do expect both; but they belong to prophecy, not their hope. Prophecy shows Babylon is to be destroyed and Antichrist judged. It shows the Roman empire by and by reorganized, with a head over it, when the west gets weary of little powers, and wants to have a chief opposed to the great leader of the east. Alas! all are only for destruction. If these things take place (and I am persuaded that prophecy shows they will, and that events already transpiring are leading on to them), they have nothing to do with the christian hope. In looking into prophecy, we find ourselves on the ground of measured times and seasons; but these have nothing to do with our waiting for Christ from heaven. What has His coming to receive us to Himself above to do with judgments? What has our entrance into the Father's house to do directly with changes on earth? When the Lord comes to translate the saints to those mansions, He does not rectify the earth, He takes Christians away to heaven; but this does not alter the face of the earth. Undoubtedly a vast change will come in due time, and we may see the order of events a little later on. But I now speak of the essential difference between the two; and I affirm that the christian hope is essentially bound up with heaven, while prophecy is occupied with earthly judgment and subsequent blessing; for evil, being that which prevails on the earth, must be judged to bring in a better state. Man as such has no title to go up to heaven. It is a matter of pure grace; and it belongs to Christ to show us that grace, and a part of His grace is for Him to come and present us in the Father's house. We have no claim to be there. It is the Son of God who according to the efficacy of redemption and in His own love will take us away from the world to be with Himself. This is the heavenly hope.

But there is a great deal more than this in scripture, and it will be shown that the attempt to bring in the earthly events of prophecy before Christ comes for the rapture of the saints is a mere misapprehension of persons who, in my judgment, are but imperfectly acquainted with the word of God. More mature and profound study of the word only confirms the impression of new-born and spiritual souls that we should be constantly waiting for Christ. No doubt there are divine revelations about what is coming to pass in the world, and serious and radical changes they are; but they never interfere with the christian's expectation of Christ from day to day. Quite distinct from them stands that heavenly hope, which they are not allowed in any part of the New Testament to overlay or even modify.

Let us look at a few scriptures; and, as our first instance, at Luke 12. There not only is the disciple put in the place of waiting for Christ, but the greatest possible stress is laid on this that there should arise nothing to prevent his constantly looking for the Lord to meet him in the air. In verses 35 and 36 we read, "Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning; and ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their Lord, when he will return from the wedding; that, when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately." There is no hindrance here for the disciple, no revealed delay on the part of the Master. His return was to be an immediate hope. Indeed the thought of any interposed delay is what the Lord is here arming the heart against most sedulously. Not only does He insist on the time being unknown as a motive for always expecting Him, but also that the state of the heart should be such that nothing should hinder an immediate response to Christ when He comes again.

Turn we now to the Gospel of John. Here the Lord presents His coming as a question of His own love to have His own with Himself above, and not in the least as referring to men on the earth, or dependent on signs, changes, and events that must previously take place. In John 14 the Lord says "In my Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also." It is clear that this is totally independent of any movements here below. It is the heavenly hope, and this in its greatest completeness, not placed in connection with any earthly circumstances whatever. We have nothing of its order in relation to other things, but simply its character. It is just a question of the love of the Son and of the Father. He was not to be like the Jewish Messiah an object of sight; He was going to be invisible. He had been here a man before their eyes; but He was going away, and as God was an object of faith, so should He be: in truth He was God, even as the Father and the Spirit. He tells them not to let His departure distress them, for He was going to do better for them than could possibly be if He remained here. To have abode as they on earth, or even to have established the kingdom as returning to it, would have been in connection with His Messiahship; but His going to heaven was based on redemption as well as on His Sonship. The one links with the Son of David, the other with His divine glory; the one is connected with earth, the other with the Father's house — no doubt that house in which the Saviour is gone to prepare mansions for us in heaven; but heaven is not so contracted as some think; and all heaven is not the Father's house, which is where the Father shows His special love to the Son. Of it Jesus says that there "are many mansions," not merely one for the Father and the Son, but ample room for His risen saints. "I go," He says, "to prepare a place for you;" because it was for those who were altogether strangers to such companionship above, a totally new thing for a Jew as such to expect. The constant expectation of the people was power and blessing coming down to earth, not at all the hope of being taken from earth to heaven, to enjoy glory in communion with the glorified Son of Man.

Here be it observed that in my opinion those called premillennialists have often brought a great stigma on the truth, by representing the earth as the future scene of our blessedness. Indeed such an idea is not peculiar to premillennialists; many theologians, such as Dr. Chalmers for example, had the same poverty of thought. A renovated earth for the risen saints was the idea from some of the early Fathers down to our day: which to my mind is not only unscriptural but exceedingly low. The earth, no matter how blessed, will never be the meet abode for the risen and glorified. The heavens are high above the earth, not only in locality but in character; and it is in heavenly places that we are blessed, it is there we know our portion in Christ even now. It is not therefore the earth, however transmuted or metamorphosed it may be, that is to form the sphere of our glory and home with Christ. I admit there will be a blessed change in that day on the earth; but this will be for Israel and the nations or Gentiles; whereas we by becoming Christians have ceased to be either Jews or Gentiles. We have acquired our character from Christ, and have a blessing suited to Him on high. Until souls have a knowledge of this, they do not understand Christianity. The christian is not merely a blessed man; for blessed then will be the Jews, and blessed even still the Gentiles. But the Christian is one taken out of all that belongs to him naturally and is put already by the power of the Spirit in a supernatural place. He knows it now by faith. It will be visible to all when the Lord comes. Accordingly, the Lord Jesus, who knew so well the Father's house, announces that He is coming for us and will bring us into the place He is preparing for us now: He will have us with Himself and as Himself.

This then is the Christian's heavenly hope. It is entirely independent of a revealed date or announced delay. The Lord never fixed nor disclosed it in His word; He made it entirely dependent on His grace to those He loves; as the Father has placed times and seasons in His own authority. On this the church has to depend; on this every Christian was meant to confide as he waits for Christ. The Christian knows Him whom he believes, that He may delay, and that His delay is salvation for those who otherwise must perish everlastingly. Though it may be keeping himself for a little out of His rest and glory with Christ. the Christian can delight that others also by the delay are going to be blessed of Christ. This is the definitely assigned reason for the delay which has nothing whatever to do with the judgments, etc., in the world of which prophecy treats. What have the seals, trumpets or vials to do with our joining Christ for heavenly glory? This last has no doubt to do with the secret counsels of the Father who is gathering out whom He pleases to make heirs of God, joint-heirs with Christ, but this has nothing to do with earthly revolutions.

If we look at the other Gospels we find many notable events predicted. We learn that the Jews, now scattered, are to be gathered once more; that their present misery is not all, for that they must pass through still deeper tribulation, but afterwards be delivered and blessed by the Lord Jesus according to the promises made to the fathers. The apostles in the rest of the New Testament confirm this fully. Thus the epistle to the Romans, the grandest exposé of fundamental christian doctrine, most carefully shows that, however God may by the gospel meet sinners in indiscriminate grace, He has in no way forgotten His promises to His ancient people, His present heavenly purpose does not turn aside his intention of bringing the earth into the liberty of glory. The groaning creation shall yet rejoice under the second Man, when the day is come for the manifestation of the sons of God. Nor did the apostle withhold from men the solemn fact that God has appointed a day in which He is going to judge (not the dead only, as it the end of all, but the habitable earth in righteousness by the man He has appointed, even Jesus risen from among the dead. Preliminary judgments too must take place and mighty operations in warning and testimony, which more or less fully are predicted in the prophetic word.

But here again I come to the very important question; — are these or any other public events revealed as occurring before the Lord comes to receive His heavenly saints? are they to take place at the same time? or do they occur after?

In dealing with these questions let us refer for a few moments to the Epistles to the Thessalonians, which are allowed to have been the first Paul wrote. They were written to young Christians that knew but little and that consequently were in no small danger of mistakes. In fact both epistles were written to correct misapprehension or error. What we find corrected in the first epistle was in regard to the dead saints; what was dealt with in the second touched rather the living saints. When the first epistle was written, the Thessalonian saints were so filled with the constant expectancy of the Lord's return for them that they were quite taken by surprise when some of their brethren fell asleep. Could anything show more vividly how the early church were looking out day by day for Christ? They thought their deceased brethren must lose much at that blessed moment because they had fallen asleep before Christ came. Such is the evident meaning of their agitation. Others may try from their mistake in this detail to get rid of the truth; they held rightly in the main but many who speak flippantly of the Thessalonians are in a more dangerous case habitually than ever were the Thessalonian believers. The litter had imbibed the thought somehow that the Christians were not to die before Jesus came. Now the Lord had never said so, nor had the Holy Spirit through the apostle ever taught so. It was an entirely human inference. Now no inference is a matter of faith. It depends of course on our soundness in deducing consequences from premisses, under which too a flaw may lurk. It is very important for us to remember that in divine things we should look for the direct testimony of God's word, at all events for a revealed principle to guide us. In this case the Thessalonians, having trusted their own minds, could not understand that any Christians should die before Christ's coming. So when this befell some of their number, they were grieved beyond measure. The apostle writes to disabuse their winds of error on this point. (1 Thess. 4: 13, 14.) "I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus [have fallen asleep through Jesus] will God bring With him."

How strikingly different is the kind of comfort men habitually administer now! The thought they present to the bereaved (throughout Christendom) almost always is that their friends are gone to heaven. Nobody denies this in the case of deceased believers. They depart to be with Christ. They are not consigned to some place of detention in obscurity and seclusion from the Lord; they are imprisoned in no subterranean abode far from that heaven to which even here they belonged. Absent from the body they are at home with the Saviour, which is far better. If it were only a poor robber before his death converted on the cross, he was that very day with Christ: such and so great and so immediate the efficacy of His blood. Is Paradise a garden of gloom, not of delights? Not even the earthly paradise of Adam in itself had a cloud; and is not the Paradise of God far brighter than where the first man was tempted by the devil? Error on this head I refer to, not only because it is pernicious but as showing how quickly the early church departed from the truth, for the notion here combated was, so far as the early Fathers speak all but universal, and to this day the Greek and other ancient bodies are under similar illusions. They conceive that departed Christians are waiting in darkness till the resurrection, and therefore offer prayers on their behalf. They do not pray to them like the still more deluded Romanists; but they think their spirits are detained in that place of need till Christ comes.

It is plain however from the word of God that the deceased saints are with Christ, on the one hand, and on the other that, though with Him, their own state is imperfect till their bodies are raised. They only can enjoy the fulness of the glory God intends for them with Christ, and this not only in spirit but in body. There may be meanwhile all that the soul can take in, but it is not perfection till soul and body together share Christ in glory. Perfection will be when we are outwardly and inwardly and completely like Christ. So say the Scriptures, and they are always right. According to this was the comfort the apostle here gives the Thessalonian brethren. He points to the reunion at the coming of the Lord. How all is brought about we learn in the verses which follow (15-17), "For this we say unto you in the word of the Lord, that we the living that remain unto the coming of the Lord shall in nowise prevent" — it is here an old English word for precede, those that have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with archangel's voice, and with trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we the living that remain shall be caught up together with them in clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." If there be difference, the saints that may have fallen asleep come under the energy of the Lord's glory rather before the rest. But the truth is that in a moment both are to be caught up together. The Thessalonians were therefore troubling themselves without reason. They need not sorrow as the rest. It is right to feel grief for things as they are; and a miserable thing to treat sorrow, shame, death, sin, with indifference: the Lord when here sorrowed, as none else, never as those who have no hope. The truth brings in the Lord's coming and our resurrection to the richest comfort of the soul, instead of letting it harden and accustom itself to the consequences of the fall as inevitable. The second Man is looked to, instead of resignation to the miseries of the first.

On the face of it what can be clearer than that the moderns mistake in thinking that death is the Lord's coming to the Christian? Do you wonder that any should say so? It was only this morning I was reading the book of a Divinity Professor, and a believer too, which treated thus of the Lord's coming at death. Certainly it finds no countenance in scripture. What sort of doctrine is that? His presence will be deliverance from death for those that look for Him. It is the express comfort against death and grief about it. At death we each go to be with Christ; at His coming He will take us all to be with Himself. Such erroneous teaching ought to be met firmly; and, if any do not know better than to teach such things, it would be well if Christians did not listen, at least on such a theme. The worst is that it infects almost everything else unless it be the immutable truth of the Godhead and of Christ's person. They are only corrupting God's testimony by perverting the scriptures on the great province of our hope and prophecy too. The coming of the Lord Jesus is just the converse of the christian's going to Him. The latter is but individual departure, the former is the glad moment when He will communicate His own joy to all that are His. The confounding of these two things is not only mischievous to the soul, but it also obscures the glory of the Lord Jesus. The Lord's coming is thus really in contrast with death; the consolation which grace vouchsafes in the sorrows we taste, the ultimate and only complete triumph of Christ over death in all its forms as far as the Christian is concerned. "Wherefore," he says, "comfort one another with these words."

In the next chapter the apostle enlarges on the day of the Lord. "But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly, that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they," that is, men generally on the earth not christians, "shall say, peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape." In the presence of the Lord, 1 Thess. 4, we saw only the saints concerned; but in the day of the Lord (1 Thess. 5) we have the world involved. There is therefore an evident difference between them, though the presence of the Lord may go on in the day of the Lord and so include it. He will come to receive His own, taking them away from the earth to be with Himself on high; but the day of the Lord is His advent in judgment of man's pride and indifference, delusion and positive rebellion here below. When they shall say, peace and safety, sudden destruction soon follows. Accordingly nothing is said about taking up to heaven in chapter 5; nor is anything said about destruction in chapter 4. Who can fail to observe the propriety of all this? For it is simply a question of the testimony of scripture. Cannot the Lord come to fake His own on high without showing Himself at that moment except to those for whom He comes? He who on the score of difficulty cavils against this takes a dangerous path. For no one denies that shortly after the Lord will display the saints with Himself.. That will be His day, a time of bitter anguish, because it will be His dealing with the earth and man apostate here below. But the coming of the Lord to translate His own to heaven is a different order of things. I do not speak now of "the coming of the Son of Man" because this, being the express relation in which He judges, necessarily modifies His coming. When He is seen coming or present as Son of Man, it is in reference to the earth. But I do not go tonight beyond the broad features which most need.

In the second epistle there is quite another point of view. The Thessalonians had been meanwhile agitated by certain persons who told them that their then persecutions or other trials, for they seem to have been passing through sore tribulation, were the beginning of the day of the Lord — that it was not impending only, as is commonly said, but actually come. On this account they were greatly troubled and shaken, and Paul writes this fresh epistle to banish their fears and settle them in confidence of the hope once more. "Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coining (or presence, for this is the meaning of the word) of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind or be troubled." Assuredly it was the excitement not of hope but of anxiety and terror. It is no picture of sanguine people in haste looking for Christ, but of souls alarmed by a false apprehension that the day of the Lord had actually set in. Do you object to my going in this farther than the English version warrants? That version represents the errorists to have said (and this too pretending every authority for it, even to a letter from the apostle) "that the day of Christ is at hand." It is now pretty generally known that the true text and proper translation of the last clause is "that the day of the Lord is present." I am old enough to remember the time when scarcely a single person in the world seemed to be aware of this; and now, I am thankful to say, there are only a few prejudiced men to dispute it. It can scarcely be doubted that the present revisers will alter the version here, and alter it for the better too. I was agreeably surprised to see an American divine among the first who bowed to the truth in this passage; and now nobody who can pretend to be well informed of the grounds for a Found judgment on it makes any question about it, unless it be a few individuals committed in earlier days to a strong pre-judgment against it. The right reading too, I must add, as conceded now on all sides is not Χριστοῦ but Κυρίου, not "of Christ" but "of the Lord." This being read, the true translation would be "as that the day of the Lord is present."

Further no person can give a correct or intelligible meaning to the words as they stand in our version, at least without contradicting other scriptures. All existing interpretations founded on the common rendering betray the greatest possible perplexity or worse. Some years ago glancing over Professor Jowett's book on these epistles I could not but feel that every remark on the whole or on details displayed gross darkness. If he wrote with an unbelieving eye, without even using aright what knowledge of the language he possessed, it fares little better with men truer to inspiration. The false version had blinded all to its true sense.

Some of the interpreters too conceived the thought that the "letter as from us" referred to Paul's first epistle; but it is not so. A spurious letter is meant (not the apostle's at all), which taught that the day of the Lord was actually arrived — that day of trial and anguish and darkness, "that day" of divine dealing and destruction on earth. The rumour accordingly filled them with great uneasiness. They thought that the day of Jehovah or of judgment on the earth, for this is the idea, had already come. What does the apostle do? He recalls them to the Christian hope, saying "we beseech you, brethren, by (or, for the sake of) the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together unto him, 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 the Lord has set in (or, is present)." Observe what a light this casts on the subject before us. He urges them by their bright hope not to be alarmed by the false alarm grounded on a pretension to prophetical authority. The day of the Lord belongs to prophecy; the Lord's coming to gather us together is the proper christian hope. He urges them by this hope, about which they had been instructed in the previous epistle, not to be alarmed by the novel object of terror the enemy was foisting in.

Then the apostle gives no little information. He assures them that the day cannot come unless there be first the falling away, or apostasy, and the man of sin be revealed. He does not say these things must occur before Christ comes, but beyond doubt before the day. They are prophetic events and cannot transpire until certain revealed antecedents have run their course, but there is no epoch set for the coming of the Lord, which is designedly unrevealed so as to preserve the saints in the constant attitude of waiting for Lord. Certain signal changes among men and new dealings of God are notified in the prophetic word, but not the Lord's coming to receive us, that the christian might and in order that he should be always expecting. We know that upon earth there may be many a revolution that will dash the fond anticipations of men; but our hope is certain, even One who has passed through death and will shortly come again for us, whose love and truth we can trust as thoroughly as His power. Our hope has nothing to do with the changeful history of mankind or the nations; it is bound up with the divine purpose of God in Christ for the heavens and the earth. Still we know there are to be such events. The revelation of these events however in no way interferes with the christian hope, but on the contrary the christian hope puts them off, so to speak; that is to say, it governs them, not they it. Hence the apostle says "that day shall not come unless there come (not "a" but) the falling away first." He refers to the awful state of apostasy from all revelation when christianity will be no longer publicly owned, when the Jews themselves shall once more return to idols and the worship of man as their Messiah and Jehovah, when not a nation on earth shall uphold the law or profess the truth of God.

What is more, I am persuaded that the dissolving process even now rapidly goes on, and that the yielding of some and the anxiety manifested by others of the various powers to get rid of our connection with christianity is in the hands of the enemy a means for bringing about this apostasy. Not that their indifference to the authority of God in His truth will harm the church of God; whose happiness or hopes ought always to have been above the nations of the earth, centring only in Christ. Miserably has the full blessing long been blighted, and their testimony marred and ruined by mixing up with the world. Still if a nation once adopted the profession of christianity, it is a serious thing when political motives, with a background of infidelity, induce the desire to abandon it. For no doubt the standard of the cross was once raised by those who would now blot out the public recognition of it. Before many years elapse there will be no such thing as an oath or any other sign in human affairs, which brings in God. Everything that would serve as a witness to what God says, requires, gives, or is to judge, will be put away. The great object the devil has in view, no matter what men who despise prophecy may think, is the apostasy, or open abandonment of all confession of Christ and the true God. Nor is this all. Besides the apostasy there will be the man of sin. In contrast with the man of righteousness, who is gone up to heaven, the man of sin will set himself up on earth, exalting himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sits down in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. He will take the place of being God, not merely in the world but in His temple, not simply in earthly things but in what is peculiarly divine.

And even now among the most enlightened or at least pretentious and energetic nations of the earth, there are many, some of them professional divines, who believe that the day of christianity is past, that the gospel is old and effete, on the point of waning away, as the first covenant was when the Epistle to the Hebrews was written. They believe that there was once the law, then the gospel; that both are now about to be numbered in the past, though not without influence on the future; still that as systems, the one as the other is bygone, the one about to give place to another and more glorious state, not by God's becoming man, but by man's becoming God. They believe that man as such is the fullest manifestation of God and that there is no being higher or better than the race, This they confess as the true advent and the real coming to reign and judge; when these rights are conceded, they imagine the results will be auspicious and bright beyond all conception for humanity. Germany (and I mention Germany because of its successful stride into power) is the great mover in all this glorification of man: France in a gross but petty way has been working to a similar issue; but the truth is that it will be exhibited throughout the west, not excepting the lands in which we dwell.

These dismal horrors are approaching. Some perhaps yet expect the gospel to prevail. O slow to believe the prophets! Who told them that the gospel ever was intended to convert the world? Rather was it sent to take man out of the world. We ought to have the most perfect confidence that the world will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of Jehovah as the waters cover the sea. But it will be brought about by divine power, by the Lord Jesus Himself. It will not be the fruit of man's efforts, but to the praise of the Saviour in person. He alone who once suffered will deal effectually with the proud and God-defying lawlessness of which scripture we have seen, speaks, more than anything ever yet known; for the corruption of the best is always the worst. Judaism perverted was bad enough: but corrupted christianity is incomparably worse. "The mystery of iniquity," he goes on to say, "doth already work; only there is one who now letteth (or hindereth), until he be taken out of the way." It is the Holy Spirit, who will not always control as now, but allow evil to take its course. This will be the removal of the hindrance spoken of here. "And then shall that lawless one be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness (or appearance) of his coming."

The personal manifestation of the Lord's presence will effect this. As He will come to receive His own, so He will burst forth in visible judgment of the world. Not a word drops about the epiphany of His coming when He takes His own to heaven. It is not only His coming, but the appearing of it, when He deals with the lawless one. He comes to take His own first; after this He manifests His coming and destroys the lawless one.

Thus the christian hope retains its unbroken and unobscured power as the immediate object before the believer. There is nothing else to intercept the view, no previous events revealed which interpose between the heart or eye and the coming of the Lord. The, Lord intended to keep the saints always looking for Him thus. How could the early church have waited for Him otherwise? Do you join with the infidel Gibbon in saying that the early church was wrong? Indeed it was what the apostles taught and wrote, who were as right as the moderns are wrong. Will you for your tradition make void God's inspired word? Clearly the only way to keep the church constantly expecting Christ was to reveal no events as coming between. Thus the sanctioned practice and the theory of the Christian's habitually looking for Christ are not only intelligible but in perfect harmony with the word of God, whose wisdom shines the more we examine and understand it. There was no mistake in apostolic teaching or in its legitimate fruits. The Thessalonians were in danger from confounding the events of prophecy with the hope; the moderns have fallen into the pit whence apostolic vigilance extricated our earlier brethren. If there are revealed events which must take place before Christ comes, then clearly we could not with intelligence be constantly expecting Him. If the inspired apostles were right in setting christians to be ever looking out for Christ, those are wrong now who have slipped away from that hope. But God is recalling His saints to wait for Christ as of old, and they are thus waiting. Indeed I fully believe that the cry is going forth, "Behold the bridegroom! go ye out to meet him."

Do you still affirm that there were necessary delays? It is not a little remarkable how our Lord's parables are so shaped as never to reveal anything really inconsistent with expecting Him always. As far as the parable teaches (and this is the point), it might be the same persons that went out first, then slept, finally on awaking went out again to meet Him, and went in to the marriage. Not that the Spirit said that He was necessarily coming in their lifetime. We can now see how room was left for His tarrying in fact. But the truth was so put that those Christians then, as at every time since, should be expecting Christ; and this because the christian hope is independent of earthly events. Earthly events are distinctly predicted; but they are never said to be before the Lord's coming to remove us to the Father's house. When the Lord takes up His earthly people, He begins to deal with the earth, and then predicted changes have their place. There will be the proclamation of the gospel of the kingdom to all nations during that interval. Doubtless there will be an immense work and its fruit after the Lord has removed to heaven those waiting to join Himself in the air, but those (save the martyrs) quickened during that interval will live in the bright days of the kingdom.

Nevertheless as heaven is higher than the earth, so is our hope incomparably beyond theirs. From ignorance of this and confusion many a christian was stumbled by those who insisted that the risen saints dwell with Christ on earth in the millennial reign. For who that has the sense of heavenly glory could give it up for all the blessings of the earth? On the other hand there is no small defect in the faith of such as think that God made the world to be for ever as miserable a place as it is now or only a shade better. He has made known to us His purpose to wrest earth and mankind upon it out of the hands of the destroyer. He will assuredly purify it and bring it back to more than pristine beauty, and the race to joy and blessedness, entirely to the praise of Jesus. The man who suffered is the One who is glorified and is about to appear.

Had there been time now to have glanced at the visions of the Revelation, it would have been easy to confirm what is here advanced. But it appears to me wiser not to encumber minds with details. Quite enough has been said to prove the point before us, and a very important point it is. Nor do I doubt that you will find, as you study the New Testament, that a considerable part of scripture falls under one or other of these two heads. As with everything else in the Bible, the moment you possess the real clue to a truth of God, you have that which explains many a point that seemed, previously, obscure or difficult.

The Intermediate State.

"The life of the Waiting Soul," etc. By R. E. Sanderson, D.D. etc.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. N3, p. 80.)

Dr. Sanderson imputes untruth to a fixed state at death, and hence to two classes only. He retrogrades like not a few to pre-reformation error, now rampant among Ritualists. The error is deeper still; for it is to reject the Lord's teaching e.g. in Luke 16: 19-26. It is therefore infidel as to the full light of Christianity. The resurrection and the judgment-seat of Christ have their own importance; but the blessedness of the faithful and the wretched and suffering state of the wicked at death are none the less true, because more awaits the coming of the Lord Jesus. It is a crass mistake that paradise is not in heaven, and that the spirits of the Lord and of the converted robber did not go there when disembodied. Ascension means the Lord going up in body, as well as in spirit and soul. It is certain from Rev. 2: 7 that paradise is also the scene of future glory after resurrection. The giving of crowns is only in "that day." Every saint departs to be with Christ. Even Dr. S. does not dare to dispute where He is and sits on His Father's throne. His book, of which it is the main object to treat this truth as untruth, convicts himself of deplorable ignorance under the garb of uncommon pretension and real contempt for the revealed truth of the gospel. Such men know neither the total ruin of those who refuse to receive Christ, nor the present deliverance of all who believe on Him. Like the Romanists, they prefer the dimness, uncertainty, and doubts, characterising a quasi-intermediate state between faith and unbelief. Christ is the way, the truth, and the life.

W.K.

"The Interpreter": A Church Monthly Magazine.

January, 1905. Vol. 1. No. 1.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. N5, p. 238-240.)

The English "higher critics" seem on their good behaviour in their tone. They are thus a strong contrast with their German companions who are overbearing and irreverent. But what is it all in the sight of God? The more decorous exterior covers the same destructive unbelief. Without faith it is impossible to please God.

The Editor's name does not appear; but perhaps we may presume that the "Prefatory Note" emanates from "the — unnamed." He begins with these words:- "In the settled conviction that ignorance, not knowledge, is the enemy of Christianity, we seek the fullest light from every source to reveal the firm foundation of our Faith." Can anyone imagine a falser start? Since Christianity began, is there a single true believer who could so overlook the Word personal and the word written? "This is life eternal to know thee [the Father], the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou didst send?" Nor did His faithful bondman speak differently: "other foundation can no man lay beside that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ;" or if divine dogmas be asked, the same inspired voice answers, "being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets." These gentlemen give the impression of philosophic divines, like other philosophers, in quest of truth, which they have not and never find. There is but one Way; but they turn their backs on it, to "seek the fullest light from every source to reveal the firm foundations of our Faith!" They do not confess the one true Light which, coming into the world, lighteneth every man, whether he receives or rejects. He only is the Revealer and the revelation.

What exposes the incredulity at work is the perfect folly to a Christian believer of the next short paragraph. "Scientific processes have wrung her secrets from nature; the historic method has shed new light upon the ancient literatures, and patient research in archaeology has caused the dim and far off past [?of heathenism] to live afresh." If these students or teachers by grace knew themselves possessed of life in Christ, could they write such trash with cap in hand to such researches, interesting to men who know nothing better, not even seeking the Living One, but occupied with the dust of death? No Christian ought to fear such knowledge as these external pursuits yield; but he will never glean a single atom of divine truth from all of them put together.

Take the nearest approach to anything in Scripture. It was thought wonderful many years ago, as one looks back when Sir H. Rawlinson found and deciphered the cylinder which bore witness to the truth of Belshazzar's reigning in Babylon, notwithstanding the total silence of history. What it proved was that learned men who doubted the prophet believed a cylinder. What is the worth of faith grounded on evidence of this kind? None, if we believe our Lord's estimate as given in John 2: 23-26. If it be allowed that there must be antecedent faith, but that these evidences enlighten and sustain, one must demur again on the ground of John 20: 5-10, For here were two eminent and pious souls; yet the aim of the inspired record is to show that evidence, no matter how convincing, is not what feeds and edifies, but the truth revealed in the scriptures and God believed therein. Both Peter and John "saw and believed," "For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead." And this is confirmed later in the chapter, where Thomas, who refused adequate testimony and never thought of the scripture, was shamed out of his incredulity by our Lord's condescension, yet rebuked by more than one word; and the true principle was affirmed in ver. 29, "Because thou hast seen, thou hast believed: blessed are those that saw not and believed." This is Christian faith, not the mongrel which Christendom has brought forth alike to ritualism and to rationalism as here.

The age of faith was the apostolic only, when the holy deposit to the Christian was given fully and finally. But the germs of "the knowledge" falsely so called were already sown, "the profane babblings and oppositions" which the apostle sternly denounced as missing the mark concerning the faith. Most of the scanty remains of the second and third centuries betray a sprouting and spread which could hardly have escaped the indignant denunciation of an apostle. Apostolic succession is a fancy and a fraud; and because there was to be none, the saints and elders were, by all their writ, thrown on God and His word expressly. Judaising and Gentile philosophy did their deadly work, issuing in the formal and superstitious on the one hand, and in the sceptical and heterodox on the other, till all sunk into the dreary darkness out of which grew the haughty assumption of the Papacy and the vain rivalry of the Greeks and others, as disputatious and idolatrous as Rome. The Reformation began with a heavy blow at the shameless sale of indulgences to gratify the covetousness and the aesthetic taste of the pagan-hearted and infidel Pope Leo X.; but it was turned by grace to give an open Bible where it could. But the truth, though powerfully preached and largely blessed, was scarcely recovered beyond the remission of sins, not really the Christian's deliverance and proper relationship, still less his heavenly hope, the presence of the Spirit, the one body of Christ, and the purpose of God in setting Him over all things above, and the glorified with Him, and Israel with the nations below under His reign.

Soon reaction set in, but no spiritual progress; and now a fearful retrogradism, both unbelieving, earthly and human: one hankering after Babylon about to be judged with God's judgment on her for her idolatry and worldliness the other denying and seeking to destroy God's authority in the Bible from Genesis and onward, under the pretext of "the science of literary and historical investigation;" both preparing the way, little as they suspect it, for the apostasy and the man of sin, and a still more awful doom than corrupt Babylon's. This is what one is profoundly convinced is the spirit of the age, not of God, and the evident character of the "Interpreter," as we cannot but interpret it.

But it would not be perhaps fair to this new publication, nor satisfactory to enquirers, to condemn it because of the Prefatory statement of its merely human principles. Let us consider then its first and weightiest article, "The permanent religious value of the Old Testament by the Oxford Regius Professor of Hebrew." Does not this look a solid building superior to the attacks of incredulity? Dr. Driver makes the first and primary claim to that value to consist in its surprisingly elevated conceptions of God, but with grave abatement from the very first chapter of Genesis! Its science is imperfect, and in many respects false." Yet "its author, under the influence of the Divine Spirit, has grafted a wonderfully sublime and spiritual representation of the Sovereign Author of nature" etc. Here we have the hateful, impious and blasphemous spirit of error inseparable from the "higher criticism." The reality of God's inspiration of scripture is given up. For no instructed believer allows that what the apostle authoritatively reveals as to it in 1 Cor. 2, 1 Thess. 2 and 2 Tim. 3 (if we refer to no more) is to be lowered to what people call "the influence of the Divine Spirit," as on a Christian preacher in converting sinners or on a Christian teacher in truly expounding scripture to the edifying of saints. The absolute exclusion of error is the essential difference of inspiration, which is secured neither by men's piety nor wisdom but by the power of the Holy Ghost guarding against human infirmity and giving us the word of God Who knows all and cannot lie. The new criticism fatally sins against the N.T. doctrine of inspiration, and betrays in limine its own real infidelity.

It is as absurd in Prof. Driver to assume that Gen. 1 or any other scripture teaches "science" as in the late Prof. F. W. Newman to expect a disquisition on "logic" from the apostle Paul. I have never known a geologist whose self-sufficient scepticism gave occasion for insinuating falsehood against that chapter, whose words did not prove his own failure to understand what Moses wrote. All those who have so written betray their ignorance, not of geology but of the scriptures in question. They hastily attack therefore not what is written but their own misconception. This is all which they, very unintentionally, prove. And no wonder. What geologist of reputation had any sufficient title to expound this word of God or any other?

Perhaps we might ask what peculiar claim Dr. Driver has to speak of "science," and in particular of geology, which is but partially a "science." Geology beyond doubt is as ignorant as men like Mill and H. Spencer (who are surely freethinkers enough to satisfy the most exigent of these new critics) confess themselves and all scientists to be, of primeval causes" Yet these "primeval causes were just here in question, which these philosophers, and others who rightly dub themselves Agnostics, own to be for science an impenetrable secret, or as one says the "dead wall" to which science leads, but cannot pass. Behind that wall is God, whom His own revelation can alone make known to man; and this is what is given in scripture.

Accordingly the O.T. is preparatory, as being .first promise holding forth a divine Deliverer, where death had entered; and then His law to Israel which was a restraint on man's fallen nature; governmental dealings too in varied forms, during which prophecy was given, in presence of ever growing declension, to assure believers; whereas nothing can convince unbelievers but the judgments which punish them, Isa. 26: 9. The N.T. is a revelation not only from but of God in His Son become man; grace and truth, that men, dead in sins, might live through Him; and that He might die for us who believe as propitiation for our sins. And it is the N.T. which gives perfection ("the law made nothing perfect") in Christ dead, risen and ascended. For He is coming, who will bring His own into His glorious likeness for the Father's house on high; as He will judge the habitable earth, and finally all the dead at the end, who during this life refused to honour Him by faith.

It is scarce needed to follow the platitudes Dr. D. adds, secondly, of man's duty to God and men: thirdly, of man's mutual duties; fourthly, O.T. examples of character, as models in a measure; fifthly, of devotional material; sixthly, of great ideals in human life and society; and seventhly, the great stress laid on a pure and spiritual religion; which last was chiefly a yearning for what did not exist. Our Lord certainly points in John 4: 21-24 to such worship in "the hour that now is," and in contrast with Jerusalem as well as Samaria. In all the Christian ring is as wanting as any just confession of Christ. There is nothing but what a Unitarian might receive or write; for they too speak of grace and love, as well of a great redemptive process in the earlier stages, consummated in the N.T. Throughout Dr. D., cautious as he is, drops words which every sound Christian must resent as libels on the O.T., incompatible with the principles and practice of the Lord and His apostles and prophets, and subversive of the faith in the Bible as God's authoritative word to man.

The Catholic Apostolic Body, or Irvingites.

W. Kelly.

(Bible Treasury Vol. 17, 18 [24 sections, 74,000 words].)

CHAPTER 1.

a) INTRODUCTION.

When it pleased God of late to awaken the slumbering virgins by the midnight cry, not only were the wise roused, but the foolish. Nor did Satan delay to set up counterfeits, so as to bring the discredit of heterodoxy and evils of various other kinds on the recovered hope. Evangelical men were at a manifestly low ebb, even the most devoted of them betraying their ignorance of church or even christian privilege by periodical gatherings for prayer that the Holy Spirit might be once more shed on souls, and meanwhile eagerly forming societies to do thus anomalously the work which was the common responsibility of God's church. There was no real faith in the presence of the Spirit, no looking for His free action in the assembly, no expression of the one body of Christ, nor even sense of the church's ruin-state, any more than really waiting for God's Son from heaven. There was not even the consciousness of the true deliverance and heavenly associations of the christian. The evangelical revival, whether of Wesley or of Whitfield, or outside the borders of either, was a pious reaction, which insisted on the new birth and earnestness on behalf of perishing souls, from the cold ethics and formality, if not deism, of the century before. But the calling and the inheritance of saints, the purposes of God for the glory of God in Christ, never fully dawned on evangelical hearts, any more than on Puritans, or even the Reformers that preceded. It is needless to say that it would be vain to look for aught better, or as good, in the middle ages, or among the Fathers. Even redemption in any adequate conception of it had quickly faded away, before men had to contend for the truth of Christ's person or the Holy Ghost. Nobody doubts that grace saved all through; but for more than a dozen centuries where is there a single sentence which proclaims salvation as the apostles once taught and all saints enjoyed?

In such circumstances as these who can wonder that the privileges, either of the individual christian or of Christ's body the church, were unknown? Hard and narrow Calvinism since the sixteenth century maintained a measure of solid footing for the saint sorely tried under law. Active, warm-hearted Arminianism, when it did not lapse into Arianism, went out in zeal personally, and in service of others, but with a minimum of truth, without which one could hardly be saved. Man and the world were unjudged. The assembly of God united to Christ, and the scene of the Spirit's free activity according to the word as a present thing, and even christian standing, were ignored, the future glories of Christ, as well as the actual bearing of His exaltation, being not at all understood.

The horrors of infidelity, both in its multitudinous excesses and in its rising to a head of despotic self-will, made the Bible, then going forth in active circulation beyond example, dearer to the children of God, whose consciences began to be searched as to their state and ways by the coming of the Lord, which now became more distinctly, practically, and urgently pressed. The family likeness on a small scale, first to the apostasy, next to the man of sin and son of perdition, could not but arouse thoughtful souls to the still more awful evils disclosed in 2 Thess. 2 which are to call down the Lord's personal judgment at His appearing. Hence was felt increasingly the imperious call to be ready for the Lord when He comes for His own, that they may go in with Him to the marriage feast. Resting on Him and His redemption, they had the oil in their vessels. But had they not departed from the original call to quit "the camp," to love not the world nor the things that are in the world? Had they not, in ceasing to go out to meet the Bridegroom, turned in here or there to slumber or sleep? Had they not, on the one hand, failed to resist evil in the church, and, on the other, adopted ways of their own to escape what was gross, with little heed to Christ's will and glory? If He was coming as they hoped, they knew not how soon, it behoved them to be found honouring the word and Spirit of God. They could not but feel that the church was fallen and broken irremediably as a whole: the great eastern and western bodies swamped by idolatry and plain evils, both doctrinal and practical; the lesser Protestant systems, either enslaved to the state, or settled on their differences without a thought of unity, save invisibly or in heaven.

The ruin was complete; but had faith no resource? Was there no provision for the faithful in a state so sinful and hopelessly awry? Had the blessed Lord not foreseen and revealed His will in view of it? They must cease to do evil if they would learn to do well. Obedience is the saving principle that never fails in Old Testament or New, for Jew or christian. The word made it clear that, whatever the wreck of outward manifestation, there is one body and one Spirit, even as there is one hope of our calling. These abide unchangeably for such as believe. Were the saints content to fall back on the imperishable blessings of the church, clearing themselves from all compromise of the truth, and owning the fidelity of the Lord to His own word? The Spirit, beyond doubt, was sent down to abide in and with the saints for ever. He will be poured out afresh on all flesh for the kingdom by and by; but He has not forsaken, and never can, the church, any more than the cloud of divine presence left Israel, yea disobedient and guilty Israel, all the wilderness through. But the time is come when God wakes up His own, and works readiness to receive their returning Lord; and they recall His voice vouchsafing the promise of His presence in the midst, were they but two or three, no longer scattered by the names of leaders or by exalting this doctrine and policy or that, but gathered to (εἰς) His name.

Hence they judged themselves and their ways, personal, worldly, ecclesiastical, in the light of that word, which also testified the way of obedience that never fails for the single-eyed in the worst of times. For as sure as God lives, His child never has to choose man's wretched alternative — the less of two evils. There is a way, and it is the way of obedience, of obeying God rather than man, in which the weakest may walk, and the strongest ought to walk. If others turn, as all alas! have turned, to the right and to the left, whatever be the snare, our idol of silver, or our image of gold, Away with it! The written word solves every possible dilemma; but we are wholly dependent on God, Who works in us by His Spirit to exalt the Lord thereby. We have been verily guilty; and repentance, not self-confidence, becomes us. Re-construction is not, nor ever was, God's way for His people in a fallen state. He that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. Ceasing from evil in brokenness of spirit, our place is to search the scriptures and find what the Lord reveals there open to saints, whatever be their measure; for we are put members in the body as it pleased Him. God set some in the church: first apostles; secondarily prophets; thirdly teachers; after that miracles; then, gifts of healing, etc. This raises the question of power and authority; and assumption is as dangerous as mistake about them is easy. But obeying God's word is the clear duty of every soul born of God. We are elect through sanctification of the Spirit to obedience and the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus.

Here it was that the divergence ensued among those awakened from slumber. Many are the paths of error. There is but one way of truth: it was that of Christ on earth, the obedient One. Power from on high had been already given; and the Spirit sent down from heaven, though our sins be great and many as they are, has never retired again. He has been grieved in a thousand ways, and has shown His sense of the church's unfaithfulness. But never for a moment has He deserted the post which He deigned to take here below to glorify the Lord Jesus. In obedience we prove His gracious power, and this not in gift individual only, but in communion where we in faith come together to Christ's name in the unity of the Spirit which we are all bound to keep. Those who act obediently have ever found His blessing in it, whatever others may or may not do.

Nor is there a tittle of presumption in obeying God. Therein only is true humility. Imitating the apostles is as proud as it is childish; it would be ridiculous, if it were not profane. Men have turned the gifts of Christ, endorsed with the power of God's Spirit, into titles of honour in the world, or of ostentation in a church already judaized. God has taken care to preserve every privilege good for the saints in lowliness to Christ's glory. Whatever is no longer vouchsafed would be incompatible with the church fallen and scattered as it is. He is as wise in what He withholds, as He is good in what He continues, the state of the church being what it is. Those whose principle it is to obey in the immutable relationships of His grace He has not spared all needed sifting and humiliation, but has largely blessed in an increasing enjoyment of Himself and His word. Such as have set themselves up, coveting power and authority, He has covered with shame in all eyes but their own, perhaps in their own also, if the truth were known.

Mr. Irving and his friends stood on the wholly different ground of ignoring known evil in which they were consciously involved, till God should interfere in power and blessing. This, however seemingly humble after a human sort, was neither faith nor holiness; failure as to which was not repented of as sinful, but virtually set to God's account. Moral responsibility was thus ignored and shirked. They did not judge but accept the unbelief of Christendom in the ever-abiding presence of the Holy Spirit, and prayed (like the evangelicals) for a fresh outpouring; as if God's word were void, and His church had no longer that divine indwelling, without which it is not God's house, and in truth cannot be His church at all. This was to judaize the assembly. For it is confessed by all who look for the Lord's premillennial advent that the Jews etc. in that day are to be the object of the Spirit's latter rain on the earth.

But the Holy Spirit never left the church since Pentecost. Had it been true, Christ had no longer a body on earth united to Him the Head in heaven. And the error was far more serious in character and consequence for those who professed to be awaiting the Lord from above, as their habitual hope. Others who shared like unbelief meant little more by His outpouring than greatly increased blessing in their own souls, or in conversion at home and abroad. Not so those who (judging Christendom by the light of the word, with the Lord's coming immediately before them) were as loud as men could be in denouncing the various denominations as only so many streets of Babylon. Yet from their incurably vicious starting-point, those who were crying loudly for the Spirit to come down afresh were as urgent as the idolaters of succession and tradition, that men who saw the abominations they shared should remain where they were till God appeared in power, as their selfish unbelief expected. Even after they had had certain strange manifestations in Port Glasgow, London, etc., they still held to the same evil principle, and insisted on all over whom they had influence, that none should abandon the evil under which they groaned, till they had received manifestations of power like their own. Obedience, the uniform principle of the christian's life, as it was in all perfection seen only in our Lord, was not at all in their counsels and conduct, but really though unwittingly denied by them.

It was just about the same time that God began to impress on some of His children, solemnly and practically, that we are called to holiness, not individually alone, but congregationally; that any other ecclesiastical principle surrenders in truth all genuine claim to consistency with His will about His assembly on earth; that waiting for divine manifestations is a vain excuse for tampering with the evil we allow from day to day; and that in fact we have the personal presence of the Spirit, irrevocable while the church is here below, to know and act on His word. So that the unbelief of that plea is as plain as its unholiness. The abuse of 1 Corinthians, and of the seven Apocalyptic Epistles to justify continuance in flagrant evil is a perversion which all corrupt systems have shared. No upright christian ought to be ensnared by it; he might be unable to unravel the sophistry of the special pleader for going on with iniquity; but surely the Spirit who dwells in him testifies that to employ God's word for associating His children with evil that He hates is, and must be, from beneath.

Herein it is evident that the Irvingite statements are as inconsistent with themselves as they are with scripture, and thus betray their hollow character, to say the least, human, and wholly unreliable, their egregious pretensions notwithstanding. They do not absolutely deny that the Holy Spirit dwelt in some measure or way in the saints since primitive apostolic days; but they arrogate to themselves as their peculiar blessing, and exclusively to be enjoyed under the authority of their apostolate, "the restored Comforter." Now it is striking to read how scripture puts scorn on this self-exalting claim of theirs. For it is precisely in speaking of the Comforter that the apostle John gives our Lord's assurance that the Father would give that other Paraclete "that He may he with you for ever" (John 14: 16). Their notion of His restoration impeaches Christ's authority and the truth of scripture. If the Lord, if the scripture, is true, as every christian believes, the so-called Catholic Apostolics are false. But they in fact as little with themselves as with God's word. For they do allow that the gifts or manifestations of the Spirit, the ministrations of the Lord, and the workings or energisings or the Father are is identified their Persons; that if one fails, so proportionately do the others; and that it is the Father's energising which raised up Christ that quickens the soul. But if this be true, was there no soul thus born of God between the apostolic age, and the apostles of Newman Street? If souls were so born, what is the value of teachings and pretensions?

The truth is, that, with all their boldness of assumption and haughty titles, these men have not the courage of their convictions. For if a word of prophecy forbade any other name than that of the Catholic Apostolic Church, as Dr. Norton states (The Restoration, etc., p. 159), it is idle to say, "we arrogate to ourselves nothing, for we do not appropriate it in any exclusive sense." Common honesty concludes that they thereby arrogate to themselves everything of value. If there were an atom of truth in their doctrine of a restored Comforter, and of a restored apostolate, they most logically appropriate the one body of Christ to their party. The ever-abiding Comforter is as essential on earth, as Christ the exalted Head in heaven, to the perpetuity of the church here below till Christ comes; and the special boast of Irvingism, that they, and they only, have the Comforter restored, is mere folly and falsehood, which are so glaring that one wonders not at their toning down their language in public, whatever they may utter among the initiated. Let their "sealed" ones answer whether they do not in private, and in the most, exclusive sense, appropriate more than title or name common to all.

CHAPTER 1.

b) EARLY HISTORY.

In tracing the first manifestations of that which issued in the establishment of this society, two publications furnish considerable help. One is Dr. R. Norton's "Restoration of Apostles and Prophets; in the Catholic Apostolic Church (London: Bosworth and Harrison, 215, Regent Street, 1861)," the other, and far earlier pamphlet, "Narrative of Facts, characterizing the Spiritual Manifestations in members of Mr. Irving's congregation, and other individuals in England and Scotland, and formerly in the writer himself. By Robert Baxter. Second Edition, etc. London: James Nisbet, Berners Street, 1833." The "Morning Watch" (7 vols. 8vo.), which changed its publisher from J. Nisbet with whom it appeared in March 1829, to James Fraser for vol. iv., closing somewhat abruptly in 1833, will afford illustrative matter; for it was therein that the chief men made their first public stand and defence, as it was there that their heterodoxy was keenly defended, though broached, taught, and circulated very fully and in every form elsewhere. Among the various authorities I have writings of their accepted apostles, prophets, angels, etc. Nor must one omit to name the Rev. R. Miller's History and Doctrines of Irvingism, etc. (2 Vols. cr. 8vo., London. C. Kegan Paul & Co., 1, Paternoster Square, 1878), which presents a very full and painstaking account of the system, with such a judgment of it as might be expected from a clergyman of decided Anglican views.

Mr. M. devotes four preliminary chapters to (1) predisposing causes, (2) Edward Irving, (3) early meetings at Mr. Drummond's (Albury), and (4) the early prophesyings and tongues in Scotland. Though interesting we may pass these over and come to the utterances in London, which followed two things gravely to be weighed: continual prayers for the outpouring of the Spirit; and Mr. Irving's heterodoxy on the humanity of Christ, as fallen like every other's, save that He never sinned. Dr. N. devotes his first two chapters (pp. 1-71) to what he calls "the outpouring of the Spirit of God in Scotland," and "in England"; as in the second (p. 40) he does not disguise the connection of the movement with Mr. Irving's doctrine that the Saviour assumed fallen human nature in the virgin's womb.

Mrs. Cardale, wife of a London solicitor (of whom more anon), was, it seems, the first in London to speak in a tongue and prophesy; as did afterwards his sister (E.C.), and a Miss Hall who afterwards recanted and left them with an humbling confession. The late Mr. B. Noel refused his sanction and exposed the delusion, which drove the family away, till, finding little more countenance from another clergyman, they betook themselves to Mr. I. Mr. Taplin, a clergyman's son, who attended Mr. I's early and late prayer-meetings for the outpouring of the Spirit, was the first, after some six months' perseverance, to burst on them one morning as with a cras-cran-cra-crash of thunder when beginning to read Isa. 43, following the tongue with the English words, "Jehovah, hear us." Mr. I. at once gave thanks to God for thus answering their cry! The next morning, when Ezek. 28 was read, Dr. N. tells us that the same superhuman voice was heard: — "It is thou, O Britain; thou art the anointed cherub." The third morning the same voice burst forth (while one of the young men was praying to God to come down and help them) in these words, "The Lord hath come down. He is in the midst of you. His eye hath seen, His heart hath pitied the affliction of His people, and He will deliver them. He will not leave any behind."

Females spoke as yet only in private houses. But on Oct. 16, 1831, Miss Hall left her seat during morning service, went into the vestry, and was heard speaking there. An interview ensued when the service was over, when she so spoke that Mr. I. groaned under her exhortation, and on that evening confessed publicly to the congregation his guilty holding out, and thus prepared them for whatever might be spoken in power, that God's gifts might be thankfully received and His voice be not driven away! The moment he ceased speaking, says Dr, N., "a voice that seemed to rend the roof burst from Mr. T-, first in a tongue, and then in the following words:- 'Why will ye flee from the voice of God? The Lord is in the midst of you. Why will ye flee from His voice? Ye cannot flee from it in the day of judgment.' When order was restored, Mr. Irving told the people that they had been alarmed by what had often pierced his own heart; it was the voice of the living God. He solemnly exhorted all, and concluded with thanksgiving that the Lord had at length prevailed" (pp. 48, 49).

The following Sunday infidels among others attended. Mr. I's subject was antichrist, and the utterance drew out a tumult of hissings and hootings. Under the horror of such a scene Mr. I. intimated his wish for "the gifted" to remain away from the evening service, but regretted it when said, and only carried this out one Lord's day, giving license more than ever afterwards. The trustees therefore intervened and ejected him in the spring that followed; as indeed such proceedings were intolerable in the eyes of sober Presbyterians, to whose discipline and policy he was yet responsible. Mr. I. however, independent as he was in his bearing toward other christians, seemed spell-bound before the gifted men and women. There were moments when he deeply felt their iron heel, only to fall under their commands more and more deeply. It is a painful and humiliating story. But for their unhallowed influence Mr. I. would probably have seen it his duty to have given up, not the Regent Square Chapel only, but Presbyterianism. But the spirit at work perverted and paralysed an otherwise honest mind and noble heart. By the Presbytery of Annan, which had ordained him in 1802, he was tried and deprived in 1832 for his false doctrine, and died a worn-out old man at forty-two in Glasgow, Dec. 8th, 1834.

For years before Mr. I's death, and in high estimation, not only for correct piety, but among the "gifted," stood Mr. Baxter, to whose "Narrative" we may now profitably turn. One can understand how godly souls were moved by the sight, on the one hand, of infidelity coming in like a flood, on the other, of Christendom's self-complacency, whether in its irregular activities, or in its Pagan-Jewish forms and ceremonies. Then all alike started with the unbelieving thought that the Holy Spirit needed to be poured out afresh; which directly exposed to a snare of the enemy. An answer from God could only come to the prayer of faith. Had they before Him sought to cease from all that grieved the Spirit, and hindered their subjection to the Lord in devoted obedience of His word, how blessed had it been for them, how full of honour to Christ!

Mr. B. (a few months after writing the "Layman's Appeal" on behalf of The English Establishment, then beginning to totter under the strokes which will never cease till the end of its enemies is accomplished) was one of those who longed greatly and prayed much for such an outpouring, as he tells us himself. "When I saw, as it seemed to me, proof that those who claimed the gifts were walking honestly, and that the power manifested in them was evidently supernatural, and moreover bore testimony to Christ come in the flesh, I welcomed it as the work of God, though it was long before I publicly spoke of it ......

"At this period I was by professional arrangements called up to London, and had a strong desire to attend at the prayer-meetings which were then privately held by those who spoke in the power and those who sought for the gift. Having obtained an introduction I attended; my mind fully convinced that the power was of God, and prepared, as such, to listen to the utterances. After one or two brethren had read and prayed, Mr. T-* was made to speak two or three words very distinctly, and with an energy and depth of tone which seemed to me extraordinary; and it fell upon me as a supernatural utterance, which I ascribed to the power of God, the words were in a tongue I did not understand. In a few minutes Miss E. C. broke out in an utterance in English, which, as to matter and manner and the influence it had upon me, I at once bowed to as the utterance of the Spirit of God. Those who have heard the powerful and commanding utterance need no description; but they who have not may conceive what an unnatural and unaccustomed tone of voice, an intense and rivetting power of expression — with the declaration of a cutting rebuke to all who were present, and applicable to my own state of mind in particular — would effect upon me, and upon the others who were come together, expecting to hear the voice of the Spirit of God. In the midst of the feeling of awe and reverence which this produced, I was seized upon by the power; and in much struggling against it was made to cry out, and myself to give forth a confession of my own sin in the matter, for which we were rebuked; and afterwards to utter a prophecy that the messengers of the Lord should go forth, publishing, to the ends of the earth in the mighty power of God, the testimony of the near coming of the Lord Jesus. The rebuke had been for not declaring the near coming of Jesus; and I was smitten in conscience, having many times refrained from speaking of it to the people, under the fear that they might stumble over it and be offended.

*Here is the late Dr. McNeile's judgment. "I heard Mr. Taplin, and what I heard was this. I write it in all seriousness before God, without scoff, or sneer, or ridicule; but simply and bona fide descriptive of what I heard. It was neither more nor less than what is commonly and vulgarly called jargon, uttered ore rotunda and mingled with Latin words, among which I distinctly heard, more than once, amamini, amaminor.

"The same gentleman afterwards read the first chapter of the First Epistle of Peter, in a sort of unnatural recitative, which, as I was informed, was reading in the Spirit. That is, as they define it, it was not he who read, but the Holy Ghost in him, merely using the voice and lips of the man, as an organ of utterance unto men, On this supposition, the reading might have been expected to be perfect indeed. My ear was struck by deviations from our Authorised Version. I had a Greek Testament in my hand, and perceived at a glance that the deviations were palpably incorrect. That Mr. Taplin should make a mistake in his reading, might be very natural; but that the Holy Spirit, speaking by the physical organs of Mr. Taplin, should misrepresent the holy Scriptures, was more than I could receive. I can truly say, that my predominant feeling on the occasion alluded to was astonishment at the possibility of men of mind and education, or even of common sense, being for a moment deluded by such paltry and profane absurdities. Before I left the house I plainly declared my judgment in the matter to Mr. Irving. His reply was strange, and highly characteristic of the system: but it was private, and I do not feel at liberty to quote it" (Mr. N.'s Letters on the Church, pp. 111-113, 1834).

"I was overwhelmed by this occurrence. The attainment of the gift of prophecy, which this supernatural utterance was deemed to be, was with myself and many others — a great object of desire. I could not therefore but rejoice at having been made the subject of it; but there were so many difficulties attaching to the circumstances under which the power came upon me, and I was so anxious and distressed lest I should mistake the mind of God in the matter, that I continued many weeks weighed down in spirit and overwhelmed. There was in me at the time of the utterance very great excitement. and yet I was distinctly conscious of a power acting upon me beyond the mere power of excitement. So distinct was this power from the excitement that, in all my trouble and doubt about it, I never could attribute the whole to, excitement. Conceiving, as I had previously done, that the power speaking in the speakers was of God, I was convinced the power in me was the same power; and I regarded the confession which was wrung from me to be the same thing as is spoken of in 1 Cor. 14, where it is said, 'If all prophesy,' etc. It seemed to be so with me: I was unlearned; the secret of my heart was manifest; and I was made, by a power unlike anything I had ever known before, to fall down and acknowledge that God was among them of a truth" (pp. 3-6).

After detailing some further experience tending to confirm his impressions, Mr. B. proceeds (p. 8), "I am thus particular in explaining these circumstances that I may accurately show how unequal we are, in our own strength to stand before God; and how rapidly we may fall from all our convictions and views of truth, if our God should see fit, in judgment for our sins, to leave us for a season to the influence of a seducing spirit. From this period for the space of five months I had no utterance in public; though, when engaged alone in private prayer, the power would come down upon me, and cause me to pray with strong crying and tears for the state of the church.

"On one occasion, about a month after I had received the power, whilst in my study endeavouring to lift up my soul to God in prayer, my mind was so filled with worldly concerns that my thoughts were wandering to them continually. Again and again I began to pray, and before a minute had passed, I found that my thoughts had wandered from my prayer-book again into the world. I was much distressed at this temptation, and sat down, lifting up a short ejaculation to God for deliverance; when suddenly the power came down upon me, and I found myself lifted up in soul to God, my wandering thoughts at once rivetted, and calmness of mind given me. By a constraint I cannot describe, I was made to speak — at the same time shrinking from utterance and yet rejoicing in it. The utterance was a prayer that the Lord would have mercy upon me and deliver me from fleshly weakness, and would graciously bestow upon me the gifts of His Spirit, the gift of wisdom, the gift of knowledge, the gift of faith, the working of miracles, the gift of healing, the gift of prophecy, the gift of tongues, and the interpretation of tongues; and that He would open my mouth and give me strength to declare His glory.

"This prayer, short almost as I have now penned it, was forced from me by the constraint of the power which acted upon me; and the utterance was so loud that I put my handkerchief to my mouth to stop the sound that I might not alarm the house. When I had reached the last word I have written, the power died off me, and I was left just as before, save in amazement at what had passed, and filled, as it seemed to me, with thankfulness to God for His great love so manifested to me. With the power there came upon me a strong conviction, This is the Spirit of God: what you are now praying is of the Spirit of God, and must therefore be of the mind of God and; what you are now asking will surely be given to you. This conviction, strong as it was at the moment, was never shaken until the whole work fell to pieces. But from that day I acted in the full assurance that in God's own good time all these gifts would be bestowed upon me."

An important fact appears in Mr. B.'s "Narrative," p. 12. The early prayer-meeting had been instituted to pray for the General Assembly to be guided aright in judging Mr. I.'s doctrine, especially on the Human Nature of our Lord. In Jan. 1832 Mr. B. took part there "in the power." During this visit to London, at a private house, after Mrs. J. Cardale testified, Mr. B. gave out for two hours or upwards, with very little interval, "what we all regarded as prophecies concerning the church and the nation." "The power which then rested on me was far more mighty than before, laying down my mind and body in perfect obedience, and carrying me on without confusion or excitement. Excitement there might appear to a bystander, but to myself it was calmness and peace. Every former visitation of the power had been very brief; but now it continued and seemed to rest upon me all the evening. The things I was made to utter flashed in upon my mind without forethought, without expectation, and without any plan or arrangement: all was the work of a moment, and I was as the passive instrument of the power which used me. In the beginning of my utterances that evening some observations were addressed by me to the pastor [Mr. Irving] in a commanding tone; and the manner and course of utterance manifested in me was so far differing from those which had been manifested in the members of his own flock, that he was much startled," etc. (pp. 13, 14).

On the following morning, as we are a little after told, Mr. B. was made by the power to read and expound Rev. 11, declaring that the two witnesses were two offices (prophet and minister), the one already known in "the gifted," the other now for the first time manifested (in himself), and that this should be multiplied, as the days of their witnessing, were now begun. In the evening the declaration of the two witnesses was repeated; "and very distinctly we were commanded to 'count the days, one thousand three score and two hundred' — 1260 — the days appointed for testimony, at the end of which the saints of the Lord should go up to meet the Lord in the air, and evermore be with the Lord" (p. 17). It seems that Mr. B. used to think of some earthly sanctuary in and through the days of vengeance, but had experienced a sudden change of opinion more in accord with Mr. I., founded on Matt. 24 and Luke 21, his wife also having undergone a like charge, each unknown to the other (pp. 17, 18).

These scriptures were no right basis for a truth clearly provable by others; for they speak of the Lord's future dealings with Israel on earth, not with the saints for heaven. This was not divine guidance, But Mr. B. draws special attention (for "the words of the prophecy were most distinct) to count from that day (viz. 14th Jan. 1832) 1260 days, and (? or) three days and a half (Rev. 11: 11); and on innumerable other occasions by exposition and prophecy was the same thing again and again declared, and most largely opened" (pp. 18, 19). It was one of the many falsehoods to which the spirit there at work stood committed, which ought to have satisfied all, as it later convinced Mr. B. himself, that the work was not of God's Spirit. Other failures startled the prophet, but two ladies prophesied (pp. 20, 21) so as to show that the work in him was of God, and that he was not to be troubled by anything! "I found on a sudden, in the midst of my accustomed course a power coming upon me which was altogether new and unnatural and in many cases a most appalling utterance given to me — matters uttered by me in this power of which I had never thought, and many of which I did not understand until long after they were uttered — an enlarged comprehension and clearness of view given to me on points which were really the truth of God (though mingled with many things which I have since seen not to be the truth, but which then had the form of truth), etc. ....... It was manifest to me the power was supernatural; it was therefore a spirit. It seemed to me to bear testimony to Christ, and to work the fruits of the Spirit of God. The conclusion was inevitable that it was the Spirit of God; and, if so, the deduction was immediate that it ought in all things to be obeyed" (p. 22). Fresh and marked failures occurred; but Jer. 20: 7 was perverted to cover lies; or they were spiritualised to quiet conscience and to lull all into deeper deceit (pp. 23-28). "In the course of the same day and the day following, a prophecy was given to me that God had cut short the present appointment for ordinary ministers. It was added that this was the consequence of the setting up of the abomination of desolation. The Spirit of God having withdrawn from the church, the church was thenceforth desolate; and now God would endow men with the power of utterance in the Spirit, as the gift of distinguishing those set apart for the ministry"...... The plan was adopted of assigning the present day as the time of fulfilment on the Gentile church of those scriptures which speak of the setting up of the abomination of desolation" (Matt. 24, Luke 21) p. 29. Again, the reader will observe the judaising at work by misapplied scripture, the abomination being said to be the quenching of the Spirit, and the desolation, God's withdrawal of the Spirit. Thus 2 Thess. 2 was read mystically (which the popular commentators endorse), for the man of sin was the spirit, of the world in the church opposing the Spirit God would shortly pour down; as by and by he would be a more fearful manifestation in mimicry of Jesus as King of kings in the person of young Napoleon (pp. 30, 31).

Mr. B. gives the development of this working of Satan as an angel of light in pp. 32-55, some domestic, some as to his brother, a clergyman, drawn into the delusion (whose service Mr. B. undertook one Lord's day publicly in the power). Then came in the power an interpretation of Rev. 12 (pp. 56, 57), which made "the woman" mean the spiritual church, i.e., those partakers of the Spirit, and contradistinguished from the visible church seen in "the beast rising out of the earth!" The man child was the testimony by preaching Christ's Second Coming; and the fleeing into the wilderness meant the spiritual now to be cast out and separate since Jan. 14, 1832 for the 1260 days, as the war in heaven was now against the Spirit in the midst of the Lord's people! These of course would have the victory, but woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea, i.e., the nations, and the churches, respectively, thenceforward given up to Satan's delusions and anger.

This, full of self-complacency, in every part false, was followed closely by the power on Mr. B. opening Rev. 8, as if "the third part" meant Protestant Christendom, the papal and the infidel being the other two parts, the last brought about by the late French Revolution. The hail meant the tories! once fertilising water, now frozen so as to beat down and hurt the grass, i.e., good order! and trees or settled institutions, which it once sustained., the fire was the liberal party! now as ardent and hot as the tories were congealed, but destructive and burning to make all things now.

On the following Sunday, as we are informed, the power moved him to declare the second trumpet to be God's judgment on the sea, or military state! as the earth was the civil. The mountain burning with fire was made the aggregation of liberalism in different forms of a side in collision with the military, so as to reduce even the army to a lifeless state, the ships being the commanders! the creatures the rank and file! and the third part still Protestant, and Great Britain as principal and head. The third trumpet was applied ecclesiastically, and the fourth governmentally, so that king and queen would reign, and the House of Lords be extinguished! Yet the Reform Bill would not pass; but when the people flew against the army, the iron Duke would be again Prime Minister, and fulfil the third and fourth trumpets. Think of this trumpery attributed to scripture, as well as to the power of the Spirit! The fifth trumpet would be the spoliation of the church, the sixth its complete overthrow and civil war, England being still the scene! and all these trumpets to be fulfilled, the first four within two years, and the others in the remaining year and a half (pp. 58-62). It is interesting to have the rare opportunity of a man confessing his false prophecies, and the sad spectacle of a religious body cleaving to them with a death-grip notwithstanding.

But even worse was at hand, following a blinding use of Eph. 6: 12 (p. 62). "The display of this truth was used to rivet me, and those with me, in the power of the enemy." It was Satan warning against Satan to keep them fast in his snare.

CHAPTER 1.

c) EARLY HISTORY.

"About this time was consummated the masterpiece of doctrinal delusion in the development of 'the baptism of fire,' as it was thenceforth expounded by me," etc. (pp. 63, 64). I should rather say that a deeper foundation of evil was laid in the blasphemous assumption of fallen humanity in Christ's person. But however this be, "it was declared in utterance that the Lord would again send apostles, by the laying on of whose hands should follow the baptism of fire; and should give to the disciples of Christ the full freedom of the Holy Ghost, and full and final victory over the world" (p. 65). Fresh utterances followed, calling for enlarged confidence in the Lord's unbounded love, as before they had warned against Satan's snares as an angel of light, alike from the enemy to blind and turn them into his meshes. "At the interval of a day or two there followed an appalling utterance — that the Lord had set me apart for Himself — that from that day I was called to the spiritual ministry I must count forty days — that this was now well nigh expired — that for those forty days was it appointed I should be tried — that the Lord had tried me and found me faithful, and, having now proved in me the first sign of an apostle, patience (referring to 2 Cor. 12: 12), he would give to me the fulness of them in the gifts of signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds - that the Lord had called me to be an apostle; and, by the laying on of my hands and the hands of the other apostles whom the Lord should call, should the baptism of fire be bestowed. Then was added a repetition of the fearful oath given on the declaration of my call to the ministry, 'By Myself have I sworn, saith the Lord; by Myself have I sworn; by Myself have I sworn that I will not fail you, I will never leave nor forsake you.' I was commanded to go back to the church where my mouth wits opened, and on the fortieth day power should be given, the sick should be healed, the deaf should hear, the dead should be restored, and all the mighty signs and wonders should appear; apostles and ministers should be ordained, endowed, and., sent forth to the ends of the earth, to warn the world of the rapture of the saints, and make ready a people prepared for the Lord. It was declared that, when I again stood in the church in London, I should be made to rebuke them sharply; that they had sorely pained the Lord and hindered His work; ....... This full development took place on the Friday preceding the fortieth day, which would fall on a Wednesday. On the Sat. or Sunday came an utterance concerning Scotland — that that was a land of prophets; that the church there had greatly erred in rejecting the remembrance of the apostolic government, but God had used them as prophets to His church; that, because of this, the servant of that church in London (alluding to Mr. Irving) would not be given the apostolic office, but would be sent as a prophet to Scotland, to bear the Lord's warning before the carriage which would ensue from the cholera there. This utterance was accompanied with great power in the form of revelation, laying open to me that Mr. A. [Nicholas Armstrong, an Irish clergyman] would be ordained an apostle [which was done afterwards], and that the clergyman, to whom I have before alluded as a believer in the work, would be set apart for the apostolic office in London [which was certainly never done]; that I should be carried to foreign lands, after passing through a few parts of this land, and should only return at the end of the three years and a half, to join my family immediately previous to the tribulation" (pp. 66, 67).

It is needless to enlarge. It was all a tissue of pretentious falsehood with just enough appearance of truth to ensnare its votaries. The solemn fact is to be noted that the mouth-piece was a saint, more upright than most of his companions, yet a prey to delusion for a season, but soon mercifully delivered.

"On the morrow [i.e., the fortieth day of promise], at the morning prayer-meeting, nothing peculiar occurred. At breakfast several strangers to me were present, and having been made to give forth what seemed a most glorious prophecy concerning the endowments which would attend upon the spiritual (!) apostles whom the Lord would send forth; in how much they would exceed (!!) the endowments given to the twelve apostles (!!!), it was, etc. The day however passed without any manifestation of the signs and wonders which had been foretold. I was made in power to speak to Mr. A., declaring the Lord had called him to the office of apostle; that he would receive the endowment of an apostle, and speedily go to Ireland, to build the Lord a spiritual church there. On the disappointment of our hopes for the day we all seemed to pause, expecting that the succeeding day might realise what the present did not furnish" (pp. 69, 70).

Even so Satan kept up the delusion, not only by Mr. Baxter's public utterance on Thursday which wrought powerfully on Mr. Irving, but by a strange incident on the Saturday at breakfast in Mr. I's house. A stranger asked the Lord's will about something, when the power came on Mr. Baxter and referred in the answer to Mr. B.'s proceedings [for Mr. H. Bulteel of Oxford was for a while carried away by the delusion] with a warning against his rash course. There was nothing in the question, gentleman, or previous conversation, leading to Mr. B.; yet it turned out that it was the very thing that led to the difficulties as to which counsel was asked. No wonder, in detailing yet more (pp. 74, 75), that Mr. B. says, "Ah! how true is the word of God. 'If the light that is in you be darkness, how great is that darkness.' On the Sunday, when Mr. I. was noticing the unseemly behaviour of a young man who insisted on going out, the power came on Mr. B. with 'a most appalling cry, or rather shout' to the effect of a curse on the land, when Mr. I. pronounced this an example of Rev. 11: 5 (fire proceedeth out of their mouth), and that Mr. B. was called of God a spiritual minister, one of the witnesses, while he himself was but a fleshly minister, and unable to command discipline as Mr. B. did; and so it would be, when the full power of this ministry was come in, that discipline would be enforced" (p. 77).

But the snare of an evil spirit once yielded to is not so easily detected or broken, specially, we may suppose, in one accepted as a prophet, and more than a prophet, as an apostle elect. How God wrought to deliver we shall soon learn.

Several circumstances about this time happened and were used somewhat later of God to deliver Mr. Baxter from the evil spirit which was at work in him, accepted by Mr. Irving and his friends as the Spirit of God. The visit to London of a North American Indian chief may be mentioned as a plain fact, and not without instructive interest for its proof of the infatuation that reigned among thorn.

"One evening at Mr. P.'s [? Percival's] I met Mr. R. [? Ryerson] who had come from North America, and had been a missionary among the Indians there. I had in the country received an utterance and a revelation concerning America, which I was mentioning, when he declared his opinion that the American Indians were the lost ten tribes of Israel. He asked me if I had any teaching upon it. I told him I had not, and after hearing from him that one of their native chiefs was converted and now in London, I thought no more of it. A few mornings afterwards, at breakfast at Mr. Irving's, a conversation arose upon America, and I mentioned what had been revealed to me concerning it; and Mr. Irving asked, with reference to some utterance, whether I should conclude it referred to the ten tribes. I paused, for the power rested upon me, and after a little time it was distinctly revealed in the power, and I was made to utter that the American Indians were the lost ten tribes, and that they should, within the three years and a half appointed for the spiritual ministry, be gathered back into their own land, and be settled there before the days of vengeance set in. That the chief, who was now in London, was a chosen vessel of the Lord to lead them back — that he should be endowed with power from on high in all signs and mighty wonders, and should lead them back though in unbelief — that he should receive his power here, and be speedily sent forth to them. After this I went with Mr. Irving, Miss E. C. (who had been present at the foregoing prophecy), and several others, to a Jewish institution, where I was again made to reiterate to the Jews there present the promise of speedy restoration, and vengeance upon all their enemies.

"Being on another occasion assembled with some young men of Mr. Irving's congregation, the Indian chief, who had been alluded to, came in; and I was made in a most triumphant chant to address him as the vessel chosen of God, and to be endowed of God for the bringing back of his brethren. Afterwards I supped with him at Mr. R.'s. The chief did not believe in the message, or in the gifts, though he was apparently astounded; and, as I conversed with him, his countenance and tout ensemble was so utterly foreign to my idea of a Jew, and so strongly of the Tartar cast, that my confidence in my prophecy was shaken, and I was quite miserable under the fear that I had been mistaken and deluded in the matter. However, my conscience was clear of all wilful mistake, and I resisted the fear as a temptation, though exceedingly tried by it. I hinted it to no one, and sought counsel of no one; but I was relieved from my doubt in a most extraordinary way — a way which might be called accidental, did not the very frequent occurrence of such things in the midst of the working of the power, under which I and others were walking, show that it was much more. On the following or next succeeding morning, as I was walking from church with Miss E. C., she, without any reference on my part to the subject, alluded to the prophecy, and said to me, 'It is very remarkable that when you spoke about the ten tribes the other morning, whilst you were pausing the power was so strong and so distinct upon me, I was ready to give the very utterance you gave, and the whole was before my mind as distinct as if I had spoken it.'

"This quite dispelled my doubts. I thought I could not have mistaken the mind of the Spirit, since the same communication was made to her at the same time. Thus were my doubts in this instance removed; and were I to multiply instances, even beyond what may occur in the narrative, I should only more largely confirm the fact of the subtle lying in wait of the enemy, ready by signs and workings (so far as power was committed unto him) to remove doubts, and cancel difficulties, and bring us anew into a state of unsuspecting confidence in the spirit which swayed us. I will also point to this simultaneous action of the power upon Miss E. C. and myself, as an instance of what continually occurred, and as a proof of the identity of the origin of the manifestations in both. The subject of this prophecy was so far new to me, that I had never had the question of the Indians being the ten tribes brought before me, old as it is in the literary world; and even when Mr. R. mentioned it, it made no perceptible impression upon my mind; nor did I to my knowledge ever think any more of it until it arose again at Mr. Irving's. What Miss E. C.'s previous impressions were I know not; but certainly the prophecy developed no previous impressions formed in my own mind, but was to me both a novelty and a difficulty.

"The complete failure of this prophecy is very manifest. The chief went away to his countrymen an unbeliever in the work; and none of the powers have been at all manifested" (Narrative, pp. 80-82).

But there was like failure about that which affected all nearer home. "Not to dwell too long upon minor incidents I was weighed down under the delay of the fulfilment of the prophecy concerning the apostolic endowments on the fortieth day. Prayer was made daily for me in Mr. Irving's church, in obedience to the injunction given by Miss E. C. on the evening before alluded to; and Mr. Irving did not hesitate to pray publicly before his people that I might receive the full endowment of an apostle. To add to my distress, I had heard from my friend in the country,* who had spoken in power and received directions to go and perform a miracle of healing, stating, that in fasting and prayer he had gone upon the errand, but had failed to perform any miracle; that he concluded he had spoken by a lying spirit, and could no longer believe we were speaking by the Spirit of God. My prophecy concerning the fortieth day had been bruited about in my own neighbourhood, and its failure, together with that of my friend, had had such an effect, that my wife, and greater part of the believers in the country, abandoned it as a delusion. My faith in it was, however, not the least shaken. I saw the fiery trial I had to go through in endeavouring to uphold what I considered to be the truth in the face of such seeming failures; and yet I confidently trusted God would make manifest His mercy and power in the midst of it.

[* This was the clergyman who spoke in the power in his own house on the evening when the christian armour was expounded. "In the few seconds I could speak to him, he told me he had had a revelation, accompanied with a very powerful utterance, in singing, directing him to go on the following Wednesday to perform a miracle of healing upon a poor cripple who had for many years been bedridden. When he had told me this, the power came greatly on me," etc. Narrative p. 68.]

"I continued yet a day or two with them; and one morning calling upon Mrs. J. C., she asked me whether I had any teachings upon the propriety or impropriety of prayer-meetings formed of ladies alone; one of which had been some months established, and she and the other gifted persons had been in the habit of attending. I was made in power to declare they were not profitable — to rebuke her for not having sooner discerned it, and to bid her go, as they met that morning, and declare to them what had now been spoken. She carried the message to the meeting, and they all at once agreed to abandon it, but desired to go to prayer, to return God thanks that they had so long been kept in peace; when the power came on Miss E. C., as she afterwards told me, and she was made to rebuke them for not more implicitly obeying the word of the Lord given by me, and so bid them separate without prayer.

"At the same time that Mrs. J. C. consulted me as to the ladies' meetings, Mr. J. C. remarked, concerning the select prayer-meetings at Mr. Irving's church, that he had often found great heaviness upon him at them. I was then made to declare Mr. Irving had erred in making them select — that they ought to be open to all. This was conveyed to Mr. Irving, and he at once acknowledged the error, and opened the meetings generally to all. I may here mention that on a former occasion Mr. Irving had consulted me upon the same subject, and had received a like rebuke. The reason he made them select was, that he found the power more manifested when those who believed in it as of the Spirit of God were alone present; and on the other hand found in a miscellaneous assembly the power was quenched. It was told him in power from my lips that he was offending in this, by giving occasion to the enemy to say the manifestations would not bear the light; and, furthermore, by shutting up the manifestation of God's love he was practically acting as though God did not intend the message of His love and pardon to be made known to all men. He seemed at the first rebuke to yield to the reasoning, but he did not act upon it; and it was not till the second rebuke was conveyed by Mr. J. C. to him, that he publicly declared to the congregation that he had received such a rebuke and changed his plan. I understand that now he has again under another name restored select meetings, and I am deeply grieved to find it so. For here in the midst of minds duly prepared Satan can gradually develop the subject of his delusion, and going on step by step can unwarily lead his victims into extravagance, first of doctrine, and next of conduct, which they themselves would without such gradual preparation shudder to contemplate. So long as their proceedings are open to the public eye, there will always be some warning and remonstrance set before them upon the development of any mew device. When shut up to themselves, the mind is gradually darkened, and the delusion becomes daily stronger, until they are ripe for each successive stage of the mystery of iniquity. As a proof of this, I may allude to the fact that they are now avowedly exercising apostolic functions, without pretending to have the signs of an apostle, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds; and the individual who has been thus set apart for apostolic office prays in their meetings in the following strain: — 'Lord, am I not thine apostle? Yet where are the signs of my apostleship? Where are the wonders and mighty deeds? O Lord, send them down on me,' etc. He has as an apostle, and in the name of an apostle, laid hands on several, and ordained them to the ministerial office, as evangelists and elders; yet it is not pretended that the manifestation of the baptism of the Holy Ghost follows with the laying on of his hands.

"When I was amongst them, we were all of one mind, that the apostolic office could not be exercised until the signs of an apostle in signs, wonders and mighty deeds, were manifest in the individual claiming the apostolic office; and ware also of one mind that the baptism with the Holy Ghost would attend the laying on of the hands of the apostle. It appears in their private meetings this further depth of 'folly' has been added to the 'folly' to which I wickedly introduced them. And they are so hardened under it, that they do not now hesitate publicly to declare it. Coupled with this also is the further 'folly' of Mr. Irving's claiming, as angel of the church, authority over the apostle; and the apostle is put under subjection to the pastor, or angel, as he designates himself. Surely in these things is a darkness that may be felt. We may however trust that the word of the Lord has reached them, which declares, concerning the deceivers of the last days (2 Tim. 3: 9), They shall proceed no further; for their folly shall be manifest unto all men. May God graciously make it manifest to themselves.

"But to resume the narrative: my professional engagements in town being ended, I purposed going out; but before I did so, I mentioned to Miss E. C., as well as to Mr. T., the full circumstances under which I was sent up to them. Mr. T. was made almost immediately to declare in the power, with reference to the powers, and signs, and miracles which were promised, 'Ye shall do it — ye shall do it'! Miss E. C. spoke once or twice in the power, and I gathered I ought to wait till the morrow at least. One utterance which she gave was, 'Wait and pray, that the glory of the Lord may burst forth in the midst of the congregation,' with some other words referring to the congregation then assembled, and leading me to the full expectation that on that very evening, in the congregation there met, the power with signs and wonders would be given. As, however, I went out of the, vestry, an extraordinary visitation of darkness, which I had experienced on more than one occasion when expectations were not realised, came over me, laying my mind under the severest darkness. Nothing whatever occurred on that evening in the congregation, and I returned to my hotel. On the morrow I was made at the morning meeting to give a long and severe rebuke to the congregation, declaring they hindered the work of the Lord, and calling upon them to humble themselves because of it. Alas! little did I think what it was which was hindered.

"At breakfast at Mr. Irving's the closing scene of my unhappy ministrations among them was no less remarkable than mysterious. Very great utterance had for several mornings been given me at family prayers there, and particularly beautiful and comforting expositions of scripture were given from the power. This morning a clergyman (who, I have since understood, was from Ireland, and had come especially to enquire, favourably disposed towards the work, but startled at the doctrines) was present. He was talking to Mr. Irving, but I did not hear his observations. Presently the sister of Miss E. C., who sat by me, said, 'That gentleman is grieving the Spirit.' I looked, and saw a power resting on Miss E. C., and presently she spoke in rebuke; but I did not gather more from it than that the gentleman had been advancing something erroneous. Mr. Irving, then began to read a chapter, to which I had been made in power to direct him; but instead of my expounding as before, the power resting upon me revealed there were those in the room who must depart. Utterance came from me that we were assembled at an holy ordinance to partake of the body and blood of Christ, and it behoved all to examine themselves, that they might not partake unworthily. None going out, I was made again and again, more and more peremptorily, to warn until the clergyman in question, and an aged man, a stranger, had gone out, when Mr. Irving proceeded in reading the chapter, 'I am the man that hath seen affliction by the rod of His wrath,' etc., and I was made to expound as usual, with great setting forth of God's love in the midst of the trials of His people, and with great promises of blessing. It was greatly to my own comfort, and I believe also to that of others. I often prayed in the power, and when all was concluded I was made in power to declare to Mr. Irving that he had seen in this an example of the ministration of the supper of the Lord, as he had before seen the example of baptism; that he must preach and declare them to his flock, for speedily would the Lord bring them forth; that the opening of the word was the bread, and the indwelling and renewing presence of the Spirit, the wine the body and blood of the Lord; and the discerner of spirits would not permit the unbelievers to mingle with the faithful, but they would be driven out as he had seen. Then in power I was made to warn all of the snares of the enemy, and concluded with the remarkable words, Be not ye like unto Peter, 'I will smite the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.' It is not a little remarkable, that upon the call being made for all to depart who did not examine themselves and receive the word spoken in power as the word of God, the clergyman I before alluded to professed his faith in the work, and I was made to tell him he was doubting and was not confirmed in it. And I have since heard that he was in so much doubt that, when he came to consider, he abandoned the work as delusion. Whilst under the awe of the presence of the supernatural power, he was so confounded or overcome as to profess full faith in it, and believe himself to be really receiving it. I had not any previous idea that on this morning the ministration of the Lord's Supper would be given, nor had I until this was set before me any conception what its spiritual ministration would be.

"In the previous part of the morning Miss E. C. had been made to speak in power to me, to the effect that I was shrinking from the cross, in being pained at going back into the country with the endowment promised. This had weighed with me, and my mind was made up to return. After the noon-day service, before all the congregation were departed, she asked me if I intended to go home. On my telling her I did, she was made in power to address me, which though in a subdued tone, was perceived by the congregation remaining, who immediately stopped. Her message was, that I was right in returning home; that the Lord was well pleased with me that I had been content to walk in darkness; that I had been faithful to the Lord, and the Lord would be faithful to me; that I should return and pass into deep waters, but yet for a little time, and I should behold the glory and rejoice. Mr. Irving then informed the remaining congregation, that it appeared to be the will of the Lord that I should depart for a little season, and prayed that I might speedily return with full powers of an apostle to impart unto them the gift for which they were longing" (pp. 86-89).

These minute particulars are here given, as more will follow of a witness not only reliable, but with the best possible means of information, before the seal of secrecy was imposed, as it soon was sought to be, on all, of prime importance to be known in order to a sound judgment. Grace secures that God's children have ample warning of the enemy's work.

CHAPTER 1.

d) EARLY HISTORY.

"I accordingly returned into the country deeply depressed, though quite unshaken in my faith of the work. The difficulties which had been thrown in my way were great; but I trusted the Lord would overrule them all, and I resumed my public teaching as before. My wife having relapsed into unbelief of the manifestations, my mouth was not at all opened in private, until by another remarkable dealing her confidence in it was restored. On the fourth day after my return, I had arranged to begin a public morning prayer-meeting; and as it gave her such pain, I did not mention the subject to her. She however seemed to have an impression that something particular was about to be done, and questioned me so closely that I was obliged to tell her. She was both irritated and distressed, and, in the fullest conviction that the work was a delusion, did all she could to dissuade me from having the prayer-meeting.

"I had however only left her a few minutes, to proceed to the prayer-meeting, before a power came upon her in the form of revelation, calming all her irritation and distress, and in a moment filling her mind with peace, giving to her a reason why the powers and signs and wonders were not bestowed upon the fortieth day, and assuring her of great blessings from the Lord and a speedy fulfilment of what had been prophesied. It was also told her as a sign to prove this revelation to be of God, that as soon as I came home, when she came to me, I should say, 'Speak, speak;' and then after she had told me the revelation, I should speak to her in the power, and beginning, 'It is of the Lord,' should fully explain what had been revealed to her. When I came home, I thought she seemed much troubled, and, unconscious of what had occurred, I said to her, 'Speak, speak.' Upon this she told me the revelation, not saying anything of my speaking afterwards; and when she had told me, the power immediately came upon me to utterance, and I was made to say in great power, 'It is of the Lord,' and then to open and explain it. This so fully concurring with what had been revealed cleared away the doubt which the non-fulfilment of the former promise had created; and she again fully yielded to the persuasion that the work was of God.

"In the revelation allusion had been made to the case of Miriam (Num. 12: 10); and in the utterance which followed it was declared, that the power was not given on the fortieth day, because the church in London had failed in love toward the visible church which God had cast off. It had some time before been declared that the separation between myself and my wife, which the Lord had ordained, was as a type and figure of the Lord's casting off the visible church and the visible ordinances. Now it was further declared that God was zealous for those whom He had so cast off; and as the camp of the Israelites could not proceed in its journeyings until Miriam was brought in again, so now was the work of the Lord stayed, and the power in signs and wonders delayed until the heart of the church was turned toward those whom the Lord had made desolate. And then followed in the power a most emphatic declaration that on the day after the morrow we should both be baptised with fire: so should we be joined together in the bond of the Lord's baptism, the Lord also joining Himself to His desolate church again, by bringing forth visibly a spiritual church with spiritual ordinances in fulness of power and gifts; that had the church in London manifested greater love, this baptism and power would have been given there; but now it should be given here, and on the day named we should receive it, and thenceforward would the work proceed in swiftness and not again tarry. Most glorious prophecies, as they seemed to be, followed these declarations, and great fulness of development as to the constitution of the spiritual church: and its progress through the earth to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

"We were overjoyed with these communications, and, in fulness of hope and confidence, awaited the day of fulfilment. The interval was filled up by very powerful and frequent utterances in interpretation of scripture, and in confirmation of the work. The day named arrived, and in the evening an utterance from the power, 'Kneel down, and receive the baptism of fire.' We knelt down, lifting up prayer continually. Nothing however ensued. Again and again we knelt, and again and again we prayed, but day by day for a long time we continued in prayer and supplication, continually expecting the baptism. My wife gradually concluded the whole must be delusion, and ceased to follow it. For six weeks, however, I continued unshaken to seek after it, but found it not.

"The baptism of fire was fully explained in utterance to be the burning out of the carnal mind, and subduing every sinful lust of the flesh; so that those who received it should be freed from the law of sin, and thenceforth freed from Satan's temptations through the flesh; that the fulness of the presence of the Holy Ghost should accompany it, and thenceforth those receiving it should walk in the fulness of spiritual light and life, and repel every assault of the enemy — should walk in perfect holiness and be utterly free from sin; that the gifts of the Spirit would follow according to the office to which each individual was ordained of God, to the apostle in all fulness of gifts, and power, and signs, and mighty wonders, and to all other office-bearers in due measure; that it was a baptism specially reserved for the three years and a half of the last ministry upon earth, and during this period the ministers of the Lord would be borne about from place to place by the Spirit as Philip was. Bodily changes, it was also declared, would be wrought by the baptism; and it was especially declared, that, as a consequence of such changes, the marriage state would no longer be blessed with increase; and husbands and wives, sons and daughters, would thenceforward be called to the ministry, and devote themselves to the office of warning the world, until the expiration of the days of testimony should summon them to the glory of the Lord.

"From the time of my return from town the difficulties seemed on all sides to increase. A few days after I left him, Mr. Irving, forwarding a letter, added a few lines of his own, telling me how greatly they were encouraged and strengthened in London by my last visit, and stating how they looked forward to my return with the full powers of an apostle; but at the same time adding that Mr. F., who had spoken in power amongst us, had been found to speak by an evil spirit, Mrs. C. and Miss E. O. having been made so to declare. This troubled me greatly, for I have (? had) been made to declare to him his call to the spiritual ministry. He had also been present and spoke in power on the last morning of my presence at Mr. Irvings, when two persons were sent out; and where it was declared in the power that the Lord would not suffer an unbeliever or unclean person to be present at that holy ordinance, as it was called. Here were contradictions I could not explain away; and all I could do was to wait the Lord's teaching on it.

"Next, after an interval came a letter from Mr. Irving, which yet more perplexed me. He said, 'This moment the Lord hath sent me a very wonderful and wonderfully gracious message by our dear sister, Miss E. C., concerning the time which you have been made so often to put forth: rebuking me for having repeated it, and counselling me not to do it any more; declaring the word to be a true word, containing a mystery — declaring that the day is not known, and commanding me to write to you to say you must not repeat them in the flesh, but suffer the Spirit to say it how and when it pleaseth.' Mr. Irving, then added, 'Here I leave it without any comment whatever. I am not equal to the work of commenting upon these words of the Lord. I am content to walk in the darkness. The same message which said that the word you spake was true, said also that the day is not known, and that it is a mystery, and that you as well as myself had erred in repeating in the flesh this matter of the time. The Lord lead us aright.' I was amazed at this message, for constantly I had been made in power to declare the time, and to explain it, and to enforce it; and more than once I had been made to enjoin ministers publicly to preach it in the flesh, though they had no gift. I had then nearly fallen into the persuasion that my gift could not be a true gift, or that I had so mistaken the leadings of it as to be no more worthy to exercise it. But the recognitions and encouragements given me by Mrs. C. and Miss E. C. in London held me up against the conclusion. I went on speaking and preaching in power, and found the matter of the three years and a half as constantly in my mouth as ever. I could not refrain from speaking it; and yet, when any one asked me about it, I dared not to say anything in explanation, except in power, my mouth being shut by this extraordinary message from Miss E. C.

"A fact which came to my knowledge, after I abandoned the work, has served to give me some insight into the message. A sister of mine when in London, attending the private prayer-meetings before I ever spoke in power, heard several utterances from Miss E. C., in which she most emphatically pronounced that Christ would come at an hour when even His own people would not be looking for Him — that the time of His coming would not be known to His own people. I remember also, that when preaching in the power at Hampstead, I was made to declare the time in Miss E. C.'s presence. She, as we were returning, asked me whether the time had been clearly revealed to me. I saw she did not receive it; but she said no more about it. When I heard of the previous utterances, my inference was that she, having a remembrance of these utterances and feeling the contradiction which my utterances gave to them, was troubled in mind upon it, and that the message that was sent to me was a device of the enemy to lull the disquietude and reconcile the contradiction. The subtlety is indeed deep — recognising my prophecy as a truth, and yet setting it practically aside, by alleging it to contain a mystery, and therefore not fitted to be named except in the power. I mentioned this inference subsequently to Miss E. C., but she would not speak upon the subject.

"A little later came another blow. Intelligence was sent me, that Miss H., who had for months been received as a prophetess among them — (who had been the first to speak in the Sunday congregation, and whose speaking Miss E. C., on that occasion was made in power to declare ought to be heard; to whom also I in the power had spoken as a prophetess, and on a second occasion Miss E. C. had alluded as speaking of the Lord) — that she had by Miss E. C. and Mrs. C. been charged with feigning utterances, and they in power had pronounced that the whole work in her was of the flesh, and not of the Lord. I had heard her speak, and her utterance seemed to me at times as full and as clearly supernatural as Miss E. C.'s. She had also begun a prophecy, which Miss E. C. would take up and complete; and she would take up in power what Miss E. C. had begun; so as to cause Mr. Irving to remark how manifestly one Spirit spoke in both.

The particular occasion on which this charge and declaration was made against her did not at all lessen the difficulty. it will be remembered, I was made after the prophecy concerning the national fast to write it down, and send it to a member of the House, enjoining him to deliver it in the House of Commons, This message, after some deliberation, it was intended to deliver by reading the letter containing it. By some accident however the letter was mislaid, and it could not be done. Whilst I was in town, the letter was found; and I was consulted, whether reading the letter would be the proper method of delivering it, and it seemed to me it would not. The letter was shown to Miss E. C., and she in power declared to the effect that the member in delivering it might be made to speak in the power. We could not read positively whether it would without doubt be so; and I was in power made to say he might deliver in the power or without the power. Circumstances, of which I do not know the particulars, prevented its being delivered in the House until the night before the fast-day. For some short time previous to this night Miss E. had urged the member to deliver it, and on the previous night when he had been prevented, she said in the power, 'Satan has triumphed in its not being delivered.' When, however, the message had been delivered, Miss E. C., knowing Miss H. had spoken on giving it, rebuked her in power for it, and declared that the member had rushed before the Lord, in delivering it without waiting for the power. Upon this unfortunate message the two speakers came into collision, and Miss H. was pronounced a false prophetess. The rebuke however proved true in the matter of feigned utterances; for Miss H. acknowledged that, in two or three instances, she had meditated utterances before repeating them. She was smitten in conscience and bowed before the accusation; and I believe to this day she acknowledges the justice of the sentence against her, though in the particular utterance concerning the message, and in most others, she declares she did not at all premeditate. Explained in any way however, it was a most startling occurrence, as involving all of us in lack of discernment, and two of us in false testimony to her gift.

"Added to all this, the fast-day passed over; and notwithstanding all the prophecies marking it out as a day much to be remembered, and the day of the Lord's answer by fire, nothing had occurred upon it. Moreover, the servant girl, on whom it was declared the miracle of casting out a devil should be performed was recovered of derangement, and had gone out to service, these prophecies also failing. Upon my return to town I saw again the friend whose attempt to perform a miracle had failed, and was made instrumental, soon after we again met, in showing him a, gross error of judgment as another subject into which he had nearly fallen. This I believe added to the impression which the power had yet left upon him; and the arguments I used to convince him had such an effect that, though he never returned to a full unsuspecting credence, he again joined the work, and forbore all testimony against it. I was made on several occasions to speak in power to him, and declare that the message to perform the miracle was of the Lord, and only hindered by want of faith in the person on whom it was to be wrought, and that it should yet be fulfilled. These messages he seemed to receive as the word of God, and for some time his confidence seemed restored. But as the time was restored, and failures increased, he was again brought to discard it, though not satisfied that no work of God at all attended it. Since we both fully abandoned it, the person on whom the miracle was to be performed is dead, never having been in the least degree restored.

"Distressing as all these occurrences were, yet I dared not on account of them suffer myself to deny the work. The supernatural nature of it was so clear — the testimony to Jesus was so full — the outpouring of prayer, and, as it seemed to me, the leading towards communion with God, so constant in it, that I still could not condemn it, but treated every doubt as a temptation. I rested implicitly upon the text, 'Every spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God,' and felt assured that no spirit making that confession could be of Satan. I had heard the confession made several times by the spirit which spoke in myself and others; and, resting in the confession, I persuaded myself I was resting in the faithfulness of God, and that His faithfulness was a sure defence. Most true it is, the faithfulness of God will never fail; but God requires of us the exercise of watchfulness, and it is but provoking Him when we shut our eyes to the teaching He gives us, and continue to assert and pledge His faithfulness to a thing which we ought to have seen to be untrue or unsafe. In the case of Mr. F. the spirit in him confessed Jesus come in the flesh; and Miss H. also, when the other gifted persons had been called to confess, had herself given in power the confession equally with them. Thus then had it been shown us that the mere confession in words was not itself a proof of the spirit being of God; and this I ought to have seen, and to have searched more fully whether the spirit did really set out the truth as it is in Jesus, and not to have rested in the verbal confession.

"Whilst upon this point, it is necessary I should refer to a remarkable occurrence in Gloucestershire, which served to sustain my faith in the verbal confession as an unfailing trial of the spirit. In the latter end of the past year two children of a pious and exemplary clergyman there [a Mr. Probyn] had been made to speak by a supernatural power, They were twins, a boy and a girl, and only eight or nine years of age: children in whom nothing of a religious turn had been remarked. Their parents were unfortunately led to seek after the manifestations, believing them to be of the Spirit of God. From the time the mouths of the children were opened, their conduct seemed so much changed that they appeared most religious and devoted children. Their utterance was most astounding; beginning in the setting forth of Jesus, and calling to self-abasement before His cross; and preaching with such recital of scripture and such power of argument and exhortation as might be said to surpass many able ministers, and certainly quite out of the compass of children of their age and understanding. Having by this demonstration of power, of truth, and holiness, gained the confidence of their parents and friends, they were carried on to deliver prophecies of things which were coming to pass — then uttering commands to their parents and friends, and sending them here and there — denouncing the judgments of God upon the church and world, and setting a day for a particular manifestation of judgment.

"Shortly things were spoken by them which seemed to their parents contrary to scripture; and they were startled by an utterance forbidding to marry. This was so plainly the work of a false spirit, that their parents and friends were greatly distressed; and, though much awed by the influence which the power had obtained over them, they remembered they had forgotten the command, 'Try the spirits'; and they wished to try the spirit in the children by the scripture test. They accordingly called the boy and told him their doubts, and that they must try the spirits. The boy seemed to be much wrought upon by the power, and in the supernatural utterance said, 'Ye may try the spirits in men, but ye may not, try the spirits in children. Ye will surely be punished.' They however persisted. Though the father was so much agitated as not to be able to do it, yet the curate addressed the spirit in the child, and demanded in the words of scripture a confession that Christ was come in the flesh. Paleness and agitation increased over the child till an utterance broke from him, 'I will never confess it.' They were thus satisfied it was an evil power which spoke in him; and the curate went on to say, 'I command thee, thou false spirit, in the name of Jesus come out of the child. As the child afterwards described his feelings, he felt as though a coldness were removed from his heart and passed away from him. They told the child if he felt the power coming on him again to resist it; and several times he did so. Once, some time afterwards, from his mistaking something his parents had said to him, he did yield to it, and spoke supernaturally as before; but being corrected, and thenceforth resisting the power whenever it came, upon him, he was entirely freed from it. This narrative which I first saw in print has been confirmed to me by one who was eye-and-ear-witness of the whole. If any one should be inclined to doubt whether any supernatural agency has been manifested in the adults, and should be led to think excitement coupled with a fervid imagination is sufficient to account for all that has occurred in them, he will yet be compelled to acknowledge that, in these children at least, neither excitement nor imagination can account for it."

Dr. Norton in his "Restoration of Apostles and Prophets," chap. iii., pp. 74, 75, essays to explain away the damaging effect of this story, the truth of which he confirms in the main, though he lowers their age to "seven years," and adds that "they also described and manifested bodily influences, proving that some invisible power had possession of them. Living in a distant village, they had never witnessed anything supernatural, and could not have been excited by the conversation of their parents, who were from home at its beginning, but hastened to them on receiving intelligence of it." That the twins may have heard enough to excite them seems probable from the fact that their father was one of those who attended the Albury meetings, and could not be ignorant of, or uninterested in, the manifestations, good or ill, that had broken out in Scotland, and later on in England. The rest of the tale stands alike in both accounts; and the late Lord Rayleigh, who was there at the time, used to testify to the facts. Dr. N. makes the most of Mr. Irving's formal trial of his prophets on the receipt of this intelligence; but what could be the value of a test from one who was himself involved in positive and extreme heterodoxy?

CHAPTER 1.

e) EARLY HISTORY.

It is easy to turn aside, and hard to recover; but God is faithful, as Mr. Baxter was to prove. "Continuing however in the exercise of their power, and in daily teaching and preaching the things which had been declared in power, I was providentially led to an examination of doctrines, for neglecting which at an earlier period I justly suffered what came upon me. At the recurrence of the monthly meeting for exposition of scripture, to which I have before alluded, the friend to whose turn it had fallen to choose the subject, chose this, The Word was made flesh, with the special view, as I believe, of eliciting the views which were held by those of us who believed in the power, he himself deeming it a delusion. I stated what, as far as I am conscious of my own mind, had always been my view, viz.: That Jesus took the fallen flesh, but took it free from the law of sin which we are all born under — by fallen flesh, intending the consequences of the fall, as it respects our outward relations, and the constitution of our frame — we having become unsuited to the world, and the world unsuited to us; and we having become subject to pain, sickness, and other infirmities of frame; whereas Adam was made suitable to all around him, and all the world was suitable to him; and the diseases and infirmities to which we are subjected, had no place in him. Many persons identify the idea of fallen nature with sin. The fall was certainly the consequence of sin, and we, in our fallen estate, are under the law of sin, which rules in all our members. But it is clear the consequences of past sins are distinct from sin itself; and it is very easy to understand that Jesus took our nature in that condition into which sin had brought it, and yet took it free from all sin — as free as Adam before his fall possessed it. Jesus came into a fallen world, and took part of flesh and blood with those whom He was not ashamed to call brethren, and subjected as that flesh and blood was to all weakness and infirmity; and yet He so took it that He took no stain of sin nor taint of corruption with it. Being conceived of the Holy Ghost, He took manhood of the substance of the Virgin, but took it pure, and free from all sin. The law of the flesh, or law of sin, which was in the substance of the virgin, was not in His substance; so that in Him there were no motions of the fleshly or carnal mind, as there are in all of us.

"This my friend fully assented to; but he charged Mr. Irving with holding the opposite view, and asserting that the law of the flesh, or law of sin, was in Jesus, and only kept down by the Spirit. I could not see this, but contended as my persuasion was, that Mr. Irving, by "sinful nature" meant no more than I meant by "fallen nature," and that my views were the same as Mr. Irving's After much discussion we parted, and I thought little more about it, until I received a letter from a member of Mr. Irving's church, making inquiries relative to the Indian chief and the prophecy of the Jews before detailed; and in this letter, by way of postscript, he added that he had just heard Mr. Irving expound the eighth chapter of Romans, and he gathered My. Irving's view to be that our Lord had the carnal mind, or law of sin, to contend with. My correspondent was troubled at this, and asked my opinion upon it. He had heard two utterances in power, which, put together, seemed to him conclusive that Jesus had not the carnal mind to keep down or contend with. One was from me on Mr. Irving's having asked whether Jesus was baptized with fire, the power answered, "No, He had nothing in Him to be burnt out." The other was from Mrs. C., who, explaining in power what the baptism by fire was, declared it should burn out the carnal mind.

"After this letter, I thought much on the matter; but my persuasion continued that Mr. Irving, did not hold the law of sin to be in Jesus. I was, however, in power, made to write to him on the subject, setting forth that the carnal mind was not in Jesus, and some other points alluded to. After this my mind was at rest upon it, under the assurance that, if there had been any error in his view, it would be corrected from the message I had been made to write to him.

"God, however, graciously ordained that the matter should not rest here. A few days later a clergyman from Staffordshire came to me, who, though by no means disposed to receive the work, thought it his duty to inquire, perhaps more in the hope of my conviction than of his own. He examined very closely my views on the human nature of our Lord, and declared, when he heard them, that they were opposite to Mr. Irving's He produced Mr. Irving's book on the subject to prove his assertion, and pointed out many passages. These, however, did not seem to prove his point, but on the following day, resuming his position, two passages were found which showed clearly that Mr. Irving conceived the workings of the law of sin were felt by our Lord (Hum. Nat. p. 23):- 'And in the face of all these certainties, if a man will say that His flesh was not sinful flesh as our's is, with the same dispositions, and propensities, and wants, and afflictions, then, I say, God had sent that man strong delusion that he should believe a lie'; and page 24, 'Now if there had not been in Christ's nature appetites, ambitions, and spiritual darkenings, how, I ask, could the devil have addressed these several temptations to His will?' On reading over this, an utterance in power broke from me, 'He has erred, he has erred' — an utterance accompanied with great anguish under the feeling then that my friend's presence was grieving and quenching the Spirit; but which I now see to have been because the utterance was wrung from the spirit, as a desire of testifying, against Mr. Irving to lull my inquiries. My friend's argument, which followed upon this, was very sound; he argued that, if Mr. Irving had been holding false doctrine, it could not be the Spirit of God which was speaking in his church, or he would before this time have been rebuked. I, however, thought that the spirit in me had fully testified against this error, and, as I had never myself held it, the character of the work could not be involved in it.

"These discoveries, and the reference to Mr. Irving's book, led me to search more fully into the views he held; and I not only found, on the further reading of his work, that his views were unsound on the human nature of our Lord, but that he was also still more unsound on the doctrines concerning holiness in the flesh. Besides his works, I also consulted the published sermons of Mr. Campbell, who had preached in Scotland, and was spoken of as the great champion of the truth in Scotland; and he appeared to be involved in the same mistakes as Mr. Irving. I was much disturbed by this, because I thought how greatly the church was prejudiced by these false doctrines against what I yet deemed the manifestations of the Spirit; and in much heaviness I sat down to write to Mr. Irving, stating fully his error in conceiving the law of sin to be in the flesh of Jesus; and in stating also what I conceived to be the truth concerning our holiness: that as by faith accepted in Christ, and clothed in His righteousness, so we are in the sight of the Father holy and without blame; but whilst in the flesh, the law of sin remains even in them who are regenerate, and the flesh lusteth against the Spirit. And though our mark and aim should be to be perfect even as our Father is perfect; yet that we all come short of perfect holiness in the flesh, and are unprofitable servants. As Mr. Irving regarded me destined to the apostolic office, and set for the instruction of his church, I had great confidence that he would receive this, and would be led to retract and abandon his errors, and thus remove a great stumbling-block from his door.

"A short time before this, I had received a communication from the Rev. Mr. Dow, who in Scotland was exercising the gift of utterance, after the same manner as those speaking in London. His sister had written to Mrs. Irving, and, she had sent me an extract from the letter; declaring, that much additional light and power had been vouchsafed to Mr. Dow, and he had in the Spirit given a clear testimony confirming my prophecies, opening the six trumpets in the Book of Revelations, and giving a very full opening of each trumpet. This was an encouragement to me, giving me, as it did, the recognition, in my prophetic office, of the Scotch followers at Irongray.

"In a few days after I had sent to Mr. Irving, I received his answer, and as this letter was mainly instrumental in opening my eyes to the delusion by which we were bound, I give it at length.

"'London, 21st April, 1832.

"'My dear Brother, Read this letter with your eye on God. We have great need, especially the spiritual amongst us, to walk humbly with the Lord. Your first letter,* containing the utterance of the Spirit, without any expression of his intention in sending it to me, led me very deeply to ponder the subject of our Lord's flesh, and to cry upon the Lord to examine me; and to the same exercise of soul had I been drawn by the utterance of the Spirit, and the experience of the spiritual of my flock in these days past. These things put me into a fit condition for receiving the full impression of your last letter, which arrived last night after I had preached a sermon on the Holy Generation of the Flesh of Christ. This I had done, in order to express anew, before my people, with all caution and consideration, what I firmly believe to be the truth; and to guard them against the effect of any rash or unguarded *expressions which I might at any time have used. All night long, my soul, sleeping and waking, was exercised upon the subject of your last letter. And it being wonderfully ordered in God's providence that Mrs. C. should be in town a day or two; and that Miss E. C., though desirous to go home before breakfast, was so burdened as not to be able to go — these two prophetesses of the Lord, who have been His mouth of wisdom and warning to me and my church in all perplexities; I called along with my wife, who had read your letter, and read it to me, and having spread the whole matter before the Lord, and twice besought His presence, we proceeded to read your letters in order. Upon your first letter there was no utterance of the Spirit, nor expression of any kind amongst us, but that of assent. When we had read the two first pages of the second, wherein you reason upon the words of the Spirit, 'He has erred, he has erred,' given to you upon two sentences of my book; and bring forward your views of our Lord's flesh, and of the believer's holiness, in contradistinction from mine, we paused, and seeing there was so manifest a discrepancy between us, I solemnly besought the Lord that He would speak His own mind in the matter. Instantly the Spirit came upon Miss E. C., and, after speaking in a very grieved tone and spirit in a tongue, she was made to declare many words which I will not take upon me to attempt to repeat, seeing the Spirit has discountenanced such attempts. But the substance was most precisely this, that you had been snared by departing from the word and the testimony — that I had maintained the truth, and the Lord was well pleased with me for it — that I must not flinch now, but be more bold for it than heretofore — that He had honoured me for it, and I must not draw back — that in some words I had erred, and that the word of the Spirit by you was therefore true; and that if I waited upon the Lord He would show me them by His Spirit, but that He had forgiven it because He knew my heart was right towards Him — that I had maintained the truth, and must not drawback from maintaining it. Thereupon we knelt down, and having confessed my sin and thanked Him for His mercy, I proceeded to entreat Him for you, that you might be delivered from the snare in which you were taken concerning the flesh of Christ and the holiness of the believer. This done, I sought to recover and recount the substance of the utterance as above given, that by their help I might report it to you exactly. My wife was mentioning a doubt as to whether it should not simply be left to the Lord, and not dealt with in the understanding at all; seeing that in your letter you had gone astray by commenting in your own understanding on the words of the Spirit, 'He hath erred,' as applicable to two sentences of my book, and applied them to my whole doctrine, which the Spirit had just declared to be 'the truth,' that 'must be maintained'; when Mrs. C. was made to speak in a tongue with great authority and strength, and immediately after in English, to the effect that you had stumbled greatly by bringing your own carnal understanding to spiritual things; that truth in the inward parts, the law of God in the heart, wrought in us the fulfilment of the righteousness of the law in all our members; and that union with Jesus brought into us the holiness of Jesus in body, soul, and spirit; that the Lord would have a church upon the earth holy as He is holy, the light of the world as He is the light of the world; that some had sought to bring this about in the flesh; that you had been snared in the opposite extreme of denying it altogether, and making a distinction between Christ's holiness and that of His church; that you must be informed of it, because this it was which was preventing the work of the Lord. There was a third utterance through Miss E. C. to teach me Satan sought to overthrow my confidence in the truth, and to bring me into a snare; but that I was called upon to maintain it now more firmly than ever.

[*The letter I had written in power, setting forth that the carnal mind was not in Christ.]

"'There were no more utterances, but when we came to that part of your letter where you say, 'Concerning the vessels by whom He speaks, you have fearfully provoked Him, and they are ready to burst asunder under your hands,'* there was great indignation felt by both the vessels of the Lord present, and great sense of injustice felt by myself. For, oh! dear brother, I have done all things to know and follow the Lord in respect of them. It was indeed said, I think in the Spirit, that this in you was the same spirit of 'The accuser of the brethren,' which hath manifested itself lately amongst us in one of the gifted persons who spoke evil of me in the midst of the congregation. But the Lord hath showed him that though it was with power, the power was not from God but from Satan, to whom, by hard and unjust thoughts of me, he had opened the door. Ah, dear brother, you have surely been much overseen in some way or other — search it out. The thing you spoke of F. and of Miss H. was not of God. I fear, and am persuaded in my own mind, that you have not discriminated duly what is of God, and what is not of Him; and that sin in this matter, undiscerned and unconfessed, hath brought on greater falls, as we have seen amongst ourselves; and that now you are brought to oppose that very doctrine which alone can bring the church to be meet for her Bridegroom: — That as He was holy in the flesh, so, are we, through the grace of regeneration, brought to be holy — planted in a holy standing — the flesh dead to sin, as His flesh was dead to sin; and that by the baptism of the Holy Ghost we are brought into the fellowship of His power and fulness, to do the works which He also did, and greater works than these.

[*This passage was written under the dictation of the power, and the impression on my mind was, that he had too much honoured me and the other persons speaking in the power, and so had dishonoured God. He, and these with him, evidently read it as though I accused him of behaving ill towards one or more of the speakers — the very opposite of what I intended.]

"'When we came to that passage of your letter where you censure as 'fearfully erroneous' a passage in the Day of Pentecost,* we were all made to feel that you were forgetting what you yourself had been made to utter so abundantly concerning the baptism with fire and the spiritual ministry.

"'I have read this to my wife, and Mrs. C., and. Miss E. C.; and they say it is a full and exact account.

"'And now, upon the whole, my well-beloved brother and prophet of the Lord, I give you counsel to search and prove what it is that sits so heavy upon your conscience, for the Lord will surely reveal it. Concerning the flesh of Christ, we will discourse when we meet. I believe it to have been no better than other flesh as to its passive qualities or properties, as a creature thing. But that the power of the Son of God, as Son of man in it, believing in the Father, did for His obedience to become Son of man, receive such a measure of the Holy Ghost as sufficed to resist its own proclivity to the world and to Satan, and to make it obedient unto God in all things, which measure of the Spirit He received in His generation, and so had holy flesh; and by exercise of the same faith, He kept His vineyard holy, and presented it holy to the great Husbandman. Regeneration, through faith, sealed in baptism, doth give to us the same measure of the Spirit to do the same work of making our flesh the holy thing, the temple of the Holy Ghost, body, soul, and spirit holy, wherefore we have the name 'saints,' or 'holy ones,' 'sons of God,' as He received those names in virtue of His generation of the Holy Ghost. If we were to meet, I think we would not find much difference of mind as to the flesh of Christ. But as to your view of holiness, it is the very deepest and darkest and subtlest snare of the enemy. If you understood thoroughly the one subject, you would understand thoroughly the other. I say not that Christ had the motions of the flesh, but that the law of the flesh was there all present; but that where as in us it is set on fire by an evil life, in Him it was by a holy life put down, and His flesh brought to be a holy altar, whereon the sacrifices and offerings for the sin of the world, and the whole burnt offerings of sorrow, and confession, and penitence for others, might be ever offered up. And thus ought we to be, and shall be, when the flesh becomes the sack-cloth covering.†

[*This passage is the one (p. 39) in which he asserts "Baptism of the Holy Ghost doth bring to every believer the presence of the Father, and the power of the Holy Ghost, according to that measure at the least, in which Christ, during the days of His flesh, possessed the same." I had myself, received what they all held to be the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and could, therefore, testify practically as well as doctrinally.]

[†The allusion here is to Rev. 11 where the sackcloth clothing of the witnesses is spoken of. Mrs. C- had been made to prophesy that the baptism by fire would burn out the carnal mind, and our flesh would become a sackcloth covering, the clothing of the witnesses; and this is what Mr. Irving, was looking forward to.]

"'Oh! brother, I have had many trials, but the Lord hath sustained me, and I dwell before Him in — peace of soul, though in much sorrow because of the condition of His church. I shall be glad when we meet. But, oh! I beseech you, lay to heart the words which have been spoken by the Spirit, and doubt any words which may be spoken in you contrary thereto. For though an angel from heaven should come to me, testifying to your views of holiness, I would not receive him.

"'Do you hold correspondence with any of my flock, that you speak so positively, yet so unjustly, concerning my treatment of the spiritual persons? or is there some meaning couched under it which I do not understand? Did the Spirit say so in you? If so, doubt that spirit; for certainly it is not true, they themselves being witnesses.

"'Fare you well. May the Lord have you in His holy keeping. Amen. Your faithful brother,

EDWARD IRVING.'

"This letter was at once a great blow to me. Here I saw doctrines, which I could never have believed Mr. Irving, held, not only avowed by him, but sustained and enforced by the utterances, in power, of those who were deemed gifted persons. I had no copy of my own letters, and had the utterances been confined to a denial of the accuracy of my views, I should not have dared to question it, as I should rather have attributed it to some inaccuracy of statement. But here was an unqualified approval of Mr. Irving's views; and in the same letter, those views broadly stated without disguise, and clearly involving heresies most fearful and appalling."

[NOTE. The Editor thinks it well to state here, that, while giving Mr. B.'s testimony as much the most important he knows on the real character of the Irvingite movement, and especially on the fact of powers beyond man, yet not of God though professing to be, he does not mean to endorse all Mr. B.'s thoughts or expressions. He does not, for instance, approve of applying "fallen flesh" to the human nature of Christ, which was a body prepared of God by the power of the Spirit of God, beyond Adam's even when unfallen. But Mr. B.'s doctrine is sound in the main.]

CHAPTER 1.

f) EARLY HISTORY.

"That there was in Christ's flesh a 'proclivity to the world and to Satan' and that Christ received 'such a measure of the Holy Ghost as sufficed to resist' this proclivity, is a doctrine so fearfully erroneous, that I cannot conceive anyone who has at all learned Christ, unless he be blinded by delusion, can allow himself for a moment to entertain. Christ, the Holy Thing as born of the virgin, to whom the prince of this world cometh, 'and findeth nothing in Me;' also holy, harmless, and undefiled — that in His flesh there could be a proclivity to Satan, which needed to be resisted; or that He, of whom it is declared, that God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto Him, should be held to have received only a measure of the Spirit, and this for the purpose of resisting a sinful tendency in His flesh: this is a departure from the truth, which is broad as the day. But if any one's eyes should be holden that he cannot see its errors, singly considered; when it is conjointly affirmed, that 'regeneration through faith, sealed in baptism, doth give to us the same measure of the Spirit, to do the same work of making our flesh the holy thing' — dark indeed, must be our state, if we do not instantly see how Christ is first abased towards our sinful condition, and we next exalted to be put on an equality with Him: as though Christ had a work to do in making His own flesh holy, and we are enabled to do the same work and make our flesh holy. What said the apostle Paul, after he was called to his apostleship, and had been caught up into the third heaven, and had received gifts of the Holy Ghost abounding above all others? 'I know that in me, that is, in my flesh dwelleth no good thing.' And again, 'So that with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with flesh the law of sin.' And what does he say of every believer who is born again of the Spirit of God? 'If Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin.' Here is no holiness of flesh, but a plain declaration, that even in those in whom Christ dwells the body is dead because of sin, and the flesh has no good things, but serves the law of sin. The apostle's glorying was not that he had made his flesh holy, but the law of the Spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, which made us free from the law of sin and death; adding, if we live after the flesh ye shall die: but if ye, through the Spirit, mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. The living after the Spirit, and mortifying the deeds of the body, was the apostle's state, and is our state, as many of us as are born of God; whereas, if our flesh were made holy, what need would there be to mortify it?

"I have heard the sophistry which denies that the tendency or proclivity to sin is itself sin, and which dares, therefore, to ascribe the first to our beloved Lord in His human nature, while it is properly indignant at the second. As it regards, ourselves, I am ready to admit, that God does not bring us into judgment for such a tendency to sin, when we mortify and resist it, the apostle showing the ground of such mercy, where it is written, 'Now, then, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.' But yet we must say, is expressed in the article of our church, 'The apostle doth confess that concupiscence and last hath of itself the nature of sin.' But who shall say that in our Lord 'the law of the flesh was all present, but by a holy life kept down,' without feeling that such a statement compromises the character of 'holy, and undefiled?' The law of the flesh is the law of sin and death, or, in other words, that corruption of nature which is called the lust of the flesh, and which is the mark and consequence of original sin. Now, surely all will agree, that not a breath or suggestion of sin — no lust — no desire — ever arose in or from the flesh of our blessed Lord. The law of the flesh, which in us daily sends up streams of corrupt desires, though our flesh never was in Him nor ever could be in Him, so as to need to be resisted or kept down. To suppose this corruption to be in Jesus, is to deny His holiness. However much, and however completely you may affirm it to be kept down, if it ever was there, holy and undefiled are set aside at once.

"I would not lay hold of words to convict a man of heresy, if his real intention was not comprised in those words. Every man may err in words; and hard indeed is it, if we should lie in wait for one another, to make a man an offender for a word. The letter copied, however, does so clearly show Mr. Irving's mind, that, far from doubting whether it is not a matter of words, it is very obvious that his general design and view is unsound. As gathered from the letter itself, and as confirmed by subsequent conversations with him, I gather his general design or broad doctrine to be this: — That Christ Jesus, though God as well as man, yet was a man in all respects such as we are, and was by the power of the Holy Ghost, from His generation to His death, upheld in holiness and perfect purity; and that we receiving through His blood the pardon of past sins, are now called to receive the Holy Ghost; and by the same power of the Holy Ghost, shall, if we faint not, be ourselves, in the flesh, brought into and upheld in holiness and perfect purity, as fully as Jesus was.

"To sustain these propositions, Mr. Irving sees it necessary to suppose the law of sin to have been in the flesh of Jesus: otherwise the work of the Holy Ghost, in sustaining Jesus in perfect holiness, would be no precedent nor assurance to us, that by the Holy Ghost we can be sustained in equal holiness. Here then, lies the first error, in ascribing to Jesus that corruption of nature, as it regards His flesh, which belongs to all of us. The next error lies in putting out of sight the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to us, which is our wedding garment, and in which we are holy and without blame in the sight of the Father — seen as standing in Christ; and, in the stead of this, requiring us to work out a personal holiness, and, by the power of the Spirit, to make ourselves holy as Christ was holy."

It is not needful to give all the workings of Mr. B.'s conscience more fully. "These considerations of doctrine weighed with me, and I could not for a moment doubt the erroneousness of Mr. Irving's views. I was then of necessity compelled to conclude the utterances which supported these views were not of the Spirit of God. Upon this a doubt arose in my own mind, which however I trembled to entertain; and yet with such facts before me I could not reject: whether the whole work was not of Satan. I could not conceive of a person speaking at one moment by the Spirit of God, and the next by the spirit of Satan. Moreover it had been declared in the power by the mouth of Mrs. C., Miss E. C., and my own mouth, that God would guard the utterances of His prophets, and that they should never be permitted to speak by the power of Satan. According therefore to my view and understanding of scripture, a false utterance convicted a person of being a false prophet; and this was also according to the interpretation of the power I had been acting under. Mrs. C., Miss E. C., and Mr. T. were therefore on both grounds manifestly to be deemed false prophets; and this, as to the two former, upon a test of scripture doctrine. Then was not I convicted as a false prophet by the non-fulfilment of the words I had spoken according to the test in the book of Deuteronomy? And might not the whole be accounted for as a chastisement of God sent for the correction of heresy? All who were caught in it having drank of, or sustained, that heresy. These questions and considerations weighed upon my mind and almost worked conviction.

"On the other hand so strongly was the whole interwoven with interpretations of scripture, and so much of the fruits of the Spirit had I seemed to find under it, so entirely had I become pledged to the work, and my character and consistency become involved in it, I paused and weighed again and again the several facts and proof, trembling at entertaining doubts at all.

"It had been very providentially ordered that I was expecting a professional call from home on the very day succeeding the arrival of Mr. Irving's letter; and I had arranged for a week's absence. The same post which brought me this letter brought me also a respite of my engagement, and left me at liberty. Otherwise, having engagements to preach almost every morning and evening, I should have been still more perplexed as to my course. If I stayed from preaching, it might overthrow the faith of many, and give occasion to the enemy to traduce the work; if I went on preaching it whilst I had doubts upon it, how could I answer it to conscience? There would have been no time for consideration, but for this providential opening; and I at once availed myself of it to visit the brother to whom I have before alluded. During the journey, which occupied two days, I was, as may be supposed, engaged in consideration of the subject; and the whole train of circumstances from the beginning, with the successive failures of prophecy and contradiction of utterance, when calmly reviewed and compared with the present fact of the support of false doctrine, were so strongly affirmative of the evil origin of the work, that, however supernatural I had found it and still knew it to be, I was convinced it must be a work of Satan who, as an angel of light, was permitted for a time to deceive us.

"My brother, who had continued speaking in the power, examined the doctrines and fully agreed in their fearful errors. He weighed also the facts which I had to state to him, and joining them with other facts which had occurred within his own observation, he arrived of the same conclusion as myself.

"Being anxious to communicate with Mr. Irving I travelled on to London, and reached him on the morning of his appearance before the presbytery of London. Calling him and Mr. J. C. apart, I told them my conviction that we had all been speaking by a lying spirit, and not by the Spirit of the Lord. He said it was impossible God could have sent us strong delusions, for that was His final judgment upon the wicked; and we at least thought ourselves seeking after the Lord, and desiring His glory. I answered, I believed God had sent it as a chastisement for pride and lofty imaginations; that we had been lifted up in our hearts, and God would humble us. He was astounded, but asked me to stay with them a little. I replied, I could not without rebuking the utterance, if it were made by any of the speakers in my presence; and as he would not suffer this, we parted. I saw him again in the evening; and on the succeeding morning I endeavoured to convince him of his error of doctrine, and our delusions concerning the work of the Spirit; but he was so shut up, he could not see either. I particularly pressed, upon Miss E. C. and Mrs. C., and before him also, the non-fulfilment of the word, and particularly the falseness of that prophecy which they, as well as myself, had given — that God would guard the utterance of His prophets, and not suffer Satan to speak by them; whereas in the case of Mr. T [aplin] alluded to in Mr. Irving's letter, he who was and (I believe) is still received as a prophet, had, in the midst of the congregation, with tongues, and with English, spoken evil of Mr. Irving, and Miss E. C. had since in utterance declared he spoke it, of Satan. They however could not see the non-fulfilment in the other cases; and in this case they said we must have mistaken the meaning of the utterance — that it could not mean God would keep the utterance always, but when they were speaking, He would not suffer Satan to mingle words with His word: a most miserable subterfuge.

"The argument on which Mr. Irving mainly relied for parrying the difficulties was this; — that the same person might at one moment speak by the Spirit of God, and the next moment by an evil spirit, He urged therefore, that those things which had failed were from the false spirit, and those which were fulfilled were of God. I had the most distinct remembrance, when I first heard Mr, Irving, preach upon the utterances, that he preached the utterances, being the voice of God, were pure water without admixture — that he might in his exposition as a man fail, or fall into error, but in the word of the Lord, ministered by the prophets in their utterances, the most entire and implicit confidence might be placed, as in every respect and purely the truth. Out of this position he was, however, evidently driven by the appalling fact of the prophets, before all the congregation, denouncing him as the cause of the Lord's anger against the congregation — this denunciation coming with every usual demonstration of power and tongues. The only solution now to be found was, that the utterance at one time might be of God, and at another time of Satan, even in the same person. For if this were not admitted, Mr. T., being himself recognised as having spoken by God in his former utterances and by Satan in this, would either overturn the whole fabric of the spiritual gifts and falsify the claims of the prophets, or must be himself still received as a prophet, notwithstanding his false utterance.

"The mere enunciation of the proportion of a varying origin, whilst the outward demonstration remained the same, was enough to shake even the nerves of Mr. Irving. To be under the necessity of telling such a fact to his congregation, and thereby assuring them that they could no longer give credence to the utterances without deciding upon the origin of each message; to tell them moreover, that no one could decide this without the gift of the discernment of spirits; and lastly that no member of his church yet possessed that gift — this would seem beyond the courage of any minister, and beyond the power of belief of any people. To this however was Mr. Irving reduced, and to this were his people subjected.

"It was attempted to decide the origin of the utterance in the mind of the speakers from whom it came by prescribing a certain frame (e.g. a calm sense of the love of God in Christ and of our abiding therein), as the proof of the utterance from the Spirit of God; and an opposite state of mind, as a proof of the utterance being deceitful. This, however, I could experimentally contradict. For several utterances which were still held true, and particularly that which Mr. Dow had confirmed, were made when I was in the disturbed frame; and others which had proved false were given under the prescribed heavenly frame; and I was fully persuaded that no such line of distinction could honestly be drawn" (pp. 116-120).

We may leave Mr. I's argument on Jer. 15: 7 (a strange and misleading juxtaposition, and yet more Ezek. 14: 9), as well as Mr. B.'s reply in disproof. Deut. 13 and 18 are, as he shows, quite at issue with the desired excuse for error in a true prophet from God's word. From p. 123 we may cite: — "I am overwhelmed (says Mr. B.) with the remembrance of my own blindness and unfaithfulness by hesitating at all after one instance of the failure of the word. and I may well shut my mouth against the like offence in others. But I desire to confess my sin, and in love to those who like myself are erring, to pray them take warning and no longer to continue such a provocation.

"It is not necessary I should enter into any subsequent communications which have passed with those holding the manifestations. After my first visit, I found the utterance amongst them warned them against having intercourse with me; and they now shut themselves up, refusing to hear arguments, or discuss the subject at all. It may however be only just towards Mr. Irving that I should give another letter of his, written some months after my renunciation of their views; as he there again fully sets forth his doctrinal views, and if he intended this in any particular to correct the expressions in his former letter, he ought to have the benefit of it.

"'London, July 6,1832.

"'My dear brother, — I can no longer refrain from writing you in a few words what I believe to be a most heinous sin under the oppression of which you are lying bound. It is the sin of blaspheming the ministers, and prophets, and church of God, and calling us ministers of Satan under the form of an angel of light. Not to bear testimony of myself, still less to judge thee, O brother, do I say this, but to assure thee that herein thou hast sinned, and dost sin exceedingly, nor wilt be restored till thou restore thyself to charity with thy brethren who have never but loved thee.

"'My testimony to Jesus is that in our flesh He was most holy. That His flesh was in itself no otherwise conditioned, nor is otherwise to be defined than ours, with all its laws, properties, and propensities. But through His anointing of it, and upholding of it from first to last, it hath no other properties nor propensities than those which may be predicated of God — holy as He is, pure as He is, yet temptable, mortal, and corruptible as ours — until the resurrection changed its form and fashion altogether.

"'Concerning the holiness of the believer, my testimony is that he ought never to be less holy both in flesh and spirit than Jesus was; and that the same power of God incarnate, which presented Christ's flesh and Spirit holy, is bestowed upon the believer at baptism, to present his flesh and spirit always holy through faith. And every short-coming from holiness is not of necessity, nor of accident, nor of circumstance, but of positive will not to believe, and not to receive the power of regeneration, which is the continuance unto us of the power of generation in Jesus.* Wherefore we are called 'holy ones,' and 'sons of God,' as he was called 'The holy Thing,' and 'Son of God.' He kept the name of the Father, and glorified it: we have not kept it, and therefore need continual atonement and intercession.†

[*The position that the power of regeneration in us is the continuance of the power of generation in Jesus is a most fatal one, implying that act of the Holy Ghost which formed Jesus in the womb of the Virgin was nothing more than that act of the Spirit (as the apostle says to the Galatians 4: 19), or, in other words, by which we were born of the Spirit and made the children of God by adoption and grace. This virtually annuls the doctrine of the incarnation, and supplants it by supposing the Son of God to be made flesh only by inhabitation of the human nature. Indeed many of Mr. Irving's positions suggest the idea of inhabitation instead of incarnation. Mr. Irving's inference from the position which follows above is very lamentable, as tending to put us on a par with Jesus."]

[†"To 'need continual atonement,' I should conceive, must be a mere error of expression; but there is much watchfulness requisite with respect to his view of continual intercession, which, coupled with his views of fleshly holiness, tends very far towards the idea entertained by the Romanists of the efficacy of their mass." [The Editor cannot concur in so mild an inference either here or as to the former note. The doctrine destroys the truth of Christ's person, and so fritters away the atonement. He that knew no sin (not merely did no sin) could alone avail for us or be made sin by God. It is a lowering of Christ in the vain hope of raising the christian to the same level by the same Spirit. Now we are by grace one with Him, Who died for us, yea for our sins, with Whom we too died to sin. But there was no sin in Him, there is in us. Christ as born of woman was ever and absolutely holy. For us God condemned sin in the flesh, which we have, in Him a sacrifice for it,]]

"'Furthermore, concerning the baptism of the Holy Ghost, my testimony is, and ever has been, that it is the indwelling of the Father in the members, after what manner He dwelt in the Head while on earth, for the same ends and for what other ends the Father may have to accomplish by His church until He comes.

"'Now, brother, you may not apprehend these things, thy natural mind being very formal and wedded to its forms; whereas the fashion of my natural mind is rather ideal, or spiritual (!). But because thou apprehendest not the truth in that form in which I do, shouldest thou say that thy brother hath a devil, when thou knowest from my fruits that I serve God with a pure conscience? And my dear flock thou hast misrepresented, whom yet thou knowest not.* My love to thy soul, my desire to see thee standing where God set thee — a spiritual minister — beareth no longer that this sin should be upon thee. Repent of it, and ask forgiveness of the Lord. I fully forgive thee, and love thee with a pure heart fervently, as I have ever done and never ceased to do, though thy words and letters, of which I have seen some and heard of others, have sore wounded me. Repent of thy rash judgments against the children of God, that thou mayest be healed of thy sin. I write to thee as a man of God, and minister of His gospel, even thy brother in great love. For I know thou art an honest man, though thou hast greatly erred through thy rashness. Your faithful brother, EDWARD IRVING.'"

* "To the charge here made my reply is: — What I say of his doctrine and of the spirit which speaks and rules in the midst of them, I desire to speak out of love to them: not to charge them or judge them, but to show forth the cunning of the enemy, that if possible they may be delivered. His position, that I am not to judge his doctrine because I may not apprehend him, is very unsafe, and what he cannot and does not act upon."

Some general characteristics in the work casting suspicion on it, which follow in pp. 126-129, we may leave, as also Mr. B.'s testimony to the sincere piety and devotedness of Mr. I. and others with him whom he knew, with his judgment of the inadequacy of the tests applied (pp. 129-133), In this last page he adds his personal experience of the tongue. "A few days before the prophecy of my call to the apostolic office, whilst sitting at home, a mighty power came upon me, but for a considerable time no impulse to utterance; presently a sentence in French was vividly set before my mind, and under an impulse to utterance was spoken. Then in a little time sentences in Latin were in like manner uttered, and with short intervals sentences in many other languages, judging from the sound and the different exercise of the enunciating organs. My wife who was with me declared some of them to be Italian and Spanish; the first she can read and translate, the second she knows but little of. In this case she was not able to interpret nor retain the words as they were uttered. All the time of these utterances I was greatly tried in mind. After the first sentence an impulse to utterance continued on me, and most painfully I retained it, my conviction being that until something was set before me to utter, I ought not to yield my tongue to utterance. Yet I was troubled by the doubt what could the impulse mean, if I were not to yield to it. Under the trial I did yield my tongue for a few moments, but the utterance that broke from me seemed so discordant that I concluded the impulse without words given was a temptation; and I retained it, except as words were given me, and then I yielded. Sometimes single words were given me, and sometimes sentences, though I could recognise neither the words nor sentences as any language I knew, except those which were French or Latin. What strengthened me, upon after consideration, in the opinion that I ought not to yield my tongue was the remembrance that I had heard Mr. Irving say, when explaining how the utterance in tongue first came upon Mr. T., that he had words and sentences set before him. Immediately after this exercise there came an utterance in English, declaring that the gift of tongues, which was manifest in London, was nothing more than that of the tongue needing interpretation, manifested formerly in the Corinthian church; but that shortly the Lord would bestow the Pentecostal gift, enabling those who received it to preach in all languages to the nations of the earth. I was on several other occasions exercised in this same way, speaking detached words and sentences, but never a connected discourse.

"When I went to London after this, I questioned those who spoke in the tongues, whether they had the words and sentences given, or yielded their tongues to the impulse of utterance without having them. They answered almost entirely the latter, though sometimes also the former. I was also in London made to confirm in utterance before Mr. Irving, what I had spoken here concerning the Pentecostal gift of tongues for preaching; and such was the readiness with which he yielded to the utterances, that, though he had both written and published that the Pentecostal gift was not for preaching, he at once yielded and confessed his error, giving thanks for the correction. Oh! that he may manifest the same ingenuousness in abandoning his opinion concerning the power, when, weighing its fruits, he sees it is not of God.

"My persuasion concerning the unknown tongue as it is called (in which I myself was very little experienced) is, that it is no language whatever, but a mere collection of words and sentences; and in the lengthened discourses is, much of it, a jargon of sounds" (p. 134). To this we may all agree, save in the unfounded distinction as to Corinth, which was clearly similar to Pentecost. How could a sober christian think the Holy Spirit conferred there or anywhere "a jargon of sound"? Neander, in his History of the Planting of Christianity, reasons on the "tongues" in 1 Cor. 12, 14 as ecstatic to set aside the force of Acts 2: 6-8; but such efforts to explain away scripture are as lamentable as vain. The Lord had promised this sign in Mark 16: 17.

CHAPTER 1.

g) EARLY HISTORY.

There is a fearless and distressing paper in the last vol. of the Morning Watch ("What caused Mr. Baxter's fall?" vii, 129-140), so characteristic of this early phase, that it may fitly follow Mr. Baxter's Narrative.

"It is written in the scriptures, 'Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.' Give me, O God, the heart purged by Christ's blood, the single eye of sincerity and truth, that I may now Clearly set and show forth the mystery of Thy dealings with my friend, and more than brother, Robert Baxter, who having been called of Thee as a prophet, and as such been attested of Thy Spirit, an approven of Thy church, hath now openly set himself against Thee to pull down that which Thou didst set him to build up. To me it appertaineth not to sit in judgment upon him, nor to account for the inconsistencies wherewith he chargeth the Spirit that spoke in him; nor to distinguish whether these be really inconsistencies, or only inconsistencies between the spiritual word and his own interpretation thereof; and, if real spiritual inconsistencies there be, to determine whether, like Saul, he may have been visited by an evil spirit from the Lord, for his haste and unbelief, or whether he may, being still a true prophet, have spoken presumptuously and beyond the analogy of faith, or whether being, like Balaam, at heart a Moabite, he may have been drawn out from the river of his people, and constrained against his proper nature to bless the people of God: — to determine whether of these be the manner of his fall, I undertake not, because he standeth not at my bar, nor is he one of my flock; but in love to his soul, and the souls of those whom he hath stumbled, and chiefly for the glory of God, I will show forth the righteousness of God in permitting him to be brought thus low.

"Robert Baxter is a vessel marred upon the wheel of the Potter, whom the Potter would yet make into a good vessel for the hand of the King, to be filled with treasures of glory for the good of the church. But he fighteth sore against the gracious purpose of his Maker, and standeth in peril of being dashed and broken in pieces. The Lord called him to be a prophet and more than a prophet; a strong stone, but not the Corner stone, of His house; nor yet the Builder thereof, though a master builder under the Builder, Whose name is The Branch. The Lord, which is the word of God, opened his mouth in mighty utterances, of things unutterable by the lip, inconceivable to the mind, of man; and gave them forth with a richness and variety and exuberance of knowledge, with a majesty and strength, with a melody and power of harmony, and yet with a calmness and distinctness and exactness, Yea, and minuteness of truth and beauty, which if Satan hath power to give, then Satan may have written all the oracles of God. [Is not this presumptuous for a saint to write?] For verily there be no parallels to the words which he spake, nor to the manner and method of his discourse, but those which the universal church hath stamped by the name of the word of God (!) If Satan, as an angel of light and a minister of righteousness, can give forth the honour, the nobility, the grandeur, the glorious truths, which not thy poor formal intellect, Robert Baxter, but He that, spake them in defiance of thy formal intellect did utter, in my hearing, and in the hearing of the church; — then say I again, Satan may have indited the word of God [shame on thee, Edward Irving], which is of all blasphemy the most horrible and guilty.

"Yet for all this, Robert Baxter, a man of godly spirit but yet an enthralled understanding; a man of truth in the inward parts, but of tradition in the outward; a man in his reason taught of God, but in his understanding taught of the traditions of men, a man who, in unfolding the forms of godliness in the law and the traditions of the church, surpasseth the men of this day, as is manifest from his two papers in this work, but whose spirit hath not informed his understanding with the heavenly life — he, even such an one, hath endeavoured to show that the mighty Spirit which spake in him these utterances of honour and glory is no other than the spirit of error; for he is too honest a man to believe, or to say, that it was excitement of the flesh. He knoweth too well what an ungodly thing — what a rash, riotous, turbulent, wayward, and contradictory thing — the flesh is, to mistake for its excitement that heavenly rapture, that sober certainty of truth and collected wisdom of God which first enwrapped him into divine assurance of faith, and love, and rest, and then poured forth through him streams of the waters of life, beams of the sun of glory. Oh! my brother, my brother! Where is thy discernment gone between God and Satan, good and evil, Spirit and flesh, that thou shouldest thus turn aside like a deceitful bow in the hand of thy Maker! Here therefore is an enigma and a dark riddle; that a man, with more formal theology in him than most men I know of, should have committed the most fearful sin of naming the Spirit of truth and holiness by the name of the father of lies. And how cometh this to pass? Where is the interpreter to interpret this parable?

"It cometh to pass from this, that the natural understanding apprehendeth not the things of the Spirit of God. No, nor no single mind of even the spiritual comprehendeth all the words and ways of God; which are spoken not for one man, but for the church of many members composed; nor for the church of one generation, but for the church of all generations; for no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation, but holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. And least of all is the prophet himself capable of resolving his own words. Sufficient is it for the tongue to have the glory of utterance. The ear must have the glory of hearing; the heart the glory of understanding; and the mind the glory of bringing forth the flowers and fruits of the word rooted in the heart of love. But thou, Robert Baxter, prophet of the Lord, in thy rashness, in thy strength of head, in thy solitary self-sufficiency, in thy great personal stedfastness — for there was no soldier like thee in all the camp for personal single combat; thou wast a rock beside other men; a lion wast thou amongst the beasts of the field; yet see, O brother, how thou art fallen before the rock of Israel, the Lion of the tribe of Judah; thou thoughtest by thine own capacity to measure the capacity of the word that thou wast made instrumental to utter. This was the reason wherefore God took thee to use thee, that thou hadst strong personal parts, in a day of confederacies. Thou wast not afraid to trust thy God; and thy God did not belie thy trust. He did open thy mouth in majesty, but not until He had found an ear to hear, a heart to understand, and a mind to realise, in the church whereof I am the pastor. And if thou hadst heeded the counsel of Him That sent thee, and staid there where thy mouth was opened until the power was given, it would have been well with thee at this day, instead of being very evil. For, O man, thou art not the pillar and ground of the truth, strong though thy manhood be; the church is the pillar and ground of the truth. Therefore it is thou hast fallen, because thou wouldst be both giver and receiver, both utterer and container, both prophet and angel, and pastor and teacher; and so, by usurping all offices, which dignity pertaineth to Jesus, thou hast lost all, and become nothing but a stumbling-block in the way of the children of the Lord.

"Ever and anon, as thou didst utter a thing, thou wouldst understand it; thou wouldst settle down in to space and time the word of the Lord, which is unto all generations. The Spirit in the prophets warned thee of this; and I, according to the light given unto me, did also warn, and in some cases was able to deliver thee. But still thou wouldst be grasping with thy fist the word of the Lord; and with thine understanding, which is formal and fashioned according to the traditions of men, thou wouldst be containing the word of the Lord. Did ever Isaiah think of comprehending what the lips of Isaiah spake? And when Jeremiah gave formal expectation to his words, instead of patience and hope, his feet had well-nigh slipped; and he was only brought back from this state of saying, 'I will speak no more in this name,' by his obedience greater than thine, which, when the fire burned within him, constrained him to speak. But thou, O man, hast not grace to do this; for thou hast called the Spirit of God the spirit of evil; and the word of thy God the word of the father of lies. Take heed, take heed, O my brother, lest the Lord harden thy heart, as He hardened the heart of Pharaoh; and lest thou as Balaam did, in the slaughter of Midian and Moab.

"God is righteous in his dealings with Robert Baxter, whom, for the years that I have known him, He hath led by a gentle and steady hand into the knowledge of all the forms of truth written in His word, especially of the purpose which He hath laid in the Christ. I say, the Lord led him onward with a steady hand into the forms of the truth; and at the same time gave him a child's heart for simplicity and gentleness. A tender husband, and a tender father, and a tender friend, did He make thee, O my brother. But thy heart lay in its guileless simplicity of childhood, and did not grow up to fill the majestic forms of thine understanding with the life of God. Thou buildest, and buildest in thine understanding; thou didst fashion and mould until thou hadst made it a noble temple; but the voice within it was but the voice of a child. Thine understanding was not a living temple. Thou hadst quickened none of thine articles of faith, none of thy forms of truth. They were but an outward shape, whose proportions thou couldst measure; not the food of an inward joy, not the growth of an inward principle of organic life. Thy child-like spirit from within the temple called upon thy Maker for strength and power; thou didst lie sore upon thy Father, thou didst entreat Him much, and thy Father could not refuse thee thy desire. But well knowing what rendings His Spirit must make in the temple which thou hadst built around thee, He sent thee first into the bosom of a living temple — a church whose understanding of truth had grown out of a vital informing principle; and He would have had thee submit thy building of man to the building of God. And He did put thee there to prophesy to the builders of the house, to ask change of raiment for Joshua, and to strengthen the hands of Zerubbabel; but thou wouldst not, thou wouldst be both prophet and church unto thyself. The Lord saw that He must either part with thee for His prophet, or part with us for His church. So, when thou hadst sown among us the seed of hope, the hope of the Man-child, He shut thy mouth, like Zacharias, for disbelieving the word and asking for a sign; and thou shalt be dumb like him for a season; aye, and until thou shalt yield thyself to be fashioned and builded by the Spirit of God, according to His mind, and not according to thine own.

"All thy doctrines concerning our Lord's flesh, and concerning regeneration, and concerning holiness of the believer, and concerning the baptism of the Holy Ghost and of fire, are dead letters of tradition, as thou holdest them, blind conceptions, having in them a form of godliness without the power. O brother! I would teach thee, for I am set as a teacher in the house of God; but thou wilt not be taught. Those letters, which, contrary to all honour and friendship — letters, so private, so holy — those two letters of mine, which thou hast dared (or rather, I should say, been constrained by God overruling thine evil) to publish, would have taught thee the truth, the living truth of God, concerning these great heads of doctrine. But thou wilt not be taught by any man, by any ordinance; nay, thou wilt not be taught by the Comforter dwelling within thee: how shouldst thou be taught by man? Yet once more, and for the multitude that follow after thee, I will get forth distinctly what my faith is, what the only living faith is, concerning these matters" (pp. 129-133).

Next follows a bold exposition of Mr. Irving's peculiar doctrine, too sad and evil to be transferred to these pages, which will fall elsewhere for judgment by God's word. Suffice it to cite the peroration in pp. 139, 140. "But what serveth this dispensation to the church? Much, every way. Chiefly to mar the work in the sight of the multitude, who were gaping after it, as to a market-place of mighty power and signs and wonders; — to separate those who bowed the knee to the waters of the Spirit and drank, from those who did but stoop their girded loins and stretch down the hand of faith to the brook that runneth in the way; to send back the thousands to their homes, while the handful pass onward with Gideon to the fiery fight. For this battle is not with confused noise and garments rolled in blood, but with burning and fuel of fire: whereunto who would send the hay, the wood, the stubble, and the chaff? Nay, but only the gold and silver and precious stones may abide that fiery conflict. Therefore is it that God hath permitted thee to put forth thine own shame, which will serve as a touchstone, to distinguish the men that have been feeding upon the word of God, from the men who have been eyeing it with suspicion, lying in wait for the faltering of their God, and taking good heed to risk nothing for the Saviour of their souls. But, O ye little ones, who are stumbled by this stumbling-block which a giant has put in your way — for he is a very mighty man — know the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel: 'Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit, saith the Lord.' Taste and see that God is good: prove ye the meat by the eating of it; know ye Satan from Jesus by the house which he buildeth; come amongst us, and see whether we be a church of the living God, or a synagogue of Satan. Ah! this pang woundeth the deepest, that Satan should have the credit of such a work! O thou enemy, thou hast triumphed, but thy triumph is short! And thou, Robert Baxter, hast lifted up Satan in the sight of many men, and crowned him as the author of a work which has been, and is, the joy and edification of thousands of saints. Be ashamed! Fear and tremble! Repent of thy wickedness, and pray, if haply the thought of thy heart, the word of thy mouth, and the work of thy hand, may be forgiven.

EDWARD IRVING."

The fact is, that Mr. B. held to the faith of God's elect for his soul, but was only too long deaf to the strange and fatal heterodoxy of Mr. I., through the great personal influence and surpassing ability of the latter, partly through the evil power to which he had too long surrendered himself. But Mr. I. was more honest than most false teachers. There was nothing privy about him. He was open, not to say arrogant, enough in the foregoing. It was (to adopt their phraseology) before the ordinances were fully set up, when an angel laid down that, if he taught positive error, none must question it, as the authority responsible to God! But even Mr, I. does pave the way for denying the Christian's title to judge, where a prophecy failed manifestly, on the perversion of 2 Peter 1: 20, that no prophecy is of private interpretation. They are not the only party in Christendom that would supersede (by the church, or the clergy) the believer's direct subjection to the Lord by scripture. Faith is undermined whenever the alleged voice of God — not in man, or the people, but in the church — is made superior to the written word. Even the natural honesty of Mr. I's soul was impaired, as we may see; but as a whole, he was plain-spoken, where he sets out his error, though he well knew how offensive it was to the mass of those he had once respected and loved. He was taken away prematurely, in spite of many a prophecy which promised him grand results in the near future. God cut short, in mercy, as well as judgment, a career of delusion. For even he, uncompromising as he was, submitted absolutely to the spirit in the gifted, which sanctioned his evil doctrine against Christ (though not all his expressions), and he was powerless before the ordinances which he idolized. Who indeed could or ought to resist if he believed it was God speaking?

CHAPTER 2.

a) DEVELOPMENT.

A serious stride was made early after the expulsion from Regent Square and the temporary use of a room from May 6th, 1832, in Gray's Inn Road. Let them tell their own story. Dr. Norton thus describes the new departure in his book, already cited, using the highly coloured words of another's "Narrative":

"October 19 was the first day of our meeting in Newman Street. After the first prayer a sound of triumphant joy through Mr. — [Irving] calling upon us to praise the Lord and blessing Him that He had given rest to His people. Then followed a setting before us the prospect of continued conflict; sure victory to the faithful, but the hosts of the Lord diminishing day by day. It was said, 'Remember Midian: the Lord will conquer by few. Ye shall be despised, ye shall be rejected; the scorn of all men; ye shall know what it is to be empty vessels, but oh! they shall be fitted to contain the glory!' Much manifestation of the Spirit followed through others of the gifted persons in every interval of the service.

"At the conclusion the pastor was about to pronounce the blessing as usual, when Mr. D[rummond] rose in the power of the Holy Ghost and blessed the people. The next evening what was our joy on hearing Mr. C[ardale] speaking in the power of the Spirit! Many utterances followed in much connection of subject in reference to Zech. 10, Joel 2, Ps. 29: on the planting of the cedars of Lebanon in the house of the Lord. At the conclusion of the service on the Monday following Mr. C[ardale] blessed the people in the power of the Spirit, as Mr. D[rummond] had done two days before, the first buddings, although we knew it not, of the coming apostleship; and a few days afterwards, while Mr. C[ardale] was in prayer, asking God for the outpouring of His Spirit upon the church, declaring that the Lord had called him to be an apostle, and to convey His holy unction. The next morning Mr. Irving, narrating the dealings of the Lord in the designation of Mr. C[ardale], solemnly addressed him accordingly, adjuring him to be faithful and warning him of the exceeding great responsibility and awfulness of his office: also warning us against any idolatry or undue exaltation of a man, inasmuch as the whole church was apostolic, and instead of needing to lean on any man, was itself 'the pillar and ground of the truth"' (Restoration, etc., pp. 64-66).

Mr. Cardale, though thus designated apostle, did not act plenarily for the present. Mr. Drummond was by a prophet named pastor or angel of the church at Albany on the 20th of October, the day after Mr. C. was named apostle. For Christmas Messrs. Cardale and Taplin went to Albury, where on the eve Mr. C. ordained Mr. Place as evangelist. Yet were they perplexed how to celebrate the Eucharist. Mr. R. Story of Rosneath wrote a letter at the time, given in Appendix iv. (pp. 409-411) to his Life, which lets us see the state of things:-

"At the commencement of the usual meeting for prayer on Wednesday evening last (26th current), the Lord spoke a searching word through Mr. Caird while Mr. Drummond was reading the thirty-third Psalm; the substance of it was a warning against trifling with God and with sin. Before singing Mr. D [rummond] warned the people against coming there without knowing why. He saw some who, he feared, were ignorant that the purpose of this meeting was to pray unto the Lord for the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, and the revival of all His gifts to the whole church everywhere throughout the world; and unless they could join sincerely in this, the prayer would be a wavering prayer, which the Lord would not hear. After the Psalm Mr. D[rummond] said there were some amongst them who, he knew, were very anxious concerning the ordinance of the Lord's Supper; and he requested the brethren who might be led to pray to make this an object of special prayer: he then called upon the elder, Mr. Bayford, to read and pray. Mr. B[ayford] read Luke 4. During the prayer, while beseeching the Lord to make known His mind regarding ordinances, the Spirit broke forth in Mr. Drummond, saying, 'It is the Lord's will; it is His will that the ordinance of the Lord's Supper be observed in this church; it is His will.'

Then the Spirit through Mr. Caird called on us to rejoice that the Lord had heard the prayers of the destitute, and said, 'Be ye prepared to keep the feast with desire; desire ye to do this in remembrance of Jesus; the Lord will feed the hungry, but the rich He shall send empty away.' Mr. Bayford concluded his prayer, and Mr. D[rummond] desired the church to sing the thirty-sixth paraphrase, which contains the words last quoted by the Spirit. While preparing to sing it, the Lord spoke through Mr. Taplin a long time in a tongue, and then said, 'The Lord ordains by you, who have been called to be the angel of this church, to feed this people with the body and with the blood of the Lord: the meek ones shall be fed, but the proud consumed.' Mr. D[rummond] then called on the church for thanksgiving to the Lord for the mercy He had shown, but told them to remember we still required the counsel of the Lord in this matter, and added, 'I may give you the bread and the wine, and you may press the bread with carnal teeth and touch the wine with your lips, but this is not. to have communion with the Lord. It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing'; and again he called to prayer. The Spirit immediately spoke through Mr. Caird, saying, 'Let the Lord do His work; let Him declare all His mind; lot His working alone be seen in the midst of you.'

The Spirit then through Mr. Cardale began to open up the mystery of the Body and Blood, and the proper condition of those who receive it, and with much expression of grief, saying, 'Mourn ye, because the cisterns are broken, and there is no water. The Lord's people are a grief to Him; they are a burden to Him. He is pressed, He is pressed under them. There are some among you who believe not. Jesus is angry, He is angry.' The Spirit then proceeded in prayer crying unto the Lord, 'O come down unto Thy people; O for a living way to ascend unto our God,' concluding with a comprehensive prayer for the whole church and for the officers of the church in particular, specifying everyone, pastor, evangelist, elder, and prophet. At the close of the prayer Mr. D[rummond] again said, 'I wish some of the brethren would pray, for I do not clearly discern the mind of the Lord in this matter.' The Spirit in Mr. Cardale said, 'Ye do well,' and continued to plead and exhort; it was a mingled utterance of both. Then the Spirit broke forth in Mr. Taplin with great power in a tongue, and thus said, 'The Lord commandeth you, you who have been called to be an apostle, to lay hands on the angel of this church, and ordain him to rule and feed the church, to feed them with the body and blood of the Lord: be faithful, be faithful, and Jesus will honour you.' After a short pause Mr. Cardale advanced to Mr. Drummond, who was kneeling at the desk, and after a prayer mighty in the Spirit, beginning at Creation and going through the manifestations of God unto the person, sufferings, and glory of the Lord Jesus, with strong crying for faith and that the hand of the Lord alone might be seen, put forth his hands on Mr. Drummond's head, the latter seeming deeply absorbed in communion with God; the Spirit in Mr. Cardale saying, 'Be thou filled with the Holy Ghost, and with the Spirit of wisdom and knowledge and of a sound mind. Be thou of a quick understanding in the fear of the Lord. Feed and rule His people. Be thou faithful unto death, and thou shalt receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath prepared for thee and all who love the Lord Jesus.' Then turning to Mr. Bayford he blessed him, and spake words of encouragement, exhorting him to feed this people, and in so doing he himself should be fed. Immediately after this the Spirit burst forth in Mr. Drummond in a song, 'Glory to God in the highest,' when the Spirit in Mr. Caird took up the same strain in the name of the church, singing the 'Doxology' in which the congregation joined. Then followed a remarkable prayer in the Spirit by Mr. Drummond thanking and praising the Father for all His goodness and mercy; for His gentle dealing with us, not remembering our unworthiness, but putting away our sins, beseeching the Lord with great urgency not to let the vessels be looked to or regarded in themselves, lest He should be provoked to dash them in pieces. He seemed to have great entrance into the bosom of Jesus, enjoying much light shown in the rapidity of the utterance. Mr. Cardale then in a commanding manner spoke in the Spirit, saying, 'It is the Lord's will that thou proceed to feed this people with the body and blood of the Lord. See thou to it; live for them; watch for them by night and by day, and see that thou give a good account of the souls committed to thy trust. The Lord will bless in it. The Lord hath ordained thee the pastor of this people. He hath cast off the pastors who have forsaken and fouled the waters; but now He hath appointed them one who will give them pure water.' Then a word to Mr. Bayford, charging him to be faithful in teaching this people, and promising him ordination in the Lord's time. Mr. Drummond was then looking for a psalm to sing, when the Spirit, through Mr. Cardale said, 'Sing the twenty-fourth Psalm, and let all your hearts be lifted up to the Lord.' The Spirit in Mr. Taplin then, after singing for a while in a tongue, declared that Jesus had been in the midst of us, that His arms were open to receive us, that we should flee into them. Mr. Drummond then again in prayer blessed the Lord, praying for the souls of the pastors, although their offices were being laid aside; and, after a few words of exhortation to his people, showing that the utterances of the Spirit were no decrees, but addressed unto faith, and that according to the faith would the blessing be imparted and received, concluded by giving his blessing to the congregation."

This long extract of a quite reliable witness gives us a life-like view of the development at work. The pseudo-prophet Taplin, rebuked in the power by Miss E. Cardale at Regent Sq., convicted by the same at Gray's Inn Road of corrupting his utterances, and assailed in the most solemn way for his misguidance in Newman Street, was the same person who designated Mr. Cardale as apostle, and Mr. Drummond as angel of the Albury church. Every one may see how the so-called prophet and apostle played into the hands of each other, guided by a spiritual power which sustained them in high pretensions without an atom of God's word but profanely abusing Christ's name. Nor can any sober christian read the narrative without a shudder at the levity which could accept all and every part of these utterances as "in the Spirit," bearing in mind how solemn a thing it is to grieve Him, if it be not blasphemy to accredit Him habitually with error.

When Mr. Irving after his deprivation by the Presbytery of Annan on the 13th of March, 1833, returned to Newman Street, he was stopped by Mr. Cardale on Sunday the 31st when about to receive a child that had been privately baptised, and thereon closed the service, throwing his gown away, with the words, "Thank God, I am free from the trammels of men." Alas! a baser bondage ensued, according to a "Prophecy" uttered in his absence. Irving, fell under the iron yoke, confining himself to preaching till his fresh ordination, as he was commanded; so we learn from his own letter to D. Dow and [Douglas'] Chronicle, p. 10. Here again, Mr. Taplin, who conducted the service, figured as before, and during his utterance in the power directed the apostle to ordain Irving as angel of the church on the morrow evening. On that, evening (5th April), after words and deeds of no small assumption, he called on Mr. Irving to kneel and the apostle to ordain him; when Mr. C. in the power directed 1 Sam. 2, 3, to be read, which he applied, on the one hand to corruption of the priesthood in christendom, and on the other to God's present raising up of the apostleship and other ministries. Next, he knelt down with Mr. I., and rising laid his hands on the latter, and ordained him angel, or bishop. Then Mr. C. sent the deacons for unleavened bread, which they prepared themselves, and during their absence read in the power Rev. 2, 3, as that which the Lord would have read. When the deacons returned with the unleavened cake and wine, he, on receiving the angel's promise to keep the charges of Christ to His church, consecrated the elements, presenting them before the Lord, and administered them to Mr. I. kneeling, who was bidden to administer them to his elders, and the congregation, the service of not far from four hours concluding with a Psalm, the doxology, and the benediction (Restoration of Apostles, etc., pp. 108 - 110).

Elders had been already nominated. On the evening after Irving's consecration as angel (equivalent in their scheme to an Episcopalian diocesan or bishop) a sixth elder was appointed, making up the complement represented by the golden candlestick with its three branches on either side of its central shaft, as had been taught in power. Soon after two evangelists were called by the prophet, and ordained by Cardale with Irving, inasmuch as they were to serve under the oversight of the latter. On the Lord's day following the six elders were ordained according to promise, Cardale taking the upper hand most decidedly, with Irving accompanying, as in the ordination of the evangelists.

Even this official show did not suffice. Five were designated by prophecy as assistant elders or "helps" (as was a sixth later), and ordained by the apostle with the angel, not without Cardale's holding out to some a higher honour to come. On the Sunday after seven deacons were appointed to the charge of temporals, i.e., the public services and the poor, subordinately to the presbyters or priests (for of course they are confounded). Singular to say, the apostle did not lay hands on them, in marked contrast with scripture (Acts 6: 6). Can we suppose them ignorant of the fact? or did Mr. G. presume to improve on the Twelve? They were however not only chosen by the congregation but ordained by the hands of the angel and of his elders, and brought before "the apostle" for his blessing. One was named head deacon, the only deacon who followed I. from Regent Square, as three of the six elders did also. The strangest perhaps of these ordinations was that of Taplin, the first thus of the prophets: a thing wholly unknown to scripture.

Newman Street (the premises of the late Mr. West, the painter) was to be a model for other churches, though the official display might be greater or less according to the congregation.

Bishopgate was the second, where a Mr. Miller had presided over an independent meeting, but imbibed subsequently Mr. Irving's views. As early as the 12th of June prophetic utterance broke out publicly for eleven months, till it forbade Mr. Miller to administer the eucharist, and he was in due time ordered to seek instructions at Newman Street. The very next evening Miller was ordained by Cardale as angel of the Bishopgate church, with an elder also. On the 19th December of the same year an angel was ordained of the congregation in Brighton.

Meanwhile greater things were essayed. For Mr. Drummond was ordained apostle nearly two months before (23 Sept. 1833), already consecrated angel of the church at Albury. For a while both Cardale and Drummond only acted apostolically in the power (Restoration, etc., p. 126), two other apostles being added, Messrs. King, or King-Church, and Perceval. But early in 1834 they were directed to act thenceforward in virtue of their office without control from within or without. In the same year (2 Jan.) a church began at Chatham with its angel. Later in January, the minister of Park Chapel, Mr. H. J. Owen, left the Anglican body. He was consecrated angel of the church in Chelsea, as another clergyman, Mr. Horne, at Southwark.

After Irving's visit to Edinburgh early in 1834, Messrs. Cardale and Drummond went to the same city, and ordained Mr. Tait angel there. Mr. D. returned soon, but Mr. C., with a prophet and evangelist, visited Glasgow, etc., ordaining on his way. During his absence Taplin in the power repeatedly called for "the pitching of the Lord's tabernacle," the 60 pillars of which he made out to be as many evangelists, when of about 200 candidates, 60 were chosen evangelists, with as many coadjutors, 30 being seated in one gallery, and 30 in another the next Lord's day; and Mr. Irving, who had looked for much greater power in the "baptism of fire," preached such a discourse as one might expect from such a man wholly under the system. But lo! a letter from Cardale followed, swiftly denouncing the whole as a delusion, with a rebuke to the angel and the prophet. To this Irving bowed: not so Taplin, who left Newman St. for a while. The prophetesses too became troublesome, though at first in the front rank of honour, till the apostolic command relieved all from obedience to any word coming through the handmaids. Thenceforward apostles must reign as kings.

CHAPTER 2.

b) DEVELOPMENT.

Those who did not fear to assume the apostolic place, before many mouths elapsed after Mr. Irving's death, were (besides Messrs. Cardale, Drummond) Messrs. King, Church, Perceval, Armstrong and Woodhouse, called before his death, and after it Messrs. Sitwell, Tudor, Dalton, Carlyle, W. Dow, and D. Dow.

But even then a striking hitch occurred. D. Dow, the respected Scotch minister, it will be remembered, who supported Mr. Irving when deposed by the Presbytery of Annan, and this "in the power," was designated apostle, but refused the call. The time had been longingly expected according to Mr. Baxter's interpretation of Rev. 11. "The ever memorable" 14th July, 1835 was to be preceded by a week of waiting on the Lord, "Who at the end of that time would perform His promise." All the angels of churches were summoned as well as the twelve. But Mr. D. Dow, though he came to London, declined, notwithstanding the most earnest appeals. Dr. Norton (Restoration, p. 132) tries to escape the difficulty by pleading the Lord's choice of a traitor among His Twelve. But surely this is lame. The weightiest events turned on Judas' part according to prophecy, which was fulfilled to the letter. The call of Mr. David Dow "in the power" was falsified, and nothing resulted, it seems, more than the proved collapse of the new apostolate from the start. Nevertheless the intrepid men who led the rest were not to be daunted, and on the morning of the 14th proceeded to number Mr. Mackenzie in the vacant place, from two who were put forward, the less favoured candidate being shortly after appointed to an office only second to that of apostle. Can the reader conjecture what? To be "chief of the pastors"! So readily did the system lend itself to unauthorised posts of honour, of which God's word knows nothing. In this atmosphere of vanity they lived; for they had their senior apostle (Cardale), their senior pastor (Thompson), their senior prophet (Taplin), and their senior evangelist (Place), named in the word of prophecy (!) "the four pillars." On the evening of that day the seven angels of London (Messrs. Heath, Miller, Owen, Horne, Seton, Leighton and Wallace) formally separated the Irvingite twelve as apostles in the order of the seniority of their call; and the other angels present stood up as participants in the act.

At Albury, in company with the "prophets" and others, the "apostles" were ordered to give themselves up to the reading of the scriptures with prayer for twelve months. Even then there were some twenty-four churches in Great Britain and Ireland. It is doubtful whether more really exist now, for many are merely nominal. And the number of communicants is small with few exceptions; especially when we bear in mind that they count them from babes over two years old! In the apostles' chapel at Albury, outside Mr. D.'s grounds, there are twenty-four stalls, of which the Irvingite Apostolate occupied twelve. What was the meaning of the other dozen? Has the Union Review (71: 41, note) ground for saying that, they were reserved for the Twelve at our Lord's return? It is as hard to doubt that such must be the superstition as to believe that Christian men should be so profane. There is in the council-chamber of this chapel a table of twelve sides made expressly for apostolic deliberation, with space in the centre for secretaries or "scribes," and round the room are seats for the prophets and others who might attend. Unanimity was insisted on. Their twelve-fold unity was the boast.

Only in July 1835 at Albury do we hear of weekly communion; before this it was but once a month. And all was simple as yet, if one except the use of unleavened bread, as Mr. Miller lets us know. This in a small way indicated that Judaising which was about to break all bounds ere long; for what they called "the mystery of the tabernacle" soon appeared, if it was not the mere development of Taplin's prophecy rebuked before Irving's death. The new form had Cardale's sanction: then all went smoothly. Without dwelling on their minute applications, it is enough to say that the sixty pillars were supposed to represent sixty evangelists, with whom they also, compared Cant. 3: 7, 8, under five angel-evangelists answering to the five pillars at the entrance. This furnished fresh fuel for that burning love of office which characterises the body and is well illustrated here. Of these five it is a sorrowful reflection that "the centre" was a Mr. Douglas, once known in happier circumstances, succeeded by Sir G. Hewett. Again the forty-eight boards were thought to represent the forty-two elders of the Seven Churches (London), headed by the six junior apostles who answered to the six boards at the farther end of the tabernacle. The five apostles next to the six corresponded to the five bars which upheld the boards. As if this did not suffice, the four pillars between the holy place and the holiest were interpreted as the four seniors of apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors, the pillars of each! The angels of course found their counterpart in the seven lamps of the golden candlesticks, and two elders who acted as scribes had a figure in the two corner-boards.

These functionaries and others, notably the prophets, of whom at first were seven (Taplin, Drummond, Cardale, Bayford, Lady H. Drummond, Miss E. Cardale, and Mrs. Cardale), afterwards twelve, formed the council of Zion, ordered to meet on the fourth Tuesday in each month. The order of procedure was most formal. Liberty was unknown. The five apostles next to the senior stated the principles by which the decision was to be drawn, then the five chief evangelists opened the case in the light of those principles; the elders next gave their counsel; and the seven angels summed up. There was a pause for a word of prophecy if any. Finally the apostles delivered judgment through the senior, either on the spot, or after private investigation, or at a future date; of which judgment, formally recorded by the scribes, a copy was given to "the four pillars" for communication to their respective ministries. Where the case pertained to the evangelists, the sixty of London advised; and the substance was summed up by the five angel-evangelists who presented it to the council.

As yet however all was confined to the narrow limits of Great Britain. This could not content souls ever so little awakened to see what, the church is. And a more ambitions ecclesiastical system never was broached than Irvingism in 1835-6. The Council of Zion made them aspire after a Council of Jerusalem to consist of one hundred and forty-four angels from all Christendom. "In every land His purpose should be effected upon the same principle, and in accordance with that pattern" (D.'s Chronicle, p. 24). So far from realising this ecumenical expansion, they gradually dropt even the council of Zion, only to revive with less pretension and a change of name. The grand council proved but a dream. The council of the tribe of Judah alone remained.

The fact is that to deduce the mystery of the church from the Jewish tabernacle and especially from prophecy, though the error of others great and small besides the C. A. body, is not only unwarranted by, but opposed to, direct scripture. Rom. 16: 25, 26 lets us know that the mystery had been kept in silence in times of the ages, but now had been manifested, and by prophetic scriptures, according to commandment of the eternal God, made known for obedience of faith to all the nations. "Prophetic scriptures" mean, not the prophetic books of old, but writings of the apostles and prophets who constitute the foundation on which the church is built (Eph. 2). Silence had been kept of old. Now the mystery had been made manifest; which in other generations, as says the apostle (Eph. 3: 5), was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit. Clearly this means exclusively the N.T. apostles and prophets, not the prophets of the O.T. and the apostles of the N.T., an unintelligent and perverse misinterpretation, as any christian ought to see the more by comparison with the chapters before and after. Now this explodes the entire basis on which the Irvingite apostles reared their Jewish imitations. The mystery was never before revealed.

As with other spurious outgrowths of Christendom, the Incarnation, blessed and essential a truth as it is, had superseded the death, resurrection, and ascension of the Saviour. This error substitutes the Word made flesh for accomplished redemption, and leaves man still under law, waiting for that atoning work which alone glorifies God as to sin and gives peace to the awakened conscience, with Satan and the world for ever overcome. Short of the cross carnal ordinances were unremoved and prevailed, which could not make the worshipper perfect as touching the conscience. Christ's one offering has changed all; and the worshippers once purged have no more conscience of sins. The priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For there is a disannulling of a commandment going before because of its weakness and unprofitableness (for the law made nothing perfect), and a bringing in of a better hope by which we draw nigh to God (Heb. 7), yea, into the holiest of all by the blood of Jesus (Heb. 10). Judaism is wholly gone, not by Christ's birth, which had rather been its crown if the Jews had received Him, but by His death, the grave of all its hopes and pride and religion, but the basis of christianity, and of the church His body united to Him on high by the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven.

To this agrees all Scripture that treats definitely of our proper privileges. See Eph. 2: 13-22, Eph. 3, Eph. 4: 4-16, Eph. 5: 25-27. So in Col. 1 Christ's headship of the church is bound up with His being the first-born from the dead, in distinction from His being firstborn of all creation; and us He has reconciled in the body of His flesh, not when incarnate, but "through death" by which alone our sins were judged before God and borne in His body on the tree. Hence baptism figures, not association with a living Christ, but burial with Him, so that, when we were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of our flesh, we were quickened with Him, having all our trespasses forgiven. This alone is christianity, being founded on Christ's death and resurrection. Putting the Incarnation as the proper basis and ground leaves God not yet glorified as to evil, man still (even believing man) undelivered, and the enemy in power. The Catholic systems of christendom are all guilty of like fatal retrocession from the truth symbolised by their own forms and institutions; but the most exaggerated departure of all seems embodied in Irvingism, whatever of truth, and there is much, may be attested by it otherwise.

Here it may be of interest to note the excessive judaising that appears in the mission and jurisdiction assigned to the new apostles through a prophecy of Mr. Drummond in June, 1836, corresponding in a fanciful way with the twelve tribes of Rev. 7. As England was to be Judah, the chief tribe (the exercise and submission to reasonable rule), so it was confided to Mr. Cardale, "pillar of the apostles." Scotland, being small, had Switzerland annexed, as mountainous lands, stood for Benjamin (dignified patriotism, though in small nations inhabiting small countries), and was assigned to Mr. Drummond. Denmark, Holland and Belgium (contented industry) answered to Issachar and fell to Mr. King-Church. Italy was Manasseh (civil virtues and faithful citizenship), Mr. Perceval's lot. Mr. Armstrong had Ireland and Greece (capacity for intellectual and bodily enjoyment) as Zebulun. Mr. Woodhouse had Austria (the historical head of Germany) and South Germany (intense desire for a united fatherland) as Reuben. Spain and Portugal (chivalrous adherence to an adopted purpose, undisheartened by practical difficulties), or Naphtali, had Mr. Sitwell. Poland with India subsequently, as symbolised by Ephraim (though confessedly it was not easy to trace a resemblance), was for Mr. Tudor. Mr. Dalton had France, as Asher (a yearning after fraternity), while Prussia and N. Germany were for Mr. Carlyle as Simeon (quiet perseverance in accomplishing what is aimed at). Russia or Dan (persistent expectation of the decrees of providence) became Mr. W. Dow's portion; and Mr. Mackenzie was allotted Norway and Sweden as Gad (honesty and passive courage in adhering to what they are, uninfluenced by the opinions of others). America does not appear in this division; but the U.S. at last fell to Mr. Cardale, though Mr. Woodhouse acted there for him.

We may add that the twelve stones on the high priest's breastplate, as well as the encampment, were connected with the tribes thus: — the sardius, emerald, and topaz representing England or Judah, Ireland and Greece or Zebulun, and Denmark, etc., or Issachar; the carbuncle, sapphire, and diamond, Austria or Reuben, Prussia or Simeon, Norway, etc., or Gad; the ligure, agate and amethyst, Poland or Ephraim, Italy or Manasseh, Scotland, etc., or Benjamin; the beryl, onyx, and jasper, Russia or Dan, France or Asher, and Spain, etc., or Naphtali. It is enough to state this imaginative scheme. Basis in truth it has none; but there may be a better opportunity to say more when we examine the doctrines of this strange system.

CHAPTER 2.

c) DEVELOPMENT.

The time now came for the modern apostles to be put to the test. They had not only studied and conferred together in the pleasant retreat of Albury, but had elaborated "the Great Testimony" to the patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, and others in places of chief rule over the church of Christ throughout the earth, and to the emperors, kings, sovereign princes, and chief governors over the nations of the baptised. This pretentious document forms an Appendix of not less than ninety closely-printed pages at the end of Mr. Miller's vol. 1, to which the reader is referred who desires to consider fully what — the entire college of these apostles, supplemented by such aid as they called in, had to say to those addressed. A smaller testimony, for which Mr. Perceval responsible, had been delivered by him and Mr. Drummond to King William IV. and the Privy Councillors in 1836, as was another under Mr. Cardale's charge delivered to the Anglican hierarchy — and many of the clergy, two apostles waiting or) the Archbishop of Canterbury and several bishops. These, may he examined though not quite in extenso in an Appendix to Mr. M.'s vol. ii.

Furnished with the larger instrument, and each of them choosing as his subordinate companions a prophet, an evangelist and a pastor, to act as heads each over his own province of ministry, the apostles went forth early in 1838, with the injunction to return before the year ran out. Mr. Cardale, as the senior to whom England was assigned, staid at home, as apparently Mr. Tudor also for aught that appears of any visit to Poland or India then recorded. As Scotland and Ireland were at hand, Messrs Drummond and Armstrong were within easy call.

According to the "Narrative" (of authority within the society) three tasks were imposed on each corps of missionaries: — 1st, to spy out the land; 2nd, to dig for gold; and 3rd, to seek gates of entrance. A vivid contrast with the true apostles! Not so did Peter visit all parts of the land, or open the kingdom of heaven to the Gentiles. Not so did Paul and Barnabas fulfil the work for which they were called and separated by the Holy Spirit. They knew that wherever went, it was the valley of deep darkness, but that they carried the true light, yea were seen as lights in the world, holding forth the word of life. They the treasure in earthen vessels, which they sought to communicate, instead of digging for gold; and they looked to the Lord for an opened door. Nor was it in vain; for they were blessed in every way, quite as much in their sufferings, as in what men call sacrifices. Why the modern apostles and their helps were admonished to be "as learners and observers rather than teachers" is passing strange. If it is pleaded that it was now a question of christendom, rather than of Jews and Gentiles, as of old, can we forget to what their own party had long borne witness? That christendom consists, said they, of the various streets of Babylon fore-doomed of God, and, more loudly than anything ever did, demanding the cry, Come out of her, My people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues; for her sins have reached unto heaven and God hath remembered her iniquities. Babylon, the great confusion and corruption of the truth, and a persecutor more cruel than Jew or heathen, seems at this time to have risen into no small honour in Irvingite eyes.

To the initiated three dignitaries in particular became the object of the "Great Testimony": the Pope; the Emperor (i.e., of Austria), the then supposed heir of the western power; and the King of the French, as the real continental representative at that epoch of constitutional monarchy. So the "Narrative" informs us. But the modern apostles found others to be no less adepts in ceremony than themselves, and had to content themselves with placing their document in intermediate hands. Some kings and bishops it did reach, perhaps all who were aimed at. Whether in that visit or since, they soon learnt that Romanist countries are uncongenial soil, and where the Greek church prevails, little better. Lutherans and Reformed were more open to their appeal.

It is certain that these envoys carried themselves everywhere as inoffensive gentlemen. They may have been more abundant in labours than their records imply; but of prison, stripes, deaths, none can speak, nor of any approach to such distresses for Christ's sake. Perils of all kinds they studiously and prudently avoided. They knew nothing, as far as one has heard, of toil and travails, of watchings, of hunger and thirst, of cold and nakedness. One apostle of old, ashamed to tell us of himself, was compelled nevertheless through the wrong of others to say how he laboured and suffered, aye, immeasurably more than these all together. This seems peculiar, if they were veritable apostles (weigh 1 Cor. 4: 9-13).

The effect of their mission appears to have been disastrous to themselves. Their Judaising tendency, already marked, received immense impulse and material from their spying out the lands; they brought home "gold" as they thought, for circulation. It was really what God's word denounces as the basest of beggarly elements (Gal. 4). On their return the development of Ritual and Liturgy became their passion. In this of course the Eucharist and its offering took up the central place, and, one might say, idolatrous honour.

But dissensions at home hurried them back, though it was agreed at length to not, earlier than June, 1840. It was owing to the preponderance of "the prophets" in the absence of "the apostles," who harped on the fourfold ministry (Eph. 4) to the danger, as Mr, Cardale and his fellows thought, of the supreme place due to the apostolate. It was contended, on the one hand, that the council, where all could act in their measure together, ought to govern as the last resort. For the apostles, on the one hand, to be reduced to an executive was resented, as not only derogatory, but suicidal. The absent envoys were therefore recalled to stem the adverse current; especially as "the angels" (or bishops of the party) sympathised with "the prophets" in their jealousy of "the apostles." It seems likely that the lack of apostolic signs, and of the expected "baptism of fire," as well as comparative failure abroad, may have strengthened the revolt.

The assembled twelve at once sought to hear all grievances, as well as every opposing view about the ministry, themselves included. After mature consideration they set forth their unanimous judgment that the new proposals were incompatible with divine order, and could issue only in that disunion and ruin which had overspread the church, till the modern twelve were restored according to prophecy. Their apostolic position was not of their seeking, but owned by all as immediately of the Lord, however much they realised their own insufficiency. Diotrephes' censure stood a warning to all opposers of an apostle. They should therefore go on as they had begun, and on no other ground would they bear the burden of the churches. This decision they delivered in August, and in September closed the council of Zion which had continued to be held monthly hitherto. In 1847 the council of the tribe of Judah began for the seven churches, as it goes on still month by month; there was also a meeting for their and other angels under the apostle. It appears, if Mr. Miller be rightly informed, that they look for the next council of Zion, as for the universal church, after the Lord's advent: a most irreverent idea of theirs.

But a serious, not to say deadly, blow was given to the prophets; for it was now laid down, move emphatically at least than before, that the state of the prophet modified materially his utterances: error as well as uncleanness might be there; so that the prophet fell under the general rule, and the decision lay with the apostles. How differently speaks God's word in Deut. 18: 22.

Thus the twelve prevailed; yet the twelfth could not go with the rest. Mr. Mackenzie, though bowing to the measures, withdrew from active personal responsibility. ("Narrative," p. 83.) All efforts failed to induce him to act the apostle without the power, which he failed to see in any. He doubted them till "they had received a second Pentecostal endowment of power in supernatural manifestations." Here again, as in Mr. D. Dow's case, was a deep wound in the twelve-fold unity, their articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae. But their eyes were sealed. They were for the most part so committed to their notions, as the voice of God, that most refused the warning. Visits of the churches followed, and general acquiescence with answers of unchanged confidence. Satan does not let off the truth so easily. Yet not a few escaped, and many more stood aloof.

CHAPTER 3.

a) CLOSING SKETCH OF THE HISTORY.

This peculiarity belongs to those who here occupy our attention, that the failure of their expectations, which to others may be but a trial end bring correction of haste, is to the Irvingites fatal. The reason is as evident as it is unanswerable. Their edifice rests, first, on the genuine character of their prophets, who committed themselves, with all the leaders as well as the led, to their utterances as of God; secondly, and even more distinctly, on the twelve-fold unity of their apostolate, as raised up to prepare the bride for the returning of the Bridegroom. For they have ever avowed, before and since as well as in their Great Testimony, that "apostles, and apostles alone, are in Scripture declared to be the centre of authority, of doctrine, of unity in all things, to the visible church of Christ on earth, until His second and glorious appearing 'to those that look for Him without sin unto salvation.'" Hence, in flagrant contradiction of scripture, they claim for the apostles what they never claimed for themselves at the beginning who were the foundation on which the church was built. Never did they restrict to themselves the call to go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them and teaching them; never did they assume that the Lord gave this mission, not only to them alone directly and immediately, but to none other except through them. Consequently never in the N.T. do we hear in a single instance of ordaining the evangelist to that work, or of preachers receiving their mission from apostles. Very different in position, they are alike the gifts direct of the ascended Read. Irvingism is here a false witness.

They admit nominally the ruin of the church. "As truly as the angels left their first estate, as certainly as the nations before the flood apostatised and quenched the light given unto them from God through Adam, as surely as the Jews who crucified the Lord rejected the counsel of God against themselves, so truly the baptized have fallen from the glorious standing wherein God placed the church at the beginning." Yet instead of repenting in sackcloth and ashes, and enquiring of God what His word directs as befitting those who desire to do His will, they arrogate to themselves to restore all as at the beginning — an expectation contrary to every analogy in the past, and without any word to warrant it in the N.T. scriptures, not to say wholly opposed to all just inference, and inconsistent with the provision of grace for failure.

The Reformation never so presumed. Indeed the men whom God then used and blessed know little of God's church, being pre-occupied in getting rid of the Papal imposture and its more glaring departures from the truth. An open Bible they did recover and vindicate, though not without an undue reliance on the civil power, which thenceforward crippled the Protestant bodies. Non-conformity again sought and sometimes fought for relief of conscience and a liberty which did not fail to degenerate into self-will; it never rose to the assertion of Christ's rights acting by the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven; as the church became less and less known in these conflicts. There was no due sense of ruin. They endeavoured to do the best they could in their various societies. Their ministers were Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Congregational, as the case might be. They pretended not to the apostolate.

Irvingism confessed in word the church's ruin as they did not; and yet pretended to divinely given apostles with so much the graver guilt. For it there was one feature more essentially distinctive of the primitive church, it was those who constitute the foundation. Yet they knowing this, confessing present rain, and avowing faith in a constantly to be expected Lord, claim a full apostolate once more, as if a foundation could be the pinnacle as well as the basis of that building, the church. If this claim be a monstrous error, morally as well as doctrinally, even an Irvingite must own that no claim of theirs is so distinctive. But the apostle Paul, predicting the ruin at hand, never casts the faithful on apostolic succession, still less on restoring the ministry of apostles to the church. This is not the least lie of the enemy that distinguishes the body, which therefore calls itself Catholic Apostolic. Their own effort to set up the church again is a new and more monstrous form of evil than that of any serious christians, and all the more blind and obnoxious to judgment because they professed to see the ruin which Romanists denied, and Protestants saw not. It may be true that the cessation of the apostleship, and the ruin of the church, too sadly coincided; but, without warrant of scripture, for those involved in the ruin to look for apostles and accept twelve men in that capacity, as a remedy for evil and restoration of broken unity, is to fall into presumptuous sin, instead of humbling ourselves for our sins and those of the church at large.

But, even on their own showing, their anticipations have been proved false. Take the Narrative, by the N. German apostle's "permission," where three anointings of the apostles were to answer to David's. Whatever may be pretended as to the first and second, the third has confessedly failed altogether; when it was fondly hoped that the apostles would "receive a power and extent of jurisdiction which they did not then possess." Can the most sanguine say that this day has ever come? Why then do they not take and humble themselves in the dust?

Further, on the face of the facts, the apostolate for the end, which was to usher in the Lord's Appearing, has waxed old and is ready to vanish away. Does this consist with the voices of the accredited prophets and the universal faith of Irvingites? Candour will not dispute the clear inconsistency. For these twelve to die is fatal to all their testimony. Yet they are all deceased save one, Mr. R. Woodhouse, now an aged man, still lives at Albury, and appears occasionally at Gordon Square. Mr. Mackenzie, the last, who withdrew in 1840, was the first of the apostles to die; Mr. Carlyle followed; and Mr. W. Dow, all in 1855. Messrs. Perceval and Drummond died in 1859. Great things were looked for in 1856, and yet more in 1866, when apparently the prophets of error sought to cover over these unexpected deaths by the deceit of carrying on the sealing in the unseen world, which had so conspicuously failed in this world. This fable seems to be accepted, not only by Dr. Norton (pp. 183, 4), but on the testimony of one of these apostles who died expressing his full assurance that God had further work for him to do! in flat contradiction of the apostle's word in Phil. 1: 22-25. Besides, as sealing was avowedly to exempt from the great tribulation on this habitable earth, how could it apply to persons defunct? The alleged object is gone. Up to this time Mr. Dalton, one of the Twelve, still stuck to his position as an Anglican presbyter, and in fact not till 1860 gave himself up to apostolic work. Mr. Tudor died in 1862, Mr. Sitwell in 1865, and Mr. King-Church after him. Mr. Dalton died in 1871, Mr. Armstrong, then paralysed, lived some time longer. Mr. Cardale, who had ever been the energetic leader of the Twelve, remained till 1878. The idea of coadjutor apostles, overruled when Mr. Taplin first presented it, seems to have since prevailed: whether it is still in contemplation to add largely in this form, which is not unlike succession, is not certain. But Mr. Miller informs us that the prophetic utterances latterly, instead of addressing the Twelve as of old, have been saying, "O ye Twelve, and O ye seventy." But whatever this may indicate of the dissolving system, it is very certain that the Seventy of Luke 10 were in no way coadjutor apostles. The idea is a fiction, as opposed to their universal expectations founded on utterances in power, as it is fundamentally subversive of their ecclesiastical principle and scheme.

CHAPTER 3.

b) CONCLUSION OF HISTORY.

In this closing sketch it is proposed to test briefly the value of their anticipations grounded on their interpretation of Rev. 7, 14, which plays so prominent a part in their thoughts, words, and acts. In 1847, as may be remembered by our readers, their apostles began the imposition of hands on all members above twenty years of age, in accordance, as they pleaded, with Ex. 30! As Dr. Norton explains, "not that any are kept back from the table of the Lord till then; for even young children are admitted to it on all great festivals; and all their youth become regular monthly, and then weekly, communicants, after they duly received the instruction of the pastor, and the blessing of the angels, which is their episcopal confirmation; the laying on of apostolic hands being the further and higher consecration of them, as His sealed ones and first fruits, if they fall not sin and unbelief from this their high estate" (Restoration, p. 175).

Their words seem disingenuous as to sealing before and outside Irvingism. They naturally shrink from the logical result of their position. "We do not pause now to consider when, and in what way, those receive 'the seal of the living God,' who have lived and died in the absence of apostles, but who nevertheless for their pre-eminent faithfulness have obtained a place among the firstfruits; nor what will be the final accomplishment of the apocalyptic vision of the sealed after the appearing of the Lord; but regarding the prophecy in its historical aspect, we would remark that ten of the twelve tribes of the spiritual Israel have been sealed already; and that 'Joseph is now being sealed,' who obtains the birthright and blessing which Reuben, signifying the first century of christianity, failed to secure. And none can tell how quickly that phase of the church may terminate; and none others be sealed except as Benjamin the son of sorrow, born as his mother dies" (Restoration, pp. 175, 176).

It would have been wiser, every thoughtful soul must feel, if the Irvingites had "paused to consider" what they slur over. For it is impossible to allow that "pre-eminent faithfulness" can either gain the seal of the Spirit or dispense with that characteristic privilege. It would follow then that no saints for more than seventeen centuries since the death of John the apostle possessed that distinctive mark of christianity. Shrinking from an inference involving a judgment so extreme, they hint at a loophole of escape so untenable as "pre-eminent faithfulness" drawing a blessing, which they dogmatically restrict to the imposition of apostolic hands. As far as appears, they do not hope so charitably of the present generation. The sealed now at least are those only who come under the Irvingite apostles (not all these indeed, but such as were bold enough to act on the command of the second apostle speaking in the power).

The truth is that it is all ignorance of Scripture and unbelief of His grace. For it is clear from Holy Writ that on the great occasions recorded not a word is said of the apostles laying on their hands in order to the gift or sealing of the Spirit. The first was the day of Pentecost, when He was given to those of Israel who repented and were baptised. The second, yet more striking and to us of the deepest interest, was when the Gentiles also received the like gift in the house of Cornelius. It is certain that the Holy Ghost then sealed the Gentile faithful without the laying on of apostolic hands, though the first of the twelve was there to do that work, had it been requisite. The Scripture is conclusive. "While Peter yet spake, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word," They were not even baptised with water, till after they were thus baptised with the Holy Spirit; and they were baptised not by the apostle but by one or more of the "six brethren" that accompanied him. The basis of Irvingism is therefore destroyed by Scripture, which proves that, on the main occasions of that immense gift — the sealing of the Spirit, imposition of hands is not named in the first and in the other could not have been as the preliminary condition. It is therefore a groundless fiction. We are shown  in the inspired history that the Holy Spirit was given to the Gentiles (and such we are naturally) on  the hearing of the word by faith; just as another apostle teaches it as indisputable truth (Gal. 3: 2). That in the subordinate of Samaria, (Acts 8) and Ephesus (Acts 19), the Spirit was given after apostles laid hands on the faithful, is true; but this cannot annul the typical ways of God with the Jews and the Gentiles who believed the gospel. They were but ancillary cases, it would seem, to counteract Samaritan independence, and to maintain the apostolate of Paul. The general principle abides untouched, thanks be to God Who provided thus indefeasibly for times and places where and when apostles could not be. The Irvingites, not seeing this great truth, have misused the peculiar cases to undermine the standing general truth, denied the special essential blessing of the church, and set up a false pretension.

Nor is this their only nor perhaps most flagrant error in the matter of sealing. It is perfectly clear that Rev. 7 speaks of a future definite act of God. You cannot legitimately embrace within the 144,000 any beyond a contemporaneous body thus favoured on the earth. Now let it be put to their conscience: is it true that "ten of the twelve tribes of the (spiritual) Israel have been sealed already"? As far as can be ascertained, it is doubtful if all the sealed by the modern apostles amount to 12,000, without speaking of the many of their sealed ones who have since renounced it all as delusion! What is meant by "Joseph is now being sealed," it is hard to understand; any more than the dreamy application of Reuben and Benjamin. It is a matter of their phraseology that Manasseh means Italy, which fell to Mr. Perceval's lot, Ephraim means Poland and India which fell to Mr. Tudor. If these constitute Joseph, he is far from being now sealed. Whether the reference to Reuben and Benjamin can refer to Mr. Woodhouse's claim over Austria, S. Germany, and America, and to Mr. Drummond's over Scotland and Switzerland, may be questioned. It looks as if Dr. Norton had forgotten their prophetic apportionment, and was employing the terms in another figurative way familiar only to initiated ears.

When the day comes for the fulfilment of Rev. 7, — there will be no failure: twelve thousand (literally or symbolically) will be sealed out of each and all the twelve tribes. But the divine object is wholly misconceived by their teaching. The 144,000 are not to be "taken away," first or last. In the vision the angel from the sun-rising with a seal of the living God seals those servants of God on their foreheads, in contrast with the action of the four angels whose task it is to hurt the earth and the sea and the trees. Not translation to heaven, but exemption from the proposed judicial scourge is intimated: security from the woes to come. See Rev. 9: 4, and compare Ezek. 9.

It is allowed that "those who come out, of the great tribulation form again a distinct body of witnesses" (Restoration, p. 185). And this witness is true. It is in no way a general description of the blessed of all times, but a peculiar and countless crowd out of all the nations at the of the age. This therefore renders it plain that the sealed out of the twelve tribes are Israelites in that day, and distinguished from Gentiles. If "spiritual Israel," the distinction is gone: they are the same in principle. But not so: the more carefully Rev. 7 is studied as a whole, the more evident it is that the sealed of Israel's sons stand over against the innumerable throng that is gathered out of every nation. The later words of (Catholic Apostolic) prophecy, as Dr. N. shows, admit the difference. But if so, it is a state of things quite incompatible with the church, that one body wherein is neither Jew nor Gentile, both being merged with every other fleshly distinction in our union with Christ on high.

Hence, with a better understanding of the Revelation, they would have known that there is no such thing named as "churches" on earth after Rev. 3, and that from Rev. 4 a new symbol is seen in heaven (the twenty-four crowned and enthroned elders, etc.), which points to the promised assemblage above, not of first-fruits only, but of those who are Christ's at His coming, His joint-heirs, before He as the slain Lamb opens the seals that indicate the process of judgment, by which He will be invested with His inheritance. When the church is gone, the faithful on earth are seen as either Israelitish or Gentile; and so we find henceforth in the Revelation.

Again, Rev. 14 is no repetition of the sealed out of the twelve tribes. It is another and yet more favoured company, of Jews proper and of course converted, in special association with the Lamb on Mount Zion. They are like David's personal followers of Judah, faithful when the mass of Jews will return to idolatry and fall under anti-christ, as our Lord warned in Matt. 12 and the prophets also declare. These are purchased from among men and out of the earth, firstfruits to God and the Lamb. They too are not caught up to heaven, but anticipate the blessed harvest of the millennial earth, a company yet more honoured than the sealed Israelites of Rev. 7. Neither company has to do with the church, any more than the Gentiles then saved. As to all this, the prospects of the Catholic Apostolic body are quite wrong, and have beguiled the body into fallacious hopes. They are based on indisputable misinterpretation and glaring perversion of God's word.

CHAPTER 4.

DOCTRINE. §1. CHRIST'S SECOND COMING.

If it were a question of setting out Irvingite doctrine in the order of relative gravity, it would be necessary to present in the first place their views of Christ's person. The Epistles of John, as indeed the N.T. word generally, makes us feel that no truth is of equal moment in itself or as a test of divine teaching. But it is proposed here to examine their chief dogmas historically, and therefore to begin rather with that which they themselves now as ever put forward zealously and notoriously through their evangelists wherever they essay to catch the public ear in Christendom and particularly among the English-speaking races. There is some skill in this; for as a rule the denominations, great and small, are dumb for the most part on the Saviour's return in glory; while undeniably Scripture, especially the N.T., everywhere insists on its preciousness as our hope and its practical value for every day. On the face of things therefore the Irvingite emissary comes before the public to render a service which is in general painfully neglected. Thus are not a few drawn speciously into their not of error.

It would be strange, however, if those who have been shown to be the victims of extraordinary and dangerous delusion of the worst kind proclaimed "that blessed hope" in its purity. Error as to fundamentals is apt to weave a web of vast extent, and in no case is this more conspicuous than in Irvingism, especially as it developed after his death who was its only great man. Not that error will be found really consistent with itself; for consistency is only found in Christ, and blessed are they who, in the face of deceivable appearances which is Satan's work, cleave only to Him in the unity of His body, and with whole-hearted subjection to His word by the Holy Spirit.

The fact is that the truth of the Lord's coming again, though asserted prominently, is misused in almost every possible way, being made subservient to the sect without shame, instead of held in the bridal spirit of faith and love and holy liberty, so as to exalt, Christ, fit in with His work, will, and word, and minister a hope as heavenly as is the relationship of the christian and the church.

No one can intelligently read their writings, even the most fully considered and authoritative,* without perceiving how much they are under the influence of passing circumstances. The spirit of the age, as shown in the various French revolutions, and the growing democracy of Great Britain and elsewhere, fire their minds as antagonistic champions. It is quite true that the principles now at work, not only in the world but religiously, are alien and opposed to God's word. But the christian is not of the world; and if he enter the political arena, all must suffer proportionately, his faith, hope, service, and walk. Such a position is radically false, and must lower and darken and pervert all who are drawn aside by it, most of all those who assume that God has spoken to them exclusively by His prophets, and has restored to them apostles who sanction such heart-occupation with the world whilst boasting of their separateness. When they do testify of Christ's coming indeed, who does not know that the real aim at the close (for as ever "The prophet that teacheth lies, he is the tail") is to insinuate if not inculcate "the restored apostles" (or "apostolate") as the grand resource in these last days and in view of the Advent? The favourite weapon is, as the originating idea was, terror from present and imminent circumstances in Christendom, supplemented by the Zoar they offer all who seek sealing at their hands.

*Compare the "Testimony  to the Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, etc.," 71,72, etc.

How different is all this from the heavenly peace and holy power of the christian hope! Our Lord Himself represents it in far other guise. Take the virgins in the first Gospel. "Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened to ten virgins, which took their lamps and went forth to meet the bridegroom" (Matt. 25: 1, etc.). It was the original call from first to last, the only faithful and ever responsible attitude, due to Christ's love and word, which His own were meant to cherish. It was inexcusable to be found otherwise. What had it to do with distant predicted events, with French anarchy or British liberalism? The true apostles were set in this place, even before the church vas formed at Pentecost by the descent of the Holy Spirit Who gave energy to the words of the Lord; and fresh communications of the N.T. demonstrate and apply as well as confirm all; for the truth is one, no less than the head and the body. Spurious profession is anticipated. The Lord would not have His own surprised. If five were wise, five were to be foolish; and their folly was to be shown in going forth "without oil." The gift δωρέα (not necessarily gifts, χαρίσματα) of the Spirit essentially distinguishes the true confession of the Lord from the false. "The wise took oil in their vessels with their lamp:" in them only did the Holy Spirit dwell, not special energies but His unction. they gave up going forth to meet the Bridegroom, wise as well as foolish; and perhaps the wise mainly through the foolish, though the flesh be ever evil even in the regenerate. Certain it is, as the Lord adds, that while the Bridegroom tarried, they all grew heavy and slept. But grace intervenes: God raises indeed a testimony. "At midnight there was a cry, Behold the bridegroom! Go forth to meet Him." They could not have slept had they adhered to their first call. They, wise and foolish, had gone in here or there to sleep. What a picture of the departure of Christendom! and how true! Decay in the hope practically dissolved the bond, and flesh and world gained the mastery. Nor is unity of value if not in the Spirit. But the cry aroused: "Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps." Even the foolish were excited and busy. The wise possessed of the oil alone could resume the first and only right portion — going forth to meet the Bridegroom. The foolish seek the divine reality, which they have not. The wise do not pretend or dare to give of their oil. As their lamps were going out (for wick without oil could not last) the foolish repair "to them that sell." Vain hope to buy for themselves! And while they went away to buy (exactly what the foolish are doing now throughout Christendom — a time almost unequalled in financial effort and human energy), "the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him unto the marriage feast; and the door was shut." The other virgins were left without. They might cry loud, "Lord, Lord, open to us:" but the answer was, "Verily I say unto you, I know you not." They are so much the more guilty, and surely lost, because they had no more than an empty profession, baptised with water but not of the Holy Spirit.

Look at Luke 12: 35, 36: "Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning; and ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when He will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately," The christian hope is quite independent of times and seasons. It is Christ coming in person, and precisely the same now as when the first disciples waited for Him from heaven. Prophecy may confirm our hope, but is quite distinct in its nature. Hence a Christian ignorant of prophecy might he abounding in hope by the power of the Spirit. He waits for Christ, like a true servant his master's return, to open the door immediately when the knock is heard. Such is the right moral state, which Luke gives more than any other.

John 14 presents the hope as ever from the elevation of Christ's person and love and glory. The Son was going to the Father's house on high, no longer to be visible as Messiah on earth, but an object of faith as God always is. This is proper Christian faith. But He is coming as surely as He goes, having. prepared a place for as in those many mansions; "I come again, and will receive you unto myself, that where I am, ye may be also." Meanwhile as loving Him we keep His word, and have the Paraclete with and in us for ever. Christ was all, His love perfect as proved in His death, His provision of the word and Spirit complete, His "coming" for us sure. It is in no way bringing on the accomplishment of this awful change or that; but those events on earth are connected closely with His "day," which is to execute judgment on the beast, and the kings of the earth, on "the king" or Antichrist in the land and temple, as well as on his enemy "the king of the north." But these are the details of prophecy. The hope of the Christian is quite distinct in character as in source, and depends on His loving promise, so as to be always fresh and firm to faith till He comes to receive us to Himself and His heavenly home. Can contrast be more decided with the excited watching of events and dates, renewed and disappointed again and again, to say nothing of the vanities of a modern apostolate (as presumptuous officially as the true twelve were lowly), and of the ravings of prophets so called which practically supplant scripture?

It is all well to study every prophet, and above all the great prophetic book of the N.T., which stands to Christendom similarly related as the book of Daniel to the Jewish nation. They reveal the result of each of these failures respectively. It is certainly for no christian to neglect the Revelation; but the Revelation guards against the error which blinds Irvingism even more grievously than most of the Christian sects. The hope has nothing to do with dates or earthly events: it is the confusion of the hope with prophecy, which has everything to do with them. How could we have such words of assured promise as are found in the conclusion after the visions of judgment, the constant hope to the faithful, if we had to wait for the accomplishment of seals, trumpets, and vials, as so many signs? Revelation is perfectly consistent with the rest of the N.T., which discriminates them, as Peter formally does at the end of chap. 1 in his Second Epistle. We do well to take heed to the lamp of prophecy. But daylight dawning with the Day-star arising in the heart is a better light and the proper christian hope, quite distinct from the lamp of prophecy shining on events in a dark squalid world.

Thus the apostolic teaching, the written word from the beginning, is as sober, sound, and sure, as God could make it; and abides the special resource for the faithful in the last days of self-will and pretentiousness and form without the power of godliness. Irvingism as to the Second Advent, like Millerism in America, is only another form of excitement through prophecy misunderstood, as was found when "the new-prophets"-mania broke out in the early part of the eighteenth century, or earlier still when the Cromwellian rebellion lot loose mind, will, and imagination in religion hardly less than in politics. The Reformation was comparatively free from that excitement, because more urgent wants craved and found utterance, save perhaps among the Anabaptist fanatics of Münster. But even in times when Rome had almost all its own way in Western Europe there were two grand eruptions, as is commonly known, about 1,000 A.D. and some four hundred years before

Yet one great error there was which characterised them all, if they took the ground of Christianity and the church — the dread of the Judge appalled them, instead of "going forth to meet the bridegroom." This, and this alone, becomes him who rests on redemption and is sealed with the Spirit. It was not hope founded on the known grace and truth of Christ; it was alarm and extreme agitation, such as the false teachers sought to infuse among the Thessalonian converts, young in the faith. And therefore is it now ignorant and unbelieving not to profit by the apostle's correction of that early error. For he takes pains to beseech them by reason, or for the sake (ὑπὲρ)*, of that bright hope of Christ's coming and our gathering together unto Him, not to be "quickly shaken in mind, nor yet troubled, neither by spirit or by word or by epistle as from us, as that the day of the Lord is present." Next, after having thus shown the hope, he explains that that "day" cannot come in judgment till the evils are fully manifested which it is to judge. The "day" of the Lord is quite distinct, and full of what is most tremendous to man on earth. The hope of being gathered to the Lord at His "coming" is the motive alleged against the disquietude caused by the rumour that His "day" was come. It is not said that His presence must be before the development of the predicted evils, but that His day could not, be before the horrors it is to judge. We must distinguish between His "coming" (ver. 1) and "the manifestation or epiphany of His coming (ver. 8), which last corresponds with His "day," it naturally ought; and we must not invert their relative order.

CHAPTER 4.

DOCTRINE. § 2. THE REVELATION MISUSED.

What has been already said as to Christ's Second Coming is greatly confirmed by a fuller consideration of the misuse of the Apocalypse which is alike prevalent in, and characteristic of, this society. To state the truth it enunciates is in itself the best disproof of the wrong done, partly in ignorance, partly by party spirit. In the great book of N.T. prophecy there are well-defined landmarks which afford the most seasonable help and yet demand no sustained attention or study, but he may run that reads them. The first and very essential distinction for all right understanding of it as a whole is that laid down by our Lord Himself in Rev. 1: 19, "the things which are, and the things which shall be after these," not a vague "hereafter," but what next follows. There are in fact three divisions; "the things which thou sawest," namely, the Lord Jesus as presented after a new sort in the midst of the seven golden lampstands (Rev. 1); "the things which are," or the seven churches shown out in the seven letters respectively (Rev. 2, 3); "and the things which shall be after these," that is, after the church-state closes (Rev. 4-22). The bearing of this on the application of the prophecy, simple as it seems, is immediate and immense, neglected by none more than by Irvingite interpreters. This is the more regrettable as they are among the few exceptional communities that really ponder the Book. For the most part in christendom only individuals here and there appear to pay it any marked attention. As the Catholic Apostolics must be pretty familiar with its contents, they ought to have noted well the divinely registered postponement of the strictly prophetic visions to "the things that are"; especially as their ablest leader, Mr. Irving, devoted the greater portion of his Exposition of the Book (4 vols. 12mo, 1831) to the seven Epistles, and with no small measure of truth. They constitute the mystery of the church-condition, or "the things which are," from the days of the prophet till it vanishes from the earth, the faithful to meet the coming Lord in the air, the faithless to sink into the corrupt or apostate evils that await His day. Of the church, as a recognised object on earth, we never hear again in the Revelation, till the visions of the future are closed (Rev. 22: 6). In ver. 16 of the last chapter John is instructed to testify "these things," that is, the sum of these inspired communications, in or for the churches. Also in ver. 17 the church symbolically is shown longing for Christ. But this leaves the fact untouched in all its force, that the outwardly prophetic visions follow the seven-fold picture of the church, till it is no more seen or heard of on earth.

This again is corroborated by the opening vision of "the things that must come to pass after these" in Rev. 4, 5 The scene is transferred from earth to heaven, where the prophet in the Spirit sees a throne set, and One sitting on it, Who is celebrated as Holy, Holy, Holy, the Lord God, the Almighty, which was, and which is, and which is to come — the Eternal. But an absolutely new element appears. Around the rainbow-encircled throne were four and twenty thrones, and upon them four and twenty elders sitting arrayed in white, and on their heads crowns of gold. Now, without going into debateable and delicate questions, these elders are admitted, with or without the four living creatures, to represent the heavenly redeemed. It was a new sight for Stephen to see at God's right hand the Son of man. Now in heaven John looks on the symbol of the glorified saints as the chiefs or heads of the royal and heavenly priesthood. Never before had man even in the Spirit beheld them there. Their number is complete, twenty-four elders answering to the four and twenty courses of the Levitical priesthood. Others are called on earth to suffer and blessed subsequently, as we learn (Rev. 6 to Rev. 18); some are seen to go up to heaven (Rev. 11); many sufferers are raised at the last moment, earlier or later in the Book (Rev. 20: 4) priests of God and of Christ, to share in His reign for a thousand years; but not one is ever added to the twenty-four elders, or chief priests.

The inference is irresistible. There can be no full complement of the glorified O. and N.T. saints, as we see in the symbol of Rev. 4, till the Lord comes and gathers them to Himself on high. For though the O.T. saints could have none added after Christ's first advent, they are but disembodied till He comes again. Then alone the church His body will also be complete, both being changed in a moment, the dead and the living, into the likeness of His glory, as these demonstrably are here. For separate souls no more sit on thrones than angels do. Here the saints are crowned and glorified, which can only be after He comes for them. They re-appear expressly in Rev. 7, 11, 14, and in the early part of Rev. 19 taking the deepest interest in what is done to God's glory; but they are to the last mention "the four and twenty elders," whatever and wherever the blessing of others; for the book lets us also into no small variety of blessing to come in God's mercy. But the blessed are others, after the church is taken to heaven, and presented separately.

Be it observed again, "out of the throne proceed lightnings, and voices and thunders" (ver. 5). It is not a throne of grace as in Heb. 4 to which the christian approaches boldly now; nor yet is it the throne of millennial glory on high (Rev. 22: 1), out of which proceeds a river of water of life, bright as crystal. Most commentators interpret Rev. 4, 5 of the present period, whereas it is only applicable in reality to a transition yet future. The throne expresses such providential inflictions as fill the hour of temptation that is coming, after the church goes to meet the Lord before the appearing. So too the Spirit of God assumes henceforth from Rev. 4 a judicial character ("seven lamps of fire burning before the throne"); for it is no longer sovereign grace gathering into one, the body of Christ. Further, the sea before the throne is as it were "of glass" like unto crystal; for the elders no longer is the washing of water by the word needed, as once necessarily to have a part with Christ, whatever Peter foolishly thought. Theirs is now, not a purifying process, but fixed purity and in its highest form, "like unto crystal." The difference of Rev. 15 makes the meaning all the more striking; for there also we see another company of saints at the close who come off victors over the Beast and over his image and over the number of his name, not by any means characterised as the elders, yet singularly honoured, standing upon the sea of glass, and having harps of gold. But in their case the sea is as it were glass "mingled with fire." These do pass through the fiery tribulation at the end of the age, whereas the saints symbolised by the elders were caught up before; even as the Lord had promised the faithful who were awaiting His advent, to keep them out of the hour of temptation which is about to come upon the whole habitable world (Rev. 3).

Certainly Irving was behind few and not more negligent than most christian teachers, who allow in word the meaning of the elders and living creatures, and yet fail to hold it fast when they proceed to interpret the visions that follow. The consequence is the inevitable confusion which prevails. They almost all overlook that, instead of churches, Jewish or Gentile saints, no longer forming one body, are seen as the object of divine care but of the world's hatred throughout the external predictive visions of the Revelation. Hence in Rev. 6 the cry of the martyrs of the fifth seal takes us back from the grace of Stephen and the church of God as seen in the N.T. to the cry of the righteous in the Psalms and the O.T. The reason is evident. The church must already be caught up, in order that the vision of Rev. 4, 5 should be verified. Hence the saints subsequently called in that hour of trial which succeeds have a relationship, and therefore experience and affections, according to those that preceded the actual heavenly parenthesis of grace, whilst Jews and Gentiles are, gathered in unity. Beyond controversy the holy sufferers, that had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held, are represented as crying aloud, "How long, O Sovereign Master, the holy and true, dost Thou not judge, and avenge our blood on those that dwell on the earth?" They are in unison with a God Who will then be dealing judicially; as we ought to be with His grace, Who is now not only long-suffering but saving and blessing the lost gratuitously to the uttermost. It is a day of salvation; by-and-by it will be one of solemn judgments. Why confound them?

Rev. 7 affords ample and distinct evidence of the change which then will follow, anticipative though it is, as being an evident parenthesis between the sixth and seventh seals, answering to a similar case in the trumpets and the vials. Therein first is pledged a numbered company from each of the twelve tribes of Israel; as next the prophet sees a countless crowd from out of the Gentiles, both blessed, but quite distinct, and declared (of the latter at least) to come out of the great tribulation: in neither case the church, but by one of the elders explained, as far as the Gentile multitude is concerned (for the twelve tribes are so expressly described as to need no explanation), to be a special class of that still future period. The promised blessing suits, not heaven but the millennial earth, where the sealed of Israel are also to be. The church is exalted far beyond either,

In Rev. 8: 3-5 further proof appears, indicating that all the saints then on earth are witnesses, not of heavenly grace, but of God's intervention in judgment. For the effect of their prayers is that the angelic high-priest cast from the altar fire on the earth; "and there were voices and thunders and lightnings and an earthquake:" the premonitions, not of the gospel of the grace of God, but of His displeasure and ways that express it unmistakably; and the trumpets follow without farther delay.

The only allusion bearing on this in Rev. 9 is the negative one of ver. 4. The men not sealed on their foreheads are to be smitten. There is not a trace of the church on earth. Other witnesses follow.

So in Rev. 10 it is God's prophetic testimony as to many peoples and nations and tongues and kings, but neither the gospel nor the church as now.

More than this is made plain in Rev. 11, where the witnesses of that day, clothed in sackcloth, have power to inflict judgments such as those of Moses and Elijah, till their brief term of testimony is completed when the Beast kills them. What can be more in contrast with the apostolic witnesses or of the true men in their day who heard God's beloved Son rather than the law and the prophets, however truly they believed both?

Rev. 12 opens what may be called the second volume of the prophecy, and shows a retrogressive vision. For assuredly we err if we fail to see that the seventh trumpet brings us in a general way to the end. Momentous matters which take us back in time had to be particularised; and the birth of the Man-child Who is to shepherd the nations with a rod of iron is mystically before us, in order to link on with God's future designs and ways in Israel. Hence it is not the bride, but the mother here, the clear symbol of Israel according to God before the day of deliverance shines. The remnant of her seed that keep the commandments of God and have the testimony, as it is here, are clearly Jewish, and not what we now know as christian. This book is admirable not only to clear the eyes as to the future, but to enlarge hearts. The church, incomparably blessed as it is, does not cover all the plans that are before God or revealed in His word.

In Rev. 13 those who have their tabernacle in heaven are definitely distinguished (6, 7,) from the saints on earth with whom the Beast makes war. Cf. ver. 8, 9, 10. Not a word hints at the assembly, Christ's body; but there are saints Jewish and Gentile, and separately viewed.

This is palpable in Rev. 14 where we hear of 144,000 with the Lamb on mount Zion, a remnant of Judah, yet more honoured and more closely associated with the earth-rejected Christ than the sealed company out of all Israel in Rev. 7. After this scene, the everlasting gospel goes out to those settled down on the earth, and to every nation and tribe and tongue and people, but no hint of baptism into one body as now in the church. We have afterwards (12) the endurance of the saints noted who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus — this is indispensable, but the church nowhere on earth; and no wonder if caught up to heaven before the accomplishment of Rev. 4, 5. The blessedness from henceforth of those who die in the Lord is proclaimed (13); and immediately after the Son of man's appearing to judge, whether discriminatively, or unsparingly.

Then comes in Rev. 15 the vision of those who overcome the Beast and sing the song of Moses as well as of the Lamb, owning the King (not of saints but) of nations, as in Jer. 10: 6. That these follow on earth the church gathered already to heaven has been fully shown.

In Rev. 16 the vials contemplate the awful hour of man's and Satan's worst evil with God's last judgments, before He sends the Lord in person to inflict vengeance, and then introduce the reign of righteousness and peace. Hence the Lord comes as a thief, unwelcome and unexpected; but blessed will he be who then watches, even if it be not the bridal joy of those caught up before.

Rev. 17 is a description which strictly has nothing to do with the three great series of judgments in the book to occupy the book from Rev. 6 and onward, though we may gather from Rev. 14: 8 and Rev. 16: 18 its relative place in the last of these dealings of God. But being descriptive it can show us Rome's corruption all through her lofty and false history, as Rev. 12 connected Christ in the past with God's purposes about Israel in the future. The blood of the saints and that of the witnesses of Jesus (6) seems purposely general, as we see most pointedly in Rev. 18: 24. But it is certain that the one chapter speaks of the glorified saints coming with the Lord Jesus when He overcomes the Beast and the kings; and that the other gives a final call of God to His people, true in spirit ever since the Roman pseudo-christian Babylon persecuted, but pointedly to the Israel of the future before judgment destroys. "My people" properly designates (not christians but) the elect nation, and the execution of external widespread judgment is the purpose of the warning as usual; The heavenly redeemed have been already caught up and come with the Lamb.

Rev. 19 is another evidence of the same truth; and it is plain, full, and precious. Here the symbols of the twenty-four elders and of the four living creatures appear for the last time after the judgment of the great harlot, the corrupt pretender to that place of holy privilege which belonged to God's church. Immediately follows the announcement of the Lamb's marriage-supper, and His wife has made herself ready, and the guests are called blessed, even if they have not her relationship, the O.T. Saints, in glory as well as the church; to both of whom answers the uniting symbol of "the armies which were in heaven" that follow our Lord when He is seen, not as the Bridegroom though ever so, but for the while as the Warrior in righteousness. To this we must add the weighty fact that the martyred remnants of the earlier and later persecutions during the Apocalyptic hour of temptation are seen raised from the dead in time for the millennial reign in Rev. 20: 4: "the souls of those that had been beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the word of God (cf. Rev. 6: 8); and such as worshipped not the Beast nor his image, and received not the mark on their forehead and on their hand." The O.T. saints and the church had been already raised or changed, and had followed the Lord out of heaven in the glorified state. Indeed this state was made true ever since Rev. 4 showed them crowned and enthroned. Now they are seen on the millennial thrones, before those slain under the Apocalyptic visions join them in resurrection bodies for the reign with Christ.

If all this evidence be justly weighed, the Irvingite application of the Revelation is seen to be thus far a tissue of mistake. The sealed on their foreheads in Rev. 7 are the "Israel of God" at a future epoch after the translation to the Father's house of the church as well as of the O.T. saints; when the same chapter next reveals an innumerable throng of saved Gentiles unmistakably distinct. This is enough to put to the rout the allegorising view of the twelve tribes in the preceding vision. But what they teach is worse than mere error of interpretation; it is a "strange doctrine," which upsets a cardinal truth and standing privilege of God's church. For every member of Christ is and has been sealed of the Holy Ghost since Pentecost. "He that is joined to the Lord is one spirit." "If any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." "If then God gave unto them (Gentiles) the like gift (δωρέαν) as unto us (Jews), on our having believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?" "By one Spirit were we all baptised into one body whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free, and were all made to drink into one Spirit." These scriptures suffice to prove the indispensable and universal character of that great gift for every christian: without it one cannot be a member of Christ's body. To allow a constant line of such members since the twelve died, and to aver that sealing can only be by the imposition of apostolic hands, such as they and they only have in the Irvingite community, is obviously and unanswerably to contradict themselves.

Here their system is inexcusably astray. It is scriptural to affirm that the gift of the Spirit, and also gifts, were conferred for special ends by the imposition of apostolic hands. It is the grossest ignorance of scripture to overlook the fact that on still greater occasions the Spirit was given, even where an apostle was present, or all the apostles, without any such laying on of hands, as we have already shown; how much more where apostles were not present and could not be? How has so serious a heterodoxy pervaded these men? A snare of the enemy working on the pride or vanity of would-be apostles designated by modern false prophets. These apostles forsooth can seal, they only now: what follows logically, but that none are sealed outside Irvingism? none since the apostles till these men? That there is no mistake about their arrogant pretensions, built on a total misconception of the Scriptural doctrine and facts, will be plain to any upright christian on reading the following statements from their most authoritative document, "The Great Testimony," given in a footnote.*

* "The French Revolution of 1793 was but a partial outbreak of that universal convulsion which is now preparing — the first shock of that earthquake which will throw down every civil and ecclesiastical fabric — corruption in the court and in the church had destroyed the happiness and moral feelings, and supplanted the principles, of the great mass of the people; — and the people, oppressed and exasperated, at last burst through all restraint, and then every evil passion was let loose: wickedness, cruelty, and bloodshed, a diabolical hatred of God, and of religion, and of all government, and of decency and virtue, had their full sway, and unheard of crimes were committed in the palace of the king, and detestable lewdness and outrageous sacrilege revelled even in the temples of God, — murder became the policy, and atheism the religion, of a whole nation.

"But that revolution rose up in the face of better principles then still existing, the which with mighty force it assailed and sought to overthrow, but which ultimately stayed its violence. But now the revolution, of which the former was the type and omen, impends upon christendom leavened throughout with its evil, and sweeps and carries away institutions whose foundations are already sapped; and that infidelity, which flowed darkly and silently its course beneath through the period of Papal corruptions, which gained strength and has burst forth into the light of day in Protestant apostasy, shall swell out into that third and last flood of antichristian blasphemy, which shall carry away both church and state, as visible ordinances publicly witnessing to God, and raise up in their room the ordinance of hell; mischief shall be framed by a law, and every insult against God and His Christ shall be perpetrated, not by the tumultuous acts of infuriated mobs but by legislative measures, with all the pomp and circumstances of government, yet springing from the people, whose will shall be all powerful; the ties of society, formerly burst asunder by the violence of man's passions, shall now be loosed by the impiety of his wisdom; and the bands of God being broken, none other shall bind men together; every man's hand shall be against his brother, and misrule shall be the law of the world, until all are gathered up under that Antichrist who hastens to be revealed (Micah 7: 5).

"For we know from God's word that in the last days self-love, covetousness, boasting, pride, blasphemy, disobedience, unthankfulness, unholiness, the want of natural affection, truce-breaking, false accusation, incontinence, fierceness, disrelish of good, treason, rashness, highmindedness, love of pleasure (2 Tim. 3: 2-4), cloaked indeed by all the forms of worship and godliness, but denying all power therein, shall not only have their votaries as they ever had, but shall reign triumphant over the minds of men. In one word, lawlessness shall pervade and prevail, tossing man to and fro as the waves of the sea, until it shall bring forth its concentrated energy in that wicked, the lawless one, who shall be revealed, the man of sin, 'who opposeth and exalteth,' etc. (2 Thess. 2: 3, 4, 9). And he, must he manifested speedily; for amid the increasing tumults and confusion of all people in every country of Europe, in this distress of nations, with perplexity, the time foretold in God's word rapidly approaches, when the Son of man shall coins in the clouds of heaven to judge the nations, and to act up that kingdom which shall never be destroyed. And when He cometh, that lawless one stands already revealed: for it is written that the Lord shall consume him with the Spirit of His mouth, and destroy him with the brightness of His coming.

"And this is the fearful crisis in the history of man to which the world approaches; and this is 'the hour of temptation,' etc. It is only an holy people who can abide before Him [after citing Mal. 3: 2-4], walking as children of light and children of the day (1 Thess. 5: 5); it is only a people filled with the Holy Ghost, the servants of God whom He sealeth on their foreheads, before the four winds of heaven let loose the elements of destruction on the earth and on the sea (Rev. 7: 3). And that ministry of the Holy Ghost cannot be given, that sealing cannot be affixed, the church cannot be perfected, except through those ordinances which God gave at the first for that end." [Here their unfailing and presumptuous self-assertion betrays itself.] "But they shall be given; all the promises contained in His word of the restoration of His Zion [! the usual ignorance, which robs Israel of their hope and arrogates to the fallen church, without one word of reality for so grievous a misapplication of O. and N.T. prophecy], in the hour of her greatest peril, shall be fulfilled; and that purpose shall be accomplished according to His own counsel, and by no man's devices, God will appear again in the mighty presence of His Spirit" [undoubtedly, but for Israel when broken before the Crucified, and the nations through that chosen people: nowhere in scripture is there to the church a promise of restoration or of a second effusion]; "again shall His gifts, given without repentance at the ascension of His Son, be manifested, apostles, sent forth not of man, neither by man, prophets, evangelists, and pastors and teachers..., shall work the work of God in His church, and minister to the edifying of the body, and the body shall be replenished with life (!); the dead bones (!!) shall be brought together, framed again in their wonted order, and shall stand up a mighty army (Ezek. 37); and the followers of the Lamb, the undefiled," etc., etc. What hotch-potch of scripture, what confusion of christianity with Judaism, needs no proof to any spiritual mind. The citation of these extracts from "The Great Testimony" is drawn from Mr. Miller's Appendix I. Vol. i., 429-434.

CHAPTER 4.

DOCTRINE. § 2. THE REVELATION MISUSED.

That the entire groundwork is fictitious is shown by another sure consideration. The "sealing" of Rev. 7 is not employed as we find it in the Pauline Epistles, but a symbolic form of this prophecy, which therefore is said to be "upon the foreheads" of those selected from the twelve tribes of Israel. It is an astounding blunder to confound the sign of a divine exemption from outward judgments, as this will be, with that richest inward privilege which God makes true of every believer in Christ since Pentecost. Its essence is the indwelling Holy Spirit, of which not a trace appears in Rev. 7. Indeed the effusion of the Spirit appears from the Prophets and the Psalms quite inconsistent with the revealed condition of God's ancient people during their future crisis: even the godly, though born of the Spirit, will not have the gift of the Spirit till the Lord appears in glory; just as the disciples, though born again, only received the Holy Ghost after Christ was glorified.

As Rev. 7 did not speak of the Lamb nor of mount Zion, so Rev. 14 says not a word about sealing on their foreheads. There indeed a different lot appears to await a different company of 144,000* from Judah: not protection from the awful tempests of that judicial period, but the Lamb on mount Zion associated with holy sufferers, having His name and His Father's written on their foreheads. It is not here a living God's seal of immunity from hurt, but undefiled ones that refuse idolatrous corruption and follow the Lamb whithersoever He goes. Hence another and higher though clearly not the church, nor even heavenly; for they, and they only, learn the song chanted before the throne, and the living creatures and the elders, i.e., those who symbolise the church and the O.T. saints in glory. They follow, and are associated (in God's mind at least) with the Lamb on mount Zion; no doubt anticipatively, for the Lord has not yet appeared, as we see from the closing visions of this chapter; just as in chapter 7 the 144,000 out of the twelve tribes of Israel are merely marked out and assured by a living God of the general Messianic portion of Israel, the day-spring that will dawn on them foreshown before the dark apostacy at the end of the age. But the elect of Judah who tread in the footsteps of the Lamb stand with Him on Zion where He will sit as King soon, and are near enough to catch the "as it were new song before the throne." This is the highest place on earth and quite distinct from the ordinary blessing of Israel; it was such as had David's companions in sorrow and prowess compared with the people at large.  Both visions give the intervention of God earlier and later, for His ways of goodness toward the seed of Abraham; the confusion of which indicates total ignorance of the structure of the Apocalypse, as if Rev. 14 were a mere repetition or at best supplement of what was revealed in Rev. 7. In fact they are just as distinct as those slain under the fifth seal are from their brethren that were about to be killed (further on) as they were, who are distinguished even when raised to reign with Christ (Rev. 20: 4).

* It is "the," not "a" Lamb as before, but (not the) 144,000. Those introduced in Rev. 7: 4-8 and in Rev. 14 were not mentioned previously, and therefore they each are without the article in the Greek.

The two chapters therefore do not treat of the same subjects, but of different at distinct epochs and — of evidently varied character. The first chapter speaks expressly of those sealed out of the twelve tribes of Israel, in contrast with a still larger complement from among the Gentiles; and both companies wholly apart from the known and acknowledged symbol of the O.T. saints and the church presented in the same chapter. The second chapter does not speak of the twelve tribes, but from the context it is implied to be rather from the Jews proper, mount Zion being the keynote; and here again is the symbol of the heavenly redeemed quite distinct, the four living creatures and the elders (ver. 3).

There is no doubt that those "sealed" in Rev. 7 are supposed to have an appropriate blessing thereby. To apply this to a special time for some of the church, which no christians had enjoyed for ages previously, nor yet do the great mass at that very time (and such is the Irvingite interpretation), is not only infatuation and arrogant self-complacency, but such a subversion of every christian's most essential privilege as could not be entertained for a moment by any soul that understood what the church of God is. For this reason, as for others already given, a living God's seal as in the prophecy cannot be here meant of the church at all, still less at a specific season, and yet less of a mere part. Such notions are incompatible with the seal of the Spirit which is the inalienable mark and joy of the christian (2 Cor. 1: 22, Gal. 4: 6, Eph. 1: 13, 14, Eph. 4: 30).

On the whole then, and in every point of view, their accepted and uniform interpretation of the Revelation is unintelligent and unsound; whilst their doctrinal use of sealing is a denial of God's church, of whose unity, catholicity, and apostolicity they falsely claim to be champions, whereas their teaching overthrows each and all. Now the book rightly understood carefully guards from all these errors, confirming the truth elsewhere revealed, instead of undermining anything and confusing all. Mr. Irving was quite right, with Vitringa, Sir I. Newton and others, in giving (besides the mere historical application) a larger and protracted view of the Seven Apocalyptic Epistles, as long as churches exist on earth. The very terms employed by our Lord, "the things which are," might have suggested a continuous sense, especially as the internal contents indicate, and the cessation afterwards of any church-condition clenched the fact. But this being so, where is the consistency of interpolating christians and churches into "the things which should be after these?" The visions of prophecy from Rev. 6 to 18 concern not the church, but the world; and accordingly Jews and Gentiles come before us, not the body of Christ where such differences are effaced. Even those blessed are expressly or by adequate implication Jews or Gentiles, in no case do they rise up to church or christian relationships.

With this concurs the all-importance of Rev. 4, 5 as indicating beyond just question the presence above of the complete company of the heavenly redeemed, risen and glorified as they can only have been by Christ's coming Who introduced them there. His presentation of the saints on high at once makes the way clear for God's ways in putting Christ into actual possession of His inheritance by providential judgments, in the midst of which those to be blessed on earth are gradually prepared; as the heavenly ones from chap. 4 were already in their place. And these heavenly saints are distinguished by the clearest marks from the earthly, however favoured (with differences too) the latter may be. They are enthroned assessors round God's throne, in the intimacy of His counsels, and worshipping with full spiritual intelligence. Further, they have not only a royal but a chief-priestly function altogether peculiar. And when this symbol founded on the heads of the twenty-four priestly elders comes to an end, it is merged for the church in the unity of the Lamb's wife (Rev. 19), with the O.T. saints as the guests or "they that are bidden" at the marriage. Accordingly both these classes of heavenly saints soon after follow our Lord out of heaven, and, when the thousand years' reign comes (Rev. 20), sit at once on thrones for judgment, resurrection not being then predicated of them, the first general class, as they were changed before they were caught up long before; whereas it is said of the two classes of saints subsequently martyred in the Apocalyptic period, "that they lived," being just before seen as "souls" in the separate state till then (ver. 4). Compare Rev. 6: 11.

The raising up of these two classes of what may be called Apocalyptic martyrs is a beautiful sample of God's compensating grace. For they only come into the rank of holy witnesses after the Lord will have received the saints at His coming. They do not escape persecution unto death, as others will who are to be delivered when He appears in judgment. Hence they might seem to have lost much. But not so: dying for Christ, even though they may have known very little of the truth, they are destined of God exceptionally to a far higher place than their fellows who survive. For they are raised at the last moment, so to speak, in order to have their blessed and holy part in the first resurrection; whereas those that escaped death are "the people of the saints of the Most High" (or heavenly places). Those dead and risen are "the saints of the Most High" themselves, and reign; whereas "the people" are reigned over. Only we must carefully notice that the first part of Rev. 20: 4 sets out the great bulk of the saints in general from the beginning till the Lord comes to change and translate them to heaven. The later clauses embrace the twofold martyrs who only come forward after those symbolised by the twenty-four elders are glorified.

Be it noticed here that the critical form of Rev. 5: 9, 10, as approved by the best editors, helps and is helped by seeing this. For the new song celebrates the Lamb because He was slain and did purchase to God with His blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and made "them" to our God a kingdom and priests, and "they" shall reign over the earth. It is not thanksgiving for their own portion. It is the joy of divine love that others are to be blessed highly even in face of that dismal day. It is true that these are not to be made elders or chief priests in the heavenly hierarchy; but they are to be royal priests when the time comes to reign over the earth. In Rev. 20: 4 the time is come, and their anticipation is fulfilled. The singers of the new song followed the Lord out of heaven (Rev. 19) as "the hosts that were in heaven," where they had been as the twenty-four elders, ever since the church-state closed, and "the things which must be after these" began as shown to John (Rev. 4). All this while they had been changed; and therefore we read, "And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them." They were in a glorified condition already; whereas those who had suffered for the testimony and for the word of God, before the Beast had developed, and such as worshipped not the Beast but refused every shade of the evil after it was full-blown and in highest power, and were killed even as their earlier brethren were, are now alike raised to reign with Christ a thousand years. So consistently does the word of God shine, and so much the more as it is searched in faith, and as attested by the best ancient evidence.

How the visions of the book fall in with and justify the distinction pointed out between the christian hope and prophecy needs no elucidation. Our hope belongs to "the things that are" or church-period; the lamp of prophecy deals with the judgments, times, seasons, etc., or "the things that shall be after these." The coming of the Lord to gather the heavenly redeemed to Himself is the mystery fully revealed in 1 Cor. 15, 1 and 2 Thess., and elsewhere, which it did not fall within the scope of the Revelation (as being characteristically judicial) to describe; but it is necessarily implied after Rev. 3 and before Rev. 4. As no one pretends that it is portrayed anywhere in the prophecy, there must be a space more suitable than any other for that wondrous event; and what so proper as that which immediately precedes the presence of the crowned and enthroned elders in their completeness on high? The Revelation does predict and describe the emerging out of heaven (Rev. 16: 14, Rev. 19: 14,); but this is prophecy: not properly our hope of the Lord's coming to receive us unto Himself in the Father's house. The epiphany or appearing of His coming naturally follows His coming; for the measure of the interval between them we are dependent on scripture, mainly the Apocalypse, to decide. In a general way at least this, we have seen, is not difficult.

It may be well to add that the Revelation may be regarded from another point of view, which has its importance and may be here briefly stated. If we look at the seven churches as they existed historically and only so in the apostle's day, "the things which must come to pass after these," or the prophetic scenes that follow, must be allowed their place from that time onward. According to this aspect of the book, Rev. 4, 5 would be the anticipation of the heavenly saints gathered on high, before the revelation of God's dealings with the world in the, seven seals, which announce His unveiling of the great changes in the Roman world from the days of the prophet till the downfall of heathenism, which made way for a vast influx of men from Judaism and the nations, as seen prophetically in the parenthetical Rev. 7.

Then as introduced by the seventh seal the seven trumpets proclaim successive judgments first on the Western Empire (Rev. 8), next woes on the Eastern Empire and from the east (Rev. 9), with another great parenthesis (Rev. 10, 11) which brings before us a mighty cloud-clothed angel, with symbols of supreme power and judicial setting his right foot on the sea and his left on the land, and the full expression of divine majesty, swearing that there should be no more delay but that the seventh trumpet should see the mystery of God finished according to the prophets. Sackcloth prophesying follows, sustained by power like that of Moses and Elijah; and the blast of the seventh trumpet ushers in the, world-kingdom of the Lord and His Christ. Now in the shadowy application or the book, which the Protestant school labours to treat as complete and final, it is admitted that this may foreshow in a vague way the providential work of God in the Reformation. It is not the Lamb or holy earth-rejected Sufferer, as in Rev. 5: 7, any more than it is yet the Son of man actually invested with and coming in the kingdom as later on. It is angelic or providential, whether in priestly action first, or in the prophetic announcement of the end of man's day and the coming kingdom of God over the world; in the course of which we see a little open book, not the sealed one as at the first, and prophecy resumes its course before many peoples and nations and tongues and kings. But when we seek the real and minute interpretation of what is said, there is total failure in predicating the two witnesses, and indeed all other details, of pre-reformation times culminating in that great event; and none more forcibly disproves its adequate fulfilment than such an able and intelligent advocate as the late E. B. Elliott. To allow a general application to the past history is the utmost possible. In this vague point of view the seventh trumpet prefigures the closing scene, when God will intervene to reward His own and destroy the destroyers of the earth: a state of things clearly not yet arrived.

Then from Rev. 12 (or rather including Rev. 11: 19) we are taken back for a second survey of what is coming, in order to give more special facts not particularised in the visions which compose what we may call the first volume of the prophetic vision.

Here God's purpose in Israel comes out, with a mystic view, not only of Christ the centre and supreme-object of His glorious counsels, but of the translation of those identified with Him to heaven apart from all dates, circumstances, and times, followed when His dealings with the earthly people begin to be developed. The church is the body and bride of Christ, not His mother, which is alone true of Israel, whatever tradition may blunder about it. Every christian moderately acquainted with the more pious commentators on the prophecy knows how they apply the vision to the vindication of Christ's glory against Arianism and the uprising of Satan's antagonism in that Roman empire which had given up paganism and outwardly acknowledged christianity. And this is followed in Rev. 13 by the gigantic instruments of Satan in hostile powers, whether external or ecclesiastical according to the Protestant theory, with the intervention of God's ways in recent times.

The Lamb, it will be noticed, reappears (Rev. 14) with suited followers, testimony unprecedentedly active to the nations, warnings of Babylon's fall and of the Beast's doom for all his party, the blessedness henceforth of those that die in the Lord, and the Son of man's judicial coming for the harvest of the earth, with unsparing vengeance on the vine of the earth. These visions may in the earlier part be applied to what God has wrought, as we are awaiting the later part ripening into its tremendous accomplishment we know not how soon. And so may be regarded the detailed vision of the vials (Rev. 15, 16), with that of Babylon's sad story and fall (Rev. 17, 18), before the Lord appears from heaven (Rev. 19), followed by the glorified saints, both to execute the closing judgment and to bring in the millennial reign over the earth (Rev. 20), and eternity as the sequel (Rev. 21), with a retrogressive vision in Rev. 21: 9 - 22: 5, and the conclusory appeals for present profit or warning.

If the protracted or historical application of the Revelation be sound, which may be allowed without enfeebling the rapid and exact fulfilment of the book in the future crisis after the church state terminates, and the question of Christ's actual assumption of the inheritance ensues, with the preparation of Jews and Gentiles as His earthly objects, it is plain that the Irvingites err as decidedly in the one view as in the other. It may be said no doubt that too many companions are involved in error among the godly both now and in the past. But they have the unenviable peculiarity of perverting the Apocalypse, as they do almost all the scriptures, to exalt themselves and exclude true members of Christ from their sure and blessed privileges to the deep dishonour of the Lord, the grief of the Holy Spirit, the perplexing of weak ones who differ from them, and their own hurt and shame. If this were not the inevitable effect of their false application of the Revelation, as well as of the divine word generally, it would hardly become a believer to occupy time in the investigation here pursued. But assured that so it is, I am bound in the love of Christ and by His truth to help souls, either within or without their bounds, against that which presents appearances sufficiently attractive to many in a day of increasing confusion and self-will. We have already seen that according to the fulfilment in the future crisis, which is the only accurate and exhaustive accomplishment of the book, there is not the smallest room for their reveries as to Rev. 7 or Rev. 14.

CHAPTER 4.

DOCTRINE. §. 3. PROPHETS AND APOSTLES, etc.

The next subject calling for examination is as distinctive a doctrine of the community as any that could be named: their view of prophets and apostles, and pretension to them. The restored apostolate is the unfailing claim in their books and pamphlets, their reaching and conversation. The very posters of their evangelists keep it up before all eyes.

It is remarkable that one is obliged in dealing with this matter to depart from the order of scripture, where on every ground we hear of "apostles and prophets." Such was the order in fact is in position. It is not, that these modern claimants fail in crying up the superiority of their apostles. but beyond doubt prophets in their case preceded apostles and also designated them. Even their first actual apostle, J. B. Cardale, was named by prophecy;* and so were others, not only such as served in that office, but Mr. D. Dow, who refused in the face of all remonstrance — himself a man who spoke "in the power."

* A courteous paper, forwarded by another, intimates, on the authority of printed letters which I have not seen, that I am mistaken in stating (on the late Mr. Baxter's authority) that it, was "the pillar of the prophets" who nominated Mr. C. But it was by the voice of prophecy, and by an inferior, it seems, to Mr. Taplin. I gladly acknowledge the correction; but will they never learn that a dozen errors about names cannot change the principle? Never in scripture were so chosen. — And if Lady H. D., etc., were not of the seven, be it so. But prophetesses did figure in the darkest way, as I shall have occasion to prove. — And does the subsequent return or repentance of Mr. D. Dow affect the gravity of the fact that, though called to the apostolate in power, he declined and in fact never was one? — And what matter if the twelfth (Mr. Mackenzie,) still continued in the Irvingite fellowship? He resigned apostolic duties: as two others, it seems, never would pretend to seal. Is all this nothing, because they did not quit the society? All this effort to correct, where there seems also systematic, secrecy, is but the merest nibbling, even where there is not such scurrility of abuse as comes from another of the party.

Thus the doctrine in the Great Testimony is contradicted by the facts of their history. Their first designated apostle was Mr. R. Baxter, who had been also fully acknowledged as a prophet, like Messrs. Cardale and Drummond afterwards. Of this there is the amplest evidence. But Mr. B., alarmed at the failure of his own prophecies (to say nothing of others), got his eyes opened to the power of evil at work; as he also stood firm in refusing the name without the signs of an apostle. Others were less scrupulous and more ambitious. And Mr. B. discerned in a measure the fatal heterodoxy as to Christ, which lay at the root, and perverted the truth in many ways.

Here is their own statement to the patriarchs, etc., and to emperors, kings, etc., in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Daring men some certainly were, with weaklings carried along for a while. "Without apostles, it is not difficult to understand that prophets should have ceased; for the laying on of apostles' hands is God's ordinary way of bestowing the Holy Ghost, whether in gifts, in administrations, or in operations. Apostles are His gift, direct and immediate; but prophets and other ministries ordinarily are His gifts, mediate and through apostles," etc. On the face of their history the reverse. is true. For prophets preceded in point of time, and named each at of the early apostles, as well as Messrs. Baxter and D. Dow, the last declining, the first utterly rejecting.

The truth is that in scripture the gift of a prophet is no less direct and immediate from Christ than that of an apostle, though they have not the same degree of dignity. Where is there revealed a single case of a prophet mediate and through apostles? They contradict God's word in this, as we have seen they do their own history when they lay down doctrine. No doubt the cautious man of strong will, the bold and energetic pillar of the apostles, saw it needful to put his foot down, after that prophecy had done its part in elevating him. This alone seems to account for his monstrous departure from scripture in ordaining Mr. Taplin as prophet. The N.T. knows of no such thing as ordaining a prophet, or yet evangelists, or pastors and teachers. They were alike "gifts." Apostles no doubt were officers, as well as gifts; and they did choose or ordain elders, and lay hands on deacons, both of which were local officers. But apostles as gifts, prophets, and the rest in Eph. 4, were not only alike direct from Christ, but alike in the unity of His body, not local; though some might hold local office also, as we see in Stephen and Philip, who had gifts quite independent of the diaconal office they exercised in Jerusalem.

Scripturally judged, therefore, all is confusion in the Catholic Apostolic theory of prophets and apostles, and the antagonism to scripture is as evident as complete. The facts and principles are certain as laid down in God's word. The Messiah on earth chose the Twelve in plain relation to the tribes of Israel (Matt. 19: 28); and when one by transgression fell, the son of perdition, another was in the Jewish way (as the Holy Ghost was not yet given) shown to be chosen of the Lord. Not one was designated by a prophet. But the Lord had farther purposes, and expressly acted outside and beyond the Twelve by the extraordinary and heavenly call of Paul in sovereign grace. He declares himself apostle, not from men nor through man. Those who construe Acts 13: 2-4 as either his call or nomination or ordination to the apostolate contradict God's word and play the part of the many adversaries of his ministry. It was solely a separation of him (and Barnabas) to a special work, after being already called and labouring for years. Do men argue that his inferiors ordained him? It was repeated in Acts 15: 40; which compare with Acts 13: 2-4. His was to be, and in fact was, the apostleship of the uncircumcision, as theirs of circumcision: so it was settled between him and them (Gal. 2). The break with Jerusalem order was no less distinct and intended; so that Popery and all tradition-mongers are not more baseless in tracing up the succession to Peter than the Catholic Apostolics are in seeking and claiming another Twelve. Paul was not one of the Twelve; and it is from him that those called out from the Gentiles ought to derive, if derivative succession were true; as he (not Peter and his fellows) gives the special type of that development which is bound up with the revelation of the body of Christ, which is the true principle with which we have to do ever since, To point to the Twelve, and pretend to reproduce another batch in any measure, is unintelligent and retrograde; it is to abandon the fuller, special, and standing instruction given us through the great apostle of the nations.

Again, according to scripture (Eph. 2: 20) we are "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the chief corner stone." Of this (unless the foundation were ill laid, which will not be said by believers) account must rightly be taken in applying the further word of Eph. 4: 11-16. "And He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers," etc. On the one hand, the Holy Spirit abstains from language implying such a stay for the church on earth as would defer the constant hope of Christ's coming; but on the other adequate provision is assured, whether by the gospel to call souls in, or by guidance and teaching to feed and guard those called. The continuance or restoration of apostles and prophets is therefore in no way implied or admissible, unless we are deceived by him who could wrest "It is written" from its context and learn not from Him Who safeguards us by "It is written again."

As the Catholic Apostolics have not a word in the N.T. even to suggest, still less to warrant, this their favourite but most unfounded and presumptuous hobby (rather have we seen, from comparing Eph. 2 and 4, its exclusion) they are driven here, as almost everywhere, to the wildest falling back on the O.T. to eke out what fails utterly. How absurd for the details of a strictly N.T. institution! Hence their recourse to Isa. 1: 26, "I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning."* What deplorable ignorance and unspiritual perversion of God's word! Every word of the chapter concerns the Jew only, their moral judgment, and the execution of divine wrath on the impenitent, but their glorious restoration when they repent and Jehovah avenges Himself of His enemies. It is the same Jerusalem (morally Sodom and Gomorrah) that gave up fidelity to become a harlot, which afterward, when the Lord Jesus appears and we with Him in glory, shall be called Town of Righteousness, Faithful City. But this is not at all under the gospel or the church, but when Zion shall be redeemed with judgment and her penitents with righteousness. It is not at all "this evil age," but the age to come.

* Anyone who wishes to see a peculiarly audacious begging of this question may find it in pp, 154-6 of "Abstract principles of Revealed Religion" (Murray, 1845) by Mr. Drummond, who held together the functions of prophet, angel, and apostle, and therefore speaks with no small authority among his co-religionists. No wonder such a start is followed (p. 157) by the discovery in Isa. 40 of apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors! It were surely ludicrous if not sad and profane.

It is evidently the most extreme form of that misapplication, especially of the promises to Zion, Jerusalem, Israel, etc., which since the so-called fathers has been the bane of Christendom, and, even before that, of the Judaising against which the apostle strove mightily in his testimony. Mr. Irving indeed had light on at least the essential difference between Israel and the church; but Messrs. Taplin and Cardale and Drummond "in the power" seem to have most contributed to lead away the society into more fatal depths of this ruinous amalgam than was found then in any sect, though others have followed since still more heterodox. And one of the most mischievous results was the assumption that the promise to Zion of restoring its judges and counsellors in pristine purity, which awaits its fulfilment "in the regeneration," is the adequate scriptural ground for expecting a fresh dozen of Gentile! apostles to put in order what is confessedly Babylon, and prepare the bride to meet the Bridegroom.

Now the N.T. continually sets before us the anticipation of coming ruin in Christendom, as surely as it had been in Israel (Luke 17: 26-37; 2 Thess. 2: 3-12; 1 Tim. 4: 1-3; 2 Tim. 3: 1-13; 2 Tim. 4: 3, 4; 2 Peter 2, 3; 1 John 2: 18-26; 1 John 4: 1-6; Jude; to say nothing of the solemnities in the book of Revelation). There is no restoration for corrupt Babylon or Gentilism that bore the Lord's name faithlessly; there will be for poor guilty Israel, beloved for the fathers' sake. This is taught authoritatively in Rom. 11. "Toward thee [the professing Gentile] goodness, if thou continue in goodness. otherwise thou also [no less than the Jew in the past] shalt be cut off;" and not one word intimates restoration, as pledged positively in divine mercy to Israel (ver. 25-32). For the far more favoured Gentile the ruin is irreparable, whatever grace may work meanwhile for individuals and a remnant.

Granted that on the death of the apostles the evils kept in cheek by their holy vigilance came in like a flood ever-growing. So Paul warned; so Peter, Jude, and John, as we have seen. "I know that after my departure grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverted things to draw away the disciples after them" (Acts 20: 29, 30). Here surely was the fitting place to have directed attention to any provision of God, if such there were either in the shape of apostolic succession or of a restored apostolate, to meet the imminent ruin. But neither here nor anywhere does the apostle drop one word; nor does any other of the apostles in speaking of the deepening gloom hold out the smallest hint of any such expedients. The word of God's grace, scripture, is the resource and safeguard in the difficult times before them; as they already knew an ever-abiding Paraclete, the witness and energy for enjoying the presence and power of the Lord Jesus. A revived apostolate is a far more daring invention than apostolic succession in Episcopacy. They are alike unscriptural vanities. It is remarkable that even the brothers Macdonald of Port Glasgow, who seem to have been pious men, did not accept the apostolic claims set up in England but mourned "for their very great blindness," and "dared not receive them as apostles." So we are told in their "Lives," pp. 212 and 215. They charged the Catholic Apostolics, even in early days, with "giving the Lordship to the Spirit, and not to Christ" (p. 220).

Of the Irvingite prophets there is no need to say much, though (if one wished to criticise) scarce a subject could be found more inviting or provocative. But this is fur from my aim. Immortal souls, yea, children of God are concerned, not to speak of what is due to Christ and the truth. In the early history of the movement a good deal has already come before the reader in the personal experience and excellent testimony of Mr. R. Baxter; and the darkest page of all is yet to be written in tracing the relation of prophecy to that fatal departure from the faith of Christ's person which has exercised so malignant an influence on Christendom, as well as of course still more nearly on the Catholic Apostolic body.

Mrs. Cardale (wife of Mr. J. B. C.) is said to have been the first to open her mouth in what they called a tongue and in prophesying. But as usual the utterance was only remarkable for its strange mannerism. "The Lord will speak to His people. The Lord hasteneth His coming. The, Lord cometh." This was on the last day of April, 1831.

Mr. Taplin followed, as has been stated already, some time afterwards in public; nor was anyone more remarkable for crash of sound, whether in a tongue or in English. But "Jehovah, hear us!" gives no sign of the Holy Spirit in a Christian; nor can one accept as of God his next utterance, "It is thou, O Britain: thou art the anointed cherub." What sort of interpretation or even application is that? Again, is it to be believed that the Holy Ghost led to say on the following day, "The Lord hath come down"? "He is in the midst of you. His eye hath seen," etc. — What now is any possibly true sense of "The Lord hath come down"? Never does scripture warrant such language among Christians.

We may say little of Miss Hall, who, though she took full part and was recognised by all, at length owned she was not genuine and eventually left the body. But amidst those scenes Mr. Taplin towered over all, with little or nothing in it save what was Jewish and not christian. For the utterances were beyond mistake denunciatory. Grace and truth there was none, as the rule. Miss E. Cardale came into great prominence and the highest account with Mr. Irving and others. All the gifted recognised Mr. Baxter as having the same spirit as themselves, but refused his solemn warning that it was a lying spirit of evil.

But why crowd these pages with the crude and vehement inanities thundered or shrieked out even in Mr. Irving's presence, and taken up by him to clothe with his impassioned thought and feeling in beautiful forms of speech? Even Mr. Drummond, vigorous as a man, was utterly vapid as a prophet, save in an utterance out of all ordinary human experience. Now what has such unearthly loudness to do with true. prophesying? It did characterise the raving prophets or prophetesses of the heathen. Prophecy in scripture revealed new truth from God, or laid bare the secrets of man's heart. It would be strange if any sober unbiassed christian could so testify of these uncouth ejaculatory cries of Irvingite men and women.

Miss E. C. did indeed rebuke Mr. Taplin in the power, and brought him on another occasion to confess evil against the Lord. After Mr. Irving's death, when Mr. Ryerson in Newman Street was thought to be preaching at the same Mr. T. for gift without grace, Miss C. in an "appalling" way, says Mr. Baxter (Irvingism, 41-44), followed this up in power with "he never had it; he never knew it;" Yet Mr. T. remained as he was the chief among the prophets till the end. — The same Mr. T. prophesied of one from America that he was to be a prophet to gather men there into God's church. But the man was soon proved an impostor. — Equally false was the prophecy about an American Indian, who, spite of grand predictions, returned unconverted. — The intimation of a great work to be wrought in Scotland by Mr. Irving himself was notoriously falsified by his death. The baptism of fire too never had the semblance of a fulfilment in any, though promised to all. — Was not the second Napoleon said "in the power" to be the coming Antichrist?

But enough. It is painful to be compelled to speak of the details of such wholesale error. He who desires to know the truth of things has already sufficient evidence.

CHAPTER 4.

DOCTRINE. §. 4. THE INCARNATION.

The subject which now calls for consideration is most solemn, and demands the clearest evidence, not only because one is bound to beware of exaggeration, but because the society concerned are here extremely unwilling to face the facts which condemn them. They refer to the opening words of Mr. Irving's preface to the Orthodox and Catholic Doctrine of our Lord's Human Nature (London, 1830). "It is necessary to inform the reader, ...... that whenever I attribute sinful properties and dispositions and inclinations to our Lord's human nature, I am speaking of it considered as apart from Him, in itself; I am defining the qualities of that nature which He took upon Him, and demonstrating it to be the very same substance with that which we possess. To understand the work which He did, you must understand the materials with which He did it. The work which He did was, to reconcile, sanctify, quicken, and glorify this nature of ours," etc.

Now no one subject to God's word could agree to this, but must reject it as wholly unscriptural. For we read of "reconciling the world," "you ... hath He reconciled," "we were reconciled," "reconcile both unto God." We read also of "reconciling all things," looking onward to the day of glory; but never, nowhere, and in no sense of reconciling human nature. Mr. I.'s idea* is unknown to scripture, and the source of manifold error. If sinful flesh were in Christ, clearly it had to be reconciled to God; and this accordingly Mr. I. teaches habitually and resolutely.

*Listen again to his rash words. "It is no reconciliation of individuals [exactly what it is now only], but a reconciliation of human nature. It is not thine, it is not mine, it is not Christ's, but it is the common unity of our being": a statement preposterously false

Clearly therefore it is not humanity apart from Christ that is in question, as to which no sober christian could hesitate. The horror inspired by this able but misguided man, and not least in the treatise to which we are referred, and by his sermons on Incarnation and in short all his writings on the subject to the last, was through his doctrine on the human nature in Christ's person here below.

Some extracts, spread over the work, will prove it distinctly to a believer or even an upright man.

"If then Christ was made under the law, He must have been made by His human nature liable to, yea, and inclined to, all those things which the law interdicted" (p. 10)! It is vain to attempt unsaying this by the plea that he speaks of His human nature in itself. No one charges Mr. I with meaning that Christ yielded to sin. It is not humanity in the abstract. He means, as he continually speaks of, His fallen or sinful humanity. Hence this fundamental error drove him from the truth of atonement to the falsehood of at-one-ment. For Irving like other heterodox men confounded it with reconciliation and poured contempt even to blasphemy on the cross and sufferings of Christ for our sins. This consequence of sinful humanity was inevitable; for how could a blemished creature be a sacrifice to God? and what could be more so than fallen manhood, even by Mr. I.'s own description as we shall see?

"And in the face of all these certainties, if a man will say that His flesh was not sinful flesh as ours is, with the same dispositions and propensities and wants and afflictions, then, I say, God hath sent that man strong delusion that he should believe a lie" (p. 23)! "Now if there had not been in Christ's mature appetites, ambition, and spiritual darkenings, how, I ask, could the devil have addressed these several temptations to His will?" (p. 24.) It is sorrowful to report such enormities, but truth must be vindicated.

"If His human nature differed, by however little, from ours, in its alienation and guiltiness, then the work of reducing it into eternal harmony with God hath no bearing whatever upon our nature, with which it is not the same" (p. 88). Here again it is the evident consequence of a false start — that atonement means a fallen nature brought into reconciliation with God, by overcoming all its inherent propensities: a different gospel, which is not another, and what is worse, not the Christ of God, but an antichrist.

"Was He conscious, then, to the motions of the flesh, and of the fleshly mind? In so far as any regenerate man, when under the operation of the Holy Ghost, is conscious of them (!). Yea, verily, He knew the evil law of that nature Be was clothed with (!); He knew every point and passage of it (!), and at every point and passage of it He met it with the Spirit, and drave it back and put bonds upon it, and let it forth again tamed and reclaimed(!); a servant, of itself an unwilling servant, and still in all things a servant of God. I hold it to be the surrender of the whole question to say that He was not conscious of, engaged with, and troubled by, every evil disposition which inhereth in the fallen manhood (1), which overpowereth every man that is not born of God; which overpowered not Christ, only because He was born or generated of God; the Son of God that day begotten in flesh when He was conceived of the Virgin" (p. 111). This is bold speaking. Three words of God put it all to shame. He "knew no sin."

There is if possible worse and more blasphemous still. "This is the human nature which every man is clothed upon withal, which the Son of man was clothed upon withal, bristling thick and strong with sin like the hairs of the porcupine I stand forth and say that the teeming fountain of the heart's vileness was opened on Him; and the Augean stable, of human wickedness was given Him to cleanse, and the furious wild beasts of human passions were appointed Him to tame. I believe it to be most orthodox, and of the substance and essence of the orthodox faith, to hold that Christ could say until His resurrection, Not, I, but sin that tempteth Me in My flesh(!); just as after the resurrection He could say, 'I am separate from sinners'" (pp. 126, 127).

It is unnecessary, after such copious and varied extracts from the later treatise to do more than refer briefly to Mr. Irving's earlier sermons in 1828, the first vol. of the three being devoted to the Incarnation. But there too, though not yet so developed, is the same plague-spot. "I shall proceed to open, in the second part of this sermon, how God by uniting. the person of His Son to fallen flesh doth thereby reconcile the whole lump of fallen humanity into Himself," etc., (140) i. "That the Son of God ... should join Himself unto fallen creation, and take up into His own eternal personality the human nature, after it had fallen, and become obnoxious to all the powers of sin and infirmity and rebellion...... That Christ took our fallen nature is most manifest, because there was no other in existence to take ... I believe therefore ... that Christ took unto Himself a true body and a reasonable soul, and that the flesh of Christ, like my flesh was in its proper nature mortal and corruptible," etc., ii. (160) iii. At the same time his testimony to Christ's vicarious sufferings was far simpler and clearer than afterwards, though even here atonement was confounded with reconciliation, and both with Incarnation, which last is misunderstood and perverted, being made a question of human reasoning instead of faith in the word of God. "The human nature is thoroughly fallen; and without a thorough communication, inhabitation, and empowering of a divine substance, it cannot again be brought up pure and holy. The mere apprehension of it by the Son does not make it holy" (140) xiii.

Every simple and sound believer will own that this denies the Incarnation of scripture, yea of the creed of christendom, inferior as this is and must be to God's word. For there it is owing to the action of the Holy Ghost, and to the power of the Highest, that, the Holy thing was to be born of the Virgin and as such called the Son of God. The anointing of the Spirit of God afterward was for power in service. He was the Holy One even in His humanity from first to last: there could be no question of the divine nature. Had there been sin (no one says sins) in His humanity, Immanuel as to flesh would have been no longer holy. Thus the evil doctrine divides as well as defiles the person necessarily; and the flesh of the Lord Jesus was represented, not as so, united as to form one person, but as a fallen thing, surrounding Him like a garment or a pit (Mr, I's own illustrations), from which flesh His life was one series of conflicts to liberate itself victoriously, as an example to us who are really what is here falsely said of Christ. It will be seen too that, as Christ's person is overthrown by unbelief in the true Incarnation, so atonement according to God is denied; and Mr. I. goes so far as to say that "atonement and redemption have no reference to God (!); they are the names for the bearing of Christ's work on the sinner!! and have no respect to its bearing upon the Godhead "!!! This would satisfy an Arian or even a Unitarian. There are statements quite inconsistent with this fundamental falsehood. But there it is; — and no lie is of the truth.

In the preliminary discourse to Ben-Ezra (the copy now before me being a gift to an elder of the Caledonian church "with the tender affections of Edward Irving") Mr. I. spoke after a far more orthodox sort. "Between Him and His people there is no difference in respect to that which is observable; while there is the utmost difference in respect to the principle and cause. in the Son of man the cause was the imputation of the sins of the people, in our case it is indwelling sin, and the sin which is around us" (p. 114). So (in p. 126) he says "the Word of God took flesh of the Virgin Mary, passive humanity He took, obnoxious to every temptation, and begirt with every sinless infirmity." One need not insinuate a fault; but the statement would have been correct, had he predicated sinlessness of every temptation as well as of everything else. This at any rate is done with emphasis and jealousy in Heb. 4: 15, Christ apart from sin, χ. ἁμ.: in Him, not only by Him, was none. But Mr. I. probably so believed at that time (1826) without a jibe at "imputation," or contempt for" stock-jobbing theology": this followed his heterodoxy. As yet Christ's person and work were unassailed.

No unsophisticated child of God could read such statements without both rejecting and resenting them as an insult to Christ and the truth. The Incarnation is subverted, the person of Christ belied. What room is left, by this unholy and destructive system for the wondrous message, "That holy thing which shall be born [of thee] shall be called the Son of God"? What has the new birth in our case to do with the wholly exceptional action of the Godhead in the birth of Christ? Beyond doubt the believer is quickened by faith; he has life in the Son. What has this in common with the Son's taking humanity into union with His Deity, That Holy Thing by the power of the Holy Spirit to be born of Mary? When a man is born of God, is his human nature born again? The Irvingite fabric is shattered by the merest touch of scripture. The language about Christ's birth is wholly inapplicable to any other. How could it be otherwise if He is the Saviour and we the saved, He a divine person, however truly deigning to become man and by redemption bring glory to God even where sin was and abounded, impossible in any other way?

In keeping with this defamation of Christ, it is not Irvingites only who misapprehend temptation as spoken of the Christ of God. Mr. I. repeatedly in this treatise misquotes Heb. 4: 15 by leaving out the last words, which are essential to the truth. He and all who judge of Christ from themselves, from human nature as it is in us, did not understand its bearing. Christ has been tempted in all things in like manner with us, sin excepted. The sense is not merely that He never sinned when tempted, but that He had been thus similarly tempted in all points "apart from sin," and not merely without sinning. In Him was no sin; in us there is. This characteristic and peculiar difference is here pointed out as an exception of the utmost magnitude qualifying His temptations in contrast with ours. In Him even what was born of His mother was holy, whilst we, the regenerate, no less than others, were shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin. He therefore did not know sin, and never had a lust or passion from fallen humanity. His temptations were exclusively those of a holy being, and full of suffering to Him, because He felt always according to God when the enemy thus tried but found nothing in Him — alas! how much in us, even in the regenerate. Flesh yields to evil temptation and is gratified, instead of suffering.

They talk indeed as if it was necessary to sympathy with us, that Christ should know our unholy temptations, as in Jam. i. 11, 15. But this is most superficial as well as false. He sympathises with us so much the more, because we have an inward traitor which He had not, while He suffering perfectly in keeping out the enemy is undistractedly and perfectly free to feel for us in every trial. In fact, if their principle were at all sound, it ought to go farther; for it would involve His failing under temptation, in order to comfort adequately those bitterly conscious of their failures. But the principle is false and evil. The believer abhors the notion of Christ's sympathy with his evil thoughts, feelings or ways. He hates thorn all and judges himself for them, and finds the true. answer to sin in Christ a sacrifice for it. He socks and obtains Christ's sympathy with the new man in loathing every evil within, and comes not in vain and even with boldness to the throne of grace, to receive mercy and find grace for seasonable help. What he needs for his sins, I repeat, is that propitiation and substitution of Christ which Mr. I's heterodoxy taught him to despise.* Christ died for our sins. This was what was required by God for us — not sympathy, but infinite suffering in atonement; and by that one offering they are effaced, and we are purged for God's presence, condemnation having already been executed on their root, sin in the flesh, when He became a sacrifice for sin (Rom. 8: 2, 3).

* "The man who will put a fiction, whether legal or theological, a make-believe into his idea of God, I have done with; He who will make God consider a person to be that which he is not, I have done with. Either Christ was not in the condition of a sinner, was not in that form of being towards which it is God's eternal law to act as He acted towards Christ, or He was not [? not]. If He was, then the point is ceded, for that is what I am contending for. If He was not, and God treated Him as if He had been so: if that is the meaning of their imputation and substitution, or by whatever name they call it, away with it from my theology for ever; for it makes my God a God of fictions," etc., etc., (pp. 116, 117).

To this end God sent His Son, not in "flesh of sin" as this horrible doctrine presumes, but "in the likeness" of it, being born of woman, and thus more fully man than Adam unfallen, but by the power of the Highest born "holy," as no man ever was. Born in sin would have unfitted Him for communion as well as for sacrifice. Likeness of flesh would have been unavailing and useless; but "in the likeness of flesh of sin" was just what was wanted for the divine glory, as well as for our salvation. And thus in the cross was God glorified even as to sin, as Christ had glorified the Father as the obedient man, most holy alike in life and death, holy from first to last in all His being, as in all He did and suffered, He only.

It will be argued, however, that in all this dark antagonism to the truth of Christ's person and atonement it is a question of Mr. Irving, rather than of the Catholic Apostolic body. But these are facts: that Mr. I. was incomparably the most influential teacher they ever had; that no tenet is more characteristic of their one joint organ (the Morning Watch) throughout its seven volumes and by many if not all its contributors; and nowhere more acrimoniously than in the last vol. Thus it is in vain to represent their first angel as an exception instead of being the most prominent and active leader in doctrine. Indeed it is to his credit that none can impute underhandedness or bringing in things privily, the almost unfailing reproach of false prophets. He at least was outspoken; which did not please more prudent men well aware of the umbrage given far and wide to christians by language on this subject so vehement, unmeasured, and profane. Incarnation was not at all that action which works in the regenerate, as he alleged,* but peculiar to Christ; while no one doubts the power of the Spirit in which He invariably walked.

*"It is an heretical doctrine that Christ's generation was anything more than the implantation of that Holy Ghost life in the members of His human nature, which is implanted in us by regeneration" (Human Nature, p. 140). Heterodoxy does not lack boldness when thus destroying the true and special character of the Incarnation which belongs to Christ alone. Our humanity was unholy by birth, His alone was holy. Regeneration is quite another truth, and does not touch the question.

Another plea, by no means candid, is that Irving preached the sinful humanity of Christ before the ordinances, as they call the setting up of apostles, etc. They all know he preached it no less when he was ordained angel by the pillar of the apostles.

But the truth is, as another has acutely observed, that his preaching that Christ took flesh of sin has so much the greater weight because it preceded the gifts and authorities. For, as they alleged, "the power" sealed its truth. No fact is more certain. Mr. Trying himself wrote on April 21st, 1832, to Mr. Baxter, who had testified his unsoundness on the Lord's humanity, on imputing righteousness, and on holiness in the flesh (for the same error asserted sin. in Christ's flesh and the possibility of its absence from ours). In that letter Mr. I. adhered to the evil, and distinctly reported that the spirit in Miss. E. C. laid down that Mr. B. "had been snared by departing from the word and the testimony," and that I. had maintained the truth, and the Lord was well pleased with him for it; that in some words he had erred, and that the word by the spirit in B. was therefore true; that if I. waited on the Lord, He would show this by His Spirit, but that He had forgiven it, because He knew his heart was right before Him; that I. had maintained the truth and must not draw back from maintaining it. They then joined in prayer, among the rest for Mr. Baxter's deliverance from the snare concerning the flesh of Christ and the holiness of the believer. Mrs. I. advised leaving it to the Lord, but Mrs. C. gave an utterance in power that Mr. B. had stumbled greatly, dwelling most on the doctrine of perfect holiness. A third utterance from Miss E. C. taught, Mr. Irving that Satan sought to overthrow his confidence in the truth, and to bring him into a snare, but that he was called upon to maintain it more firmly than ever.

In the same letter Mr. I warns Mr. B. that now he is "brought to oppose that very doctrine which alone can bring the chosen to be meet, for her Bridegroom: — that as He was holy in the flesh, so are we, through the grace of regeneration, brought to be holy — planted in a holy standing — the flesh dead to sin, as His flesh, was dead to sin — and that by the baptism of the Holy Ghost we are brought into the fellowship of His power and fulness, to do the works which He also did, and greater works than these." Mr. I. read his report to his wife, as well as to the two prophetesses,. who said it was a full and exact account. He also reiterated that not the motions of the flesh but the law of the flesh was all present in Christ, only in Him by a holy life put down; and that thus ought we to be and shall be, when the flesh becometh the sackcloth covering. (Mrs. C. had prophesied that the baptism by fire would burn out the carnal mind.) Narrative, pp. 103-108.

Who can wonder that on this rose a doubt in Mr. B.'s mind whether the whole work were not of Satan (Narrative, pp. 116, 117). And it is perfectly clear that it was not only the heterodoxy of Mr. Irving before the alleged restoration of the Comforter, but the spirit, which built up the entire Catholic-Apostolic structure, stands fully committed to Mr. I.'s doctrine in substance, save some unguarded expressions. Just so Mr. I. stated previously that "The way for the coming of the Comforter had to be pre. pared by the preaching of the full coming of Christ in our flesh and His coming again in glory, the two great divisions of christian doctrine which had gone, down in the earth, out of sight and out of mind, and which must be revived by preaching, before the Holy Spirit could have anything to witness unto."

We have now amply seen by his own words what Mr. I. meant by the coming of Christ in "our" flesh; add the spirit which the Catholic Apostolics acknowledged as the voice of God sealed that lie against the Lord, contrary to the faith of God's elect in every age, land and tongue, contrary to every creed of Greek, Oriental or Roman, as well as the articles of faith of all Protestants. But one rests, as all ought, on the unfailing standard of God's word, and cannot but pronounce it an antichrist. On this evil foundation rests the Irvingite body, as surely as the witnesses produced are irrefragable. Nor can they purger themselves from their original error, any more than Papists, who adhere to their dogma of infallibility. So no less but rather more are the Catholic Apostolic adherents bound by most unhappy lot to the sanction of that spirit they own as divine. To judge it a lying spirit means their dissolution; and hence every effort to hide, evade, and explain away, so characteristic of the party.

CHAPTER 4.

DOCTRINE. §. 5. THE ATONEMENT, etc.

Necessarily, as the person of Christ is the truth, if His person is defamed, the very core is corrupted. And such we have seen to be the fact with Irvingism. They are unsound, not on this or that side merely, but in the heart and centre of all revealed truth. The spirit which built up their system throughout, which they accepted as the voice of God, affirmed the doctrine of Christ's fallen humanity. It is therefore an impossibility for the society to purge itself from this root of error as for Popery, when once committed; because it would be to own that their boast of infallible guidance is false and a delusion of the enemy. They are bound, wrapt up, and blinded by this spurious self-security, to persevere in every evil thought into which the spirit of error can drag them.

And so in fact it is found. For, whilst they have a vast deal of truth with which they are occupied beyond the various denominations of Christendom, they are steeped in error beyond ordinary example. What they hold of truth is, so far as I have observed, invariably tainted, so as to exceed in malignity the traditional creeds even of those most mistaken. Again, their pretension to what not even Popery or the Greek system, still less any Protestant body claims, exposes them both to the setting up of lifeless forms and to the snare of a reality of power from beneath which distinguishes them most painfully.

The proof of what is here stated will be apparent from a few citations out of the "Orthodox and Catholic Doctrine of our Lord's Human Nature."

"Now that Christ is a sinless person we all admit, and how then could He reach death? He could not reach it by coming in a sinless and unfallen nature, such as Adam's: for such a nature, not having sinned, could not die, without making death void as the great sign of God's holiness. To reach death there is no other way but by coming in the nature of a sinful creature; in that nature which, having sinned, did underlie the curse of death. If with His holy person He inform this nature, He may die; nay He must die: for when human nature was sentenced in the person of Adam to death, it was all sentenced, every particle of it whatever; and the death of it is the grand demonstration of God's holy hatred and final judgment against sin. And therefore, agreeing that the death of the clean and innocent Lamb of God is the means unto our redemption or atonement, I say it could not be otherwise reached but through His taking humanity, fallen, sinful, and under sentence of death" (p. 91). Any believer ought to see through this poor human reasoning, which disproves itself because it destroys the grace of Christ's death. For if He must die, His death was only at most a little before its time. But to pursue from page 95. "How, it may be said, is this an atonement for me? It seems to be no more than a bearing of the infirmities of His own human nature; it seems to be no more than a righteousness wrought in His own human nature for it. I answer, There is but one human nature: it is not mine, it is not thine, it is not His; it is the common unity of our being. Bare He the infirmities of human nature? He bare the sins of all men. Bare He the infirmities of human nature? He bare the infirmities of all men. Overcame He the enemies of human nature, sin, death, and the devil? He overcame the enemies of all men. Took He them captive? They are at large no more; they are impotent, they are as nothing, and ought so to be preached of. He hath abolished death; He hath taken away sin; 'He hath judged the prince of this world.' Whether this be new doctrine or not, I appeal to the Epistles of Paul; whether it be new in the reformed church, I appeal to the writings of Martin Luther.

"I know how far wide of the mark these views of Christ's act in the flesh will he viewed by those who are working with the stockjobbing theology of the religious world, — that God wanted punishment, and an infinite amount of it; which Christ gave for so many; and so He is satisfied, and they escape from His anger, which flames as hot as ever against all beyond this pale. And this you call preaching the free grace of God, the justice of God, the work of Christ, the doctrine of election, atonement, etc.! Yet one word as to suffering. The atonement, upon this popular scheme, is made to consist in suffering; and the amount of suffering is cried up to infinity. Now I utterly deny that anything suffered but the human nature of Christ; and that could only suffer according to the measure of a man: more, no doubt, than unholy men like us suffer, because He was perfectly holy, and so His soul felt the smart of every pang manifold of what we do; but still it was only according to the measure of a holy man. If more, whence came it? From the divine nature? But this is contrary to all sound doctrine that the Godhead should be capable of passions. Well, let these preachers — for I will not call them divines or theologians — broker-like, cry up their article, it will not do: it is but the sufferings of a perfectly holy man, treated by God and by men as if He were a transgressor." Here every moderately taught christian will feel into what ignorance and contempt of the truth Irving was plunged by his idol dogma, to say nothing of the grossest dividing of Christ's person.

But take another specimen from p. 98, which ought to alarm some too sure of their own soundness: "A very poor wit have they, and a most barbarous idea of God, who will represent this sublime, stupendous action of Godhead as taking place to appease the wrath of Godhead, which verily takes place to manifest the love and grace and mercy of Godhead. Why, what mean they? It is God Who doth the thing. And why doth He it, but because it is godly so to do? Love and grace are in Him; of His essence, of His ancient eternal essence, which is unchangeable. If they are of Him and in Him now, they have been of Him and in Him for ever. And out of the fountain of His love cometh that stream, hiding its head in darkness for a while, that it may wash the very foundations of the base world, and appear in light and glory unpolluted, the life, the beauty, of this redeemed world. but what a system of theology is that which representeth God as in Himself implacable to the sinner, until His Son, by bearing the sinner's strokes, doth draw off the revenge of God? Then God is changed in His being with respect to a few; but with respect to the many His implacable nature worketh on in its natural course. Such a God cannot be the object of love; and upon such a system an object of love He never is. And all this they represent as needful for the glory of His holiness and justice." It is needless to say that this grievous misrepresentation of the truth springs simply from Irving's heterodoxy which made him caricature the divine judgment of sin and cleave to his own exaggeration and one-sidedness.

An extract from p. 99 may be well. "In whatever light these remarks may appear to others, to myself they have brought this solid conviction, That while the present views of atonement continue to be doted on by the church, it is in vain to attempt to carry any point, of sound doctrine." This witness is true, though in an opposite direction. So vital is the doctrine of atonement, that all else is sure to be shaken where it is false, and established where it is true. As the person of Christ is bound up with it, so all the communion, walk, and worship depend on it. In what follows the reader will observe that the same fundamental error reappears as in our day. "Atonement and redemption are the names for the bearing of Christ's work upon the sinner,! and have no respect to its bearing upon the Godhead!, nor upon Christ, the God-man!!; and on that account, instead of occupying the first and highest place in theology, they should occupy the third only, being preceded by the glory of God, and the glory of Christ."

One more from p. 116 must suffice. "The man who will put a fiction [this is the way imputation of sin is treated], whether legal or theological, a make-believe into his idea of God, I have done with; he who will make God consider a person to be that which he is not, I have done with." Compare what the apostle lays down in Rom. 8: 3; 2 Cor. 5: 21; Gal. 3: 13. It is evident not only that atonement and reconciliation are confounded, but that atonement is nullified, and that reconciliation is wholly misunderstood and depraved.

The bearing of their fundamental heterodoxy as to Christ's person on His atoning work is absolutely destructive of its truth. Propitiation is lost as well as substitution, the two essential sides of the truth adumbrated by the great Day of Atonement in Israel. It is in vain to say that Mr. Irving or others did not mean this. The question is, what the enemy meant who beguiled them. They were carried utterly away by a vain dream which shut them out from the healthful working of the word of God, and committed to a torrent of error which can readily find appearances to sanction every wild imagination, and ingeniously bound over the firmest obstacle. The Holy Spirit gives subjection to scripture by keeping the soul in self-distrust looking only to Christ and His glory. But here the essential difference of Christ is ignored. His being personally in the Father, and the Father in Him, they confound with what we may enjoy in the Spirit by faith. So that in general we may say that their system debases the Second man as it exalts the first, and is thus at perpetual and incurable issue with God's mind. In fact, it is the old quarrel of Satan with God.

In the last paper we saw that their doctrinal basis is the Son's assumption of fallen or sinful humanity, and His work victory over it in the Spirit, thereby rendering it holy and acceptable to God. They may say other things which sound fair and good; but this which the spirit among them expressly sanctioned as the truth overthrows both the person and the work of Christ. No doubt some of them learnt to speak more guardedly and condemned more or less the out spoken language of Mr. Irving but the doctrine characterised them as distinctly as the claim of the restored apostolate, prophets, and other gifts in their ecclesiastical polity, not withstanding their desperate efforts after secrecy save with the initiated. Hence the infinite sufferings of the cross are ignored or even decried; hence the railing and ridicule heaped on the substitution of Christ, on the imputation of righteousness to the believer, in short on all that the christian elect of God have found most solemn and precious in and through the Saviour's death. Even if His death or blood be referred to, it is to put all the race upon one level of redemption and forgiveness: as to this the special blessings of the faithful are nowhere.

How could it be otherwise if the Son of God took fallen sinful humanity into union with Himself? Its reconciliation must then supplant propitiation, and reconciliation itself be confounded with atonement; as is verbally done indeed by unhappy errors of the A.V. in both the Old Testament and the New. Another fatal result is that reconciliation is thus rendered altogether vague and impersonal, the reconciliation of humanity, instead of its being the enjoyed and exclusive portion of those who actually believe. Finally, holiness is as much lost by this misbelieving Reheme as righteousness; for it takes as into the falsehood of improving and perfecting by the power of the Holy Spirit that old man which, according to scripture, is irreparably evil, the mind of which is enmity against God and is not subject to His law, neither indeed can be. Now whatever the moral perfection of our Lord in the days of His flesh, it is in resurrection only that He becomes Head of the new creation. Till He died atoningly, He abode alone. Only after sin was judged in the cross is He "the beginning," and bears much fruit. His living relationship is with the sanctified, not with the race.

CHAPTER 4.

DOCTRINE. §. 6. JUSTIFICATION, SANCTIFICATION, etc.

No spiritual mind that sees the antichristian character of the Irvingite community, as tested by the person and the work of Christ, can look for truth in its application. For the centre of all is false and evil; yet it may not be amiss to prove their wanderings from the word of God here also. And the work of Mr. Sitwell, the apostle of Spain and Portugal (or in their strange dialect, of the tribe of Naphtali), "Creation and Redemption," the third edition of which lies before me, furnishes the means of ascertaining their views authoritatively.

The treatment of justification is characteristic of the body, for he professes to combine the disjointed fragments of doctrine, and to put each in its place, as well as to repudiate the falsehoods that have been added to it. Thus he hopes to show how needlessly the high churchman is divided from the low, justification being not only imputed at first but imparted at last. Here is this "end of controversy." "There are, seven ways mentioned in scripture, or which can be fairly deduced from it, whereby a man is justified. These are — 1, Faith. 2, Blood of Jesus Christ. 3, Righteousness of Christ. 4, Word of Christ, by means of the ministers of the church. 5, Sacraments of the church. 6, Works. 7, Resurrection. In each of these seven the double sense and power of justification, viz., imputation and impartation, will be found in operation" (p. 231).

To any intelligent christian this suffices. It is pretentious and deplorable confusion, the effect of which is to darken the truth and perplex every one heeding it. "What saith the scripture?" There is but one way or principle in which a soul is justified. It is by faith (ἐκ π. Rom. 5: 1), as the apostle had expressly laid down before, apart from works of law, the only other way conceivable — the very way whereby he had said no flesh shall be justified in God's sight, Rom. 3: 20, 28. The blood of Jesus is not another way, but the efficacious ground (Rom. 3: 25; Rom. 5: 9), for it cleanses from every sin; and His resurrection is the proof and living witness of its, acceptance (Rom. 4: 24, 25). Undoubtedly it is God reckoning faith for righteousness, as in Abram's case (Rom. 4), for the soul believing on God that justifies the ungodly (ver. 5), as David also testifies. If we ask the source therefore, it is grace — God's, grace (Titus 3: 7), and no desert of man whatever. The gospel meets him as a lost sinner: therein is. God's righteousness revealed, for all is over with man's. But so glorified is God with Christ's work on the cross that He can be and is just and the justifier of him that has faith in Jesus. To say, "Yet the justifier," etc., shows God's righteousness to be unknown.

Nor is this all. The salvation of the gospel embraces God's dealing in the cross with sin, as well as our sins, the root no less than the fruit. What he is troubles the renewed soul as much or more than past evil deeds. Has this been overlooked of God? In no wise. As Adam is the fallen head, Jesus is the living one; for without dying He had abode alone. It is not only that Christ died for us: we who believe are entitled to say that we died with Him. This if we were dumb is the expression of our baptism. We were baptised unto His death; that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. Accordingly this we know, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away, that so we should no longer be slaves to sin. For he that died (the christian) has been and is justified from sin. It is our abiding status since redemption. Nevertheless, as Galatians enables each to say, "I live; yet not I but Christ liveth in me" — Christ risen our life. Ours is, as Rom. 5 calls it, a "justification of life." Baptism however is the sign of our death with Christ, the sole efficacy being His work, on which faith rests before God; and as 1 Cor. 10 warns, all is ruin where there is not life. But life is only by the faith of Christ, and therefore through the word and Spirit (John 3: 3, 5, 6; James 1: 18; 1 Peter 1: 23-25; 1 John 5: 1, 4, 5). Indeed this is necessarily implied in faith which cannot be without God's revealed word (Rom. 10: 17), of which Christ is the object and centre, and now for the christian His accomplished work also.

What then does James 2 mean? Not at all the justifying of a sinner before God, but that of a true professor as distinguished from a false one before men. Hence says he, "Show me thy faith apart from works, and I by my works will show thee my faith." And this is strikingly confirmed by the samples alleged; for faith alone gave true character to Abram's offering up of Isaac or Rahab's receiving the spies: without it, what had either work been? Murder, or treason, as is clear,

And this entirely falls in with the Epistle of James, which does not, like most of Paul's, bring out the wonders of Christ's blood, death, and resurrection, and ascension. His object is to insist on practical reality in those who professed the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, Lord of glory. Hence he speaks in his first chapter not only of faith and enduring temptation, but of that intrinsic life which grace gives to those otherwise dead. "Of His own will He begat us by the word of truth that we should be a kind of first-fruits of His creatures." A christian walk is the effect, and ought to be the expression, of the life we have in Christ. It is, as the apostle says, faith working by love, the only faith of value in the sight of God. It would seem that there was excessive danger for Israel (a danger now so long prevalent in Christendom) of a merely sentimental or intellectual faith, not insincere but without a real work of the Spirit of God's word in the conscience, a faith resting on evidence or tradition, to which our Lord did not trust Himself (John 2). Man "must be born again." This only produces reality. "He that believeth hath everlasting life." This therefore is what James throughout insists on, rather than Christ's blood, however indispensable this may be for cleansing us from all sin. but even the acknowledgement of Christ's blood might be without living faith, as we see in Heb. 10. Those were not wanting even in early days, who after being thus set apart had given it up and sinned wilfully, counting the blood of the covenant an unholy thing. Good reason there was then for insisting on a new nature in Christ as the basis of practical holiness.

No believer doubts what the portion of the saints will be when changed at Christ's coming. But it will only be the displayed perfection of what grace has now given us, and given us to know by the Spirit. We shall be found in Christ, not having a righteousness of our own, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith. Yet are we not waiting for righteousness then; but, as the same apostle tells us, we through the Spirit by faith wait for the hope of righteousness (that is, heavenly glory). The righteousness we have already in Christ entitles us by God's word to look for nothing less, even as Christ is already entered in personally; and we shall be with Him and like Him.

Mr. S. confounds (p. 236) baptism with water, important as it is outwardly, with baptism in virtue of the Spirit, which scripture strongly distinguishes; he surpasses a Jew in his idolatry of the sacraments, but in this hardly worse than millions outside Irvingism. Only it is to be remarked here that the fatal virus peculiar to their company reappears in p. 251: "So our Lord, having come into flesh, always laid down His life as a sacrifice to God.... While our Lord died daily, and we are called to imitate Him in this," etc. Now this is not only misconception in every way, and false, but most evil. Death, death with Christ in His death, is the necessary way of life for us, sinful as we are, even though a new creation in Christ: to make it so for Christ is blasphemy. These statements betray she old heterodoxy as to our Lord's person. What else is the meaning of His always laying down His life and dying daily?

But the truth of revelation is that we died with Christ. So elsewhere we are called to "mortify our members," that is, to put them to death, but never to die, as the mystics think and teach, ignorant of what grace gives us in Christ dead and. risen. Our old man was* crucified with Him. Therefore are we to reckon ourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. But that Christ had anything to die to daily is the worst of slanders. Our comfort of faith is that we died with Him when He died. When the apostle speaks of dying daily, he refers to his constant exposure to literal death, and not at all to the christian doctrine which Mr. S. misunderstands, not only for us but, alas! for the Lord, the Holy One of God. They may strive to conceal this deadly wound to the truth and to His glory; but it cannot be hid. The levelling down of Christ and the levelling up of ourselves naturally go together, both wholly in opposition to God's word. The idolatry of ordinances accompanies both, evil enough in a Jew ignorant of the Messiah: how much more terrible is the unbelief, now that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding that we may know Him that is true, and we are in Him that is true, even in His Son Jesus Christ!

* Nor is it the continuous "was" of the imperfect, but the completed of the aorist.

Of sanctification personally, that first action of the Spirit which sets us apart to God in new birth, before peace and liberty, Mr. S. knows nothing. It is clearly laid down in 1 Peter 1: 2, as well as in 1 Cor. 6: 11, etc. He only speaks of it, and even so speaks feebly and imperfectly, as one seeing no more than is seen in Christendom generally. He had not learnt that the Holy Spirit invariably works by keeping the eye on Christ. See 2 Cor. 3 and the N.T. as a whole. We are Christ's epistle in the world, and can. only reflect Him aright by walking in the Spirit, as we live in the Spirit, Who is here to glorify Christ.

This is strikingly shown in John 17 "Sanctify them by (or, in) the truth; Thy word is truth. As Thou hast sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world; and for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by truth" (John 17: 17-19). There are thus in His mind two especial means of christian sanctification: the Father's word, the truth: and Christ set apart on high as the glorified man Who forms, as the personal model before our faith.

It is accordingly no question now of the law, grave as its function is when used lawfully; nor yet of prophecy unveiling the government of the world. Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. The Father sent Him into the world that we might know His word — know it in Him that is true. And now sent into the world by Him Whose death has severed His own from the world, they behold Him in heaven, as the further power of fashioning them spiritually. Both are needed, and both are given. Christ was infinitely more than the obedient man under law; He was the manifestation of God in man. He that had seen Him had seen the Father. The only-begotten Son Who is in the bosom of the Father, alone did, alone could, reveal Him; He manifested the truth about every one and every thing, and this in grace — in a love superior to evil.

But while this was the essential and first want which only He, the Son of God yet a man in the world, could supply, ver. 19 adds more and differently Christ as man glorified according to divine counsel and perfection in heaven before the Father. In the one case it was Christ as the Lord come down and on the earth revealing God the Father; in the other it is the same Christ as man setting Himself apart in glory, and the truth revealed then and there. Both were new and unique, that the truth might be known and work effectively; and the believing Jew no less than the besotted pagan needed to be sanctified practically according to both principles, distinct as they are, yet united in the person of the Lord. It is the revelation of the Father in the Son in grace, and of the Son as glorified man in righteousness, that the mission of His servants might be according to the. truth which separated them from the world according to God's nature and the relationship of His children, though nothing be so foreign and distasteful and hateful to the world as His grace and the objects of it.

But the book commented on scarce rises above the measure of Israel, and is quite short of the truth of that sanctification which the N.T. presents, as we have seen its total deficiency and indeed error about justification. It proves what the new apostolate is worth.

Is it not passing strange that men who have studied scriptural figures and symbols should have failed to see the use made of "water" as compared with "blood" in this very connection? "But ye are washed"; "The washing of water by the word"; "This is He that came by water and blood," etc., are samples; and the types of the O.T. answer to the figures of the New. We all know that in Christendom such things are passed over for the most part without serious thought, perhaps without a word: sometimes they are confounded, oftener all is vague. The difference is that the action of the blood of Christ is once and for ever, as the Epistle to the Hebrews pointedly and repeatedly says, whereas that of the water is not only the dealing with the soul at the start, but whenever need arises throughout the walk (John 13). Thus the propitiation abides in its unchanging value before God for the believer; but the impurities of daily walk need the application of the. word and Spirit continually. To be washed or loosed from our sins by blood is once for all; but, if bathed in water ever so truly, the soiled feet call for fresh washing. It is the answer of the Spirit by the word to Christ's advocacy. Expressly and evidently the notion of repeated application of the blood overthrows the truth of the unity of Christ's sacrifice and of its, efficacy on our behalf. On the other hand the teaching of the constant need of the washing of water by the word is bound up with practical holiness. It is. just because we are brought nigh to God by Christ's blood that we are called to habitual self-judgment lest we grieve the Holy Spirit of God whereby we, were sealed unto the day of redemption. Yet more should we humble ourselves on actual failure.

The propriety of the figure is obvious. Water among other uses is to cleanse. For this the Holy Spirit employs God's word. We are begotten by the word of truth (James 1; 1 Peter 1; 1 Cor. 4), and cleansed by reason of the word (John 15: 3). So deep is the original uncleanness that nothing short, of death, Christ's death, can avail us. Therefore He came by water and by blood. He purifies as well as atones by His death; and purifies our hearts consequently by faith (Acts 15: 9; 1 Peter 1: 22), as scripture declares. Only the washing of the water by the word applies through our entire path, exposed as we are to defilement continually. Not so the cleansing by blood, which takes place once for all. For the blood of Jesus cleanseth from all, from every sin. If He needed to be offered often, He must suffer often, whereas it is but once, once for all, as Heb. 9 insists. But the communion, interrupted by sin, must be holily restored. Hence the need of the water for purification for defilement by the way. Compare Num. 19. And so the Jews by-and-by. It is not enough to look on Messiah-Jehovah pierced (Zech. 12): a fountain also is opened for sin and for uncleanness, a fountain not of blood, pace Cowper, but of water. See Zech. 13: 1.

Thus all christians must allow progressive holiness as a matter of growth through the truth and that self-judgment which is the more incumbent on us because we enjoy not only the word and prayer, but the remembrance of Christ in His supper regularly. There is such a thing as deliverance when the soul after toiling under law is brought to give up self and condemn the flesh as utterly and incurably evil. This however is simply the normal state of the believer, no longer striving in vain, to improve what God has condemned in the cross (Rom. 8: 3), but, resting on that work of Christ as a sacrifice for sin, sees himself in Christ henceforth; so that he is now to live by the faith of Him dead and risen, and to abhor in himself what he finds not in Christ. This some call sanctification or perfection, and consequently turn it to error by making it a matter of feeling, instead of owning it true of all who submit to the righteousness of God.

Plainly therefore according to scripture we are personally "sanctified" or set apart livingly to God when born of Him by faith of the truth, sanctified by the Spirit unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus. Thereon follows the practical call to holiness, because God, our God and Father, is holy, as we see later on in the same chap. 1 of 1 Peter. Holiness in spirit and ways is a duty flowing from the relationship of saints and children already formed by sovereign grace — not in order to become, but because we are, His and in the nearest way through Christ our Lord.

CHAPTER 4.

DOCTRINE. §. 7. THE CHURCH.

We have seen how shallow is the view of Mr. Sitwell as to Christianity, that is to say, our standing and privilege individually considered, even where it is not plainly erroneous. It is no better as to the church, that is, our corporate place, even Christ's body here below. The entire scheme is faulty from first to last. Thus his "first part" is the calling of the church (pp. 1-36); but in it not a true trace of that calling occurs even accidentally. He confounds the church absolutely with the kingdom; whereas the latter is another relationship of no small moment, as distinct from the former as power is from grace. As christians, we are now after a special way in the kingdom; but we also compose the church, being members of Christ. Following Him in His rejection, we are not mere subjects like Israel by-and-by, but become kings and priests, and shall reign with Him in that day. This is the kingdom, not the church, His body; and the effect of the confusion is inevitably and in every respect mischievous. In this pseudo-apostolic volume the mystery concerning Christ and concerning the church, great as it is declared to be, is not at all understood. The exclusive topic throughout is "the gospel of the kingdom." The immense and eternal purpose of God revealed in Eph. 1, etc., does not enter his mind, the heading up in Christ of all things in heaven and all things on earth, and our association with Christ in both the calling and the inheritance.

Mr, S. does not look above man on the earth. "And the habitation, the dwelling-place of man is the earth, — for ever" (p. 5). We may praise the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and exult in His glory, no less than own the riches of His grace, that it is far otherwise for the saints, even now blessed with every spiritual blessing in heavenly places in Christ. How sad not to have the eyes of our heart enlightened to discern our incomparably higher blessedness! The Epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians, to say nothing of others, are ignored for this. Not that one would depreciate "the kingdom" for a moment. It is meat that the scene of our S2avionr's infinite humiliation should shine in the day of His manifested glory. But it is only a part, and an inferior one, bright as are the visions which prophecy opens about the earth, Israel, and the nations, to the eye of faith. But the New Testament, on the accomplishment of an everlasting redemption in Christ's cross, discloses what had been kept hid from ages and generations — hid in God till Christ ascended and the Holy Ghost came down to dwell in us. This mystery makes known the church in union with the Head; yet as to it all Mr. S.'s book is a complete blank. Surely as one of the new apostles he ought to have been an adequate exponent, when his task was to explain the calling of the church; he seems from his book to have known nothing about it.

Mr. Irving, boldly astray as to the object which ought to be dearest to us, Christ's person, rose far beyond this poverty. Indeed the "part first" unwittingly proved what is justly enough laid to the door of christendom in his "part second" (pp. 37-39), that not only most people, but Mr. S. himself, forgot the church's calling and became earthly. His doctrine, as we saw, makes all who receive it earthly in principle. Amiable approval of certain traits in Rome, Greece, Anglicanism, Presbyterianism and Dissent, shows how all he can say is incompatible with the feeblest faith in the church's calling. He divides the past course into six periods of declension: the apostolic, the episcopal, the imperial, the papal, the reformed, and the revolutionary; but on this we need not dwell now.

The third part is the church recalled to her true standing (pp. 130-254). Here again the same judaising pursues us. Hosea 2 is said to be fulfilled, which is certainly untrue; as the prayer for the outpouring of the Spirit, denies the distinctive abiding privilege of the church. It is a lapse into Israel's need, Tongues and powers, even if true, could have in no measure availed before the ruin of the church: nothing but humiliation, and obedience, sure of blessing in the grace of the Lord. Apostles and prophets constituted the foundation; and such they were in divine power and grace. How out of place and season to have this ever again? or, to meet the objection, by talking of a John Baptist ministry? For Christ's forerunner was no apostle. No! The setting up of apostles was presumption, and as far from God's mind as can be conceived. It was the work of a spirit. All is simply an apology for Irvingism, with its vain misinterpretation of the Tabernacle, the Cherubim, and the Seraphim. Of doctrine we have spoken, but left other points.

The fourth part is the end — its progress and consummation (pp. 255-336). Here they have a little more truth because there is less of the church and more prophecy. But antichrist, the man of sin, is confounded, as usually, with the last Roman emperor, whereas he is the prophet-king in the land; and also with the king of the north, or Assyrian, the enemy of both! And though the two Witnesses (Rev. 11) are allowed to be future, Rev. 14: 1-4 as well as Rev. 7: 1-5 are applied to the Irvingites, as well as the manchild! Of these puerilities enough has been said before.

The fifth is the conclusion, which still lingers over the society, as the sixth-part consists of answering objections to their work, and especially to apostles. Mr. S. was only like others occupied with themselves, not with the Christ of God; so that the true calling of the church, and the blessed hope, were lost in earthly things.

As to the Irvingite interpretation of Rev. 12 can anything be more out of the way? It is self-evident that, lacking intelligence of the book as a whole, they of course cannot be trusted for any particular part. The woman is seized on for the church, the twelve stars for the new apostolate, and the catching up of the manchild for the party rapture to heaven.

Now in the prophetic visions three women appear with marked differences. The first is the mother, the second the harlot, and the third the bride, the Lamb's wife. This the new Jerusalem is beyond just dispute, the glorified church, as the harlot is the corrupt counterfeit, Babylon. The first needs more care, but is distinct from either, and points to Israel, of whom Christ the Son and Heir was born. The chief difficulty is to account for introducing what was past in a revelation of the future; but this is far from inexplicable.

Rev. 12 (or more strictly 11: 19) begins the second part of the prophecy, the first bringing us to the seventh trumpet which unmistakably carries us on in general terms to the end of all. The second part therefore, which explains much in detail and with more precision, must go back; and in the manner of the O.T. prophecy it gives us a mystic view which identifies Christ and the church. It goes indeed beyond Rev. 4, 5 where are the heavenly saints in peaceful session on their thrones round God and the Lamb. Here they are wrapt up as it were in a Son of glory, the Manchild caught up to God and to His throne. The translation of Christ (long before) omits His life and death, and passing over all the intervening times joins with itself those who are to share with Him the rule of all the nations. This, we know, is the promised portion of Christ and the church (Rev. 2: 26, 27, Rev. 3: 21); so that scripture confirms fully what is here advanced. But there can be no favoured party: what more abhorrent to the mind of Christ? For "we shall not all sleep, but we shall all he changed." The entire church are concerned. Isa. 50 shows how the christian is lost in Christ like a binary star (cf. Rom. 8); as Isa. 63 passes at once to the Second Advent from the First. Indeed both are not uncommon; and the Revelation recurs to the prophetic style. There is this characteristic difference, however, that while O.T. prophecy skips clean over the christian or church parenthesis, from the Lord's birth and rejection to His taking His great power and reigning publicly, the Apocalyptic view here is rather to show us in an enigmatic way God's purpose in Christ and the translation of the heavenly saints found in Him caught up to the throne of God. This, it will be observed, is absolutely dateless: a token not without moment. It is in virtue of the rejected Christ on God's throne that the saints can be caught up and thus seen mystically in Him.

But what of the vision as a whole? "The temple of God that is in heaven was opened." On earth His temple was to be the scene of the most daring rebellion of man and triumph of Satan, the man of sin worshipped there as God. But God's purpose is declared on high before judgment effects it here below. "And there was seen the ark of His covenant in His temple." Israel the covenant people is to be the theatre of His plans for blessing, the church having been proved irreparably guilty and ruined, and no promise of restoration for her, as for the Jews beyond controversy and in mercy that endures for ever. The accompanying signs of divine judgment ("lightnings and voices, and thunders," etc.) still mark that actually it is a time when God's hand is on men in displeasure, the harbinger of wrath to come yet more terribly. It is not yet His day, any more than it is properly the day of grace, but of special judicial dealings in providence. "And a great sign was seen in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon underneath her feet, and on her head a crown [or chaplet] of twelve stars." It is the chosen people of God as in God's purpose, invested therefore with supreme authority, lifted quite above their old servitude to the reflected light of legal ordinances, and adorned with the evidently complete instrumentality of administrative rule in man for the earth. So it will surely be when the Lord reigns in Zion; and this is Apocalyptic intimation of God's purpose in heaven before the conflict with Satan is described. His opposition immediately follows, and this foremost against Christ in every way. But there is this added, "And being with child she crieth, travailing and in pain to bring forth." It is not millennial joy, but the hour of sorrow yet. "And there was seen another sign in heaven; and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his heads seven diadems. And his tail draweth the third of the stars of heaven and did cast them unto the earth." Christ and those one with Him must be in their place first, whatever the dragon's enmity. For though he is seen, not as of old but with characteristics of the Roman empire and casting them down from God's light and order in the west, as I suppose, and with destructive hostility against God's counsels in Christ, all is vain. "And the dragon stood before the woman that was about to bring forth, that when she brought forth he might devour her child. And she brought forth a son a male, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and to His throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God that there they should nourish her a thousand two hundred and sixty days." Rev. 11: 19 - 12: 6.

Once the Christ thus mystically regarded (see 1 Cor. 12: 12) is caught up, we find ourselves in the latter day; and the rage of Satan under the form of the Roman power is directed against the Jewish people, the true mother of Christ; and set times come into reckoning. They have to do with the earth and the earthly people, not with the church of the heavenlies. This is not agreeable to those who are preoccupied with christendom, which tends to make the practical question one between Romanism. and Protestantism. This was not Mr. S.'s snare, who thought as cheaply as any could, either of the Popish dream about the Virgin Mary in the same woman, or of the historical fancy that the rapture of the Manchild to God's throne means the political elevation of the christian profession under Constantine and his successors. If this were true, the woman might rather have been worshipped, or seated on a throne, than driven into the wilderness: an absurd result of the christening of the empire.

Now we can readily understand that, when God has His heavenly ones with Christ above, His purpose for the earth comes into view; and that a mighty change occurs in the true seat of power — heaven, when those who are Christ's for His glory there are in their place. As long as the church is here below, wrestling with spiritual wickednesses in heavenly places goes on. But after the translation, there is war in heaven; Satan loses his bad eminence and is cast to the earth (Rev. 12: 7-12), which fires his wrath the more against those destined to inherit the earth under Christ's reign, the Jews especially. These accordingly have nothing to do with such wrestling as Eph. 6: 12 describes, It is thenceforth a dispute for the earth; God forbid it should be so for the church. Satan accordingly is seen, not only in his efforts against the woman and the rest of her seed, the godly Jewish remnant of this transitional time before the millennium (Rev. 12: 13-17), but bringing forward his final instruments of blasphemous power and deceit against the Lord and His Anointed (Rev. 13). Matt. 24, etc., and above all the Revelation, furnish N.T. light on this future remnant.

The attempt to make party capital out of Rev. 12: is altogether inferior to what is called the Protestant interpretation, unsatisfactory and even absurd as this has been shown to be, one evil effect of which is the direct countenance it lends to consecrating worldliness in the church. The Popish idea is as childish and profane as their peculiar opinions usually are in divine things. But the Irvingite fancy is a vain essay to catch at symbols in a random way and with gross inconsistency in order to flatter their "Twelve" as well as their adherents. The truth gives all the glory to Christ in Whom the church, not some members but all, is regarded as hidden, its regular place in the prophetic word, its happiest place morally, the joy and boast of hearts true to the Bridegroom Who alone is worthy, whatever His grace to all that are His. The mystic man, Christ and the church, being out of reach, the hatred and last efforts of Satan against God's earthly purpose in Israel ensue without delay, with the measured times which connect all with O.T. prophecy. Daniel in particular, is the prophet of Gentile supremacy on the total failure of the Jews, as John is of the world's judgment on the proved and irreparable ruin of christendom. The church, normally, belongs to heaven which does not like the earth come under times and seasons.

CHAPTER 4.

DOCTRINE. §. 8. PRIESTHOOD, AND SACRAMENT

We may now take up a pertinacious system of priestly ordinances which Irvingites share with all the bodies which claim to be Catholic. This assumes. a more than ordinarily virulent character in the modern society, just because they after their manner own N.T. truth and power wholly inconsistent with those "old bottles." In their hands it is no mere confusion, as with some Protestants, but a deliberate and radical error which undermines and destroys fundamental and distinctive privileges which the gospel of God confers on the christian.

There is no question about their views, which they love (in this case at least) to state in bold and open terms. Take the preface to Mr. Drummond's "Abstract Principles of Revealed Religion," p. v. "That without priesthood there can be no sacraments, and without sacraments no spiritual life can be rightly imparted or adequately sustained; that the due worship of God can be carried on only by priests appointed by Himself; that all its parts are definite; forms of buildings in which it is carried on; rites therein performed; furniture appropriate to that end; vestments of those who officiate; hours of celebration, etc.; and that the single act which constitutes christian worship, and distinguishes true from false worship in Christendom, is the offering up of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, without the eating and drinking of which no one can have part in Him."

Were this a true standard, it would soon and certainly appear that the church of God as built on the foundation of His holy apostles and prophets must be pronounced by this self-constituted judge to have never been conformable to the mind of God! But believing the N.T. history and Epistles, we see that professing Christendom only adopted it as it fell into Babylonish corruption. For scripture demonstrates that, in principle as in fact, the assumption of the party as expressed by one whom they honour as alike apostle, prophet, and angel, is wholly and in every particular opposed to the revealed word as regards the church. One might venture fearlessly to say that the enemy could not, forge an invention more antagonistic to the truth.

The testimony of the N.T. is plain, sure, and decisive. It tells us of Jewish and of heathen priests. But for the circle of the faithful there is a great High-priest, passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God; and none whatever on earth over the saints, for the very blessed and conclusive reason that the christians themselves compose His house and are exhorted to draw near to the throne of grace (Heb. 4), in the old priestly house, the sons of Aaron, could not, and even with confident boldness, which was impossible for Aaron himself who only entered once in the year with atoning blood and incense lest he die (Lev. 16). They are not to be admired nor even endured who speak of a casual expression in scripture. The truth is uniform. It is the same doctrine, only if possible more emphatically enforced in Heb. 10: 19 et seqq. after the one offering as well as the high-priesthood of Christ had been fully taught. "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which He dedicated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh, and [having] a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith," etc. This is unmistakable. The inspired writer couples the brethren as such with himself in equal and perfect liberty of access to God within the rent veil. Such is the habitual title of nearness which the gospel confers now on the believer. An intermediate class of priests on earth is not only unknown but quite excluded. Its assertion is an inexcusable slight of scripture, and a shameless ignorance of the grace of God to us, in answer to Christ's death which for us has brought in eternal reality of acceptance with God, Jewish shadows being now superseded and gone. The notion of intermediate priests between Christ and the christian is apostacy from the gospel and return to Judaism. So bright is the truth in the scriptures that the simplest believer is responsible to see and hold fast his priestly privilege; so inevitable the inference that the subtlest disputer of this age essays in vain to deny it honestly. And Heb. 13: 15, 16 cannot be evaded as further proof that the functions of priests are looked for in the offering up sacrifices, whether of praise or of well-doing and communication; not by priests for them, but by themselves as the only true priesthood on earth. He that opposes this is rebelling against the N.T.

But what of other scriptures? Peter is express to the same effect in his First Epistle, (1 Peter 2: 5, 9). Christians are a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices, and a royal priesthood to show forth the virtues of Him Who called them out of darkness into His marvellous light. How wretched, how wicked, to imagine a fictitious order of priests in presence of such words of God!

The Revelation of John (the divine so-called) has no other voice, and this not merely in parts that speak of the future, like Rev. 5: 10, Rev. 20: 6, but in what unequivocally bears on our present relations to God as in Rev. 1: 5, 6: "Unto Him that loveth us, and washed [or, loosed] us from our sins in His blood; and He made us a kingdom, priests to His God and Father." This is the sole priesthood (besides Christ's) which the gospel owns. There is not a hint of an earthly priest for these priests, as the error assumes. The very idea is incompatible with Christian principles. To confound presbyter with priest is a fraud.

Nor is this all; though such a three-fold cord cannot be broken, save to the self-will which blindly fights for superstition against God's word thus widely in evidence and harmony. For every scripture, which since redemption speaks of its results to the believer, implies a similar standing for the christian. Thus in Rom. 5: 2 through Christ we also have obtained and possess (ἐσχήκαμεν) access by faith into this grace wherein we stand. In 1 Cor. 6 not only washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God, but our body the Holy Ghost's temple; and in 1 Cor. 12 ourselves members of Christ, which is yet more intimate and high than priests. So in Gal. 3 we are all one in Christ and sons with the Spirit of God's Son sent forth into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Of Ephesians 3 one might cite a vast deal more and from perhaps every chapter; for the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ from the first is said to have blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies in Christ. Suffice it to quote for those not familiar with scripture, not only that we are Christ's body, but words so distinct as Eph. 2: 13: "Now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh by [or, in] the blood of Jesus;" and again ver. 18, "Through Him we both have access in one Spirit unto the Father;" and again Eph. 3: 12, "In Whom we have boldness and access in confidence through faith of Him." Farther, Col. 1: 12 gives thanks to the Father Who made us meet [an accomplished fact] to be partakers of the saints in light, Who delivered us out of the power of darkness and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His love. What need of more? Of old the greatest privilege of a priest was the right to enter God's sanctuary. This is everywhere now the standing title of every christian, in a measure wholly transcending the degree of a Jewish priest. And this it is which is necessarily undermined by the pretension of a priest on earth between the christian and Christ or God. But it is a baseless figment; whereas the priesthood of all christians, the antitype of Aaron's house (only far surpassed), is the clear and certain truth of God, and of the utmost practical value for every believer every day, of which the fiction would rob him to the deepest dishonour of His grace.

Indeed it is a solemn consideration, for those professedly christian ministers who claim a sacerdotal place, to weigh the warning of Jude 11, lest they perish in the gainsaying of Korah. For his sin, so ruinous to himself and his followers, was proud discontent with Levitical service, and an impious pretension to the priesthood. It was rebellion against Moses and Aaron, types of Christ in this. Christian ministry is the exercise of a gift from the Lord, some, for the good of all, given and sent by Him. But all saints are priests made free equally of the true sanctuary. For some to usurp this nearness to God beyond and in denial of what grace has given to all the saints is without knowing it to misconceive and do away a prime blessing of christianity. It is to deny the grace of Christ and the efficacy of His work and the anointing of His Spirit.

But next the oracle declares that as without priesthood there can be no sacraments (an utter absurdity), so "without sacraments no spiritual life can he rightly imparted or adequately sustained." On this we join issue. They are alike dregs from the cup of "the great whore," and the latter as irreconcilable with God's word as the former has been proved to be null and void. It is the careful object of the apostle Paul, in an epistle devoted to church questions more than any other, to warn unwary souls that the so-called sacraments, far from really imparting or adequately sustaining spiritual life, may be possessed and rested on and gloried in where there is no such life but mere profession. Such is the divinely given admonition of 1 Cor. 10. These institutions of our Lord, Baptism and His Supper, have their weighty place, one as the initiatory mark of the christian, the other as the constantly recurring and corporate feast of the communion of Christ's body and blood. But to erect them into the channel and the sustainer of spiritual life is altogether to misunderstand (not these sacraments only but) christianity itself, and to prove that those who thus pervert them are rather Jews or even heathen in their thought than christians. These worshippers of ordinances ignore and resist and reverse the Spirit's warning. "I would not, brethren, have you ignorant how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased; for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things were our examples (or types)" (1 Cor. 10: 1-6).

The theory of these men, Irvingites, Papists, Tractarians, etc., is that the sacraments are, as the most philosophical of such theologians taught, "extensions of the Incarnation." But first what has baptism to do with the Incarnation? The element is water, which in no way figures Christ's body, as the eucharistic bread does. Yet baptism, they insist, conveys life and is therefore the spring or basis of all! The theory therefore fails fundamentally at the outset. Baptism is not even a sign of the communication of Christ's humanity. There is no semblance of His sacramental presence in it. The truth of scripture is that baptism is burial to Christ's death, the manifest reverse of conveying His life. See Rom. 6; Col. 2; 1 Peter 3. Hence in the Acts baptism in His name is for the remission of sins (Acts 2) and washing away of sins (Acts 22), never for quickening, as these false teachers always assume.

So in the Lord's Supper we proclaim the Lord's death (1 Cor. 11: 26), and hence in remembrance of Him we eat His body and drink His blood. Both are therefore sacraments of His death, not of Incarnation, as they wrongly say, wholly departing from God's mind. It is His body given (even if "broken" be rejected), His blood shed. This is not life, but death. And the difference is immense. For till Christ's death there was no bearing of our sins, no glorification of God about our evil, no redemption of the slaves of Satan. Both these divine institutions are grounded on that death of the Saviour which alone has brought us to God and reconciled us by a perfect atonement. The self-styled Catholic idea is essentially false, for it expresses no more than Incarnation at best, when the only work which could blot out our sins righteously was not done, but only in hope. And such is the spiritual experience generated by the error. They do not possess the joy of accomplished redemption. They have, as they say, a humble hope. But this is Jewish, not christian: quite right when our Lord was simply incarnate, and under the law; utterly and unbelievingly wrong now that He has died for our sins and is raised for our justification, having by one offering perfected for ever — without an interruption, εἰς τὸ διηνεκές — those that are sanctified, which all believers are. It is not the open hostile scepticism that denies the Incarnate Word; but it is real incredulity as to our present resting-place on His work as well as person, as set forth in both sacraments.

The fact is that even real christians feebly believe in the true gift to them of eternal life in Christ the Son of God. They lower it for the most part to an action by the Spirit on the mind and affections of man; so that he who was once indifferent, immoral, or hostile, now loves the Lord and devotes himself in repentance and faith to do His will. But this leaves out the all-important truth that we are truly born of God, and so are brought into the relation of His children by believing on Christ's name. "He that hath the Son hath life; he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." Whatever the value of ordinances (and he who despises them despises His authority Who gave them), they are never in scripture treated as channels of life, but, as we have seen, as symbolic of His death.

Faith alone gives life to the soul that hears God's word. Hence all the O.T. saints were spiritually quickened as truly as we who now believe the gospel. And our Lord lays down in John 3 the necessity of new birth (born of water and Spirit) as the indispensable condition of seeing or entering the kingdom of God. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will surely be there, no less than we. There may be the unintelligent plea of circumcision, as in their case answering to baptism. But it is express that Abraham was justified in Gen. 15 before circumcision was instituted in Gen. 17, and the apostle as a certainty reasons on the importance of this fact in Rom. 4. Circumcision was but a seal of the righteousness of the faith he had whilst uncircumcised. The blessing was neither of the ordinance nor of the law which came in long afterwards but of the promise, and thus of faith that it might be according to grace — God's grace, not man's merit. And so it is now. It is judaising and worse to substitute an institution, however precious, for the Son of God and faith in Him and His work, which both quickens and justifies.

But this school always slights faith. It may be that some of them have no experience of it as a true work of the Holy Spirit in the soul. Others who perhaps are believers have heeded the fond dream of succession and priesthood and saving ordinances, which can never mix with the truth of the gospel, and hence in their blindness disparage faith is well as the power of redemption, though, thank God, they may still cleave to the glory of Christ's person. Solifidianism is an idle slur on those who possess Christ as life and righteousness.

And as John 3 is totally misunderstood, so is John 6 where the Lord sets forth, not an ordinance but His own person, first as the bread of God coming down from heaven, and giving life not to Israel only but to the world (32-50); next, giving His flesh for the life of the world, so that there was no life in themselves without eating the flesh of the Son of man and drinking His blood. It is not His incarnation only but His death; it is communion by faith with that precious death. Over and over again He shows that this is not a rite but to believe on Him and have eternal life. It is not the Lord's Supper, but the infinite truth itself of which the Supper is the sign. Hence, only understood thus, the words are absolutely true; whereas applied to eating and drinking sacramentally they become false every way. On the other hand we who believe in the incarnate Word rejoice with solemn joy in His death, without which neither God could be vindicated nor our sins be effaced; and assuredly one has life and looks for the Lord to raise him at the last day, as he meanwhile abides in Christ and Christ in him. On the other, who can be so infatuated as to say either that it is impossible to have life without the eucharist? or that a man, eating the eucharist, his necessarily eternal life and must be raised for the resurrection of those that are Christ's? The fourth Gospel does not occupy itself with external forms, but what is characteristically vital and bound up with the Father's grace and the Son's glory. Whereas these false teachers, knowing neither the scriptures nor the power of God, still less His sovereign grace and glorious counsels, are blind to the truth and pervert what they can in His word to exalt man, especially their own vain, self-assumed, priestly orders, and the superstitions they have picked up and espoused from the most corrupt streets of "the great city."

It may be added that while the Lord's Supper is in the strictest sense and fullest way the calling of Christ to mind, there is much more to the faithful than a sign or symbol. He vouchsafes His presence to be enjoyed there and then as nowhere else. Call this a real presence if you will; but it is not the grossness of a presence in the bread and wine, a dream worthy of a heathen. Consubstantiation is only less heinous than transubstantiation. There is simply "blessing" or thanksgiving — terms equally used when the Lord gave the bread and fish to the hungry multitudes. Consecration, as a sacerdotal act, is a mere superstition, a prelude to the mass.

There is another antichristian doctrine, common (it is true) to the sacerdotal system of all ritualists, on which it may be well to say a little — the notion of offering up Christ's body and blood to God in the eucharist. No doubt, Popery goes farther in the deadly evil both by the fable of transubstantiation (which naturally if not necessarily leads to direct idolatry) and by claiming for the offering the character of a true propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead. But, even in the most modified shape, any offering to God of the sacrament is not only opposed to all scripture but destroys the truth of its proper nature and aim. The appeal to the original of 1 Cor. 11: 24 and Matt. 26: 28 ("now" broken and "now" shed) is mere ignorance in Mr. Cardale (Readings upon the Liturgy, p. 32). It is the present participle, not of time, but of character, whenever the time might be, like John 1: 29 and crowds of instances. He Whom God made sin for us sits at God's right hand, Who needs no memorial of that perfect and accepted propitiation for our sins. This memorial He has made His Supper to be to us and our forgetful hearts. It is not for a moment to be doubted too that He is in the midst of His own when gathered to His name, and in the happiest way for this holy feast. Such is His true and only real presence. That it is in the bread and the wine is a baseless and base idea, not worthy of a Jew or even a pagan. We are there invited to eat and to drink. It is in no way an offering of His body and blood, but communion with both: just as Jews partook of what had been sacrificed, and Gentiles too in their dark way. But our God is love as well as light, and gives us to sit at a feast on the great sacrifice of Christ's redemption. Thereupon Christ sits on high, because it is done once for all, as its efficacy endures for ever, and even its application. There is no repetition. If there were renewed offering, there must be renewed suffering (Heb. 9: 26). But it is finished; and we feast with thanksgiving and praise, doing this in remembrance of Him, and showing forth His death till He come. Presentation before God is a vain addition which spoils the revealed intent; and so does the mixing up our worship with Christ's priestly intercession, which has another and wholly distinct object.

Never in scripture is either the Lord's baptism or Supper treated as a mystery, "the great spiritual mystery," as these men say of the latter. There are mysteries in abundance, once hidden, now made plain, precious, practical. Sacraments are not included in that category. One initiatory, the other constant, they had their wise and good place as His institutions; but, being external forms, they afforded a handle to religious imagination; and Christendom has made them into calves of gold to worship its own handiwork. If divine order is prized by believers, how can they depart from the holy and beautiful simplicity of that feast Christ bequeathed to us, and took care to give in three Gospels, and to reveal afresh to and by the apostle Paul? A more systematic and chilling departure can hardly he conceived than these "Readings" disclose to one imbued with the unworldly order of the scripture accounts. Are we not to believe His will therein reflected for us to follow? Let us bold fast the traditions as Paul delivered them to us.

On the theory put forth to justify as well as explain the sacramental system, insuperable difficulties confront these superficial theologians. They are self-deceived in their thought of effectively opposing rationalism by the truth. They ignore divine grace and scripture. Their own scheme is no better than religious rationalism, as opposed to that of profane sceptics who deny even a mediator, and especially the one Mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus a man. No believer contests that blessed and cardinal truth, the all-importance for God and man of the Incarnate Word. But the sacramentalists reason on the Incarnation simply, and reason wrongly, instead of believing that the Incarnation only presents the Saviour in that condition which was essential to effect redemption, but which in itself by no means did or could effect it. On the contrary the manifestation of God as light and love in Christ was more and more hateful to man, to Israel in particular; because it condemned their dark selfishness and utter insubjection to God, the end of which was the cross. Therein God laid the sole, adequate, perfect, and everlasting ground of deliverance for all that believe. The bloodshedding of Christ vindicated God's long forbearance, and made it righteous, not only to go out with the gospel to every soul, but to justify him that has faith in Jesus. This is certainly not man's righteousness (which was just then proved wholly wanting in Jew or Greek) but God's. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are the divinely given and standing expressions of the Saviour's death, not merely of His Incarnation. Judaism ends with that cross which is the basis of Christianity. The initiatory sign as truly sets before the soul the death of Christ, as does that central feast of thanksgiving which the christian observes, on the Lord's day especially, till He come. Apart from His death the signs have no meaning but a false one. They are founded on His finished work and proclaim His death. Till then the full trial of man was not a fact; nor the complete proof of divine love shown; nor God glorified to the uttermost, any more than man's wickedness consummated; nor sin judged before God and borne away to faith by the only availing sacrifice. Only in the cross was this done and more.

Hence it is evident and certain that the sacramental system stops short of christianity, by its own avowal that the sacraments are extensions of the Incarnation; because, if so, all these essential truths of christianity are not the ground, but only the hope as under the legal system. These men abide on the Jewish side of the cross, not on the christian. They are still under law, and priesthood, and offerings. By their own showing, if the sacraments are but the continuation of the Incarnation, they cannot express the privileges of accomplished redemption. They retrograde. Such is sacramentalism in principle. It is not christianity, but a mongrel superstition.

The whole doctrinal basis, essential to keep up earthly priesthood and worldly sanctuary, stops short of the saying grace of God that characterised the gospel; according to which baptism and the Lord's Supper have their true place and right meaning as expressions of that death which delivers alike from sin and the law and the world by the dead and risen Saviour.

Even on their own ground of religious speculation, which is blind to the force of the rent veil, and shrinks back unbelievingly from that one sacrifice that purges the conscience from dead works to serve the living God, the theory fails at the threshold. For how is baptism an extension of the Incarnation? Whatever appearance there may be in the eucharist, there is none in the water. Again, The theory is that, while Baptism gives life, the Supper sustains it. But this does not agree with John 6; for the eating there is not sustenance but quickening without the smallest reference to baptism. "For the bread of God is He that cometh down from heaven and giveth life to the world" (ver. 33). This contradicts the theory. Still plainer is ver. 51, and ver. 53 most conclusive, where all else is excluded, and eating the flesh of the Son of man and drinking the blood are said to be such, that otherwise "ye have no life in you." In every respect the sacramental theory breaks down at the touch of scripture.

Popery alone can boast complete consistency of error; for to make good the refusal of the cup, they fall back on eating all without drinking; that is, the theory is that the blood is still in the body. Theirs therefore is, with fatal unconsciousness, a sacrament of non-redemption, as another has well shown. How true the Saviour's decision: "By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned"!

CHAPTER 4.

DOCTRINE. §. 8. TITHES, etc.

With an earthly priesthood naturally goes the provision of tithes. No one doubts that it was obligatory on Israel under the law, and that it was paid in patriarchal times (Gen. 14, 28). It is a religious debt from man to God on earth.

But the redemption that is in Christ Jesus changes all things, or, as is said in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of law. For the Christian there is no priest but Christ Himself in God's presence on high. In another and real point of view all Christians are themselves priests. Every other notion of priesthood as now subsisting is false. And so for the Christian, for the church of God, any such provision is ignored in the N.T. Nor is this casual, but goes essentially with our heavenly relationship, even while we are personally here below. We are not of the world even as Christ is not. Temple, priesthood, victims, incense, rites, etc., were all alike earthly. The Christian is heavenly though on earth for the present.

Hence it may be observed that all who contend for tithes are wholly ignorant of the true and heavenly nature of the church, and for the most part fall back for support on what was said of old before the Son of God came and brought in all that now characterises His own. If we are subject to the suited revelations of the Holy Spirit, we understand at once that it could not be otherwise without the grossest confusion. For we, believers now, are all members of Christ, and of Christ when exalted and glorified at God's right hand. As such is our privilege, of this nature is our responsibility. The sacrifice of Christ has blotted out our sins, and brought us nigh to God perfectly and therefore equally. A human or earthly priesthood is necessarily excluded, and evidently so, save where the efficacy of His death is clouded. Again, the Holy Ghost, on the ground of that accepted work, was sent down to baptize into the one body of Christ. This in no way sets aside the differences of place it pleased God to establish in the assembly. There are those whom He set first, and others in inferior position. There is all variety of gift; and this in exercise constitutes ministry. Nor is scripture silent that whether in the gospel or among the saints such are entitled to support and honour in the name of the Lord. But that one christian should act as priest for others has no place save in the unauthorised tradition of man. The mere idea offends against the absolute nearness which Christ's work imparts, and the oneness of the body through the Spirit's presence and action. Consistently with this we hear no more of tithes. Any such earthly due to a religious caste nearer to God disappears.

The principle they lay down shows how far they are even from the perception of living christianity. For they distinguish as Jews from voluntary offerings the tithes as due to God in right to dispose of as He thinks good. Now the gospel overturns all this through the surpassing grace of Christ and His fully revealed truth. For we are bought with a price, not our possessions only but ourselves, and are called to glorify God with our body, not merely with tithe and a freewill offering to boot. The Christian slave even is Christ's freedman the Christian master is His bondman. Christ is all and as He elevates the lowest into liberty of the truest and most enduring kind, so he makes the highest that know Him to be His willing slaves. And as to what self would call its possessions, the Lord has ruled (Luke 16) that we are but stewards now in what men view as ours. We do well to follow what was commended in the Unjust Steward. If faithful now in what is Another's, He will in the day of glory give us what He is pleased to call our own, even the true riches which have no wings and where is no thief. Hence the wisdom from above is to make to ourselves friends out of the mammon of unrighteousness, that, when it shall fail, we may be received into the everlasting tabernacles.

We are waiting for the appearing of our Lord. When Christ receives His own things, so shall we. As to all in our hands now, faith makes us disown the title of sense or reason, waiting for the day when with Him God will freely give us all things. For we are heirs of God an joint-heirs with Christ, and are meanwhile to walk by faith, not by sight. Along with this it is of the essence of the gospel that we were called for freedom, only not for the flesh (which we own condemned irremediably and by divine judgment in the cross), but through love servants one to another, because we are His. It is, or it ought to be, clear therefore that the Catholic Apostolic society is so much the more guilty in all this, because they profess to see what the church of God is, as they at any rate know that, and others in general do not see it; and again, because they claim the action of the Holy Spirit whose ministration is in Scripture set in the Strongest contrast with that of the law which could only gender bondage, condemnation, and death. How distressing then to find that no dark traditional system of human thought and will exceeds, if it equal theirs, in turning back to the weak and beggarly elements whereunto they desire to be in servitude over again!

The following extract from the Regulations for the distribution of tithe (as given in Mr. Miller's Vol. ii. Appendix IX) will show, without argument, how far Irvingism is removed from Christian institutions and in principle Jewish, with all sorts of additions devised like Jeroboam's out of their own heart. The hand of lawyers is too plain in all.

" 1. Every ordained priest, being a fixed and regular Minister in a Church, and giving up his whole time to his spiritual duties, receives some proportionate part of the Tithe of the Church. Such proportion (that is, the ratio, not the amount) to be the same in all Churches, and to be subject to arrangement by the elders of the Church Universal in such manner as circumstances may from time to time require. Supernumerary priests do not receive any fixed proportion of tithe, but may receive support from tithe in the manner thereinafter appointed."

" 2. Every called priest, giving up his time to preparation for his spiritual duties, and to such subordinate offices as may be required of him, and every deacon giving up his time to his duties, may lawfully receive support from the tithe of the Church in which he is serving, after providing for the Angel and those already ordained to the priesthood."

" 3. In every Church the number of fixed and regular priests who, under Regulations, are to receive proportionate parts of tithe, is not to exceed the following: namely, one Angel, one Angel's Coadjutor, and such a number of priests as with the Angel and Angel's Coadjutor shall not exceed one to every fifty of the regular communicants. Nor in any Church is the number of fixed and regular priests to exceed the following: namely, Angel and Angel's Coadjutor, six Elders, six assistant Elders, and thirty-six other priests, of whom at least one third should be Prophets and Evangelists. Any other priests employed in the service of the Church are to be considered supernumerary, and not entitled to fixed portions of tithe."

" 4. The precise number and class of fixed and regular priests who are to receive tithe in any Church within the above mentioned limits, will from time to time be decided by the Apostle in charge of the Church (i.e. of Tribe), whose sanction is also necessary of all supernumerary priests."

What need of more, unless it be the opening of the Regulations in 1858, nine years after those cited? God having: given the Tithe of our Increase to be the endowment of His altar, He has placed the particular application of the same under the direction of the Apostles Did it never occur to these persons that we have the Lord preparing the way for christianity and the church in the Four Gospels, but not a hint of Christian tithe! We have a precise and comprehensive history of the gospel and the church, and the chief servants of the Lord for about thirty most eventful and instructive years, written by all inspired hand; but not a hint even here! We have Epistles written by the most honoured in various ways of the apostles, expressly providing divine light, didactic, exhortatory, ecclesiastical, and pastoral; but not a hint in one of them!

We all ought to know how solemnly the apostles spoke of the departure at hand for the Christian profession. So it was, as the Spirit predicted. Even during the earliest generation the testimony of the apostle Paul was very largely a series of conflicts with the inroads of Judaism even more than of Gentile philosophy. When his work closed, the ruin became as rapid as complete; but no one erred so grossly as to advocate tithe any more than priesthood among Christians. No doubt these mistakes and worse evils which defaced Christianity too soon followed.

Nor have any pushed to greater lengths the corruption from the simplicity and the purity that is toward Christ, cloaked under the plea of development. Scripture clearly warrants the use of water in baptism, of bread and wine in the Lord's Supper. How does either give license to bring in the use of lights, incense, vestments, and the like, to say nothing of holy water? It is all impeachment of the fulness of divine wisdom in the written word of God, a presumptious uprising of the church, instead of that single-eyed obedience which is of all price in God's sight. No doubt, the O.T. is also invoked to eke out the desired end. But this is unintelligent abuse, in the face of our authoritative instruction in the N.T. which gives the key of Christ to explain the spiritual meaning of these Levitical symbols, closed for the Christian in His work and offices, as the Epistle to the Hebrews shows us. To introduce them outwardly into the Church is to Judaise in fact, When God tried by law, man rebelled and violated it; when God proved its impotence and nailed it to the cross, man cleaves to it and makes it his idol, consistent only in his antagonism to God's will and glory.

The theory is a return to what was annulled in the cross as God made evident when the veil of the temple was rent from the top to the bottom. What was this but God desecrating what once was holy? As He of old set aside Shiloh, so He did then with His house in Jerusalem, a yet more solemn and evident proof: only that He means to take it up again when the Lord returns to reign over the earth. Meanwhile all is gone for any such thing on earth. The sanctuary which the Lord pitches, and not man, is exclusively in heaven; and the true light which now shines makes manifest to the believing Jew (and of course to all others) that the sanctuary of the law was essentially worldly (Heb. 9: 1), as its sacrifices, ritual, and priesthood were but carnal ordinances.

This is what the Catholic Apostolic body, more guilty than others, would resuscitate from the grave of Christ, instead of holding fast the faith of Him dead, risen, and glorified, and drawing near to Him within the Holiest where He is. For this, and nothing less, we are exhorted to do now, though and while we are on earth. And therefore in the Epistle to the Hebrews faith is insisted on, not here so much to get life and righteousness and peace, as to worship and walk in it as a practical principle covering and influencing all our conversation here below. Therefore are those addressed so earnestly Warned against craving after sensible objects and palpable helps, to which they had been accustomed in Judaism. On the face of it too all the church in Apostolic days met in the humblest way. It was not for lack of means or of liberality. There was no compulsion, no iron bond of law; but as many as were possessed of houses and lands sold them, and brought (not tithes, but) the prices of the things that were sold and laid them at the apostles' feet; and distribution was made to each, according as any one had need. It was a bright outshining of devotedness as they looked for the return of the Lord, the grace of Whom made earthly things of no account save to use them in love to each other.

But it never occurred to these saints, still less to the inspired apostles, to use their substance. in purchasing or erecting fine buildings, or in departing from the original simplicity of the Lord's supper by the adornments of gold and silver, of pearls and gems, of purple and fine linen. They were as far as could be from borrowing the rhetoric of the schools to set off the truth, or from imitating in honour of the Father and the Son the musical attractions of Jews or Heathen in their defunct or dark systems respectively. We belong to Him Who is not here but risen and on high.

The ground of this radical difference is as obvious as it is all-important. In Christianity all that is justly boasted is the grace and truth that came by our Lord, and is now enjoyed by the power of the Spirit in the written word. It is no longer the mountain, nor even Jerusalem. As true worshippers we worship the Father. It must be, to be acceptable, in spirit and in truth. God and the Lamb are before the heart, which is led by the Holy Ghost to look on the unseen and eternal, the heavenly things, not the earthly.

As this bright reality faded for the saints of old, they lapsed more and more into Jewish thought and feeling; and natural resources were called in as faith grew feeble and low. Then the O.T. prophecies got misapplied, as the true and heavenly and earth-rejected character of the church was lost; so that baptized men began to dream that Israel was for ever blotted out to make room for the Christian profession to enjoy earthly blessing, honour, and power. Thus was all the characteristic testimony of the church swamped; and the mystery of iniquity wrought into the mystery of Babylon the Great, the mother of the harlots and of the abominations of the earth.

There indeed earthly splendour is essential, for grace is unknown and truth is perverted and corrupted, if Babylon is to commit fornication with the kings of the earth and to intoxicate those that dwell on the earth. How sad to see those who used to profess the truth which judges this enormous imposture and unblushing worldliness now fallen in principle and practice into a similar dark pit! Yet who can wonder that, having lost the truth of the cross, they mind earthly things even more than the mass of Protestants?

CHAPTER 4.

DOCTRINE. §. 10. SYMBOLISM.

It remains now to examine the system of symbols, in the sense not of confession of faith, but of sensible forms before the eye, which Irvingites have elaborated in their late history. It is known that this development is due to the prophets so called, notably to their first pillar, Mr. Taplin. Here again we have distinct, undeniable, departure from the inspired authority of the true apostles and prophets to Judaising. The divine institution of Baptism and the Eucharist gives no warrant for the least addition, still less for wholesale invention, unrecognised in the N.T. for the church of God. Wherever introduced by man, it is essentially an alien, as it is a supplanter of faith. Now we walk by faith, not by sight. There is no legitimate adoption of it beyond divine authority. New objects of the kind are but idols; and well it is, if superstition degrade not what the Lord instituted into kindred evil. It is for Him to command, for the church to obey. It is not for us to initiate but to follow. All else is but presumption and indeed rebellion.

But let us hear what these men plead as cited* from "Symbols used in worship." "A type is that which is something absent and future; as for example Adam was a type of Christ; the sacrifices of the law were types of the sacrifice of Christ. A symbol, on the contrary, is something used to set forth and signify things really present, but unappreciable by the senses. It may also present a visible memorial of additional important truth. For instance the light which is kept burning before the altar, when the holy sacrament is there, symbolises to us the Lord's invisible presence; but it is also from its very nature a memorial to us that He who is our life is our light also; and not ours only but 'the light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.' . . . Symbolism is in fact the science of exhibiting invisible truth by visible and appropriate signs, in order that our senses may be made the helps and handmaids of our spirits, and we may be the better able to worship God. If this end be not attained, symbols are useless." Then the brass, the silver, and the gold of the Jewish Tabernacle are referred to, "a gradual increase of costliness from the court to the holy place, and from thence to the most holy. Doubtless these things typified different degrees of spiritual worship; but they also symbolised the truth that the more sacred the place and service the more costly should be the means employed. A palace is not furnished like a cottage; a drawing room is not furnished like a kitchen. We do not appear before a king in mean raiment. . . . It is barely possible for purity of heart to co-exist with voluntary impurity, either of our dwellings or of our persons." To read such effusions of naturalism is painful coming from men professing Christ; but alas! Christendom is so fallen from faith that not a few outside this party accept the sentiment as just in the main and apposite.

* In Miller's vol. ii. 308-311.

John 4 overthrows the system; as does the Epistle to the Hebrews expressly. The hour has come when the ritual of Jerusalem, divinely appointed though it was, is passed away. The rival way of Samaria or of aught else is vain. It is a question of worshipping the Father: His children alone are competent, having received the Spirit of adoption by which they cry Abba, Father. The hour now is, when the true worshippers worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such doth the Father seek to be His worshippers. God is a spirit. and they that worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. The Lord had previously spoken of His giving the Holy Spirit (verse 14), without which Christian worship cannot be. Then, as we have seen, He contrasts it even with Levitical service, and intimates that it alone is now acceptable. For God is no longer hidden as in Judaism, but revealed in His Son which changes all and brings in what is new and eternal; and as God is seeking in fulness of love as a Father, so He can only be worshipped in spirit and truth as suits His nature. It is no longer man tested by law on the ground of what he ought to do. Rejecting the Messiah, the Son, they are proved to be lost and dead, like the poor Samaritan, till Jesus quickens them, and gives the Holy Ghost; and the Father's grace is thus known as seeking even such and making them His own, thenceforth true worshippers.

The Epistle to the Hebrews indicates a similar result in connection with the purifying of the conscience by the blood of Christ and His entrance into heavenly glory, before which the earthly ordinances of Israel fade into nothingness. Yet are they beautiful types if rightly apprehended as shadowing the "better thing" now come in Christ. But it is a retreat from the true light which now shines to set up under the gospel symbols of our own or borrowed from the law. This is to go back to type or symbol where God has given us the blessed anti-types. We are no longer babes needing such pictures. The Christian is of age, as Gal. 4 insists to counteract an analogous turning back to rudiments now discarded, and pernicious when thus misused.

Apostolic practice entirely falls in with this, if we allow for the gracious patience of God in gradually weaning those who had been Jews from the temple and its connected observances. But even from the beginning of the church nothing can be plainer or more certain than the simple and unworldly character of all that was found in "their own company" (Acts 4: 23). They broke bread "at home" (Acts 2: 46). Years after Pentecost we never hear of grand or beautiful buildings, which assuredly, if in any way an object, they had heart and means to erect. The utmost we hear of is "the upper chamber" to break bread in (Acts 20: 7, 8), or of the school of Tyrannus where the apostle daily discoursed, or lectured (Acts 19: 9). Not a trace in the inspired record, not a hint, of the earthly splendour of the Jewish temple sought to be imitated or exceeded in the church of God. On the contrary, all the evidence of the N.T. points to a total change of principle, because God was calling out and forming a body on earth to walk and worship by the power of the Holy Spirit in the faith and enjoyment of a Saviour enthroned in heaven, Who gave them each and all to draw near boldly to the throne of grace. Without doubt we are thus as believers, in presence of a glory revealed to us but not to the world, which pales all the pretentious efforts of architecture, or music, or eloquence in Christendom; yea, which is expressly compared with the law given by Moses, (even though this had unequivocally divine sanction for the time and the end then in view), in order to assert its immeasurable superiority.

Christ risen and exalted on high, in virtue not only of His person but of His work on the cross, is the centre of the surpassing glory, a glory with which we have the fullest association assured to us now, and of which the Holy Spirit Who has anointed us is the seal, as He is the earnest in our hearts. No Christian questions that "the annulled" system, the law, was with glory when and as introduced by God; but how much more does the ministration of the Spirit and of righteousness, "that which abides," exceed as it subsists in glory! There is one thing however absolutely needful for appreciating this truth, faith (alas! how rare) in holding fast our present heavenly relationship to Christ, as simply as the burdened conscience looks to Him dead and risen, and finds justification and peace with God. How could brass or silver or gold or precious stones, how could fine linen or blue or scarlet or purple, mingle with such worship? The thought of severing the members of the one body by a greater or less nearness answering to the court and the Holy place and the Holiest demonstrates the blankest ignorance of Christian standing and worship, as well as of the true meaning of their instructive shadows.

So does the argument founded on the symbols of social position, or of the distinctions in a household It is a return to man and nature under divine government, out of which the gospel now takes even Israelites to give a new and unheard-of intimacy by union with Christ, and this to Gentile no less than to Jewish believers. It is, to frame a human analogy, pleasing to the flesh and essentially of the world, when God calls to a heavenly reality even while we are on earth, which is the proper testimony of our faith in an unbelieving and hostile world.

It is the remark of one who wrote before me on this subject, and more forcibly than the author himself knew, that the incarnation is bound up with symbolism. But he ought not to have degraded it by pointing as examples to the Buddhist, or the Moslem, or the Quaker. For we have shown already, that however precious a truth Incarnation is, to stop short there is to stop short of Christianity. "For the love of Christ constraineth us, because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that they who live should no longer live to themselves but to Him Who for their sakes died and rose again. Wherefore we henceforth know no one after the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to flesh, yet now we know Him [so] no more. Wherefore if any one is in Christ [there is] a new creation: the old things have passed away; behold they are become new; and all things are of God Who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation." This is Christianity. Christ, the Incarnate Word, was still minister of circumcision till He died for our sins and rose and ascended to become Head of the Church by divine counsels. Eph. 1, Col. 1. How few look on the unseen and heavenly objects which give character to worship!

Professed teachers are not entitled to ignore the characteristic truths of Christianity. Hence the doctrinal care in the N.T. to call away from earthly temple, officials, and rites, to the one sacrifice of infinite efficacy, to the one Priest after the Melchisedec order but Aaronic exercise, only far beyond either type, and to the heavenly and the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man. To see the accomplishment of all in Him is the real honour of the ancient types; to reproduce them on earth and by men is the darkness of unbelief. And amazing it is that any bearing the Lord's name can so trifle with such scriptures as Heb. 7: 12, 18, 19; Heb. 8: 6-13; to refer to no more, though one might well press Heb. 9 and the first half of Heb. 10

What can be more overwhelming than the condemnation poured on symbolism among not only Irvingites but Romanists of every shade (for they differ almost as much as Dissenters, and to talk of their unity is the merest self-deception) by the apostle's word in Heb. 9: 1, in speaking of God's house in Israel where the symbolism was divine throughout. In the light of Christ at God's right hand, the sanctuary is pronounced "a worldly one." How much more all imitations, under the direction of Mr. Taplin or any other man since! This is the irrevocable decision of the Holy Spirit for the Christian. So in verse 24, Christ is said to have entered, not into holy places made with hands (like Aaron or his sons): these were but figures of the true. The heavenly things which Moses saw were really the originals which the tabernacle reflected. And now the true assume their place and moment; and Christ, having obtained everlasting redemption is gone into heaven itself now to appear before the face of God for us. The way into the true holies is now made manifest; and we are invited and exhorted to draw near within, for the veil is rent. Not incarnation, but Christ's shed blood alone makes us free by faith to approach boldly. Symbolism in effect denies the cross and leads us back to Judaism. Let every believer take warning: it is an enemy of Christ and a snare to souls, however fair a show in the flesh. Nothing can excuse rebellion against the Lord as He is now revealed in heavenly glory.

CHAPTER 5.

CONCLUSION.

What judgment (we think) ought to he formed of the Irvingite movement is not doubtful to anyone who has followed the notices now drawing to an end.

It is not meant that they have not much truth of an important kind, and of truth neglected if not wholly ignored by Protestants (of Romanists we need not speak now). They have a vivid notion, not the reality, of the church of God, and consequently make a great deal of its unity as a principle and fact to be made good on earth before the Lord comes to receive us to Himself and present us in the Father's house. They accordingly and justly insist on His coming to receive us as the one and divinely given object of hope, and discard as false the vain dream of Christendom in general that all the earth is to be gradually brought to His feet by Christian measures, still less by human mixture of a more palatable kind, or even by the operations of God's providential hand. They duly recognise that it is an honour reserved not for a fallen church, but for Christ, yet not in this or in aught else without the work of the Holy Spirit also, but Himself personally present in manifested power to establish the kingdom under the whole heaven, while the risen saints reign over the whole earth with Him; though in this last, as was pointed out, not even their apostles were clear.

Again, they are not blind to the prevalent unbelief that thwarts the effectual working of the Holy Spirit, while owning that grace has not failed to work, spite of the multiplying hindrances from man's self-sufficiency, in an age characterised more and more by that self-exalting spirit in the fatal error of progress and the growing license of self-will, the revolutionism often peaceful, always onward, of today. They confess that all that is for good and God's glory in man must be of the Spirit sent down from heaven to glorify Christ Jesus, the Second Man. Further, the revived hope of the church, and the new interest in prophetic inquiry, drew attention not only to the church's future glory, but to the splendid prospects of Israel and the out-spreading of blessedness for all nations under the reign of the Son of Man. And the earth at any rate was seen to be the destined theatre of the magnificent dealings of God, beyond whatever has been, for the exaltation of His Son and the holy peace, joy, and righteousness of the race, to God's glory.

This could not be without bringing into just prominence the King as well as the kingdom; and the humanity of the Lord was recovered from the neglect which had shrouded it, in the minds of even the most pious, for centuries. It is not that true believers questioned that He was perfect Man as well as God the Word made flesh, or would have in general failed to reject and resent any doubt cast by the Enemy on the Incarnation. Still the discussion, kindled by the really earnest study of prophecy long neglected, made it plain that men of reputed orthodoxy were false to the plenary inspiration of scripture on the one hand, and on the other to the real humanity of the Lord Jesus. The Irvingites took an active part in opposing the unbelief of many Protestants, and even leaders of religious thought and action in Great Britain, as elsewhere.

But soon, immediately one might say, their accredited organ began to betray fundamental unsoundness in the very vital point which they said, not without reason, to be growingly compromised by others that seemed to be Pillars.

If the Evangelicals left in the shade the grand truth of the Lord as Man in all the moral glory of His humiliation, and were absorbed in the efficacy which His work acquires from the Deity of His Person, Mr. Irving and his associates fell rapidly into sentiments, first unguarded and daring in their speculations and inferences, and full soon irreverent, heterodox, and deadly. It was well to recall saints from the dry bones of systematic divinity; but Satan availed himself of many hearts returning to Christ as a really living One with Whom we have to do in the fulness of grace, and of the Father's love incomparably better known in consequence, to dishonour, lose, and in effect deny Him come in the flesh, when they flattered themselves that they most of all were true to His Incarnation. By the flesh in which He came, they taught contrary to scripture and even the ordinary confession of Christendom in its most degraded state, "that the Son of God by birth of His mother was in the condition of a sinner," and this in contrast with the truth that God made Him sin for us on the cross; that He was "conscious of the motions of the flesh and of the fleshly mind, in so far as any regenerate man is conscious of them when under the operation of the Holy Ghost," and that even "He could say until His resurrection, Not I, but sin that tempteth me in the flesh." This is not the faith of Jesus, but antichristian blasphemy. Yet the author of it was their most honoured and cherished teacher, beyond all ever known among them, and, till his death, angel or bishop of their most influential church.

As Christ is the truth, falsehood to His Person, whether on the divine nature or the human, is fatal. The Lord knoweth them that are His, and may discern in the depths those whose hearts are true when their lives are steeped in error. But we can only judge, and are bound to judge, by the confession made. And it is true charity to gloss over no evil imputed to Christ, any more than falsification of His work, if peradventure those ensnared may be recovered, and others may be warned and kept from the delusions of the enemy, to say nothing of what is and ought to be our prime call, the vindication of His honour to Whom we owe everything precious both now and for eternity.

It is a matter of course, therefore, that having allowed this foul aspersion on Christ's humanity, and consequently asserting another than the true Christ of God, every other part of the truth is dragged down into the mire of fallen humanity. They thus exhibit the sad spectacle of combining the acknowledgment of a great deal of truth, rarely found in Christendom and of course nowhere else, with the effects of that error at the core which vitiates the body right through to every extremity.

Hence the church, though nominally a heavenly institution, becomes in their hands the most worldly of societies claiming to represent the Lord here below: an affair of as fine buildings as they can erect, and as near the Jewish model as is possible on any pretence of Christianity, with costly array in most hues of the rainbow, beyond the garments of Babylon itself, with all the pomp of official degree, with incense, lights, and holy water, with priests,. altar, and sacrifice, as if we were not Christians but Jews. And along with this system of meretricious show, so dear and reverent to the natural man, the pretension to prophetic utterances and other displays of assumed power in the Holy Ghost, which they declare is not man, and we are sure is not God; from what source therefore?

For those who have eyes of faith to discern, it is evidently a going back from the unseen objects on which the Christian and the church are taught to look habitually; and as the apostle told the Galatians when adopting not the hundredth part of the weak and beggarly elements embraced by Irvingites, it is a turning again to that idolatrous religion of the world, from which the faith of Christ is meant to deliver once and for ever, as the Holy Spirit is our power acting by the written word. For a religion of form and symbol, which was employed by God's authority as a test of Israel before Christ and His redemption, has another character now that man, Israel in particular, and the world are proved enemies of God in the cross. For a Christian to take up Jewish elements (and nowhere is this so patent as in Irvingism, along with the confessed and utterly incompatible presence of the Spirit), is like a Gentile who had given up his idols returning again to that evil bondage.

Irvingism therefore stands before us to an extravagant degree guilty of a deliberate and elaborate effort to unite the elements or principles of the world with the claims of church privileges and Christian truth. This is essentially and altogether inconsistent, the very principle of that Babylon (the confusion of light and darkness) against which in earlier days there was no end of declamation. No wonder therefore that even truths they teach degenerate, very often losing their true and heavenly character for a Jewish measure and mould. Thus the coming kingdom they set forth simply on its earthly side. They have no real grasp of our intimate associations with Christ on high. They abound with denunciations of judgment; and if they hold out a hope, it is not the proper translation of the whole church of God (and of the O.T. saints also) to meet the Lord on high, and so be ever with Him, but a perverted use of Zoar in Genesis, and of the sealed in Rev. 7, and of those that follow the Lamb on Zion, as an inducement to accept their spurious apostolate and join their party. Alas! what is this but self-deception? It is neither grace nor truth in Christ, but a snare for souls by a false and mischievous abuse of God's word. What kind of unity or catholicity or apostolicity is this? Certainly not of the Holy Spirit.

If these charges are well founded, there is no need of repeating smaller though abundant proof of departure from the truth God has revealed to us. The church, the assembly of the living God, is the basis of the truth. If that which the base sustains, and the pillar proclaims, is not the truth, neither does God acknowledge as His. Christ is the truth; but the church is the responsible witness of it before the world; and what claims to be the church, but is a false witness, God disowns, as we ought also. It is an instrument for deceiving souls the more dangerous in proportion to its pretensions. If false in the main, the more truth it presents along with deadly error, the greater the snare. Unmixed error in fact could not attract the God-fearing; but lofty claims of the church, of apostles and prophets, of pastors and teachers, etc., might be ensnaring to souls weary of vain talk and modern inventions, especially when such claims follow testimony to the evident truth of a speedily coming Saviour, which acts on the conscience and makes souls anxious to do the will of God. In this way many a soul has been attracted from the emptiness of Nationalism and Dissent, ashamed afterwards to leave what was found out little answering to its promise.

Irvingism did not, more than the other sects of Christendom, take its stand on obedience, the only true, humble, and holy principle for such as find themselves in the midst of ruin and departure from God, as scripture predicted was to be. The revealed safeguard then is the written ward. They like others yearned after power, in unbelief that we have power in the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit. Hence the cry of unbelief was answered by evil operations of the enemy, which endorsed and sealed antichrist as the truth. Humiliation was and is the due place, self-judgment, but withal confidence in the grace of our God, and absolute subjection to the truth; not pretending to more than He gives us, with deep thankfulness for all that abides. Thus should we as saints, ceasing to do evil, learn to do well, as we await in peace the coming of our Lord. We have indeed little strength: but may we keep His word and not deny His Name.

May grace use the present warning to convince the children of God within, or looking to, it, that the Catholic Apostolic body is to be shunned and abhorred for its anti-christian error, whatever else of truth may be found there.

John 14: 1-3

Brief notes of an address on John 14: 1-3

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. N7, p. 298-300.)

It is very common even among the children of God to confound the Christian hope with prophecy, but Scripture gives no countenance to anything so lowering to the heavenly calling; though prophecy is a very important part of scripture, either directly or indirectly as in the book of Genesis. All the blessings of a converted soul in the days of Genesis lay in the future, so that it is not in order to disparage prophecy that I claim a higher place for the Christian hope. The spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus. It was so in Old Testament days, and will be again. The more we distinguish that which is for the earth from that which is for heaven, the more honour we give not merely to the heavenly, but also to the earthly. God's purpose is to bring both earth and heaven under the Lord Jesus. The great mistake is to make the earth the scene of the Lord's being peculiarly glorified, and the saints with Him. For the earth is what God means for Israel. They are the people to be exalted in the earth. There is not one part of the universe (I do not speak of that awful but suited vision throughout eternity of the lake of fire) in all the scene of blessing but will be under the direct control of the Lord Jesus. But as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are the heavenly blessings than the earthly.

God means to bless every family of the earth. It was the promise given to Israel. But what about saints raised from the dead and glorified? To have them for the earth is a terrible blunder. It is a sorrowful thing that any saint could look for a place on earth when a heavenly hope is made known. The effect is to blot out Israel's portion (which cannot fail), and to lose all sense of heavenly glory into which Christ is gone, and gone as our Forerunner.

Now it will help if I show the context of the words read; for you are never sure you have the real truth if you take a few words by themselves. But if the surroundings are of a similar character, they strengthen the true meaning. From the beginning of John 13 the Lord opened out the entirely new character of Christianity; that which follows His total rejection by Israel. The great doctrine of the Gospel of John is that we are children of God and know it, and are now fitted to enjoy it. As the apostle Paul, who says we are to bear the image of the heavenly when Christ comes, also says we are heavenly now. "And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly." John 13 brings before us a most remarkable act on the part of our Lord. After the intimation that He was going to leave them, for the chapter begins with, "When Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father," etc. — that is the way His departure is looked at; not that He should die, though He was going to die — it proceeds, "And supper being come (not "ended") . . . Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands . . he riseth from supper," etc. Here is a very remarkable thing, though we might pass over it as nothing peculiar. Jesus is here not looking for the throne of David, for Jerusalem, and the land — all to be given Him by and by. That is what God will do for His Beloved Son, who by His death not only reconciles the creature with the Creator, but glorifies God about that in which He had been so dishonoured. But now that the Lord Jesus (no longer in the world where we still are, but) is gone to the Father, He devotes Himself on high that we, whilst walking here, may nevertheless by His advocacy there, be maintained in blessed communion with Him now glorified. This is to have "part with him," and is effected by His cleansing our feet — from the defilements of the way — by "the washing of water by the word."

In these chapters the Spirit of God gives a far deeper account of that which ever had been revealed in the Old Testament. What! the Messiah wash our feet! There is nothing in the Old Testament scriptures nor in the heart of man to prepare for such a thing, and it astonished the disciples; it astonished Peter. Peter had part in Christ, eternal life in Christ; but the Lord would give him part with Christ, i.e. communion with Him in heaven whilst we are still walking down here on earth. Christianity is not only being born of the Spirit; the Old Testament saints were that, though they did not know it. They rested on the coming Saviour, and there is nothing good for God without that, without faith. What is needed is that which is of God. We are called to acknowledge the utter ruin of all that is of ourselves. This is repentance, taking part with God's righteousness and holiness against myself. But this is negative; faith gives us the positive — the Lord Jesus. He presses on Peter the necessity of washing his feet, not his whole body; for if a man is regenerate by being born of water and of the Spirit, that is done once; there is no repetition, as there is none of the death of Christ.

Washing of feet meets defilement of our walk. Is that nothing? or am I merely to fall back on forgiveness of sins through His blood? It is as Advocate He washes our feet. The advocacy is one grand characteristic of Christianity. His priesthood is quite distinct. As Priest He strengthens us against the enemy, but if we break down His advocacy comes in. What makes a man repent? Not sinning, that hardens. It is an Advocate with the Father. Not with God — God is the judge of sin — but with the Father, for we are children of God.

In the case of Peter we see the Advocate. He was warned not to enter into temptation. The Lord endured temptation. That is very different from entering into it. But Peter, bold enough to get into the difficulty, failed; and when he denied the Lord, the Lord looked upon Peter; then Peter remembered. This is a little specimen before the time of advocacy. It is eminently belonging to the Christian. Though Christianity rests on Christ's death, it is characterised by His resurrection and ascension — all facts. There is nothing so simple as a fact, but these facts are the groundwork of all the truth of Christianity.

The same chapter also shows the death of Christ in quite a different way from Isa. 53 or Ps. 22. Judas went out to betray the Lord, "and it was night"; and he was going into the deepest darkness that a poor soul could enter — going to sell the Lord for the price of a slave! What does the Lord say? "Now is the Son of man glorified." What, by being crucified? Yes. There is no glory so bright as moral glory. It was an easy thing for God to give the Lord Jesus actual glory, but it was no easy thing for Christ to suffer. In that, God was glorified, not as Father, but as God, the judge of sin; and that insoluble question was about to be settled for all eternity! The Father had been glorified in all the life of Jesus; He was His delight. Christ, who by His love, humility, entire obedience had glorified Him in good, had now to glorify Him about all that was bad. "If God be glorified in Him, God shall also glorify Him in Himself and shall straightway glorify Him." That is what He has done. God having set Him, not on the throne of David, but on the throne of God, where no man can sit but Himself, He is there as Man; but if He were one hair's breadth less God than the Father there could be no Christianity.

He is glorified in Himself — that brings in Christianity. The Holy Spirit is sent down from Christ in glory, and every one who truly believes is "one spirit with the Lord," and this leads me into my subject tonight. "Let not your heart be troubled." It seemed one of the greatest troubles that He was going to leave them, but He says, as it were, "You ought to rejoice if you cared for Me, for I am going to the Father; but I am going to care for you in a way impossible otherwise." "Ye believe in God," though you never saw God; "Believe in Me," when you no longer see Me. Thomas gives a good sample of the Jew, but "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." Who are they? Those who, unlike Thomas, believe on Him before they see Him; though it was precious also to see Him, for His life lays the foundation for love of His person.

"In my Father's house." The temple was entirely too low. What can match the Father's house? the description of that place where God the Father shows His delight in His Son! Here is the blessed hope-room for you all; room for every Christian, room for you to be "with Me." In all heaven there is but one Father's house, only one place worthy of the Son, and, says the Lord, "I am going to have you with Myself." They are to be "with Me." Prophetic scriptures are connected with Israel's hope. Association with Christ is ours now, and by a tie that cannot be broken — the Holy Spirit.

Every member of Christ's body will be there a matter entirely of sovereign grace, though there will be reward according to faithfulness.

W. K.

The Last King of the North.

Dan. 11.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. N1, p. 6-7.)

As is known, great uncertainty pervades even believers as to the closing verses of this chapter and their true application. It may be well to show enough proof to any mind open to conviction that the truth is here so plainly revealed that doubt is inexcusable. And this is the more desirable, because, as long as hesitation exists, there cannot be the simple strength of faith, not only in believing this scripture, but in apprehending many others with which it is connected.

Let it then be distinctly noted that, though the kings of the north and south occupy the chapter from ver. 5 (Seleucus Nicator and Ptolemaeus Lagi with their successors), this comes to a halt at verse 32, after which we hear no more of Antiochus Epiphanes; of whom far more had been said than of any other, because of his deliberate and desperate efforts to uproot the law of God in the land and to Hellenise the Jews, even to Greek idolatry in the temple itself. The Maccabean resistance is pursued after that, and the various fortunes of the Jews in verses 33-35, which evidently not only indicate a continuance of sifting and trial, but point "to the time of the end." This needs no argument; it is indisputably asserted by the prophet. The great break is therefore here; and we are directed to look on from that Maccabean day of "exploits," followed by a period of instruction and falling on one side, and purging of the others for many days, without a word about kings of the north and south; but beyond this is "a time appointed," left quite indefinite, when "the time of the end" is to come.

Then suddenly we hear of one entirely distinct from either line of those kings. It is no longer the Lagidae nor the Seleucidae, but a monarch who becomes an object of attack to future kings of the south as well as of the north simultaneously or nearly so. He will be beyond doubt a king in "the land" of Israel between the kingdoms of the north (Syria and Asia Minor) and of the south (Egypt). Verses 36-40 are entirely devoted to this portentous ruler, only the last of which brings in the king of the south pushing at him, and the king of the north tempestuously assailing him (that is, the wilful king in Palestine).

It is of the utmost moment to observe that from that ver. 40 it is no longer the king in the land that is described, but his northern adversary. Some of the fathers blundered here, as do many moderns, who take the closing verses 41-45 as said of the Jewish king in that future day; whereas they are demonstrably an account of the king of the north and his awful end.

First, it is on the face of the passage that this northern king is the person last spoken of through the greater part of ver. 40; and therefore grammatically "he" is the one continued throughout the following verses as the great actor who at length comes to an abrupt end. Next, he is said to "enter also into the beautiful land" (Judaea) as well as many others. This does not apply properly to the king who was at home and reigning there, but to an enemy from without. Thirdly, it cannot be "the king of the south," seeing that ver. 42 informs us in plain terms that "the land of Egypt shall not escape," and again that "he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt," and, quite as serious an effect of his overthrow, that "the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps." Fourthly, what arrests and recalls him in his southern victories is "tidings out of the east and out of the north." It is plainly bad rumours out of his own dominions which trouble him. "Therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy and utterly to make away many. And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the mountain of holy beauty" (vers. 44, 45). Here we have him back, incensed to the highest degree and bent on the destruction of the Jews. For the beautiful holy mountain is none other than that which distinguished Jerusalem and its temple, as the seas on either hand are the Mediterranean and the Salt or Dead Sea. "Yet he shall come to his end and none shall help him." Compare Dan. 8: 23-25.

From other scriptures, as Isa. 11: 4, 2 Thess. 2: 8, Rev. 19: 20, we know that the false prophet, king in the land, the Antichrist, is to perish with his western ally the Beast (or revived and apostate Roman Emperor), when the Lord shines forth in the day of His appearing; whereas the last king of the north comes up afterwards to a no less terrible catastrophe, when He takes His place with His people in Jerusalem and fights against this mighty ravager at the head of those nations whom he compels to follow his banner. Of them Zech. 14 speaks, of the first attack when he was partially successful, before he hurried to the south, and of utter destruction when he comes up again in his fury, not knowing that Jerusalem is then Jehovah-Shammah.

Your Heavenly Father Knoweth.

Matt. 6: 31, 32.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. N5, p. 198-199.)

How wholesome, direct, and complete is the Lord's rebuke of earthly care!

"Be not therefore anxious, saying, What shall we eat, or What shall we drink, or With what should we be clad? For after all these things do the Gentiles seek; for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things" (vers. 31,32).

As the Lord began, so He closed, His charge to the saints against anxiety in the earthly life. He purposely presents the homely commonplace of daily fare and clothing. The birds of the sky He adduces as the witness of bounteous provision without solicitude, and the unequalled splendour of the lilies of the field, as a rebuke to troubled efforts after vain show. The sentiment and the phrase of vers. 25 and 31 are substantially alike but in the latter He exchanges "ye" and "your" into the more tender and family expression "we." Each is as it should be, and both make His word only the more touching as well as complete.

The poor as to the world are habitually burdened and distressed on both accounts in their daily and domestic life. But the noblest and the richest spend much time and thought on their food and attire; and the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, have their mortifications among the highest. And if, as things are, the majority of Christians are too much like others, it only confirms the wisdom and goodness of the Lord in deigning to say so much to elevate the motives and form the ways of His own according to the mind of God.

Yet there are a few here and there all over the earth who hear His words in this discourse as elsewhere, and seek to do them from the heart. Nor do they fail to find their blessed account in pleasing Him, apart from the world and its things, with happy deliverance from all its anxieties and selfishness. Is not this what the Lord here enjoins on all that bear His name? Do these lay His will to heart when temptation arises to settle down in earthly comfort if not luxury and show? Is this consistent with being pilgrims and strangers on the earth awaiting glory on high with Him?

No doubt it is what men of the world do, who mock at faithful stewardship as fanaticism, and ignore being not their own but bought with a price to glorify Him with their bodies. If not their lips, their life says, Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die; yet their constant study is to spin out their mortal life, with no real heart for the resurrection, no habitual joy nor practical value for Christ as their life. Is it not to "mind earthly things," and to forget day by day that "our commonwealth is in the heavens, whence also we await the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour, who shall transform our body of humiliation into conformity to His body of glory according to the working of power which He hath even to subdue all things to Himself?" "For" as He says, "after all these things the Gentiles seek:" the contrast He seeks in His disciples. O let us too seek it in our ways for the little while, and thus help to impress it on such as wish to make the best of both worlds, a shameless motive and character for those who are Christ's.

Are we then left without consolation or resource? Far from it. The Lord winds up with blessed cheer to such as seek to be faithful; "For your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things." And is it not the Father's pleasure to consider every need of every child? Who can pretend that He does not abound in all good things? or that He would not have us to confide in Him, not in ourselves? Be it yours to abjure self, and "cast all your care upon Him, for He careth about you."

The Latest Sect.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. 20, p. 300-302, 368.)

It may not be generally known, though familiar to many readers, that a portentous effort has been recently made in an ecclesiastical way, which is not without instruction if only for warning. It emanates from those professing Christians, who fell back on compromise when the question of a true or false Christ was raised not quite 50 years ago, and ecclesiastical independency was adopted as the means of appearing united, notwithstanding real division.

As nobody who looked beneath the surface could be satisfied with an expediency so hollow, the inevitable reaction has come; and conscience at length confesses from among themselves that these easy-going assemblies are "lawless." Throughout a considerable part of Great Britain this cry has been heard from men who ought to be credible witnesses of the facts among their old associates; as others outside them had long testified that so it was and must be on their principle, or rather on their total lack of it in any divine sense.

It seems that three canons are set up as the new distinctive standard. First, they are strict Baptists, refusing to receive any member of Christ's body who has not conformed to christian immersion as believers. Secondly, they require that every one allowed to partake of the Lord's Supper shall have previously broken off all ecclesiastical association in order to stand in their ranks. Thirdly, they claim to appoint elders over their associates, as the expression of rule in the flock of God on earth.

Now on all three points these retrograde innovators convict themselves, however self-confident, of not being guided of God.

First, it is as certain as some other facts in scripture, that the twelve apostles, though charged by the risen Lord to baptise unto the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, were not baptised with that baptism themselves. Some, perhaps all, were baptised by John; but this was no equivalent, as Acts 19 proves incontrovertibly. Nor was their own baptism during our Lord's lifetime christian baptism; for this is based on His death and resurrection, and instituted after that. To these we may add other disciples before Pentecost, of whom we hear of above 500 brethren who saw the Lord risen at once 1 Cor. 15: 6), and how many more we know not. But we do know that the Holy Spirit baptised them at Pentecost into one body. Thus signally even from the beginning must letter hide its diminished head before spirit; as of old the Lord said, even under law, "I will have mercy and not sacrifice."

Still more does the principle of grace apply  in these days of Christendom's moral ruin, when the great majority of the members of Christ must be owned to be christened as infants, which they regard as valid baptism even when confessed to be irregular in some respects, and would conscientiously object to he re-baptised as unscriptural. Any company therefore that insists on this rigid view is of necessity a sect or party; for it sets up a rule which the Holy Spirit rejected at Pentecost, and deliberately excludes (without and against scripture) thousands of members of Christ who object to their rule as not of God.

Hence, when souls were deeply exercised 60 or 70 years ago through the light of scripture and in the hope of the Lord's coming, it was learnt that God had provided for the difficulty of jarring views on what was after all but an administrative sign, however important in its place. For baptism is essentially individual, as the Lord's Supper is plainly collective or ecclesiastical. Baptism is never once tied to the assembly, but might be at the shortest notice, by the wayside, or in a prison, or along a river. Therefore long ago some of us found ourselves on the ground of that liberty which is due to individual conviction, and only opposed to the fanatics on either side, who would force the question into the assembly and break it up in honour of their predilections. These considerations are evident, which may help: that baptism, believer's baptism, is initiatory; that it is an individual confession; and that, as scripture demonstrates, none ever thought of getting baptised after recognition in the assembly though room may be left for the scruples of a troubled conscience. But this is not the only principle, learnt and acted on then, which has of late been forgotten in the haste and contention of a later day, There are frequent irregularities in baptism; as many feel, who are not novices, yet decided against more than "one baptism." To insist rigidly on letter, especially as things are now and have long been, and to make it an assembly question, is to err grossly, and fall into a sect, or "heresy" in the scriptural sense of the word.

Secondly, while there is a path graciously provided in a day of ruin for those that call on the Lord out of a pure heart, farthest from it are such as assume to be "the" church in fact, even though they may verbally avoid the pretentious claim. And what can one think of Christians whose bond of union, or test, is the acceptance of discipline in a local case, at best dubious if not mistaken and unjust! If ever so just, it would be sectarian to make it a test as is done. The more truth Christians profess to have, the guiltier they are if they forget and ignore the members of Christ who in general know scarce anything of the church, of their own relationship to it, and of their consequent duties. It becomes those who know these things in their measure to act in a spirit of lowly grace toward such as know them not. And so those acted who first and most deeply learnt from the scriptures how the children of God should walk in the midst of Christendom fallen and departed from His will, broken up into sects (misnamed churches), great or small. For themselves they fell back on the truth of God's assembly surviving the failure, claiming true-hearted obedience, and open to all that are Christ's, were they but two or three gathered to His name.

This is in no way to become a sect, because it abandons sectarianism for the ground of His church, and contemplates in faith and love all members of Christ's body, save such as are or justly ought to be under discipline. But the self-same principle demands our owning and receiving in the Lord's name all godly-walking saints who desire to remember Him, notwithstanding their ignorance of the church and consequent inability to judge denominationalism. Hence it was ever felt a privilege to welcome all saints walking with God according to their measure, unless they were tolerating plain heterodoxy preached in the place they frequented. (For if they held it themselves, there could be no question). This were ungodliness, at least as pronounced as any other iniquity.

Some excellent brothers who detest laxity have wavered as to this open-hearted attitude toward saints in the denominations, especially from 1849 and since. Such hesitation however is groundless. Largeness of heart is as right as laxity is bad. The neutrality which characterises a party then and subsequently has to be met on its own ground, to which 2 John distinctly applies, with other scriptures. But this is no reason for swerving from a first principle of scripture and denying to saints of God that to which grace entitles them, as no less members of Christ than ourselves. The denial is itself a false and sectarian thought, unless it be for fundamental evil, and betrays ignorance as to the one body, in defence of which it is mistakenly invoked. It is the more manifestly unsound, because not a few already received know little or nothing of the body and are therefore weak in fulfilling their responsibilities. It is lack of spiritual intelligence, because it awards to true thoughts or fidelity what is really due to the relationship of Christ's members, and therefore puts an unintended slight on His name and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 11: 17). You are not intelligent, if you set up knowledge and attainment, instead of Christ, as the title.

But this new-fangled party goes to the utmost in unitedly rejecting Christ's members at large, and claims for itself exclusively all part and lot in God's church now on earth. No saints do they receive unless they are decided to follow themselves. They are self-condemned, being despisers of Christ's members, who may be more intelligent and spiritual and separate to the Lord in every way, but are rejected in principle because they utter not their Shibboleth. Nothing more ignorant, nothing more presumptuous; and the more so, as they are on the same ground of indifference to Christ's truth and glory as the leavened lump which was known for more than 40 years ago for its openness to evil.

Thirdly, their attempt to invest elders with authority is a mere sectarian assumption. According to scripture apostles chose elders in each assembly, as the Holy Ghost led them, either directly, or, as in the case of Titus, one commissioned by an apostle to appoint elders in a definite sphere. Never do we find any minister without such a commission doing such a work; still less do we hear of the assembly choosing elders.* Calvin, Beza, and others have laboured to draw up the latter brief; but it is labour lost. Scripture not only does not indicate the least trace of such a practice, but excludes the theory by the proof that such local charges required apostolic authority, direct or indirect. But there is ample provision otherwise for edification and order as every Christian may read in Rom. 12: 3-8; 1 Cor. 12; 1 Cor. 16: 15-16; Eph. 4: 7-16; 1 Thess. 5: 12-22; Heb. 13: 7, 24; 1 Peter 4: 10, 11; 3 John 5-8. The Holy Spirit, sent down to be with us for ever, fails in nothing, to glorify the Lord and care for His work in every needed way. No doubt, the pretension to imitate the apostles in ordaining, without their power or authority, is in no way peculiar to the new party, but just a falling into the prevalent tradition of Christendom; but here it is the more reprehensible, because they assume to reject all such errors, while in fact they only retrograde less excusably, The only right walk, in the present broken state of Christendom, is in obedience with all humiliation. For ought we not to feel that sin brought about the scattering, which is only increased by, the claim of all authority or power we have not?

* The assembly might choose men in whom they confided to administer in temporal things; but as the Lord gave gifts in the work, so He chose; while the apostles He authorised could authorise for a local  charge.

NOTE TO "THE LATEST SECT."

(B. T., p. 368, col. 2.)

As a leader of this movement declares that they do not "appoint" elders, the writer in the B.T. feels bound to accept and repeat the disavowal. It is not denied that they claim to have "elders," and insist strongly on their authority, as one of their cherished and distinctive tenets. Others who make a similar claim, though not with the same pretension, have a solemn form of appointment, which probably led one to suppose it in their case virtually, if not formally. It looks rather like self-appointment.

Now it is indisputably according to scripture that the apostle did "choose" elders church by church (Acts 14: 23), and that Titus was apostolically commissioned to "appoint" or establish elders city by city in Crete. This was "God's way for His people having bishops." It was not a question only of such qualities as 1 Tim. 3 lays down, but of adequate authority appointing them. Scripture only recognises as presbyters men thus inaugurated, Whatever their qualities, they were only eligible for elders without or before that; but elders scripturally they were not till so chosen. It is well to know, honour, and obey those who have the requisite traits, as we hear enjoined in 1 Cor. 16, 1 Thess. 5, and elsewhere. But they were not called elders, nor ought to be so, until duly established as such. Clearly therefore to dispense with this is not subjection to scripture. The brethren of the new movement offend against God's word in pretending to "elders" in their midst without the essential title of a valid appointing authority.

Not to appoint, then, would be right, if they did not claim to have "elders" scripturally entitled to rule. To appoint now is altogether invalid, because they have not the requisite apostle or his delegate so charged. Hence to claim "elders" according to scripture without the due appointing power is contrary to scripture and presumptuous. The paper on "Bishops and Deacons," in the little vol. of Addresses is an evasion as to this and inconsistent also; for it asserts in pp. 90, 91 what refutes p. 93.

A gift from the ascended Christ made one responsible to exercise it, evangelist, pastor, or teacher. Gifts as in 1 Cor. 12 and Eph. 4 needed no appointing authority; but, if scripture is to decide and govern, the local charge of an elder did. It is therefore evil to set 1 Tim. 3 or any other text against Acts. 14: 23 and Titus 1: 5. The one may be "the only instance where we have the apostles pointing out elders." But this one is as conclusive to faith as ever so many. And why use men's mistake about Timothy to enfeeble the certainty that Titus was delegated to appoint elders in Crete? Does either one or other give licence now to claim "elders" without analogous appointment? To do the work without that claim is what we see of old at Corinth and Thessalonica; it is accordingly sanctioned of God as the right, humble, and comely way when we have neither apostle nor delegate to appoint. So Christians have long learnt and practised; whereas the device of the new movement on their own showing is baseless pretension as well as retrograde. They might and ought to have known better, but for self-importance, which hinders true intelligence of God's mind, never more needed than in a day of ruin. To dispense with due appointment is as wrong as to unduly appoint.

Letter on the Lord's Supper.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. N1, p. 285-288.)

Dear brethren in Christ,

I salute you in the Lord, having learnt that you have received the gospel by faith; and that you have left the world-church to follow Christ, not the tradition of men, whether Romanist or Protestant, You have been called to liberty. Hold it firmly then, and be not drawn anew under a yoke of bondage. Though your faces are unknown to me in the flesh, I have not ceased to pray for you since the day that I heard of your earnest desire to celebrate the Lord's Supper in a manner conformed to scripture.

Allow me to write to you a few words on a subject so dear to our hearts and so important for the glory of Christ. In Christendom some regard the Lord's Supper as the principal means of obtaining life eternal; others neglect it, far preferring a fine discourse.

What says the apostle of the Gentiles? "I have received of the Lord that which also I have delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and, when he had given thanks, broke it, and said, This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me. Likewise also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread and drink the cup, ye announce the Lord's death till he come" (1 Cor. 11: 23-26). The best text is here followed and translated faithfully.

The evangelist preaches the good news of God; he proclaims the gift of life eternal and remission of sins to all such as believe in Jesus. The pastor and teacher, publicly and privately, tells the whole counsel of God to the faithful; that they may be built up in the truth and filled with the knowledge of His will, so as to walk worthily of the Lord and to please Him in all respects.

But as often as the children of God take the Supper in accordance with the Lord's institution, they announce corporately the capital truth of Christianity, "the Lord's death till He come." Doubtless, when thus gathered together, they read God's word prayerfully; with adoration in the Spirit they praise the grace of the Father and the Son; but in the midst of all else we may say that the Supper has a very distinct voice. The death of the Lord is there remembered; and the believers announce His death every time they are partakers of the Supper. It is true of those whose voice is not heard in the assembly, yea, even if some were dumb. What an immense privilege, dear brethren! Jesus alone could confer it on us, Jesus exclusively in virtue of His sacrifice, so precious to God, and so efficacious to blot out our sins.

Before those symbols, faith recognises that all was evil on our part, but sovereign grace on the part of God. We feel profoundly humbled, and yet more by our Saviour's love and Hi., death than by our own sins, numerous and shameful as they were. There Christ in His death is the real and direct object of our souls. This it is that attracts and suffices us, that absorbs our minds and fills our hearts. The Son loves us, as does the Father too; and we honour the Son as we honour the Father. But it is Jesus, the Son of God and the Son of man, Who alone suffered for our sins, the Just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God. And God in His wisdom has here willed our joy, founding a feast on the great Sacrifice, a feast the most blessed on earth, where in communion one with another, we recall the death of Jesus. We there proclaim also the unity of the body of Christ, with thanksgiving to Him Who loves us without bound or end to the glory of God the Father.

Search the scriptures, and scrutinise the ways of God from the beginning to the end as they are therein made known to us: you will find that, in fact, as in divine purpose, the person of Jesus, the Second man, eclipses all others born of woman ; and Jesus is also the Last Adam. There is, there can be, none comparable with Him. He answers to all the thoughts, to all the affections, and to all the counsels of God. All the acts of Jesus are perfect, each in its place; yet is there one which is distinguished from the rest and rises above all. It is "the Lord's death." There was nothing but evil and pride in the creature. We were even conceived in sin, we were dead in sins, one quite as another. But in Christ God in His love went down below our sins to take them away; and Christ is exalted above all to send us pardon and peace. Where sin abounded, grace much more abounded; that, as sin reigned in death, so also might grace reign through righteousness unto life eternal by Jesus Christ our Lord.

On this basis of righteousness God sends the good news of His grace in all the creation that is under heaven. The same Lord of all is rich toward all that call on Him. Whoever believes in Jesus is justified by Him. Thus it is that God saves. And the Supper is the privilege of the saved, not the means of saving; it is the happy portion of those who believe and know that they have life eternal (1 John 2: 12; 1 John 5: 12). As for such as believe not in the Saviour, they remain responsible for His death, as well as all other sins of theirs; but for those that believe in Him, their sins are forgiven for His name's sake, themselves are justified by faith. So speaks the word of God. We receive now the end of our faith, soul-salvation (1 Peter 1); by-and-by at His coming our bodies will be saved (Rom. 8).

Also the Lord instituted His Supper, to which He invites all that are His. His name is their passport and guarantee. His Supper is the constant feast for the family of God: they break the bread, they drink the cup, in remembrance of Christ. Before inaugurating this feast, Jesus had already in His view the dangers His own must meet, the difficulties they have to surmount, the decline and the fall of Christian profession; and He had consoled the disciples with those words of love, "Where two or three are gathered together unto My name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt. 18: 20). This is His real presence; it is our need, and His assurance. His word ever abides, His love never fails.

The Supper then is the common privilege conferred by Christ on all His members, excepting those that justly incur His discipline for bad morals or evil doctrine. If the blessed institution of the Lord is perverted or neglected in Christendom, none the less does it subsist in all its reality for such as adhere to scripture; and faith appropriates it when observed accordingly, which alone carries the stamp of divine authority. In man's hands with this institution were soon mixed worldly elements, which altered its character so that it was no longer His. Nevertheless His Supper is not lost for those who submit in humility to the revealed will of our Lord. When the Corinthians tampered with its nature, the apostle (ver. 20) denied it to be the Lord's Supper, It became their own supper, not His.

The Lord's Supper is not a question of administration or of presidency; still less is it a ceremony wherein the priest stands between the faithful and God. "The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth" (John 4). The Lord Jesus is the sole High Priest; and we who believe are His house. God no longer has, as in Israel, a people His yet without. "Through Him (Christ) we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father." The Epistle to the Hebrews teaches explicitly (Heb. 7 and Heb. 10) that, the priesthood being changed, there is also of necessity a change of the law; and that as holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, we have full liberty to enter into the holies by the blood of Jesus, the veil being rent and the two now making only one.

Reversing the Jewish rites generally, the Supper is a "Communion," and even specifically the communion. It has nothing of a ministerial charge. "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, the many, are one bread, one body; for the whole of us partake of the one bread" (1 Cor. 10: 16, 17).

Therefore scripture, as all may easily see, leaves the Supper open. In presence of the Head, the distinctions among Christians vanish from view. It is good for the most honoured servants to have a time and place to efface themselves in the presence of Jesus; this time and this place are found in celebrating the Supper. After thanks are given, one breaks the bread and cats in remembrance of Him; and a similar thing with the cup. He gave it to them, we read (Mark 14: 23), and they all drank of it. For the believer it is the most simple, the most touching, and the most solemn of observances. How incomparable an occasion to contemplate the infinite humiliation and the perfect grace of our Saviour! What happiness for the saint to rejoice, with all saints round him in spirit, not only in their blessings, but in His presence, the Blessed and the Blesser, conscious that they are objects of perfect love to the Father and the Son, and knowing all things in the power of the Holy Spirit Who dwells in us! (1 John 4.)

There is also in the Lord's Supper a moral bearing on which the apostle insists, because of the profane levity of some at Corinth. Let us never forget it. "Therefore whosoever eateth the bread or drinketh the cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But let each prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup; for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment against himself, not discerning the body. Therefore are many weak and sick among you, and some fall asleep. But if we discerned ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world" (1 Cor. 11: 27-32). That is not the damnation of unbelievers, but a judgment which the Lord exercises at present over His own. They had treated the holy feast unworthily; they had not distinguished His body, for this is what the breaking of bread means. Accordingly the Lord now judges those who fail to discern themselves. In view of His supper, in remembrance of the Lord's death, each of His own is called to search himself, and thus to eat and drink: if not, he does it unworthily, and this is irreverence toward the Lord Who judges those that do not judge themselves. But even in this case it is not His eternal judgment. On the contrary it is His chastening, "in order that we should not be condemned with the world."

As for the time when the Supper should be celebrated, it is clearly indicated in Acts 20: 7, "And the first day of the week, when we gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed to them," etc. His discourse was a great boon, but purely casual, The Supper, in which the breaking of bread took place, was a thing fixed, not only for the disciples at Troas, but for all the saints wherever they might be. The confessedly right reading is "when we were gathered together," here implying that "the first of the week" was the day now settled for the Supper everywhere. At Pentecost and for some time after, the saints broke bread every day "at home" (not of course in the temple), because all the blessed of the Lord were then found in the same city — Jerusalem. But this passed away when the call of God's grace went forth and souls believed everywhere. In Acts 20: 7 we have the regular order henceforth applicable to the church anywhere, as recognised by the Holy Spirit. It is for us, in the evil day, to act in faith and in obedience, with thanksgiving. Have faith in God, beloved.

Ever yours in Christ the Lord, W. K.

The Light of the World.

Matt. 5: 14-16.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. N5, p. 116-117.)

Here the character of the position for the disciples goes beyond "the salt of the earth." For this was expressive of righteousness; a righteousness not outward like that of the scribes and Pharisees (which sought reputation of man, and was little beyond the pride of a Stoic), but lowly and real as in God's sight. Whereas "the light of the world" is the shining forth of grace, and inseparable from the confession of Christ in that respect. Salt preserves, but does not make everything manifest as the light does.

"Ye are the light of the world: a city set upon a hill-top cannot be hid. Nor do they light a lamp, and put it under the dry measure but on the lamp-stand, and it shineth unto all that are in the house. Thus let your light shine before men, so that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father that is in the heavens" (vers. 14-16).

"The world" had no such special dealing of God as "the earth." There moral darkness had reigned, which the light was to dispel as far as He gave it scope and power. Redemption, Christ's death, resurrection, and ascension, would give the light a penetrating energy unknown before. For such was the deadly pall which overhung the favoured land during our Lord's earthly sojourn that, contrary to nature, the darkness resisted the light, and "comprehended not" even the True Light in His person. But when He rose victorious over all the power of the wicked one, the old commandment became the new, and was true not in Him only but in us, Christians, because the darkness is quite passing and the true light already shines.

This is confirmed by the figure which follows and carries the truth out farther. "A city set, or situated, upon a hill-top cannot be hid." The sphere is no longer the circumscribed area of the earth or land, but, as for another aspect we read, "the field is the world." The God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ would make Himself known at least in testimony, before power effectuates His will far and wide. As perfect love He came down in Christ to man; but the world knew Him not, and His own people received Him not, yea insisted that He should be crucified. Now He sets Christ in the heavenlies above every principality and authority and power and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that to come, and put all things under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church which is His body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all. And they, His disciples, are the light of the world: a city set upon a hill-top cannot be hid. Once darkness, they are now light in the Lord, and responsible to walk as children of light, corporately as well as individually. For the fruit of light is in all goodness, and righteousness, and truth. They are to prove what is agreeable to the Lord, and to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness but rather to reprove them.

Men treat their light more fairly than Christendom does the light of which our Lord spoke. Men shrink from natural darkness, its inconveniences, and its dangers; and when they light a lamp, they do not put it under the dry measure (which of course would quite hide it) but on the lampstand, and it shines to all that are in the house. But Christendom fears the light that exposes its neglect of scripture, and of the Holy Spirit's guidance, and of Christ who is and ought to be the all. Therefore, Christianity and the church being sadly misrepresented, all the privileges and duties suffer in the same proportion; as the Lord and the apostles prepare us to expect. But the faithful are bound with humility yet in courage of faith to let the light shine; for it is not of self, but the confession of Christ in everything going forth as God has taught them, whether men hear or forbear. It is meant by our Lord to shine to all that are in the house, and beyond too.

Do we want to make known God as He is? Christ is His image and alone perfectly represents Him. Would we show Him as Father? He the Son declares Him and is the way to Him. Would we see man as he ought to be? It is not on the first man we must look but on the Second. Would we measure the true wickedness of Satan? It is in his direct, constant, personal hatred of and antagonism to Jesus the Son of God. Do you crave the sight of life eternal in the midst of this evil and guilty world? There it is in word and deed fully revealed in the same Lord Jesus. Would you consider death in all its solemn nature? It is He who manifests it. Would you look at life in risen power? Jesus alone and perfectly discloses it. Do you wish a true sight of the highest heaven? It is where the Father received Him with the fullest love and glory. Would we warn of hell? It is the everlasting tire, in which all that despise, hate and reject Him must have their portion with the devil and his angels. Christ is the light that makes every thing and one manifest.

So it might be shown in the whole range of privilege and duty and from the least thing to the greatest. He is the measure of love and holiness, of service and worship, of devotedness, of suffering, and of communion. He is the standard of sin and of judgment no less than of righteousness. And as the Father is only known through and in Him, so the Spirit acts to make all good in the believer, that we might be delivered from all our thoughts and imaginations, and be led into all truth and kept.

"Thus let your light shine before men, so that they may see your good (or, comely, καλὰ) works, and glorify your Father that is in the heavens." This is practical Christianity in its outgoing, as the salt is the preservative power of purity which we always need to have in ourselves. It is to confess and live Christ, not only in secret which is essential and so pressed elsewhere before Him who sees there, but also truly and unflinchingly before men. Benevolent works are no test, and are not what Christ looked for and here expresses. He spoke of works excellent in the sense of what suits the Father and the Son, and of which the Holy Spirit is the sole power in us. It is not His mind to let our good works shine before men, but our light, or confession of Himself in word and deed.

Nor can anything other or short of this secure the end He proposes. For I might dole out all my goods in what men call charity, or deliver up my body to be burned without confessing Christ, and therefore without in any way glorifying the Father. There is neither light nor love without the faith and the confession of Christ; and self might thereby be honoured, but not the Father. Whereas let the light of Christ shine in your confession; and when men see right works in accordance with the will of God, they glorify not you but the Father who is the spring and aim of what you do.

Christian Life in the Spirit.

Philippians 2, 3.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. 9, p. 371-375.)

The whole of this epistle contains very little doctrine (doctrine being just alluded to in Phil. 3); but it gives us, in a remarkable manner, the experience of a christian life in the power of the Holy Ghost. It is full of blessing in that character — the life above seen down here in a man through the power of the Spirit of God. So much is this the case that the very word "sin" is not found in it. When he speaks of justification and righteousness, it is not in contrast with sin, but rather with human and legal righteousness. The flesh was there. At the very time Paul wrote the epistle he had got the thorn in the flesh to prevent it from acting; but we see in him one rising above the flesh and all hindrances, that Christ might be magnified in him. Whether to live or die, he did not know; he would have liked to be gone, but in love to the church he says, Better for you to remain; and so, counting upon Christ and knowing it is better, he knows he will remain. He knows how to abound and how to suffer need; he is pressing towards the mark for the prize — it is the only thing he has to do.

The graciousness of a Christian is in Philippians 2, the energy in Philippians 3, the absence of care in Philippians 4; but it is all by the power of the Spirit of God. It is well for us to lay it to heart. We are the epistle of Christ known and read of all men — an epistle written not in stone, but in the fleshy tables of the heart. We are set as Christians to be a letter of recommendation of Christ before the world. Yet it gives us the fullest and blessedest confidence towards God if we take that ground; for, if we are in the presence of the world for God, Christ is in the presence of God for us. His work has perfectly settled that question, and He is every moment appearing in the presence of God for us.

We are loved as He is loved. In every shape in which we can look at it, all is a fixed settled thing according to the counsels of God in grace; it is in a poor earthen vessel, but our relationship is settled, all that belonged to the old man cleared away, and all that belongs to Christ, the new Man, our positive portion. Not only are our debts paid, but we are to be conformed to the image of His Son, and He has obtained for us the glory which is His own. "The glory which thou hast given me I have given them." He has given Himself on the cross to meet what we were, and He has obtained for us all that He has. This is the way Christ gives — not as the world. If the world gives, they have it not any longer; but Christ never gives in that way — never gives away, but brings us into all He If I light up one candle by another, I lose nothing of the first; and such is the way He gives. I speak of blessed principles. "My peace I give unto thee . . . . that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves." "Thy words thou hast given me I have given them . . . . that the love wherewith thou hast loved me maybe in them." He became a man on purpose to bring us as men into the same glory as Himself. That relationship we are brought into already. "I go to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God." If I look at righteousness and holiness, I am as He is; if at the Son, I am before the Father as a son; and, is we hive borne the image of the earthy, we shall bear the image of the heavenly.

The work that entitles us to this is absolutely and totally finished. The Spirit makes us first feel our need in order to our possessing it, but the work is finished. In order to get our path clear, we must see where He has brought us. I cannot expect anyone to behave as my child, if be is not my child; you must be in the place before you can have the conduct suited to that place, or be under the obligations which belong to it; and it is this last part I desire to look at a little tonight. "You hath He reconciled," not brought halfway: as to relationship, brought into Christ. That is all. Through the work of the cross He put away our sins, and when He had done it, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. He finished the work which His Father gave Him to do; and in Hebrew the Spirit contrasts Christ's work with that work of the priests which was never finished so that they never sat down.

We are perfect as pertaining to the conscience. A blunder often made is confounding perfection as to our state with perfection as to our conscience. When once we have understood the work of Christ, we are perfect as regards the conscience. If I look up to God, I can have no thought of His ever imputing sin to me again, or I could not have peace with God; and this is so true that it is said, if this work was not perfectly done, Christ must suffer again. But He cannot drink that dreadful cup again, the very thought of which made Him sweat great drops of blood. If there is any sin still to be put away (I speak now of believers), Christ must suffer again, and this can never be. God has set Him at His right hand as having finished the work: "I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do; now, O Father, glorify thou me." He will deal with His enemies, no doubt, when He rises up in judgment; but, as to believers, He is sitting down because He has no more to do. I am not speaking now, of course, of the daily grace He ministers to them. It is settled, and settled with this double aspect that, the purpose of God being to bring us into the same glory as His Son, the work of Christ not only cleared away our guilt but obtained that glory for us. We have not got it yet; but the work which is our title to it is finished, though we have not yet the glory to which it is our title. We are anointed and sealed with the Spirit, and He is the earnest of our inheritance. We are to the praise of the glory of His grace, but not yet to the praise of His glory, which will be when He comes the second time to bring us into the glory which His work obtained for us when He came the first time. And our life stands between the two — the cross and the glory.

We are here in this world, beloved friends, in the midst of temptations, snares, and difficulties, everything around us tending to draw us away; but the power of God is in us. We know that we are sons of God, though the world knows us not. "It doth not yet appear what we shall be, but we know when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; and every one that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure." The practical effect of beholding the glory of God is to change us into the same image.

When Moses came down from the mountain, they were afraid to look in his face, because the law required what they had not to give; but now I see the glory which excels, the glory in Christ, which is infinitely brighter. But the glory in the face of Jesus Christ is the witness that all my sins are put away. That which shone in the face of Moses required what man ought to have been as a child of Adam, but it came to man who was a sinner. It required righteousness, and pronounced a curse if it was not there. Now I see it in the face of Him who bore my sins in His own body on the tree. The Christian sees the Man who died for his sins now in the glory as Man, a witness that the work is done, and a testimony to the place unto which He is bringing us; and, meanwhile, we have the testimony of the Holy Ghost that our souls may be perfectly clear as to this.

That is where the believer is set, resting in entire confidence upon the efficacy of the work of Christ, and, upon the other hand, waiting for God's Son from heaven, converted for this: "Ye yourselves as men who wait for their Lord." Standing here is perfect liberty, for where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty.

And here we have the proper experience of a Christian as led by the Spirit of God. We have in Philippians 3 a Christian as to his walk, Christ having laid hold of him for that; as in 2 Corinthians 5: "He that hath wrought us for the self-same thing," etc. He has wrought us for that, not only cleared our sins. He sees Christ in glory before him (Paul had really seen Him there), and that was what he was going to get. "This one thing I do . . . . I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." What he was doing was to win Christ. He had not yet obtained Him, or got into the glory; but it was the only thing he was doing in the world: his whole life was that.

In Philippians 2, on the other hand, Christ is looked at, not as going up to glory, but as coming down to the cross; and here we see the graciousness of His character. By this our hearts and affections are won, and we are formed into the likeness of this graciousness. And thus we have the two great things that govern the Christian: the glory that is before him, and the grace that has been shown him.

One word as to verses 12, 13: "Not as in my presence only," etc. Often this "fear and trembling" is used to cast a doubt upon our relations with God. Yet it is not this we have to fear about. But we are in the midst of temptations, everything around us, the power of Satan distracting and turning the heart from Christ; and he presses upon them that, now he is absent, they must take care. He had worked for them when he was with them, he had met the craft of the enemy in wisdom and apostolic power; but he was in prison when he wrote this. He says, "Therefore, now, you must fight for yourselves;" but this is in contrast with his fighting for them; and they were to do it, for it was GOD that worked in them. The contrast is between (not God and man working, but) Paul and the Philippians. God it was who did work in them, were Paul there; and, if they had lost Paul, God who wrought in them was still there.

But, then, what a solemn thing for us, beloved friends, if we have the sense of this, that we are left down here to make good our path to glory against Satan and all the difficulties of the way! It is enough to make us grave. A false step will throw me into the snares of Satan. I have to be serious; I have the promise of being kept, but I need to be serious.

I have spoken of the finished work, but there is another thing that exercises us: how far can we look at the flesh and say we have done with it? And this is where the practical difficulty comes, if you are in earnest and desiring to walk in fellowship with the Father and the Son. I ought never to walk after the flesh. The existence of the flesh does not give me a bad conscience, but if I allow it to act it does. Whenever I let even an evil thought in, communion is interrupted. It is not that the flesh is gone as a matter of fact; not that there is nothing in us which Satan can tempt, but there is power in us not to lot it act. The flesh is not changed. The word is as plain as over it can be as to what the flesh is. If left to itself, it becomes so bad that God had to destroy the world. Noah, saved out of the old world, gets drunk. The law is given, and the flesh is not subject to it. Christ comes in grace, and the flesh crucifies Him. The Holy Ghost is given, and the flesh lusts against it; and we get the ease of one in the third heaven, and the flesh ready to puff him up. The flesh could not be mended, but he gets a thorn in it. But that is no reason why I should ever let it act; it never ought.

Scripture does not speak of our being conformed to Christ here; it says we are to walk as He walked. But the place of conformity to Christ is the glory, and "he that hath this hope in him purifieth himself;" that is to say, he is not pure, he has not attained. The place where I shall be like Christ is in glory. He has obtained it for me; and then, my eye looking upon Him by faith, I am changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Lord the Spirit.

I find this the great truth which Scripture does give me: not only that Christ died for my sins, but that I died with Christ. In the epistle to the Romans, in the first part, you get all the sins dealt with, the great truth of Christ being substituted for us on the cross — bearing our sins in His own body on the tree, He is delivered for our offences; and, in the subsequent part taken up, is the question, not of sins, but of sin — not the fruit, but the tree, and we are shown not to be in the flesh if the Spirit of Christ is in us.

I do not live by the life of Adam, but by the life of Christ; and this is where the total difference is for the Christian. But it is not only that I have a new life as quickened by Christ, the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, nor that He has been crucified for me so that my guilt is removed, but I am crucified with Christ.

In Colossians we read, "Ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God" — therefore dead in this world. This is God's declaration of our state as Christians. In Romans, "Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Christ, that the body of sin might be destroyed." "In that he died, he died unto sin . . . . wherefore reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God (not in Adam, but) through (or in) Jesus Christ our Lord." This is faith's estimate of it, and this is where you find real deliverance and freedom from the bondage of sin. It is "no condemnation" not to them whose sins Christ bore, but "to them that are in Christ Jesus." God condemned sin in the flesh: He did not forgive it, He condemned it. If I get the law, it condemns me; but Christ — does He condemn me? No; for He has taken the condemnation for me, and in Him God has condemned sin in the flesh, and I reckon myself dead because it was in death He did so. Christ's death is, as all that He has wrought, available to me; and therefore I reckon myself dead. In 2 Corinthians we get the carrying this out in practice; " Always bearing about in the body the dying of Jesus, that the life also of Jesus may be made manifest in your mortal bodies." And then he speaks of the exercises which God sends for our good, to test this realisation in us and make it effectual: "Always delivered unto death," etc. We all fail for want of watchfulness, but that is what our life ought to be.

Suppose I have got a man in my house who is always at mischief. I cannot turn him out, but if I lock him up he can do no harm; he is not changed, but I am free in the house. If I leave the door open, he is at mischief again; but we are to keep him locked up, this is what we are called to do — what God calls us to do. The world will not have this; it will mend and improve man, cultivate the old man, as if it could produce good fruit, because it does not see how bad it is. The world would dig about it and dung it. That has been tried. God cuts it down and grafts us with Christ. This condemning and cutting down was in the cross of Christ; not, of course, that He had any sin, but as made sin for us; and I know, not only my sins cleared away, but I am crucified with Christ, and my life hid with Him in God.

And this is available for power, if I carry it about in my heart. Supposing we honestly held ourselves dead; can Satan tempt a dead man? But in order for this, it must not be putting one's armour on when the danger is there; but, living with Christ, my heart is full of Him.

Would a woman who had heard that her child was killed or hurt at the other end of the town be thinking of what she saw in the shop windows as she ran toward him? No; she would have just enough sense to find her way. If your hearts were fixed like that on Christ, nine-tenths of the temptations that come upon you would be gone: you would be thinking of something else, and outward things would only bring out sweetness, as they did with Christ; for we are never tempted above that which we are able.

Saints, if in earnest, have got to realise not only the putting away of their sins, but also the having died with Christ; and this delivers from the power of sin.

We see in Philippians 3, a Christian with one object: knowing Christ has laid hold of him for glory, and his heart is running after Christ. I am to have no other object, though I may have many things to do. He is "in all" as the power of life, and He is "all" as the object of that life. He is all and in all. (See Colossians 3: 12.) This is again summed up in the latter part of Galatians 2: "Not I, but Christ liveth in me;" and then the object: "I live by the faith of the Son of God." Then there is the sense of His perfect love: "Who loved me and gave himself for me." The heart is fixed on Him, and follows hard after Him.

There is another thing — the spirit and character in which we walk down here; and this we see in Christ coming down. When I have got this blessed place, Christ my life, holy boldness, yea, to know we are sitting in Him in heavenly places, the place a Christian is called to (a wonderful thing, I grant) is to go out from God and be an epistle of Christ. I joy in God, have got the blessedness of what He is, and go on in communion with Him to show out His character in the world. This is in Philippians 2.

Ought I to walk as Christ walked? Every Christian will own that: "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus." Suppose my soul has tasted this perfect love, and it is well we should recollect it, God's love shed abroad in our hearts, and know, be conscious down here, that we are loved as Jesus was loved; for if I really know God as thus revealed in Christ, what do I believe about Him? What put it into God's heart to send Christ down here? He knew how He would be treated. Did the world? It would not have Him when He came. It was all in His own heart! Perfect love in His heart; the unsuggested origin of every blessing. What character did it take in Christ? Was it staying up in heaven and saying, "You behave well and come up here?" No! we all know that. But He who, in the form of God, in the very same glory, thought it no robbery to be equal with God (mark the contrast with the first Adam), made Himself of no reputation; and what brought this about? Purest love, love coming to serve.

For Christ took the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of man. He emptied Himself of all the glory — the very opposite of the first Adam. Divine love came to serve; a new thing for God — the only new thing. And this is what I learn. I know this love, I know that I am made the righteousness of God in Him; so that I stand before Him, and then I come out from Him towards the world to bring out this blessed character. I have learned the love, and now I must come out and show it. "Be ye followers of God as dear children." You are children: that is all settled. Now you go and give yourself as Christ did, in whom this love is known — a sacrifice to God, and for us. The spirit of love is always lowliness, because it makes itself a servant. I get the grace that brought Christ down. It is very difficult for us to bow; I know that, beloved friends. He "went to another village." There was perfect meekness; but it tries men — some more than others; but the moment perfect love is seen, it comes and takes the lowest place to serve others. Paul endured all things for the elect's sake, that they might obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

And here I find what is entirely beyond law. Law tells me to love others as myself; grace tells me to give myself up entirely for my neighbour or for anybody. Did not God forgive you? You go and forgive your enemies. Is He kind to the unthankful and the evil? You go and be the same. It tests all the fibres of our hearts, all the pride and vanity and selfishness that are in us. You like doing your own will.

"He humbled himself and became obedient to death;" He goes so low down that He could go no lower; "even to the death of the cross." But, then, "God hath highly exalted him." He was the first grand example of "he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."

Blessed be His name! He will never give up His service: it is the very thing He shows us, and in which He would that our hearts should see the perfection of His grace. It is what He is doing in John 13. He had been their servant down here, but now they might think that there was an end of His service. No. He says, I cannot stop with you, but I must have you with me. "If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me." He does a slave's work; and this is what He does now. We pick up dirt as we go — there is no excuse for it; but then is Christ up there, the Advocate with the Father. And, even in the time of glory, "He will gird himself and come forth and serve them;" He will be there to minister the blessing Himself. Our hearts want to learn the perfections of that love in which He came always down, down, till He could come no lower.

Are we willing to walk in that path? No one would deny we ought; but are we disposed to do it? Would our hearts be glad of the power of that grace which, holding the flesh as dead, can say, Here I am in the power of that love to walk as everybody's servant? We are to esteem others better than ourselves. If my heart is frill of Christ, I judge myself for everything not like Christ: I judge the evil in myself because I see the blessedness in Christ. But what do I see in my brother? I see Christ in him. The effect of being full of Christ is to make me think little of self and much of my brother: there is no real difficulty about it if one is.

"Do all things without murmuring," etc. If you take every single part of this passage, you will find it a statement of what Christ was here. He was blameless and harmless, the Son of God, without rebuke in the midst of this evil world; He was the light of the world, and He was the word of life.

If I reckon the flesh dead, only the life of Christ conies out; if only this came out, we should be a very wonderfully blessed kind of people! To him that hath shall more be given. If I yield myself to God as one alive from the dead, I have got fruit here unto holiness, as well as fulness of blessing hereafter.

I would ask you, beloved friends, do you purpose to be Christians? Are you willing to yield yourselves to God as not having one bit of will of your own? There is power in Christ, not to say, "I am pure," but, always having my eye on Him, to purify myself.

The Lilies of the Field.

Matt. 6: 28-30.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. N5, p. 181-182.)

From the birds of the sky in vers. 26, 27, the Lord turns to the lilies of the field in vers. 28-30: a lesson against anxiety, the former in eating and drinking; the latter in raiment. Notoriously they comprise the two branches of ordinary living which so test the masses, not of mankind only, but of disciples, to whom He addressed Himself throughout His teaching on the mount. His disciples ought not to forget or distrust their heavenly Father by such doubts of His loving care over their daily wants.

"And why be anxious about a garment? Consider the lilies of the field how they grow: they toil not nor spin; but I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory was arrayed as one of these. But if God so clothe the herbage of the field, that is today, and tomorrow is cast into an oven, [shall he] not much more [clothe] you, O little of faith?

Here as He points, not to birds but to the flowers, He does not speak of sowing or reaping or storage, but of toiling and spinning: God cares for the birds without the one, and for the lilies without the other. Were not His children far more to their heavenly Father than either? Not only were they God's offspring as mankind universally are, but His children by grace through faith. It is not that sowing or reaping, toiling or spinning, might not be a duty, if they had to provide for themselves and their household, and could earn their supplies by these labours more readily than otherwise. Even in an unfallen world, Jehovah put Adam whom He had formed into the garden of Eden to till it and to guard it, when there was none to hire for the needful work, and he himself might happily employ his own hands,

Sin brought in sad change, not only for man's soul and body, but for the very ground on which he trod, as scripture plainly tells us. It was no longer easy and delightful work, but in toil or sorrow he must eat of it all the days of his life. And no wonder; since thorns also and thistles it should yield to him, only to be overcome by the sweat of his face in order to eat bread. If self will kick against the goad, it only aggravates the case; if the yoke (and it is not here grievous) be accepted, it is all the better for murmuring men. There is no deliverance from guilt and sin but through faith in Christ, to whom the Holy Spirit bears witness, and by whom He gives power to the believer. But for children as yet unconverted as well as adults in the same state, occupation is a merciful help, against the dangers of idleness and indulgence of lust and passion. Even for the faithful it is good, as declining to work where the person is without means is bad: so much so, that the apostle curtly lays it down, that if a man likes not to work, neither let him eat. This prescription, if duly administered, would in general prove a salutary medicine, and without fail.

Such idlers, apt to be busy-bodies too, are comparatively rare; but not so those who trouble themselves about their clothes. What! after being born of God, and now having redemption as well as life everlasting, and the Holy Spirit to take up our every need and difficulty, not only the Lord interceding for us, but the Father blessing who sent His only begotten Son to and for us when we had nothing but sins? And do souls so favoured distress themselves perhaps about clothes, and possibly fine clothes, beyond what becomes a Christian man, woman, or child?

What a rebuke from the herbage of the field, as our Lord interprets it! Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these lilies which, the more they are inspected and by the most powerful means, only the more eclipse the splendour of Israel's richest king. Yet that lavish beauty of form and colour was but a carpet spread for the feet of the poorest Israelite on one day, and on another was fuel for an oven. And this end of its glory was far from being an offence to the Lord. He, who was above all jealous for His Father's honour in His work uses the double fact to judge nature's anxiety about earthly things (were they as the lilies ever so beautiful to the eye, yet utterly evanescent too), to banish doubts and distress and unworthy desires, and to establish the heart in confidence of His Father's present, perfect, and loving care.

It was not the least in His mind to occupy the disciples with the birds of the sky or the lilies of the field as objects of their care, though not a few may abuse His allusions. Nor did He mean by His calling their attention to them, that they should treat cynically what evinces His interest in all the works of God's hand and the creatures of His will. His aim is that the disciples, under His holy notice of the incomparable goodness of God toward that which is so little in His eyes, should rise up to the Father above them all, and be assured of the considerate and constant love He bears to His own. Are they not peculiar objects of His counsels before a world was founded, now of infinite grace in Himself who for them died and rose, and at His crowning of glory, above not only the mightiest potentates of earth but also the highest principalities in the heavens? Are we to share the anxiety of those who know not God? He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all; how shall He not also with Him freely give us all things? No one was such a sufferer as Christ here below; yet who ever heard a complaint? and who can forget that, when rejected more and more where His mighty acts of goodness and His words of grace and truth still more wondrous were alike despised, and even He had to say, Woe, woe, at that season our Lord Jesus answering said, "I thank thee, Father,". . . and "even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight"? So the prophetic Ps. 16 attributes to Him the confession, "The lines are fallen to me in pleasant places; yea I have a goodly heritage." And so the apostle, who had the fellowship of His sufferings, and knew afflictions, persecutions, and want of all things beyond any other, is the very one who rises superior to all circumstances, and declares that God affords us all things richly for enjoyment. May we follow, though alas! how distantly, in like faith!

Notes of an Address on Matthew 24: 45 - 25: 13

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. N7, p. 354-357.)

You will observe that in the verses read there is no word about Jerusalem, Jews, or reference to the prophet Daniel, all of which are found in the preceding part, where we find the Lord using the disciples then present as a groundwork in speaking of those of the latter day. They were Jews though believers; and when God called those who were Gentiles, still they were Jews; and that state will be again. Now those who believe are one body, having to do with Christ and in heaven. The essence of Christianity is — "neither Jew nor Gentile." In the Old Testament, Jews were brought by grace into blessing by faith, and were to be the head of all nations. That remains to be accomplished, for now God has graven "Not my people" upon them. That is to be removed, and they treated not merely as son, but "firstborn." The first dominion will be Israel's, while all nations shall agree to it. A prefatory work will be in them as vessels of mercy. God is not now dealing with an earthly people at all. We believe in an earth-rejected, heavenly-glorified Christ, and are associated with Him there — "one spirit with the Lord," where "there is neither Greek nor Jew, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all and in all."

Now then you will notice the Lord began His great prophecy by dealing with His disciples as they were, and carried it on on that ground — Jewish ground — passing over all of heaven and Christ above in Matt. 24, up to the verses read tonight, because he was speaking of Jewish believers. Next we have Christians, because Christ is now glorified; they are His body, while He is the risen Head on high. This state of things is not to last, though the blessing and glory of it does. God's purpose is to have an earthly people and earthly peoples enjoying His favour, and with Christ their righteousness. God's purposes embrace both heavenly and earthly objects. Christ will be King over all the earth, though He is not called so with reference to Christians now. He is never called King of the church, and though we find the expression "King of saints" in Rev. 15: 3, yet, every scholar knows it is a mistake, and the Revisers, on the ground of testimony of MSS., gave it up, substituting "King of nations," a title quoted from Jer. 10: 7, where Jehovah is called so — a remarkable expression to find in a Jewish prophet, but who was compelled by the Holy Ghost thus to bring out God's purposes. God's purpose is to have a godly Jewish remnant, prepared to welcome the Lord, as there was one gathered around Him when He spoke this prophecy. Between these two groups Christianity and the church come in.

There is nothing said about the church here, though it is mentioned in another part of the Gospel. You find much about it in the Acts, Epistles, and Revelation, in the last of which its close is given making way for Jews and believing Gentiles, for there will be a little remnant of God-fearing Gentiles, and then all nations blessed as you have it in the last part of the prophecy. Between the two comes in the present profession of Christ, not necessarily reality. You will observe a marked difference in this section; it is all parable. Parables are very general ; they apply equally to any country; they have no local root, and so are particularly suitable in showing that new thing which God was about to do.

First, then, have a servant — a faithful and wise servant. All Christians are called to be so, though some specially so. A servant in the house is called to provide good and suited meat for the house. Every Christian shares that in a way, though some are more suited for that work than others. Responsibility is according to privilege.

What constitutes a servant according to the mind of God? Waiting for the Master That is what exactly suits a servant, and the Lord Himself was the perfect model. Christ was the true Hebrew Servant of Exodus 21. He served His time; the wife was given figuratively, and children also, but He was not content to go out. He loved the place of a servant for God's glory, and the service of poor wretched man. What place so good in this poor world? And then taken to the door-post and made a servant for ever. The Lord will never cease to be a servant. He is such now, though exalted. Now He is washing His disciples' feet, so often soiled by the mud of this world. Who is the great effectual Washer? Christ; and the Holy Ghost, too, has His part. Yet Christ is the Servant, and that because of perfect love. But for sin, no such service would be called for. Directly ruin takes place then the Saviour comes and takes that lowly part which no one else could take, and washes His disciples' feet. Now we ought to know the meaning of that, for each Christian needs the gracious Cleanser of our feet.

And when He comes and takes us to heaven, He is still the Servant. He comes forth to serve those whom He takes to heaven. Are we affected as we ought to be at the words? He said, "I am among you as he that serveth," when here; but even when eternity begins, and He delivers up the kingdom, He still keeps the place of subjection, because He never gives up manhood, and the place of man is service. He serves for ever. Thus He is, and is meant to be, the great pattern of the Christian. How is this answered to now? The Lord had to warn even apostles not to affect the grandees of this world — "neither be ye called benefactors," etc. — the complete contrast of Himself.

A "faithful servant" is one always waiting for Him; and He intimates that His coming would soon be forgotten, though the "evil servant" does not refer to it dogmatically. Denial of it is not supposed, but the evil servant says in his heart and tells by his conduct, "My lord delayeth his coming." The effect is everything unworthy — evil communications with evil people, assumption and presumption — the exact opposite of all in Christ. This is just the history of Christendom. In the second century there was no notion of the true place of Christ and Christianity and the hope of waiting for Him was lost. The Lord puts Himself into the parable — "Ye yourselves like men that wait for their lord." Like servants behind the door waiting for their Master, sure He is coming, but ignorant when. This is the only proper waiting for the Lord Jesus, carefully carried out in the Epistles, where the word is always "we which are alive," not they — "we," the servants behind the door waiting for the Lord. It is the unfaithful that say "they." Yet the apostle never said the Lord was coming in his day. It is all the exact truth, but the moment was concealed that we might be always waiting for Him. It is put very strongly here. There is only one servant; it is collective responsibility, and it is strikingly carried on to the evil servant. The collective testimony lost the hope, and when the hope was turned to Jewish from Christian, the foundation got lowered too; the evil servant was punished as a hypocrite, not merely as a man of the world.

The Lord next goes to another and different view — "ten" virgins are not "one." "Then shall the kingdom of heaven," etc. "Then," when judgment falls on the evil servant. He deals with other objects; it is another way of bringing out the utter failure of Christendom. The opening words of this chapter 25 are unique in the three parables which form the group. We find a general picture of Christendom from first to last. By Christendom I mean that which bears the name of Christ, whether truly or not. The kingdom of heaven is that new thing, not the kingdom on earth. If Christ is rejected in lower glory God brings in a higher one. If Jews reject, Gentiles are called. We have a picture here outside Judaism. All ten make a bright profession. All took torches (for the correct word is "torches," and quite distinct from the "lamps" in The Revelation). In eastern weddings the going in with the bride is always at night.

"Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom." This is the Christian hope again. From the start of Christendom the call was, Go forth to meet the Bridegroom from all below. If it was a Jew it was from the temple and its ritual, and that because an infinitely greater is there, and He the Bridegroom. Could God use a figure more striking to the heart than that He who died for our sins should be the Bridegroom. "They went forth"; a heavenly character was stamped on their work.

If a person were a Christian in Otaheite, he "went forth" to meet the Bridegroom as much as if at Jerusalem. The Gentiles "went forth" as much as the Jews. If the hope were of another kind, — say the coming of the judge — you could not use the expression "went forth." No person could "go forth" to meet his judge. But if you look at the creeds of Christendom, all forget the Bridegroom, all look for the judge, the One that will put on the darkest of caps, and will sentence not for time but for eternity. Not a word of that here. Here the hope of the Christian is put in the parabolic form of meeting the Bridegroom. Not fighting unbelievers, but the influence of divine love in the person of Christ. five wise and five foolish — these show their folly by having no oil. The torch would burn brightly for a very little while without oil. All go forth, but the difference exists even from early days. John, James, and all the later Epistles assume persons of dubious character in the professing church. But all at first go forth to meet the Bridegroom.

The "tarrying" in scripture is never used to delay the coming of the Lord. All the parables are so constructed that those, who went forth at first, meet Him. But while He tarried "all slumbered and slept"; the heavenly hope was given up. The early fathers all lost it. Sleep implies no longer going forth. You could not suppose they slept on their legs. They must have turned in somewhere; they departed from the will of the Lord and gave up "going forth." It is true that Jewish believers will carry the gospel of the kingdom as they flee from the enemy, but this is not the attractive power of the love of Christ.

"At midnight there was a cry made, Behold the Bridegroom." That cry is going forth now, and has been going forth some seventy years. People at the end of the former century waked up, but the cry was, Behold the judge, not, Behold the Bridegroom. Here persons knowing His love, or ought to, were in peace, and instead of alarm, they go forth to meet Him. In the year 600 they woke up in a fright, but the judge did not come, and they went to sleep again. Then in 1100 there was a great scarce that the end of the world had come. They woke up, built cathedrals, did much to propitiate the coming judge, but the Judge did not come, and they went faster to sleep than ever in the dark ages. All was dark, but what has taken place? Not merely the coming of Christ, but the gospel of God has been brought out more simply and clearly than at the Reformation; even all the reformers (unless it were Zwingle) held baptismal regeneration. There is no such notion in the word of God. This is not referred to to slight them, but to show that the gospel could not be taught in its fulness in connection with the idea that life is communicated by baptism. No, all are lost, and all require to be saved. Besides this, peace with God, redemption, new relationship, and the indwelling of the Holy Ghost are brought out and keep the heart from being afraid. Instead of going to meet the judge, if you know the gospel you know Christ bore the judgment and more. He loves me, yes, better than the angels. When the cry went forth, God wrought that hearts might go forth bounding to meet the Lord Jesus, knowing we are immeasurably dear to Him. This made the difference plain. The foolish virgins found no oil, and set to work in great earnestness to get it, as now in Christendom. People who once were card players and fox-hunters are now great for early Communion and outward forms. It is all an effort to get the oil, as there are frequent requests for those they know to be pious to pray for them, as did Simon Magus, instead of buying for themselves "without money" and "without price." And the solemn part is — the same spirit is found in all denominations!

W. K.

The Ministry and the Minister.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. N1, p. 284-285.)

It is on my mind to dwell a little upon the ministry of Christ as it is presented to us in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. The manner of presentation in Corinthians differs greatly from that in Ephesians. In the latter epistle we have the mystery unfolded of Christ and the church, and our heavenly blessings in association with Christ risen. In connection with this, ministry is found, as the gracious provision of the Head for the need of His members below. It comes out, as it were, as part of a circle of teaching concerning the church, its blessings, and endowments.

But we observe a different hue in Corinthians. The apostle is here seeking the full spiritual restoration of his children in the faith. They had erred. Satan had got in. Their hearts had been estranged from the Lord, and from the man who had been so greatly used to their blessing. Their ways and words had forced the apostle to speak of himself and his ministry — this to a larger extent than he would have wished to have done. Consequently ministry in this epistle has largely an experimental character. The deep feelings and emotions of the wounded servant are to be observed throughout. To simplify the matter, I would just observe that the subject is presented thus:- in 2 Cor. 3 we have the ministry, in 2 Cor. 4 the minister, in 2 Cor. 5 his motives, and in 2 Cor. 6 his moral traits.

The ministry is of an exceedingly blessed character. The gospel — called here the gospel of the glory of Christ, — is put in contrast with the law. Paul had been made an able minister of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. The law was a ministration of death and of condemnation. It set forth, not what God is, as some have said, but what man ought to be. This was fatal to the creature. So helpless is the ruin of nature that none can render the righteous requirement. Law knows nothing of mercy. It proposes blessing — life and righteousness — to those who keep it; but thunders out a curse upon all who fail, whatever their plea.

Law came in with glory, as our chapter speaks. The circumstances in the giving of it were full of majesty. The mediator who brought it into the camp shone with the brightness of the glory he had been beholding, and had to put a veil on his face. Let it be observed that it is the second giving of the law that the apostle here refers to. This is important. The first tables were broken before they reached the camp, for Moses would not bring them in where the golden calf was. The second giving of the code was accompanied by a proclamation of long-suffering and sovereign grace (Ex. 34). It is this the apostle describes as a ministration of both death and condemnation. The law, even when thus accompanied, has this solemn character for all who have to do with it. A grave consideration surely for thousands in Christendom! For it is undeniable that those, who in this day take up law, speak of mercy at the same time. Well, even a mingled system is ruin for the creature. Law in any shape or form only works wrath for man, fallen and a sinner. None can escape this, whether in profession cleaving to Moses or Christ.

The old ministry is spoken of here as "that which is done away" (ver. 11). It came in incidentally as it were until the promised Seed came. God would make manifest to all the real condition of the creature ere the mighty remedy was introduced. So grievously have men misunderstood the declared object of God in giving the law that, instead of learning their true state by it, they have gone about to establish a righteousness of their own by its means. What utter blindness as to the real condition of flesh before God.

The gospel, on the contrary, is spoken of as "that which remaineth." It will never fade before a brighter glory. It is not the statement of what man ought to be, but of what God is. He has revealed Himself in His Son, and in a manner blessedly suitable to our need and condition. It is not merely introduced with, but it subsists in, glory. This is the glory that excelleth. It is divine testimony to One Who, having accomplished redemption, has gone up into the glory of God. Him we gaze upon with unveiled face, in perfect peace in the presence of infinite holiness. The children of Israel could not look on Moses' face because of its brightness; it is ours to gaze without interruption upon the glory of God revealed in the face of Jesus Christ. He did not take His seat in that glory until every question relating to our souls was fully set bled , and every foe was silenced. Unlike Moses who went up into the Mount, saying, "Peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin" (Ex. 32: 30), while the people stood trembling and mourning at the foot, He first made atonement and then went up to take His seat at the right hand of the Majesty on high. If our sins were not all entirely removed before He was thus glorified, they never can be, for He will never come to earth to die again. Righteousness was accomplished, and God was glorified, ere that place was taken by the Second Man, the Lord Jesus. Therefore the brighter the glory that shines in His face, the fuller the proof to our souls, and the deeper our peace and blessedness.

It is a ministry of righteousness, and of the Spirit. It is of righteousness, not in requiring it as under the law, but in revealing it unto all. "Now God's righteousness, apart from law, is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even God's righteousness which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and upon all them that believe" (Rom. 3: 21, 22). God can now maintain His own consistency with Himself, yet hold as righteous every soul that believes in Jesus on the ground of redemption. It is not mercy, though He is rich in it and has lavished it upon us, but righteousness. He is perfectly righteous in all His dealings of grace with us through the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Here is solid round for our feet. Resting here, peace is sure and settled.

It is a ministry of the Spirit also. This God never even proposed to confer as the result of lawkeeping. The holy anointing oil could not be poured on flesh (Ex. 30: 31, 32). The Spirit could not be granted as the reward of man's work. But God has put this honour on the work of Jesus. The Spirit has come out from the glory into which He has entered, and is God's gift to all who believe the gospel of God's salvation. How could we wish to go back to law? Yet the Galatians did so. And many in this day say to their own loss, that "the old wine is better." This is the gospel, the wonderful ministry, Paul had received. It is not a dry abstract statement of doctrine, but a precious testimony to Christ's glory, and confers righteousness and the Spirit on all who how to it, But the Spirit of God having come, He leads up our hearts to where Christ is. The new man finds delight in Christ, nowhere else. The Spirit is the living link between us and Himself in glory, He causes us to gaze upon Him, and we become changed into the same image from glory to glory. This is true Christianity — the heart drawn off from things here, and adoringly occupied with One up there. This we may call the permanent result of the gospel, though there is progression in it. From the moment we believe and are sealed, our faces are turned upward and our backs are turned upon the world, and we become increasingly conformed to Christ. It is the delight of the Spirit to make us so.

Modern Millenarianism.

W. Kelly.

B.T. Vol. 9, p. 107-111.)

My dear -,

You will be pleased to bear that I lately fell in with the British Quarterly Review, containing the article on Modern Millenarianism, which a good while ago you wanted me to read. Though particularly occupied just now with souls — a far better and more important object than books — I must try to find time for a few remarks on the paper, the tone of which greatly commends the writer to my heart, if I dissent from most of his conclusions on the subject.

One quite agrees with him that the Jews were wrong not intellectually merely but morally in excluding from their faith a rejected, suffering, crucified Messiah — in expecting His glory without His sufferings. We can now see, from Genesis to Malachi or at least Zechariah, plain intimations that He must needs first suffer. But even disciples were slow of heart to believe all that the prophets had spoken. Alas! it is ever so. The present testimony of God, at any given epoch, is always the test truth, but strong and simple faith ever cleaves to it in spite of shame and disrepute. (Compare Heb. 11) So, while the Shekinah was present in the holy of holies, Israel was constantly tempted to lust after idols: when that was withdrawn, these ceased to be the special temptations, as is obvious in the later prophets. So, when a Christ in humiliation was presented to faith, Israel would none of Him.

But, again, the promise of a glorious returning Christ, we know from 2 Peter, was to fare no better with the last-day scoffers; and it is to be remembered that saints, if mingling much with the world, its literature, its philosophy and its politics, must inevitably be tinctured more or less by the spirit of the age. Such seems to me the condition of the writers in this Review, if we take the article on Lord Macaulay and especially pages 26, 27 as a specimen of their sentiments on the momentous topic therein discussed. One can understand God overruling the existence of sects and employing their activity and even rivalry; but it argues a moral blindness to God's object and glory in His church on earth to treat sectarianism as not merely a peccadillo but the legitimate consequence of a right principle. "The very disunion he notices in our church arises from the strength and excellence of its principle." etc. "Sectarianism is, as we have said, the necessary consequence of the first principle of Protestantism." It may be "of Protestantism," but assuredly not of Christianity, whose inspired records and standards uniformly condemn it, root and branch, as a fleshly evil. (1 Cor. 1, 3; Gal. 5.) Need it surprise one to read in another paper, page 269, that Cromwell was the noblest product of Puritanism as it was of Protestantism, and this again of Christianity? For sad to say, pride is often in the ratio of degradation. Nor can we be astonished that both writers are warm admirers of Mr. Carlyle and his writings, and that the latter is so tender to sceptics of the class of John Sterling. The spirit of such scribes savour of the world, not of the Father, and can only corrupt the saints from the simplicity that is in Christ. I would not, I do not, till I know more, confound article 6 with articles 1 and 8: but beyond a doubt the connection is not the best. So that one should not look for any great light on prophetic or dispensational truths in a publication which endorses unsound doctrine on a question so distinctly answered in scripture, and so important in practice, as that of sectarianism — whether it be a good or bad thing. If wrong about the church's present responsibility, a writer, whom such a class of men would tolerate, could not be expected to be right about the future glory of Christ. Their principle is the exaltation of man in his present state, of Christians in their existing denominationalism; in a word, of Christendom as it is. As this principle naturally leads to the justification of sects, so it fears and dislikes the coming of Christ in judgment of what they justify and of all other evil; it fosters the expectation, unauthorized by scripture, of a reign of the gospel, instead of submitting to the testimony of the gospel of the reign; at best, it seeks a present escape from tribulation, and a proximate triumph for the church (without Christ) on earth, instead of waiting for the appearing of both in a glory whereby the world shall know that the Father sent the Son and loved the church as He loved Him. It goes much farther, even to joining with papists and infidels to overthrow a rival religious body in the vain expectation of bettering society, without imputing more selfish motives. But I am writing an essay, instead of offering a few remarks on the paper.

To return then, it is allowed that Mr. R. Herschell's thoughts and criticisms (given in pp. 153, 154) are incorrect, though there are in them elements of truth, is in those of his critic. Surely no serious person would contend that in Acts 7: 38 the word ἐκκλησία has the same force is in Acts 2 or Matthew 16, 18. The. truth is, that the word in itself means "assembly," and is capable of application to a bad or good one, a civic or a religious one, the congregation of Israel in the Old Testament, or the church of God in the New Testament; that is, it proves nothing for the question at issue. Again, I grant and constantly teach, that the Abrahamic promises are quite distinct from God's grace to the church. They involve blessing for the Gentiles, but surely for "thy seed" in a larger measure and a higher mode; whereas the essential feature of "the mystery" is the abolition of any such distinctions between Jew and Gentile. This perfectly falls in with my view, but seems to be excluded by the system of the review, though the principle is surrendered in page 155. In the millennium the Abrahamic promises will be the governing idea; now it is "the mystery" (though it is also true that, in virtue of union with Him who is Abraham's Seed in the highest sense, we enjoy those promises in principle, as is taught in Gal. 3.) As to the second point neither Isaiah 65 nor Amos 9, cited in Acts 15, teach the long-continued rejection of Israel, much less do they reveal the calling of the church. They leave room for it and agree with it doubtless: but the calling of a body which knows neither Jew nor Gentile within itself, but of both makes one new man, was a mystery as yet bid in God, not disclosed in the prophecies though they might confirm it when it was disclosed. I agree that it was made known not to Paul only but to the New Testament apostles and prophets, and to Paul emphatically. So, too, it is agreed that Herschell's construction of Ephesians 3 is a total mistake. But it remains true, that while the church shares many blessings of which the Old Testament speaks, her own proper characteristics as Christ's body and bride were not predicted but hidden previously, save in types which gave no light till themselves received it through the revelation of the mystery in St. Paul's epistles.

We maintain then, not that Israel, and Judah, Jerusalem, and Sion, the priests and the Levites, may not be typical of God's people now in some of their manifold relations to God and man, but that the church as such, the fulness of Him who filleth all in all, is nowhere predicted in the Old Testament, though prophets may allude to and bring out particular features which are of course true of those who compose the church: as, for instance, God's visiting the Gentiles, etc. But surely this itself is not the church. And if any part of the Old Testament does, where and what is it? Indeed Ephesians 3 and Colossians 1 ought to be enough, I think, to set aside such a notion. The use of Isaiah 54 in Galatians 4 is in no way adverse, but just what we freely allow. If the critic will have it to mean more, as he appears to do in speaking of "its proper fulfilment," he must know that one can easily disprove so narrow a way of interpreting the prophecies ; and this from the New Testament use of Old Testament prophecy. Galatians 4 says nothing of the sort, and the context of Isaiah 54 repudiates such exclusiveness and claims much more, without denying that this was an accomplishment of it. (Compare Matt. 2: 15, 17, 18, etc.) This, then, is the answer to what is urged in pages 159-163.

The "olive-tree" is a distinct idea, and not be confounded with the "one new man" of Ephesians 2. The olive-tree was not a new thing, and goes up no higher than Abraham. Abel, Enoch, Noah have nothing to say to it. It is the tree of earthly testimony, the responsible separated witness of God, and extends into the millennium when all Israel shall be saved. It does not obliterate Jewish and Gentile distinction, but maintains the Jews to be the natural branches though Gentiles may be for a season grafted in. But the "one new man" is above such differences. Here both are brought in and reconciled in pure grace. Here there are no natural members. All is supernatural, and the idea of cutting off is unknown. Whereas, in Romans 11, the Jews were cut off in part that the Gentiles might be grafted in amongst them. This clearly then is a place which Christendom now holds in continuation of Israel, liable to be cut off if unfaithful, and in no way clashing with the truth in Ephesians that the church as such has her own peculiar privileges, which, so far from being enjoyed, were not even revealed before the descent of the Spirit, consequent on the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus and His ascension to heaven.

Nor is the new birth what makes the one body, but the baptism of the Spirit. Compare Acts 1: 4, 5 with 1 Corinthians 12: 13. All saints in all ages are necessarily born of the Spirit; but to be baptized of the Spirit was the new and distinctive blessing never realized before Pentecost. And this it is which forms the church, as we learn from 1 Corinthians, etc. Accordingly Hebrews 12 expressly distinguishes "the spirits of just men made perfect" (i.e., the Old Testament saints) from "the church of the firstborn," etc.

As to what is said on prophecy, it is clear to me that the reviewer does not see that, besides man's sin, and the new birth, and redemption, with their great issues, scripture treats largely of the government of the world whereof Israel was the earthly centre, as we are told in Deuteronomy 32, Now, just as clearly the close of this vast tragedy is placed at the end of the age. Thus, I believe that the predictions which speak of the Lord's glory, revealed in judgment and government of this world, await their grand fulfilment, though pledges may have been given. One cannot but be sorry to see him repent the objection of German sceptics and others founded on Edom, Moab, etc., having ceased to be. Even to the poor Jew they still exist, and God remembers them, howsoever they may be called now; and when the day of visitation arrives, He will judge them as such. At least, all he says here is assumption, and, so far from disproving anything, itself requires proof, and is against the evidence of such scriptures as Daniel 11: 41, etc. There is no more difficulty in their re-appearing than in that of the ten tribes; and those who believe in the future restoration of the one cannot well deny the future judgment of the other. The idea of germinant accomplishments of either we feel no disposition to reject; but they are rather an argument for than against the full manifestation; as the many antichrists in the apostle's time proved that it was the last time, at the close of which the Antichrist should come, they inchoate accomplishments, he the ultimate. Undoubtedly there is truth in applying prophecies; for they have their partial developments which the spiritual man may and ought to judge; but where scripture is to be interpreted, the grand matter is the full meaning, not what is true merely but what is adequate, and what exhausts the terms of the prediction. This is, I humbly judge, a sufficient reply to the use made of Deuteronomy 30; Isaiah 11, 43; Jeremiah 23, 30, 31, 33; Ezekiel 20, 37; Amos 9; Zechariah 8, 12.

On the "promises made to the fathers" we need not dwell as so much has been said by others. The subject of the resurrection and the judgment may claim more notice. Simultaneity of either is taught nowhere in scripture, so far as I know. What looks most like it is John 5: 28, 29. But the reviewer must be aware that ὥρα ("hour") is capable of meaning a long protracted period — nay, that it is so used, a few verses before, of the quickening-hour (i.e., from the days of our Lord to the present moment). Why then may not the hour in which the resurrection occurs extend over a period of a thousand years or more, if so required by Revelation 20 or other scriptures? Matthew 25, so far from being a judgment of all the dead, includes not one dead person (if so, where?) and, even of the quick, it is not universal. It is a judgment of "all the Gentiles," as distinguished from the Jews who are disposed of in Matthew 24. No doubt it is a final judgment, so far as regards those concerned. That it is universal, even to look at the living only — that it embraces the dead is to beg the question. Again, Acts 17: 31 is a judgment of the οἰκουμένη, the "habitable earth," and its inhabitants. No dead people are here referred to. That is, the proofs alleged are really no proofs at all.

The main objection to taking Revelation 20: 4-6 literally, as stated in page 183, seems to be that these verses do not include all the saints from the beginning. But do they not? The reviewer, like many others, restricts verse et to the martyrs and confessors, leaving out entirely those referred to in the first clause. Now the verse really speaks of three classes. "I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them" — a purposely broad and vague category, so as to include the elders who obtained a good report by faith, and us for whom God provided some better thing, (that is, saints generally, whether martyred or not,) followed by the two special companies of sufferers whom the Apocalypse so largely describes. (Rev. 6, Rev. 13, Rev. 15.) The interpretation which loses sight of a clause whose terms are purposely so comprehensive as the first in this verse is quite unreliable, and the true force of "the first resurrection" comes out more plainly than ever. Compare with it Luke 20: 35, 36. Revelation 20: 4 is a description of all saints who reign with Christ, not of a part only, nor of mere representatives, but of the whole. "The souls τῶν πεπελεκισμένων," etc. are in addition to, not a specification of, those already seen enthroned. The impersonal use, as Stuart contends, of ἐκάθισαν falls in with this, and the αὐτοῖς would refer to the sitters on thrones, followed by the groups of persons first seen disembodied, and subsequently united to their bodies. This is the simple meaning of the verse, as all can see when it is suggested, and accordingly κρῖμα has its ordinary signification.

It is admitted by the reviewer that, if John had said anywhere "This is the second resurrection," the explanation would have been authoritative. Now it is not duly observed, that "this is the first resurrection" is the divine explanation of the first vision, not the symbol but the authoritative solution of it; just as much as, in an earlier scene, "the seven heads are seven mountains" and "the ten horns are ten kings." Here, as in so many other scenes, you have first the hieroglyphic and then the key. I admit that the expression as to the post-millennial judgment scene is "This is the second death," not the second resurrection, because the point is not merely their reappearing but their awful and endless doom, the lake of fire. No resurrection can be inferred from verses 7-9: but there is a life-resurrection in verses 4-6, and in verses 11-15 a judgment-resurrection; the one comprehending those who have done good, the other, those who have done evil, as in John 5, and the word "hour" in verse 28, as we have seen from the analogy of verse 25, leaving ample space for the intervening period.

As to the objections in page 186, etc. 1, I deny that the life and reign, etc. is the judgment. It is a connected but distinct thing. 2. I have already denied that there is the smallest intimation of a resurrection in Matthew 25: 30, 31. 2 Corinthians 5: 10 speaks only of the saints, as the reviewer seems to admit in page 183. Acts 17: 31 is equally irrelevant. It is not necessary that the two resurrections should be parallel: they are really contrasted in character. 3. The limit of a thousand years is with the reign, not with the life, though in another sense they reign everlastingly. The comparison of verse 6 with 4 is decisive as to this. Why then should not the resurrection in verses 12, 13 be a sequel to 4 and 5? 4. Our view preserves the antithesis much more than the ordinary one, and is unobjectionable on that score. I do not admit the correspondence between 2 Corinthians 5 and Revelation 20 if only because the former must take in "us all," i.e. is universal, while I believe that of Revelation 20 is of the unjust only. There are alas! bad works in God's servants, and the Lord is not indifferent to building up such materials as wood, hay, and stubble upon Christ, but there are no good works in the unjust. Hence, in the account of this last judgment, there is no hint of any good things, inure than of good men; while in 2 Corinthians 5 you have both, though the good be not unmixed in the saints. This, in Revelation 20: 11-15, is the κρίσις, and no man living shall be justified there — no, not if God entered into it with His servants; but they have everlasting life and shall not come into κρίσις. They are passed from death unto life, though the Lord Jesus will beyond doubt examine their ways, and then shall every man have praise to God. Not a word in the closing scene of Revelation 20 implies the presence of a saved soul: all is consistent with the idea that the judgment is of the wicked only, the book of life being brought forward on God's part, so to speak, is the books were on man's; and both appearing in their terrible sentence. Even the reviewer is obliged to allow that the expression, "till the thousand years," etc. does not necessarily restrict the resurrection of the rest of the dead to that moment, but simply that it cannot be before. Besides, there is a difference in the way in which Satan's release is spoken of, μετὰ ταῦτα δ. ἀ. λ. μ χ. This formula does tie the loosing of Satan to the close of the thousand years, but is nowhere used about the resurrection of the rest of the dead. So that the argument tells exactly against the point desired. 5. It is astonishing how sensible Christians like the reviewer, Dr. David Brown, etc., overlook the fact that "the dead" is a phrase which, at the epoch in question, coincides is a fact with "the rest of the dead." In Revelation 20: 12 either phrase might have been used, on our theory; in Revelation 11: 18 only τ. ν. the dead, and not "the rest of the dead." In the passage before, οὺς ν. means all the dead (that is, of course, excepting those raised more than a thousand years before); in the other passage it means all the dead too (that is, just as simply good and bad, because it is before all resurrections, as the other is after one of them). These objections, suggested by the context, are really null, and verses 7-9 are the antithesis to verses 1-3, and not to 4-6 which finds its contrast in 11-15; the loosing of Satan, etc., to his being bound, and the second death to the first resurrection.

I must beg the reviewer's pardon for thinking his view of the whole scene, etc., both careless and beyond reasonable belief. The triumphs of the principles of martyrs cannot be called God's judgment and vengeance for their blood on those that dwell on the earth. Besides, what was celebrated in heaven (Rev. 5: 10) was that they should reign on (or over) the earth — not their cause merely, but themselves. One can understand principles reigning or perhaps by a harsh figure being "kings;" still it would be hard, as some have said, to make "priests" of them, while it perfectly suits the person; and lastly, while it is quite intelligible for an affectionate labourer, rejoicing over his tried brethren, to say, "now we live, if ye stand fast in the Lord," it is not so to speak of the souls of beheaded ones living, save in the sense of being united to their bodies. In other words, there is no analogy whatever between the context of 1 Thess. 3, and of Revelation 20. As to 1 Corinthians 4: 8, one cannot, for a moment, accept an interpretation so vague. They were anticipating the time of the kingdom, having tired of the place of tribulation and patience. Would to God, says Paul, that the time for reigning had really come, that we, poor, despised, buffeted, hungry, devoted to death, might reign with you!

The explanation offered of "the rest of the dead" is, if I remember rightly, what Dr. Wardlaw offered long ago. It is only conceivable, in those who have studied very superficially, and who wish not to reduce their ideas to the vision, but to accommodate the vision to their ideas. Look at other passages of the book, where οἱ λοιποί occurs; and is it not a phrase immediately related to the context wherein it occurs? See in Rev. 2: 14, "you, the rest in Thyatira who have not this doctrine," etc., antithetical to those described in the same scene, or epistle, who had. Again, in Rev. 9: 20 the non-repentant remnant is in contrast with the killed third part of men, as in Rev. 11: 11 the affrighted remnant after the slain seven chiliads. Again, in Rev. 12: 13-17 you have the dragon persecuting the woman who brought forth the manchild: he is caught up out of the way, she flees, the earth helps, and the furious dragon goes away to make war with the remnant of her seed, ι.ε., evidently in contrast With τὸν ἄῤῥενα — " just named. So again in Rev. 19 by οἱ λοιποί, the remnant, is meant that part of the Lord's enemies which remained for the sword that proceeded out of His mouth, after the beast and false prophet were cast alive in the lake of fire — a living remnant who are to be thus judged, and there the scene closes. Then, after the intervention of quite a different vision wherein an angel is seen securing the serpent for a long but limited space, there comes before the prophet the vision of thrones filled already with sitters upon them, beside two other classes of holy and blessed sufferers who are subsequently said to be clothed with their bodies (i.e. "they lived") and reigned, as well as the precious enthroned ones. In contrast with those who lived, the rest (οἱ λοιποι) of the dead are clearly another remnant, not a living but a dead remnant who do not receive life till the millennium closes. That this is spoken of natural death, and of life after that, is manifest from the fact that both they, and the first resurrection class, who together form "the dead," are here regarded as having been "dead" in the same sense. The death, therefore, common to both can only be natural death, and hence also the resurrection is a real literal resurrection of the saints before the millennium, and of "the rest of the dead" after it. The distinction is certainly as plain is possible between the remnant in Revelation 19 and that in Revelation 20.

Further, one must repeat that the whole is not merely symbolical. Doubtless the thrones are symbols here, as are the white horses in the preceding chapter. But then we have, besides, the revealed explanation — "this is the first resurrection." It is not then a resurrection, as in Ezekiel 37, used to symbolize some other action of divine power and grace but a vision is seen, and the Holy Ghost explains it as the first resurrection, shared by those who are priests of God and of Christ, and who reign with Him a thousand years. Then, upon the loosing of Satan, we have the last rebellion of mankind — the nations from the four quarters of the earth, who are devoured by fire from God out of heaven, and of course added to the rest of the dead whom "the first resurrection" had left undisturbed in their graves. Subsequently appears a great white throne, and One sat upon it from whose face the earth and heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And the dead are seen standing before the throne, and the final assize ensues. This is no coming of Christ. in judgment of the earth, and of course all mention of living saints caught up to Him is absent. It is a judgment of the dead before the throne, not an advent of Christ to the earth, for earth and heaven are fled before His face. Not a word is hinted about His coming to the living, but the dead stand before Him — where is not said, but it is clearly neither the heaven nor the earth that now are, but both will have disappeared. This then is not at all the time nor the circumstances described in Matthew 25; for there you have all the nations, as such, gathered and separated before Him after He has come (to earth) and taken His seat (not on the great white throne for judging the dead but) upon the throne of His glory when He shall judge the Gentiles, when the apostles shall sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. That is, the popular scheme is confusion, a vain attempt at harmonizing a scene of judgment of nations (on the earth of course, for there are none in heaven, nor in eternity), with one so different in nearly every respect as the judgment of the dead: here no living are in question, there no dead. It seems therefore the extreme of hardihood, in the way of interpretation, both to expunge the personal coming of the Lord in judgment of the quick from Revelation 19: 11-21 where it is more fully described than in any part of scripture, and to insert it in Revelation 20: 11-13 where it unquestionably is not depicted, and could not be; for at that time there are no quick to judge and no earth to come to — a double failure, in the latter adding to, and in the former taking from, the plain force of the words of this prophecy. Possibly Acts 17: 31 may coincide with Matthew 25, but not 2 Corinthians 5: 10 for reasons already given, all being distinct in character from Revelation 20: 11-13 as shown above. The reviewer's reason for denying that Revelation 19: 11-21 describes a personal coming appears to be akin to those who object, because it dwells so elaborately upon the person of the Word of God who comes to make war! whereas in Revelation 20 we are to suppose His personal coming must be, because it is not described it all!! Is this "God's pure daylight, the true analogy of scripture," beaming upon the apocalyptic symbols?

I know not who over drew so crude an inference from 1 Thessalonians 4: 16 as that which the reviewer calls "the argument," unless it were some ill-taught Bloomsbury lecturer. Every one else holding the pre-millennial advent known to me interprets both clauses in this and the following verse as he does; so that the argument does not lie there, but in the fact of the resurrection here noticed being exclusively that of the righteous at Christ's coming; whereas that of the unrighteous, as we have just seen from Revelation 20, is when heaven and earth have fled away and His coming is out of the question. It may be, of course, that some ignorant person has so argued; but we are no more responsible for such mistakes than is the reviewer for the crudities of many of his friends. A similar remark applies to the alleged millenarian use, of 1 Corinthians 15: 23, 24.* I can only say that such egregious misinterpretations are new to me. All well-instructed students of prophecy that I am acquainted with admit and contend that τὸ τέλος means the end (not of the dead but) of Christ's kingdom which he takes as the exalted man; that the only resurrection here treated of, besides Christ's, is of those who are His. On the other hand, there is not the least foundation for the reviewer's statement that "when they were gathered in, the end of His temporary mediatorial dispensation would have arrived." There are three epochs referred to: first, the resurrection of Christ; next, that of His people (in order to reign with Him); then, the end of this kingdom when He delivers it up to God even the Father, death itself having died. Now this is manifestly confirmed by 2 Timothy 4, where the judgment of quick and dead is connected with "His appearing and His kingdom" — not as if His kingdom closed with His appearing, but rather that His appearing ushers in His kingdom; and, before that kingdom terminates, the resurrection of the wicked and in judgment are necessarily over. So also Revelation 20, where we have the resurrection of the holy severed by more than a thousand years from that of the rest of the dead, and it is with their judgment (and not the first resurrection) we find the annihilation of death connected in this chapter. Here again the same remark applies as has been said of 1 Thessalonians 4 — they that are Christ's rise at His coming; and of these only and separately does 1 Corinthians 15 speak; whereas "the dead" which remain, after the millennium is closed, are not raised till His coming is an impossibility, for the earth is fled away. I should say therefore, that the separate and subsequent resurrection of the wicked conclusively follows from a comparison of 1 Corinthians 15 with 2 Timothy 4 and Revelation 20, as well as the truth that the kingdom in question fills the interval between the ἔπειτα and the εἶτα (i.e., the "afterward" and the "then" of these verses).

* Mr. Birks used to say wild things even before he avowed his heterodoxy as to eternal punishment.

I am glad the reviewer gives up, as not sufficiently explicit, the usual way of neutralizing the force of the expression "resurrection from the (lead," as distinct from "resurrection of the dead." Others too, I remember, have been either ignorant or unfair on this head. for though "the resurrection from the dead" is of course à fortiori "of the dead," never does the converse hold; and this establishes their distinctive character. The natural meaning of the terms is selection, and therefore priority in rising of those selected. To say "not priority," after admitting that it implies selection, is to my mind unintelligible; and it must be repeated that Matthew 25: 32 does not state or imply but exclude resurrection from that scene. Again, one cannot understand the note which says that "we lay no stress on the difference between ἐξανάστασιν τῶν ν. (as Rec. and Griesbach have it) and τὴν ἐκ ν. (as Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford, Wordsworth, and Tregelles read)." Why, the difference is that the former is wrong and the latter right, the former is a contradiction in terms, while the latter is established by external evidence and harmonizes the internal. Thus the argument in favour of a separate precious resurrection of the righteous appears sound and decisive, and the popular notion of one common resurrection of all the dead is contrary to the plainest scriptures. Yours affectionately,

W. K.

Nothing But Christ.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. 15, p. 92-93.)

The Epistle to the Hebrews calls us to leave all for Christ. Whatever be the objects in which thus far we may have gloried, it is  necessary to abandon them now, and to receive in their stead Jesus the Son of God. Angels give place to the Son: Moses, the servant of the house gives place to Christ, who is the Builder; Joshua, the ancient captain, that led into Canaan, gives place to Christ the Captain of salvation who is now conducting the children to glory; Aaron, the carnal and dying priest, gives place to the true Melchisedec who lives and serves in the heavenly temple for ever; the old covenant gives place to the new which Jesus administers; and at the same time the old carnal or earthly ordinances give place to the spiritual and efficacious ministrations of the heavenly Priest; finally, the blood of the victims gives place to the blood of Christ offered by the eternal Spirit.

Such is one of the principal characteristics of this divine and glorious Epistle, which thus annihilates all that in which man puts his confidence, in order to establish the Lord Jesus, the Son of God, as the object of glory and only refuge of poor souls.

But this was a doctrine hard to bear, particularly for a people such as the Jews, who had in so many ways put their confidence in the law and legal righteousness. Amongst us also at the present day when, amidst so many religious forms, men propose with authority other foundations of confidence than Jesus, and other men blindly receive them, we have to consider carefully what are the bases of this doctrine. In these days, when all creation groans, the soul thirsts, after this simple gospel which preaches to us the perfect satisfaction of Jesus; and it is the design of the Holy Spirit in the Epistle to the Hebrews to unfold to the eager soul the reasons for which it can thus embrace Jesus as all that forms the object of its confidence and glory. This Epistle declares what authorises it thus to appreciate Jesus — to estimate Him as having no equal — to judge that He, is in a word the one and only stay of the poor sinner.

But how does the Holy Spirit assure us of this truth by this Epistle? How does He show us that it is our own salvation to leave every other prop in order to have none but Christ, alone for our stay? He shows it to us in the only way in which it, could be done, — by presenting to our soul the appreciation which God makes of Christ.

That which warrants the value I am to attach to Christ is that God has before this made known to us the worth which He possesses. If my soul confides exclusively in Him, I cannot be grounded in so doing but by seeing the foundation of Israel's confidence at the time of the blood-sprinkling in Egypt. God had prescribed this blood: such is my divine and sure-warrant; and the  Epistle to the Hebrews it assures it to me. It speaks to me of the high value God sees in Christ; it tells me how clearly, simply, and exclusively He has laid upon Christ in all that can relieve the soul. Such is the reason why this admirable Epistle lingers with so much complacency upon Christ in all His present relations with us, in all the ministrations He accomplishes for us. There is what explains the numerous quotations (Heb. 1) which establish Jesus far above angels; there is what explains the glorious commentary which Heb. 2 gives on the dignity of the Son of man, the declarations of His great superiority over Moses, (Heb. 3) the abundant and varied testimonies (Heb. 4) borne to His priesthood, supplying in quite another way that wherewith Aaron had been honoured or what the law conferred (Heb. 7). There is the reason why He is represented as anointed and consecrated by an oath, and seated in the heavens in the midst of the sanctuary, as well as at the right hand of Majesty (Heb. 8).

In all this we have the hand of God Himself exalting the merit of Jesus, weighing Him in His dignities known in heaven and on earth. The soul is invited in the most pressing manner to come and be present at this grand work, at this divine proof of the merit of Jesus. Just so the congregation of Israel was commanded to wait at the door of the tabernacle, in order that each for himself should contemplate and know how pleased with the priest God was; so that each, however large the congregation was, should have personally, individually, all liberty to resign himself to the care and intercession of Aaron (Lev. 8, 9.) It was a matter which concerned each individually; and the same liberty should also appertain to every one of us individually.

The soul is a thing which concerns ourselves; for it is written that "none can by any means redeem his brother;" and it is ourselves who should know the divine remedy, ourselves who should possess it. It is not a faithful brother who can hear and believe for us; it is not a church which can represent us; we must be at the door of the tabernacle ourselves; we have ourselves to know the worth of Jesus in the eyes of God, and the Epistle to the Hebrews is commissioned to reveal this secret in the holy of holies. It is addressed, not to a certain order of privileged persons, but to us all, in order that there we may each contemplate Jesus, such as He is there, weighed in the balance of the sanctuary, and that we may gather the blessed fruits of this ensured supply which has been stored in Him. It is not the question in this epistle of a particular church, nor of a class of privileged persons, as is very often thought and said; but it is the voice of the Spirit addressing itself directly to the soul, in order that it may learn to know for itself Him in whom God has placed the help which is necessary to it. In this Epistle, our soul breathes, in some sort, the perfume of the plain which the Lord has blessed, and faith breathes the perfume of Christ; it enjoys Christ as God Himself enjoys Him and we have the divine light in our hearts, we are converted from darkness to the light of God. In a word, God becomes our own.

There is yet another thing in this Epistle: it makes us understand in what characters God has set this exclusive value on Christ; and these characters are such as fully answer to our  necessities, The victim or the sacrifice, Heb. 9: 14; the priest, Heb. 7; the prophet or teacher, Heb. 2: 1-4; the captain who brings His own to glory, Heb. 2: 10; and in all these qualities, as in each of them separately, we see Him estimated in the most exact manner by the hand of God, and we find Him perfectly what it is needful He should be, for persons so wretched as we are. According to God, Jesus is a victim perfectly suited to purify, a priest perfectly suited to intercede, a prophet perfectly suited to instruct, and a guide perfectly suited to transport us safe and sound unto glory. There is that precisely which we need. This Epistle traces our book of travels, in leaving our place of exile as sinners, up to our dwelling in glory, where we shall be in the companionship of Jesus. Yes, we clearly read there our rights, and we rest on Jesus as our Victim, our Priest, our Prophet, and our Guide, because God has given Him all that is possible of worth in these qualities with which He is endowed for us, and God has appreciated Him because of His work, because of His person, because of His obedience, because He has shed His blood and fully accomplished the will of God for us. There, in this Epistle, the soul may read its titles, not according to the estimate which itself makes of them, but according to that which God makes of Christ.

"There is one body and one Spirit."

Ephesians 4: 4.

(B.T. Vol. 5, p. 14-16.)

The Lord Jesus, both before His death and after His resurrection, had told His disciples of the promise of the Father — that other Comforter who should come, given of the Father and sent of the Son. (John 14, 15, 16.) "It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." For Jesus they had forsaken all; and more, far more than all had Jesus been to them. He was now about to go. What could turn a loss so grievous into positive gain? The presence thereon of the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. It is clearly impossible to understand these and kindred Scriptures, of anything short of His personal presence. Effects and manifestations are enlarged on elsewhere; but such is not the theme here; nor could any conceivable spiritual power outweigh the comfort of having Jesus with them. But the Spirit was promised personally; not comfort only, but the Comforter Himself, One who could be described as a teacher, remembrancer, testifier, and convicter; One thenceforth and for ever acting in and with the disciples, who left heaven after the Saviour ascended, and who takes His place, on the ground of accomplished redemption, in the midst of those who confess the name of Jesus and wait for His return. When here below, Jesus alone could speak of His body as the temple of God. (John 2.) But now, having borne the wrath of God, and annulled by death the power of Satan, He could righteously send down from the right hand of God the promised Holy Ghost to dwell in the faithful on earth. "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" (1 Cor. 3: 16.)

In principle, then, the coming of the promised Spirit was contingent on the departure of Jesus, and, in fact, it was when He took His seat, as the glorified man in heaven, that the Spirit was sent down. Assembled together with the disciples, previous to His ascension, He "commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me; for John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence." (Acts 1: 4, 5.) The next chapter records the accomplishment of the promise on the day of Pentecost. The Comforter was given; the third person of the Trinity was now, permanently, present in them as truly as the second person had been with then, before He ascended to heaven. The Holy Ghost was the grand witness, as His presence in the disciples was the new and wondrous fruit — of the glorification of Jesus in heaven.

Are the operations of the Spirit of God from the beginning denied? In nowise. Creation, providence, and redemption all speak of Him. His energy declares itself in, and pervades every sphere of, God's dealings. Who moved upon the face of the waters? Who strove with man before the deluge? Who filled Bezaleel with understanding, and all manner of workmanship? Who enabled Moses to bear the burden of Israel, or others to share it? By whom wrought Samson? By whom prophesied Saul? It was by the Spirit of the Lord. And, as in their early national history, His good Spirit instructed the people, even so could the prophet assure the poor returned remnant, "According to the word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt, so my Spirit remaineth among you." Were any regenerate? They were born of the Spirit; and the blessed and holy actings of faith in the elders who obtained a good report, were, beyond controversy, the results of His operation. So far, the way of God is still, and necessarily, the same. Jesus set not aside in the least the need of the Spirit's intervention. He proclaimed its necessity as a fixed, irreversible truth —  "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But life, peace, and sonship (while all are communicated and known by the effectual working of the Holy Ghost,) are in no sense the presence of' the Comforter. The disciples possessed these privileges before, the Lord Jesus ascended. They are, therefore, entirely distinct from the promise of the Father, which the disciples did not possess, and which none ever did or could possess till Jesus was glorified. (John 7: 39.) The presence of the Comforter is clearly the distinctive blessing since Pentecost. It was never enjoyed before, though the Spirit bad wrought, and wrought savingly, as regards believers at all times.

But when Jesus took His seat in heaven as the exalted Head, the Holy Ghost was sent down, not merely for the blessing of individual believers, but for the purpose of gathering them into one body here below. This and this only is called in Scripture "the Church of God;" and its unity, hanging upon the baptism of the Holy Ghost, is "the unity of the Spirit." Matt. 16: 19, is the first occurrence of the word "Church" (i.e. assembly) in the New Testament. It is there spoken of as a thing not merely unmanifested find unordered, but as not yet existing. It was not built, nor being built yet.* "Upon this rock I will build my Church;" which Church, be it observed, is mentioned as altogether distinct from the kingdom of heaven, the keys of which (not of His Church) the Lord promised to give to Peter.

* The learned Bishop Pearson, in his well-known "Exposition of the Creed," (Vol. I., pp. 506, ed. Oxford, 1797,) had the intelligence to see, and the candour to own, that our Saviour, first speaking of the Church, "mentioneth it is that which then was not, but afterwards was to be; as when he spake, unto the great Apostle, 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church;' but when he ascended into heaven, and the Holy Ghost came down, when Peter had converted three thousand souls which were added to the hundred and twenty disciples, then was there a Church ....... for after that we read, The Lord added to the Church daily such as should he saved? A Church, then, our Saviour promised should be built, and by a promise made before his death; after his ascension, and upon the preaching of St. Peter, we find a Church built or constituted, and that of a nature capable of a daily increase." What is more, in p. 508, he cites in his margin, Acts 7: 38, and Heb. 2: 12, as instances of its occasional usage, much as the Septuagint, for the assembly of the people of God under the law, (i.e. of Israel,) and therefore most fitly translated the 'Congregation,' here, as in the Old Testament. The attempt, from such a text as that in Acts 7, to show that the 'Church of God,' in its full, proper meaning existed, under the Old Testament, before our Saviour even promised it, is a singular proof of the blinding effects of prejudice.

But, although the unity of the Church, as Christ's body, will only be displayed perfectly in the dispensation of the fulness of times, when God will gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth, (Eph. 1: 10,) yet it was intended that there should be a testimony to it, produced and manifested by the power of the Holy Ghost in the one body on earth. When the apostle spoke of the saints being "builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit," this was not an ideal or future thing only to be achieved in heaven. It was an actual, present fact, made good here below by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. Hence we read, "to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known, by the Church, the manifold wisdom of God." (Eph. 3: 10.) And the "unity of the Spirit," which the saints should endeavour to keep, where was it if not on earth? The saints were there, and there too the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers given of Christ Himself ascended up far above all heavens. There go on the perfecting of the saints, the work of the ministry, and the edifying of the body of Christ. It is on earth that we meet with "sleight of men and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive" (Eph. 4: 11) ; and it is there that we "grow up into Him in all things, which is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, fitly joined together, and, compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love." (Eph. 4: 16.) It is in this world, and in this world alone, that "all the body, by joints and bands, having nourishment administered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God," (Col. 2: 19,) as it is assuredly here that the Spirit would have the peace of Christ to rule in our hearts, "to the which also we are called in one body." (Col. 3: 15.)

So, in Rom. 12: 4, 5, the apostle writes to saints, who, like the Colossians, had never been visited by him, and therefore, as man might judge, were in no peculiar way connected with him: "As we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another." Evidently, it is not a tie which was going to be established, but a relationship already existing. Membership is not with a local church, but with the Church, the body of Christ, (Acts 2: 47) ; though, on the other hand, if one be not in fellowship with the assembly of the members of Christ where one resides, there can be for him no fellowship with them anywhere else

Nor can language be more explicit than that of 1 Cor. 12. "But all these worketh that one and the self-same Spirit dividing to every man severally as He will. For as the body is one and hath many members, and all the members of that one body being many are one body, so also is Christ; for by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." The composition of that one body depends upon the baptism of the Holy Ghost. By Him are we baptized into the body of Christ, Jews, Gentiles, bond or free; it matters not. Jesus exercises His heavenly rights. He baptizes with the Holy Ghost; and those who are thus baptized become the immediate and the especial field of His presence and operations — the body of Christ. The diversities of gifts, of administrations and of operations, will not be in heaven. Their province is the Church on earth. It is here that the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man (i.e. in the Church) to profit withal. It is the one and the self-same Spirit who works all these gifts, distributing to each member as He will. For the many members constitute but one body — "by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body." The importance of these last words will be better estimated, on comparing with them Acts 1: 4, 5, and particularly the clause, "Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." The disciples were believers at the time this was spoken. They had life, and life more abundantly. Jesus, the quickening Spirit, had breathed upon them and said, " Receive ye the Holy Ghost." (John 20.) He had also opened their understanding that they might understand the Scriptures. (Luke 24.) But none of these things is the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Pentecost first beheld the accomplishment of the promise of the Father. Then and not before, were believers baptized with the Spirit. But it is this baptism which introduces into and forms the "one body." It is the Spirit thus present and baptizing, who began, organized, and recruits the body of Christ. Hence is it that, coincident with the baptism of the Holy Ghost, we first heir, in the Word of God, of this new body and of membership therein. Whatever the privileges, (and they were many,) which existed before, that which is distinctively called in the Bible "the Church of God," appeared here below, as the consequence of the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, dwelling in the disciples and baptizing them, Jews or Gentiles, into one body.

The apostle addresses, no doubt, the Church of God that was at Corinth, and it is very clear that the New Testament frequently speaks of assemblies in this or that locality, i.e., churches, (compare Rom. 16: 1, 5; Gal. 1: 2, 22; Col. 4: 15, 16; 1 Thess. 1: 1; 1 Thess. 2: 14, etc.) But beside this, Acts 2: 47; 1 Cor. 10: 32; 1 Cor. 12: 28; 1 Cor. 15: 9; Eph. 1, 2, 3, etc. ; Col. 1; 1 Tim. 3: 15, are instances of another sense of the most important bearing, as may be seen in the epistles of Paul, i.e. the Church, as a body here below, in a breadth as extensive as the baptism of the Spirit. Thus, to take a single text referred to, that entire society or corporation, wherein He dwelt and wrought, was the assembly in which God set apostles, prophets, teachers, etc. Certainly, it was impossible to say that He had set all these in the Corinthian assembly, nor will it be maintained that He is to set them in the Church universal, gathered on high. There is, then, a large sense of "the Church," in which unity is predicated of all the members of Christ existing at one time in the world, whatever might be the distances separating their bodies; and that, in virtue of one Spirit baptizing them into one body. The body of Christ, like the natural body, is susceptible of increase; but, as in the natural body, the identity subsists when the old particles have given place to new, so the body of Christ is the body still, whatever the changes in the members in particular. He who, by His presence, imparted unity at its beginning, conserves unity by His own faithful presence. He was given to abide with the disciples for ever.

In fine, by "the Church" is meant not the aggregate of various co-ordinate (much less conflicting) societies, but a body, the one body of Christ, possessing the same privileges, and calling, and responsibility on earth, and looking for the same glory in heaven as the Bride of Christ. If a man was baptized by the Spirit, he was thereby made a member of the Church of God; if he had a gift, it was to be exercised according to the proportion of faith, for the good of the whole . not ministry, nor membership, pertaining to a church, but to the Church ; each joint belonging to the entire body, and the entire body to each joint.

As Israel of old was untrue to its calling, so is Christendom now. The Gentile has not continued in the goodness of God, and has therefore no other prospect than to be cut off, when the due moment comes in the wisdom of God. (Rom. 11.) But as once the godly clave to the ancient oracles revealed to the Jews, precisely analogous is the joy and obligation of the believer now. If Catholics and Protestants have, in various ways and measures, been unfaithful to the Word and Holy Spirit; if the scriptural ground of the Church of God has been everywhere lost sight of in principle and renounced in practice, the more incumbent it is for the glory of the Lord, that those who fear Him and love His name, should sock at once, and in all respects, to eschew the prevalent evils they know, and to submit themselves unreservedly to the revealed will of God. Nothing can justify perseverance in known sin. And if God has given the name of the Lord Jesus, not only for salvation, but as the centre of His assembly on earth, through the recognition of the Spirit's presence and operation therein, what is any other point of union but a rival and a rebel, which every Christian is bound to disown? What is our resource, then, and what His provision for us? "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matt. 18: 20.)

______________

(B.T. Vol. 5, p.346.)

There are two ways in which the priesthood of Christ is often wrongly used. First, as if we could not go directly to the Father; secondly, as if we sought thus to obtain righteousness.

Perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Matt 5: 46-48.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. N4, p. 371-372.)

It is God, not man, whom the Lord makes the criterion; the heavenly Father, not the dread moral governor as made known to Israel, but our Father. What are His affections, what His will about us? Nothing is more foreign here than the delusion of our being freed now from the indwelling evil of our nature.

"For if ye love those that love you, what reward have ye? do not even the tax-gatherers the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye much more? do not even the Gentiles the same? Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Herein was manifested the love of God in our case, because God hath sent His only-begotten Son, that we might live through Him. For we were dead Godward, and in Him only was the life that could serve God, which we wholly lacked. The love of God has met this, otherwise insuperable lack, and this by sending His only-begotten Son who is that life to impart it to those that believe. They, have life eternal for their souls now, as they await it for their bodies when He comes again for us. But even this possession of life in Him suffices not to satisfy His love, any more than it fits us to enjoy, serve, and worship Him. There is a burden which nothing on our part could remove. Therefore it follows, Herein is love, not because we loved God, but because He loved us, and sent His Son as propitiation for our sins (1 John 4: 9, 10). But there is also, flowing hence, the Spirit, His Spirit, dwelling in us, as of love no less than of power and sobriety, so that we love one another after a divine sort.

This, no doubt, is Christianity in its full privileges, going far beyond the state of the disciples before redemption and the gift of the Spirit. But the divine nature was already there, which would be active when all obstacles were gone through the work of Christ. Hence, even in the time that preceded the cross, the Lord insisted on a love wholly above mere human nature with its likes and its dislikes. The detested tax-gatherers had natural affection, and loved those that loved them. The Gentiles saluted tenderly those bound up with themselves in mere ties of flesh and blood. The disciples were enjoined to love far beyond Jew or Greek. The family were to love as their heavenly Father did. Though this could not be in degree, it was the kind of love, which must be in God's children by divine grace, rising above all question of desert or ulterior aim.

"Ye therefore shall be perfect," says the Lord, as your heavenly Father is perfect." His is love, because He is love; it is the energy of His nature going out in goodness where there is need, and above all reference to merit, or congruity with what He loves and is. And this in all its perfection He was then showing in the Lord Jesus, image of the invisible God. What did He ever seek for Himself, as He went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people; lunatics, demon-possessed, paralytics, dead men or women? It was love irrespective of self, in compassion to the most wretched of men; it was love rising above all the unworthiness, ingratitude, or hostility on the part of its objects. He was doing not His own will in any case, but the will of God, and for His Father's glory. What is the altruism of men's talk, or of any man's performance, in comparison?

This love we too share as His children. So the Lord taught then; so the Holy Spirit confirmed afterward, Be ye therefore imitators of God, as children beloved; and walk in love, even as Christ also loved us and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour. The blessings of Christianity and of the church of God ought only to accentuate the duty and increase its spring and power.

As the heavenly Father's love is shown in absolute superiority to good or evil, right or wrong, whom He blesses from grace in Himself, so is the Christian now called to walk as made partaker of a divine nature (not merely of Adam's), and in the place of sons. If noblesse oblige, as men say, how much more divine grace and such a relationship?

But, my fellow-sinner, what ignorance, and madness for you, ungodly, enemy, and spiritually powerless as you are, to imagine you can so walk, or so win your way to God! Not so: as lost ones cast yourselves in repentance and faith on the Saviour and His redemption. If you look away to Him from your guilty selves, He will give you life everlasting in Him, and the remission of sins through His blood. Then, and thus only, can you follow Him in the path, His path, which He points out to His own.

The Dealings of God with Peter.

Matthew 14: 22-33

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. N8, [14 episodes]. This paper begins the second of a course of lectures on "The Dealings of God with Peter," the first lecture unfortunately being lost, or not taken down. — [Ed. B.T.])

My object, as you know, is not to enter into all the particulars that might claim our attention and our interest in such a scene as I have now read, but the Lord's dealings with Peter — the special teaching of God's Spirit in that which concerned His servant on this occasion. Now, on a previous one, the Lord had manifested His gracious power in a kindred scene — not, it is true, in a storm, but in the very neighbourhood of the shore, after a fruitless night of labour where they had toiled much and caught nothing. And the Lord had then shown not only His absolute power on behalf of His own people, but His perfect knowledge. For it was not merely that there was a shoal of fishes caught, but there was the direction of the Lord. There was the telling them to cast on the right of the boat; and it was found therefore, as Jesus had said, and as the apostle (he who was about to be an apostle) now learned, "at Thy word." It was against all appearances, in the face of an experience which would have made him utterly doubt the possibility of such a thing; but it was the Lord, and it was the Lord honouring His word — the Lord who showed boundless resources, and that these resources were not only at His command, but according to His word to His own people. And this, accordingly, was the starting-point of Peter as a fisher of men.

Here we have another scene, not by the shore, but on the lake, which was now a scene of boisterous wind, and, as it is said, "the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves; for the wind was contrary." It is a picture of what the world is for the servants of the Lord in His absence. He was on high on the mountain. He was there in prayer — just what He is doing now. He is in the presence of God interceding; and, meanwhile, His servants are here, and all is against them — all outward circumstances — for there is one who is in power allowed for a season, and his uniform effort is to oppose and thwart the servants of the Lord. Hence, therefore, they, being exposed on the lake, were an object against which Satan raged. "And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea. And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled." The very thing which if believed in is the spring of the deepest comfort, when it is merely a question of sight, even if it were Jesus, is turned into an occasion of fear! So little can we trust ourselves, so infinitely are we indebted to God and His word. I say that the word revealing Jesus is a totally different thing from our own thoughts, our own sight, even if it were so. So we know it was when the Lord was here below; not perhaps terror as on this occasion, but certainly indifference, stupid wonder sometimes, at the miracles that He wrought, but always only one feeling of the heart after another. There was no divine link. The only spring of divine association is the word of God.

Well here there was nothing of the kind. They "saw him walking on the sea," and "were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear. But straightway Jesus spake unto them." Here was His word. "Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer, it is I, be not afraid."

This draws out Peter, who showed what, alas he often showed — he showed confidence in his own feelings about the Lord. He was right, of course, as to the Lord; utterly wrong in acting upon his own thoughts and feelings. So now, when the Lord had brought out this comfort, nothing seemed to him a more simple thing — with that fervour and readiness that was his character — to act upon it. So he says, "Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water."

Now there, I need not tell you, it was what man never ought to venture — a going before the Lord. All blessing and power in acting where the Lord leads, but what a thing, after all, for man to wish to lead the Lord! It was really this which Peter, through his haste, was doing. "Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water." The Lord acts, however, upon His word. He would test him. It was needful for Peter. And it is exactly what the Lord is doing now with us. It was what He did with Israel in the wilderness, but then He shows what is in the heart. It is not merely a question of evil, but there may be that which seems ever so good, for what could be better than to go out to Jesus? Yes, but there is all the difference whether it is the Lord, who, from His own heart, bids me come, or the Lord who acts upon my own impetuosity, and who puts me to the test, if it is my own thought, my own haste. It was so, certainly, with Peter, and this, accordingly,. was what Peter had to learn — the blessedness of waiting, the danger of dictating, of drawing even upon the Lord according. to his own thoughts. So the Lord answers him "Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water to go to Jesus"; for undoubtedly that word "Come" for the moment filled his heart. It was faith. It was faith to act upon the word of the Lord, but inasmuch as it was not only faith, it was mingled. It was Peter's word, and not simply the Lord's word. "If it be thou." Was that simple faith? "Lord, if it be thou." Assuredly not.

With the faith, the unmingled faith, that God gives a soul, there is no such thing as "If it be thou." There was clearly, therefore, the mingling of Peter's own mind, Peter's own thoughts. A question was involved in the very way in which he speaks to the Lord: "Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee upon the water." Was it His will? He had not thought of that. It was Peter's will; but, nevertheless, there was reality in Peter, and this is exactly what we find on the occasion. It is a mingled scene; it flowed out of a mingled source.

And this is one thing that we have often to learn, beloved friends, of one another. It is the commonest thing possible, especially in the younger days of every Christian. And it is precisely where we have to take care of our thoughts and our theories. There may be reality of faith, but there may be much more than faith, too, and it is wisdom never to disown faith. But, on the other hand, it is wisdom also to discern that there is something besides faith.

So in this very case. There is faith in so far that Peter does go at the word of the Lord, and does, therefore, walk on the water. There would have been no such thing if there had not been faith; but still, I repeat, it was not unmingled. There was enough of Peter himself to enfeeble his walk on the water, and this shows itself quickly, for when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid, and, beginning to sink, he cried, saying, "Lord, save me."

Now there at once an unskilled soul, in dealing with another, would say, "There is no faith there whatever. There you see he is sinking. He is crying, 'Lord, save me.' He never knew that he was saved. He never had faith." It does not follow by any means, but it was quite evident that there was this trouble in the heart of Peter, and, accordingly, the Lord dealt with what was simply of Peter, while at the same time He stood faithful to His own word, for He had bid him come, and He would not revoke it. He does not change, but inasmuch as Peter had been too forward, and his own will was concerned in it, the Lord would judge the will, but He would strengthen the faith. And so He acts in the perfecting of His own grace. For He allows Peter to learn the folly of being before the Lord. He allows him to prove that even His own word, "Come," was not enough unless there was faith in it. Peter could say in his First Epistle, "Kept by the power of God." Yes, but "through faith." And supposing there was something besides faith at work — feeling, desire — for, no doubt, Peter thought that nobody else in the boat could go out but himself; well then, I say, there was something to judge, and this was in the very fulness of the love of the Lord Jesus to Peter. For Peter would have to do with others as a fisher of men, and if Peter had walked bravely on the water, and there had been no sinking, do you think that Peter would ever have known the weight of his own word, "kept by the power of God"? Certainly not.

This then was an incomparably valuable lesson, a lesson that he learned from the Lord personally, but a lesson that was only better known when the Lord was no longer there in person, when the Lord was away. Indeed, it was particularly for that time, for the whole scene in its force rather refers to the absence of Jesus. No doubt there is a linking on of the present with that which will he by and by, and I suppose that the end of the chapter shows most clearly that view. Taking the scene as a picture of what is coming, no doubt it does show us our Lord when He rejoins those from whom He has been separated; when He comes back again, and not only joins Peter on the sea, but joins the others in the ship. There will he a coming to the "desired haven." There will be the return of the Lord. There will be the blessedness that will follow His return. "And when the men of that place had knowledge of him, they sent out into all that country round about, and brought unto him all that — were diseased, and besought him that they might only touch the hem of his garment, and as many as touched were made perfectly whole." No doubt there will be this, not merely in a little testimony as then, but in power when the Lord returns in His kingdom, and He will be welcomed in the very place from which, on the contrary, He had been rejected. For it was at this very spot that there had been the desire expressed, and expressed strongly too, that He would depart from their coasts. It is the return of the Lord, then, which finishes this part of the chapter.

The eighteenth chapter takes up another line of truth, but it brings us, as far as a figure can, to the return of the Lord by and by. Only we have evidently a very great advance in the position of Peter. When Peter left the ship we have what, as nearly as possible, shows the place of a Christian; what ought to be the pathway, indeed, of the church as a whole. That is an abandonment of every prop of nature, and the going out to Jesus where nothing but divine power could keep him. But I repeat that is only through faith. Now that is the grand lesson, that it is not even Jesus only, but it is through faith. And where therefore Peter allowed other things to occupy his mind, when he saw the wind boisterous, that was not faith. "When he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid, and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me." Certainly that is not the triumph of a Christian man. A Christian man is characterised always by this, "receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls." A man who does not maintain with simplicity and with constancy the happy enjoyment of the salvation of his soul, so far gives up the principle of a Christian man. Of course I do not the least mean that there are not very true Christians who have been bewildered and perplexed and misled as to the salvation of their souls. I am very far from saying that they are not Christians if they have not that constant enjoyment, but I do say they are off the ground of Christianity. I do say they have never known it, or that they have let it slip as Peter did here. And the source is the very same thing, for people have tried to have the joy of salvation by thinking of salvation. They never will, never! It is by Christ before them, by Christ as one that we are entitled to look upon and rest in and enjoy. And indeed this characterises, as we find afterwards, in this very Gospel, not merely Christ as an object now, but Christ as an object of hope by and by. "They went forth to meet the bridegroom." That is what we are called to, that is, from the very beginning, and that is what God now has brought back again. We go forth to meet Him. We do not belong to an association. We do not belong to a society, and nothing on earth, no person, no thing upon earth, has a right to us. Jesus only. Consequently therefore if He says, "Come," we go, and if this fills the heart it does not matter whether there are the waters or not. And it makes not the slightest difference that the waters are boisterous, for I need not repeat the remark, familiar to many, that the waters might have been as smooth as glass, but they would have been just as difficult to walk upon. It is not, therefore, in the least a question of smooth or rough, but of Jesus; and of Jesus (I repeat) as one that the heart was occupied with — Jesus again, as I have said, as one. that is coming back, for we have that too. It is not merely as one now, but as one that is coming, and coming to receive us into His own glory, into His own joy.

Here then we have this most weighty lesson impressed upon the soul of Peter — that even in the presence of Jesus, where the circumstances of trial and of danger, instead of the word of Christ, filled his mind; his heart was utterly powerless, and he was in far more imminent danger than those that were in the boat. No doubt he despised them! They did not dare to go out to meet Jesus! But where was Peter now? Hence you see he was, after all, comparing himself. He was looking at these things, and looking at himself upon the water; he had forgotten Jesus really, and therefore in this agony he cries out, "Lord, save me," and the grace of the Lord at once meets him. "And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith." Ah, there was faith then, but it was little faith, and this little faith now became manifest. He thought he was a man of great faith. Now here was exactly the lesson that Peter had to learn. "O thou of little faith." It was himself. It was not Thomas. I do not say that Thomas' faith was not very little, but still, it was not Thomas, it was not John, it was no other, it was Peter. He never thought of it. On the contrary, he was quite sure that he was a man of great faith, and now he has this most wholesome lesson. How humble he would be! How tender with others! He would remember that there was One who had searched the heart and the reins, who had said, "O thou of little faith." And I have not the slightest doubt that the very fact that the Lord pronounced, "O thou of little faith," was the means of his growth in faith. For the thing that hinders us, brethren, at least one great source at any rate, is our conceit of ourselves. We do not think we need to grow; we forget that. We forget our lowliness, and I would speak now, spiritually too, for that was the point. It was not little in any circumstances that belonged to Simon Barjona. It was the little faith of Peter. And so the Lord shows also that which characterises little faith — doubt. There is not a word in the Bible to create a doubt, not one. The Spirit of God never put a doubt into the heart of man. Doubt is of Satan, or of man himself under Satan, if you please, never of the Spirit of God. There is everything to search, everything to humble, to exercise, but to exercise faith; because, beloved friends, what is the root of doubting? Depreciating Christ. Do you think the Holy Ghost ever depreciates the grace of Christ towards even the man of little faith? Here you have the contrary. To whom did Christ manifest His grace more? To the man of little faith most of all. "Wherefore didst thou doubt? — They come into the ship, the wind ceases, they arrive on the other side, and, as I have already pointed out, with that result of blessing in the very place of His rejection.

Well, this is the first great lesson that followed the public call of Peter. I shall now take you to another and different scene in the end of the sixth of John, where the Lord had brought out Himself, and Himself, too, in a very wondrous way — as the bread of life come down from heaven in contrast with the king that man would have liked to make Him; for they thought He was just the one for them, a king that would provide bread for his people; and so they caught at it at once.

They might have quoted scripture for it. For had not scripture declared that Messiah would feed His people with bread? Yes, and it would have been such an excellent thing for them — bread without working for it! and so they thought that this was the king that would do for them. They therefore sought to make the Lord a king, and the Lord therefore goes away from them, because, although He was born King of the Jews, and although He was proclaimed King of the Jews a little after, and although it was impossible for him to deny and not confess that truth, let it be who it might — Pontius Pilate even, that asked, without the least concern as to the reality of the answer — nevertheless, the Lord showed that He knew from the very beginning that He was come, not to reign, but to die; to reign, no doubt, by and by, for there is no truth of Christ but what will be verified. There is no seed but what will really produce fruit, even though it fall to the ground and die first; but still in that very way it is so. It all must go through death and resurrection.

And so the Lord Jesus shows here that it is not first bread, but first suffering. Hence therefore He expounds a grand truth of His person, and what He had come to do, in contrast with Jewish thoughts — that it was not to reign as they expected, although His was the title and He was really the King of that people. But then His own would not have Him — "his own received him not." His own received Him not, because they were sinners, and after all it was impossible that He could reign over a realm of sin and of sinners. Thus one can see the perfect suitability of it that so it should be, but nevertheless God allowed it to come out as a matter of human responsibility. They would not have Him, not that He would not have them, but that they would not have Him, and it turns out after all that there was a moral unsuitability — total unsuitability — between such a king and such a people.

Well then, what does the Lord lay down? He was come to be a servant, and consequently He comes down. He comes down from heaven, He becomes a man, He is incarnate. But that is not all. When they stumbled at that, He says, "I am come to die," and He puts this too in the very strongest way, for He says that it is not only that He must be accepted as thus coming down from heaven, and becoming a man to serve, but further — that except they ate His flesh and drank His blood they had no life in them; and yet further, that whosoever did eat His flesh and drink His blood had eternal life, and He would raise him up at the last day. Clearly not that which men have been talking about of late — a question about sacrament or mass or anything of that kind. It is Himself, beloved friends; it is Himself; but then it is Himself dying! And there, indeed, is the great delusion of men — using something that is a mere sign of Christ to do the work of Christ Himself — an idol made out of an institution of the Lord, and consequently it becomes a "saving sacrament," call it what you please.

No, there is but one Saviour, and this is what He really came for, and this was worthy of God and of His Son — to be the Saviour first. He will reign by and by, but He would save men from sin; for what would be the good of the kingdom first, and then men turned into hell afterwards? No, He would save them from sin first. He would save them from hell, and then reign; and so He will, and this is the way. Accordingly then, He substitutes Himself, coming down and dying for sinners in this world, giving His life, as He says, for the world. It was not merely a question of the Jews, but He gives this life for the world. He substitutes this for the earthly expectation of Israel that He was to reign over them now. Not so; this was His real work, and He closes it all by His going up to heaven as the Son of man.

And it is a singular thing that these are the two things that a Jew cannot endure. He does not believe either in God's coming down, or in man's going up; he denies both. It is precisely what tests all the thoughts and feelings of a Jew, and I expect that it will test Christendom too very shortly, because they are rapidly falling into the same pit of unbelief that Israel has fallen into already, and they will very soon, to their own eternal ruin, give up as a public profession, through Christendom, either that God came down to the earth, or that man has gone up to heaven. That will be the apostasy when it comes. But this chapter is full of it, and the effect of bringing this out was that from that time many of His disciples went back, and walked no more with Him. Is it not so? "Many of his disciples." It was not merely the multitudes, but many of His disciples went back and walked no more with Him. And what had the Lord done, and what had He said? He had brought out His incomparable grace. He had brought out an infinitely deeper truth than if He had brought in the kingdom and given them to sit one on the right hand and the other on the left, if it had been possible to give the best place to every soul in the kingdom, which, of course, could not be. If it had been possible, I repeat, for every man of them to have the best place, what was that compared to His coming down and dying for sinners, giving eternal life, and raising them up at the last day? Nevertheless, it was such a shock to all their expectations that many of His disciples, from that time, went back and walled no more with Him.

"Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?" And who answered? Simon Peter. And now, you see, he that was of little faith had become, I may say, of great faith. The lesson was learnt, and he showed it, for when the question came the answer — the ready answer of his soul — was, "Lord, to whom shall we go?" He does not now say "I." He does not now say, "Lord, if it be Thou." "Lord, to whom shall we go?" There is no "if" now. "Thou hast the words of eternal life." No hesitation in his soul. Ah, there is faith. There is not little faith now. There is no mingling of doubt now. There is no question before Peter now, and what is more remarkable too, there is no such thing as that egotism that mingled with the former case, but he says, "We believe and are sure." He puts them all with himself, "We believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God."

I am sorry on such an occasion as this, beloved friends, to bring in a little word that must correct our English Version. You must carefully remember that the English Version, after all, is not the word of God in the fullest sense, or strictest sense, of the word. That is, you must always leave room for an occasional spot or speck where man's carelessness has a little obscured the fulness of the truth. Now, if you look at any careful, any exact, presentation of the true text and translation of the N.T. you will find it to be this, "That thou art the Christ, the Holy One of God." "The Holy One of God" are the true words, as I believe, in this particular place. I do not think, therefore, it is the same thing exactly as we have in Matt. 16. It is a different confession of our Lord Jesus, and I will endeavour to show the great beauty and appropriateness of that which Peter says here; for mark, beloved friends, there is no anxiety now. There is no such thing as, "Lord, save me"; no such thing now. Now he is filled with Christ. He has not a thought of himself or anything else, and this is the true way in which souls enter into perfect peace with the Lord.

And again, if there is any one thing that is terrible to a sinner it is the holiness of God — and the holiness of God where it is brought fairly by faith before the soul — where it measures the believer, because the believer alone truly feels what is in those words, "The Holy One of God." I grant you, it is not only believers. What will help to make it a little more distinct is this. We have others that say, "The Holy One of God." It was the confession, if I can call it so — it was the expression at any rate — of the demoniacal man, the demoniac that first met the Lord when He began His public ministry. This ministry of our Lord was, as you know, first entered upon at Nazareth, where, according to His wont, He entered into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and there was given Him the book of Esaias the prophet, in which was the scripture that showed that He was the One according to prophecy that was to bring in the acceptable year of the Lord; and He shows therefore, the exceeding grace of God. It was no question now of judgment, no mingling of the two that man so much likes, but that it was to he unmixed grace.

But then there is another thing. Satan has got power here. Therefore there follows in Luke, when he gives the ministry of the Lord, His confronting the man with the unclean spirit in the synagogue at Capernaum on the sabbath day also. It was to be brought evidently before man — the power of Satan in this world, the power of Satan in man and over man. And then we have in the fourth of Luke (I may just refer to it for a moment in order to compare it) the demon crying out with a loud voice, "Let us alone." Mark it well. "Let us." It is a very solemn thing how a spirit, whether it is an evil spirit or the Spirit of God, identifies himself with the man in whom he dwells, just as he who has the Holy Ghost has Him adapting Himself in grace to the man. So, though it be His own guidance, it is, nevertheless, the man's guidance. Although it he He that works, all that is good and sweet in the man, it is the man's work. It is what the man does after all. All the fruits of the Spirit are not merely the fruits of the Spirit, but they belong to the man. They characterise the man, so much so that we are ourselves said to be "in the Spirit." As the apostle says, "Ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you." That is, He characterises us so completely that it is no longer the flesh but the Spirit, if the Spirit dwell in us. Well, just so here. The man says, "Let us alone; what have we to do with thee." It is not, "What have I," merely; "What have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? Art thou come to destroy us?" That is what they felt. That was the dismal fear that was produced. And mark how Jesus is addressed. "I know thee, who thou art, the Holy One of God." Nothing more awful to contemplate, nothing that so brings their utter and everlasting doom before them, for they at least believe — and with what effect? The demons believe and tremble.

Now that is not at all the intention with a soul that is born of God. Faith is not intended to make us tremble, but to make us happy; to make us at perfect peace, because if I see Jesus by faith I have Him as my life. I could not have Him by faith without His being my life also, and I could not have Him as my life without having His righteousness now. I speak, of course, supposing now the work done: that is, the Christian has all that he sees in Christ. Everything that is in Christ is in his favour. What He is as the Son of God, what He is as the Son of man; everything is in his favour. He could not do without one single thing that he knows to be in the Son of God. If He were not the Son of God it would not be eternal life; and if He were not a man it would not be righteousness. But you see the whole thing then — all that Christ is in His person and work — all descends in blessing upon the head of a believer. In his case, therefore, we find the very reverse. "We believe and are sure." Was there any trembling there? No, when Peter was not occupied with Jesus, as we saw, when he looked at the danger, the circumstances in which he was, he was full of anxiety; he was afraid. But not so now, and yet, beloved friends, he confesses Christ in the very same terms in which we find this man, the demon, does; but in this latter case it was awful alarm. It was the pangs of coming judgment that filled the soul, "Art thou come to destroy us?" You see, the power of Satan was to drag down the man into his terror, just as the Holy Ghost would lift up man into His sense of what grace is now in the Lord Jesus Christ. So Jesus rebukes the demon, turns out the demon, and the man is settled in peace and deliverance. But in Peter's case we have the very same thing — the Holy One of God confessed — and yet instead of an anxiety it is the very thing that fills the heart with joy.

If we had only the sense of our Lord Jesus as the gracious One, there would still be something lacking for our souls; if we had no thought but "the day is coming when I shall see Him as the Holy One. What will it be then?" Nay, but I know that I cannot separate it. It is the holy One just as much as the gracious One now. He is the one that never admitted — always refused — evil of any kind; and that is my comfort, that it is the one who loves me best, the one that sees me through and through, the one that caused others, it may be, to doubt; at any rate, they do doubt, because there were such words of grace as never were heard before, for the Lord had never given utterance to words so full of grace as in this very discourse at Capernaum, because of which His disciples — many of them — left Him. But Peter, as now showing the simplicity and growth of faith, instead of trembling, instead of being enfeebled, instead of his going along with those that had departed, on the contrary, confesses Him that He is the Holy One of God at the very time that he says, "We believe and are sure." There was no flinching, there was no hiding, there was no danger that that Holy One would detect for which he would cast them out from His presence. The very reverse. Peter had said, even before, "Thou hast the words of eternal life."

Now this then is the next thing that I believe the Spirit of God would have us to see in His dealings with Peter. That is, that now, when he has Christ Himself before him, and Christ Himself in the very character that fills the demon with the sense of coming destruction, Peter stands before Him without a doubt. There is nothing so awful as divine holiness where there is sin, and sin without grace to meet it; but here the very contrary. The Lord had been bringing out all His grace, and for that very reason Peter stands in the presence of all His holiness, and he stands there with not a doubt upon his soul. He stands there confessing Him, and confessing Him with words of unusual strength.

Further too, there is a grace that takes in others, for instead of merely confessing himself, he joins others in the confession of the very same truth. Indeed, Peter knew that he had not Christ for himself; that if he had Christ, the others had also. The Lord, it is true, at that very time cautions him. The Lord brings in the solemn thought that he may have gone a little too far there. "Jesus answered, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for he it was that should betray him."

The Lord therefore does show not merely that there was eternal life for those that believed, but that Peter did not know that one of the twelve was no believer at all. But as far as the strength of Peter's words went, it was all right and all true; that is to say, that those that believe have this blessed portion in Him, and that, even as for His being the Holy One of God, so far from its being a question, or an anxiety, on the contrary, it is coupled here with the strongest and fullest confession of faith that Peter had made up to that moment.

Now we will go to what I may call a kindred confession, but not the same, and we must return to the sixteenth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew for it. It was a time when unbelief was coming out, only here it is not the disciples; it is not that circle only that is judged; but the chapter shows us unbelief everywhere until we come to the disciples; and the Lord Himself put the question, "When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist, some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. That is, there was the usual answer of men, the uncertainty of human opinion. "He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?" because the very uncertainty of men brings out the faith of God's elect, and therefore there is no time at all that is not turned of God for good to the believer. When things are bright and happy, how happy for the believer! When things are most dark, how happy for the believer! Of course, not the darkness of the time, but the preciousness of having Christ in the darkest time. I say then that it matters not what the time of uncertainty may be. If the soul is simple, it is always well. And so here. "Whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."

The Gospel of Mark also gives this confession, but there it is merely "the Christ." He does not say a word about His being the Son of the living God, and this helps much to show the force of its connection, because where He is only confessed to he "the Christ" there is not a word said about building the church; not a word. But where he adds to "the Christ" that He was the Son of the living God," the Lord answers, "Blessed art thou." Peter could bear now to be personally and peculiarly blest. He had shown that by the grace of God he had risen above occupation with himself, and drawing attention to himself. And it is precisely when one is thus delivered from self, as far as it goes, that the Lord can put particular honour. Not otherwise. "Thou art the Christ," says he; and the Lord's answer is, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." Could Peter have borne that on the night on which he sank in the water? No, not at all. But Peter was no longer "thou of little faith." Now the Lord could tell him that this was the very special revelation that the Father had made to him. He could bear it. But He adds, "And I also say unto thee." It is not only that the Father had revealed that, but the Lord adds His revelation also to Peter. For it is not, "I say also," but "I also say." Indeed, that is the true, real force of the verse. My Father hath revealed it, "and I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church."

What was that? It was Christ confessed, not merely as the Christ, but as the Son of the living God, so that where the Son of the living God is not brought out there is no building up of the church. Where the Son of the living God is confessed, He says, "Upon this rock I will build my church." And so indeed it is. Christ was the One in whom the promises were to be accomplished. "The Son of the living God" is the one who is proved to be so by resurrection of the dead. I do not deny that by that very same resurrection the promises are secured, but this I do say, that what proved Him to be the Son of God, even before the promises are accomplished, was this personal glory that broke through the last stronghold of Satan — death — nay, that which was God's judgment upon man, upon the first man. Now there is another man, but He is much more than a man. Man simply and as such could not conquer Satan. There was always one who was more, although He was to become a man. The seed of the woman no doubt should bruise the serpent's head, but then that seed of the woman was to be the Son of God. All scripture will show it, but there never had been in any scripture a confession, on the whole, so full as this very one that Peter had pronounced. "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."

It was a great epoch spiritually in Peter's soul, for the Lord knows how to bring out and how to own what His own grace produces. It was the fitting time. He had said this word, and it was a word of which the Son of God Himself took most especial notice. He does not say, "Oh, it is only the Father." Yes, but it was His Father that had done it through Peter's lips, and the Son therefore owns this as a most weighty thing — that before the resurrection, before the death, there was the confession of that power in the presence of the Son of God that would break through death, and so, accordingly, lay a groundwork for another thing that does not belong to this creation at all — not merely an individual blest — not merely that. Individuals had been blest before, but there was to be a divine building, there was to be a new thing formed upon earth, founded upon death overcome, founded upon resurrection-power that had broken through all that Satan could do — yea, even God's judgment; deliverance (mark it well), deliverance from the judgment of God in this

world. Now that is the church. The church is that body which owes its existence to this glorious person and fact that the Son of God, in order to the giving the church a being, has broken through the power of Satan in death, and the consequence is that the church is intended to live in this constant confession of victory — victory over death and judgment, and victory only through that one person, the Son of the living God.

Well, "upon this rock," says He, "I will build my church," and nothing can be more solemn than that. The very thing in this world that Satan has forged, and which takes its stand upon this verse more than any other, is of all things most distant from it. For there is no one thing, as you well know, no one body under the sun bearing the name of Christ, that has so completely denied this very truth as that dreadful imposture, that spurious woman and most corrupt that makes the earth drunk with the wine of her cup, and that has stained herself with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. No doubt, because they have found that it answers their purpose; no doubt blinded by Satan's power, they have given up this truth, and they make the thing a question of merchandise, a question of masses and money, of priests and ordinances, and after all no salvation, no victory over death or judgment, but the very contrary, the constant sound of wailing and lamentation, and everything that would betoken fear and anxiety and question, to keep souls in thraldom and bondage, if peradventure there may be a little more money. Nothing can be more thoroughly opposed to the truth of God than that very body that has attempted to take its stand upon this very verse. I mention it as a singular instance, though, indeed, the same thing is true of all scripture. You will find that whenever men boastfully take their stand upon anything, without Christ there is nothing that more completely opposes them, and nothing that they more completely mistake, than the very scripture which they misuse for their own purpose. And hence you will always find, it you have to do with those who are not led by the Spirit of God, that the scriptures that they adduce are the very best answers to their pretensions. Take the scripture that they misuse and you will find that it is the most powerful engine against themselves. And so here with popery which I have just been referring to.

There are other scriptures, but this is the grand point for our own souls. Peter takes his stand upon this, and a remarkable thing, too, is the manner in which Peter brings out the church. Although he does not call it the church in his own epistle, what he speaks of there more nearly answers to this than, perhaps, to what you will find in any other part of the New Testament. When the Lord says, "Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," it is clear that although it be not the body as such, upon the other hand it is not that which man builds. It is what Christ builds, and there is that peculiarity of it, because when in scripture Christianity is presented under the figure of a house or a building you get, as a usual thing, what may be corrupted; you get what does not necessarily suppose life. But that is not the case with what the Lord calls "My church." Nor is it the case with what Peter describes in his epistle, "To whom coming as unto a living stone, ye also as living stones." He does not suppose a dead stone to come. He was evidently filled with this truth that the Lord gave his soul upon that very day, "Upon this rock will I build my church"; for it is evident that what Christ builds always must come to its fulfilment according to the purpose of God. "Upon this rock," then he says, "I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," so that although it be the building, it is only the building viewed as built divinely. It is not the responsible thing that man is occupied with, and where man's weakness comes in by building on the foundation what is not worthy and not suitable.

Here it is very different. "And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." So He did. Peter opened it on the day of Pentecost to the Jews, and afterwards to Cornelius the Gentile. It is the same thing. "And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall he bound in heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Peter had this place, though not exclusively. As we find in the eighteenth chapter, the disciples bind and loose. I do not say the apostles, but the disciples. But the disciples had not got the keys of the kingdom of heaven. No, nor the other apostles either; not at all. You remember that it is not the key of heaven. There is no more profound mistake than to confound "the kingdom of heaven" with "heaven." The kingdom of heaven is the rule of heaven over the earth, and therefore there may be all kinds of mistakes and all kinds of things that are not according to God. We must not confound the kingdom of heaven, therefore, with Christ's church. The kingdom of heaven is what He governs. The kingdom of heaven, therefore, is the scene of profession, and consequently there may be all sorts of things there that are far from Christ; tares as well as wheat. And so Peter, I say, opened that kingdom on the day of Pentecost. But the other part was not exclusively Peter's, though Peter has it put here in a personal form.

Then Christ charged His disciples that they should tell no man that He was the Christ. That was no question now. There was no question of His being Christ; He was going to die.

Matt. 17: 1-8, 24-21

No man, after such a blessing as the Lord had just pronounced upon Peter, ever received a sterner rebuke. "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona," so soon to be followed by, "Get thee behind me, Satan." So serious the place of a Christian — of a believer at least! so true the One who watches over us in love! Whilst there is the fullest value even for that which nothing but His own grace had given, and the deepest encouragement, yet how stern and unsparing is the Lord in letting Peter see what his thoughts, what his feelings, were; what Peter's heart was thinking about! And what was it that had drawn it our? Peter had owned the glory of His person. It was of God, God's teaching, without question, and the Saviour owned it at once; but that very Peter would turn Him away from the cross! Should that be? "Get thee behind me, Satan." The Lord Jesus came to die, and to die, too, in all the depths of it. For as to all the externals of the cross, they were indeed — deep as they were — but the outward form of that which only God could estimate. They greatly err who look only to what man was the instrument of in the cross of Christ — most true, most real as it was. But here the Lord was particularly looking at the cross as rejection; yet the path of that rejection led straight into the glory in which He was coming by and by. And the Lord accordingly, in the beginning of the seventeenth chapter, would give a view of the glory, and amongst others, to the very disciple that would have stopped His way into, as Peter thought, a suffering that was unworthy, but in truth that which was the foundation of His glory. For we are not here to look at His glory as Son of God; there was no foundation for that, it was its own foundation. That was truly divine, essentially divine. But here it was conferred glory. It is the kingdom; it is what God has given. As it is said in another place, "Wherefore God hath highly exalted him," so, by and by, He will be exalted in the kingdom; and the Lord would give a view of it that it might be not only a prophetical testimony, but, as the apostle Peter says, and he is the one that does say it, "We have the prophetic word more confirmed," that is, we have what was said by the prophets shown out in a reality. It might be only one that passed away; but still to have the sight of all the great elements of the kingdom brought before them in this life was an immense support to faith, an immense cheer, especially to one who must have felt deeply the rebuke that His Master passed upon him.

So "after six days, Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart, and was transfigured before them; and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. And behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. Then answered Peter." And this you know is the particular object that I have before me now — the dealings of the Lord with His servant, as manifesting His own grace and truth (no doubt bringing out the need of it on our part, bringing out weakness, wretchedness, pettiness, vanity, pride — the carnal mind in so many forms, but) the grace and truth of One that had unfeignedly met every failure of His servant; One therefore that would encourage our hearts and instruct us and strengthen us against the very same things in which he had broken down. Do we think we need it not? We are upon the very verge of similar failures. There is nothing that so surely brings a fall as the unbelief that does not believe it possible.

"Then answered Peter and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here." And was not this then, a pious thought and sentiment? "If thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias." It was a disciple's way of magnifying his Master, but there is only one that is trustworthy — God's way. It is not enough to have God's end; we must learn God's way. Now there was exactly where Peter's haste betrayed his weakness, and where we are apt to fall precisely in the same way. "Let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias." He evidently thought it was no small honour for his Master — a man — though the Son of God. But he thought it no small honour for his Master to be on common ground with Moses and Elias, the head of the law, and, we may say, the chief of the prophets. Doubtless He was the Messiah. But were they not glorified? At once, "while he yet spake, behold a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice out of the cloud." For this was no ordinary cloud — not a dark one, which is an ordinary one — but a bright one: it was the cloud of Jehovah's presence. "A voice out of the cloud said, This is my beloved Son." It is not merely a question of the kingdom. The kingdom alone would always leave the soul, as the law would, with thoughts altogether short of what is due to Christ. If I look at the law, I think of duty, and I see the Lord merely as a fulfiller of duty. If I think of the kingdom, I see glory, but a glory that others share along with Him. But the Father would not permit it. He breaks the silence from above, and says, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased."

Now, it is not merely that the Father was thus maintaining the glory of the Lord Jesus at the very time when one who ought, most of all, to be exalting Him was really depreciating Him — most unintentionally, because there is no putting of the Lord with any other that would give Him His just place. The very thought of placing any, however excellent, on a level with the Lord Jesus is reprehensible. Certainly Moses and Elijah were most incomparable among (I will not say the sons of men, but) the children of God. Elijah that had gone up to heaven in a chariot of fire! Moses whom Jehovah had buried, about whose body even the archangel had fought with the devil! Certainly, the man that had been with God without food for forty days and nights, and the man that had closed his career on earth thus to be in heaven, these were men to speak of, if of any. But this very thing brings out the supreme glory of the Son; and this I will say, beloved friends, that a more instructive principle there cannot be. You will find, if you search, that almost all failure, both in doctrine and in conduct, is attributable to this — low thoughts of Christ. I do not mean now thoughts that are evil, thoughts that are untrue, but I mean that the power of faith is always the taking in and subjecting our souls to the glory of the Son of God. This is the faith that overcomes the world. It is not merely that He is the Christ, that He is the King of the coming kingdom. Perfectly true; but He is the Son, and if the kingdom brings in the heirs of the kingdom, and those that enjoy the kingdom, the Son brings in God, and God as He, the Son, knows Him, and as the Father knows the Son; and there is none that comprehends the Son but the Father. And it is remarkable He does not say, "To whomsoever the Father will reveal," but, "Neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal." The Father does not reveal all He sees in the Son. And I am persuaded that the reason is this — that there is a depth in the very fact of the Son of God having taken manhood that transcends all possible knowledge, except of God the Father; that there is therefore a depth in it, and a secret, too, that He will not have broken. And there is where the prying mind of man loses itself. He desires to know that secret, and, consequently, unable to loose the knot, he cuts it in some violent method of his own mind — the source of all heresy. But I was not speaking of it merely in reference to heresy, but also as to the appreciation of Him day by day; for what a strength it is where His glory is before our eyes, and where each question that arises just exercises our hearts in answer to the Lord — Himself the answer to all difficulties — the Son of God

Well now, that was where Peter failed. He thought to exalt and enhance the glory of Christ, but he was altogether beneath God's thoughts. "This is my beloved Son"; and how did He show it? He says, "In whom I am well pleased." It is not merely He. Peter was thinking of his being so pleased with the Son that he would like Him to be with such wondrous men as Moses and Elias. It is, "In whom I am well pleased"; and why so? Why so? just because He is His beloved Son; that is, it has not any connection with Peter at all, but with God Himself in this relationship out of all time, that is, infinite as God Himself is. "Hear ye him."

And there comes in another point, beloved brethren, that I wish to trace, and that is that this is really what was about to be unfolded in the New Testament. What is the New Testament? The New Testament is the evolution — if I may say so — of this little word, "Hear ye him." It is God unfolding the glory of the Son to us. All that He was, as revealed in the Gospels, the Epistles, or whatever part of the New Testament it may be, is precisely this very thing that was summed up in these few words, "Hear ye him." That is, whatever might be the blessedness of Moses and Elias, of the law and the prophets, they have their place, but their best place was to bear witness of Him. And now it was not merely a witness of Him. It was Himself; He was come. And one, therefore, who had an adequate sense of the glory of the Son of God would not care to be listening to the servants about Him, now that he had an opportunity of hearing Himself. "Hear ye him." Accordingly, "when the disciples heard it they fell on their faces and were sore afraid; and Jesus came and touched them and said, Arise, be not afraid. And when they had lifted up their eyes they saw no man, save Jesus only." There it is, that the Father leaves, as it were, the disciples in the presence of Jesus only; and the greatest possible honour, and also the proof of the value of Moses and Elias was this, that they bring out the superior glory of the Son of God; they make way for it. They are finger-posts to direct to Him, but then there is no greater mistake than to be occupied with what merely directed to Him; it is Himself. The New Testament, then, is the revelation of that which the Father has to tell us of the Son — not all that He knows, but all that which is for His own glory in making known His Son to us.

The foot of the mountain showed a very different thing. There was the power of Satan, and such a power of Satan that baffled the disciples. We have this accordingly brought out very clearly in the man that they presented to the Lord. "I brought him to thy disciples," said the poor father, "and they could not cure him." And the Lord utters words of unusual severity. "O faithless and perverse generation! how long shall I suffer you?"

My object is not to dwell upon any of these intervening portions. I just touch them as I pass along, but still it is most serious to observe this as we pass — the inability, and I do not know anything more characteristic of our weakness, and that more shows its character at this present moment than the same thing — the inability, not of Christ, but of the disciples, to avail themselves of Christ for what came before them. And why was it? What was connected with them then? Unjudged power of nature, confidence in self. "This kind cometh not out but by prayer and fasting." "Prayer and fasting" is evidently used as expressive of the nothingness of man, but the nothingness of man that expects God and counts upon God. "How long," said the Lord, "shall I suffer you, or be with you? How long shall I be with you?" Unbelief, and particularly in the disciples, is of all things the greatest pain to Christ. We often think of the unbelief of the world. There is another question nearer home. What do we think of our own faith? What have we to say about it; our power of bringing in Christ to solve every difficulty? I do not know a more distressing thing at the present moment than the mass of unsolved difficulties everywhere; and the very persons that make the difficulties most are the Lord's own disciples. It is not merely evil. There is always power superior to evil, but when the disciples themselves fail to look to Christ, and have objects of their own that complicate the bringing in of Christ to meet the difficulty — oh, how sorrowful! The Lord gives it as a reason for leaving the world. There is but one comfort that I know, and that is that this is to us, or may be to us, so much the greater token that the Lord must soon undertake all Himself, because there is so little power to bring Him in. And if that be comfort in the thought of Christ, what a condemnation of our little self-judgment, and consequently of our oftener making difficulties than solving them!

Well the Lord is now seen in another point of view, but also Peter is seen too; and indeed, it is Peter who gives occasion for the. Lord to show Himself in a new way, and in a new dealing with His servant. "And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute-money came to Peter and said, Doth not your Master pay tribute?" Now here again he was jealous for his Master. He was jealous for his Master when he thought it would be an excellent thing, and a most suitable, to make three tabernacles — tabernacles for Moses and Elias as well as for Him — a tabernacle for Him along with them. And so now he, as it were, said to the collector of tribute that his Master was much too good a Jew not to pay tribute. He said "Yes." What does the Lord do? Before he says a word about it, the Lord lets Peter know that it was all known to Him. How little he had thought of that. How little the Godhead of Jesus had penetrated the soul even of the man that said, "Son of the living God." How little he knew of his own confession! That is often the case. It is humbling if we think of ourselves, but at the same time it is a ground of encouragement and patience with other people. You must not expect people to know, though it is often a very startling thing how little we enter into the patience of our Master, and we are surprised that persons should so little understand, for instance, the very place where they are, the very worship into which they are brought, the very truth that they are supposed to live for. But here I find the same thing. Here I find that it is all full of it; but the fact is that we are not conscious ourselves that it is precisely in the same way that we break down, not perhaps in the same particular, but in the same principle. And you will observe that it is a very different thing to judge another's trial where we are not ourselves tried at the same time. Wait till we are. We shall see how far we know how to bring Christ in ourselves. I do not say it to make light of such a thing. it is a very grievous thing, but it really is the grand secret: that is, the readiness to answer from self instead of from Christ, instead of from God's side of Christ. We look at our side. Peter was jealous lest his Master should be thought not to pay the tribute. The Lord shows him He knew it all; He was God.

"Jesus prevented," or "anticipated him" — that is the meaning, for of course this is in old English — "saying, What thinkest thou, Simon: of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? Of their own children or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers." What an answer! Was the Lord a stranger? — for this is the temple tribute. Who was the Master of the temple? Was Jesus a stranger to him? "Of strangers" the kings of the earth take tribute. Of whom therefore does Jehovah take, it? "Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free." Not the Son. No, He does not say the Son. He says what is infinitely better, at the very time when there had just been this overwhelming conviction on the mount. Peter in his zeal for his Master was after all depriving Him of His just title, forgetting His divine glory. How slowly we learn the lesson! "Then are the children free." For this, beloved friends, is really what Christianity means, and what the Lord was to bring out still more clearly before long — that the grace that sent down the Son of God did not merely send down one to be a propitiation, or even to be life, but that we too might acquire a new relationship according to His — that we might know the place of the children of God. "Then are the children free." He does not merely, therefore, claim it for Himself. He did not need. But He asserts it for these that are His. How astonishing to Peter! He had forgotten it; he had no thought of it. Yet was he born of God, and he was slowly learning what it meant; about to learn it far more blessedly soon when the hindrances should be taken away by the grace of Christ, and  the place of deliverance was about to dawn upon his heart.

"Notwithstanding," said He, "lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast a hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money." The last place in the world to find, except for God! And that is the very thing He showed — that it was One who had the power of God as well as the knowledge of God; that it was One who was very God, although He was here a man upon the earth. Let Peter's soul be filled with this. How his heart would turn back to it another day I know it far better when he looked back upon it, when he read it as the word of God, than when it was merely passing then before his eyes! There is no greater mistake than to suppose that if we had been living in the time of our Lord we should have understood our Lord's words better than now. The very reverse. The written word in this, as in other respects, has a higher place than the spoken word. just as the written word has a mightier testimony, so also the written word has a permanent place of correcting our thoughts, of deepening even what is true as well as correcting what is mistaken, and the Spirit of God is pre-eminently with it. Hence,, therefore, I do not hesitate to say that, far from being worse off, we are better. Peter himself was better off when Peter was not merely regarding the words he had listened to, but when he read them as inspired of God for his use and ours.

Well here, then, I say, we have lust the very same thing: that is, we have human thoughts of Christ corrected by divine, and at the same time in the doing of this a marvellous outburst of the divine glory that shone upon Peter's soul more fully than had ever been the case before,. We have had, then, the kingdom. Here we have what much more belongs to Christian relationship — the children.

The chapter that follows, as the one before, shows us the church, the one founded and the other in its practical operation. I do not say the body, but I do say Christ's church. He says, "On this rock I will build my church." But I only refer to it to show how all these three things are brought here together, and are quite distinct. The church is as distinct from the kingdom as both are from Christianity and salvation. Christian relationship is involved in this very scene. "Then are the children free" — the place of association with Christ in a common relationship before God; always remembering that, while He has brought us by grace into it, He has that relationship in His own eternal right, and that He is not merely one that is born of God, and He is never said to be so. We are. He consequently is never called a child of God. He is called Son. We are called sons, too, but we are called children of God in a sense in which it is never said of Christ. John's great point, I may observe, is that we are children of God. Properly speaking John never calls us sons of God. There are one or two places in the epistles or in the gospels where our version makes us out to be the sons of God in John's writing, but it is a mistake. Our translators did not understand the difference. They thought one word as good as another. They were mistaken; there was a very great difference. A man might be adopted as a son without being a child in the family. We are not only adopted sons, we are children of the family. We are born of God; and here you see, as connected with this, the Lord Jesus shows us this place of sharing His own exemption. But then look at the grace in it. He that had this divine power said, "Notwithstanding, lest we should offend." And there is one great point of our weakness. We do not know how to carry our privileges. We learn, for instance, about a church, we learn about grace, we learn to talk about both; but I would ask this — have we, and do we, carry with us, especially in the time of trial and grave action, the spirit that becomes those that are brought into such a place?

And more particularly now, when it is not only the church unfolded, but the church recovered, when we had basely forgotten it, when we had shared the sin of Christendom in going after all the institutions that they were pleased to make out here below — things fashioned according to the will of man for man's own purposes, if not for man's own glory. God has graciously recovered it, but have we not used it to adorn ourselves; and have we not used it oftentimes with a hard spirit towards those that have not had one hundredth part of the advantages that we possess. Is that grace? I do not believe it, and I am persuaded, therefore, that there ought to be a lowlier tone while holding fast the depth of grace that the Lord has shown to us, but a deeper sense of our own shortcomings, for the Lord surely judges us according to what know, and not according to the ignorance of others. And do not we feel, beloved brethren, that there are many children of God at this moment that walk more faithfully and more humbly, according to their little light, than we do according to our much greater light? And ought we not to be humble? I am sure we ought.

Well, here now was one in whom there was no question of failure at all, but there was failure in Peter, and he would show Peter, too, that the very fullest consciousness of glory, the very fullest consciousness of nearness to God, goes along with a consideration of others, and of other's ignorance, too. They did not know the glory of the Son. They saw that He was a man; that He was a Jew. Well, the Lord did not stop to argue it, or to prove it with them. It is grace giving the knowledge of it to those that have faith; and now Peter was in the secret of it, and Peter was given to know that be, too, had a little of it, for the Lord was not making it known for His own glory. He had it from everlasting to everlasting; but now He was letting Peter know a little of it, and at once He shows the grace in which this glory acts here below in the midst of an unbelieving world. "Lest we should offend them, give them all they claim." The Lord did not come to assert His glory, or to claim the obeisance of those that had not faith, but to teach those that had faith to walk in the power of His own grace as those who behold His glory. This then will suffice for the seventeenth chapter.

On the eighteenth I need not dwell, though there is just one point of importance that may claim a moment. "Then came Peter to him" (ver. 21), "and said, How oft shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Seven times?" He thought a great deal of that, but Jesus enlarges the sphere infinitely. "Jesus said to him, I say not seven times, but seventy times seven." Here you see it was not merely grace with unbelievers who do not see his glory, but with a failing brother — the very thing in which we are apt ourselves to fail, because how often one hears, "Well, if he were not a brother one could understand better." But this is a brother, and a very offending one too. What is the measure? What is the limit of grace? "Till seven times?" Until seventy times seven. It has no limit.

In the nineteenth and twentieth — the connection of the two — the Lord throughout is vindicating the relationship of nature. By "nature" I mean the relationship which God has established here below. The Lord had suffered men to derange it somewhat. It was not true, as they said, that Moses commanded a bill of divorce. It was constantly used when a poor unhappy Jew wanted to be rid of his wife. "Moses suffered this," He said, "because of the hardness of your hearts." That is, the law was a state of things where man was on suffrance. It was not perfection; it was not the image of the mind of God at all. Christ is. Man was made after it, and soon failed. Christ really is the image of the invisible God, and Christ alone. And Christ, accordingly, brings out God's glory in these things, and He shows how it was at the beginning. God did not make a man and two women, but "male and female created he them." It was evident, therefore, from the very formation of man what God's mind was. And so another thing. He takes up the case of little children, slighted constantly by rabbis. They did not like the trouble of them, but the Lord paid special attention to them. I do not know anything that brings out the tender grace of the Lord more than this. He laid His hands upon them, and rebuked the disciples because of their spirit about them. And, further, He appreciated a fine character — the young man — even the man that did not follow Him, but liked his possessions too well. Yet the Lord looked upon him, as we are told in Mark, and loved him.

Well now, I say there we find nature in various forms, and the Lord's feelings about it; but the whole point of the chapter is something superior to nature. It is not, therefore, that a Christian ought to speak slightingly of anything that is of God even in the creation. There is no reason for it — no ground whatever. You constantly find that when men are on a ground of rivalry they abuse one another; but if you are brought into an entirely different and higher ground altogether it is no question of finding fault — you are completely out of the scene. Well, that is the place into which the Christian is brought now. It is not lowering the relationships of nature, or speaking unbecomingly of anything of the kind; but you are brought into a new place altogether. So the Lord shows at the close of the chapter. He said, therefore, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven, which astonished these disciples who had regarded riches as a great sign of God's favour. "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." But then, He explains, when they ask, "Who can then be saved?" because they thought that a rich man had far less temptation than a poor one. A poor man might be covetous, a poor one might forget God in the extremity of need. They thought a rich man would not have such temptations. No doubt it was a very poor and low view. "Who then can be saved? But Jesus said unto them, With man it is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

This then is the real truth of salvation, as it is, I may say, of everything Christian; for if it is not of God it is not Christian. The whole thing is founded upon what is not of nature what is divine, what is heavenly; and that comes out far more in the epistles than even here. But the Lord brings it out as far as they could bear it themselves. "Then answered Peter, and said unto them, Behold, we have forsaken all and followed thee; and what shall we have? And Jesus said unto them, Verity I say unto you, that ye that have followed me in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne": that is, it is not following in the regeneration, but it is "in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." The regeneration means that new state of things that shall be brought in at the coming of Christ. The washing of regeneration now is in view of that state; that is, it is really a new condition, only not now brought in. It is only testimony; it is the washing; it is the word of God, and that which belongs to the word of God connected with it that supposes a new state of things; but it will be only displayed then. Well, when that new state shall come — "When the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." That is, you have the Lord fully acknowledging all fidelity. No man has ever done anything for the Lord for which the Lord will not — if I may say so — pay him back the capital with the best interest. "Surely every one that hath forsaken house, or lands, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake." He does not here say, "For the gospel's sake"; but it is so in Mark where it is wanted. There He brings the most comforting thing. He says that, instead of the gospel being a lower thing, it really is bound up with Himself. Here He says, "For my name's sake," and there He says, "For the gospel's sake." It is of all importance to bring in what Mark does — the word; but here it is the Christ, it is Himself. It is the Son of man, the rejected Christ; for that is the point of it. Those that follow Him in the day of His rejection will be with Him the sharers of His glory in the day of His power; "in the regeneration when he shall sit on the throne of his glory." They shall receive a hundred-fold and shall inherit everlasting life.

Do we believe it, beloved brethren? I do not say that when our souls are fairly brought in contact with it we do not bow; but what I mean by believing is this: have we it as a living truth before our souls every day? No man, then, that has lost for Christ's name sake but shall receive a hundredfold and shall inherit everlasting life.

"But many that are first shall be last, and the last shall be first." There is a solemn word. "But many that are first shall be last"; and I will tell you who particularly: these who think much of their losses and talk much about them. They are the very men that get weary of this trial, and the reason is plain. If they were filled with Christ they would not be talking about what they have done, and what they have lost; and I say that such persons, though they may not have been first, shall be last. But, thank God, He will always fill up. "The last shall be first." A serious thing for both sides — blessed in one, but very humbling in the other.

But then the Lord adds another, because that would not give the full truth, and there is nothing more remarkable, beloved friends, than this in the word of God — the care to keep us from being one-sided. There is hardly a more common, or a more serious, danger, and I shall be so if I am occupied with that which clearly Peter was. "Behold," he says, "we have forsaken all and followed thee. What shall we have therefore?" It was clear that Christ was not all to him at that moment. He was thinking about himself. But the Lord brings in another word. "For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is a householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers in his vineyard." And then we find him hiring at different hours of the day, on which we need not particularly dwell now. "And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour they received every man a penny," or what we should call a shilling, if I may so say. That as, it was at that time a sort of day's wages. That is, what was supposed to be necessary, and what was given for a day's work of this kind. "When the first came they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny. And when they had received it they murmured against the goodman of the house, saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us which have borne the burden and heat of the day. But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong; didst not thou agree with me for a penny? Take that thine is, and go thy way; I will give unto this last even as unto thee. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?"

There is the secret. It is not merely a question, therefore, of righteousness in God. God is righteous, and He is not unrighteous to forget the work of faith and labour of love, but He always reserves the sovereignty of grace. He claims to be good, for He is good, and He knows therefore where to show this goodness; and further He will ask no man's leave to show it. He will show it because He is God. If He is God He is good, and so He condemns these men. They were found out — the covetousness of their hearts. They were thankful to get their day's wages for their day's work, but the covetousness was stirred by men that had only laboured for an hour. And why so? Because they could not enter into God's title to be good — not merely to be righteous. The Lord stands to His righteousness as a question with them, but the Lord stands to His goodness as a question of whom He pleases. So He says, "Is thine eye evil, because I am good." "So the last shall be first." You see its reference now. It is not the first last. There was man's breaking down, and man's breaking down because he was a little presuming; but here is grace triumphant. "So the last shall be first, and the first last; for many be called but few chosen. "

Thus it is that the Lord meets what was in Peter's heart, first bringing out the righteous ways of God, the full remembrance of everything, let it be soever small, that has been done for His name's sake, even to a hundredfold repayment. But God never renounces His own title to sovereign grace. We have these two things — the one as a reward for labour; the other sovereign grace that will show the goodness of God where He pleases, when He pleases, and how He pleases. And may our hearts delight that so it should be, for He that delights in goodness will have his own heart formed accordingly. He that rises not above the reward will find that he has made but a losing bargain for his own soul. I do not speak merely of the future, but I do say that it is to take the very least and lowest way of God in His dealings. No doubt God acts always worthily of Himself, only our wisdom is to enter into the deepening views that the Lord, and the Lord alone, could give at that time. Afterwards God forms others according to Christ, and we have it wonderfully in His blessed apostle Paul, and in Peter too, but I do not enlarge now.

May the Lord bless these lessons of His own grace, and His own truth, for Christ's sake.

John 13: 1-11.

What I hope to present to you tonight I may characterise in two or three words, the instruction and the warning. Here we have the instruction — the most weighty, practically, that the Lord had as yet set before Simon Peter. Undoubtedly there was that which was needed previously. His personal glory had been dawning more and more upon his heart. Correction, too, there had been before now, but here it is more the positive instruction that a saint wants as such upon the earth, and Simon Peter gave occasion for the Lord's bringing it out just because he was so ready to give his opinion. Now, our opinions are always wrong. We never rightly can give an opinion, especially when we think to Whom, as in this case, we are giving it. Giving an opinion to Christ! Yet it was really that. No doubt it flowed out of a human sense of what seemed to him the incongruity of the Lord's stooping down to wash his feet; but the truth is that it was always a question of the Lord's stooping down. That was no new thing. That was just what characterised all His work here below. His appearance in the world, His coming here, His presence, His whole action — what was it? It was the service of love. No doubt it was here being brought out in a very distinct and evident manner. The service of love is always in action. It is not always so manifest; and it was the manifesting of it to Peter. Little did he know that he needed it, but the Lord brought this all out — the depth of the need, and also the character of the need, for there is exceeding instruction in these few words of our Lord Jesus. But then we must have it settled in our souls as the first great lesson that comes out in this instruction of the Lord, and that is, that all our blessing flows from distrusting our thoughts, our words, our notions of what is suitable to Christ. All our blessing, I may say, is in appropriating Christ's words. There is spirit, and there life; and what we are just learning now is to value them principally, to have perfect confidence in them, and to judge, therefore, all that rises from ourselves, all that comes from another, by this only standard.

Well, it is introduced in a way that is exceedingly striking. We see at once that it shows that it is the character of what belonged to the whole ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ in this world. "Before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end. And supper" — not "being ended," for it was not begun. We must remember that this is not the thought. I daresay some of you are familiar already with it, but it is well to state it now, for no doubt there are a great many here that have never thought about it or its importance. It is really, ''Supper time being come." That is the true force of the word. Their feet were not washed after supper, but before it. Any one can see that upon the very face of it. It was always the custom, and the Lord did not depart from that. The only thing that was so singular on our Lord's part was not that the feet were washed, but that He was the washer. That, indeed, was singular — that it should be He. If He had been only the master and they the disciples, it would have been different; but we learn who He was Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God and went to God" — Himself the Holy One, as holy when He went back from a world of sin as when He came into it from God.

And this was just exactly what filled His heart — the last resort of the devil, the last depth into which man's heart could be drawn by, sin, being before His eyes. "The devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him." There was what Satan was goading on the hapless man to do. But here was what filled Christ at that very time. "Having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them to the end." He was going, but He was going in the same unspotted holiness that belonged to His nature as divine, and which was suitable to the One to whom the Father gave all things; for we have both His intrinsic glory and His conferred. "He riseth from supper and laid aside his garments, and took a towel and girded himself. After that he poureth water into a basin." For you must remember that what is referred to here is the washing of water by the word, and only this. Washing by blood is a most important truth, but it is not here. It is supposed at the end of the chapter — at least the work is supposed on which the washing with blood is founded. But in the early part of the chapter there is no allusion to any washing whatever but the washing of water.

Now I dare say that it may, perhaps, have not occurred to all, because we have been too apt to think that there is just a distinction between being washed with blood at the beginning and being washed with water afterwards, but that is only part of the truth, for the fact is we are born of water just as much as we are washed with water. When we are first brought to God we are born of water and of the Spirit, and this is alluded to as the groundwork of what the Lord was doing now. Of course, it was not a question for the disciples to be born of water. They were already clean, is the Lord tells them, but not all. There was one that was not born of water; the very one of whom Satan, therefore, took advantage, and the more so because he was so near Christ. For there is nothing that so precipitates man's destruction, who has not got life from God, as being near Christ; for when one ventures into the presence of Christ not to receive life, but to prosecute one's own will, one's own plans, one only becomes the prey of Satan, and in the form too of direct antagonism to the Son of God. That was the case with Judas Iscariot. He had no such intention, but the truth is — man is never master. The very time that man seeks to be his own master is when he is most of all a slave of Satan. It is simply a question of whether God is master of me, or Satan is, but I am never master, never, nor intended to be. Contrary this is, of course, to all truth before a man is converted, but still more that which one's soul abhors when one is converted; because, if I am converted, what is it to do? It is to serve the living and true God. It is to be a servant, no doubt, to be a child, to be a son, but only the better to serve. There is no such service as the service of the child. Here we have it in all its perfection in our Lord Jesus Christ; and so now, out of this intimacy of love and this height of glory, He takes the basin and begins to wash the disciples' feet and to wipe them with the towel wherewith He was girded.

Well, Simon Peter was astonished, but why? Simon Peter, will you never learn? Will you never learn to be quiet? Will you never learn to distrust yourself? Now is not that one of the great things, beloved friends, that we have got to learn? Is it not a thing in which we have constantly to challenge ourselves, because this is the very thing in which we have been so often wrong? Yes, just because we so little know what it is to walk in the consciousness of the presence of God. We are in the presence of God; we are brought there; we are walking in the light; but it does not follow that we are consciously there. And there is just the very difference, and there is where spiritual power depends upon it, because levity in the thought of our being brought into the presence of God to me is much worse than the case of the poor Christian who does not know that he is brought into the presence of God. For a man to take up the idea that to be brought into God's presence and to be walking in the light is just a mere sound, a mere privilege, a mere thing about which to say, "How near I am, and how blest I am!" — what a wretched state! No, it is meant to exercise the soul before God. It is meant to he a thing to recall us to what we are doing, what we are saying, nay, what we think, what we feel, because God necessarily notices all, and God will have us to take notice of all. It is the effect of the light of God consciously felt that we take up for the Lord, in desire for His glory what passes within us.

Was this so with Peter? He had no thought of it. No doubt he is much more excusable than we, because he had no such knowledge, and, as yet, no one had. The fact is that it is redemption that brings to God in the way of which I have been speaking, and it is the Holy Ghost given since redemption that gives us the consciousness of it. "At that time ye shall know," as the Lord says, "that I am in the Father, and ye in me, and I in you." And so it is as to this consciously walking in the light of which I have been speaking.

So Peter, then, turns to the Lord with this word, "Lord, dost thou wash my feet?" It did seem such an inversion of all that Peter thought natural. To be sure it is. It is super- natural, and we should get that settled, beloved friends, in our souls; that we are brought into what is supernatural every day, that it is not merely for a little moment on the Lord's day morning, if even then it is realised, but that we are brought into this atmosphere habitually, and that we are intended to be acting upon it when others, perhaps, only know that it is a Christian man acting righteously. But it is not that. A Christian man will not act righteously by merely intending to act righteously. A Christian man only acts according to God when he is acting upon His holy principles. Now it is not merely a question, therefore, of righteousness; it is a question of Christ. A Jew was bound to act righteously, but we — we have Christ, and, more than that, we have the Holy Ghost, now that Christ his died and risen, to give us the consciousness of this association with Him. But Peter did not know this, only it was certainly a forgetfulness. I am bound always to assume that whatever the Lord does, whatever the Lord says, is the only right thing, the only thing that is worthy of Himself, and there was where Peter was wrong. It was not a mere question of intelligence, but surely there ought to have been this, just as in ourselves who are still more inexcusable if we fail. But even Peter ought to have started with this. I do not say it proudly, and God forbid that we should speak disrespectfully of Peter, because you must remember that we are just as much called upon to have respectful feelings and language about the dead as the living. I have not the smallest sympathy with persons that talk slightingly of those that the Lord has put honour upon, No matter where or who they are.

Well now Peter ought to have said, "If the Lord stoops down to wash my feet, it must be because His love is concerned, His glory is concerned, the will of His God and Father is concerned, and, more than that, it is needful for me"; because all our wants only give occasion to bring out the Lord's grace and to manifest His glory, and who, then, would wish to be without that? It is not, therefore, a question of whether it suits me. I am sure I need it, but it is not a question of whether it suits me, but whether it suits Him, "dost thou wash my feet? Jesus answered, and said to him, What I do, thou knowest not now." Peter had not learned his lesson. The Lord was instructing him. "What I do, thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter." But still he is dull, and he is guilty of what is even worse now, for he could not wait. There is where we fail most of all as Christians — that impatience, that haste, and yet, beloved friends, it is not for want of God's telling us. "He that believeth shall not make haste." This is not merely a New Testament truth, but an old one that ought to have been very familiar to Peter. It was familiar enough in the scripture, but it was not familiar to his soul. He did not apply it to himself. He forgot it where he ought most to have it; where it was Christ That had him in His presence. He therefore says, "Thou shalt never wash my feet." Rash man! Christ — Christ bend down to wash his feet! And Peter says to Christ, "Thou shalt never wash my feet"! Did not the Lord know better? Why should Peter hinder? Did Peter know? Clearly not. The Lord had just told him, "Thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter." As a humble man he surely ought to have bowed.

But that is where we fail too, and I do not believe that we judge sufficiently our failure to take in the light of the word of God. For God speaks to us, speaks to us every day it is to be supposed and we read His word, and what is that but that He is speaking to us in His word, and are we not brought sometimes to this very thing? No doubt it is so, without out uttering words, for we would not say that we find any fault in the word of God, but still, we constantly show our want of reverence for the word by turning away from that which we do not enjoy, instead of looking up and remembering that what we do not know now we shall know hereafter. The Lord is teaching, and the very portions too that we turn from sometimes in our stupidity and want of deference to the Lord — want of confidence and thorough faith in the value of every word He has written — may be the very thing I most want in conflict with Satan. Certainly, it was what Peter wanted, and wanted very soon, as we shall see. He says, "Thou shalt never wash my feet." Jesus answered him, "If I wash the(, not thou hast no part with me." At once he turns round, and from having wished that his feet should not be touched by our Lord, should not be washed by Him, Peter now says, in a kind of despair at what he had said, "Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head." But the Lord puts everything in its place in the next few words. "He that is washed" — and He changes the word. This washing is not exactly the same thing as washing his feet. "He that is bathed" (as it is familiarly known), "He that is bathed" (washed all over — the whole person). Now that is when we are born of water and the Spirit: that is the mighty work of God. But when we are converted it is not merely that we receive Christ, or rest upon His blood — that is perfectly true — but the word of God enters out. souls and deals with us as altogether unclean before God, and consequently there is a new life, that is given that judges the old.

Now that is the bathing that is referred to here. The old man is dead. It is not merely dealing with a particular sin, but it is the whole life of sin; more, it is the whole state of sin. The man is born again. He has got a new life, and this is so true that the old one he is in due time taught to regard not as himself at all. That was himself, but now, "Not I, but Christ." He is born — born afresh, and this so completely that he is entitled to treat the other as a thing only to be dealt with, to be mortified, indeed, to treat himself as dead to it; for you see this word that enters is a quickening word. It is Christ Himself, and not merely Christ's blood. It is Christ Himself judging whatever is of Adam, whatever is of man. It is Christ Himself therefore giving a life that is according to God; that can appreciate, that can understand, God; that can feel according to God. Consequently, it is the root of all that is according to God, on which the Holy Ghost acts afterwards in the Christian; that new nature which is begotten of God.

This then is what the Lord refers to here, "He that is washed." But then He goes farther, "Needeth not save to wash his feet," and whether it be the bathing of the person, or the washing of the feet, you must remember carefully, and it never was of greater moment than now to remember it, that it is water and not blood. The blood is most true and absolutely necessary, for "this is he that came by water and blood, not by water only, but by water and blood." The two are most true, but here you have only the bathing on first being brought to God, and next the application of water afterwards by the word to deal with whatever impurity there may be acquired in our walking through the world.

Hence this is what our Lord was insisting upon with Peter. Peter took the ground that, because he was of God, he did not need to have his feet washed by Christ. Christ, on the contrary, insisted that unless He washed him — washed his feet, that is, even as a believer, as a disciple, as one that had new life, "If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me." I refer not to the original washing, but to that which is done day by day in our passage through this world; that is, it is not merely a question of life, but of having a portion with Christ. It is not merely a question of having it by and by, but of having it now. He was going on high, and there is one of the wonders of Christianity: it gives the believer a present part with Christ. No doubt that is just the token and loving pledge of an eternal part with Christ; but I do not think that it is merely the eternal that is referred to here. Rather it is the letting us in now, and the making good now of what is eternal in its own character and consequence. And that again is another truth that characterises Christianity very much, more largely than this particular part of it — that is, that we are even now, according to its own nature, associated with Christ before God. He has gone there, but He would not go there till our sins could be forgiven by virtue of His blood.

But more than this, He would secure our having a present enjoyment, a present fellowship and communion with Himself where He is gone into the presence of God. And I do not believe that we ever have the proper measure for our walking, the standard of what we are to cultivate, unless we enter into this, that it is not merely a cleansing for our heart — the Jewish people will have that by and by in the millennium, and will have such a cleansing as will suit them as God's people on the earth; but that is not what characterises the Christian — it is the practical cleansing, to have communion with Him where He is gone, suitably to God and His presence while we are here on the earth. That is the meaning of the washing of the feet, and the object of it. "If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me." It is not exactly "a part in me," for that he had. Life is, as far as that goes, a part in Christ; but the Lord will give us more than that. In virtue of our having life, or along with it at any rate, He will also give us this proof of His own perfect love and desire. For there is nothing that shows the perfection of love more than this — the One that loves us entering the highest and most glorious place that is conceivable, and fitting us for present association with that place. where He is gone; and this is what Christ would give us the sense of while we are passing through this world. No wonder Peter could not understand it then. His fault was impatience, not his want of intelligence, but his want of confidence in the Lord and of waiting to learn.

John 13: 1-11

This then is the great instruction that the Lord was giving His servant at this time. "He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit," every whit; and that cleanness every whit, I repeat, is not merely the effect of being washed with blood. Washed with blood meets what our sins are; what we want as having sinned before God — before God. But it does not meet all that we want as giving us communion with God, and there is where the word comes in, and the importance of the word, and of the Holy Ghost's applying the word. Because God will bring us to a common mind with Himself, and a common hatred with Himself of the evil that characterises ourselves. God will give us a settled sense of it so that we hate it according to His own hatred of it, and that we, too, consequently, have an entrance into the good into which Christ has gone, because that was the effect of it. It is all founded upon the going in there where there is no evil, and we are brought into association — in short, have a part with Him now — by this very cleansing which deals with every impurity that is contracted every day.

Now this has, as I might almost say, dropped out of Christendom (I dare say there are some here that know a little of what is commonly taught), for I really could not tell, and I have tread not a little on these subjects, but I really could not tell of any person, or of any work, that has ever set forward this most important truth. In short, the great mass of God's children at the present day are just where Peter was then; that is, they have not the sense to see, they have not the sense, by the Spirit of God, to see the greatness of the love of Christ in giving them a portion with Himself where He is now. They have no thought of it. Consequently, you find that they are very little fitted for it by and by. This, on the contrary, falls in completely with what we find in the Epistles; that is we are "made meet for the inheritance of the saints in light." But supposing there comes in something that is inconsistent. Well there is the washing of the feet. There is the dealing with whatever is practically inconsistent with it, and bringing our souls back, restoring us to communion, that is, that there should not be an inconsistency between our standing in Christ and our practical walk here below; nay, nor our thoughts or feelings, because there is power. Quite granted that our hearts naturally are a fountain of all evil; but then there is such a thing as the heart being purified by faith. There is such a thing as the Spirit of God filling the inner man with the thoughts of Christ, and it is in this way. It is not by changing the evil, it is not by removing the evil yet — that will be at the coming of Christ; but it is by giving power to the good. It is by strengthening the new man, and feeding and filling the new man with God's grace, God's truth, with Christ, in short, practically. It is all this that fills, and, consequently, strengthens the new man.

And so it is that one is divided, as the apostle says, into "spirit, soul, and body" — constituting the whole man. It is not, I repeat, the extinction of evil, or the disappearance of it, but it is judged. Our old man is crucified with Christ, and a person knows the force of another word of the apostle Paul — that is, if Christ be in you, what then? Why, he tells us that in that case — in the eighth of Romans — there is this treating ourselves as "dead because of sin," and "alive because of righteousness." The Spirit is alive, you see, as he says; that is, the body is dead because of sin, and I am entitled to treat it as a mere instrument. If I allow the body to be active, and to have its way, it is always self, because then it guides me, then it takes possession of me, carries me off with itself, so, to speak, and that is just what one is not to do if Christ be in you. "If Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin." If I do not act upon my being dead with Christ, but allow it activity as a living thing, then it works its own way and serves sin, because that is not changed. And, on the other hand, if I do treat it thus as dead, the Spirit is life. It is not only that I have got life in Christ, but the Spirit is life. The Holy Ghost acts in practical power, and He is life because of righteousness, and it is only thus that there is this practical working either in the having done with sin or of the righteousness of God below.

Well here, then, we have this great instruction from our Lord Jesus. At the end of the chapter we touch upon what I shall a little unfold from another scripture — the warning. The Lord introduces it after He has brought out His own death. When Judas is gone, the Lord has the whole scene before Him. "Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him." It is not merely the Father, but God, and God, as such, being glorified always supposes sin judged. It brings, therefore, the death of Christ in the judgment of sin — the solemn judgment of sin — before us. "If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him," which He did by setting Him at His own right hand directly after His death and resurrection when He ascended to heaven. Instead of waiting for the kingdom and bringing in the Jew, He glorified Him straightway. All this, you see, is essentially connected with what is peculiar to Christianity. And then He tells them, "Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me; and, as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go ye cannot come, so now I say to you. A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."

Peter again, too, quick to speak to the Lord, says, "Whither goest thou?" Jesus answers him, "Whither I go thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards." How gracious! How gracious to tell him of his incapacity before His death, and of that following which will he a most sure consequence, brought by the gracious power of God and made true to his soul. "Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake." It was not that he was insincere. I doubt whether there ever was a sincerer soul than Simon Peter. And it is not in our insincerity, it is not there that our folly lies, but the very contrary, because we trust self in some shape or another. "Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow till thou hast denied me thrice."

I will turn, then, to a further warning — a truth that the Lord presents to us of very great moment — that we may have it fully before us. In the 22nd chapter of Luke, and the 31st verse, "And the Lord said, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for thee." You observe the change. "Satan hath desired to have you." It was not merely Simon, although he addresses Simon, but he desired to have them all. "But I have prayed for thee." Why "for thee"? Why not merely "for you"? Because Satan was making a dead set at Simon, and what gave Satan the opportunity was this — Simon's self-confidence. Confidence in what, beloved friends? In his natural character? Not at all; no, but in his love for the Lord. If his confidence had been in the Lord's love to him it would have been a very different matter. Had that been actively — been distinctly — before his soul, he would have weighed the Lord's warning; but he really was so sure that he loved the Lord so much, that, no matter what the trial was, he could go through it. He did not believe the others could. We may be tolerably good judges of others, beloved friends; we are very bad judges of ourselves. Cannot we see that in Simon? Can we see it in ourselves? "I have prayed for thee," said He who had all truth and whose love was going out, and most of all, for the man that was most dishonouring Him. Why so? Was dishonour a light thing? No, but His love was great and most real. And by whom and for whom is love most brought out? Where there is most need — the deepest need. "I have prayed for thee."

And mark, Simon Peter heard it from His own lips before he went astray. If he had not, we have no right to say that he would have been restored as he was. We know that he was restored, but God uses means, and one of the great means of restorative power for our souls is the love that we knew before we went astray. There is nothing that gives the heart more of rebound back to the Lord, and of horror at ourselves, than the very fact that the Lord told us so fully, so distinctly, before we went astray. "I have prayed for thee." Do you think that Peter forgot that — "I have prayed for thee"? — because it would not have done if He had said, "I have prayed for you." That is all true about you generally, but it is "thee" — "I have prayed for thee." No, he never forgot it. He never forgot it in the hour of his need. I do not say in the hour of his wanting it; I do not say in the moment of his sin; but I do say that, when the horror of the sin filled his soul with despair, these words would be, and no doubt were, brought up by God's Spirit before his soul. "I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not." Neither did it. His faithfulness did, but not his faith. We have no reason to believe, beloved friends, that he wavered as to the Person, or that he wavered about Christ's great love to him, but — Peter was occupied with man. This we shall see another evening, for I am only going to speak of the warning tonight.

"That thy faith fail not," then, is the word; "and when thou art converted," that is, turned back again to the Lord. It is the very same word that is used about one's first turn, only Scripture does not limit it to that. The word "converted" is very much, in our common language, applied to the first turning to God, but we must remember that in Scripture it has a larger force, and means the turning again, even if one has gone astray, and that is exactly the meaning of it here. This is, therefore, what we commonly term restoration of soul, rather than conversion, but it is the very same word which applies to both. "When thou art turned to me" (if you please, or any word that would express that, just to vary it from our common usage) "strengthen thy brethren."

The very fact of his being an object of such grace, and that power which drew him back again, would give confidence not only to him, but to them. He would be an instrument suited to the Lord, so little is it true that God does not restore a man — that you are not to trust a man who has once broken down. Why here is the most honoured of God. We must not suppose, beloved friends, that saints are like horses. If a horse once falls he breaks his knees, no doubt. But is it possible that I have such a poor conception of divine grace as to think that? I dare say the figure has been very often used just in the opposite way. One would have thought that these words of our blessed Lord would have arrested the lips that said so. Not so; not so. Peter not only broke down then, but he broke down in another sense as seriously, for he failed as completely about the Gentiles after he had had a special commission to open the door to the Gentiles. He failed as completely about that as he failed here about Christ; but, for all that, there was no person — unless it be the apostle Paul himself — that was more used of God in strengthening his brethren. I think it a serious thing to weaken the spring of confidence in a soul that has slipped aside. I do not say that in order to weaken the gravity of slipping aside; but I do say that we must be zealous for the grace of God, and we must be faithful to the word of God; and we must take care that we do not, therefore, enfeeble a manifest truth of God that comes out as, for instance, in this very case. "When thou art converted" — or, restored — "strengthen thy brethren. "

Now that is pre-eminently what we find in the Epistles of Peter — all through them both, I should say. Of course, they are not confined to that, neither does it refer to what he wrought, but it is a general reference to the character of his ministry. It was not only a confirming ministry; it was not only one that converted souls, but, as far as his brethren were concerned, it was one calculated eminently to strengthen, and this most clearly from the way in which God had taught him the grace of the Lord Jesus. No doubt it is a better thing to be strong in the grace of the Lord Jesus, so as not to slip aside; but the next best thing is that we have so profited by a slip, if we have been careless and unwatchful, that we have drunk more deeply into the grace of God than we ever did before. And surely, out of that, we are able to strengthen one another. So it was here. "He said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison and to death. And he said, I tell thee, Peter" (for here we resume from where I left off in John) "the cock shall not crow this day before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me. And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye anything? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now he that hath a purse let him take it, and likewise his scrip." It was no longer to be miraculous power, or miraculous opening the door of any one for them. There was no longer to be that. There had been that in their previous testimony. I do not believe that sending them in this new form of testimony was lower ground. There was less of wonder about it, but I do not believe, beloved friends, that the walk of faith is less because it is not clothed with miraculous power.

Why, look at the Corinthians. There were plenty of miracles there. Were they spiritual? Far from it. It is, therefore, a complete delusion to suppose that miracles of themselves show spirituality. I should say, on the contrary, it requires a great deal of grace to carry the power of miracle, so to speak — a great deal of grace — and that is precisely what I should gather from it, and I have no doubt that it is one of the reasons why the Lord did not continue miracles long — because the state of the church would not bear it. He, at the same time, did show that even in that state, a bad state in a particular quarter did not hinder miracle; but certainly it in no way implied spiritual power in the use of miracle. It was, therefore, a very good reason why, and I have no doubt there were moral reasons which God, of course, could alone adequately judge of, why He withheld them longer. But, however that may be, now they were to be cast upon God's caring for His people in more ordinary ways. It was to be no longer a going in the name of the great King, and the disciples armed with power in every possible way as the vouchers of the King's presence — the Messiah's presence. They had had that. "But now," He says, "he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one." But to guard against any thought of this being meant in a mere literal way — to show that it was meant only as the sign of the ordinary safeguards and means of daily life — this comes out. "And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough."

Now that very thing shows that He did not mean it literally, because two swords would be a very poor provision for eleven disciples — that is quite evident. If it had been eleven swords one could understand, but the fact of the Lord saying that two swords are enough shows at once that it was quite a mistake to interpret it in the mere literal sense; and we see that those who took it literally made a very bad use of it in a little while, and Peter is the very man.

But that is not what I am going to draw your attention to now, but this — that when the Lord leads them out to the mount of Olives, and the disciples follow Him, when He was at the place He said unto them, "Pray that ye enter not into temptation." This is a very serious thing. It is just as true as another word that we might not be able to put along with it, and that is, "Blessed is the man that endureth temptation." No, it is blessed to fall into temptation, but it is never blessed to enter into temptation. There is all the difference between entering into temptation and enduring temptation. And there was exactly what Peter had to learn most bitterly — to enter into temptation. Now the man that endures temptation is the man that prays before the temptation comes. He does not enter into it. When it comes he is blest; he endures. Peter did not. Peter entered; that is to say, that the entrance into temptation shows that there is a want of sense of danger — a want of sense that I need God, that I need God now. No doubt there is. But if the Lord tells me that temptation is at hand, and I do not pray, it is evident that I am not depending upon God; and so, instead of falling into temptation, the temptation, on the contrary, if I may say so, falls upon me, and, more than that, I enter into it instead of enduring it. The endurance of temptation is when the person suffers, and suffers because he does not yield. The entrance into temptation is when he does yield because he does not pray; because he is not in dependence upon God, for there was exactly what was now coming out. "Pray that ye enter not into temptation." He did not pray, and he did enter into temptation.

How different was it with the Lord And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down and prayed, saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless, not my will but thine be done. And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him." Now there was the Saviour — "And being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly" — the only one that it might have seemed temptation could not affect, temptation could not ensnare. And so it was most true: there was nothing that was assailable by temptation inwardly, nothing whatever; but, for that very reason, He knew what it was to suffer being tempted. Peter did not. Peter, on the contrary, gratified himself, as we shall see, when I come to show his fall; but that must remain for another night. I am only going to speak of the warning, as well as the instruction — the instruction that was so soon before, the warning that so soon followed. I shall show that the fall just as quickly followed, and the restoration in due time. But in the Lord's case there was the depth of entrance — not into the temptation. He did not enter into temptation, but the Lord weighed it all, felt it all. The Lord had all the bitterness, all the sense of it, but a thing outside. And how? Because He took the gravity of it. He felt the reality of it in His own spirit before God. He always did, no matter whether it was a question of a temptation that was presented to Him by the adversary. And He had gone through that before. There had been temptation in the pleasant form. There was the temptation to seek that which God had not given, and the Lord refused. But now there was temptation in a totally different form — the endurance of what was most painful. And what was anything that could befall Peter compared with that which was before the Lord? For it is the greatest mistake to suppose that it was merely death. It was such a death as He alone could know, and the Lord therefore does go through the whole scene in spirit with God.

"And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was at it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. And when he rose up from prayer, and was come to his disciples, he found them sleeping for sorrow." But this was not the sorrow of grace: this was really selfish sorrow. They were sorrowing at what they were going to lose; at all this distress that was coming on. It was not the true sorrow of grace that felt the seriousness of the moment, and that took warning from the words of our Lord Jesus Christ. "He found them sleeping for sorrow, and said unto them, Why sleep ye? Rise and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before."

Now it is not my intention tonight to go farther than that which I have now presented to you; but I believe that we have here the very thing that resulted in the speedy fall of Peter. We shall see the character of that — the way in which grace met and surmounted it, and restored this beloved one to God, and that will close the discourses that I am about to give upon this subject.

Luke 22: 50-62.

I have chosen the account that is given in the Gospel of Luke rather than that of Matthew or Mark, because the Spirit of God presents it very particularly in its moral links. In John, on which I shall dwell afterwards, all turns upon the person of the Lord Jesus, and we shall find, I think, this difference, when we come to look at it. But here the human heart is opened more; there the glory of the One who was making Himself known. Now the results of what we have already had before us begin to appear. The temptation has come, and Peter enters into it. We always do enter, where we are not found in prayer before. the temptation. Then we are surprised. The Lord, on the contrary, had been in prayer, and he only makes the difficulty and the trial, when it came, an opportunity of manifesting the grace of God. Hence, therefore, when one of the persons that came to take the Lord — one of the servants of the high priest — presented himself, he became an object for one of the disciples. This was Peter. His very love for the Lord — his indignation — broke forth. It is not that the others were not just as ready to fall as Peter, for that is the solemn thing that appears. Our very love for His person, our very fervour of spirit, instead of being a preservative power, where there is not self-judgment, exposes one to go farther astray. Here it was, first of all, in the shape of violence. "He smote the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear." Thus the Lord's warning fell entirely powerless upon Peter; and in such a state of mind — and that is the importance of it — one perverts the word of God.

I do not doubt myself that Peter thought the sword was in his hand for the purpose. Had not the Lord spoken about taking a sword? And so, you will find, we are as dependent upon God for the use of His word. We cannot do without it. just as much as we need the word, so do we need the Spirit of God; but this is never given unless there be that dependence upon Him that goes forth in prayer, and, I repeat, in prayer not at the moment. Indeed, the moment was come for action or suffering. To Peter it was a question of action: to the Lord it was suffering. The Lord bows. It was no question now of any action, except, indeed, of repairing the mischief that Peter had done. This the Lord always does; and so He touched the servant's ear and healed him. And this is a statement admirably finding its place in the very Gospel from which I have read, because Luke shows us the heart of man, or even of a saint, that is searched and found wanting where there has not been self-emptiness, where there has been self-confidence; and undoubtedly this was the case. And further, too, I am not in the least denying spiritual feeling and affection. They were sleeping for sorrow, but why? Why sleeping? The sorrow was all well, but why sleeping for sorrow? They ought to have been praying in sympathy with our Lord. They ought to have been in fellowship with Him. Not so; they found a sort of resource and relief in going to sleep when the Lord was calling them to watch, if it was only for the one hour. But there was no watching at all, any more than prayer: they went to sleep.

Now, when the Lord goes forth, in the calmness of one who had gone through the trial with God before the trial came, He is perfect calmness. Yet we know what was before Him. We know how He had felt it. There was the One that had been in the agony. There was the One that had been sweating, as it were, great drops of blood. Not a trace of it now. He had gone through with God. Satan now was to go through with Peter. Satan had carried completely away in the case of Judas. I do not mean that he was to carry Peter away as he had done Judas, but certainly it was to sift. As the Lord Himself said, Satan desired to have him that he might sift him as wheat; and this was now going on, so that Peter shows out himself. His way of showing his love for Christ was by taking a sword to cut off the ear of the high priest's servant. Poor Peter! Not an atom of fellowship with the mind of God at that moment, nor, indeed, at any moment, as far as the Lord Jesus was concerned. It was entirely out of the current of the thoughts of God, and yet we cannot doubt that he might have found a sort of reason for it, as I have said, in a misuse of the very word of the Lord.

And this is a solemn lesson to us that the word of God itself will never guide a person aright until the spring of self is broken; until a person has judged himself before God, and is found, above all, with the loins girt with truth before he takes up the sword. When it is taken up afterward it is the sword of the Spirit, and not a material one to cut off an enemy's ear.

Now here, then, we see the difference, first of all, but there was a far more solemn one afterwards; for they go a little farther. When the elders and captains and the rest take the Lord, and lead and bring Him into the high priest's house, Peter follows. We are told in the Gospel of John that he was not alone. Nay, John tells us; and it is beautiful that it should be so. How lovely are these traces of grace! He had seen the One that was full of grace and truth. What was the effect of it? A spirit of grace in himself. But it is John that tells the story of his own folly, his own selfishness, his own worldliness, for John went there rather in the capacity of a friend of the high priest — an acquaintance at any rate — than as a follower of the Lord Jesus. That does not come before us here; indeed, it was reserved to himself to tell it. Now, was not that like the way of God? It had been a long time. Why tell a story that was so old? Perhaps there was not a single person in the whole world that knew it then — none but John. But John lived long enough to bring this out himself in his own word.

Here, however, we have the story of Peter pursued. "Peter followed afar off. And when they, had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were set down together, Peter sat down among them." It was a little of that same spirit that we have the Lord warning against — eating and drinking with the drunkard; that is, it was an association with the men of the world when they were set upon deepest enmity against the Lord Jesus, and with motives, in some respects, a little like themselves. I do not mean as regards the Lord, but all that was secret in his heart towards the Lord was entirely unknown. And who was the person that concealed it? Peter. He feared the world. He feared the men among whom he found himself. It was the spirit of the world. There is nothing that so destroys confession as fear of the world, and it is evident that this was the case. He had got with the world on its own ground. He wanted, no doubt, to see what was going on. I do not say that there were not deeper and better things at the bottom of his heart, but he did it in concealment. He was off the ground of faith. Here was another fruit of his not watching even one hour — of his failure in prayer when the Lord called him to pray.

And so the trial came — a new kind of trial, not now of patience; but here the question was, Would he confess? The occasion soon came. "A certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him and said, This man was also with him." Now there was nothing violent; there was no strong language; but it was too much for Peter. It was — what? beloved friends. Association with Christ? He was ashamed of his Master. Oh, what a solemn thing! It was not that he did not love his Master, but he feared even this servant-maid. So mighty is the spirit of the world when we are off the ground of faith, and when we have failed in prayer before the temptation comes.

So he denied, saying, "Woman, I know him not." It was not only a failure in confession: it was a lie! I know there are many Christians who think that a believer never can tell a lie. I pity them! One's feeling always is, You are going to fail in that which you think impossible. You are going to fall into a lie yourself, and just because you do not believe it possible. Woman, I know him not." Nor was this all. And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou art also of them. And Peter said, Man, I am not. And about the space of one hour" — for God did not permit all to come in a few moments. No, He will have it made most plain. He would have the awful consequence of neglecting the word of the Lord in prayer. He would have a total humiliation of His servant; and so it was, for now it is bitter aggravation that, although, of course, conscience must have been at work, he must have known perfectly the sin against his Master, and the lie, as a mere question of morality. "And about the space of one hour after, another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow also was with him: for he is a Galilaean. And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest."

Oh, beloved friends, what are we apart from Christ? The worth of every Christian is just the measure in which he has Christ, practically, as his life. I am not now speaking of a person being brought to heaven by blood. No doubt the two things go together; but I do say that all that is precious in a saint of God — all that one can speak of as giving pleasure and satisfaction — is that which gives pleasure and satisfaction to God. And we must remember this. It is no question of character cannot trust flesh. Character you may count upon in a man of the world, but never trust it in a Christian. God will not allow character to reap the praise. God will not sustain a person according to his character. Who would have expected this from Peter? Peter may never have been guilty of anything of the kind in his life, even about the common transactions of the world, or about other persons. It is quite evident, from what we see of him in his ordinary ways, that Peter was in no way a man of deceitful character. If one looks at Rebecca, one is not surprised that the sister of Laban should be full of her plans and tricks and ways. And one is not surprised, again, that Jacob should savour of the family character. One sees that there were ways that were unworthy, bearing a most suspicious resemblance to his mother. Well, there, I say, it is his natural character; but not so with Peter; and I think that these two things are of great importance; that is, that natural character has a great deal to do where it is a question of the enemy, but natural character is a very small thing with the Spirit of God.

Now, there is an immense comfort in this, because, supposing I know that my natural character fails in this way or that, there is a ground to take care; there is a ground where I have got peculiarly to watch it. On the other hand, there is the greatest comfort in knowing that, whatever may be one's failure, what Christ has formed is not merely a question of developing one's character, or patching up what is wrong. It is the forming what is entirely new. It is the new man that the Spirit of God is occupied in bringing out, and in exercising according to the will and word of God. And, hence, therefore, whatever might have been one's defects, whatever might be the horrible evil of one's nature — I am speaking now of that which one may painfully know in one's natural character — it has nothing at all to do with the Spirit of God. He is above it. He is sovereign. He forms what is utterly wanting, and makes a person remarkable for the very opposite of what he is naturally; so that, you see, one gets t double advantage in this way — all the comfort of what grace can do on the one hand, and all the profit of the humiliation of what we feel ourselves to be, and what exposes us to the enemy.

Well, then, there is another thing, and that is that, when a man is a Christian, one never can tell what Satan will try, where one is unwatchful — to drag one down in the last thing that could be expected. There you cannot predict, but this you may, safely predict — that Satan will throw a person down in the very thing in which he thinks it impossible. There never was a man that had greater confidence that day than Peter — that it was impossible for him to deny his Master. His Master had told him that he was to do it, and solemnly warned him. He did not believe Him; therefore, he fell. And, not believing Him, he did not pray — there was another thing, and the outer failure is always the manifestation of the inward one. Everything that is blessed in the Christian is the fruit of prayer with God in secret. I am speaking now not, of course, of how souls are brought to God: I am speaking of the way in which God manifests the traits of grace in those that are His. Hence the all-importance of the word of God and prayer. In these very particulars Peter had broken down.

But mark, now, the beginning of his restoration. We have seen his fall. I have now a happier task — to trace the ways of grace in restoring the soul of Peter.

"The Lord turned and looked upon Peter; and Peter remembered the word of the Lord"; for it is always the point of failure that is taken up, and the first part of Peter's failure was that he slighted the word of the Lord. He really did not believe Him about himself and about his danger, although he did believe in Him as to His own glory, and had given various proofs of his faith in Him, but he did not believe in Him practically, that is, as to his own peril at that moment. Now he realised what a fool he had been. Now he realised, in a little measure — for it was not anything like complete — how profound the sin and shame that he had put upon the Lord Jesus. "And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And Peter went out, and wept bitterly." It was repentance, but it was only the beginning of repentance; for repentance., beloved brethren, does not merely mean sorrow, however genuine, for one's sin. Repentance, in a Christian particularly, goes a great deal more deeply into the matter, and we shall find that the Lord, in his very love to Peter, would have it deep. He meant it to be a work never to be forgotten. He meant the fruit of this to appear by His own grace. He meant other souls to be blest; for what cannot grace do? Out of the eater, as we know, comes forth meat, and out of the strong sweetness. That is, grace is always sovereign, always free. Hence the Lord delights at just the very last moment when we could expect it. But what you expect is not grace. Grace is always above any inference that can be drawn, except, indeed this — if I have learned what God is, I have learned, it may be, to infer that God must always act worthily of Himself.

Well, I do not call that, of course, mere reason. Reasoning is the other way. The reasoning of man is from himself — it may be to God — and hence it is always wrong. The true way of reasoning is from God to man, and not from man to God. Well, this is just exactly where we fail; but, grace being in God, one ought to start from this, as a believer — that God will always prove that He is never overcome with evil. Why, He calls us not to be. He says, "Be ye not overcome with evil, but overcome evil with good." That is what He does Himself. That is what He is always doing as the God of all grace. And so now the Lord looks out of this spirit of grace. I quite admit that there is nothing which judges sin so severely as grace. There is nothing which produces such deep shame before God. There is nothing which makes the vilest see all his failure — his denial (for really it was that) — his denial of the Lord Jesus. What a Lord to deny! What a Saviour He was! What love was in that look, but, at the same time, what grief! And grief over whom? For Himself? Over Peter — Peter. The love of the Lord, as well as the sense, no doubt, of the sin, filled Peter's heart. There was more to be done still, but that will follow.

John 20, 21.

Now I turn, then, from this to the Gospel if John, where we have the further dealings of the Lord as to Peter, and the completeness of the work in the soul. We see Peter on the resurrection day — the resurrection morning. "The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him." What was the effect of this upon Peter? "Peter, therefore, went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. So they ran both together; and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre." But he did not first enter in. There was a need in Peter's heart which at that moment carried him farther than even the affection of John; for, although John came first to the sepulchre and stooped down, and, looking, saw the linen clothes lying, he did not go in. But "Simon Peter cometh, following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, and the napkin that was about his head not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Then went in also that other disciple which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw and believed."

Again, our souls may well admire the grace that tells such a story — not to his own credit, "for as yet," saith he, "they knew not the scripture that he must rise again from the dead." They believed the fact, but they knew not the scripture. It was not a truth to them, bound up with God's character and God's word. It was a fact. They saw that the Lord was risen, but the connection of the resurrection with God's glory and with their own deliverance did not yet cross their minds. "Then the disciples went away again unto their own home." Not so Mary. But I do not pursue her story. My subject is Peter.

Well, now, what I should draw from the story that is brought before us here, more particularly followed up by what is mentioned in the last chapter of the Gospel of Mark, is this. Peter was a true man. He knew that he had dishonoured the Lord, but the first impulse of his heart was to see the Lord. But was that all? It was the grace of the Lord's heart to see Peter. The Spirit of God was truly at work in Peter in this desire to see the Lord, even if he were alone to see the Lord. He wished to have it all out with the Lord, but the Lord wished it too, and wished it for Peter's sake; for there is nothing that would more damage a soul than an unsettled question between it and the Lord. Hence, in the Gospel of Mark we are told that the Lord said, when He gave the word to the women — or rather the angel speaking for the Lord — "Go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee." Why Peter? Why is he the only one that is named? Because he was the one that most needed it. Love always goes out most where there is need most. "Tell his disciples and Peter."

What a joy to Peter's heart that it should be so, in spite of his scandalous and his repeated lying — for indeed it was most shameful. It was not simply a failure to confess; it was a denial of his Master, and this repeatedly; and remember, this was only a very short time afterwards. He experienced how infinitely the ways of the Lord are above ours. Could we have thought such a thing possible? just conceive it now. Conceive a person guilty of a flagrant act, and a public one, too, and a repeated one. How slow any of us would be to think that such a person could possibly be a believer. And this is an apostle; and did not that make it a great deal worse? Even the law always laid it down as a principle that the sin of the ruler was a more serious thing, and could not be dealt with as the sin of one of the people generally. There was always that which required a deeper purgation before God; and so the very fact of Peter's being so specially honoured would to us have been so much the greater shame and evil. But to the Lord it was an opportunity for judging it thoroughly out of fulness of His grace. He was to be a strengthener of others, and this, too, as he had not learned what it was in secret with the Lord. New he must learn by his own public sin, but where sin abounded grace did much mere abound; and, unless it be the apostle Paul, where was there such a preacher of grace as the apostle Peter?

Now turn again from this to 1 Corinthians 15 — for I must just refer to that for a moment. The proofs must be taken from different parts of scripture. We know that the Lord did appear to Peter. Indeed, we need not leave the Gospels. Luke 24 shows the very same thing; for when the two disciples came in from Emmaus, and reported to the assembled disciples in Jerusalem that the Lord had spoken to them by the way, what are they told? "They found the eleven gathered together and them that were with them, saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread." But He had appeared to Simon; and, you will mark, to Simon alone. Now I do see unspeakable grace in our Lord in that it was not only an angel that gives the comforting word, "Tell his disciples and Simon Peter," but here is the fact that the Lord met Peter alone. I am not aware that He met anybody else alone. He met two disciples. I am not speaking of Mary Magdalene, of course, when He sent the message, but as far as the eleven were concerned I am not aware of His appearing to any one of them alone except Peter. Why so? Because He felt for the heart of the disciple. He felt that there would be a burden, that there would be a cloud, and He would remove it. He had given the certainty that there was nothing between Him and Peter, so that Peter might have nothing between his heart and the Lord. That was His object, and this, too, He accomplished in this very way — he appeared to Simon.

John 21.

Well, then, we find a further step in the twenty-first chapter. "Jesus showed himself again to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias, and on this wise showed he himself. There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples." Now, I do not say that the work was very deep. It was real, but there was a want of depth. "Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with thee." The ways of one who has a pre-eminent place, and his words too, are surely of great moment to us here. How readily saints fall in with the word of any one who takes the lead! "They went forth and entered into a ship immediately, and that night they caught nothing. But when the morning was now come, Jesus stood on the shore." He turns this to his own account. "But the disciples knew not that it was Jesus. Then Jesus saith unto them, Children, have ye any meat? They answered him, No. And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes. Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord" — always prompt of action — "he girt his fisher's coat unto him (for he was naked), and did cast himself into the sea. And the other disciples came in a little ship (for they were not far from land, but as it were two hundred cubits), dragging the net with fishes. As soon then as they were come to land, they saw a fire of coals there, and fish laid thereon, and bread. Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now caught. Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three; and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken."

Now I have no doubt that all this was a typical scene — that it was in direct connection with the wonderful effects of the work of the Lord in a day that is coming, but not yet come — that, in short, it is the picture of the millennial scene when there will be no failure whatever as far as the work of God is concerned. There will be failure in man outside, but not as far as the work of God is concerned. It will be one of the peculiar characteristics of that day. And so, you observe, for all the great catch of fish the net is not broken, It is in contrast with the picture of the work now, and with that which had been said to Peter. You may remember that, in the Gospel of Luke, there is the picture of Peter and the rest called to be fishers of men. Well no doubt they catch fish and plenty of them; but the nets are broken, whereas in that day there will be nothing of the kind; there will be no breach. The work of God will be fully accomplished, not merely grace overruling as now, not merely God doing it as far as His own secret purpose is concerned. I am speaking now of the public work in the world. Well, that will be an immense change, but there is another thing that comes before us here of more importance for my present purpose, and that is, the dealings of God still more fully pursued with Peter's soul — the restoring dealings of the Lord,

"When they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?" Now that was a very searching question. It told the whole tale. "Lovest thou me more than these?" That was the root of his failing. Peter did not give the other disciples credit for being willing to go to prison and to death for Jesus' sake; but he believed himself. He was confident that he loved the Lord as nobody else did, and now the Lord turns upon Peter. He had carried the work on in his soul. He had looked upon him and sent him out to weep when he remembered the word. He had seen him alone, but now He would carry on the work at the same time that He would publicly reinstate His servant; for the very point here was that, while the work was carried on more deeply than in others, it was in presence of others, that they might know the entire restoration of communion between Peter and the Lord — nay, more than that, that they might know the confidence which the Lord reposed in Peter now. He had never done it before. He had never entrusted his sheep to Peter before. Oh, what grace! The very time when men would have said, "Never trust Peter again! A man that has so denied the Lord — he may be a saint! I hope he will get to heaven — but never you trust that man! Why, did any one ever hear of such flagrant, repeated denial?" Well now, you see the Lord does it all before them, and the first question really probed the heart, though He carries it still deeper every time. "Simon, son of Jonas," for that was the point — he trusted himself "lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee." What does the Lord say? "He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time." Peter had denied Him thrice, and it is in the most pointed reference to this that He puts it the third time; yet Peter did not feel how deeply the Lord was going, for He had not alluded to his denial; but now he understands. He thought it was all settled, but the Lord would have it settled not only publicly, but divinely. And you see here was the thing that was wanting. He had judged his failure, but had he got to the cause of the failure? Had he detected the root of it? I do not believe he had. We may be very, very grieved because of our sin, and feel it deeply before God; but have we really reached what exposed us to sin? What was it in Peter? His confidence in his own loving the Lord — that he could go where nobody else could — that he loved the Lord more than any one — more than these.

Well now, you see he feels that the Lord was alluding to his threefold denial. "Peter was grieved, because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee." How humiliating! Peter is reduced to cast himself upon the Lord's perfect knowledge — what the Lord Himself knew. Everybody else in the world would have said that Peter could not have loved the Lord to deny Him so, and that unless the Lord knew to the bottom of his heart he could not have given him credit for love. "Lord, thou knowest all things." Oh, beloved friends, what a comfort it is to have to do with One that knows all things, and, in consequence of knowing all, can see a love that nobody else could see — can give credit to that which all appearances might contradict; so that, instead of the Lord's perfect knowledge of all being a thing that we have need to be afraid of, it is the very thing that is in our favour where there is reality; and there was reality in Peter. It was not that there was any question of love: the failure was not there. It was not that there was not love, but that he considered that his love would preserve him in the hour of danger. It never does — nothing does but the self-judgment that comes out in prayer to God and in total distrust of self before God. It is not, therefore, the protective power of the love of Christ that keeps people. There must be that, but there is more than that wanted, and the more than that is the very last thing that a man lacks: it is to believe his own badness, to believe that he is such a poor, weak, unworthy creature; and Peter had never got a deep sense of it before. Now it is brought to him. "Lord, I admit that all the rest would say that I do not love you a bit, but you know everything to the bottom of my heart, and you know, after all, that it requires divine knowledge to know that I love Thee." Not a word now of loving more than anybody else. That was furthest from Peter's heart. You may depend that he never said it again, never thought it again. I do not mean that he did not fall in other ways, but he was thoroughly broken, at any rate, in this conceit of himself. "Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep."

Now you see there is a distinct word of the Lord, for it is not merely that the Lord was thus bringing Peter to judge the root of the evil that had exposed him to fall, but the Lord was now reposing public confidence in Peter — in His servant — for the work that He was about to open to him. He was about to have a very special charge, and I suppose that the sheep which are referred to here refer rather to the Jewish ones. It would seem so from the context and from the fact. We know that the circumcision were handed over to Peter, as the uncircumcision to Paul; and it would appear that this is what the Lord refers to here. At the present time you must remember the only sheep that were accredited were the sheep that were there. Others no doubt there were, but that does not seem to enter into the special line of this part of the Gospel of John.

However, that may not be of so much importance. The great thing I wish to press is the evidence that scripture gives us here of God, in His wonderful way, restoring our souls fully only when we have got at that which exposed us to sin, and not merely the sin itself. This is of so practical a nature that I must dwell upon it, therefore, at more than usual length. But it is not all, for the Lord, when He restores, always restores what was not taken away — gives more than was ever possessed.

Now there was one thing in which Peter had expressed his confidence — that is, to go to death or judgment or prison — anything for the Lord. Well now, the Lord takes this up. "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest; but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me."

Thus then, I think, we have the unspeakable grace of our Lord Jesus Christ meeting the desire of Peter's heart. He had done wonderful things for him already, when He committed what was most precious to the man that had failed so publicly and so repeatedly; but He goes farther. Had not Peter desired to follow the Lord to prison and to death? Certainly. "Well now," says the Lord, "I will give you all the desire of your heart." And look at the Lord's way! Look at the way of grace! When he was comparatively young he failed. When there was all the fervour and impetuosity, I must add, of his natural character, he completely broke down. The Lord puts no honour upon that; rather the contrary. He must bring it to nothing. It is what flesh would glory in. "But he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." And so the Lord gives him good ground for it, for He tells him, "When thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands." It was not only that he was to die, but, "This spake he signifying by what death he should glorify God." Peter was to have his wish gratified to the very fullest. Peter was to suffer like his Master. I am not referring now to the tradition. I do not know whether there is any truth in his being crucified with his head downwards. Scripture says nothing of that kind. We are told so. It is a pretty story, and that is all one can say about it. It may be true; it is more likely to be false. You never can trust the stories of men in the things of God. I have never known a true story told by men in what concerns God, and where the spirit of man reigns. There is a fatality of error of the most extraordinary kind in the old ecclesiastical historians that touch upon these matters. Why, they cannot even tell correctly what is in the Bible, still less what is not. I say, therefore, that I do not believe that these stories are to be trusted. But this is to be trusted: he is to die like his Master, at any rate. He is to be crucified, so that the Lord would not only give him then to be led away a prisoner, but to suffer upon the cross. Peter would have what he desired, and more than he desired; but he would have it in pure grace; there was no strength, He would have it given him by the Lord; nay, farther than that, to "glorify God." No longer Peter's love; no longer glorifying Peter in any way. He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord."

I do not know, then, beloved friends, a more touching proof of the way in which grace not only restores, but triumphs. And, remember, that is the measure for us. We are put in this wonderful place of glorifying God. Is that only for Peter? Nay, for all the redeemed. "We are bought with a price; therefore," he says, "glorify God in your body," So it was in Peter's case. It was not the cheap and easy way of thinking that it is a mere matter of feeling. It is all-important that our affections should be right, but God does give, opportunities that the feeling shall be a manifested one. God does give opportunities that the heart shall have its desire. Where we have wrong desires, it is the greatest mercy of God that He crosses them, but when we have a holy desire, though it may be taken up in a spirit of self-confidence, and comes to nought for the time, yet what is divine always survives. This is what we find here. Peter, when he was broken, therefore, in all his own power, finds the power of God strengthening him even beyond what he had thought, for I do not suppose that when Peter spoke about following the Lord to prison and to death he thought of the death of the cross. None of them could say that till the cross came. They never contemplated such a thing as their Master suffering so, although the Lord had intimated it. But it is astonishing how the disciples forgot the word of the Lord, and how little impression it made. Are you surprised at that? You ought to know it from yourselves. I ought to know it from myself, and I do know it too well — how we slur over the word of God, how we are caught continually in the midst of a chapter that we have read ever so often and never understood before — expressions, even those that we have cited, it may be, and used; and yet suddenly the light of God shines through them. Well, how is this, beloved friends? Why, it is just because there has been a hindrance in self. There has been something of our own that has been an obstruction to the Spirit of God, but God brings down the self and causes the light and grace of Christ to shine, and all is clear.

And now, beloved friends, I have desired to help you to follow to the end all the dealings of God with Peter in the Gospels. If the Lord will, perhaps there may be another opportunity of tracing him in the Acts of the Apostles, or the Epistles of Peter; but I do not hope for that just now. May the Lord bless what we have said. May He give us more simplicity to read that we may understand; for simplicity, after all, is exactly what the deepest understanding brings us to. If we are growing rightly, we are growing more simple. I am sure, beloved friends, that that is the true lesson for all our souls — to appreciate the word and to apply it, to learn how to use it, not only for others, but for our own souls.

Acts 3-9.

(The first of these Lectures on the Dealings of God with Peter in The Acts (chaps. 1, 2) was unfortunately not reported. [ED. B.T.])

We have had the remarkable discourse of the apostle which followed the gift of the Holy Ghost. There we found not merely the proof of Jesus as the Messiah, instead of being weakened by the cross, confirmed; and that rejection, and, consequently, His departure to heaven, instead of being a stumbling-block, contrariwise the fulfilment of the most distinct and weighty prophecy in the word of God. But now, in this third chapter, we have the apostle not so much explaining what was new and essential to Christianity, but showing us a remarkable dealing of God — the tender mercy that still yearns over Israel. For this fresh discourse of Peter is strictly suitable to one that was not only an apostle of the church, but an apostle of the circumcision. This the Lord indicated long before, and it becomes more and more manifest that Peter was peculiarly one in whom God was mighty towards the circumcision. He that was to manifest the power of God to the uncircumcised had not yet appeared. Hence a striking miracle wrought by Peter and John his companion, and wrought, too, in the temple itself, gave an opportunity for the apostle to open out an appeal to Israel; and it is strictly so.

There is nothing now in this chapter about the gift of the Holy Ghost; there is nothing at all about their being baptised when they took the place of confessors of Christ; but he explains to them with great care that it was by no power or wisdom of theirs that the great deed was done. It was God putting power upon the Man whom they had despised and the nation abhorred. Solemn circumstances! A terrible fact to face! The Jews, the people of God, and the God of Israel, were totally opposed; and they were opposed not merely about something in their own moral ways; they were opposed about the One that God had raised up — raised up and sent to bless them. How awful, therefore, must their guilt be, that it was not merely failure. Even those that are most faithful fall, but here it was a blank and distinct rebellion against God, and rebellion against God when He had raised up the Messiah. Hence, the very object of it was to arrest the conscience of the Jew, but in doing so there is a most characteristic appeal of the apostle Peter which I cannot but say a little upon in passing.

He charges them with denying the holy and the just. What, Peter? Had not Peter denied the holy One and the just? The very thing he had done himself! Now, of two things one must be true. Either Peter was a man extremely insensible and dull in the matter of his own sin; or, on the contrary, God had so completely purged away that sin that Peter could speak as calmly and as triumphantly as if he had never been guilty of it. And that is exactly what God does, and I have no doubt that God was using this very thing — that God was bringing out that great truth which we know as an essential one of Christianity, but which was of peculiar moment to bring out for a Jew, because a Jew, having the law, would always be in danger of thinking that there must necessarily be some painful remembrance of what had been done against God by the law's knowledge of sin; and, accordingly, there would be, as they must have reasoned, a continual keeping up of the remembrance of delinquency, even if forgiven.

Now there is another thing that God is occupied with, and that is, not man and his sins, but Christ and the perfectness with which He has blotted them out from before God; nay, more than that, the perfectness, too, with which He has purged the conscience of the believer so that it is not hardness or insensibility for a man to speak calmly of the very sins he has been guilty of himself; but it is the triumph of faith to be able to look at them without a blush — to be able to speak of them without a blush — to be able to declaim against, and to charge upon the conscience of others, without the smallest wincing, the very thing which had been once his own shame, once his own sin, and that publicly before all, and that not very long before.

Now that is the fact as to Peter. You know very well that his ardour and, I must add, self-confidence had encouraged him to follow the Lord when He was apprehended, and to find his way among the servants, public and private, of the high priest; and there it was, when they detected by his language, if by nothing else, that he was a Galilean too, and charged him with being one of the followers of Jesus of Nazareth, that Peter there and then fell, and fell repeatedly, and fell, too, in the most solemn manner. And yet, beloved friends, that is the very thing that he here speaks of, and puts upon their conscience, as if he had never been guilty of it along with them.

I refer to this as a beautiful illustration of what the apostle Paul calls in the Epistle to the Hebrews, "the worshippers once purged having no more conscience of sin." Of course that does not mean that conscience did not feel, but that now conscience is clear — so completely clear that one could speak with this perfect freedom and, in fact, lay it at the door of other people. Surely Peter would not have denied it himself for an instant, but Peter was bound there and then not to be speaking of what he had judged himself for already, and what he was completely clear of before God. Now he had to do with them, and he had also to do with them as a witness of Jesus and of His redemption.

Well, this discourse of Peter, which we have before us now, does not merely bring out the power of the blood of Christ, but further, there is another thing that I must draw your attention to, and that is, the manner in which he presents the coming of the Lord Jesus. He never speaks about the Lord taking us to heaven. It is His coming to the earth that occupies Peter. Indeed, this is the way in which, habitually, the coming of the Lord, wherever it is treated in the Acts of the Apostles, is named. For instance, in the first chapter that same Jesus should "so come in like manner as they had seen Him go into heaven." That does not mean His taking us there, but His coming thence Himself. It does not bring forward our accompanying, but it is the very same time; it is when we do accompany Him; when we follow Him out of heaven. In short, it is His coming into this scene — the world — His coming back again. So here, in addressing the Jews, he puts that before them. He says, "Repent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." We are all familiar with that change — "so," not, "when." "And he will send Jesus Christ which before was preached unto you." Mark that. "Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things." That is the point. It is not the removal of the saints to heaven, but it is the restitution of all things on the earth.

Now you must not suppose that that is any defect in Peter. Not only was it no defect, but it was exactly the right doctrine at the right time. You see that he was addressing not the children of God that were looking to follow the Lord into heaven, but he was speaking to the Jew, and he was showing that the coming of the Lord already — His humiliation, His suffering here below, His cross — had not taken away in the least degree the hope of Israel. Here is the hope of Israel. It is as fresh as ever. It is as fully maintained by Peter as by Isaiah. It is even more clearly presented by the apostle now than it had ever been by any Jewish prophet before. And you see the propriety that the apostle of circumcision should follow in the steps of, but should, at the same time carry forward the hope of, the prophets of the circumcision. All is harmonious in the word of God, He that was called for another work, who is to be taken out of Israel for the purpose of making the grace of God so much the more conspicuous to the Gentile, will come before us later on. I do not say that I shall take up his doctrine and his history in this course, though I may just look at it in passing. Our proper theme is Peter, I am merely now showing the consistency of the preaching of Peter with the place which we have seen assigned him by the Lord Jesus. I am showing, too, how he was being guided of God as being the foremost man at that time in the testimony of God here below. But how blessedly and simply, too, but convincingly, he was made the instrument of bringing forward exactly the right word of God for that time and place.

He tells them to repent and be converted, and this has always a great place as said to Israel; not by any means that repentance is withheld by the great apostle of the Gentiles. It would be a terrible lack if they had been called to repent, and we had been called only to believe, but it is perfectly true that faith gets an exceedingly marked place in the call to the Gentiles, and that repentance has an equally strong and prominent place in the call to Israel; only you must remember that he who repents always believes, and he who believes always repents. Still there they are — in the one case repentance being the prominent thing, and in the other place faith. And why so, seeing that they were both found in both? The reason was just this: the one had had the favoured testimony of God, and had been false to it; therefore they are to repent. The other, people had had no testimony at all, and they are called to believe. That is not that they were not called to repent, for I repeat again that there is no soul ever brought to God without repentance. It is not merely without faith, but without repentance. That is to say, that Gentiles are just as truly sinners as the Jews, only there is this difference — that we are never called "transgressors" like the Jews, nor are the Jews merely called sinners "like us." Sinners of the Gentiles, "transgressors in Israel." This you will find to be, if I may so say, the technical or the great difference between the two; and it is connected with this very point that I am now pressing; that is, that repentance has a conspicuous place in the call to the Jew, and faith has a conspicuous place in the call to the Gentile. Only, I repeat, both elements are in every soul that is born of God.

Well, this discourse has another point in it which I would say a word upon, for I am obliged to choose in so large a subject. It is not strictly correct that the apostle presented our Lord as God's Son, as in our common version. It is said, for instance, in the 13th verse, "The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus"; and again, in the last verse, "Unto you first God having raised up his Son Jesus." In both these places it ought to be "Servant." He does not mean Son. It is the word that is translated "servant" in the Greek version of Isaiah. "My elect, my servant, in whom my soul delighted," and so on. It is not the proper word for son. I shall show the importance of this presently. It is Messiah; that is the point. And, as Messiah, the Lord Jesus is not prominently mentioned as Son. I do not the least deny that Son is recognised. For instance, in the second Psalm, "Thou art my Son." That does not mean servant. It is Son, and therefore it is perfectly true that we do find the Sonship of the Lord Jesus connected with the Messiah, but it is not at all the characteristic way of speaking of the Messiah; whereas, when the apostle Paul comes forward we shall find that "Son" is the very foundation-stone. Indeed, it is because Peter in the Lord's ministry had confessed Him to be the Son of the living God that the Lord Jesus said, "Upon this rock." I was right, therefore, in saying that it is the foundation-stone — the foundation-rock on which the church is built. And, immediately after, he reveals His intention to build the church.

Well now you see it is not a question of the church being brought out clearly yet. For that, Paul was raised up. Peter is still pleading with the Jews. He is still calling upon the nation to repent, and he is telling them that if they do repent God will send His Son, His Servant, His Messiah. That is the meaning of it. He would raise up His Servant, this Messiah, who would bless them, and he would bring in a new covenant and all their blessings. They refuse this, and accordingly this is what I am about to trace — the history of the refusal of the testimony of the Holy Ghost, as the Gospels show us the history of the refusal of the Lord Jesus.

When Peter was still preaching to them on this very occasion — "As Peter and John spake unto the people, the priests and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees came upon them, being grieved that they taught the people and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead." All their system of thought, their unbelief, properly speaking, was in danger, for at that time the prevalent notion among the leaders of Israel — not the Pharisees — was that there was no resurrection. Those that took the lead at that time were Sadducces, and they felt most deeply the proclamation of the truth that there was a man risen from the dead and gone to heaven. It overthrew their whole system. They were moved, therefore, that they preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead. It was not only the resurrection, but it was aggravated by this — a resurrection that had brought the power of God into the world as it is now. A man was raised from the dead and gone into the heaven in the midst of them. Why, it was clear that if that was the case it brought the power of God very close to them. Where had this mighty deed been done? In their midst — in Jerusalem itself, in their own day. It was not done in a corner; it was not done in some recess of the earth; it was not done where nobody had seen it and nobody had heard anything about it. It was in the midst of an armed band. It was in the midst of a nation that had been fully warned against it. That deceiver, as they said, had told them that He was to rise in three days. They were, therefore, fully aware of what they were to expect. All that made the miracle so much the more mighty as a testimony of the present power of God in dealing with this very world. He had risen from the dead, we may say, before their very eyes, although they did not see it. But still, there they were, guarding the very spot, and if it had been possible to see it, it must have been seen. But no, it was of that character that God would not give it to be seen except by chosen witnesses. They saw the Lord after the flesh; they never saw Him after He rose from the dead. Well, but still there was the fact. They were grieved about it; and hence they come down and lay hands upon the apostles, and put them in hold until the next day. This did not arrest the work of the Lord. Many believed. The number of the men was about five thousand.

Well, on the morrow we see they hold their council. They were gathered together; "Annas the high priest and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem. And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this? Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost." It is clear that Peter was the man of that time. He was the man that God was using at that hour. Filled with the Holy Ghost, he said, "Ye rulers of the people and elders of Israel, If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole, be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead." And you will observe that he does not qualify it here. Now that he has these guilty leaders before him he does not say, "I wot that through ignorance ye did it," for now you see, they were making it most palpable and manifest that there was a will — a wicked will. Accordingly he does not allow of any excuse, and it is always so with God. When He meets souls at first He meets them as they are, with nothing but grace, and when they proceed in rejecting Christ it is no use denying that there is a rebellious will. And so it is here, "Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole." And he quotes the well known Psalm 118, "This is the stone which was set at naught of you builders, which is become the head of the corner." It was only accomplishing their own scriptures. But he adds, "Neither is there salvation in any other." Here was the One they were rejecting above all! "Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved." And the Lord had brought in that great truth that it is in vain to look for salvation above the heavens. It is under the heavens; it is here on earth. The Son of man has on earth, as Christ says, "power to forgive sins." That is what He brought down from heaven, and here. it is that this name continues to go forth. The Holy Ghost gives it currency and power to go forth here alone. It is not there, it is here, that a man must be saved if saved at all. "So when they saw the boldness of Peter and John . . . ."

But mark another thing which is very interesting. Although Peter was filled with the Holy Ghost, although he spoke with this most convincing power, they could see that he was an unlearned man. Inspiration did not give the appearance of learning. Inspiration gave divine power and kept perfectly from error, but it did not hinder the character, the style, of the man who was inspired. This is of immense importance to us, because unbelief builds a great deal upon a certain style. For instance, you find the style of James, you find the style of Peter, you find the style of Paul. To be sure we do, and that is the perfection of inspiration. Inspiration does not mean God speaking to men. Inspiration means God speaking by man to men, and therefore you see that it is not only that you have God speaking, but you have God speaking by the man, and the man gives his own style to the word of God that is spoken. It is never called the word of man; it is the word of God, but still it is the word of God by man, passing through a human mind, a human heart, and a human mouth, it may be, to men.

Well, accordingly, there is a certain style which is impressed upon the word of God, only the Spirit of God takes care that there shall be no error; and so it was upon that day. They saw the boldness of these men, but further, they perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men. It was not that they were ignorant of the truth. They were ignorant themselves. It was not that they were unlearned in the Scriptures. It was Caiaphas and Annas and these others who were unlearned in the Scriptures; but still, judged by the mere standard of education or letters among men, undoubtedly Peter and John were ignorant and unlearned men; and their being filled with the Holy Ghost, I repeat, did not in the least set this aside. It did what was infinitely better. It showed the power and the grace of God, so to speak, made perfect in weakness. it showed that, although there was this ignorance and want of learning after a human sort, there was what manifested the Holy Ghost; and they were being used with divine power both for the blessing of the believer and for the conviction of the conscience of the unbeliever. "So they marvelled," it is said, "and they took knowledge of them that they had been with Jesus."

But then there is another thing. There was the very man that had been made strong, and they could not get rid of this evidence. They had him before them, but he was there who was the witness of the power of God. "Beholding. the man that was healed standing with them they could say nothing against it." You see it is not ignorance which is the terrible and damning thing in men's hearts. It is will that desires to expel the testimony of God, the grace of God, and the power of God, if they could, out of God's own world. That was their case, then. But God made them feel it.

"When they had, therefore, commanded them to go aside, they conferred among themselves." And they let out their conviction of the fact. There was no doubt of the miracle, "but that it spread no farther let us straitly threaten them." So we see the blindness of unbelief following, for how absurd to suppose that God had wrought in this way, and that it should be kept hidden, or that the persons who were the instruments of the power of God should conceal such a thing, or that that power was not to work in other ways similarly. "Let us straitly threaten them that they speak henceforth to no man in this name. And they called them and commanded them not to speak at all, nor teach, in the name of Jesus." But this only brings out the divinely given courage and wisdom of the servants of God, for "Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God." What a position! And these were the servants of God! These men claimed to have God's own authority in the world. "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God" — that is what it came to "judge ye; for we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." All that then remained was to threaten them further, and to let them go. And when they did go we find a new thing. They went to "their own company," and there it is for the first time that anything of that kind is mentioned in Scripture. And it is a very important truth, too, that now Christians had their own company. Before the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus, there was nothing of the sort. Their own company would have been the Jews. Now there was their own company separate from the Jews, and the people who were most opposed, most hostile, to their company were the Jews; so it was clear that God had wrought in some entirely new way on the earth. He had given a new relationship, new affections. What was the centre of this? Christ; that was what made the difference. Jesus, the rejected Jesus, the exalted Christ.

There, however, they find themselves, and they raise their voices to God with one accord, saying, "Lord, thou art God which hast made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is; who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things." They applied Psalm 2. "And now, Lord, behold their threatenings, and grant unto thy servants that with all boldness they may speak thy word." And so they did. After that they had prayed there was an answer given of the most conspicuous kind. "The place was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost and they spake the word of God with boldness. "

You must distinguish, therefore, between the gift of the Holy Ghost and the filling with the Holy Ghost. The gift of the Holy Ghost, once given, was for ever given. The filling of the Holy Ghost depends upon circumstances, and upon this circumstance above all others — that nature is denied any place practically. When that is the case the Holy Ghost fills the soul that is emptied enough of self to look to God to fill it. It is our own thoughts, out. own will at work, that hinders our being filled with the Holy Ghost. But now here they had learnt how completely it was a question of God and of God's grace; for what were they? And yet they could see now what were the high priests, what was all Israel. Enemies of God; enemies of Jesus! They therefore felt how Christ was everything to them, and the consequence is that they were filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness. That was the effect of it.

"And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul." There seems to be a fresh impetus given to all those spiritual affections that had been found even before. There was a fresh start. "Neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus; and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked, for as many as were possessors of land sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet, and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need." There was a remarkable form that the grace took as an outward sign. It is in the very thing which a Jew would have been as unlikely a man as any in the world to part with, for the Jew certainly has never been considered remarkable for this kind of readiness to lay down all that he has in the world. But that was exactly what the Spirit of God wrought within them. He had come to give men another being, another relationship, and that was the effect of it. The earth was nothing and the things on the earth were nothing.

And you must remember, along with this having things in common, that all the Christians in the world were there together in that one city. When God extended the testimony to other cities we never find anything of the sort. There never was what was commonly called community of goods when God began to work in the cities of Judea, and still more among the Gentiles. It is when they were all in Jerusalem. We all understand it. They were a family; they felt that they were one family; but when it came to God's working here and working there it is clear that the day for community of goods was passed, and so there was a modification entirely of this remarkable display of the grace of God when the testimony extended to other places. Otherwise it would have been mere independency.

Now, there is no principle more opposed to the church of God than what is commonly called "independency" and "congregationalism." Nothing. There is no one thing more opposed to it, because the having, in our own little circle, that which is the boundary of our affections and our duties cramps the church of God and hinders our sense of oneness, which is the essential truth of the word of God. There is "one body" all over the earth. We see therefore that, while the members of that one body were all in the one city, a state of things was suitable in the hands of the Spirit of God which was quite unsuited when Christianity became propagated and found in other places also. I make that remark because it shows the great folly of those that think, "Oh, how nice a thing it would be to have community of goods now." The same kind of thing has entered into the heads of people at various times. It is true that they have carried it out in a very imperfect manner. There is another thing, too, that ruins it, and that is, making a law of it. Now there was no law in Jerusalem. Nobody asked them. It was a thing spontaneously done, and it was done, too, only by those who really had faith to do it. And it was there that Satan hindered. He put it into the heart of a man and a woman there to pretend to give up all their goods when they did not do so. And the story of this is the next thing that comes before us.

We have seen the hostile power of the world, and the world was defeated, but now we have to face another thing. Evil creeps into the church. But is there not power to meet it? There was ample power then, and so it was that the moment it appeared it was met by the superior power of the Holy Ghost. That is what I am going to show you as the great feature of the fifth chapter of the Acts. It is power of every variety meeting the effort of the devil to hurt the church of God. Now the first and most serious thing of all was the corrupting of some that bare the name of the Lord. And what showed the serious character of it was this: it was not merely an impulse, it was an agreement. It was deliberate deceit, and it was deliberate deceit of the very worst kind, because it was deliberate deceit to get the credit of superior grace without reality. This is what comes out, then. A certain man named Ananias — and this is confronted with what particularly marked a good man just before, Barnabas, that son of consolation — that man who in word and deed comforted so many desolate hearts — and a Levite too. No doubt things were only confused, too, because it was a strange thing that a Levite should possess lands and houses. And no doubt he felt it; and accordingly it was such a happy opportunity to lay them down for Him who had died for him; to lay them down for those who were dear to Him. And so he did. He brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet.

"But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, and kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it." They had time, therefore, to think what they were about. They were perfectly aware. It was no sudden impulse; it was a design. Just as if God were not looking upon it and quite aware! God was there; not now merely God in heaven, and not merely God in a vague way upon the earth, but God come down in special grace in the person of the Holy Ghost, to take His place with His people here below. It was an entirely new thing. It was not merely the vague sense of God delivering earth, but there was the dwelling of God — the special dwelling of God — in the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, who had now come and made the church His dwelling-place. So this aggravated the devil. "Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost? "

I will make this remark, which I think to be one of practical moment, that all sin now, properly speaking, is sin against the Holy Ghost. I know there are many people who are dreadfully afraid of that term — "sin against the Holy Ghost." They very often think and fear that they have sinned against the Holy Ghost. The fact is that every sin which a Christian commits is sin against the Holy Ghost — every sin, You will tell me, then, what a dreadful case that makes out. It is a very serious thing, but what you probably have got in your own minds is not sin against the Holy Ghost, but blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. Now the moment that you distinguish between sin and blasphemy it at once delivers you from a great deal of uneasiness which has no foundation whatever. What is the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost? The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is the sin of a man that not only gives way to utter unbelief, rejects Christ, rejects the gospel, but imputes it all to the devil, imputes it to Beelzebub, that is, denies the Holy Ghost to have His part in that which is all part of that wonderful working of the spirit of grace founded upon redemption in our Lord Jesus Christ. If I impute the word of God — because it is all a part of the same great system of divine grace which He has now wrought in Christianity — if I impute the word of God to the devil it is clear that I am given up to the most hateful and abominable rebellion against God, and therefore it is plain that I am destroying all possibility of salvation for my soul. This is what people forget to be that which is meant by blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, and it is plain that persons who are so found are lost. It is plain that they cannot be forgiven.

But this is clearly the last result of unbelief, and never can be found in a Christian person or anything like it. A person may be troubled with bad thoughts; that is another thing altogether. But these people were people that were not troubled at all. They were people that gloried in their wickedness; gloried in it; had no conscience about it whatever. They had got fully hardened and seared by Satan. I repeat that no sin now is what it was to a Jew. A Jew's sin was sin against the law. It was transgression of the law. But that does not define a Christian's sin. A Christian's sin is sin against the Holy Ghost, because the Holy Ghost has taken up His abode in the Christian, and, consequently, whatever sin he does is a disrespect to and a grief to the Holy Ghost. Hence a lie now is not merely a lie. In this case it was a very formal and deliberate one. Peter, therefore, brings out that which made its character to he awful: it was a lie against the Holy Ghost. "To lie to the Holy Ghost and to keep back part of the price of the land." And the consequence is that he laid this upon him — that it was not to man he lied, but to God. God was there, and he had acted as if God was not there. So Ananias, on hearing these words, expires, and great fear came upon all.

What added to it was this: the wife came in not long after. The young men, in fact, had only returned from burying the husband when the woman came in, not knowing what was done, about three hours after; and Peter said to her, "Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much. And she said, Yea, for so much. Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Behold the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out." So she fell down also, "and great fear came upon all the church."

This is the first time, certainly, when the expression "the church" is applied. At the end of Acts 2 the occurrence of the word is doubtful. It is very probable that it is not correct there. In that place "the Lord added together," is the true reading. I make this remark because it will show the great importance of having as correct a translation of the Scriptures as possible. I think that those who desire intelligence in the word of God ought to possess such a translation for their own private reading. I do not say that they should have it for use in the meetings, as the less said as to points of this kind, especially at a worship meeting or anything of that kind, the better; but I conceive that here I have the object and purpose of seeking to help the children of God to know the truth as much as possible, and therefore I do not scruple to speak of this, though I do not like it. If we all had the truth of God presented to us in the correct and best form there would be no need to dwell upon these things, but, unfortunately, we have been accustomed to an imperfect translation, and consequently it is necessary to show in certain cases, what is really the truth. In the second of Acts, then, the expression is, "The Lord added together such as should be saved." Those persons composed the church, but now He calls them the church. "And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things." It was not their own company — those that were destined to salvation, going on in unbelief, and despising the testimony of God; but those that bowed to it, and had repented, and had believed the gospel. Now they were brought together, and by the Holy Ghost they formed this dwelling-place of God. They are called, therefore, the church.

"And upon as many as heard these things." It is evident the power of the testimony affected many outside. "And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch. And of the rest durst no man join himself to them." You see God guarded them, kept off those that ought not to be there. "But the people magnified them."

"And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women." They were not afraid of multitudes, you see; they rejoiced at it, and indeed I often marvel how those that love the saints of God seem to think that there is some peculiar virtue in what they call "twos and threes." Now do not misunderstand me. I think it is an exceeding mercy when God has only two or three, but I cannot sympathise with the feeling that prefers two or three to two or three hundred. I should have thought that love would have desired the best blessing upon the largest number, and that love would have desired that those who are as dear to the Lord as ourselves should not be wandering about like poor sheep without a shepherd in all kinds of sorrow and trouble. Do you think that we are the happier because other people are strangers? Do you think it is a Christian feeling to desire that we should have a little less trial? No, I believe not. I believe that love likes the trial of those that it loves; that love has pleasure in bearing and forbearing. It may be tried at a time, of course, for we are poor and imperfect creatures; but still there is something very sweet in sharing the sorrows of those that God loves and that we love; so that while we are thankful that there are two or three here and there, still I think we ought to rejoice more than all in that He not only saves, but gathers and puts in the true place. Do we think it is the true place, or do we think it is only the true place for ourselves? If so, then you are a sect at once; but if you believe that it is God's place then it is God's place for all God's children. We may not deign to use any improper means, or trouble ourselves because people do not come, for that is the Lord's matter; it is the Lord's great work, not merely ours. We are under Him; we are mere journeymen. He is the One that carries on the work. I say, then, we ought to rejoice the more that there is divine blessing whether in saving or gathering.

And so it was here. This multitude of men and women, I have no doubt, were a great comfort to those that had the feelings, the sympathies, the grace of the Lord, strong in their souls. And what is more, there was mighty power that accompanied it this time, and one remarkable fact which I do not think is mentioned about any other person is that the shadow of Peter healed. just think of that! We never heard of that about the Lord. We never heard that the Lord's shadow healed people. Perhaps you think that I am exalting man against the Lord. I am exalting the words of the Lord, who said, "Ye shall do greater works than these, because I go to the Father." Now I say that that does exalt the Lord, and exalts Him particularly because people may have thought that the Lord was only, so to speak, like a great magnet that could affect only what was near it. Not at all. Because He went they did greater works than His. That is to say, it was the power of the Lord showing itself perfectly superior to everything of nature. Distance and time had nothing to do with it. It was Christ.

And this, accordingly, fills the high priest and his party with great indignation. The more that grace and truth wrought, the more they hated; and they laid their hands again on the apostles and put them in the common prison. But as this is not very particularly said to have happened to Peter till the latter part of the chapter, I need not dwell upon it. Still he was one, but it is only in the latter part that he comes out distinctly.

They put them, then, in prison, but the Lord stretches out His hand. The Lord sends His angel, who opens the prison doors and brings them forth, saying, "Go, stand and speak in the temple all the words of this life." The effect of that is increasing boldness, for now it was made extremely simple.. Before that, the apostles had acted on their confidence in the Lord's will, but now they had got the positive word of the Lord. It was not merely an instinctive consciousness of what He wished, but it was a certain, positive word. The Lord sent His angel and said, "Go and speak in the temple." The very place was given. "Go and speak in the temple all the words of this life" — unrestricted testimony of what was needed by souls. "And when they heard that, they entered into the temple early in the. morning." And quite right. "They entered the temple early in the morning and taught. But the high priest came and they that were with him." They met too. "But when the officers came, they found them not in the prison." And when they were troubled at hearing the tidings, one comes and tells them that the men whom they were seeking were standing in the temple and teaching the people. So they come and bring them before the council, who put the question, "Did not we strictly command that ye should not teach in this name? and behold ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us." Thus it was. There was the burden of a wretched and guilty conscience.

"Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said." Not now, "judge ye." Now he judged. "We ought," says Peter, "to obey God rather than men." Now there is an uncompromising declaration of their obedience to the word of God. "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom ye slew and hanged on a tree: him hath God exalted at his right hand" — (oh, how blessed) — "to be a Prince and a Saviour" — not a Prince and a judge. That He will be by and by, but, meanwhile, "a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are his witnesses of these things." But there was another witness. "So is also the Holy Ghost." I draw your attention to the manner in which the Holy Ghost is spoken of as a living divine person that was there, not merely in them, but with them. So is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey Him. So they were exceedingly wounded with this, and they were only stopped from violence — from the last act, I mean, of violence — by Gamaliel, the teacher of Paul, a remarkable man who at any rate speaks the words of sobriety.

I would just rehearse in a few words the substance of the chapter. Here you see we have divine power in the church — the Holy Ghost adequate to all evil. The offenders fell dead on the spot. We have providential power in the angels, superior to the power of the world. And here we have God's indirect working by men in the world to arrest what was contrary to His will. Thus, you see, there need be no fear whatever where the church walks in the fear of what is unseen. God guards, God acts. This is what we have to build upon and go forward with. We need not be in the least afraid. God has His Gamaliels now, as He had then, in the midst of wicked people, surely, and although there be not a putting forth of the same kind of miraculous power as we find in the angel's opening of the prison doors, still God knows how to do a similar kind of thing and to bring about the same result in a way suitable to the present state of His testimony. But, above all, there is the exceeding comfort that the highest and deepest of that power is ours now as surely as then — the Holy Ghost dwelling in the church of God.

I need not dwell upon what follows. I shall pass over it, and say only a few words upon another scene. We need not speak of the choice of the seven men. Peter is not particularly mentioned. Still less need we speak of Stephen's discourse. Now a new witness comes forth. I may observe, therefore, that the title of this book is clearly a mistake. It is not the acts of "The Apostles." It is the acts more particularly of two great apostles, and besides that of one of the deacons, as we see — one of the seven men, quite as much as any of the apostles. Not even James figures as much as Stephen. I mention that, not as a criticism on the word of God. You must remember that the titles of the books are not inspired. Those titles that we read at the beginning — as, for instance, "the Epistle of John," "the Epistle General of James" — were not given by the Holy Spirit. That is merely what men have said. I make that remark because we are perfectly free to criticise what men have said, though we must always bow to what God has said. Therefore you see the book takes in more than the apostles, and by no means the acts of all the apostles.

But coming to Acts 8, we have a very special scene. I pass by Philip's work. We have a good deal that he did. It is not merely Stephen, but Philip also, who was another of the seven men, and Philip was a true evangelist, and, what is more, too, Philip had not lost his place of evangelist when we find him very late in the book of Acts. That is an important hint that those who begin as evangelists should not lose that place later, and should not grow weary of the work, or give it up for another. Philip is still called an evangelist later on. Indeed, it is then particularly that he gets the name. Well now he is evangelising, and great was the blessing. Why, whole towns of Samaria were won by the gospel. What had never been done by any of the prophets — what had never been done by the twelve apostles when they went forth during our Lord's ministry, or by the seventy — was now done by that one, single-handed, and yet Philip had been set apart by the laying on of hands merely to take care of the tables and to look after the poor in Jerusalem. But God called him to another work, and this was his work. Indeed, it was a great time of evangelising. The church scattered abroad were preaching, and the Lord was with them. But Philip was peculiarly blest, and he baptised. I observe that he baptised men and women. We do not hear of his baptising others, but he baptised men and women, and we do not read farther.

We read of another thing, for certain, and that is that the Holy Ghost was not yet given. Now that was very striking — men converted, men baptised, but not yet having received the Holy Ghost. What a mistake to confound the gift of the Holy Ghost with their being born of the Spirit. I do not know anything of more consequence in its place to note than that fact. There was the very reason why the Holy Ghost was not given them. Samaria had always been a kind of rival of Jerusalem, and if they had got the Holy Ghost apart from the heads of the work in Jerusalem they might have tended to become independent and to say that they were just as good as the church in Jerusalem. We know very well that that is a sufficiently ready tendency, spite of the plain word of God against it. God will make known fully that it is one body and one Spirit; and so when the church at Jerusalem heard of this mighty work at Samaria they sent down Peter and John — two of the most honoured men there — and when they came, they prayed, and the Holy Ghost was given. There was a reason as we see, therefore, for that peculiar act. In other cases there was nothing of the kind. There was no laying on of hands or praying on the day of Pentecost. There was down at Samaria.

Well, but another thing occurred. There was a man that Philip had baptised, and when he saw the Holy Ghost given he offered money. There was nothing that he valued so much as money, except that it was to gain influence in order to gain more money. So he thought he would give a little to get more, and he considers that, because he valued money, so would Peter. But that very thing detected the state of his soul, and that which Philip had failed to find out, Peter saw at once. But you observe that it was not any special power. You must not confound what is called the discerning of spirits with this. The discerning of spirits has to do with detecting bad doctrine — what is taught. But Peter waited till the conduct of the man and the language of the man showed that he had no part or lot in Christ; and accordingly here we find him, then, betrayed, and the apostle pronounces the most solemn judgment — I conceive even more solemn than that which befell Ananias and Sapphira. Ananias and Sapphira were judged in this world; it was "sin unto death."

Simon Magus was judged for eternity. Simon Magus was judged in terms that left no hope for his soul at that moment. I do not say that God might not interfere afterwards. He, at any rate, asked them to pray for him, but it is quite evident that he had no confidence in God. It is not a question of looking to God about his soul. He looked to them, and you will find, often, that people who have no confidence in God have great confidence in the prayers of God's servants. It is a common thing in unconverted people. They have not confidence in Christ, but they would have a great deal of confidence in your praying for them. That, you see, finds its example in these early days.

I need not, then, do more than just glance at another thing, and that is that Peter has been found in an active testimony at the end of the ninth chapter, where he raises a dead person and heals a sick man, and is most diligent in visiting the saints. But the next opportunity will afford me occasion for bringing out a still more wonderful account that the Holy Ghost has given us of that which was allotted to this blest servant of the Lord.

Acts 10.

The occasion that claims our attention first tonight is one of the deepest possible moment. It is not merely that God had abandoned His ancient people as the seat of His power — that He had done hundreds of years before. There is a further step, and a great one, in the development of God's ways; for the call still remained to this people, but now henceforward the call is going out to the Gentiles. It is not merely power. One can understand power being vested in a people that were altogether unworthy. Power does not necessarily suppose conversion — does not suppose the communion of the mind of God. Power might be given sovereignly. Power might be employed by one who was wholly alien to the thoughts of God, though God might be making use of him. As we are told, "Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee; the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain." We know, therefore, that God is able to use anything for His purpose; but it was a very different thing when the call of grace was going from the Jews, the favoured people of God. And going out to whom? To the dogs of the Gentiles. For so they had ever been regarded; they were "sinners of the Gentiles," even to put it in the mildest possible form. They were those who had, from the beginning, from the earliest days, from the flood, grown old in idolatry of every form; and now to these very Gentiles the call of God was about to go forth. The Lord had prepared Peter on the first great occasion when He distinguished him — when He said to him, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." He did not say that only. He said, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven."

We must never confound the kingdom of heaven with the church. They are two totally distinct things. I do not deny that there may be links of connection between them, but they are distinct. The keys of the kingdom were used by Peter, or, at least, one key, if I may so express myself, on the day of Pentecost, in opening the kingdom to the Jew in a far fuller manner than had ever been true before; and now that same Peter, albeit the apostle of the circumcision, was the very one that God used in His own holy wisdom to open the door to others, that is to say, to the Gentiles. And God was pleased on this occasion also to make it very marked; for, though there was no question of any fitness on the part of the Gentile, and though it was pre-eminently to be grace, yet the one by whom God brought out the grace in all its fulness was Paul, himself a master of the law trained up under the most distinguished of the legal teachers.

Peter was used of God, first of all, to present the gospel to a very pious man — a man of godly character and of good report, more particularly in Israel. And I think it was just as wise on God's part to bring in a godly man first — a man that was evidently known as such by Peter — as, on the other hand, to present the gospel by Paul to the very vilest and worst, wherever they might be found — as, for instance, at Corinth. It was a question of stopping the mouths of the circumcision, and this, therefore, was done, and guarded too, remarkably, in sending Peter first of all to Cornelius. For we are told here that Cornelius, while the centurion of the band which was called the Italian band, was a devout man; and I do not believe that that means merely that he was a devout man after the flesh. Not only so, but he fasted, he feared God, and gave large alms, and prayed, and so on. He was a person that was known for his devotedness in various ways. He was one that had intercourse with God habitually.

Thus, you see, we learn that it was not strictly a question of conversion. The man was converted already. He was not a bit more converted after Peter went than before. We must never confound conversion with salvation. The two things may coalesce, but they may not; and in the case of Cornelius they most certainly did not. Cornelius may have been converted for years before, but then he could not say that he was saved. That was what he was brought into. He was brought in so that not only he should know that he was saved, but that all the others, too, should know that he was saved. That is, he was to be put openly and publicly by God's own work, and according to His will, on the same ground of known common salvation which the gospel had brought the believing Jew into, for we must always distinguish these two things.

There is often a haze in the minds of many persons on this very important matter, and I could not think that people are at all clear as to the gospel, and certainly not as compared with the Old Testament dealings with God, who do not see this difference. If one thinks merely of getting to heaven — of being delivered from judgment — well, it is evident that all the Old Testament saints were; but that is not what is called the salvation of the soul. Receiving the end of your faith," says Peter, "the salvation of your souls." That means the soul consciously brought, as a present thing, to know that all is clear between God and it — the soul knowing that sins are gone and righteousness come. Was that the case in Old Testament times? Certainly not. All that you could say of an Old Testament soul was that he was hoping for righteousness: he was waiting for this salvation. But the salvation was not come, and the righteousness was only near, for it was not yet arrived. That was all that Isaiah could say, even in the prophetic spirit.

But there is a different thing now. Now, the Spirit of God is not a Spirit of prophecy, but a Spirit of communion — not a Spirit of leading you to wait for a blessing which you have not got, but a Spirit of leading you into communion with that which you have — that which God has now given you and has announced as your portion. That is salvation, and until a soul is brought there it is not scripturally just to say that that soul has got salvation in the true full sense of the term. If you merely mean that the person is quickened — and that is what people do mean, and a most mischievous confusion it is — if you merely mean that a soul may be quickened and be still full of anxieties, still tried, still unhappy, that is another question. This is not salvation. The person may be as truly born again as you; and indeed very often you might have more confidence in a person who is full of doubts than in many a person who seems never to know what doubt is. You might be afraid that such a person had never judged self, or learnt what sin was, or had any adequate sense of the judgment of God; whereas, although it is a most unhappy state for a person to be in — full of continual anxieties and questions about acceptance — still there might be other things that would show a conscience towards God, earnestness of desire to serve Him, though there might be ignorance, no doubt, of His ways — ignorance of this great deliverance — of what scripture calls "salvation."

Now that was what Cornelius was brought into that day. It was not only salvation. The Jews on the day of Pentecost had been brought into salvation, for they had known nothing of that at all. Up till the accomplishment of redemption nobody knew salvation as a present thing. It could not he said of any one, and yet at the same time you would have no doubt of their eventual security. What people confound is future security with present salvation. Now they are not at all the same thing, and no amount of confidence about security is the same thing as the enjoyment of known present salvation. That was what Cornelius was brought into that day, and this is what is characteristic of the gospel today, and therefore it is said, The word of truth, the gospel of your salvation.

Hence, at once you find sealing. There was sealing with the Holy Spirit, because the seal of God comes upon those who enter into present salvation. What we find on this occasion was not merely the Spirit of God working in the soul of Cornelius — there was much more. Cornelius, I repeat, was not a self-righteous man that was merely going through forms of religion. If Cornelius had died he would have gone where all the other saints had gone before him. There were saints among Jews, and saint; among Gentiles, but there were none before Pentecost, even among Jews, that were brought into this salvation. And, on the other hand, there had been none up to this time among the Gentiles at all. Cornelius was the first. And God particularly took care that the man that was first brought should be a man that was of most excellent character — prayerful. But still, had you asked him, "Are you saved, Cornelius?" he would have said, "Oh, I would not presume — I would not dare — to say such a thing." "But do you not know that God is giving salvation to His people? Do you not know the great work that is going on in Jerusalem?" "Oh, yes," he would say, "but that is for the people that have got the promise; that is for the people to whom God bound Himself. Now He has accomplished it; now He has given the Spirit according to prophecy. But then, for me, I am only a Gentile."

In short, he took what people sometimes call the place of the uncovenanted mercy of God. It was not at all that he doubted the mercy of God to his soul, but, as to present clearness, present consciousness of nearness to God, he had no thought of it, did not know that God was about to bring His people, whether Jews or Gentiles, on to this common ground. He knew it for the Jews. For Peter, in his preaching to him, alludes to the peace that was being preached to the Jews. It was not that he doubted that. But is it for the Gentile? He learns that it was. And God made His new dealing very marked, for, you observe, in the whole matter we have special intimations from God. God was not content to leave Peter to act now merely by any less thing, such as reminding him of the commission of the Lord Jesus. Do you not remember, Peter, that the Lord said, "Preach the gospel to every creature"? Do you not remember that he said, "Make disciples of all the Gentiles"?

None of these things first. There was a present dealing. There was a trance into which Peter fell, and in that trance he learns. There was that great sheet, those creatures of all kinds of which Peter was commanded to kill and eat, he being very hungry. And the voice that accompanied it showed what the meaning of it was, interpreted as it now was by the messengers that came to Cornelius to whom God had sent His angel. That angel had directed him to send for Peter. Thus, you see, there was a most careful, watchful care on God's part. There was a dealing in Caesarea; there was a dealing also in Joppa — two different intimations from God, each of them having its own distinct type but to the same point. And now they meet at the house of Simon. Peter commits himself to the guidance of the servant of Cornelius, and they came down to Caesarea. Here was Cornelius waiting, with his kinsmen and near friends. "And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshipped him." We see how little he entered into the measure of man in the presence of God which the knowledge of Christ gives. We see the extraordinary veneration, which Peter stops at once. Peter was only a man, after all, though he was come down to declare the salvation of God.

But there are some other particulars to which I shall direct your attention in a moment. In the discourse of Peter, he says, "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth him." Now Cornelius was one of these. Cornelius, let me reiterate, was not a man of mere forms — he was anything but that. He was a man of reality. It was no question of his being born again, but of his being saved; that is, saved in the sense which you will not find generally in Christendom. Christendom has lost the true sense of salvation. It has not lost the idea of the Lord Jesus as a Saviour, after a sort. But salvation as a present state, as a present state of soul entered into by faith, unquestionably it has lost. It has lowered it down and confounded salvation with the new birth. This is not it all merely a question of the mere ignorant formalist. You will find it, bad or worse, if possible, among excellent men, and it does not matter what school — Arminian or Calvinist — it makes no difference. The Calvinist is just as ignorant about it as the Arminian. There is no difference in this respect among any of them as far as I know. That is, the want of perception of the truth as to this great matter, is universal. And that is my reason for dwelling upon it at considerable length, because it is eminently practical. You know very well how many souls are tried, and full of what they call their anxious experience — their painful experience. Well! no doubt. But the reason is just this: that experience is founded upon Old Testament truth. They have not entered into the fulness of the blessing and deliverance which is now preached in the gospel.

This, then, Peter opens. "He that feareth God and worketh righteousness" — the case with Cornelius — "he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted with him. The word which God sent unto the children of Israel" — that was what I described at the beginning — "preaching peace by Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all); that word, I say, ye know." Cornelius was not ignorant of that, but his very humility made him unwilling to appropriate it until God sent it to him — until he knew that it was presented to him. This will be so the greater your value for the people of God, if you know that you do not belong to them. And there again I am reminded of another thing, and that is, that the phrase "people of God" has lost its sense; for now all that people mean by "the people of God" is the elect, They obliterate by that very fact the distinction between the ancient people of God and the Gentiles to which they naturally belong; so that you see the fact is that the phraseology of Scripture is completely misleading in modern Christendom, and, indeed, in ancient too; and the phrase, "people of God" has been appropriated by those who are now found here below, to the denial of it to the ancient people. Here it is used in its scriptural sense.

"That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached; how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost, and with power; who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil, for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all things which he did, both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they slew and hanged on a tree; him God raised up the third day and showed him openly, not to all the people" — you see "the people" is constantly used here for the Jewish people only — "not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen of God, even to us"; for now God was forming a new people altogether, "who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us to preach unto the people and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead." But was it only to the people? He commanded us to preach to the people. What does he mean by that? The Jew, of course. Not so. "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him." So we find light beginning to dawn upon this going forth of the gospel to every creature — to the Gentile as much as to the Jew.

"And, while Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word."' A very notable difference to what we saw on the day of Pentecost, for there they were baptised first. They were baptised every one, and believed on Jesus for the remission of sins, and then they received the gift of the Holy Ghost; but here it was while he spake the word, and these were Gentiles. This was the way of God, as you observe, with the Gentiles. "While Peter spake these words the Holy Ghost fell on them which heard the word." And no doubt there was great wisdom in it, because who would have been bold enough? Perhaps Peter. But then there were these brethren of the circumcision there. What would they have thought? So it is plain that there was the remarkable anticipation of the difficulty of souls, in tender anxiety, on the part of God who would remove their difficulties. There was this fact. How was it attested? God had taken care of that also. It was a new thing — the gift of the Holy Ghost — and accordingly, as in the case of all new things ushered in by God into the world, there were outward signs and wonders. It was accompanied by speaking with tongues — by miracles.

It was not that these signs or miracles that accompanied it were the gifts of the Holy Ghost, but they were the means of manifesting the gift of the Holy Ghost. The signs might drop, but not the gift of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost when given was to abide for ever. So our Lord had declared. Now it was made good. The Spirit of God was come. There never was a promise that the signs were always to be given. It was said in the Gospel of Mark, "These signs shall follow them that believe." It was never said that these signs shall always follow them that believe. That is what people constantly assume who harp upon the importance of miracles, and are constantly yearning for God to restore miracles. They seem to assume that the Lord gave ground in this statement for looking for miracles and signs at any time. Not so. "These signs shall follow them that believe." How long was just a question for God — for His wisdom. God gave an unmistakable token of that which was still deeper  - that which the world will not and cannot believe — a divine person coming down and deigning to dwell both in the saint and in the church. That is what is meant by the gift of the Holy Ghost. It is the Holy Ghost given in a way in which He never was before. And this, accordingly, was given to Cornelius and his house, They "were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost; for they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God." Accordingly, "Can any man forbid water?" said Peter. It was not a question of keeping them till they learnt what baptism meant, but they were brought into the privilege of baptism at once. It was a thing conferred upon them. It was not to be as a kind of duty, or law, or attainment, or a question of intelligence, or anything of the sort, but it was a privilege conferred upon them. Who could forbid water baptism to those that were baptized with the Holy Ghost? So the thing was settled. The great question was solved, and now grace could have its free way, and the mouths of Pharisaic objectors outside and inside were stopped for ever. At. least it ought to have been so.

Acts 11, 12.

The Scripture is beautiful in dealing with difficulties — in showing that, even as we might be startled with objectors now, such objectors were not unknown in Jerusalem — not only that, but even in the church in Jerusalem — not only that, but even against an apostle such as Peter was. The apostles, therefore, had to bear the objections of ignorant and unreasonable men, and that among Christians themselves. And so it was upon this very occasion. "The apostles and brethren that were in Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem they that were of the circumcision contended with him, saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised and did eat with them. But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning and expounded it by order unto them" (Acts 11: 1- 3). On that I need not dwell. He takes particular care to show that the Spirit bade him go. It was not simply an angelic interposition. We have the two things. We find here the same distinction as is found elsewhere; namely, that where it is providential it is angelic; and where it is anything that touches upon truth for the soul, it is the Spirit. Both are true, and, although there may be a difference in the form, and there may not be any visible interposition of an angel, or any audible interposition of the Spirit of God, it is as real now as then. Angels are not the less real because we do not see them; and the Spirit of God as surely gives His guidance as if we heard Him. That is a matter of faith simply.

But I recall your attention to this — that men were to be sent to Joppa. "And call for Simon whose surname is Peter; who shall tell thee words whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved." It is not, "Whereby thou and all thy house shall be converted," for several of them, at least, if not all, were converted already. But though converted, they had not been entitled to that peace, joy, liberty, conscious relationship of sons of God, which now they were, The Holy Ghost only seals them as settled on redemption by the grace of God — not merely waiting for it, or hoping that in some inscrutable way God would give them the benefit of it, although they never had the enjoyment of it as a possessed thing in this world; but now they had it here in this world. "And, as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptised with water, but ye shall be baptised with the Holy Ghost."

There we have this very important phrase of the Spirit of God; that is "the baptism of the Holy Ghost." Here it takes in the Gentile as well as the Jew. As Paul says in chap. 12 of First Corinthians, "For by one Spirit we were all baptised into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, bond or free, and have all been made to drink of one Spirit." It is the great distinctive position of the church of God. It is what makes the believers to be not merely believers, but the church — nay, more than that, the body; because one may look at the church in the point of view of a building — a house where God dwells. That is a very different thing from being the body of Christ. The house where God dwells may have stones in it that are not really instinct with life. There may be deceivers. There may be persons that enter into that house that ought not to be there. We see how Simon Magus was brought in before. I do not say that the church was yet in its full place. If it was not, he was, at any rate, baptised; but, no doubt, what was true of him was even more carried out with others. That is to say, they were baptised and even breaking bread. But the body of Christ means those, and those only, who are united to the Lord Jesus by the Holy Ghost — who consequently have a unity which is divine. There are no false members. There are none that are not living — more than living. They have this oneness by the Holy Ghost which is a very different thing, and another and greater privilege altogether.

Well, the apostle Peter, then, was the great instrument of this new work of God, and thus the Lord accomplished what He had said, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." At the same time we have in the chapter just an incidental allusion made, which I must not pass by entirely, to another remarkable fact; and that is that the people that had been dispersed abroad in consequence of the persecution that arose were also preaching to the Gentiles. They went to various parts and preached, not merely to "the Grecians," as they are called in our New Testament, but to the Greeks. The New Testament distinguishes between Greeks and Grecians, only we must remember that in this verse, what is called Grecians ought to be Greeks. The "Grecians" were Greek-speaking Jews. The "Greeks" were Gentiles, not Jews; and the point here was not that they preached to the Grecians — which was no new thing, and which had been done long before but they preached to the Greeks. If you look at any proper version — any correct version of the New Testament — you will find it is Greeks here and not Grecians. These, then, had heard the gospel; "and the hand of the Lord was with them; and a great number believed and turned to the Lord."

And this brings in Saul of Tarsus, but Saul is not the object that I have before me, but Peter. Herod comes before us in a new way in Acts 12. At that time there was a persecution. Herod had already killed James, the son of Zebedee, whom we must distinguish from James, the Lord's brother, who wrote the Epistle. This was the son of Zebedee. He was baptised with the baptism wherewith the Lord was baptised. He was drinking of that same cup, as the Lord said. Herod meant to lay his hand on Peter also, but the Lord ordered otherwise, and, the very night before the day he was to suffer, an angel was sent. But Peter was asleep; so little was he affected by any anxiety as to that which was coming. He lay between the soldiers, chained to them. The angel enters, awakes him from his sleep, delivers him from the chains, bids him clothe himself, leads him out, and afterwards brings him from the courts of the prison into the street, and leaves him. Peter goes to a house where at that very night there was a prayer-meeting. And the prayer- meeting was about Peter. So it is plain that, as far as that is concerned, they had very much the same thing that we should have ourselves under similar circumstances. No doubt it had a special character, but that also we know, too. There they were, praying for him; and the remarkable thing is that as Peter was little expecting the angel's visit to deliver him, so also the saints that were praying were taken completely by surprise when Peter stood at the door. We have in the most graphic manner the Spirit of God showing how Rhoda herself kept him there, for the joy that it was he, and she ran and told it to them to their astonishment, bringing out their unbelief indeed; but Peter was let in, and he tells the story, and goes to another place. Where he went we are not told.

But after this we find a still more remarkable occurrence, and a great event in the history of the church. One word, however, before I pass on. I have no doubt whatever that the 12th of Acts has a look to the future, and that, just before we have Paul coining out in his full character as the apostle of the Gentiles, we have an account of, or typical view of, God's dealings with the Jews. We have under James and Peter them that suffer and those that are spared. We have the Lord interfering to deliver, and at the very same time the presence of the persecutor — the wicked one — in Jerusalem itself, as there will be "the wicked one" in Jerusalem at the latter day. We have Herod seen under heaven, who is evidently a figure of the antichrist that will persecute, and receive his doom, in the day that is coming. It is remarkable, too, how close the analogy is, because, when Herod is seen upon his throne, the voice of the people was that it was not the voice of a man but the voice of a god, and because he gave not God the glory — because he did not, like Peter, rebuke them, and tell them to stand up upon their feet, and that it was not god but man — because, on the contrary, he arrogated to himself and delighted in this false ascription, God smote him by His vengeance, just as the false prophet will be smitten in the day that is coming. Well, that clears the way for the dealing of God with the Gentiles.

And after the Holy Ghost is given, and Paul and Barnabas go forth on their first great Gentile mission, we have the final struggle. The Pharisaic spirit that had objected to Peter's going to the Gentiles now put forth itself once more, and the great question had to be decided whether the Gentile believers had anything to do with the law of Moses; whether they were virtually to become Jews in any measure. And the Spirit of God decided this, Peter taking a remarkable part in the discussion, and, indeed, the apostles in general, Paul and Barnabas, too, having their place, though it is important to observe that they are not spoken of as apostles. It was not the authority of Paul and Barnabas that decided it. On the contrary, there was a great deal of dissension and disputation, and it is quite clear that Paul and Barnabas were not able to stop the mouths of the objectors in Jerusalem. Who did it then? The Jewish apostles themselves. Nothing could be more profitable. It was out of Jerusalem that the evil came; it was in Jerusalem that the evil was judged. It would not at all have met the case to deal with it at Antioch. It was there they went down, no doubt, and did the mischief; but it was not decided there. It was decided in the fountain of the mischief. It was decided not by Paul and Barnabas, which would not at all have answered the same thing, but it was decided by the Jewish apostles. And this is exactly what Acts 15 brings before us, together with the part that Peter took in it. I shall be brief in speaking of it.

"Certain men, which came down from Judea, taught the brethren, and said, Except ye he circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy unto all the brethren. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed." You must remember that it was not the unbelieving Pharisees, but persons within the bosom of the church who retained their old leaven. And they said, "It was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together, for to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing." I mention that, because I am persuaded that there is often an idea that it is one of the sad signs of the present state of ruin that one finds sometimes a spirit that is uncomely and disputatious. But we see that this was the case even in the presence of the apostles — the whole of them — so that, although I do not say that to mitigate our sorrow and shame at everything that is unworthy, still there is the sad fact that from the beginning there was too much disputation, even against the very persons who had a title and an authority that no men have ever had since their day.

"Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel and believe." That gives us the peculiar work of Peter, and my object has been to show the way in which God put honour upon that blessed servant of His. It was by his mouth that the Jews, as a whole, heard the gospel in its fulness and received the Holy Ghost on their being baptised as well as believing, as we find on the day of Pentecost. That is, it was not enough that the Jews must be baptised, as we have seen (for he would not allow such a thing as their shirking the place of separateness to the name of the Lord), but now you see it is a question of the Gentiles, and it was by the same. Now this is very important, and Peter was used to preach to the Gentiles first of all; and Paul, I would observe, was used to write to the Jews last of all. Both were perfectly in season, and this shuts out all thought of independence, because it might have been thought that Peter was out of his place. He was the apostle of the circumcision. Yes, but for all that it was by his mouth that the Gentiles first heard the gospel.

On the other hand it might have been said, "What has Paul to do with the Jews?" Paul has this to do with the Jews — that he wrote a much more important epistle to them than any of the apostles of the circumcision; and therefore the Epistle to the Hebrews has a character altogether peculiar. It is not merely making use of Jewish types and law and prophets and psalms, but it is much more than that. The Epistle to the Hebrews is the summons to go outside the camp — the old place where the tabernacle and everything were — to go forth unto Christ. Forms were tolerated by such Christians, and in such Christians as had been Jews; but from the moment that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written — from that time forth they had to quit everything for Christ; so that Peter, the Jewish apostle, should be used to preach to the Gentiles, and that Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, should be used to write such an epistle to Jews, strikes me as a beautiful proof of the way in which God took care that, where every man had his work, He would not allow the slightest thought of two churches, or of such absolute separateness of work as to make one independent of the other. Independence was completely set aside by such an action on the part of the Spirit of God by those two blessed men.

We shall now see how truly that is the case here by Peter. Although he was the apostle of the circumcision, God made choice of him, "that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they." Mark the strength of the language. Any one else would have said, "We believe that they shall be saved, even as but now Peter puts down the Jew, and says, "We believe that, through the grace of God, we shall be saved — we Jews — even as they"; not, "they, even as we." Thus there is the utmost care, to show the ground of sovereign grace that was now given out, and more particularly with such a certain sound, from the apostle of the circumcision. It is a sorrowful thing that that is the very man that went down to Antioch and there dissembled.

It is not my purpose tonight to enter into the subject of Peter in his own Epistles, but I may just add a closing word as to Peter in Paul's Epistles. The Epistle to the Galatians, as we know, speaks, I presume, of what occurred after this council. Peter goes down, and, sad to say, forgets in practice not only the word of the Lord in His life, and the word of the Lord in resurrection, but the word of the Lord from heaven — forgets all these wondrous dealings of God. And how was that? In a way that may often snare: for peace sake, compromise! It is true it did not look much. He would not eat with the Gentiles. It is a question, not of the Lord's table, but of ordinary intercourse with them, and this was so extremely important, as it appears to me, that the apostle Paul treats Peter's absenting himself, and not eating with the Gentiles, as compromising the truth of the gospel. A very little thing in itself, it might seem, but it was the symbol of a mighty truth. It was the question whether Jew,-, and Gentiles stood on a common ground of grace. Not eat with them? Why that was the very figure by which God had instructed him, in lowering the sheet. "Arise, Peter, kill and eat." And now this very Peter, sad to say, lives to show the utter failure of the most blessed servant of the Lord, and that, too, after the wonderful grace that God had shown him, and the honour that He had put upon him.

And, mark, he breaks down in the very thing that God had given him to do as his peculiar work. Has that no voice to us? And are we not to learn, beloved friends, that it is always true that whenever we are confident, that whenever we lose either the sense of dependence, or the need of waiting, upon God because we distrust ourselves — whenever we go down thinking we are strong, as no doubt Peter did — such is the time when we fail. The very fact of Peter's going down to Antioch was a proof of communion with the Gentiles. You may depend upon it, he never had the smallest question or slightest thought of what he was going to do there; nor did he when he separated himself from the Gentiles see the desperate evil that was involved in it, and what a blow was struck at the truth of the gospel; because the truth of the gospel is to make nothing of man; the truth of the gospel is to make everything of Christ. Why then did he not eat with the Gentiles? These Gentiles, too, were believers. Thus there was a complete failure in what least of all became Peter. Do I say that for the purpose of magnifying his fault? I say it for the purpose of guarding against such a fault in ourselves, and more particularly in the thing in which we might not suspect ourselves. I have always known this to be the case — that in the very point in which we have been proud we have been broken down. Have you never seen persons boast of their faith? Look for unbelief there. Have you never seen persons confident of their love? Expect that in that very matter of love they will fail. Have you ever seen them boastful of knowledge? They will break down in knowledge. In the very thing in which we exalt ourselves we must be abased.

What, then, is the great lesson of it all? To boast of nothing, to be confident of nothing, to exalt ourselves in nothing, but Christ, Exalt Him, and know that in dependence upon Him we shall he kept, spite of our weakness. No previous blessing, no previous power, no previous honour that God may have put upon us, is any safeguard in the hour of difficulty, and more particularly when we enter upon anything confidently.

It is thus, I believe, that we are to explain what took place at Antioch. We must not allow the dreadful idea that was started in the early church, that this dispute was a kind of friendly skirmish between Paul and Peter for the purpose of illustrating a principle; that is, that Peter pretended to fail in what he did not fail in, and that Paul rebuked him in order to bring out a principle. Let men — let divines if they will — represent the apostles as playing the miserable part of religious actors upon the world's stage! It. is not for us to doubt that it was a far more solemn thing. It was Satan. Satan took advantage of one whom he had overturned before; but that might have been said to have been in the days when he had not the Holy Ghost. Ah, but remember, beloved friends, that though the Spirit of God is power, the Spirit of God does not act as power except so far as Christ is before us. We have not got a lease of the Spirit. We have not got that kind of possession of the Spirit that can claim His activity for our own purposes, or at our own will.

We have only the power of the Spirit where we are abased, and where Christ is the Object that is before our soul. And it is because this was not so that both Peter and Barnabas failed on that very day. It was indeed a failure so serious that the apostle Paul does apply to them what ignorant men — as I must call them — have dared to apply to them all — the charge of dissimulation. It was so; and it was of a most serious character, and it was sinful dissimulation. It was not merely the appearance of it; it was really so. It was shirking what God always calls us to — the truth of Christ at all costs — the truth of Christ for the comfort of souls, and more particularly for the despised. The despised Gentiles for such they were — were special objects for the grace of God; and Paul felt it, and judged and rebuked even the great apostle of the circumcision.

I need not then, beloved friends, say more now This will suffice for the glance, which I have been endeavouring to give, at the history of Peter as shown us in the Acts of the Apostles.

Philippians 3: 1-11

Brief notes of an address on Philippians 3: 1-11.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. N7, p. 373-374.)

The central point of the preceding chapter is the life of the Lord on earth, in His obedience of love, humbling Himself — the pattern for us. As sinners we cannot humble ourselves, we are as low as we can be; but when grace has exalted us to be children of God, then we are called to follow Him. We must be above our duty before we can accomplish it. Phil. 3, on the contrary, looks at the Lord in glory as the Object to counteract the influences of flesh in its religious aspect. But we must know the Lord in grace before we can go on in His power. The apostle started with the glory. It was there, and there alone, that he saw the Lord — not with his natural eyes, for he had fallen with his face to the ground, but-by the manifestation of the Spirit. Yet he really saw the Lord, and really heard the words of His mouth. It is thus with every converted soul. The miraculous circumstances may be lacking, but miracles never yet saved any one. There must be the new birth — "born of water and Spirit," the Spirit's action by the word of God — before there can be entrance into the kingdom of God.

Even with himself, lest he should be exalted above measure, he was only permitted to give his earliest testimony for a very short time, and then he is sent into Arabia to learn the grace of the Lord.

The too frequent plunging into service before learning the Lord's mind, as shown in Phil. 2, is what the Spirit warns against here, for it is sure to lead to the activity of the flesh and not of the Spirit. "Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord." This cuts at the root of the whole matter. It is not, Run into service in order to get joy, but, "rejoice in the Lord." And unless there is joy in Him, service is most dangerous. "To write the same things to you to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe." He had already at the beginning said much about "rejoicing"; he does so again at the end. But the apostle did not mind repeating his words to impress them the more upon them.

"Beware of dogs." It is not likely that he would speak of the sheep thus, but the vigilant eye of this under-shepherd had detected those creeping in whose worldly-mindedness made it too evident that they were "enemies of the cross of Christ," although they might be extremely zealous of religion. "Beware of evil workers, beware of the concision" — a play upon the word "circumcision." We know how the idolatrous priests cut themselves with knives and lances (1 Kings 18: 28), and this may refer to that practice. It is astonishing how far the flesh may go in its religious energy, entirely opposed to the mind of God.

"For we are the circumcision" — himself and the Philippians. He purposely brings in these Gentile believers to show how completely this is outside ordinances — "Who worship by God's Spirit. " Nothing hinders the Spirit's action so much as the flesh-mixing up the church and the world. "And rejoice in Christ Jesus" — again he brings this in — "and have no confidence in the flesh." Then he speaks of himself, what the religious flesh of Saul of Tarsus was — "but what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ." Very valuable they had appeared until that sight of the glory of Christ. " And I count all things but loss," not merely "counted"! Many begin well, who after a time go back. Paul, near the end of his course, still counted " all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord." All this is in the singular number. When he speaks of general blessings he links others with himself. Not so in this his personal experience.

"That I may win Christ." Was he not already a believer? Yes, but he looks on to the time when he should be with Him, and enjoy His presence in glory with Him. "Not having my own righteousness," etc. A strange expression from one who, "touching the righteousness of the law was blameless." But this was of his own working out. All he wanted now was Christ. "The power of his resurrection." The religion of today starts with the Incarnation: Paul with His death, with the resurrection glory of the One who has passed out of this scene altogether. " If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection from the dead." He looked through the long vista to the time when he should be in his glorified body with Him — that is what he means by "winning" Christ.

__________________

(B.T. Vol. N8, p. 170.)

O my brother, be it ours to fill the little while separate from the world, and above fleshly ease in the  devoted service of Christ. Nothing so good and happy now, and nothing so appreciated on high and through all eternity, unless it be the communion with Himself and the worship which accompany it.

W. K.

Prayer.

Matt. 6: 5,6.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. N5, p. 39-40.)

It is the same principle with prayer as with aims. The disciple of Christ has nothing in common with the hypocrites, whatever they say or do, or do not. The Son has made known the Father's name to us, and made it known still more intimately and deeply, in association with Himself, on and since He rose from the dead. It was not only the wondrous message through Mary of Magdala, "I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God;" but that resurrection day at evening the Lord came and stood in the midst, and said to the disciples, Peace to you, showing them His hands and His side. Again He said "Peace to you: as the Father sent me forth, I also send you," and having said this He says to them, Receive [the] Holy Spirit; whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted to them; whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Such is the added Christian privilege, even before the Pentecostal gift was conferred, and the special gift the apostles had as such, like prophets, teachers, etc. in their place. Oh what responsibility, not only to rejoice but to pray unceasingly, flows from such a relationship! and how apt are we to relax or forget! But if we are thus blessed and have in our measure and way such a mission, we have no place to covet; for we have Christ's. And we as His epistles know that we are called to walk in the faith of His grace that we may not shame Him before men. Having received His word, it is our constant call to pray, that, living in the Spirit, we may walk in the Spirit. And the Lord, alone perfect here and everywhere, impresses His principles on His own followers. He is their life in order that there might be an inward living relationship.

"But when ye pray, ye shall not be as the hypocrites; for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may appear to men. Verily I say to you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy chamber, and having shut thy door pray to thy Father that is in secret, and thy Father that seeth in secret will recompense thee."

This secrecy is still easier, and no less essential in prayer, the most constant of all relative duties. Many saints find a great incentive with others in supplication; and this has its suited and weighty place, as the Lord elsewhere urges. But here as the habitual privilege and claim of relationship to our Father, how careful He is in bidding saints like us to "enter into thy chamber, and having shut thy door pray to thy Father that is in secret, and thy Father that seeth in secret will requite thee." How delightfully simple, yet how deep and wise! It is just between the soul and God, and now His Father and our Father, as Christ knew Him and declared Him to us. Solemn and holy it is to meet our Father alone and expressly, as to every thing of need, sorrow, or joy.

What a contrast with the arrangements that have prevailed in Christendom, which press formal prayers in a public building once, twice, or oftener in the day! When the Lord enjoined the united petitions as giving ground for an answer  from above, it was a specific need as the context in Matt. 18 makes plain. But nothing superseded the normal habit of individual secrecy in prayer to our Father. And it will be the comforting resource of the godly remnant in days to come, as we may trust, when things arrive at such a pass that joint public prayer is impracticable. But now, when the world's feeling is too indifferent to punish or hinder open prayer, can anything give more weight when we come together in assembly than the cherishing of individual prayer in the shut chamber to our Father that sees in secret, as He will surely requite?

Now what can you say to this, dear friend as yet not born of God, but only God's offspring like the heathen Athenians or men of the world generally? Will you not own frankly that it sounds the most irksome bondage to you, and that you in no way pretend thus to live to God? Till you are sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus, knowing your sins blotted out by His blood, and yourselves brought nigh to God, you cannot freely cry, Abba Father. For mere profession, however requisite in the renewed soul, is offensive to God in those dead in sins, as we all were till we found life in Christ by faith. Then such prayer as this suits both our need and our blessing. For, though redeemed in soul, we as to our bodies await redemption at His coming, and meanwhile have to do with an evil world and a subtle foe on the watch to ensnare and defile us. Therefore do we need so to pray without ceasing.

Resist Not Evil.

Matthew 5: 38-41.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. N4, p. 325-326.)

The Lord here advances beyond all Jewish and indeed human thought, when He enjoins on His disciples patient grace on all kinds of inflicted wrong. To resist it is forbidden. He cites from the law the principle of talion, as it is styled, or retaliation, expressly to abandon it. It was particularly open to abuse; but even when applied with the strictest justice, and acting as a powerful check on human vindictiveness, how far was it from the mind of heaven which Christ was manifesting on earth, and laying down as the only conduct proper to the sons of His Father! Can we conceive a greater shock to Jewish feeling?

"Ye heard that it was said, Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. But I say to you not to resist evil; but whoever striketh (or shall strike) thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And to him that would go to law with thee and take thy vest (or tunic), leave him thy coat (or mantle) also. And whoever shall impress thee for one mile, go with him two."

No doubt that on such a ground the world could not enter. To the natural man the rule of the heavens is impossible. Yet it is a favourite theme for such persons as believe neither in the Deity of the Lord nor in His atoning worth to descant on the Sermon of the Mount as the perfect ideal of Christian legislation. It is no more than an academic recitation. Nor is it that they have the most distant notion of obeying it themselves, nor do they expect others to exhibit such unworldly traits. If wrong were done them in person or property, as the Lord describes, they utterly object to its applying as a living authority. Even pious men help their unbelief by crying out against understanding His words as they read, and argue for spirit against letter.

Now it is true that here as everywhere mere letter fails. One might imitate the outward acts described and come short of what the Lord aims at throughout His entire discourse. The most rigid obedience of His sayings in order to life and the Father's love would in such a case prove a more fiery law than that of Sinai. For the Lord begins with spiritual qualities in His own, in vain sought in fallen man, and such as characterise a divine nature of which grace gives the believer to partake. Blessed indeed are such, as He pronounced them, and the more, not less, when persecuted on account of righteousness in a world of lawlessness; and if reviled and persecuted for Christ's sake, called to rejoice and exult, because their reward was great in the heavens. What can man do to hurt those who are happier the worse they are treated? The secret is that they are more than conquerors through Him that loved them, and abjure all merit of their own. But they have a new life (and it is the life of the Second man, not of the first) whose internal marks were displayed practically, as the Lord described in the opening verses of the Sermon (Matt. 5: 1-12), and their separate position before men follows (vers. 13-16). In all that thence is given us the Lord enlarges the law and the prophets, so far as to rise above them immensely in scope till, as here, we have grace in suffering from evil instead of punishing it as the law provided.

It was what God had sent His Son to manifest here below, and none fully follow. But suffering for His sake might be our portion as it often has been of our brethren. Thus all our meetness for God's presence depends on His death and resurrection, as our pardon on His blood. and we own our absolute indebtedness to His grace for both. It is our duty and joy to follow and imitate, as indeed He is our life; and He is the standard in not resisting evil.

But cavillers who would pare down and fritter away His words are not ashamed to argue that He meant them not literally, because when struck on the face for His answer to the high priest, He calmly remonstrated, while bowing to the insult. Was this paying evil back in its own coin? On the contrary it was One who did no sin nor was guile found in His mouth, who when reviled, reviled not again, and when suffering threatened not. In fact He presented far more than the other cheek, for they spit in His face, and buffeted Him; and struck Him with the palms of their hands with the utmost contempt. No! the Lord yielded to wrong instead of resisting it; and such is the true calling of the Christian.

Here we may if need be follow Him in spirit and letter. As man is tenacious of his little goods, the Lord puts the case, not of offering personal violence only, but of depriving him of what attaches to man by a legal suit. What then does He call for? "To him that would go to law with thee, and take thy vest, leave him thy coat." How much better to lose one's clothes than consistency with Christ? The spirit of the injunction goes farther than the one cheek or the outer coat. What men seek is to evade all suffering and hold their human rights in defiance of His words, thus losing the reality of Christianity and retaining not even its semblance.

There was another claim in those days of which the Jews were prone to complain as an intolerable hardship. The imperial government authorised its officials, on their errands, in certain cases to require personal attendance, and with their beasts of burden too. How men are apt to be vexed with what after all is no great burden, and none so much as a people like the Jews under their heathen lords! The Lord would raise His disciples above all such self-will. "Whoever shall impress thee for one mile, go with him two!" With what simplicity and force He provides His own with a spirit to carry them in meek dignity above the squabbles of the world! How unworthy of Him would be the letter of refusing to go four or five miles, if such were the requisition, because the Lord had said, "Go with him two!" The real mind of the Lord is that he should willingly exceed what he was asked. It is grace in patience.

Can anything convince you, my reader, that you can neither be nor do what is essential to enter the kingdom of the heavens? There is but one way, Christ; and this way you can only get by renouncing yourself. So inseparable are faith and repentance. He saves by giving not redemption only, but a new and divine nature which hates self-will, and which loves and does God's will. Hence you obey according to the law of liberty, as contrasted with the Jew under the law of bondage.

Jesus and the Resurrection.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. 15, p. 164-167, 178-183.)

"Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans and of the Stoics encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods, because he preached unto them Jesus and the resurrection" (Acts 17: 18).

There is nothing, besides making known God's peace and truth, that proves the value of the word of God more than this — the simple and telling naturalness, the fresh power with which it applies to the greatest variety of circumstances. What Paul said to the Athenians is most true of men now. I do not mean that all the particular shades of thought found then at Athens — that those schools of philosophy which divided men — are exactly the same as those of our own day; and I am far from meaning that superstition, that addiction to divine worship of a certain low, earthly, sensuous type can be said to be the most marked characteristic of this moment. For all that the truth is a living thing, and it is the only thing that is living — the only thing expressed in words that abides as it is, Theories and ideas change, and, with their authors, pass away. The truth remains. I know that men ask what the truth is, and that they are uncertain — and no wonder.

The truth is inseparable from the word of God; and, further, the truth is never found even in the word apart from Christ. Hence it is that, as the word is called the truth, so Christ declares that He is the truth. And, further, the Holy Ghost is paid to be the truth, not God. As such He is never called the truth except by rationalists, and, I am sorry to say, sometimes by legalists. Extremes meet. Again, the Father is never called the truth; nor could He be, because the truth is the full bringing out of what a person or thing is. It is the expression of objects in their reality. It is the full declaration of anything, no matter what — it may be God or man, it may be heaven or hell: but, wherever the thing is set out as it really is, there you have the truth. Christ is the only one who has ever done it objectively. As power the Holy Ghost acts by the word, and there is the link between the word and Spirit of grace. Thus, as you never have Christ really known except by the word of God, so the Holy Ghost is needed to apply that word, and to make it to be an occasion of showing grace to the soul. When you have Christ, you have the truth, and not otherwise.

Now, there may be all measures of difference outside Christ in those who have got the truth. You may have persons who really agree in very little else  - they have prejudices, they have prepossessions, they have all kinds of different theories in which they have been brought up. Religious education has an important effect in modifying men's thoughts; yet for all that, if they have Christ, they have got the truth; and what gives a believer confidence, and what we ought to confide in, is that all those who have Christ are saved, and none else. Therefore it is, we see, that, where Christ is really possessed, other things are changed —  not all at once, but the Spirit of God can act in living power where Christ is possessed. He may be hindered — and all wrong thoughts of Christ (the truth of God), everything that is not according to Christ, is a hindrance to the Spirit; but still, where Christ is really possessed, the Holy Ghost follows as the seal of redemption. Not only does the Holy Ghost precede, but He follows; and I shall take occasion to open this a little tonight, because it brings out a most important side  of the truth, and is little seen.

Christ is never received except where the Spirit of God makes the want of Him felt. There never is, therefore, a reception of Christ simply by the mind. The mind of man always judges. The sinner believing is judged in conscience before God. Now, this is a true test, whether you have got the truth. Hence where the word by the Holy Ghost, it invariably enters the conscience, and the effect of the word dealing with the conscience is, that the man stands at, the bar of God in his spirit at once. From the time that the word of God really deals with him, he stands before God, and how? As a sinner. A solemn meeting, to be sure! God and the sinner; not yet the Judge seen of all, but the judgment-seat of God in the conscience. The word of God has this effect, it judges. That word only is judge yet in the conscience. The rationalist judges it. The natural man slights it. Even the religious man at some time or another may get into difficulties; he does not understand, he does not like to own his ignorance, and then he judges. It is in this way that souls, presuming to judge, are lost. There is no vital faith where the word of God does not judge, the Spirit using it to bring in a man as guilty before God, and to lead him to repentance.

You observe, in the verses that I have read tonight, we have God commanding men everywhere to repent. It is not merely to believe but to repent; and this is an invariable test of genuine faith that the Holy Ghost produces. An intellectual reception of the truth never brings a soul into the presence of God. It always puts man in the wrong place and God of course also. There is many a sinner who is rather pleased with himself for accepting the truth. He sees, and other people do not see. He receives the truth, whilst others are ignorant of it. He is a little vain thereon. He is proud of his knowledge; but as to self-judgment, he has none. The man who gets in the presence of God follows that way no longer. Ah no! he has certainty now. Do not tell me there is no such thing attainable. Are you a heathen? Heathen men, of course, cannot know with certainty, because they have not even the word of God, and may not believe that such a thing exists. Alas! we find that men in Christendom are practically in this day of ours coming to the state in which the heathen were. They, too, are not sure that scripture is the word of God; they have their opinions about it. They think that Moses made mistakes in the Pentateuch. They think that Paul wrote mistakes. They think that Peter and John were only good men who did their best. They judge. They have never been in the presence of God to be self-judged; and the consequence is that all is wrong, and God is an unknown God.

Now, wherever there is a real action by the Holy Ghost, the truth comes into the soul morally. No matter how the process may be carried on, or what the occasion that began to act, the invariable criterion of a work of God is, that there is not merely a reception of the word, but, along with this, a humbling moral effect produced in the soul; there is personal sense of sin in the conscience before God, in short, repentance. And repentance is not merely a change of mind. Do not allow such a definition to possess your minds. I know, of course, what those mean who say so, and perhaps why it is; but mere change of mind is far short of repentance. No doubt always, a mighty change of mind accompanies faith in Christ; there is a complete revolution in the soul; but the change is not intellectual merely, it is moral. The soul is brought to sit in judgment on itself, and to pronounce God's judgment on its ways, taking the place of a sinner, yea of a lost one, before God. Till this is done, there is no divine root. Without it the seed wants life, and will come to nothing.

There is this danger sometimes in revivalistic preaching, if I may say a word on preaching that has been not a little blessed of God: persons are attracted and moved by the good news of pardon, without being truly convinced of their sins. Is this danger met by the common method of being brought in as guilty sinners, and left there? Most preachers were afraid to tell out the fulness of the grace of God, even where they set forth the evil of sin. We should never be afraid to trust the grace of God, provided along with that we insist on  the reality of ruin, moral rain, before God. Granted that the grace of God taken up as an intellectual thought or a feeling is a most dangerous thing, and always leads to licentiousness, for it really tends in principle to antinomianism. But it never the case where the soul is judged by the truth — where divine revelation puts the man down and gives God His true place. And who is it that brings all this to pass? Jesus, who is the truth, and works by the Spirit.

Just look at Him with the woman of Samaria, where you may see this very thing wrought. What did He do first? He give her the deepest impression of grace beyond a Jew and beyond man. Did He not gradually make known the truth of God? Who but a divine person could give the Spirit? or empower His servants to act so in His name? And let me tell any person who doubts this truth, that if Jesus was not God, He was not good. If God, He was assuredly good, specially in deigning to be man on earth. There is nothing that is so morally degrading to a man, and so practically a denial of God, as falsehood; and there is no falsehood worse than to say you are what you are not. Now, Jesus, though the lowliest of men, always gave the impression, when it was a question of His own person, that He was divine. It might not be always the time to say it; but whenever the occasion occurred, not only did the apostles say so — not only did John, for instance, begin his Gospel with, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" — not only did Paul bring it into the very heart of the Epistle to the Romans — but hear what Jesus says Himself: "Before Abraham was, I am." He is the "I AM." There was and is the truth.

There were occasions when He wrought miracles: but miracles are the lowest instead of the highest way of dealing with men. They have their own importance, no doubt; but miracles might be wrought, and the light perceived on the ground of them, and still the man remain far from God. it was at the first Passover which is mentioned in the Gospel of John. Jesus was there at Jerusalem on the feast-day — the first of all the festivals, the foundation of all that followed in the Jewish year. But though He did many miracles, and many people believed on Him because of the miracles, Jesus did not commit Himself unto them; for, as the Spirit says  so solemnly, "He know what was in man." What was the effect of this? He did not trust them. It was merely what was in man.

The only thing that Jesus trusts is what is in and of God. This is what appears in the next chapter; this is what He brings out to Nicodemus. Nicodemus came in the confidence of a man, in the desire of a sincere soul, to be instructed by One so capable. He had seen the miracles, but he was rather ashamed to  come and be taught by Jesus. He did not wish to be seen. Conscience was at work though in a feeble, way. When men have no conscience, they act boldly. When they have a conscience  - about things, they dread the difficulties, they have a certain fear of the opinion of others; but, if in they come, though by night. So it was with Nicodemus. And what did the Lord say? He told him on the very threshold, what He declares for every soul of man, that he must be born again. The sinner needs to be born of God. This is precisely what I am now insisting on, the necessity (not merely of a new walk, but) of a new life from God; and the truth of it I wish to put plainly before you tonight.

I presume that you are all satisfied there must be faith; but without the truth there cannot be faith. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Through faith comes eternal life; but eternal life, you must all acknowledge, is not the gift of man nor within the reach of man until the conscience is exercised by the word of God. But the moment the soul bows to Jesus in self-judgment, not merely as a worker of miracles but as the Son of God, come into this world to do these two great things  - first of all, to give me a life that I have not, and, secondly, to take away the sins that I have (to remove all the evil that weighs me down, and to give me the very best that God has for me — eternal life in His own Son), then all is clear. The man is a believer. He has repentance towards God. He hates himself, judges himself, condemns himself out-and-out before God; yet none the less but the more does he look out of himself to the Son of man suffering for man's sins the Son of God given of God's grace. He has faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, and he is a child of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

No doubt after all there may be much infirmity: and he may feel it. Here indeed, I may say, the special privilege of Christianity comes in. I do not mean only the deep characteristic of known eternal life in the Son of God; but over and above it is power imparted. And this is what saints need to know better. It is not merely the Spirit of God producing a sense of want of life, conviction of sins and of sinfulness before God; this is what precedes the soul's having confidence in God through our Lord Jesus Christ. But when the sinner believes the gospel, in his soul bowing to the Son of God, and to the incomparable work of redemption He has wrought, what is the effect? The Holy Ghost seals that soul, As He quickens the sinner, so He seals the saint. This is what is done by the Spirit following faith: He seals, No man is sealed the moment he believes in Jesus: it is always, (be it a brief interval, or longer) after believing, as it is said, "Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son," — this is not to make them sons — "into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father" (Gal. 4). "Also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him" (Acts 5). And so again in Eph. 1: 13, "In whom, after ye believed," — or if you take it literally, "having believed," it comes to the self-same effect —  ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise." Sealing is always after the soul rests upon the work of Christ finished thing. Hence it was unknown under the Old Testament; and now no man is sealed by the Holy Ghost so long as he has doubts of any kind existing in his soul. It is invariably after a man has submitted himself to the righteousness of God, when he gives himself up as completely lost to find himself saved in virtue of Christ's work, it is then that the Holy Ghost seals him.

Hence we find when the apostle Paul went to Ephesus, his enquiry was — "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" (Acts. 19.) We must not suppose that this is a question of miracles, or powers, or tongues, or anything of that kind, though these very signs might follow too. There were miracles wrought by the early Christians, and they had also the gift of tongues; but these were only the external vouchers of the Holy Ghost, who had always wrought whatever was for God's glory in man, but never was communicated in person to the believers till after redemption. When Jesus was on the earth, the Holy Ghost came down and abode upon Him; we can all understand this easily. Jesus was absolutely sinless; He was the Holy One of God. But can the Holy Ghost come and dwell in us? Only by redemption, our sins and iniquities being put away righteously from before the eye of God. When God looks and sees in us, not our sins — this was our part  - but the precious blood of Christ, accepted in faith as God's gracious provision for the just pardon of sinners, then the Holy Ghost says (as it were), I can come and dwell in such men as these. Thus does the Spirit of God show His estimate or the work of Christ and acknowledge the man who rests on the blood that cleanses from every sin.

It may be observed here, that the apostle Paul, when he was at Athens, only brought in one side of the word. He did not always preach in the same way the truth of God. When among the Thessalonians, the truth he brought prominently forward was that concerning the kingdom; and this gave a particular character to his work among them. There was, in fact, no company in early times so remarkable for waiting for the Son of God from heaven as the Thessalonian assembly. That was what Paul preached to them, and bright was the effect produced. There were however others at work to mar the good. and the second epistle was written not to correct the first, but to counteract the false notion that certain had foisted in, telling them (and pretending the apostle's authority for it) that the day of the Lord was already come. It was not merely that that day was "at hand," which is a mistake in most versions. Although I have not lived very long, I have lived long enough to see that error almost exploded. I hardly know a single person of learning or ability who does not acknowledge that this is not the true meaning of the word (ἐνέστηκεν); and the power of the Spirit of God has been at work, no doubt, to bring this about. You know there are many who seem to be morbidly sensitive when told of a mistake in the common translation of the Bible; and I sympathise a little with the dislike of hasty or needless change. Nor is it well to hear men talking about "Greek" to people who do not know Greek. Far better to talk about it to those familiar with the language. There they might meet their match; but to be ever talking of Greek to persons who do not know the language is for them a bad habit, which is no less dangerous for those who are talked to. So you will understand I do not mean to say much on such matters in a general audience; but still it seemed not amiss to refer to the generally owned error in our version of 2 Thessalonians 2: 2.

To a reflecting Christian that fact is very instructive. Never trust a mere man of intellect or learning in the things of God. There are none that make more profound mistakes; and if I were asked where at this present moment the truth of God is least acceptable, I should not point to a village or small town. Rather should I say, Go to a University, visit some great seat of learning, where classical letters and human science predominate: and there you will find God's word comparatively little known or esteemed. Nor is it so much youths in all the fervour of inexperience, but you meet with men heart and soul devoted to profane literature, and in all likelihood the truth of God proportionately slighted and least understood. Certainly it was the case at Athens.

We thus prove the value of the word of God as a living witness. Do you know what it is in conscience to stand before God? The word of God is sent for the express purpose of testing every soul. If the heart be in earnest, I believe it. If I am not in earnest, I presume to judge it, and so my soul will be lost. The word of man flatters our nature and entertains our mind. The word of God tries the reins and the heart, it awakens and searches the conscience, it proves what and where I am, and, what is yet more important, it presents the remedy for my soul's disease. That remedy is Jesus and the resurrection.

For He is not now merely the Messiah. This was what Jews were looking for. They fondly hoped for a wondrous personage to deliver them from their enemies, to set up Jehovah's name in the world, and make His people the greatest on the face of the earth. Need I say that this is not His present object? Not that it will not be done in due season. I quite admit that the Jews will yet be restored and blessed in their land, and that they are to be the heralds of the kingdom of God to every land. I gladly acknowledge that the day is coming when the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah as the waters cover the sea; and Scripture is quite plain that the work will be brought about, as far as human instrumentality is concerned, not by the Gentiles but by the Jews. But it is really reserved for the glory of Jesus, who will put down Satan, judge the world, and pour out the Spirit once more on all flesh. When the greatest unbelievers on earth — and the Jews are such — when they are brought in, and brought in as a nation, the moral effect will be immense on the world; and the Spirit of God will send them out on their great mission and use them to spread the truth.

Read Psalm 67: "God be merciful to us and bless us, and cause His face to shine upon us; that Thy way may be known upon earth, Thy saving health among all nations." Who are the "us?" We are very apt, whenever we read the word "us" in the Bible, to think that it means ourselves. But it is not always so. It is well to examine the context and see who are the "us" on solid grounds. The "us" may sometimes mean the Christian. If I read "For we know that, if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens," I say surely the "we" are not the Jews but Christians, for the reference is to heaven. If I hear the Lord say, "I will come again and receive you unto myself, that where I am there ye may be also," again I say the "you" are Christians, because it is not the Jews' hope but ours of being taken to heaven. This is not the proper yearning of the Jew, which beyond controversy is that God's unfailing mercy will plant them in their own land and make them a blessing according to the promise to Abraham — and every promise must be fulfilled — that "in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed." You may tell me that the seed is Christ. Of course I grant it fully; but I maintain that there will be a real application of this very promise, in the connection of the Messiah with the Jew, and through the Jew, to all the families in this world. We know this is not the case now, but contrariwise that the Jew is still a Christ-rejecting generation, and that the vast mass of Gentiles has gone into a variety of superstitions. This all confess, being sufficiently sensible of the faults of others. Are we equally sensible of our own? I am sure at the present time we ought to be deeply humbled. I do not say there is no encouragement, nor mean that God is not working mightily at the present moment. But whilst there is going on a gracious work of God in blessing souls, a deadly energy of Satan is also at work, leading men into the darkness of scepticism beyond example, and into superstition of every kind. It is in vain to deny either.

Here, in addressing the Athenians, the apostle took up another point. It was not, as a short time before at Thessalonica, the kingdom — that is, the power of God which is to govern the world by the Lord when He comes from heaven — for it is in that sense scripture often uses the word. Hence when the heathen rulers heard of this new kingdom, they were afraid, as Paul was said by the Jews to be a revolutionist, and that what he advocated was something dangerous to the then powers. The Roman Emperors, we know, were very susceptible on that score. They did not like to hear of a kingdom that might upset their own; and so, naturally, the magistrates were too ready at all times to take up a quarrel of that kind against Paul.

Among the Athenians the apostle preached another thing — Jesus and the resurrection. Thereon we have a remarkable enough effect produced. Although the Athenians were generally reckoned, and certainly were, the most intellectual people on the face of the earth at that time, yet they were so ignorant of divine things — even their educated men were so far from the truth of God — that, when they heard about Jesus and the resurrection, it would appear that they really thought the Resurrection might be another divinity — Jesus one god, and the Resurrection another. They were accustomed, you know, to gods and goddesses; and so they seem to have thought that Jesus was a god, and that the Resurrection was a goddess. They therefore charged the apostle with being a setter forth of strange demons.

Here, then, we see it is not the Messiah coming to reign, but Jesus and the resurrection. For the vision of glory, of manifested glory in the world, the time has not yet come. No; it is the same person, but He was refused. He is despised and rejected, and most of all by the Jews. It was they who led the Gentiles on to put Him to death. The resurrection and the resurrection alone, is that which ushers in the blessed and wondrous development of divine truth we commonly call Christianity. It is based on the death of Christ, and it is displayed in His resurrection. And then the person! Think of Him that was God, not the man that is become God, but God who became man that He might die for men. What is the effect on us? Uncertainty? Think of WHO He is. Would God send His only-begotten Son into this world to become a man and die as a substitute for sinners, leaving the blessed effect uncertain after such a cost? Even on the ground of reason is there anything so absurd, if you believe there is a God at all? He that is the true God and eternal life came into this world and died; and the object of that death was not a mere exhibition of love, but, on the contrary, that He might for us bear the judgment of God — the judgment of God due to us as hell-deserving sinners — the judgment of God on Him as the sacrifice for sin. Is it not clear that this, and this alone, explains the death of the Lord Jesus Christ? Could anything in fact be less trustworthy, if you leave out the atonement and make it merely to be love? Why, now and then a mere man has died for a friend; and many a believer has died the most cruel death for the truth, full of joy, full of confidence. Did such an one cry, "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" Certainly not. Christ did, and they in no case.

Can you answer, why He and not they? Assuredly there is in Christ's death revealed an element of the deepest kind —  and indeed what alone gives the key to His death — God's judgment, that made Him, even in the anticipation of it, sweat great drops of blood. Never was there such a scene as Gethsemane, except the cross. I repeat that the element was God Himself judging — in Christ atoningly judging the sins of sinners.

As a consequence of His expiation, there is for the believer a complete deliverance — an absolute bearing away of all that was against him. And now, it is not merely that I am entitled to come and rest on the Son of God, but I am sinning against Him if I do not; I am dishonouring Him if I delay. I am forgetful alike of Him and of myself; I am making light both of my sins and of the precious blood of Christ, if I do not own what that blessed One has perfectly removed as far as cast is from the west — yea, so that my sins are thrown into the depths of the sea, and God Himself remembers them no more. Why does God use such strong expressions of grace, and how is it that believers can think it an uncertain thing whether or not their sins are blotted out? You know very well whether you have bowed to God as a sinner — whether, no longer ashamed of Christ, you have mourned over your sins in the presence of God; and whether, in the face of every sin, and because of it all, you are resting only on Christ. If it be so, are you to go on hanging your head as a bulrush?

Nay, look not merely at Christ's death. If I have no more than the death of Christ, uncertainty is but natural. I am, as it were, encompassed in the gloom that hung over the cross. And what a scene of desolation was that! All had left Him now. The very devil had gone away. Christ had been forsaken by every one — even by God, as He tells us Himself. And this was just because sin was there; so that, if sin had always been laid upon Jesus, He must have been forsaken of God always. Does not the life of Jesus tell me the contrary? Even of One that walked in the perfect sunshine of God's favour? It was not that God did not delight in His Son at the very moment that He forsook Him. Never was perfection so complete in Christ as when He was forsaken of God. But it was for the first time submission to His judgment of sin, no longer the enjoyment of His communion in love. He was always perfect, but then was the depth of perfection in His suffering when made sin for us.

Made sin! Yes! He was forsaken of God then; but behold the very same God that smote Him on the cross raising Him again. In this was there a make-believe that He felt so much about sin? Ah no! Never was there such a reality as the cross. The sins of men that were laid upon Him were real: it was real suffering on His part to bear them; and it was real judgment of God that fell upon Him. And as real as was our guilt, God's judgment, and Christ's suffering, so real is the resurrection. Hence all is clear now; and the same God who bruised Him for our sins took care that none should be laid in that grave save the Lord Jesus, the Saviour of sinners; and what then? God has raised Him up, and set Him at His own right hand in heavenly places. So that a Man now is at the head of the universe of God, and sovereign grace flows out to sinners.

People talk, as we all know, about advance, and the progress of man. But what is it all worth? It is a false start and avails nothing. Why, they tell you that man grew out of the monkey, and that the monkey grew out of a seaweed; but how the protoplasm came into being they cannot say. Can any thing surpass the absurdity of the theories and speculations of so-called men of science? I scarcely know anything more degrading than the thought that man grew out of aught else. As if man even in his fallen condition, had not the image of God in him! They know nothing at all, these scientific men, of the Christ of God; nay, what do they know about any one thing? They have no divine truth. They can give you an account of many phenomena, they can observe and register facts; but what a miserable condition is theirs, if they know nothing about the reality of their own moral condition and of Him who is above them! They know aright neither their own beginning nor their end. If so, is it not an awful picture of the state of men?

What more lamentable a fact than this, that in the 19th century of redemption, people should admire these will-o-the-wisp speculations, not merely irrational but degrading; not merely degrading, but denying all that is blessed in God and man! Such is their pride that they gainsay not only the faith but even the creation, though only the Bible indeed taught it. In this they deny all that is most blessed and glorious, and, above all, the blessed Person who went down into the midst of the consequences of evil and of sin, and who, in our nature, is now risen and exalted to the right hand of God — placing man above the angels, yea, the Son of man who is the object of worship for the angels of God. I admit that, if He had not been God, He could not have been there; but still He is man. He that has the sceptre of the universe is a man. He is God of course; but while He is God, and was God, and through eternity will be God, yet will He never cease to be man.

The resurrection of Christ proves two things. The apostle here uses it to show that Christ is soon going to judge the earth: this world is going to be judged; for God has given a proof of it in that He raised up that Man from the dead, whom the world of Gentiles and Jews crucified. Now, the reason why people slighted of old and still deny the Lord is because go became a man. Had He manifested Himself in His divine glory alone, do you think they would have despised Him? Certainly not. He had only to show Himself for a moment, and where was the creature that would insult Him? Look at Him even when He became a man: they asked once for Jesus, and what ensued? He had only to say it was Himself, when they all fell back upon the ground. It was a mere sample of what He could do. He was there proved a willing captive, later a willing victim. They could not have taken Him against His will. One of His followers, too fond of hasty measures, smote the ear of the High Priest's servant with his sword. Jesus checked him, and putting forth His hand healed the wound. No, beloved friends, He came to die —  He came to suffer for sinners. He could have commanded twelve legions of angels, as He could have done without any aid; but He came to die. He came to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

I ask you, then, who believe in Christ, do you stand clear before God? If not, why not? If you are a believer in Jesus and the resurrection, have you a single sin left behind? What did He die for? If He left one sin, what was the good of His dying for sins? If He removed sins, did He leave any If He has taken your sins, who can charge you with sin? I pray you then, think as believers, feel as believers, act as believers. Yield not to the thoughts of man. You will never get a true direction from your own heart. All the truth comes from the word of God. Leave to Christ all your sins, confessing them, but believing by the Holy Ghost in the efficacy of His work. What we have to do is to judge our own thoughts, and refuse the words of other men; then by grace we are kept stable in the truth of God; we are put in our true place according to Christ and the value of His death; we suspect ourselves, we distrust men, we confide in God. And so it is said that He raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, that our, faith and hope might be in God. Such to faith is the effect of the resurrection.

Naturally God is one to dread, because we have a bad conscience; we know that we have grieved Him habitually and deeply dishonoured Mm. Yes, but what did He give Jesus for, and for what has He given me His truth? It was not merely an infinite work of grace done for people in heaven. No, it was to send a message of grace to men in the world, to every creature. When law was given, it was to one nation; but when the gospel was sent, it was to "every creature." As long as law was the rule of man — the law of condemnation and death, it was God tested in one people. But the moment He was giving eternal life and the forgiveness of sins through His own Son, it was preached to the whole creation, to every nation, kindred, and tongue.

Is not all this just like God? The law was addressed to the nation of the Jews as a test of their obedience, as our first parents were tried in the garden of Eden. There was a single tree in the midst of the garden, and this tree was made the test of their obeying God. It was not at all a matter of moral good or evil, so far as the mere fruit of the tree was concerned. It was a question of owning God's authority, of respecting His prohibition; and what Satan put into the heart of Eve was the thought, "God keeps back something good there: I would rather have that tree than anything else in the garden." And everywhere it is so: man distrusts God thoroughly. But the gift of Christ is God giving His best to die for our sins, and to rise for our justifying. Thus the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ ushers in the gospel. If the gospel is true, God, instead of being my enemy, is my truest friend. There is no love to be compared with His. Can man have such a friend as He is who gave His own Son to die for sinners? This is mercy — infinite and for ever.

Man is incapable of this. Man must have a motive, and a motive of love, in order to do anything that is good; and no one loves till he knows God and is born of Him, as we learn from 1 John 4: 7, 8. But look at God. He is the only One capable of giving in love His Son to die for His enemies. This is the gospel. The consequence is that the truth here announced sets aside the lie of Satan and gives God His true character. No one loves me like God, in spite of all my sins; but what dishonour of His love, if I doubt it? It is remarkable the effect its assurance produces. You have, perhaps, never weighed it well. Do you remember the lines of the hymn?-

Since the bright earnest of His love,

So brightens all this dreary plain.

We used to sing these lines once, but now we cannot do so; and I am rather glad to find it, because it is a proof, in its way, of making progress. For the human recollection of old hymns or of anything human acts as a sort of indicator whether you are going on in the right path or not — whether the truth of God is causing you to judge the words of men. You know, of course, that these hymns, excellent though many of them are, beyond doubt, are after all only human. I have no doubt the Spirit of God had to do with the composition of many; just as His grace helps us now with every prayer we offer, and every discourse we deliver. Still they were not inspired and should be corrected as we receive light.

Here then we have the wonderful way of God, by the redeeming work of His Son, that enables the soul, through receiving the truth that is presented, to take the place of being thoroughly clean, and for ever freed from guilt before God, and this on the testimony of God Himself. Through the blessed work wrought in Christ's death the whole weight and burden of sin is removed. And this is proclaimed by the resurrection.

Herein is the proof that the world is going to be judged, because He is risen from the dead. it was because the blessed One became a man, that He was rejected and despised; and it is because He is man that many pretend He is only man. But this unbelief is the same spirit as animated those who put Jesus to death upon the cross. The feeling that takes advantage of His being man to deny His being God is the same as that which led the Jews to crucify Him  - the same enmity from the same fatal unbelief. It is man opposed to God. But if the world slew, God raised Him up again from the dead; and therein gives the proof not only that the believer is justified, but that Jesus will judge the world.

Supposing, then, you have as a Christian been enabled to receive the person of Christ, I ask you what about His death? What about His resurrection? Do you believe that God has raised Him from the dead? and if you believe, where are your sins? Do not tell me that your sins are still resting on your conscience — that your sins are still bound up with you. Believer, what did Christ die for? and what has God declared in the gospel?

Forgive me if I come back upon the gospel. I am deeply anxious that you should have the truth strongly and plainly before you. I do not expect souls to be able to run the race that God calls them to — I do not call on them to worship God in spirit and in truth — till they are consciously and perfectly clear in His sight.

Take, for instance, that verse I have already referred to about the earnest of His love. Could one sing it now? No; because the fulness of His love is what He has shown us already. Men say "the earnest of the love" of God. But we have the Holy Ghost given to us now as "the earnest of the inheritance" that is to be. As for the inheritance, we are going to be put, along with Christ at His coming, over the universe, as heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ — the bride of the Bridegroom, the Eve of the heavenly Adam. Every member belonging to His body, and consequently all christians, will be exalted manifestly overall things; the church will share that authority with Christ. Now the Holy Ghost is given to us as an earnest of the inheritance, but He is never said to be the earnest of God's love. The earnest of His love would imply that I only get a little of His love now, and am to have a great deal more when in heaven. The love of God fully rests on the believer already. "The love wherewith Thou lovedst Me:" is this an "earnest?" Is it not the fulness of His love? It is what the christian possesses; and consequently, says St. Paul, "the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts." He does not say the earnest of His love. Therefore we ought not to sing the hymn as it used to stand.

In this way you may see it is a great thing to bring everything to the test of His word, and to judge accordingly, though the poet may murmur.

Again, the law dealt with men as they were living in the world; but the truth of christianity is that I died with Christ, already baptized to His death. Not that I am dying or that I am to die — but that I died with Christ. Do you believe this? Do you know yourself dead with Him? This is what Christ brings the saint to from the first; less than this is not the meaning of baptism. Theology says that baptism is a sign, if not means, of giving life to people who have it not. It really is the very opposite. When a man came out from the world to take his stand on the truth of a Christ who died, he in his baptism says, Christ the Lord, who was rejected by the world, is my portion. It is not a living Christ reigning here below, but a dead and risen Christ. And this is the very point of the apostle Paul in the sixth chapter of Romans, when he says — "So many of us as were baptised were baptised" — unto what? His life? Not at all — "unto His death," And this is very important, as He insists that we are to reckon ourselves dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus. What a blessing that it is no longer a mere struggle against sin or flesh! As believers we died with Christ; even if Jews before, we are made dead by His cross, because God identifies us with Christ who died and rose again. So that a christian starts with the death of Christ.

That is the reason why, in the two so-called christian sacraments, the grand point of them both is the death of Christ. This is what we ought always to remember. It is not a vow or vaunt of man, though infinite things flow from it; but God's weapon is Christ's death. There I am nothing and can do nothing; let me rest by faith in the infinite worth and efficacy of Jesus who died and rose for me.

Besides being dead, we are risen with Christ. I do not enter upon this now; but I just say this little word further, that the resurrection of Christ is the witness that Christ is above the world; and that He who is ordained Judge of quick and dead, and who assuredly will judge the world, is a risen man. It is not God, as God, who will undertake judgment, but a man, who is to judge mankind. It is the Lord Jesus, and the Lord Jesus is a risen man.

But there is more. For He was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. The same resurrection of Jesus, which is proof to the world of coming judgment, proves to the christian that he is already justified and blessed. The christian is already justified; the world will be judged. The resurrection of Christ proclaims both. It tells the world, You cast Jesus out, but could not hinder His resurrection. Submit you must to this blessed Son of God and of man. He is now exalted, and every knee shall bow to Him.

I remember being horrified some years ago in reading a book by one who has lately passed away from his sins, wherein he criticised one of your philosophers — the critic himself, I am sorry to. say, a native of this part of the country. That man dared to say, "If the being that is called God should sentence me to that place which they call hell, there is one thing I will never do — I will never worship Him." I think I never read anything so frantically blasphemous. Alas! beloved friends, that is exactly what he must do. Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess; and that, too, not merely of things in heaven (though it is not "things," things having neither knees nor tongues, but beings) — "beings" in heaven and on earth and under the earth. Think of that. "Under the earth" means the lost; but whether they are lost men or lost spirits, they shall all confess Him Lord to the glory of God the Father.

But no salvation then. Now is the day of salvation — now only. Oh! lose not a moment. Now is your time, and God's time. Now is the time to make the choice, or rather bow to grace and be saved. There is nobody saved when judgment comes; and, beloved friends, there is nobody judged in the day of grace. It is now rather self-judgment; it is really God bringing one by repentance to, judge himself; so that one anticipates, if I may say so, the day of judgment. One takes the place of a guilty criminal when one confesses his sins before God. There is nothing does a person more good than to feel his sins — except, after that, to know that they are all gone through the death of Christ in the grace of God.

I believe in immediate conversion; but no one can have a genuine work in his soul who has not felt his sins in the presence of God; and, therefore, do not be in too great a hurry when converted. Do not be too anxious to get the soul into peace. It would be a good thing to get people into sense of misery, it appears to me, that they may duly feel their sins. Many of those who during revivals seem to get peace suddenly have had, long before that, a deep sense of sin in their souls; perhaps half of the people who are said to be converted at revival times were converted before. They date their conversion from the time they found peace; but it ought to be dated from the time they became miserable. Christ is the way into peace, but it is through faith and repentance. Believe me, that peace is more valued where there has been the sense of previous war —  where the soul has felt and judged its enmity against God.

I do not wish to accumulate words as to this, nor to enter into many inviting topics that crowd upon one now. But if it be a solemn thing, I say again, to think that every knee must bow to Jesus in the day of His coming, is it not a joy that, when people bow now to Christ and accept His gospel, they are saved? When forced to bow in the day of God by power, they will not be saved. When it is power that compels them, divine power, before the judgment-seat of Christ, there will be no salvation. There is judgment then. If you have bowed now to Jesus, may it be simply and thoroughly! Thus only can there be settled peace with God, and that, not because you deserve heaven, but, on the contrary, because Christ wrought such a peace for you that deserved hell thoroughly.

God set forth these things in the very beginning, when He said to Moses — "When I see the blood, I will pass over you." It was not when the Israelites saw the blood, but when they rested on the blood because it was God who saw the blood. This is true faith — rest on Christ and His blood before God. If the look to your own feelings you will never have rest. God will give you plenty to draw out your feelings and put you to the proof; but all is founded on this  - on your having the favour of God as a believer in Christ His Son. How would you like one of your children to come and ask you, Father, am I really your child? You would say, An enemy has done this. And so it is with those who say that people cannot know they are saved — cannot know that God is their Father. It is heathenism under the profession of Christ. They who say so know not what they do. They are certainly far from intelligence in the things of God. They do not know what His feelings are toward His children, be they ever so ignorant and lowly.

No, beloved friends, rest with unfeigned confidence in the salvation that the Spirit of God attests in the word. Certainly if hopes should be founded upon myself, I ought to have none at all. If I am founding it on the church or on men, I deserve not to have any blessing. But the question is, Did Christ work out salvation for me? does Christ deserve it? And I tell you, before God, He did accomplish redemption, and He loves to send away in peace every soul that trusts in Him and His cross. The man who has not the Son of God is not a child of God, because there is no life, no salvation, apart from Christ; and as reconciliation to God is by His death, so salvation is declared in His resurrection life. May He be your portion now and ever. Amen!

The Revelation as God gave it.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. 20, p. 61-2, 126-7.)

Dr. Joseph Hall, bishop successively of Exeter and Norwich in the 17th century, was pious, learned, and able. It may be well therefore to examine with care how such a man could write on the last book of the N.T. so as even to entitle his essay "The Revelation Unrevealed" (Works, Pratt's ed., x. 79-127). No doubt some in his day as in others taught unadvisedly, as in the "Five Lights at Walton," and "Zion's Joy in her King;" but he was not entitled to speak slightingly of Joseph Mede, John Archer, Thomas Brightman, or J. H. Alsted, who, notwithstanding many a mistake, were more enlightened in the prophetic word than himself. Let us then turn the wandering of so good a man to account by tracing if we can its source.

The first four sections are an effort to show that the Thousand Years' Reign in Rev. 20, till fulfilled, must be a riddle as insoluble as the number and name of the Beast in chap. 13. How unfounded is this appears from the latter scripture alone where the Beast's number is treated in the prophecy itself as quite exceptional. The very opening of the book disproves the assumption that prophecies need fulfilment to render them intelligible. It is an unbelieving denial of the value of prophecy; for thus they can only be understood when they are accomplished. All O.T. faith hung on unfulfilled prophecy. Thus expressly Noah condemned the antediluvian world; and Abraham enjoyed in peace what even Lot knew before fulfilment took place.

It was on the contrary, as Isaiah tells us (Isa. 41, 42, 44 - 48), the privilege of God's people to know both the former things, and new things to come, in contrast with the blinded heathen. So Daniel 9 understood precisely from Jeremiah's prophecy. Even the Jewish chief priests and scribes were not so dark when Jesus was born in Bethlehem; better far, Simeon, Anna, and others were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem. Indeed, before the Messiah presented Himself, the people were in expectation to which prophecy gave birth, and all were reasoning inwardly, as Luke says, whether haply John were He. The time, said our Lord, is fulfilled, when He began His public ministry. Prophecy had long proclaimed the place, the time, the characteristic marks, the sufferings of Christ and the glories that should follow.

It is a false and unworthy maxim that prophecies in general, especially before they are fulfilled, are no other than riddles. For this puts the world and the church on the same ground of darkness and unbelief. The Lord on the contrary treats it as the privilege of His disciples to know as friends what the slave knows not, even all things which He heard from His Father; and the Spirit, when come, was to report to them the things to come. So the apostle Paul communicates to comparatively young believers in Thessalonica the correction of their mistake as to the dead saints, and convicts as error the alarm others were infusing into the living saints (1 Thess. 4, 2 Thess. 2). Again the Apostle Peter appeals to the faithful as knowing beforehand what God had revealed, even to the eternal things, the new heavens and new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness (2 Peter 3). As if to cut off anticipatively the bishop's discouragement, the Holy Spirit pronounces, in the first and the last chapters of that prophecies, a special blessing on reading, hearing and keeping the things written in it: a nugatory thing, if they consist of no other than riddles for men to guess at.

The truth is that the same Spirit Who alone enables us to understand the rest of scripture gives intelligence in the prophecies. Past, present, and future, are alike open to Him Who, as only He has told us of the first things when man did not exist to see or hear, so He has spoken up to the last, and especially of His own glory yet to have its triumphant and blissful display in the universe. What more worthy, of God, what more cheering and elevating to His children! The consequence for the bishop and all of his way of thinking is a barren blank, instead of the bright anticipation of the fair and fruitful scene the Lord will establish according to the word for His own great Name. The unbelief of a believer has of course its limits; but it is a darkening principle just so far as it works; and this is as plain in the case before us as anywhere else.

Section 5 is a summary of Archer's view, which is wrong and defective in important respects. In the first place the bishop undertakes to show the universal error which runs through his whole writing; secondly, the chief paradoxes involved; thirdly, its consequents improbable; and, lastly, "such fair, safe orthodox constructions, as may be warrantably admitted of that dark passage of Scripture, the misprision [i.e. misapprehension] whereof is guilty of this controversy" (section 6).

Let us only now notice briefly section 7, in which the literal construction put on the prophecies is regarded as the great strain of error. Two passages are cited as instances, Zech. 2: 12, 10 [a singular mode of citing], and Isa. 65: 9, 10. Instead of seeing a future condition of glory for Judah and Jerusalem on earth, the bishop contends for no more than the past Babylonish restoration, and under that figure the comfortable condition of the church under the gospel.

Now is either of these  a tolerable interpretation of either scripture? How does the context decide? "For thus saith Jehovah of hosts: After the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you; for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye. For, behold, I will shake mine hand over them, and they shall be a spoil to those that served them; and ye shall know that Jehovah of hosts hath sent me. Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion; for lo, I come and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith Jehovah. And many nations shall join themselves to Jehovah in that day and shall be my people; and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that Jehovah of hosts hath sent me unto thee. And Jehovah shall inherit Judah as his portion in the holy land and shall yet choose Jerusalem again" etc. It must be remembered that the main body which returned from captivity had gone up long before under Zerubbabel and Jeshua. Is it credible that Zechariah's prediction was fulfilled in the little company that accompanied Ezra in the seventh year of Artaxerxes? Certainly neither answers to the prophecy. They were both after the captivity, an earnest only of what is promised. But here it is to be "after the glory." So, in Ps. 102: 16, His appearing in His glory goes with His building up Zion; and thus it is, as the verse preceding says, that the nations shall fear His name and all the kings of the earth His glory. It would be the grossest exaggeration to pretend that anything like the psalm or the prophecy was fulfilled in the returned remnant.

Are these words accomplished in the church? Why, the essence of our calling is in contrast with it all. For us Christ is received up in glory. Here He was rejected even to the death of the cross, and is now glorified on high. Our life is hid with Christ in God; and when He shall be manifested, then shall we also with Him be manifested in glory. Meanwhile the fidelity of the Christian and of the church is in sharing His rejection on earth with Him. The worldly-minded were the first we read of who ignored and forsook this true place here below, to which we are called in contrast with Israel of old and by-and-by. "Already are ye filled, already ye are become rich, ye have reigned without us; yea and I would that ye did reign that we also might. reign with you." it was a mistaking of and a departure from Christ's mind. "For, I think, God hath set forth us the apostles last of all, as men doomed to death; for we are made a spectacle unto the world, both to angels and to men" (1 Cor. 4). But the place promised to Israel is power over the nations which spoiled them. In this way, as in others, will Jehovah prove how dear they are to Him in the day when He shakes His hand over the Gentiles. Never since the Babylonish captivity has this been true either of the Jews or of their Gentile masters; but it will assuredly be when their heart turns to Him Whom they slew. Then shall Zion sing, and Jehovah dwell in their midst, and many nations join themselves to Jehovah; but in Zion will be His earthly seat and centre, when He is risen out of His holy habitation, and all flesh must hush before Jehovah.

Again, how baseless is the traditional prejudice as to Isa. 65: 9, 10! No Christian doubts, that the Jews' rejection of their Messiah (as in Isa. 49 - 53) has brought a fresh scattering on themselves, in addition to the penalty of their old idolatry. On that, during the fall of the disobedient and gainsaying people, God is found of the Gentiles who sought Him not, according to Isa. 65: 1, 2. But as plain as is Jehovah's judgment of the wicked among Israel in vers. 3-7, so is His mercy to in elect remnant of that people in the verses that follow; and both in a day of executed judgments, which usher in a season of blessedness for the earth and all creatures on it, in a way beyond all example since sin entered the world. Hence we hear of the new heavens and a new earth-at least in an incipient sense, the pledge of the absolute truth which follows the judgment of the dead (Rev. 21). But what has all this to do with the comfortable condition of the church under the gospel, any more than with the returned remnant in Ezra's day or any other's of old? Jehovah coming in fire, and His chariots like the whirlwind, to render His anger with fury and His rebuke with flames of fire, is as different as can be from the Holy Spirit coining in power from on high, and tongues parting asunder as of fire sitting upon each. So differs the future gathering of all nations and tongues to see His glory, from the work of grace in now gathering out of them a people for His name wherein is neither Jew nor Gentile, but Christ is all.

The second paradox is a mistake. The future kingdom of Christ does not exclude kings as scripture shows.

The third is due to confusion on all sides from lack of subjection to the truth that the believer does not come into judgment, i.e., the eternal judgment at the end. There accordingly in Rev. 20: 11-15, we find none but the dead; and these dead, as the context proves, are exclusively the wicked. The blessed and holy had been raised long before. Even in O.T. times this truth ought to have been and was known. See Ps. 143: 2: 11 Enter not into judgment with thy servant; for in thy sight shall no man living be justified." If even a saint, God's servant, came into His judgment, he could not be cleared: it would annul the force of judgment or deny the manifold faults of a saint. God will do neither. His judgment will take full effect on all that enter there. How then are any saved? "By grace have ye been saved through faith," because Christ bore their judgment, which therefore they shall not enter. If they did, they could not be justified; whereas they are already in this life justified by faith. All teaching is false which supposes that "both saints and sinners shall be judged." Our Lord Himself in John 5 expressly lays down on the contrary that the believer, the saint, does not come into judgment, but has even now eternal life, which is incompatible with it, and has passed from death into life. Such is the way of divine grace with all believers. They already honour God's Son by believing God's testimony to Him. Those who now dishonour His word and His Son by their unbelief cannot escape the judgment by-and-by and must honour the Son of man Who judges them. For in this capacity it will be. They disputed His divine glory. They denied His Sonship in the supreme sense. They despised or derided eternal life, His giving it or their need of it. As they dishonoured Him now, in contrast with all who bowed to His name in faith, He will raise and judge them at the end. For all must honour the Son. Happy they that do so by now believing in Him, receiving life, and doing the good that follows that divine nature; most miserable those that reject God's word and Son, and so have not life but only worthless ways, and therefore must be judged and thus honour Him perforce in that day.

It is true however that Matt. 25: 31-46 describes a scene wholly distinct from the close of Rev. 20. For what can differ more than the time, and the persons concerned? In that Gospel it is expressly the Son of man when He shall come in His glory to the earth whence He went to heaven. Rev. 20 on the contrary is when His coming cannot be, because heaven and earth are fled and passed as they now are. And those gathered before Him in the Gospel are all the nations, the quick and none but the quick; and not all of them, for the Jews are shown already dealt with in Matt. 24: 1-31, with the comparisons to 41; after which the judgment of Christendom in the three great intervening parables of the household servants, the ten virgins, and the servants trading with the Lord's goods, down to Matt. 25: 30. It is therefore strictly the King's dealing with all the living nations or the Gentiles of that day, according to the way they treated His brethren who will preach to them the gospel of the kingdom before He comes and takes the throne of His glory over the earth. The sheep are the believing Gentiles in that day who did good to the preachers; as the goats are the Gentiles then who were utterly careless or cruel to His brethren through unbelief of the coming King. In Rev. 20: 11 to the end, it is expressly the dead who are judged for their works, with not one living man among them.

Accordingly scripture never speaks of "a general judgment," and still less of an indiscriminate resurrection. 2 Cor. 5: 10 does speak of manifestation before Christ's Bema (judgment-seat) for all without exception; but in no way is it insinuated that it will be at one time, still less all together. Hence the care of the Holy Spirit to say that we, the whole of us, are to be manifested. So saints will be every one before Him, and their fidelity or failure owned. We shall know as we are known. A great loss it would be, if there were no such manifestation for them; and position in the kingdom will be ruled accordingly. But it is not "judgment," for into this no believer comes, as the Lord declares and other scriptures confirm, if this were needed, which God forbid. But for the wicked, it will be judgment when they are manifested in their season before Him; for they have nothing but bad works without the Saviour and without life. And therefore we hear of a resurrection of judgment: two resurrections, not merely distinct, but in the strongest possible contrast of character. How profound the error that ignores their opposition and lumps them in one!

The fourth paradox rightly objects to a threefold coming of Christ. Scripture speaks of but two: the first, as to which all Christians agree; the second, when He comes in His kingdom, having received the saints to Himself as His prefatory act, that they may reign with Him. The notion that He will come to judge all at the end is a mere blunder of humanised theology, refuted by scripture. He will assuredly judge the dead at the end, the righteous having long previously been changed to reign with Him and judge the world in a kingly but glorious way, as well as evermore reigning in life by Him, when the kingdom is given up. But the dead stand before the throne, wherever it be, for their judgment, and therefore go to Him for this, instead of His coming when heaven and earth are no more, which scripture does not say but excludes. There is no double resurrection therefore, as in the fifth paradox, but as the apostle testified, and even orthodox Jews allowed, a resurrection of dead persons, both of just and unjust. These, we have seen from scripture are contrasted not more in time than in character. Judgment is given to the risen saints; the raised unjust are to be judged by the Lord Jesus. Nor is there the least ground for limiting the first resurrection to martyrs. Such martyrs as might have been thought too late are raised to join the mass of saints already raised at Christ's coming, so that all may share the reign for the thousand years.

Scripture gives no countenance to the sixth paradox of a threefold ascension to heaven.

Review of Four Letters to the Christians Called Brethren.

W. Kelly.

"Four Letters to the Christians called 'Brethren' on the Subject of Ministry and Worship." By Arthur Augustus Rees. Second Edition. London. Passmore and Alabaster.

(B.T. Vol. 10, p. 348-352.)

Mr. R. writes kindly himself, but he does not scruple freely to cite unkind remarks of others, which only ill-feeling can account for from their authors. On this little need be said, for nothing can be more evident than that these unhappy effusions aim merely at detraction. They have nothing that tends to edification in their sayings or doings. If Mr. R. is animated with no such bitterness, he is at sea, and so exposed to every wind that blows. "Whilst I question your principles, I am not defending those of other Christians. On the contrary, I am far from satisfied with the worship and ministry of the 'sects,'" etc. He admits, as the result of Brethren's study of God's word, unworldliness, and devotedness, and scriptural views whether one thinks of the church or of the world. Would to God there were ten-fold more! But whatever there is among them that he values its due to keeping Christ's word, and not denying His name. Only it were passing strange if they were wrong in what they have most of all sought — uncompromising fidelity to Christ in the ways of His house. Is this "schism?" If "Brethren" are wrong there, trust them nowhere else. If right in that which has cost them so much, Mr. R. will own that he has much to learn.

But Mr. R. starts with a mistake. No intelligent brother could accept his statement of their "principle of meeting, worship, and ministry." No person at all accredited has ever put things so in a book or tract emanating from such. Doubtless the difficulty is great for an outsider. Not one Christian in a thousand can understand till he is bona fide in fellowship, though he may know enough to attract him, and more than enough to condemn denominationalism in every form.

Brethren go back to the written word about the assembly, worship, and ministry, and confide in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit to make it good in spite, but taking account, of the ruin-state of Christendom. This is their principle, and it differs as radically from that of Friends as from other societies. For if others fail in owning the sovereign action of the Spirit, Friends have failed quite as fatally in owning the word of God, as Mr. R. must surely know. Now you can have the power of neither, if you do not honour the Lord in both; and it is recurrence to both in faith which distinguishes, "Brethren." To this they have sacrificed everything which stands in the way, as they will by grace so long as they are true to the Lord.

But they see clearly that, besides coming together as God's assembly dependent on the Lord to work in by the Spirit, as we read in 1 Corinthians 12, 14, there is also His working by individuals as evangelists, pastors, teachers, etc. Wherever gifted men are found among "Brethren," there is at least as much of the latter as of the former; and "believe there is a freer and fuller circulation of this individual ministry in their midst than exists anywhere else. Some of these servants of the Lord move about, and others reside and work more fixedly, all over Great Britain, Ireland, France, Switzerland, Holland, Germany, Italy, etc.: in some places few and far between, but there they are. So it is in America, the West Indies, Australia, New Zealand, not to speak of some few in Asia and Africa, though one shrinks from saying even thus much. Mr. R. wholly overlooks this, one of the most patent and characteristic facts among "Brethren." He is exclusively occupied with the assembly as such. This is not to be wondered at, for nothing like it is found anywhere else at present; yet none can deny that it was quite as striking when the church of God was first known as distinct from Jews and Gentiles. Then, as among Brethren now, there was the gracious action of the Spirit looked for in the assembly, of which the Lord's supper was the central feast, and with liberty for the members of His body, only subject to His regulation by His word; and then too, as now, we see Him using His servants far and wide, who spread the gospel outside, and acted within as joints and bands, knitting all the body together, and ministering nourishment also.

One is surprised that Mr. R. should see the least resemblance to Brethren any more than to scripture in the principle of the Friends, who, in fact, ignore God's assembly more than any community in Christendom. They really hold that the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man in the world! instead of understanding that this is to each in the church. This of itself falsifies all their action, and shows its fundamental opposition to God's assembly, not merely in practice, but in principle. Next, they avowedly set up what they call the living testimony of the Spirit above scripture, which accordingly is shut out of their meetings no less than hymns. Who can wonder? Men quarrel with the written word when it condemns them; and none offend worse in this way than Quakers. Even Popery, with all its worldliness and worse, does not deny the difference between the first man and the Second, between flesh and Spirit, between nature and grace, between the church and the world, so flagrantly as the Society of Friends; and yet their principle Mr. R, imagines to be so like Brethren's, that he cannot see the least difference! Why, Friends have not one true idea about the church as Christ's body, or God's house; still less do they acknowledge the Spirit's sovereign action in it, or the difference between this and individual ministry apart from it. They confess the necessity and reality of the Spirit's action; and no doubt, so far as godly men among them act in faith as to this, they are blessed. But there is otherwise the most complete contrast between Brethren and Friends. Does not Mr. R. know that in a proper meeting of Friends elders exercise control over those who speak? Is this the principle of 1 Corinthians 14, or of Brethren?

He will have it however, that Friends are more consistent in practice, because of eschewing hymns and tunes. But what saith the scripture? Do Friends in very deed bow to the word, as well as look for the power and guidance of the Spirit? We find the use of metrical compositions in singing contemplated, both in private and in public (Eph. 5: 19; Col. 3: 16; 1 Cor. 14: 15, 26; James 5: 13), These are clearly not the Psalms of David, but christian compositions, without a line of inspiration, yet open to and needing the direction of the Spirit in the assembly, like everything else. No doubt, if people have a mere theory of the Spirit's action apart from scripture, like the Friends, one can understand their exclusion of hymns from being sung in their meetings, and even of scripture itself, though it be inspired. But this is consistency with a delusion, not only without subjection to the word, but to its deep and open affront. And if Mr. R. knows the facts, I am surprised that he should write thus coolly of a course so systematically unscriptural as that of Friends, or that he should not perceive that Brethren have the authority of scripture for their procedure as to singing hymns in and out of the assembly.

How is this? He is misled by his inability to see that scripture is equally clear against a pre-arranged discourse in the assembly as for singing hymns, as is ordinarily done, provided the Lord is waited on there and then. He does not see that it is a question of what the word authorises. The Corinthians were on the same ground as his argument supposes till they were corrected by the first epistle. They thought it was simply a question of power, and if therefore half a dozen prophets spoke, it might be all well; and if any spoke in a tongue without interpretation, they were free to do so; and if women could utter the word of wisdom or knowledge, why should they not? They had the gifts, and should use them in the assembly. But no; the apostle affirms the great principle, forgotten by Friends as well as Mr. R., etc., but acknowledged by Brethren, that the power, however truly of the Spirit, should work subject to the authority of the Lord, and hence in obedience to His commandment. (1 Cor. 12: 26-40; especially ver. 37.)

We are not therefore inconsistent with the true guidance and action of the Spirit, when we submit ourselves to the word of the Lord; and in this very portion it deals with spiritual manifestations, yet it sanctions the singing of such psalms as are used in the assembly. There is no recognition of an "ordinary sermon" in 1 Corinthians 14 — there is of singing: only all must be to edifying, as well as decently and in order; and these ends cannot be but in the Spirit, who works in the assembly, in order that there should be the reality of "God in them of a truth," and not the more arrangements of a denomination after its own will.

The Holy Ghost was given to abide for ever; and the Lord sets out His own ordering of the assembly by His apostle, grounded on that presence and action of the Spirit. He is there to guide and work. It is worthy of Christ and His redemption that so it should be. We know it is abandoned by Christians in general; but has the Lord repealed it? If not, it abides, and even those who do not practise its order hesitate not to cite verse 40 as a warrant for their own order to the subversion of His. Let men speak with contempt of those who in their feebleness cleave to it; the Lord will not. Those who meet there in faith can tell, without boasting, of an enjoyment of His presence and power unknown elsewhere. But not of this would we speak, but of what is due to His word and Spirit. He is a Spirit of power, of love, and of a sound mind; and works sovereignly, certainly not alone in "ex-clergymen, noblemen, gentlemen, and military and naval officers." Many of the working classes are gifted men, and blessed, some of the lowest of "the million," no less than from the highest rank. It is as true now as ever that gift is independent of learning or station, and we would take a lesson from 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, no less than from 1 Corinthians 14. But it is a serious thing when a grave Christian thinks that, because the Spirit no longer displays miracles or tongues or their interpretation, He does not give the word of wisdom or the word of knowledge, teachers, helps, or governments. Mr. R. has sunk low in unbelief to write, or even conceive, such a thought. He severs the action of the Spirit from the word, and virtually denies both.

Hence he forgets that the Spirit is on earth to care for the saints. Could He not guide in a scriptural way (to meet the difficulties Mr. R. is pleased to imagine) the five thousand Christians said to assemble at the Metropolitan Tabernacle? or, fifty thousand, or one hundred thousand, if there were as many in London, who judged sects to be evil, and gathered to the Lord's name? But then the schism! Yet is it schism to separate from what denies Him? Difficulties exist, but He is equal to all emergencies. Is it faith, or unbelief, to be neutral where a true or false Christ is concerned, or to pervert it into a ground for sitting down, contentedly or not, in denominationalism, contrary to God's word and Spirit? "Inspired worship or ministry" no brother pretends to. Is not such language an exaggeration to blink the importance of abandoning human ways, to the slight of both scripture and the Holy Ghost?

It is certainly not our duty to defend the Freemasons' Hall meetings, any more than those in Dublin spoken of. There was probably no fixity of principle in either. But it seems fair to say that neither the former nor the latter seem to have been professedly ἐν ἐκκλησία, but rather brotherly conferences, such as they were. Mr. R. therefore is scarce justified in judging them by 1 Corinthians 14: Do doubt far more than "two or three" spoke. In neither case was it the assembly as such. Does he understand the question?

What has been said is a suffcient answer to the comments in "The Church of Old" or the remarks of several brethren, as well as to Mr. R.'s own statement, already shown to be inaccurate; to the speech of John Foster, the essayist, and the certainly not intelligent clergyman who thought some brothers spoke by inspiration! till he heard them misquote scripture. One must be forgiven for not dwelling on such poor stories as these, or on the equally poor replies. But it may be repeated, in reply to page 18, that there is no question of the choice of a text, still less of the preparation and delivery of a discourse in 1 Corinthians 14; there is of the use of a psalm there. Is it not in excellent reason that the apostle proves the latter, and ignores the former?

All that grace has given us is liable to abuse, from the salvation of the soul to the worship of the saints in the assembly. Yet you do not remedy the possible evil by denying or obscuring the truth, but by pressing it on the conscience in self-judgment. The Holy Spirit dwells in each Christian, as He does in the assembly; yet He makes neither inspired, but both responsible that all which is done in small things or great he done in the Spirit. This is first irksome to nature; then the truth is questioned; lastly the possibility is denied, but this is no less than departure (I say not from Christ, but) from the living power of Christ and the church. Take, for instance, the singing of hymns in the assembly. Does the Lord deign to guide in this by the Spirit, or does He leave it to our flesh? It is surprising that a Christian should cavil at what is so plain. 1 Corinthians 14 speaks of what an individual might do in the assembly, not of individual exercises at home; and there is not a word implying that the words and the service were either of them given by inspiration.

Yet none that speaks among Brethren, or elsewhere, should shrink from the application of the rule in 1 Peter 4: 10, 11. Alas! this is not only not the practice, but forgotten, perhaps denied, as the rule. It is false that Peter means inspiration, or that Brethren ever claimed it, but always maintained the contrary. Doubtless it is true that the Quaker system so claims — a twofold error, in depreciating the written word, so as practically to deny its inspiration, and in exalting their spoken testimonies, so as practically to claim inspiration. All the teaching of Brethren is most distinct against this presumption; a brother guilty of such folly would be put out forthwith as led of Satan.

As to the fullest ordering of the assembly in scripture, it is found in 1 Corinthians 14, as grounded on 1 Corinthians 12. But Romans 12, Ephesians 4, Colossians 2, James 3: 1, 1 Peter 4: 10, 11, evidently fall in with it, not to speak of the Acts of the Apostles. Matthew 18: 20 is the Lord's anticipative resource for the worst of times, guaranteeing His presence to even two or three gathered to His name. But it is distinctly and solely on the ground of the church, and no other. To apply it to sects is not only unintelligent neglect of the context, but faithless indifference to the wondrous privilege there pledged.

Of the citations in pages 23-30, it would be painful to say much: so thoroughly are they stamped with captiousness. But this may be remarked, that their writers knew well that Brethren do not set the Holy Ghost's presence against the Lord's employing men in His service as permanent gifts for the blessing of the saints, whether evangelists, or pastors and teachers. Would that they had not let slip convictions which once seemed divinely given, and that they were not now perverting the fact of gifts from Christ to weaken the still graver truth of the Spirit's presence, which imparts its weight to these gifts! That there is thus a rejection of the appointments of Christ for the edification of His body is an unworthy cry. No brother refuses to acknowledge the bishop of the New Testament, either in principle, without appointment, or in fact, if duly appointed; and the main ground for refusing denominations of every kind is because we judge them, as well as ourselves, by the apostolic model. The strength of Brethren therefore lies, not in negation (as has been, with too much truth, said of Protestantism), but in the positive truth of the word acted on in simple dependence on the Spirit. "One body and one Spirit" is the very reverse of a negative principle, and it is ours, gainsay it who may. Of those who minister among Brethren there is the less reason to speak, as it is plain those who raised the question betray forgetfulness of God's word and Spirit as to His church and ministry. It were well to weigh 2 Corinthians 10: 12, 18. It is the more uncomely, as we pretend to no gifts which we do not allow in other saints, and, what is more, we urge that the Spirit dwells in the house of God, not in the Brethren merely, only we seek to act in faith of it, and others do not by allowing their modes of worship and ministry apart from scripture to hinder.

Of the second pamphleteer there is the less reason to take notice, as page 5 confesses that it is not our principle he repudiates, but its abuse. The words of scorn which are quoted are self-condemnatory. And it is evident that the minds of men who could so write had lost, if they ever had, a due sense of the church's ruin. As they lapsed into alienation, they must needs justify their own defection by a vigorous onslaught on their old friends, high and low. Yet who ever heard of men, essaying to lead others, whose efforts were so suicidal? They may have furnished fresh scandal to such is believe all evil against Brethren; but never did a movement so totally fail to act even on their intimates. Where are they even now? Was not this truly "pretension without power?"

For our part we do not claim a power for ourselves that God has not given to in Christians. The Holy Spirit is the energy for everything acceptable to God, as witnessing to Christ, and effectuating His will in those that are His. Brethren do not claim Him as in any way peculiar to themselves; they hold that, as He dwells in every Christian, so all saints are bound to judge contradicts or fetters the recognition of His presence and action in the assembly. That they reap a blessing from God answering to their faith one doubts not, any more than that all Christians lose who do not believe in it, or who, if they believe, walk not in faith. That there are among Brethren men who slight what is due to His presence. whom they own, coming out of the sects which built on other grounds, is true; but such men either go away, and try to blacken what they had little honoured when ostensibly with Brethren, or they fall into sin so as to require public discipline, In one way or another the Lord does not fail to watch over those who are gathered to His name, and deals jealously with what dishonours it. For it is freely allowed that nowhere is pretension without power so unbecoming and hateful and sure to be judged, even in this world. A just censure we would accept and bow to God in it, as an excellent oil, which shall not break the head.

Let Mr. R. then be assured that Brethren set up no claims, either personal or ministerial. They would fain urge on all saints the dishonour done to the Lord in denying the Holy Spirit His sovereign freedom of action in the assembly, as well as in using gifted men in direct responsibility to Himself (not as the officials of a denomination), and this in the unity of His body. But what can Mr. E. mean by speaking of their application of 1 Peter 4: 11 to their own ministry as "mistimed, misplaced, and untrue?" They apply it to every true mouthpiece of God, and feel it to be most solemn and searching for themselves, as for others; but to talk of it as he does, as if it were seine exclusive possession on their part, proves that Mr. 11. understands neither the passage itself, nor the spirit in which it has been applied by them. Does he know what it means, or he himself means, by saying what he does in page 31? It is certainly not inspiration any move than mere speaking according to the scriptures (p. 47): the one being as much too high is the other is too low a sense put on the passage. There is real unbelief of the Spirit's action in Mr. P. and his friends. Cannot, does not, God give one who is in communion with Him, as to speaking, to Ray just what He would have said? Where are men gone who deny that we should even look for this? It is the only right thing.

Then follows a quotation from Olshausen, with which Mr. R,. agrees, to the effect that the charismatic form of the Spirit's operation (that is, gift) ceased in the third century. Is it to this unbelief we are invited by Mr. Rees, or by the one who commends his "very temperate and christian letter?" Did it never occur to him that his figure of "the crutchless cripple, stumbling at every step," might apply, not to Brethren, but to the few who have lately gone out from them? At any rate, it is important to note that the ground for acting on 1 Corinthians 14 depends on the continuance of the Spirit's presence and power, and that Mr. R.'s theory is the denial of it since the third century. Since then he allows sanctified natural ability and educational acquirement, but not the Spirit acting in gift.

The long extracts from the author of "The Church of Old" (pp. 34-46) may be safely left in silence. There are abundant words, but light weight. He has fallen into the same error as Mr. R., confounding the principle and practice of God's assembly (1 Cor. 12, 14) with the exercise of a ministerial gift in general. It is unfounded to separate the groundwork in the former chapter from the application in the latter.

But it is worth noticing, that Mr. R. avows, as probably all the men he quotes feel as to themselves, that it is not his aim to bring Brethren over to his platform of worship and ministry, "for I am not satisfied with it, nor with any other that I see around." This witness at least is true; not so when he reiterates the mistake that we stand on the pinnacle of "inspired gifts." What he believes to be the Spirit's guidance and power we have seen to be the mere pious use of ability and educational acquirement. Inspiration absolutely shut out error in any way; this was not the case with ordinary preaching or teaching. But the Lord has never ceased to give gifts to His servants, to each according to his several ability. The gift and the ability are not the same thing.

The main theme in his third letter is the discussion of the (to him) startling position taken in the tracts, entitled "Christ's Ministry," and "The Brethren," that elders or bishops required apostolic authority in persons only delegated to appoint them, and that, this authority failing, none can have them duly appointed now. Is it not plain, if not self-evident and certain, however startling? But he is quite mistaken in deducing hence the present inapplicability of the passages which speak of elders; and he might have gathered the denial of any such conclusion from these very tracts.

It is not contended that those chosen by a congregation, or by an Anglican diocesan, or in any other mode, may not sometimes be men whom an apostle, or an apostolic delegate, would have chosen; but that all these modes of choosing are unscriptural, and therefore the title founded on them invalid; and not the less because those who pretend to give or receive those titles are proud of them in the world or the church so-called, and, as just seen, without the least reason. But it is not denied that the Lord continues to raise up men with gift to tend the flock, as well as teachers and preachers, and that such shepherds would have been in full formal order appointed, if they had the other qualifications, and one like Titus were there to appoint them. But this was not always the case, even in apostolic days. Hence we find a notable provision in the New Testament that the saints should know such rulers, and honour them, even if, through circumstances, only doing the work they were fitted for, and not authoritatively chosen to it by an apostle or his delegate; and this principle is a blessed resource in these days, as indeed ever since the apostles' days, when there could be no such appointment. (See Rom. 12: 8; 1 Cor. 16: 15, 16; Col. 4: 12, 13, 17; 1 Thess. 5: 12, 13; Heb. 13: 17, 24.)

But this in no way supersedes or annuls the scriptures as to elders or bishops. Thus Acts 14: 23 is of great value in negativing the pretension of the disciples or congregation to choose such officers as in the Presbyterian or Congregational bodies. Acts 20: 17-35 gives us a grand view of what the Lord looks for from all who labour in the way of oversight and is no less adverse to the arrangements of Episcopacy. 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 let us know who could and who could not be so appointed for want of moral power or other reasons. 1 Peter 5: 1-4 and James 5: 14 close the rear by exhortations of a general or special nature. But not a word falls to the ground for the believer; for though one might with scripture hesitate to call men elders who had not been scripturally appointed, one surely, according to scripture, honours as chiefs or rulers all who show the gift and have the requisite qualifications in other respects.

This is the way we pay deference to these passages as to elders: we own the spirit, even where the literal or formal circumstances fail; whereas Mr. R. and his friends disown not only 1 Corinthians 12, 14, but all the scriptures which speak of gifts as vanished away since the third century. And what would have been the worth of such envoys as Timothy or Titus without gift? We are thus left, not merely without apostolic appointment of men whom we would, and do, honour now for their work's sake, but, according to Mr. Rees, without a single charisma, including evangelists, pastors, teachers, or any others!*

* It is an error that the prophets in 1 Corinthians 14, or Romans 12: 6, were inspired men, or that they were such as are described in Ephesians 2. The apostles, and they as a joint company, laid the foundation. The tracts cited do not identify the apostles with their writings, nor say that in this sense we have the fulfilment of Ephesians 4: 11.

But the strange thing is that Mr. R. sets his own avowed unbelief in 1 Corinthians 14 against our alleged setting aside of bishops or elders, and this over and over. Assuredly it were something to grieve over, if we were guilty of any haughty rejection of such officers; but how could it condone his unbelieving elimination of the only working of the Spirit in the assembly which scripture endorses, and his reduction of all to a mere human system instead of a divine? It is erroneous that the manifestation of the Spirit is His miraculous working, though the working of miracles was one, and only one manifestation, not all miraculous, as he makes them. It is, again, erroneous that he who desired to oversee during the last seventeen centuries desired a vain work, not a good one; for he might thoroughly do the work, even if he had not received that outward seal of honour which was impressed by apostolic authority when the church stood in its godly order. Who cannot see good reason for withholding (not the men, or the work, or the honour in their hearts who profited by it, but) the formal title when Christianity was falling into the horrors of Christendom?

Mr. R. owns that he is not satisfied with the general mode of their recognition and appointment (p. 48): will he say that any one has the only mode scripture recognizes, at least among the Gentiles? If he must confess that none has, he must either agree with Brethren, or take the unhappy and unbelieving alternative that an unscriptural appointment is just as good as the scriptural. He names Luther, Knox, Wesley, and Whitfield, and says, "We have seen in them, and thousands more, the work and qualifications of evangelists, bishops, and deacons," etc. Did one ever hear such confusion? Nobody among Brethren denies evangelistic gift and more in these worthies; but Mr. R. denies it in any one since the third century. The question is as to the formal appointment of elders, which is quite another thing, not of their doing the good work of overseeing, which is admitted. Mr. R. cries out that he wants "power, power:" let us recommend him a more excellent thing — obedience. Grace will then add as much power as is good for him. It is grievous to hear anyone meanwhile glorying in shame — "human order for uninspired endowments" (p. 51). Is this the church of God?

The fourth letter, being a mere rehearsal of the old objections in new words or figures, demands no special notice. Mr. R. speaks of Brethren not obeying 1 Corinthians 14. But that chapter is quite consistent with half a dozen praying, and several delivering long addresses (undesirable as this may be in general), if there were not more than "three." In fine, it would rejoice us if Mr. R., and our brethren generally, put us to shame by their spiritual power in honouring these and all other words of our Lord. Why not set us an example of living obedience in faith? This would indeed be to His praise if our weighty censure.

The Righteousness of God.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. 2, p. 193-246.)

Before entering on the solemn and interesting question of our righteousness, the righteousness of God, I will shortly notice what is objected, and dispose of it, so as to be able then to treat the subject unhinderedly for edification, and not controversy. The principle, however, in question it is well to state; it is, I fully admit, a most grave and important one. Not that beloved and truly godly souls have not been, as I judge, cloudy upon what was really of great moment to their true and godly liberty in Christ, which is the power of a Christian walk — not that they have not been violent, as men generally are, in the sustainment of that in which they are wrong. But this does not destroy the importance of being clear. Still, I freely and fully, yea, joyfully, acknowledge, as choice and devoted servants of Christ, whom I respect, and whose devotedness I look up to, persons who have held on this subject doctrines which I believe to be a mistake. I have thus no animosity as regards this point. The point, however, is important, and what saints have held, by infirmity of judgment, may become a very great hindrance to the progress of souls, and a weapon in the hands of the enemy: witness the Judaism of the early Church at Jerusalem, and the opposition raised to Paul on the very same ground. The principles, indeed, which were then in question are the same which now partially agitate the church of God, and largely hinder its blessing and testimony, and obscure its faith.

The question is this: Is the righteousness of God legal righteousness? I may state the question in the words of a sermon, which in its main purport and object I can with my whole heart desire a blessing upon, so that I shall avoid an apparent attack upon others, and any supposition of evil will towards him from whom I quote. The statement, too, has the advantage (not always found) of stating that side of the question with peremptory decision. I read in Mr. Molyneux's sermon, (preached July 18, 1858, at the special services at Exeter Hall), in pp. 17, 18, what follows: "Do you know this, my dear brethren, that no man can enter into the kingdom of heaven unless he is garbed in a perfect robe of righteousness." So far, save that the kingdom of heaven is used for heaven, which to the practised mind — practised I mean in divine truth from Scripture — betrays the existence of the system to which these statements belong, all is well. Now follows the definition of the general statement: "In plain words, do you know this, that over the gate of heaven is written up, Do this and live? Do you know that if a man is cleansed from his sin in the blood of Christ, and sanctified by the Spirit of God, he cannot then go to heaven? He wants something more still; he must have a perfect obedience. Heaven is suspended on a perfect obedience, not a negative one. God said to Adam, 'Do this and live.' He failed. You must present a perfect obedience when you come to God. Have you got it? It is the active righteousness of Christ; it is not His sufferings, that blots out sin; it is not His Spirit, that sanctifies the heart; but it is His perfect righteousness. Listen, 'By his obedience shall my righteous servant justify many.' Listen, 'He brings in everlasting righteousness.' Again, it is put upon us; it is the wedding garment. Friend, how camest thou in hither, not having the wedding garment? That is the righteousness of Christ." The writer continues on the same point, but this may suffice. "Transgressions are pardoned by blood, the person justified, that is, the fruit of Christ's righteousness imputed, the soul sanctified, that is the work of the Holy Ghost dwelling in you." The reader must not think that the singular misquotation of Isaiah 53 is an error of mine. It is a singular fruit of the bias of the author's mind, the result of his doctrine. It is singular that the only direct passage that he quotes, for the point he is seeking to prove, is a misquotation. The two others are the point to be explained, and no proof of the author's explanation of the doctrine.

Now I believe and bless God for the truth that Christ is our righteousness and that by His obedience we are made righteous. It is the settled peace of my soul, as I trust it is of the author's. The important point here is the contrast between the death and sufferings of Christ, as winning our forgiveness, and His obedience as our justifying righteousness; what is sometimes called His active and passive obedience. This doctrine, however, is not fully seen until another point is noticed — the legal character of this righteousness. Mr Molyneux states it in principle as clearly as possible. It is written on the gate of heaven, "Do this and live." That is positively and characteristically as the Apostle teaches us, legal righteousness. "To Adam it was so said." To enter into heaven legal righteousness is absolutely required. This alone gives a title.

I affirm that the doctrine of Scripture is wholly different, and that this doctrine (wholly unintentionally I admit, so that I do not impute the consequence to those who hold it,) denies the extent of sin and the true character of redemption. Law is perfect in its place. The angels accomplish it in its highest character; he who loves does too, as the Apostle teaches us. I say this by way of preface, that there may be no mistake. But that a holy nature does with delight what is in the law, is a different thing from the way a sinner obtains righteousness and eternal life. Doing with delight, when in possession of life, is a different thing from doing in order to obtain life. Now what I say is, the law was never given that we might obtain righteousness or life by it; nor ever could have been. It was introduced by the by to convince of sin. A sinless being, who had life, did not want a law of righteousness to obtain it; a sinful creature with a law of righteousness could only be condemned. "Do this and live," is not written on the gate of heaven. It was written on Sinai, which is not the gate of heaven. It is the gate of death and condemnation. It was not said to Adam, Do this and live. He lost life he had, by disobedience. The Apostle, on the whole matter, contradicts the statement explicitly. "Moses," he says, "describeth the righteousness which is of the law, that the man which doeth these things shall live by them. But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise . . . . that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." The righteousness of faith is contrasted with that of law which says, Do this and live. It does not accept its principle and find a means of meeting its requirements by another, but brings in righteousness on another principle. It speaks on another wise. The great evil of the whole scheme is, that it is a righteousness demanded of man as born of Adam, though another may furnish it. The thing furnished is man's righteousness. If Christ has done it for me, still it is what I ought to have done. It is meeting the demand on me — Do this and live. If it is to be a satisfying the demand of righteousness on me, it is the doing what is demanded which makes out the righteousness. If "Do this and live" is written on the gate of heaven, it is doing this that is the righteousness, and doing nothing else and nothing more. It may have been, if such be the truth, very gracious of the Lord to have done it for me, but that was what was to be done. Righteousness wrought out by meeting the demand of a superior, can only be in doing exactly what is demanded. What is else than this has not the character of righteousness. And if we take the law as the perfect rule of what the creature ought to be, as indeed it was, then there can be nothing more; or else the rule is not a perfect one, and the righteousness not a righteousness according to the law, nor a meeting what I ought to do. It is not the obedience required of me. Besides, the whole principle is a mistake; for the law, when spiritually apprehended, reaches the disposition and condition of the heart. It does not only say, Do, but Be. But then life is there. If I say love and do not lust (the two aspects of the law), righteousness is taken out of the sphere of doing. Doing becomes evidence of a state and nature. But is the motto of heaven a denial of the spirituality of the law? And so far from "Do this and live" being on the gates of heaven, I know of no scripture which shows that a doer of the law was entitled to heaven, or which promises heaven to a doer of the law, as having thereby such title.

And now, mark the effect of the discovery of the spirituality of the law. It becomes not a claim to do, but a criterion of the state of a man. Its very nature and effect is changed: by it is the knowledge of sin. A command for qualities in a man, love and no lusts, ceases to be a command to do, and is condemnation and death, and nothing else. The whole ground and principle of my standing is changed. "I through law am dead to law." That is not looking to another to fulfil it for me, because I have failed. What I find in scripture is this, that man, the Adam race, has been, as such, tried and tested. Failing when innocent, he has "been tried without law, and was lawless; under law, and was a law-breaker; I may add, tried by the presentation of divine goodness in Christ, and he hated it. The more we go into detail, the more we shall find that exhibited, as in priesthood in Aaron's sons; in obedient royalty in David's, in supreme power in Nebuchadnezzar. But the great moral principles of it, the three stages of sin, suffice here — lust; lawlessness in will, or transgression; and hatred of  God Himself as goodness. The first Adam, the flesh, is thoroughly and wholly condemned. Another Adam is set up — the second man. God looks for nothing from the first. He sows. (This is just the truth of the parable of the sower: He brings something by the word of life.) He does not look for fruit. The fig-tree in His garden, after all His pains, only cumbers the ground. It is cut down for faith, and will be so, in fact. Leaves it had, but no fruit, and the judgment of the Lord is not only that it did not produced fruit, but "Let no fruit grow on thee henceforth for ever." It may be said this was Judaism. True, but Judaism was flesh under law. And this was what judgment was here pronounced upon. Flesh was judged — Adam and all that sprung from him. Not only was evil fruit condemned, but no fruit (which the Lord, in a probationary way, looked for) was ever to be borne by it. The false principle of all this system is, that it is making out the righteousness of the first Adam under the law, instead of putting us in the Second entirely and absolutely, and treating the first as dead and gone. Had I then no personal responsibility? Not indeed under law, as a Gentile — still I had. Sin reigned over me and death. Hence Christ was, in sovereign grace, made sin for me and died; but not, to build up the old man again, after death, when it was dead, and confer righteousness on it, but to put me in a wholly new position in the heavenly man, who is my righteousness — to set me in the righteousness of God, seated in heavenly places in Him. Christ was the root and spring in life of the redeemed race, and the first is wholly set aside, judged, condemned, and dead. Christ, is of God righteousness to us. All is wholly new, though we are personally brought into it only as quickened with the life of the second Adam, having Him for our life.

This is the special doctrine of Paul: no thought of a righteousness of law acquired by another for us. There is atonement for sin, in which we lay, which we had committed as in the first Adam; but I repeat, no conferring of righteousness on it, but closing its history, and being before God in death, in which He in grace took its place, in respect of the judgment due to it. "I am dead to the law, by the body of Christ, being married to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead." Hence, there was no connection of sinners with Christ under law. A corn of wheat, except it fall into the ground and die, abides alone; if it die, it brings forth much fruit. We are united to Christ in His new position — where He is the righteous man, at the right hand of God, when He has died unto sin once, and is alive unto God. But if the corn of wheat die alone, as come amongst the family of the first Adam, death is written on all that is of Adam. It has ceased to exist, so to speak, before God. And when the Spirit of God speaks, in its full extent, of the blessing we are called to, He does not speak of man as having lived in sin, or being condemned under law, as having a life in which he had to keep law. He was dead, wholly dead, in trespasses and sins; the Jew, not a transgressor, but by nature a child of wrath, even as others. But what is the first object presented? Christ dead (i.e. in the place, by grace, where we were), raised far above all principality and power, and then we "quickened together with him; raised up together, and made to sit in heavenly places in him." In view of the counsels of God, there was, so to speak, no living man at all. There was man dead in trespasses and sins, but a Christ dead there too; and as God raised up Him, so us with Him who descended for us there. When God deals with us morally, as responsible beings, He does see us living in sin, breaking law, despising goodness.

This last is the way the point is looked at in the Epistle to the Romans. In the Ephesians it is simply a new creation when we are dead. To make this a little more clear, — there are two ways in which I can deal with the point of the relationship between God and man. I may simply take the counsels of God and begin with them. This is done in the Ephesians. Or I may take the actual state of men as responsible children of Adam, and show how grace meets this state: the result is blessedly confirmatory of the other, but the point of view different. This last is the view taken in the Romans — the ways of God in His moral government met by grace. In the first, man is found dead in sin. All is God's work from beginning to end. Christ, is seen — to bring about this blessed counsel in grace — dead; and we, dead in sin, are brought back up to God according to these counsels with and as Him. In the Romans man is proved to be dead, dying under the effects of sin and his moral condition as a living responsible being, a child of the first Adam; and this responsibility, as a sinner who has ruined himself, met by grace.

But before I unfold the Epistle to the Romans in its bearing on the point which occupies us, under the added light of that to the Ephesians, I would gather the statements of Scripture as to righteousness, to see how far it has to do with law, in the case of a believer. Of course a man under law could only be righteous by keeping it. But is this the way (i.e., the making good legal righteousness in any way) in which righteousness is obtained by the believer — his title to be in heaven? Turn to Romans 3: in verse 21 I read, "But now the righteousness of God without the law" — not without the man's doing it and by another doing it for him, but apart from law entirely, χωρὶς νόμου. It is witnessed by law and prophets, but it is another kind of righteousness, made out independent of it. "To him that worketh not" — well, what instead? — but believes on Him that has wrought it out for him instead? Not at all — "but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly." It is opposed in kind: So, further on, the promise he should be heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed by law. It was not on this principle. It is not that it was on this principle but that another had to carry it out; but it was not on the principle, not by law. The law entered by the by (Rom. 5: 20). We are not under the law, but under grace (Rom. 6). Why then to have it fulfilled in my place? We are become dead to the law by the body of Christ (Rom. 7: 4). How held to its fulfilment if I am dead to it and consequently it has no more dominion over me? So further on, we are delivered from the law, being dead in that in which we were held. Then he enters into its power as a means of convicting of sin, which is not my object here, but of which I purpose speaking further on. So in Galatians, as many as are of works of law are under a curse — not as many as have broken it: all under it had; but that is the position of one under it. No man is justified by the law; for the just shall live by faith, but the law is not of faith; that is, our justification does not proceed on this principle, whoever may meet it. And how are we redeemed from its only effect — a curse? The curse is taken by another. It is not met by another's fulfilling it: not a hint of it. After faith is come we are no longer under a schoolmaster. I have nothing to do with it as a way of righteousness. How was another to be my righteousness by keeping it? I must have righteousness; but I am not under law, so that righteousness should be claimed in that way. If righteousness came by law, Christ is dead in vain. How could this be said if it does come by law, Christ having livingly fulfilled it to be our righteousness? And mark, His death is appealed to. Christ is dead in vain, if law is the principle on which I have righteousness; for faith, in the death of Christ, the very nature is dead in me from which the righteousness of the law would have been expected. I am crucified with Him; nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me. Is He under law? if not, I am not. If I am justified, says the Apostle, by works of law, why have I cast it all down? If I build law after Christ, I am a transgressor in leaving it to come to Christ; but I through law, says he, am dead to law (i.e., not bound to it), that I might live unto God (which no one under law ever did: it is weak through the flesh); for by works of law shall no flesh be justified, be he Jew, or Christian, or who he may, or whoever may do them. No one is justified by works of law. We are set on a wholly different ground — dead and risen again in the second Adam. We are in the presence of God through the rent veil. Again, Christ is become of none effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law. You are fallen from grace. It is on another principle. It is not, Do this and live. As regards walk, even, it is the same setting aside of law. If ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under law. If led of the Spirit, they were going right, yet they were not under law. We are not children of the bondwoman. The whole of the system on which I am now commenting, and which places man on the ground of legal obedience, flows from not apprehending the truth of being in Christ. But of this point in examining the Epistle to the Romans.

These quotations will give not a particular, difficult, or contested passage, but the well-assured view of the Spirit, often expressed. The Epistle to the Romans, to which I now turn, will give the great principle on which this depends, and how the saint passes from the old state to the new. What I find in the Scripture is this: when I read in the Ephesians of the counsels of God, I find nothing of the law at all. All is God's work, and all is in Christ; who is not spoken of as alive down here, but is first viewed as dead, then exalted, and believers exalted in Him. It teaches unity now of all saints in Him when taken out of death. If I turn to the Romans, I find the responsible man in flesh proved guilty, not seen dead; but no remedy for his condition by making it in any way good, but death brought in; at which point we arrive at the beginning, so to speak, of the Ephesians, but so making the state of man uncommonly clear. We do not find even Christ exalted in the Romans (save in one passage which does not apply to this point, and confirms the general view I am presenting), nor the counsels of God as to the Church. The results of the union of its members is presented in one practical passage. The Epistle to the Romans places the individual on the ground of righteousness, and thus of true liberty in life, but does not reach the union of the body with Christ. Hence, death and resurrection, which supposes man to have had to say to sin in life, are its theme. After stating that its purport was God's good news, it begins with a divinely powerful display of the wickedness and evil state of man, alike terrible and true; and terrible because true. Gentile conscience must quail before its plainness, telling things as they were; and Jewish hypocrisy, too, laid bare by the edge of that very word in which it made its boast, seek to hide itself in vain in its anger. All the world is guilty before God. But grace meets this — by deeds of law none are justified, by law is knowledge of sin.

But now righteousness of God is manifested. What is this? The first idea, so to speak, which is given us of God's righteousness (Rom. 1: 17), is exceedingly abstract. In other passages, we shall see the way it is brought about and made good as to us; but here I do not doubt it is its general nature and character. It is God's, not man's. It is, has its character, quality, and source, from God, not from man. It is what it is that is spoken of, not how it is. It is righteousness after this fashion, not man's. It comes from God for man, not from man for God. Hence it has the character and qualities of its source, whoever may be given to profit by it. So wrath of God from heaven; it is not human wrath or justice on earth ending there in its nature and quality, nor even divine wrath exercised in an earthly way by earthly instruments. It is divine from heaven. It is not the righteousness of God, a fact, an existing thing, which is spoken of, but righteousness of God — this quality of righteousness. But hence it must first be found in God Himself, or it would not have that essential quality. Hence we are after God as to the new man, created in righteousness and true holiness. The righteousness which is valid before God (which is the sense put by Luther and Calvin on the expression), is utterly astray, because legal righteousness, where it existed, would be valid before God. If accomplished, it would be accepted. Man would live in doing it; but then it would be not God's righteousness but man's: whereas, the whole point on which the Apostle insists in this expression is, that it is God's and not man's.

I would also state that it is not inherent righteousness — an expression of questionable character as to any consistent meaning. Indeed, on this subject, it is rather a contradiction in terms. "Righteousness" is indeed used for the quality which is disposed to judge and act righteously; or at least "righteous" is. As we say, a righteous man. But, in general, certainly righteousness is a relative term; that is, it refers to conduct towards another. Hence, inherent righteousness is a very loose expression, as inherent conduct towards another is evidently very little exact. However, to take it as it is meant, as the quality by which man is disposed to be righteous, although this cannot be separated from the righteousness here spoken of (because if Christ is our righteousness, He is our life also; it is a justification of life), yet here we have nothing to do with inherent righteousness. The question of Job, "How can man be just with God?" is that to which the Epistle to the Romans gives an answer. When it is said the Jews were going about to establish their own righteousness, and did not submit to the righteousness of God, it is clear that it is not submitting to inherent righteousness. So when it is said, "Now the righteousness of God is manifest," — "to declare, I say at this time, his righteousness" — these words cannot apply to inherent righteousness. It is righteousness before God which the Epistle treats of. But farther, this is viewed, on the other hand, and for the very reason that righteousness before God is treated of, as applied to or judged of in the person who is to be accounted righteous. The man is accounted righteous — righteousness accounted to him or reckoned to him.

Thus, when it is said, faith was imputed to him for righteousness, it is not the distinct substantive value of his faith which was reckoned as righteousness in itself and then imputed to him, but that he was accounted righteous, held for righteous before God, because of his faith. The why or how remains. A believer in Christ is justified through faith; he is reckoned righteous; yet it is not the value or strength of his faith which is accounted as itself equivalent to righteousness, and then imputed — yet it is said for us also to whom it shall be imputed if we believe (who believe) — but that he was accounted, and we are accounted, righteousness on the ground of believing. That is, the meaning of imputed righteousness is not a substantive righteousness, apart from the person, and afterwards reckoned to him, but the condition of the person in God's sight. God views him as righteous, though he be not such as would entitle him to it by reason of anything inherent. It is righteousness reckoned to him, but not thought of apart from him, but his standing before God. They are in righteousness in God's reckoning, though they are not intrinsically so. Hence it is imputed or reckoned. The whole difference lies in this. The meaning of imputed righteousness is not a quantity of righteousness apart from the person and afterwards reckoned to him in the present sense of the word, as I impute anything to a person, but the state or condition before Him in which God sees the person. I beg the reader to remark that I am examining the force of the scriptural expression, "imputed righteousness" — not the scripture doctrine.

From all I have said, there may or may not be a quantity of righteousness outside a person put to his account. But the meaning of imputed righteousness is the character or quality in which the person appears in God's sight, not the cause of his so appearing. It proves it is not inherent, for then there could be no more reckoning of it. Why he is reckoned righteous remains to be proved. The not seeing this has produced insurmountable difficulties where such passages as "his faith was imputed to him for righteousness" had to be considered; for then, if a certain thing in its own value was put to the person's account and reckoned to him, faith was the valuable thing for the worth of which he was so accounted, and in truth it was inherent. So, blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed is the man whose iniquities are forgiven, whose sin is covered: Blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute sin. It is not merely that He does not impute the sin done, but He does not view him as in sin, but as in righteousness; for innocence there is no question of. Hence it is not δικαίωμα when imputed righteousness is spoken of, but δικαιοσύνη — not an act or sum of things done, but a state. He is reckoned to be in the state of δικαιοσύνη. Δικαιοσύνη is imputed to him. As the Thirty-nine Articles express it, "We are accounted righteous before God;" so in Romans 4: 3, "It was counted to him for righteousness."

Here, as we have remarked, it cannot be the value of something reckoned to Abraham, but the state in which he was reckoned or accounted to be: so we read, (ver. 11,) "Righteousness might be imputed to them also." Here nothing is spoken of as that which is there to be imputed, and the passage as clearly as possible shows that the meaning of the phrase, "Righteousness imputed to them," means they were accounted to be righteous. Of 21-33 I have spoken. Faith is still here the thing imputed. (Gal. 3: 6.) It is again faith which is imputed for righteousness.

There are eleven passages in Scripture which speak of imputing righteousness or for righteousness; in nine of them faith is imputed for righteousness; so that here it does not mean the value of the thing done which is imputed, or our faith would be the merit. They are Rom. 4: 3, 5, 9, 10, 22, 23, 24; Gal. 3: 6; and James 2: 23. The others, where it is said, righteousness is imputed, are Rom. 4: 6, 11. In Rom. 4: 6 it is, God imputes righteousness without works, saying, Blessed is the man whose iniquity is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Here, clearly no positive external thing is imputed or put to another's account, but a man is reckoned to have δικαιοσύνην. Verse 11 leads us to exactly the same, result. The Gentile believers were to be reckoned righteous, because faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness when he was uncircumcised. These are all the passages. An analogous passage (Rom. 2: 26) gives the same sense — the circumcision is counted for uncircumcision. That is, the man is accounted circumcised when he is not. Thus, though a person is reckoned to be in a state which he is not de facto in, a quantum of righteousness ready outside himself reckoned to him is not the meaning of imputed righteousness. It means the state in God's sight of the person so accounted righteous. Righteousness imputed to a man is the same as the man's being accounted righteous.

Next comes the question, How and why is the man accounted righteous? It is God's righteousness, by faith in Jesus Christ towards all, Jew or Gentile, and upon all them that believe. "We are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:  whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness." Here we have a very plain principle: God is righteous in remitting the sins of Old Testament believers, as to which He who foreknew all had exercised forbearance, because of the blood of Jesus. He declares at this time His righteousness. There is this difference in our's and the patriarchs' position, not in the substance of the matter, but in our status before God, that we stand in a known revealed righteousness, not in hope of forbearance, great as the mercy may be which grants it to us. He is just and the justifier.

Who is just? God. Here there is an all-important principle: the righteousness of God means, first of all, His own righteousness — that He is just. It is not man's, or even yet some other's positive righteousness, made up of a quantity of legal merit, put upon him. The righteousness spoken of is God's being righteous ("just" is the same word) and yet so declared that He can justify the most dreadful sinners. But it will be said, that there must be a ground for this, which makes it righteous to forgive and justify. Right. Righteousness has a double meaning. I am righteous, say, in rewarding or forgiving that this supposes an adequate claim which makes it righteous that I should do so — merit of some kind. If I have promised anything, or anything be morally due, to righteousness, I am righteous in giving it. Thus that God should be righteous in forgiving and justifying, there must be an adequate moral motive for his doing so. In the sinner, clearly, there was not. In the blood of Christ there was. And, God having set Him forth as a mercy seat, faith in His blood became the way of justifying. This showed God's righteousness in forgiving. Thus accepted, I stand before God on the footing of His righteousness.

Here we have most important principles — the righteousness of God means, what the words express, God's righteousness. It is not δικαίωμα here, some act or complete sum of righteousness by an act or thing done, but δικαιοσύνη the quality or habit. God is just or righteous in this. Next, this righteousness of God is declared or manifested in virtue of the blood of Christ. God is thus righteous in forgiving and justifying; proved so as regards the former saints foreborne with before the blood was shed, abidingly and known so now by faith once for all, when all is accomplished, and the perfect ground of the justifying is declared. Further, by this forgiveness (inasmuch as it is through blood, so that God is just in it), the man is justified, accounted righteous. It is redemption, and God's righteousness is upon all them that believe. So afterwards (Rom. 5) it is said, "We are justified by his blood." Man is a sinner, without law and under law — and now entirely apart from law, χωρὶς νόμου. God's righteousness is displayed in justifying the believer through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, by reason of His propitiating blood, and through faith in it. God is righteous and justifies men that believe in Jesus. We have gained an immense point in understanding that God's righteousness is the quality or character that is in God Himself, nor an unimportant one that we are justified by his grace through redemption, and that righteousness is declared in remission.

Such is the direct testimony of Romans 3. (Compare Rom. 4: 6, 7.) But is this justification by blood all? It is not. A very important part indeed of the Epistle remains behind — the doctrine of resurrection. It is thus introduced. Gentiles, and Jews under law, had been disposed of and set aside as sinners, but Abraham had not. God accepted him, called out from Gentiles, and not under law surely. But how? He, too, was justified by faith. But faith in what? This is the second great point of the Epistle. But the Apostle will not give up the truth, that in justifying the ungodly, forgiveness has the full value of reckoning righteousness without works; nor that death, redemption by blood, is the ground of this. He will give us David's testimony to this great truth, "To him who worketh not, but believeth on him who justifieth the ungodly" — mark that; not, who substitutes another legal righteousness instead of the wanting legal righteousness in the sinner, but justifies one who has none — "his faith is counted unto him for righteousness." The point is, that it is no debt, because of any works that deserved it, but of grace to him who works not. Now, clearly, here the force of the argument is destroyed, if it be works which do merit it in another. And what is our David's declaration? He declares the blessedness of the man to whom the Lord imputes or reckons righteousness without works, χωρις εργων. It has nought to do with works of righteousness, which are done or imputed. And what is this declaration? — "Blessed is the man whose iniquity is forgiven, whose sin is covered." And who is believed in here? God who justifies the ungodly, — He reckons them righteous apart from works.

But I have said this is not all, and that Abraham is introduced to bring in an additional principle of truth, but not to weaken this; for indeed it is founded on it. No more than this sets aside the additional one. So far from it, if we do not seize what this Epistle now goes on to teach, our knowledge of our position before God will be exceedingly imperfect. But before I pursue this second point, let me remind my reader that that ground of forgiveness or justifying which we have been already considering is no light thing or acquired for us at little cost on the part of Christ. Perfectly agreeable as all He was, thought, and did was to the Father, yet His death, of which we are now speaking as justifying us, was of all the rest that which had the deepest character and the highest value. He gave Himself for His Father's glory as for us. Therefore, He could say, "doth my Father love me because I lay down my life that I might take it again." No living act of obedience under law, perfect as all was, rose to the excellency of a dying surrender of Himself and that drinking the cup His Father had given Him to drink.

Still there was another point, connected with this cardinal fact of everlasting history, to be brought out. He was raised again for our justification, as He was delivered for our offences. This was, with obscurer light, Abraham's faith too. It is not union with an exalted Christ in heaven. That is Ephesian doctrine, where nothing is said of Abraham. But Abraham believed that God was able to perform what He had promised. We believe that He has raised up our Lord Jesus from the dead, and therefore to us as to Him faith was reckoned for righteousness. Thus, as the blood of Christ was that which was presented to us as sinners, as that by which through faith in Christ we were forgiven and justified and the righteousness of God declared, so now resurrection is laid as the ground, and the following chapters are based upon this truth, which yet, of course and evidently, supposes the dying and blood-shedding. This carries us farther than the thought of blood-shedding. That lays the ground on which we are cleared. This puts us in the cleared place and standing before God and an entirely new one. I believe on Him who raised up Jesus; that is, that God, perfectly satisfied in righteousness and glorified by the sacrifice of Christ, has raised Him up in witness of it and given Him a place, as alive to Him, in resurrection, sin being put away, our offences for which He was delivered buried in His grave, and we alive again here below by the power of His life, in an entirely new condition in the favour of God, the present grace wherein we stand and rejoicing in hope of the glory of God who has been perfectly glorified by Christ. I say, or rather the Apostle says, We stand, because it is not now simply, as before, the being cleared from sin, but the new place in which we stand as cleared. Having been (for that is the force of the word), 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. We walk thus in newness of life. We are not seen here risen with Christ. He is risen so that we are justified, have a sure ground of confidence, and are alive unto God through Him.

* Some would read "let us have." it would only strengthen the truth if it be so.

It is doubted if the doctrine of imputed righteousness be not shaken, looked at, as I do look at it, as contrasted with inherent living righteousness in us. In no wise. True it is that Christ is our life, and that we have received a nature which in itself is sinless, and that, looked at as born of God, we cannot sin, because we are born of God. It is a life holy in itself as born of Him. But besides that, we have the flesh, though we are not in it, and the practical result in respect of our responsibility as to the deeds done in the body does not, even if we have this new life, meet the just demands of God, if we should pretend to present them as doing so. That is, righteousness is not made out by our being born again. We need, and have, a perfect righteousness apart from our life, though in Him who is our life. Christ is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption. No soul can nor ought to have solid, settled peace in any other way. The whole perfection of Christ is that in which, without any diminution of its value, we are accepted. The delight of God in His obedience is that in which we are received. What we have done as children of Adam, He took on the cross in grace and entirely put away. And what He did is our acceptance with God. It is needed for us, for otherwise we have no righteousness. It is a joy to us, because we enter, as immediate objects of it, into the delight which God has in His own Son. What Scripture does not speak of is a certain quantum of legal righteousness attributed to us, because being under law we have failed in it; because we are not under law. It is an unholy doctrine, because it is not atoning by the blessed One's bearing the curse for breaches of law by those who were under it, but allowing failure under it by Another's accomplishing it. It is one thing to make atonement for sin, and another to have one's neglected duty accomplished de facto by another. Besides, if done, it is human legal righteousness, by whomsoever done. Hence the Apostle says, "Not having mine own righteousness, which is by the law," supposing it ever so perfect; for it could be and would be no more than man's; "but the righteousness which is of God," another kind and sort of righteousness.

But have I not, or at least has not one under law, neglected duty? Yes, alas! But this has been atoned for, (why then, in passing, also to be fulfilled by another, and if fulfilled by another, why to be atoned for! — the  whole system is false in its nature), and I am put into an entirely new position as wholly dead, the whole being and nature in which I was set aside, since Christ died for me as in it: and thus my whole condition and being as before God in the first Adam is set aside I AM NOT IN THE FLESH (my first Adam standing to which the law applied). And I have an entirely new status before God in resurrection in virtue of this work of Christ. The risen Christ is the pattern and character of my acceptance, as He is the cause of it. As He is, so am I in this world. And this is by a real living possession of His nature, while at the same time by faith in Him, so that my acceptance is inseparable from godliness of life, as in one dead to sin and alive to God, and yet rests for righteousness and peace, on the perfectness of what is before God for us. Hence it is called justification of life. Hence also our responsibility is not now the making good the failures of the old or first Adam: I am wholly out of it, and, as in absolute and perfect acceptance in the Second before God, I am called to yield myself to God as one that is alive from the dead. The old thing is gone — atoned for, (so that God is glorified in His majesty and righteousness,) but done away. To that it was that law applied, and hence was weak through the flesh; but my first husband, law, (if I had been under its power, as the Jew was and many a one practically gets,) is gone, not through destruction of His authority, but by Christ's dying under its curse. That authority is thus, on the contrary, fully established by Christ's having met it in death, but then, thus, by the body of Christ, I am delivered from it, having died in that in which I was held, so that I should serve, not in the oldness of letter but in newness of spirit. Instead of satisfying the requirements of my old condition under law, I am passed out of it, Christ having borne the merited curse, so as to establish its authority, and passed into another — Christ's — before God, as one alive to God through Him, God having been perfectly glorified.

This is the doctrine of Rom. 5, 6, 7, founded on Rom. 4, and the results fully developed in Rom. 8. It will be found that the whole groundwork is laid in the death, not in the life of Christ on earth. See Rom. 5: 6-11. All is attributed in the fullest way to death. Death and blood-shedding is the theme, only it is thence concluded in the blessed reasoning of the Holy Ghost, (who always reasons, not from what we are to what God must be, but from what God is and has done to what must be for us; as one that reveals in grace must do), that, à fortiori, we shall be saved by His life, as now risen — life, not before death, but in resurrection, saved from coming wrath. With all this, at the close of the chapter, law is contrasted, when righteousness is treated of. To this I will recur specifically in a moment. I pursue the evidence of the truth of our new positions in the chapters quoted: — Rom. 5 has applied resurrection to justification, founded, as we have seen, on death. Rom. 6 applies it to life. If it be the obedience of one that justifies, we can do as we please, says the opposer of grace. Nay, says the Apostle, you are justified because you are dead, and have now to walk in newness of life. How can a man dead to sin (and that is the way you have justification and life,) live in it? If he do, he is not dead, he is in the first Adam, he has no part in Christ at all; for we are baptized into His death, and it is in resurrection we have life. In Rom. 7 this death is applied to law. Law has dominion over a man as long as he lives: but we are not alive, we are dead. In a word, Christ is alive for me before God, and I am justified, but as having died, and thus it is I have a place in this blessing. Hence, I am dead to sin; and, further, I am no longer alive in the nature to which law applied; therefore, he says, in Romans 7, "When we were in the flesh." I am married to another, I cannot have two husbands at a time, Christ and law. But it is not by weakening the first; nothing glorified it like Christ's death, under its curse. But, if under it, I have died under it in the body of Christ, and thus I am free. Through law, I am dead to law.

I do not enter into the blessed and beautiful unfolding of this true liberty before God and from sin, and the heavenly security which accompanies it, God, as with Noah, shutting us in; not because it would not be delight to follow it out, but because I must confine myself to my subject. The character of the deliverance may be seen in Rom. 8: 1-11. There the Spirit is life. Thence, to 28, He is the Spirit of God, personally considered; the spring of joy; the Comforter in the sorrows that spring from that joy itself in such a world as this. It is God in us. From 28 to the end it is the security and sure glorious results afforded by God's being for us. Hence sanctifying or life are not spoken of here — that is wrought in us.

What is, then, the righteousness of God, and how is it shown? How do we have part in it? How is righteousness reckoned to us? We are said to be the righteousness of God in Christ. (2 Cor. 5) The Apostle speaks of having the righteousness which is of God. (Phil. 3) But it is not said, God's righteousness is imputed to us. Nor is Christ's righteousness a scriptural expression, though no Christian doubts He was perfectly righteous. Still, the Spirit of God is perfect in wisdom, and it would be wonderful if that which was the necessary ground of our acceptance should not be clearly spoken of in Scripture. One passage seems to say so. (Rom. 5: 18.) But the reader may say see in the margin of a Bible which has references, that there is "one righteousness." There cannot be the least doubt that this is the true rendering. When the Apostle would say, by the offence of one, he uses a different and correct form, a different one from that which he uses for one offence. Theology may make it the righteousness of one, but not Greek. Now the expression, "the righteousness of God," is used so very often, that it is not necessary to quote the passages. Now, it is not in vain that the Holy Ghost on so important a subject never uses one expression, that is the righteousness of Christ, and constantly the other, that is God's righteousness. We learn the current of the mind of the Spirit thus. Theology uses always that which the Holy Ghost never does; and cannot tell what to make of that which the Holy Ghost always uses. Surely there must be error in the whole way of thinking of theology here.

I am satisfied that the source of it all is their notions about law. Law is for the first Adam — for the unrighteous (the Apostle tells us so expressly), righteousness is in the Second. Christ was born under law here below, that He might redeem those who were under it out of that condition, bearing the curse they had incurred. We are told that law is the transcript of the divine mind. I deny it wholly and entirely. It is the transcript of what the creature ought to be. Can God, speaking with all reverence, love God with all His heart or His neighbour as Himself? It is simple nonsense. These teachers of the law know neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. The law is not made for the righteous, but for the unrighteous; and never made anybody in the world righteous. It is righteous, but it was given to sinners when in their sins, and never as a law to anybody else — not speaking here of Christ's coming under it in grace. It entered, παρεισῆλθε, or came in by the bye, between promise and its accomplishment in Christ, that the offence might abound. Christ is the image of the invisible God — the transcript of the divine mind, if you please. The law is an imposed rule. Thou shalt love. Is that a transcript of the divine mind? It does love sovereignly. Christ was made under law, and of course was perfectly under it — but in that character was and abode alone. But He was God manifest in flesh, and thus was the image of the invisible God. He that had seen Him had seen the Father. He was love, and was holiness. Holy enough in His being to love sinners as above sin; and further, — what law does not and cannot and ought not to do, knows nothing of in its nature, — gave himself up for sinners which law knows nothing of, for it will have no sinners at all unless to curse them. Hence, when Christian practice is spoken of, we are to be "imitators of God as dear children," — "to lay down our lives for the brethren." What has law to do with this? It knows nothing of it.

The whole doctrine of Paul, and of the righteousness of God, these law teachers are striving against. Where, then, and what is the righteousness of God? God's righteousness is His perfect consistency with His own perfect and blessed nature; and that (hence it is said, "if my unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God,") as it concerns us now in His dealings with others. "The righteous Lord loveth righteousness, His eyes behold the upright. God is a righteous judge, and God is provoked everyday. For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness, evil shall not dwell with thee. Hear me when I call, O God of my righteousness." The first Psalm opens with this great truth. So when He comes, He will judge the world in righteousness, and the people with equity. So Psalm 97, 98, 99, and indeed a multitude of others. It will be said, The righteousness here spoken of, however essential the principle to the being of God, yet is applied to the law. I admit it, and hence the instruction contained in it ends in the government of this world; and until order be brought about by power there, the state of things perplexed those who looked for it, when they saw the prosperity of the wicked. We are called to another position, a heavenly one, and even as Christ did, to "do well, suffer for it, and take it patiently." This is acceptable with God. But the keeping of the law is never said to be a title to heaven, still less to sit at the right hand of God. Morally — not personally of course, I need not say — but as to the quality of our righteousness we have a title to be there. So, on the other hand, we say as to sin, we "have come short of the glory of God;" and "we rejoice in hope of the glory of God." And Christ declares, "The glory which thou hast given me I have given them, that the world may know that thou has loved them as thou hast loved me."

Righteousness is shown in the punishment of the wicked, and in the world's seeing Christ no more. This is the solemn answer to that vain conceit of love which denies righteousness, and makes of love indifference to sin. But I do not now dwell on this solemn application of righteousness, namely, that vengeance belongeth to God, as not being our proper subject. How as regards us, in the Christian revelation of it, is righteousness set forth? In the resurrection no doubt of Christ. But there is yet more. He shall demonstrate righteousness to the world, because I go to my Father. God has shown His righteousness in setting Christ as man at His right hand. There, more fully than shall be in His direct government, though of course it is perfect there, the righteousness of God is shown. Christ had a title to be there and He is there. Righteousness is in heaven, it is divine, a title to glory, and in man. That is what we want, what is ours. But why is Christ's being there righteousness? He has title as Son. He was there before the world was. But that is not our point here.

Let us see how He speaks of it. First, He says in John 17, "Father, glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee." This I leave, because it is His personal title, though a just and blessed claim, and characterizing His position, and thus most interesting to us. But he adds a second ground, "I have glorified thee on the earth. I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do, and now glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory I had with thee before the world was." And when was this done? John 13: 31, tells us: "When Judas went out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him. If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him." He shall not wait till the public government of the world; and His appearing from heaven will glorify Him according to Psalm 8, but straightway when He says, "Sit at my right hand till I make thy foes thy footstool" — where He is crowned with glory and honour, when all things are not yet put under Him. But why was it righteousness to do this? Because the Lord had a title to it to be glorified as Son of man, (though He had been in it as Son before the world was); because God Himself in His nature and moral being had been glorified in Him, and He was therefore entitled to be glorified in God. We have seen when this was, "Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him." Heavenly glory with God was the righteous consequence. As He says, "If God be glorified, God will glorify in himself." But how was this? Surely it was a glorious thing for a son of man to maintain, nay, not merely maintain, but make good the glory of God. Doubtless, He must have been much more to have enabled Him to do it. Still, as He tells us Himself, it was as such He did it. Blessed and infinite grace for us that it is so! The more we weigh what the cross was, the more shall we see how God was righteous in raising and setting Christ at His right hand. Sin was come in, disorder in the universe, the government of God unintelligible, angels occupied in conflict in God's creation, witnesses of the success of evil. Had God judged in righteousness, and destroyed all the wicked, there was no love. Did He spare them, there was no righteousness. It would have been but merely undoing the evil if all were restored, or sanctioning it if they had been glorified. Where His truth which had pronounced death on the offender? where His majesty which had been trodden under foot? The whole character of God was in question by sin. The Lord offers Himself for His Father's glory, according to the counsels of God. His truth is made good. The wages of sin is death. It is an absolute proof of it. It was the paid wages of sin by the Son of God Himself. None escaped but by His dying for them, and He the Son of God.

The majesty of God was vindicated as nothing else would have done it. Christ spends Himself and submits to wrath to make it good. God's righteousness was glorified in the full judgment of sin. Yet His love to the sinner was displayed as naught else could have displayed it. What a scene for the moral universe! Nothing next nor like it is there in all created history. Things that are have been created, and may be destroyed, but this abides, making good what God is for all eternity. Such was the cross. There the Son of man was glorified, and God was glorified in it. Hence He glorified Christ in Himself, placed Him at His right hand. This was righteousness. No glory amongst men would have been an adequate recompence for glorifying God Himself. The true reward for glorifying God was God's glory. Into that the Lord entered, where He was before the world was made. This is what displays divine righteousness, the setting the Son of man at God's right hand. As I have said, it was God's own righteousness; but as this must merit a title to make it righteousness, it was such because Christ had done what gave Him the title to be there. But this was done for us, for all that have the faith of Christ, — this glorifying God about sin. It was about our sin He did it. Therefore the value of the work is reckoned to us; God righteously receives us into His glory as He has received Christ, for He has received Him in virtue of the work done for us — us therefore in Him. We are made the righteousness of God in Him, for in blessing us in this heavenly and glorious way, in justifying us, He only gives its due effect to Christ's claims upon Him. Towards us it is pure grace, but it is equally the righteousness of God. Thus it appears that all the value of Christ's work is reckoned to us, and reckoned for righteousness. He who knew no sin has been made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. Has His living obedience to God nothing to do with this? I do not say this. First of all, "He knew no sin" was absolutely necessary to His being made sin. But the truth is, His obedience is looked at as one whole moral condition or perfection in which He was agreeable to God. He was the obedient one, as Adam the disobedient. And though His obedience in life was not for sin, it was part of the sweet savour which went up to God, and in which we are accepted. It was finally tried at the cross, and found perfect. This was the perfect man, and in circumstances alone in this nature, but perfectly agreeable to God. Once He had undertaken obedience, it was His own duty; but that He accomplished and glorified God in it, at all cost; but He was alone, and stood alone, that He might then take man's sinful condition on Himself, and therein glorify God. He did not, as towards God, make good God's character in it, but a divine perfect man's. He did display God's character when alive — He was it. But that was addressed to man, not a satisfaction to God for man. He took up man's cause as born of a woman. He took up the remnant of Israel's as born under the law. He was made sin to reconcile the one, and bore the curse of the law to redeem the other from it, and will never bring the lawless under it. As a living man, sinners had no part in or with Him — He abode alone. As a dying man He met their case. There they could come by faith. "I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me." That was when He said, "The hour is come that the Son of Man must be glorified: except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die it abides alone, but if it die, it brings forth much fruit." It is an entire setting aside the old man, his whole condition and existence before God, by which we get our place before God; not keeping the law for the old man. Then you must keep him alive. God forbid. I live by the second Adam only, with whom I have been crucified; nevertheless live not I, but Christ in me. But then, in the new man, I am not under law, so there is no question of fulfilling it for me; because, I am already accepted and have life. There can be no Do this and live. I am, as even Luther expresses it, Christ before God. If righteousness come by law, then Christ is dead in vain. But if Christ has fulfilled the law for me, it does come by law, and Christ is dead in vain. Law applies to flesh, is weak through it, sets up, if it could, the righteousness of the first man. But I am not in the flesh at all — I am in Christ.

But the fifth of Romans requires some of its details to be referred to. The subject the apostle takes up is, as we have seen, death, in order to have a wholly new place and standing in resurrection. But this goes beyond the limits of law: for man sinned and died when he had none. Death reigned from Adam to Moses over them who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the image of him that is to come. Theologians have puzzled themselves with this, ignorant that it is simply a quotation from Hosea 6: 7. They (Israel) like Adam (men) have transgressed the covenant. Adam was under a law, not indeed to do this and live, as Mr. Molyneux so unhappily says, but Do this and die when alive; Israel under law of Do this and live when he was dead — as indeed the words, rightly weighed, implied.

But between Adam and Moses there was no law — none of either kind, but they sinned and died. Hence we must go up to the great heads of the two systems — the first and second Adam: not to mend the first by the second, but through death substitute one for the other. I do not speak of the persons to whom it is applied, but the abstract nature of the act. Adam sins, is disobedient, cast out of an earthly paradise, and is the head of a lost, condemned, sinful race. The second Adam obeys, glorifies God in righteousness, is received into heaven, and is the head of a new justified race. In either case the act causative of the whole condition was accomplished before the consequences were entailed on those that came under it. It is not a course of action on the ground of the first man, which, accomplished by the second, forms our righteousness, as belonging to the first. We pronounce whole and entire condemnation on ourselves, as belonging to the first — children of wrath, Jew or Gentile. Death closes on that in Christ; and, after redemption, we begin to exist before God in Christ, and accepted in Christ, and Christ in us is our life. We do not go back to seek a legal righteousness in flesh, the other Adam-side of redemption; we may know ourselves only as lost, dead in sin there. It is too late to get a righteousness for our first Adam state: I have fled to Christ because I was already lost by it. By the disobedience of one many were made sinners; by the obedience of One — looked at as one moral whole, perfect in death, His character contrasted with that of Adam's, without any thought of law — many are made righteous. In death He bore the curse of the law for those under it; but this was not keeping it in life. He was obedient all His life — learnt what it was by suffering; He was obedient in death, in bowing to suffering, when it was His Father's will, where law had no place, though He bore the curse of that too. What law commanded to endure God's wrath when a person was sinless? He learned obedience by the things which He suffered.

Not only so, but this obedience is expressly contrasted with law, in order to meet the sin of those also who are not under law. This is the great point argued in the chapter. Personal headship is insisted on in Adam and Christ; and on this ground we stand, the law having come in between, occasionally, though to meet important ends. Adam died by disobedience, and Christ as obedience. The law came in by the bye, says the apostle [παρεισῆλθε], that the offence might abound. That is, he states the obedience as an absolute perfect quality of the Christ, available for sons of Adam, while the law had merely a special place, which did not come into this question of obedience. It brought out sin in the way of multiplying transgressions, but where (not transgressions, the apostle takes care not to say that; for so the grace would not have applied to those not under law — the very point he was insisting on being that it did apply to them; but where) sin abounded, there did grace much more abound. There was one offence, παράπτωμα towards all for condemnation, one δικαίωμα act of accomplished righteousness towards all to justification of life. It is as abstract as possible, but, as the following verse shows, to the exclusion of law — that is brought in with νόμος παρεισῆλθε, an accessory which had a peculiar effect, and which did not come under his general argument (yea, to exclude which was the effect of his reasoning), in order to let in the Gentiles.

If the one offence swept wide beyond Jews, the one act of righteousness must do so too. The law came in by the bye to do its own work to produce transgressions (not sin); but where sin abounded, grace did much more. The purport of the reasoning of the apostle is to get out of the scene of law as to disobedience, obedience, and righteousness — not to bring it in. If it comes in, it is with a special object, by the bye, which does not concern the Gentiles, and for the Jews served for increased guilt; but of which Christ has borne the curse for those who believe. I am not under law but under grace, if I am a believer. I am not in the flesh if I am in Christ: when I was, I was under law, or lawless. In Christ I have entered (be I Jew or Gentile, on a new ground), where I am alike dead to sin and law, and alive to God through Jesus Christ our Lord, made the righteousness of God in Him.

It is a very striking fact that Luther should have excluded from the New Testament that on which the Apostle everywhere insists as the foundation of his doctrine, the revelation of Christianity — that is, the righteousness of God. Nor does Calvin get a step farther. "I understand," he says, "by the righteousness of God, that which can be approved before the tribunal of God; as, on the contrary, men are accustomed to the righteousness of men, what is held and esteemed righteousness in the opinion of men." (Rom. 1, so 2 Cor. 5) But his whole statement is very poor. To come short of the glory of God means, he says in the same way, what we can glory of before God. In Rom. 10 he makes the righteousness of God that which God gives, and their own that which is sought from man.

(B.T. Vol. 2, p. 192.)

The Editor cannot agree with "Adelphos," that our being risen with Christ accounts for the omission of the Church's resurrection, or for the phrase, "the first resurrection," in Rev. 20. First, it is clear to him that the Church is included in those whom John saw seated on thrones, and to whom judgment is given; so that he doubts the fact of any such omission. Secondly, the "first resurrection" is in plain contrast with the "second death." In it all the dead have their blessed part, who are not reserved for the resurrection of the unjust, just before "the end." Risen with Christ is simply said of the Christian, because Christ, raised from the dead, is his life."

The Editor thanks Mr. T. G. R. (Chester) for his kind remark, and wishes. What he says on the fifth seal is quite true, but consistent with the "Remarks." He has misconstrued the observations on the sixth seal, which the writer believes with him is no more anticipative than its predecessors. — As to the paper on the obscurity of which he animadverts, Mr. R. must bear in mind that much is due to the depth of the subject. A popular style is seldom, if ever, the vehicle of profound thought, and the difficulty is increased, if the tone is spiritual, and the matter beyond the usual limits of Christian research or experience.

"Smite the rock."

Exodus 17: 6.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. 15, p. 97-98.)

The difficulties of scripture, when opened to simple faith, are amongst its chief beauties and its strongest confirmations. God has not written His word to perplex souls but to exercise their hearts in dependence on Him and confidence in Him. When a supposed discrepancy, as unbelief would suggest, turns out to be a two-fold lesson of distinct truths, how encouraging to the believer, who thus finds in the word, not a dead wall that forbids our passage, but a door that opens to faith with a beautiful prospect which it is for us to enjoy on both sides! Let me exemplify this in "the rock" of the second book of Moses compared with that of the fourth, which scepticism will have to be nothing but two different accounts of the same transaction, and of course equally fabulous. The believer knows that they are wholly distinct, one in the first year of Israel's departure from Egypt, the other in the last year of their sojourn in the wilderness; each of them absolutely true, both of them not only highly instructive but divinely prophetic, and therefore not written by Moses simply but as inspired of God, who bad ever before Him the glory of Christ and the blessing of His children.

This deeper character is intimated by 1 Cor. 10: 1-11. And as the Lord Jesus warrants our seeing in Ex. 16 Himself the true bread of God coming down from heaven, we may well look for a kindred type in Ex. 17.

There was "no water for the people to drink. Wherefore the people did chide with Moses, and said, Give us water that we may drink." Such is unbelief, ever forgetful of grace, ever turning to second causes. God was not in the thoughts of Israel, who only chade Moses. It was tempting Jehovah, that is, doubting His presence in their midst, and this to care for them, after He had given the most magnificent and varied proofs of His power on their behalf, and this up to the last moment. Why not ask water of Him who had given them flesh at even, and filled them with bread in the morning? Well might Moses say, "Why chide ye with me? wherefore do ye tempt the LORD?" (ver. 1, 2).

But unbelief is as dull to learn as ready to murmur, as swift to speak as slow to hear. "And the people thirsted there for water; and the people murmured against Moses and said, Wherefore is this that thou hast brought us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst" (ver. 3).

Not so Moses, who "cried unto the LORD, saying, What shall I do unto this people? they be almost ready to stone me" (ver. 4).

The Lord will be enquired of: it is all-important for man; but He has His own way. As His end is that He is very pitiful and of tender mercy, so His beginning is goodness without limit where failure is impossible. But man needs to learn by his misery and need, ever prone to forget it through misuse of His very mercies. How blessed that God acts for His own glory!

"And the LORD said unto Moses, Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel. And he called the name of the place Massah and Meribah, because of the chiding of the children of Israel and because they tempted the LORD, saying, Is the LORD among us or not?" (ver. 6, 7).

"Now the rock was the Christ." Such is the comment of the New Testament in direct allusion to the fact before us. The truth is greater and more abiding than the wonder.

It is not only the bread of God in Him that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world. More than this is wanted in view of the sinner's need and of God's glory. The Son of man must be lifted up. The power of evil must be crushed; God's character must be vindicated; sins can only be forgiven righteously, because borne. and judged: all meet in the precious death of our Lord Jesus. The rod of judgment, "wherewith thou smotest the river," must smite the rock. Christ suffered once for sins, Just for unjust, that He might bring us to God. Love, infinite love, there was in Him thus given to die for us; but He was rejected and put to shame; yea He was forsaken of God, whose face was hid from Him when He bore our sins in His own body on the tree. It was not merely that unbelieving Jews esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. In very truth He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities and the chastisement of our peace was as surely upon Him, as we are healed with His stripes. Jehovah laid on Him the iniquity of us all; and the stroke was on Him for the trangression of His people. It pleased Jehovah to bruise Him, to put Him to grief, to make His soul an offering for sin. He bore iniquities; He poured out His soul unto death; He was numbered with transgressors; and He bore the sin of many.

If souls fail to see and bow to this most solemn and affecting testimony of God to the humiliation and suffering of His own Son, it is not for lack of plain words and forcible figures. The real difficulty is in the will of man, which refuses the overwhelming demonstration of its own badness and of God's goodness. For if this be the truth of the cross of Christ, what grace and long-suffering and holy love on God's part? what vanity and pride and malice, what hatred of the Father and the Son on man's? The very cross, whereby peace and deliverance comes, is the absolute condemnation of sin: were it in our person, it must be ruin irretrievable; in Christ it is our salvation.

But there is more here. "Smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink." It is the type of the Holy Ghost given. This gift consequent on Christ's work goes far beyond new birth. Now that redemption is effected, the Spirit is within the believer a fountain springing up into life everlasting, yea, a river flowing out in testimony of Jesus glorified. As having believed in Christ we were scaled with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession to the praise of God's glory.

Can any prefiguration be conceived clearer or more important? Not that Moses knew all this beforehind; but that all was naked and open before His eyes, with whom we have to do now, as He inspired him then. May we be not faithless but believing.

"Speak ye unto the rock."

Numbers 20.

W. Kelly.

The rebellion of Korah brought out the priesthood of Aaron more conspicuously than ever. Ministry is not priesthood, though it has its own important place. But priesthood alone can and will carry the failing people of God through the wilderness into Canaan. "If when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more being reconciled we shall be saved by His life." "Wherefore He is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them." On Christ first the sacrifice, next the priest rests, unto salvation. For as yet we are passing through the wilderness, and with difficulty are the righteous saved.

God is faithful who will not suffer us to be tempted above that we are able, but will with the temptation make also the way of escape that we may be able to endure it. For we have not a high-priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but One that hath been in all points tempted like as me are, sin excepted. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace that we may receive mercy and find grace for seasonable help (Heb. 4.)

The necessity for Aaron's intercession was made apparent when the plague set in among the murmuring Israelites, and Aaron had to run into the midst, having put on incense and made an atonement for the people. Thus he stood between the dead and the living; and the plague was stayed.

But God did more. He decided for ever between the princes of the people and the priest of His choice. For every one of the twelve heads of Israel laid up their rods before the Lord that He might choose beyond controversy who should intercede with Him. "And behold, the rod of Aaron for the house of Levi was budded, and brought forth buds and bloomed blossoms and yielded almonds." All the other rods were dry and fruitless. On the morrow Aaron's rod alone burst forth into life, buds, blossoms, and fruit. The question was once for all determined: he only was chosen to draw near. Israel in themselves were as sapless and sere as their dead rods. Man needs a living priest. Aaron's rod (and indeed Melchisedec yet more in this) but typifies Him in whom is the power of an endless life. Henceforth this is the rod, the living unchanging witness of divine power and suited blessing before God for the people. The priest bears the iniquity of the sanctuary. Ministry is subordinate to priesthood; as the tribe of Levi was joined to the priest (Num. 18). And grace for all provided, the ashes of the red heifer, that the defiled among the children of Israel might at no time want a purification from sin. For they were always exposed to uncleanness by the way, and they must then be sprinkled by the water of separation, in order to be purified. God would not lower His holiness by the allowance of defilement in His people; but He provides for the defiled the water of separation, that the unclean should be daily purified. Grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Here the new generation is seen to be tried before the close, as the old had been at the beginning of Exodus. Now as then there was no water for the congregation; and they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron. "And the people chode with Moses and spake saying, Would God that we had died when our brethren died before the Lord! Why have ye brought up the congregation of the Lord into this wilderness that we and our cattle should die there? And wherefore have ye made us to come up out of Egypt to bring us in unto this evil place? It is no place of seed, or of figs, or of vines, or of pomegranates; neither is there any water to drink." No wonder Moses and Aaron fell upon their faces at such base unbelief. But the glory of Jehovah appeared; and without a reproach Jehovah said to Moses, "Take the rod, and gather the assembly together, thou and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes, and it shall give forth, its water and thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock: so thou shalt give unto the congregation and their beasts drink" (ver. 8).

There was no misunderstanding; for "Moses took the rod from before the Lord as He commanded him; and Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock." From this point however all was wrong. For Moses, provoked by the exceeding ingratitude and revolt of the people, "spake unadvisedly with his lips." "Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock?" Who asked this at his hands? Moses was overcome of evil instead of overcoming evil with good. He who had so long lived the meekest of men utterly failed in this very respect at last. When God was magnifying His mercy and calling attention expressly to the truth that nothing but priestly grace could bring an erring people through, Moses yielded to natural resentment and asserted his own authority: "so that it went ill with him for their sakes." He had sunk so far to their level, instead of hiding himself, as faith would have done, behind the grace of God. And his deed was no better than his word at this critical moment. " Cease ye from man whose breath is in his nostrils; for wherein is he to be accounted of?" "And Moses lifted up his hand and with his rod smote the rock twice" (ver. 11). Who, I say again, asked this at his hands? It was total departure from the commandment of the Lord, who had told him to take "the rod," not his rod but Aaron's, and "speak unto the rock," and it should give forth water. With his rod Moses struck the rock twice.* The witness, hitherto faithful, misrepresented God and must die for his error. The rod of judgment misused brought death to himself, the rod of grace prevailed for the people. For he had brought out the rod, the virtue of which alone was adequate for so failing a people.

* Indeed In the Vatican Septuagint the error is sanctified; for the translators make the Lord to tell Moses to take "his" rod; and my that Moses took "his" rod which was before the Lord: so completely did they miss the mind of God in the contrast of the two rods. The Vulgate and other Versions confound the two.

In Exodus 17 it was according to God that Moses should strike the rock with his rod. There Moses alone appears. From the smitten rock water must come out. Jesus came by water and blood. Humiliation unto death must be the portion of Christ, if the people. of God were to receive the Spirit. There must be a foundation of righteousness and there is. The Son of man must be lifted up.

But now, for the journeying of the people through the wilderness, for passing into Canaan; grace alone avails, the grace of an ever-living priest. Wounded and resentful, feeling could avail nothing. " If thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?" "Enter not into judgment with thy servant, for in thy sight shall no man living The justified." " Hear now ye rebels " might be true and even just, if it were a question of man; but was it God's word for that moment? Was He acting in grace or in judgment? And if it were added "must we fetch you water out of this rock," was God before their eyes? Was it not self wounded by the ingratitude of man?

Wondrous to say the servant's error hindered not this grace of God. "For the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank and their beasts also."

"But Jehovah spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them. This is the water of Meribah, because the children of Israel strove with the Lord and He was sanctified in them." Moses and Aaron sanctified Him not, but gave up grace for the vindication of their injured authority. Had this been God's feeling, they had fetched no water out of the rock. Jehovah was sanctified; but it was in maintaining His own word, His own grace, notwithstanding the failure of Moses and Aaron: a failure which brought immediate reproof on themselves, and the sharp chastening of dying outside the land, the land of Canaan, whither grace was conducting the people.

On the Revised New Testament.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vols. 13, 14 [28 sections].)

Believing that it may be of service to examine the just published result of the ten years' labour bestowed by the Committee of Revision on the New Testament, I proceed to give a review of their more noteworthy changes from first to last. In this way the reader will have in the simplest and fullest way the evidence of their work for good or for ill before his own eyes, so as to preclude (as much as possible) any representation of its character otherwise than it really is. The close of the survey will afford a more just and fitting occasion to offer an opinion as to its value as a whole. It is but natural to us all to be either carried away by a hasty conclusion based on what pleases us at a first glance and a general impression, or to be unfairly repelled by corrections which, however well-grounded or wisely applied, shock the prejudices of our ignorance. Nevertheless none can well overlook the fact that the revisers have studiously sought to preserve the dignified simplicity of the Authorised Version, as they have assuredly purged it from an immense number of inaccuracies, known more or less to the Christian scholars who have studied our Bible during the last two centuries and a half. Indeed it was the impulse given to Biblical research by the mass of materials brought to light or considerably better known within the hundred years just passed which forced on this revision, notwithstanding the rather strong obstacles offered through the enormous circulation of the Authorised Version by the chief Bible and other Societies and by the public or private printers, who would obviously dread the probable depreciation of their vast stocks, etc. Apart from such influences, every sober and godly believer desires to have revealed truth in the purest form.

But there are two principal sources of difficulty: one of the original text; the other of translation. Of the two the harder to settle is the question of the Greek text; and the answer to this, though not the avowed object of the revisers, was necessarily their first and urgent duty to meet before the task of rendering could be carried on. Although able critics have for a century sought to edit the Greek Testament on documentary evidence of Greek manuscripts, ancient versions, and early citations, none as yet has succeeded in commanding more than partial confidence; neither Griesbach nor Scholz, neither Lachmann, nor Tischendorf, nor Tregelles; neither Meyer in his Critical Commentary, nor Alford or Wordsworth. Hence it has been a necessity, for any careful and conscientious scholar who would really know the sources, to compare several of these editions, and search into the grounds on which their differences depend, so as to have anything like a correct and enlarged view of the text, and to judge fairly of the claims of conflicting readings. But few of the revisers themselves entered on their grave and responsible task with adequate and special knowledge of that which was essential to the right execution of their undertaking; and though no doubt their long and unremitting occupation with the subject has helped most of them to a much better understanding than they possessed at first, yet it is certain that, in order to do such a work well, mature spiritual judgment, with continual dependence on the Lord, is just as essential as a sound and thorough familiarity with the ancient witnesses of all kinds. For it could not but be that in so mixed a Committee the few adepts, who were at home in all the external matters of debate and possessed of superior learning and ability in these questions, would have an easy and habitual preponderance over the less intelligent majority, especially after these had exposed to those their own shortcomings at an early day. But N.T. critics however skilled and competent, might be men of strong bias and committed to a mistaken or narrow school of recension, which would be sure to tell unfavourably on the revision, unless there were of equal power and knowledge to stand for larger views with no less firmness and decision. How far one or other of these alternatives may apply to the working of the Revisers is known to wise men among themselves: the fruit of their labours is before us, and we would now without further preface look into the details, which may disclose enough to outsiders.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW.

The first thing that strikes the mind, as undesirable in an accurate version of the Scriptures, is, that words supplied by the translators, which have no counterpart in the original, should not be designated as such by italics as attempted more or less fully in the Authorised Bible. Dr. Scrivener's Cambridge Paragraph Bible sought this more systematically, and therefore is happier in this respect. In the Revised New Testament, on the contrary, the indication of supply is less than ever. It would have been better for the reader had the amount indicated been far greater. Take the instance of "the Lord" so common in the Synoptic Gospels, especially Matthew and Luke, where the Greek word is anarthrous, and means Jehovah. (See Matt. 1: 20, 22, 24.)* Not so the official title of Christ, unless employed predicatively which would of course deprive it of the article. Again, in 1: 20 we have "take unto thee," and in 21 "took unto him," without indicating, that the pronouns are supplied. So with "our" in Matt. 3: 9. It seems, arbitrary to print "it" in Roman in Matt. 2: 3, and in Italics in Matt. 3: 15. Many an unlettered preacher is thus exposed to dwell with emphasis on words merely inserted by the translators as if they were the veritable expressions of the Holy Spirit, from which error they were better guarded by the Authorised Version, and ought to have, been yet more now. It is allowable in a version of Greek or Latin Classic or of any human composition to supply what seems idiomatically requisite in our tongue without distinct notification to the reader. But Scripture stands alone, and deserves the homage of carefully distinguishing what man judges necessary in the language which reflects the original. In some cases it may prove a danger signal; in all it seems due to God and man. As the tendency of the day is to deny the difference between the word of God and any other book, it is the more imperative.

*Here, is a list of these occurrences:  Matthew 1: 20, 22, 24; Matt. 2: 13, 15, 19; Matt. 3: 3; Matt. 4: 7, 10; Matt. 5: 33; Matt. 21: 9, 42; Matt. 22: 37, 44; Matt. 23: 39; Matt. 27: 10; Matt. 28: 2. Mark 1: 3; Mark 11: 9; Mark 12: 11, 29 (bis) 30, 36; Mark 13: 20. Luke 1: 6, 9, 11, 15, 16, 17, 25, 28, 32, 38, 45, 46, 58, 66, 68, 76; Luke 2: 9 (bis), 15, 22, 23 (bis), 24, 26, 38, 39; Luke 3: 4; Luke 4: 8, 12, 18, 19; Luke 5: 17; Luke 10: 27; Luke 13: 35; Luke 19: 38; Luke 20: 37, 42. John 1: 23; John 12: 13, 38. Acts 2: 20, 21, 25, 34, 39; Acts 3: 22; Acts 5: 9, 19; Acts 7: 31, 33, 37, 49; Acts 8: 26, 39; Acts 12: 7, 11, 17, 23; Acts 15: 17 (bis). Rom. 4: 8; Rom. 9: 28, 29; Rom. 10: 13, 16; Rom. 11: 3, 34; Rom. 12: 19; Rom. 14: 11. 1 Cor. 1: 31; 1 Cor. 2: 16; 1 Cor. 3: 20; 1 Cor. 14: 21. 2 Cor. 3: 16, 17, 18; 2 Cor. 6: 17, 18; 2 Cor. 10: 17. Heb. 1: 10; Heb. 7: 21; Heb. 8: 2, 8, 9, 10, 11; Heb. 10: 16, 30 (bis); Heb. 12: 5, 6. James 5: 10, 11. 1 Peter 1: 25; 1 Peter 3: 12 (bis), 15. 2 Peter 2: 9, 11; 2 Peter 3: 8, 10. Jude 5, 9, 14. Rev. 1: 8; Rev. 4: 8; Rev. 11: 17; Rev. 15: 3, 4; Rev. 16: 5, 7; Rev. 18: 8; Rev. 19: 6; Rev. 21: 22; Rev. 22: 5. It is only, it appears, when the Greek answers to Adon, not Jehovah, that the article is used of God. As said of Christ, it follows ordinary rules, Jehovah being regard as a proper name, to which it approached in "the Lord" as a title also. He too is Jehovah. But, Winer notwithstanding, a preposition or a genitive can have nothing really to do, with its anarthrous usage, any more than with Θεός, or other words of the kind.

It is singular that the Revisers have left Matt. 2: 1 as it stands in the Authorised Version, when a slight and lawful change of rendering would guard the reader from a really groundless misapprehension of the history. As it stands one might infer, with superficial poets and painters, according to tradition, that the visit of the magi followed close upon the Messiah's birth. And this error has been greedily misused by sceptics. But a comparison of Luke 2 shows that it was not so; confirmed by the accurate ascertainment of the time by Herod, and his consequent slaughter of the male babes at Bethlehem from two years old and under. Room must be left for several months', if not a year's, interval. As we know, the parents came up to Jerusalem for the passover every year; and is anything more intelligible than the interest which would draw to Bethlehem those who knew that the Child was the promised son and heir of David's throne? Then, on a subsequent occasion, came the magi who had seen the star in the east, and gone to Jerusalem in consequence. They had learnt, through Herod, from the scribes that Bethlehem was the predicted spot; and the star, to their joy, re-appears to guide them, till it stood over the place where the Child was. The aorist participle leaves the sense quite open, where "Now when," etc., limits it in this case unduly. Translate, therefore, "Now Jesus having been born," or "Now after Jesus was born," etc.

In Matt. 4: 18, 20, 21, the difference between a "net" (ἀμφίβληστρον) and the "nets" (δίκτυα) is not marked even in the margin (both distinct from Matt. 13: 47); whereas they have properly done so as to the "baskets" in Matt. 16: 9, 10. So there is no attempt even in the margin to distinguish between ἀγαθός and καλός, both indiscriminately rendered "good;" though the one means "kind," "beneficial," "excellent," the other "upright" or "honourable."

In Matt. 6: 11 (as in Luke 11: 3) the rendering is "daily," which the context seems to refute as tautology. "Needful" or "sufficient" I believe to be the true thought, in contrast with περιούσιος, "abundant," "superfluous," "more than enough." Doubtless the word is unusual, coined (Origen thought) for the purpose. Bishop Lightfoot argues against this source, as if the form in that case should be ἐπούσιος. But ἐπιετής is opposed to this rigidity of derivation, being as far as we know a word of late formation like ἐπιούσιος, without question of the digamma. Hence οὐσία does not require the derivation ἐπούσιος. Still less must we restrict οὐσία to mean "essential being" or "substance" in that sense; for the New Testament itself uses it only in the meaning of "subsistence;" and its application in well-known orators, etc., to "property" real (φανερά) or "personal" (ἀφανής) is certain and common. It is unnecessary therefore to trace the word to ἐπιοῦσα (ἡμέρα) "the morrow," and if we did, we could not without harshness make it mean "till tomorrow," that is of today, which (as we have seen) does not suit the context. Nor is the mystical sense, founded either on ὁ ἐπιὼν κ. (the coming world) or on ἐπιούσιος (supersubstantial) worthy of serious argument. Nor is it worthy reasoning, finally, to say that, because the disciples were not to be anxious for the morrow, they were not to pray for their bread today.

It would have been well, if so small a point as "wine-skins" (Matt. 9: 11) is carefully substituted for "bottles," that "demons" and "demoniacs" (Matt. 8: 28, 31) had always taken the place of "devils," etc., keeping the word "devil" for the different term which scripture gives to their chief.

A seriously mistaken change of reading is adopted in Matt. 11: 19, ἔργων, "works," on the authority of Bp.m. 124 (a Vienna cursive of cent. xii.) and of some ancient versions, instead of τέκνων is in all other authorities, not to speak of Luke 7: 35. Even Origen lends "works" no support, any more than Chrysostom. It is monstrous to suppose that we are carried back in thought to the moment when Wisdom's works were planned. The contrast is with "this generation;" as the Lord also in the verses following sets forth, the latter as objects of more than outward judgment, whilst the former are objects of the Father's sovereign grace. That the Wisdom of God should be justified of its works seems a truism — of its children is a weighty truth.

Timidity, or want of knowledge, is manifest in perpetuating (Matt. 13: 30 and elsewhere) "the end of the world," and relegating to the margin the unquestionably true rendering, "the consummation of the age."

In Matt. 28: 1 the old and common error reappears, which has created immense confusion in arranging the order of the facts of the resurrection. The word ἐπιφώσκειν applies equally to the dusk as to the dawn, the context alone deciding. The Jewish day began with the evening. Here it is assuredly the dusk, for the dawn of the first day could not be ὀψὲ σαββάτων. The women came to the tomb on Saturday evening as here, as well as on Sunday morning early to which no doubt the earthquake in verse 2 belongs, when they were there again.

It is a pleasanter task to note some of the improvements of the Revisers, though almost all of moment are familiar to Christians for many years, and may be found in versions of private men. Thus it has long been felt well that Old Testament names, as in chapter 1, should follow the Hebrew rather than the Greek form. Again, the tendency to assimilate the Gospels has been watched against, as in Matt. 1: 25 (cf. Luke 2: 7); Matt. 5: 41 (cf. Luke 6: 27, 28); Matt. 9: 13 and Mark 2: 17 (cf. Luke 5: 32); Matt. 17: 21 (cf. Mark 9: 29); Matt. 18: 11 (cf. Luke 19: 10); Matt. 19: 16, 17 (cf. Mark 10: 17, 18, Luke 18: 18, 19); Matt. 20: 16 (cf. 22: 16); Matt. 20: 22, 23 (cf. Mark 10: 38, 39); Matt. 23: 14 (cf. Mark 12: 40, Luke 20: 47); Matt. 25: 13 (cf. Matt. 24: 42, 44). The repetition of our Lord's name, Jesus, is corrected as in Matt. 4: 12, 18; Matt. 8: 5; Matt. 13: 36; Matt. 14: 14, 25; Matt. 15: 16, 30; Matt. 16: 20; Matt. 17: 11; Matt. 22: 37; Matt. 24: 2. This was probably owing to ecclesiastical influence, like the doxology fit the end of the prayer for the disciples (Matt. 6: 13), and the "Amen" at the end of the Gospel, and indeed of all the Gospels.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK.

In Mark 1: 2 the Revisers have rightly abandoned "in the prophets" though given in the Alex. and most other MSS, because it is an evident correction made to ease the difficulty. The Sinai, Vatican, Cambridge of Beza, Parisian (L) and St. Gall uncials, with some twenty-five cursives, the most ancient versions and express early citations, preserve the true text, "in Isaiah the prophet." Even on human ground it is absurd to suppose that the writer did not know that the first words quoted were from Malachi 3: 1; and if inspiration be allowed, the only question is as to the principle of thus merging a secondary in a primary quotation. Compare the somewhat different use of "Jeremiah" rather than Zechariah in Matthew 27: 9, 10. There is purpose in both, which cursory readers have not seen; and so they have been quick to impute a slip, as the later copyists were to eliminate it. But it is as irreverent as unwise and evil to obscure or deny the truth even in such points as these, because the modes of scripture application differ from those of ordinary men, and we may not at a first glance be able to appreciate or clear up the profound wisdom of inspiration. Kuster's conjecture that the reading was originally "in the prophet" seems a mere effort to get rid of what he did not understand; which really, like such attempts generally, leaves the chief point where it was. — Verse 14, "of the kingdom" disappears with good reason, though most uncials and cursives insert the words, the old versions being pretty evenly divided. It is an addition borrowed from Matthew, whose Gospel it suits perfectly.

In Mark 2: 1, 20 an article is needlessly inserted. Translate "at home" in contrast with being abroad or elsewhere, and "days will come." — At the end of the latter verse "in that day" has the best authority, not "in those days," which came in from the corresponding passage of Luke 5 — The end of verse 12 is simply "thus," "on this fashion" being antiquated.

In Mark 3: 13, as in Matthew 5: 1, the indefinite article appears wrongly in the Authorised Version, the Revised gives "the" correctly, not meaning any particular mountain, but the high land as contrasted with the low or plain, as on board ship or on the sea is in contrast with on the shore. — In verse 14 the Revisers rightly give "appointed" instead of the equivocal "ordained." They are no less fair in striking out the "ordained to be" of Acts 1: 22, and in changing "ordain" to "appoint" in Titus 1: 5. They would have done better in giving "chosen" in Acts 14: 23 and 2 Corinthians 8: 19, as they do in Acts 10: 41, though "appoint" is no doubt a legitimate rendering of χειροτονέω. — The chief change of text is in verse 29, "guilty of an eternal sin," instead of "in danger of," or "subject to eternal judgment." "Damnation," as is well known, is not the true force of κρίσεως, though its effect. But the true reading on excellent authority appears to be ἁμαρτήματος, "sin" or "guilt," which might naturally be toned down into judgment. It is more forcible and absolutely expressed than even in Matthew, where blaspheming against the Spirit is said to be irremissible, either in this age, that is, of the law, or in that which is to come, that is, of Messiah reigning over the earth, when all other iniquities are forgiven, and all diseases are healed.

There are many minute changes in Mark 4, but the only correction of version one would notice is the unquestionably right one of "in the stern sleeping on the cushion," instead of "in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow" in verse 38.

In Mark 5: 36 it is well to remark the παρακούσας of the critical editors instead of the [εὐθέως] ἀκ. of the common text. But it is doubtful whether the marginal "over-hearing" should not rather have taken the place of the Revisers' text "not heeding," which would have suited if the Lord had said nothing. But He heeds the word spoken enough to bid the synagogue-ruler, "Fear not, only believe."

The latter half of Mark 6: 11 seems an accommodation from Matthew 11 and Luke 10 with changes. Yet the ancient testimony is so ample (eleven uncials, nearly all the cursives, and some of the best versions) that it surprises one to see no remark on such a difference in the margin of the Revisers. In the footnotes of the corresponding Greek text Mr. E. Palmer of course gives the words. — The rendering of a phrase in verse 20 as well as the reading after it is questionable. Does συνετήρει αὐτόν mean "kept him safe," or "paid close attention to him"? and is the true reading "was perplexed," ἠπόρει ( B L Cop.) or the far more largely supported ἐποίει which their margin renders?

Mark 7: 3 presents a difficulty of translation if not of reading. Tischendorf now adopts πυκνά from the Sinaitic copy, confirmed perhaps by some Latin and other versions; but the mass of authority sustains πυγμῃ, lit. "with the fist," or "up to the elbow," the usual construing being "diligently" or "frequently," with "vigour" or "with nicety." — The addition in italics at the end of verse 11 is rightly omitted by the Revisers, as in Matthew 15: 5 also; but a serious Italic supplement appears in verse 19, This he said. Here again is the preliminary question of καθαρίζων and καθαρίζον, the former undoubtedly carrying much the most weight externally, if one did not bear in mind how carelessly the best MSS interchange ω and ο, which almost nullifies their suffrages on the point. The strange version of the Revisers seems due to Origen (Comm. in Matt. 15: 10). K. usually is regarded, if in the neuter, as in apposition with the sentence; if in the masculine, as appended in an independent construction, with the gender conformed to τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα, the departure from formal grammar giving the more force to the participle. Indeed καθαρίζει, and καὶ καθαρίζει are found in some copies, all indicative of the difficulty presented by the construction.

In Mark 8: 24, 25, of the Revised Version, we have the healing of the blind man more graphically than in the common text and version. "I see men; for I behold them as trees, walking." Then again he laid his hands upon his eyes, and he looked stedfastly (διέβλεψε) and was restored and saw all things clearly (ἐνέβλεπε τηλαυγῶς [Tisch. δηλ.] ἅπαντα).

In Mark 9: 23 the oldest and best authorities omit πιστεῦσαι, though it has large uncial support. Perhaps its difficulty may have led to the omission. If genuine, the true meaning is not the muddle of two clauses as in the Authorised Version, but rather "the If thou canst [is] to believe." The question of power turns on faith. In verse 24, 29, the evidence is strong against μετὰ δακρύων ("with tears"), weak against καὶ νηστείᾳ, "and fasting;" but the Revisers leave both out, as they do verses 44, 46, none omitting verse 48. Some of these witnesses leave out the latter half of 49, followed by our Revisers. The substance of the truth abides no doubt; but the solemnity of the warning appears to be enfeebled in the curtailed form; and the distinction between the wicked and righteous as tested by God's judgment moral in grace or final in verse 49.

The Revisers, on few but first-rate authorities, read in Mark 10: 1 "and" beyond Jordan, for the A. V. "by."

In Mark 11: 8 they read "fields" (ἀγρῶν) instead of "branches" (δένδρων) with other small changes.

In Mark 12: 6 the Revisers omit "his," and in verse 20 "therefore" on firm grounds, and for "God" give "He" in verse 32.

There is no doubt that "spoken of by Daniel the prophet" is an importation into Mark 13: 14 from Matthew 24. But there is an interesting though dubious reading in the same verse, "standing where [he] ought not" ἑστηκότα ( B L and so Tisch. Tregelles, Alford), instead of ἑστός (Steph.), ἑστώς (Elz. Griesbach, Scholz), ἑστηκός Lachmann and Green), στηκόν (seven cursives). If the masculine be well founded, it points to the Antichrist, the lawless one of 2 Thessalonians 2: 4. But why should the Revisers perpetuate "her parable," "her branch with its leaves" here, verse 28, as in Matthew 24: 32? Why not "its," especially as in Revelation 22: 2 they correct "her" into "its fruit"?

In Mark 14 among other changes less noteworthy are the omission of "eat," verse 22, and of "now," verse 24, at the Lord's Supper, and the insertion of "thou" emphatically, verse 30, the best MSS substituting ἔλαβον "received" for ἔβαλλον for "did strike" in verse 65, and omitting the last clause of verse 70.

In Mark 15: 7 they follow ἀναβάς "going up," for crying out," and omit "to drink" in verse 23 as well as verse 28 (from Luke 22: 37).

The Revisers put most undeservedly a certain stigma on Mark 16: 9-20, because B omit these verses, L with a break adding a miserable compendium, and many cursives giving them with more or less doubt, No good version of antiquity omits. But few fathers on harmonistic grounds talk of the accurate copies ending with ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. We need not now discuss the alleged internal reasons against the paragraph. The positive external proofs are really overwhelming; and the internal prove not only that it is inspired scripture, but from none other than Mark himself.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE.

There is more to court remark in the third Gospel. In Luke 1: 17 is the first change of version to be weighed: ἐν φ. δ. can hardly bear "to" the wisdom of the just, as in the Authorised Version. The Revisers are obliged to intercalate "to walk" in the wisdom, etc., in order to give the force. Some suggest "by" or "according to;" but the sense fails in this connection, if the preposition could bear it. — In verse 28 there are two changes of text — the exclusion of "the angel," though supported by much and good authority, and of "blessed art thou among women," which incontestably appears in verse 42; in 29 also, "when she saw him" was probably suggested by verse 12. — But the rendering of the last clause of verse 35 is strange and objectionable, that of the margin (which is in main the Authorised Version), or the American suggestion, being better. — In verse 37 is a bold change of reading (τοῦ θ. for τῶ. θ.) which necessitates the rendering "no word from God shall be void of power."

In Luke 2 are changes of text or translation much to be considered. In verse 2 they give, "This was the first enrolment when Quirinius," etc. It would seem really to be a parenthetic statement to guard from confusion. God caused the decree to bring about the presence of Mary with her affianced husband at Bethlehem, and so accomplish the prophecy of Micah years before the enrolment was completed. — Of course they have in verse 10 "all the people," that is, the Jews. — Verse 14 follows the later editors, or their few but first-rate authorities, ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἐνδοκίας "among men in whom he is well pleased." But Luke was given to magnify the grace of God, not to seal human righteousness. There is good and ample authority for the common text, only rendered "good-will in men," which incarnation proved. — Passing over minor points we have in verse 22 "their" instead of the common "her," but hardly the exact shade of verses 31, 32. "All the peoples" is better than "all peoples," and revelation of Gentiles" is the true meaning, not "to all the Gentiles." Before the Word was made flesh Gentiles were in the dark is regards the light of God; as the Jews who despised the true light have fallen into darkness, till the word is made good, "Arise, shine, for thy light is come, and the glory of Jehovah is arisen on thee." The Revisers prefer, in verse 38, "redemption of Jerusalem" to "redemption in it," though the witnesses are very few. "To Jerusalem" in verse 42 is probably a repetition from the verse preceding.

Luke 3: 2 should be "in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas," the true text being singular, not plural. — A good many small corrections follow. It is surprising that few as yet see that the true parenthesis, marked or not, in verse 23 is not merely "as was supposed" but "being the son as was supposed of Joseph," so as to connect the genealogy that follows directly with the Lord through Mary. For Joseph was the son of Jacob, in the Solomon line, as Mary was daughter of Heli, in the Nathan line; and our Lord needed to be thus born in order to be unequivocally heir of David and true man. To have been son of Mary was essential to the truth, the means and demonstration as well as the display of the good pleasure of God in men; to inherit the royal, or Solomonic, right to the throne depended on Mary's espousal to Joseph; whilst His being Son of God in the highest sense was the ground and turning-point of all blessing. Had He been really Joseph's son, as He was not, all the truth of His person would have been denied; had He been, as He was not, Mary's son only, He had been true man but not true Messiah. He must therefore be Joseph's son legally, Mary's son truly, and God's Son supremely, in order to satisfy the word and accomplish the purposes of God; and all this the scriptures show plainly that He was. But the proof is enfeebled by not seeing the connection in Luke 3: 23, and this in the Revised Version as much as in that of 1611, the only expressed υἱός being in the parenthesis, and the proper genealogical line uniformly elliptic, as is often the case in such statements.

In Luke 4 the most striking change is in verse 8, where the common text and all versions founded on it have ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, Σατανᾶ, taken from Matthew 16: 23, and confounded with Matthew 4: 10, where it is rightly ὕπαγε, Σ. Here however these were left out in the wisdom of the Spirit, who inspired Luke to place second what was in fact the third temptation. This made the omission necessary; as otherwise we should have had in Luke the Lord bidding the enemy depart, and instead of it the enemy making another assault immediately after. Perhaps not one of the critical editors saw the impossibility of the words of Matthew re-appearing in Luke, though they rightly left them out on grounds purely diplomatic. Luke as usual presents the circumstances in their moral order, (the natural, the worldly, and the religious temptation respectively,) whilst Matthew, as is his wont, gives them dispensationally, and this fell in here with the order of fact.

The Revisers in Luke 5 do not distinguish more than the Authorised Version μέτοχοι, verse 7, and κοινωνοί, verse 10, though the latter is the more formal "partners," the former rather "companions."

In Luke 6: 1 they omit, save in their margin, the word "second-first." Now the witnesses ( B L) which omit the word are few, though high; and the difficulty of understanding a word nowhere else occurrent, and in itself hard to explain without an exact knowledge of Jewish scripture and usage, accounts readily for the tampering hand of copyists prone to cut knots instead of untying them. The sabbath before the wave-sheaf was offered the Jews ever regarded as great (John 19: 31); the sabbath after the wave-sheaf was also in high esteem, but not equal to the former. It was δευτεροπρῶτον. Nobody would or could create a needless difficulty by inserting this into A C D E H K M R S U V X Γ Δ Λ Π; but we can easily account for a few omitting what was hard in their eyes, as it is to most readers still. — In verse 17 they rightly translate "a level place," not a plain, as in the Authorised Version. It was a plateau on the mountain, which upsets the notion of two sermons: one on the mount, the other on a plain. Not so, but the Spirit gave Matthew to present the discourse suitably to his design, and to Luke another method equally in keeping with his aim.

Verse 35 is the most remarkable innovation, as far as translation is concerned, which as yet occurs in the Revision. "But love your enemies . . . . and lend, never despairing," with the still stranger marginal alternation, "despairing of no man," μηδὲν (or, α) ἀπελπίζοντες. The Authorised Version is "hoping for nothing again." Now we cannot reason on the usage of the word elsewhere in the New Testament, for this is its only occurrence. What influenced the Revisers is  the fact that the word occurs in Polybius and the like in the sense of despairing or giving up in despair, and in the Authol P. ii, 114 of driving to despair. But even Liddell and Scott furnish, from Diog. L. i. 1-59, an instance of the modification, hoping that a thing will not happen.  The fact is, that words thus compounded admit of meanings so widely different as to include senses nearly opposed. Thus ἀπάγειν means to take away, or to bring home; ἀπαλλάσσειν to release, to destroy, to escape; ἀπαυρᾶν to take away from, or receive; ἀπειπεῖν to speak out, deny, forbid, disown, or fail; ἀπελαύνειν to drive away, or to march; ἀπέρχεσθαι to go away, or to come back; ἀπεσθίειν to eat off, or up, and to leave off eating; ἀπέχειν to keep off or hinder, or to receive in full; ἀποβαίνειν to throw away, and to throw back; ἀποβλέπειν to look on, or at, or away; αποδακρύειν to weep much or to cease weeping; ἀποδαρθάνειν to sleep a little, or to wake up; ἀπόκεισθαι to be laid up in store, or aside; αποκλαίεσθαι to bewail oneself, or to cease wailing, etc. This induction suffices to show that verbs compounded with ἀπό admit of flexibility enough in sense to cover the meaning attached to the word in our old and other Versions.

The question then mainly turns on the requirement of the context. And when one weighs verses 30-34 with care, it seems surprising that a sense so unnatural here should be attached to the word in verse 35. Especially consider the immediately preceding verse: "and if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? even sinners lend to sinners, to receive again as much." What can be simpler than the converse call of grace, love, do good, lend, "hoping for nothing again." (Cf. Luke 14: 12.) What worthy sense in such a connection is there in "never despairing"? Does it mean that, whatever we may give thus unselfishly in faith, we are to have no fears of coming short for ourselves? If so, it seems needless, mean, and out of character with all the rest. Never despair because of giving or lending to others! Even a generous man might be beyond such fears, not to speak of a son of the Highest exhorted by the Only-begotten of the Father. And what here is the force of the margin "despairing of no man"? If the Revisers understand despairing of no man's honesty or gratitude in repayment, it seems quite contrary to the spirit of verse 30, not to mention that the sequel of verse 35 casts the believer wholly on God's great recompense.

Have the Revisers caught the idiom in 38, 44; Luke 14: 35; Luke 16: 4, 9; Luke 23: 31? The Authorised Version followed by themselves takes it rightly in Luke 12: 20. To give the plural literally misleads the English reader. It is meant to be general, and for us an impersonal or passive turn best expresses the thought. In several cases God is really meant without saying so.

In Luke 7: 31 the Revisers properly drop, among lesser additions without due warrant, the spurious words which begin the verse, which were inserted by copyists who did not perceive that verses 29, 30 are a parenthesis of the evangelist, and that the Lord continues from the end of verse 28.

In Luke 8 one of the most weighty corrections is in verse 51, where "put them all out and" should not be, though rightly in Mark 5: 40.

In Luke 9: 35 "chosen" takes the place of "beloved Son" as in Matthew and Mark. Verses 55, 56 are simply thus: "But he turned and rebuked them. And they went to another village." But the end of verse 55 in the vulgar text has more authority than the beginning of verse 56. The Revisers even omit the last words of verse 54.

In the parable of the good Samaritan the Revisers, on good authority, strike out additions of the common text, in verses 32 and 35 especially.

But Luke 11 affords more cases, especially in Luke's form of the prayer, where "Father" alone is read, not "Our Father which art in heaven," an importation from Matthew, as is "Thy will be done as in heaven so in earth," and "but deliver us from evil:" all of which petitions had special interest and value for Jewish disciples. Ought there not to have been a more distinctive version of ὁ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ in verse 13 than the "heavenly" of the Authorised Version here followed? (Compare Matt. 5: 16, 44, 48; Matt. 6: 1, 9.)

No doubt cases are not infrequent where an anarthrous form in Greek requires the definite article in our idiom. But the tendency even in the Revised Version is to introduce it needlessly. Thus in Luke 11: 31, 32 (as in Matt. 12: 41, 42) it is enough and even more exact to say "a queen" and "men of Nineveh." The article might have been used in Greek if the intention had been to refer to them as those well-known in Old Testament history or prophecy. But as it is not, "the queen" and "the men" seems uncalled for. On the other hand, why should we have "mint and rue," etc. (and in Matt. 23: 23, "mint and anise and cummin") when the Greek article is so expressly introduced to mark the minutious exactitude of Jewish legalism. Between these however may be noticed in verse 33, "a cellar," an improvement on "a secret place"; and in verse 41, for "such things as ye have" or "your property," an unquestionally sound rendering of τὰ ἐνόντα, "those things which are within" and in the margin "ye can," neither of which seems at all so suitable to the context. Of course those who advocate the revised textual rendering might point to the preceding verses in its justification; but to give for alms those things which are written is really a paradox, instead of the simple dealing with the Pharisee's conscience, which to plain minds is the thing intended. "Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts and these defile the man, anything but a suitable material for alms, leaving all things clean to him.

In Luke 12: 31 it is "his [your Father's] kingdom" rather than "the kingdom of God," though the authorities are not numerous.

In Luke 13: 15, Hypocrites, not "hypocrite;" and omit desolate in verse 35, brought in from Matthew 23.

In Luke 14: 5 the Revisers have resisted the temptation of following the mass of ancient authority and of modern critics, and retain "ass," giving "son" in the margin.

In Luke 15: 22 they add "quickly" on good, but not large, authority, and omit "again" in verse 32.

"It fails" in Luke 16: 9 has beyond doubt preponderant authority over "ye fail;" but it is difficult to see its superior force or even propriety.

"Against thee," in Luke 17: 3, came in probably from Matthew 18: 15, though even there B omit, as here also with A L. Omit verse 36, borrowed from Matthew 24: 40.

In Luke 18: 1 the Revisers rightly translate "that they ought" etc., not "men." — In verse 28 they follow a few very ancient copies in giving "our own" instead of "all," which however is supported by A and many other uncials.

I am surprised ἐν τῳ ἐγγίζειν αὐτόν is not represented in its vagueness, "while he was nigh," so as to suit going out of Jericho as truly as coming in. (Cf. Matt. 20: 29; Mark 10: 46.) Perhaps they and the Authorised Version were deterred by the story of Zacchaeus afterwards as the Lord passed through Jericho; but this is no sufficient obstacle. To my mind the aim of the Spirit appears to be the bringing together this story and the parable of the Pounds (Luke 19) to illustrate the moral ways of God in the two advents of Christ, which would have been marred by the interposition of the blind man healed in its actual historic place.

In Luke 20: 13 there is good authority for omitting "when they see him," with lesser points before and after; also "why tempt ye me?" from Mark, with other omissions. It seems singular that κρίμα should be confounded in verse 47 with κατάκριμα: "sentence" (often included in "charge" also) is the true thought. (Cf. Luke 23: 40.)

In Luke 21: 19 the Revisers have adopted a reading and a rendering at least questionable. A B are but slender authority for κτήσεσθε, as against κτήσασθε differing only by one letter; and their own rendering of 1 Thessalonians 4: 5 sustains the Authorised Version, "possess," against their own "win" here.

There is in Luke 22: 31 the precarious omission of the opening words "And the Lord said" with no more than three uncials (B L T). Thus they render, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan asked to have you that he might sift you as wheat; but I made supplication for thee, that thy faith fail not: and do thou, when once thou hast turned again, stablish thy brethren," consigning to the margin the notion of Alford, etc., that ἐξαιτέομαι should here convey the sense of "obtained you by asking;" which is clean contrary to the context and indeed to the truth generally. They give the addition, on better evidence, of "today" in verse 61, whilst all but the same manuscripts omit "struck him on the face and" in verse 64.

Luke 23: 17 is rejected with the best authorities and critics; it was founded probably on Matthew and Mark, with a good many changes of words here and there.

It is strange that any critics should have been moved by an erratic uncial to doubt Luke 24: 12 and 40. Many more instances of lesser moment might be added; but these selections may suffice.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN.

The corrected rendering of John 1: 9 seems not only clumsy, but so ambiguous that many readers will doubt or misunderstand what the Revisers really mean by it. "There was the true light, even the light which lighteth every man, coming into the world." If the comma after "man" is intended to sever "coming into the world" from "man," and to connect the phrase as a predicate with the true light or the relative that follows, it is all well; but is not so slight an intimation — likely to be misapprehended? This at any rate, if so meant, aims at the true sense. John was not the light in question. The true light was that which lightens every man, not absolutely nor always, but on coming into the world. It is the character or effect of the Incarnation. The Authorised Version is unquestionably incorrect, besides giving a tautological meaning if the article could be dispensed with. Further to be a man, and to come into the world, are said to be equivalent in Rabbinical usage. But does any Rabbi add [the article in such cases]? It is not correct. They may employ "those that come into the world" to express "all men;" but where do they employ both phrases "every man coming into the world," as John is presumed to say here? The truth is that in one form or another ὁ ἐρχόμενος regularly applies to the Lord Jesus, as in John 1: 15, 27; John 3: 31 (bis), as also in Matthew 11: 3; Luke 7: 19, 20; yet more fully and definitely ὁ ἐρχ. εἰς τὸν κ., John 6: 14, where it would be idle to take it for any man as such, and not as appropriated to the Messiah. (Cf. John 11: 27.) It would be well also to note John 3: 19; John 9: 39; John 12: 46; John 16: 28; John 18: 37. These instances ought to leave no doubt in any careful mind that our evangelist habitually uses the phrase of Christ to the exclusion of every other, it must be connected here not with π. ἄνθρωπον, but with τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀλ. The nearest approach is John 16: 21, which is pointedly different, not to speak of any ulterior mystery in its figure.

It is surprising under such circumstances that the Five Clergymen should say it is impossible to determine with certainty whether the particle ἐρχόμενον is to be taken with φῶς or with ἦν in the nominative case neuter, or with ἄνθρωπον in the masculine accusative. They, too, while adopting the same sense as the Authorised Version, strive not to exclude a quite different reference, the converse of the Revisers.

But if the Revisers intended in their text to convey that Christ is the true light which coming into the world lighteth every man, they give in the margin, "The true light, which lighteth every man, was coming" into the world: a rendering grammatically possible, though not probable, but contextually excluded by the verse following which speaks of the Lord in immediate connection as in the world, and not to come, or in mere process of coming. Next, the margin adds another alternative, indicative of the uncertainty of the Revisers, "every man as he cometh." But is this serious? It is no question of a reasonable soul or conscience, but of Christ the true light. Is it orthodox that Christ enlightens "every man as he cometh," etc.? What do they suggest by it? What can any one infer but that, if this be true, Christ gives His own light to every man on his coming into the world? A doctrine less defensible and more unworthy than the delusion of every man's being born again by baptism. Here a signal spiritual blessing is bound up with every man's birth of nature. Would it not be nearer the truth of God to say that no man as he comes into the world is enlightened by Christ?

In result, then, we see that the Revisers reject apparently the Authorised Version, and give us in the text the right sense so obscurely that most readers will confound it with the only meaning meant to be shut out, while the margin gives the choice between a version possible and harmless, but quite unsuitable to the context, and another directly opposed to any creed in Christendom, unless it be that of Quakers. It is probably due to their adherence to the order of the Greek words that they have in the revised text left their meaning anything but clear and express. They have thus sacrificed their own principle not to leave any translation or arrangement of words which could adapt itself to one or other of two interpretations, but rather to express as plainly as possible that interpretation which seemed best to deserve a place.

They are also somewhat capricious in representing the article or the anarthrous construction. Thus in John 1: 12 they say "the right to become children of God," where they properly drop it before "children," and needlessly insert it before "right." They give us "a woman" in John 4: 27, and "a servant" in John 13: 16; but they do not say "the woman" in John 16: 21, though they do say "the child," whereas the one like the other is used generically, like "the bondservant" and "the son" in John 8: 35.

Slight but generally accredited changes occur not seldom in John 1, 2, which call for no particular remark. In verse 11 of John 2 "signs" is rightly given, and throughout this Gospel, rather than "miracles;" but why should ἐξουσία be rendered "right" in John 1: 12, "authority" in John 5: 17, and "power" (margin, "right") in John 10: 18?

In John 3: 15 they adopt "believeth may in him have eternal life," whilst in verse 16 they retain "believeth on him should not perish but have eternal life." It is a question of readings, and it cannot be doubted that they have good authority. In John 4: 42 they properly, with all critics and on good grounds, discard "the Christ," the true force being far clearer without that title; so do they, on ample authority, omit other additions of loss moment.

But the omission of the last clause of verse 3, and the whole of verse 4 in John 5, is grave. No doubt a few of the oldest and best MSS and versions omit all or nearly all this portion. Still the unquestionable answer of the sufferer in verse 7 seems hardly compatible with the omission, which ancient rationalism might desire, as does the same spirit in our own day. There seems nothing unworthy of God in the omitted clause, while, on the contrary, what is there falls in with the scope of what is undoubted, if it be not requisite to give the full force. God under the law had not left Himself without witness of mercy; but sin wrought havoc, and strength was needed to avail oneself of any remedy afforded. What the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin condemned sin in the flesh, and so gave us deliverance. Jesus with a word heals the man whom no angel's help, no ordinance, could avail to meet.

In the body of the Lord's discourse, wherein He shows Himself the source of life now to faith, vindicated by the execution of judgment by-and-by, we have the Revisers very properly exhibiting "judgment" where the Authorised Version had "judgment," "condemnation," and "damnation." (Vers. 22, 24, 27, 29.)

John 6 affords many small points of correction as to which most are agreed; and so does John 7. But on these details there is little reason to dwell.

The most noteworthy and important omission is of course the end of John 7 and beginning of John 8 to verse 11 inclusively. Here confessedly most of the old uncials are adverse, and not a few versions are silent, as ancient commentators also. But it is painful to add that Augustine at an early day, and Nicon, an Armenian abbot of the tenth century, bear their distinct testimony to the subjective reasons which led to leaving out the story, even where it was well known to exist in the Gospel. Nothing on the other hand can account for its insertion if it were not the inspired word of God; and in no place does it fit in, spite of strong and repeated efforts to dislodge it, save as the fact introductory to the discourse of our Lord in this chapter. The internal objections to the style or language are as weak as those alleged against Mark 16: 9-20. The words, which viewed superficially afford occasion, turn out when duly weighed to be powerful evidences of their own genuineness as well as authenticity; as is indeed the case invariably with true scripture for all who value the truth.

But there is a difficulty of translation in the central part of this chapter which should not be lightly passed over. The Jews say to the Lord (ver. 25), "Who art thou? Jesus said unto them, Even that which I have also spoken unto you from the beginning," τὴν ἀρχὴν ὅτι καὶ λαλῶ ὑμῖν. Such is the Revisers' translation and Mr. Palmer's text, pretty much as the Authorised Version, 41 even the same that I said unto you from the beginning."* It is the more strange, as Tyndale followed by Cranmer had rendered it not only in better keeping with the context but with less violence to grammatical propriety: "Even the very same thing that I saye (C. speake) unto you." The Geneva Version introduced the error which still taints the Revision: "Even the very same thing that I sayde unto you from the begynnyng," which rendering appears to give a twofold meaning to τὴν ἀρχήν, besides that one of these meanings leads to the violation of the time of the verb. This the Five Clergymen seek to avoid in "That which I also say unto you from the beginning." But even if this were otherwise allowable, how can τὴν ἀρχήν = ἐξ = (or ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς? It is common enough to see ἀρχήν or ἀρχάς, with or without κατά, in the sense of at first, in the beginning, to begin with; and no doubt the assumption that so it means here gave occasion to "I said" or "I have spoken" as the rendering of λαλῶ. Were all this permissible and feasible, where is the propriety of the sense that results? Plato's Lysis (recogn. Baiter. Orell. & Wink. 367, col. 2) proves that it is too hasty to say that the phrase cannot mean absolutely, altogether, save in negative and quasi-negative sentences; and Elsner adds a few more occurrences in later Greek. This alone gives a worthy meaning: "Who art thou? Absolutely what I am also speaking to you." Jesus is the Word, the Truth: what He speaks corresponds wholly with His being. He is what He says, as none other: not only the truth in itself, but precisely what comes out from first to last in this chapter, where He first acts as the light, then reveals Himself as such, and shows that He is the truth, the Son, and finally God, the Eternal One: before Abraham was (γενέσθαι) I am (ἐγώ εἰμι).

*The Vulgate has, Principium qui (some copies, quia) et loquor vobis; and this of course Wiclif follows, and the Rhemish yet more closely. No one can doubt that they are all absurdly wrong, though Augustine and Ambrose misused their liberties to extract a tolerable sense from what must have been wholly ungrammatical. To bear such a version the Lord must have said ἡ ἀρχή, not to speak of anything else. The Greek ecclesiastics, not comprehending the connection, have apparently evaded coming to close quarters.

There is little calling for notice in the Company's work on John 9 save the reception of ἡμᾶς "us" in verse 4 instead of the first "me" without even a caution in the margin. Also they might have avoided both text and marginal alternative of John 10: 2 by giving simply "is shepherd of the sheep." It is not often perhaps that English answers to the anarthrous Greek without the definite, or even the indefinite, article; but here it seems to be unequivocally preferable. They have adopted a better text than the Received in verse 4: "When he hath put forth all his own," reading "all" and dropping "sheep." So in verses 14, 15, they have given the undoubtedly requisite correction on good authority, which beautifully connects the two verses now severed;* excluding the gross blunder of "fold" instead of "flock" for ποιμνή in verse 16, where Tyndale was right. — To verse 29 it seems rather surprising they should have deemed it advisable to give in the margin, "That which my Father hath given unto me," even though read by some ancient authorities, seeing that this is not really "greater than all," and that it also wholly breaks the context. No doubt Tischendorf, Tregelles and Alford adopt this unreasonable variation; but, strange to say, Dr. S. Davidson, who translates the text of the first, follows the ordinary readings here, and so does the last in his revised New Testament. And is there not a purposed omission of the object in both parts of the verse, which should be heeded by the translator instead of supplying "them" twice, as the Revisers do? The omission gives force to the gift, and strongly negatives wresting out of the Father's hand. Minor points may be left.

* Of English versions here Wiclif is the best, and the Rhemish the worst, though both were founded on the Vulgate.

In John 11 nothing appears to detain us.

In John 12 why not "the" grain of wheat, as they themselves give "the" mountain, "the" rock, "the" bushel, "the" lampstand, "the" sower, "the" bason, "the" sop, etc.?

Nor is there in John 13 anything special to notice, "during supper" being certainly the true force of δείπνου γιν., not "supper being ended." Even if γεν. (A D and a dozen uncials more, and almost all cursives, etc.) be read, it would mean "supper being come."

In John 14: 23 they of course give "my word," not "words;" on 15 and 16 we need not dwell.

In John 17: 4 "having accomplished" is well known to rest on excellent authority, but differs very slightly in sense from the more general text; so in verse 11, "keep them in thy name which" is accepted ordinarily instead of the common reading. Surely it would have been better in verse 16 to have adhered to the emphatic Greek order, "Of the world they are not," as compared with the same words in verse 14. In verse 19 they say "sanctified in truth," rightly omitting the article, as others did before them. They drop ἔν, "one in us," verse 21, and read in their text of verse 24, "ὅ, that which," instead of "οὕς, those whom" (cf. John 6: 37, 39), only that in the earlier chapter each form is used distinctly, not blended, as they would be here were the critical reading accepted as certain.

In the four closing chapters are corrections of slight blemishes in the common text, but happily nothing of sufficient moment to call for remark. "Simon, son of John" rather than Jonas, as in John 1: 42. "Perceivest" is a poor alternative in the margin for "knowest," γινώσκεις as compared with οἶδας.

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

This book furnishes such an abundant harvest of various readings, as well as of questionable renderings that those pointed out, whether for commendation or for censure, must be regarded rather as samples than a complete review.

Acts 1 calls for no special notice, though there is laxity in verses 14, 18, 19; correctness in verses 7, 17, 22. Why should πνοή in Acts 2: 2 be translated "wind," as in the Authorised Version? The sound out of heaven seemed like the rush of an impetuous blast or blowing. And why should φωνή in verse 6 be confounded with the ἦχος of verse 2, instead of the more natural Septuagintal sense of "report," adopted in the Authorised Version? The rumour of what had occurred to the disciples might well attract people from all parts to the spot where they were gathered; how could the sound from heaven do so? T. S. Green takes it as "gift of speech," Bloomfield as the noise of the multitude; but the former seems without example in the LXX, or New Testament, and the loud noise would be when the strangers flocked rather than that which drew them together. Another point by no means clear is the "parted" or "parting asunder" of verse 3, which they alternate in the margin with "parting asunder among them," or "distributing themselves" — a very different meaning. Alford and the Authorised Version follow Erasmus' dissectae, rather than the Vulgate dispertitae, which Wiclif neglected wholly. But Wiclif was right as to men of Crete, where Tyndale and the Geneva by a strange error gave "Grekes" in chapter 2, and the Authorised Version "Cretes," not the singular "Cretians," of Titus 1: 12. Again, is it desirable in verse 22 to continue "approved" (ἀποδεδειγμένον), seeing that the word is never used now in the sense of "shown plainly forth," "proved," "appointed," but judged worthy or pleasing, which wholly misleads? To this the Vulgate and Beza contributed, giving "approbatum," rather than Erasmus' "exhibitum," or "demonstratum," or "designatum." In verse 23 the Revisers very properly give "by the hand of lawless men," and leave out of verse 30 a clause as unauthorised as it is unnecessary; equally good is their omission of ἀσμένως in verse 41, an evident insertion from Acts 21: 17. Verses 42, 46 are more correctly represented, though the close of verse 47 might be better than "And the Lord added to them, day by day, those that were being saved." The marginal alternative is not more literally true to the Greek than requisite. "And the Lord kept adding together day by day, those that should be saved." This formed "the assembly;" and so the words τῃ ἐκκλησιᾳ crept in, and drove out ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό Which then and there became useless, so as to introduce Acts 3, where they are not wanted. For the true force of τοὺς σ., let me appeal to the respectable Company themselves in their version of Luke 13: 23 (not to speak of 1 Cor. 15: 2). Correct accordingly not only Acts 2: 47 but 1 Corinthians 1: 18, and 2 Corinthians 2: 15, τῶν σ. in Revelation 21: 24 being beyond a doubt spurious. It has been often pointed out that οἱ σ. is a technical expression of the LXX for the Jewish remnant destined to salvation out of the ungodly people, and that the present participle is here used (as the indicative no less frequently) apart from time for the class; for the same persons at the same time have predicated of them the aorist and perfect as well as the present. This proves that the present must be used, not historically, but as the description of a class; the present cannot otherwise apply, as well as the two past tenses; abstractedly of the character it might. Compare the use of "sanctified" in Hebrews 10: 10, 14, to which the same principle applies.

In Acts 3: 18, 26, as in Acts 4: 27, 30, the Revisers rightly give, not Son or Child, but "servant," referring to Isa. 42: 1; (Matt. 12: 18); Isa. 52: 13; Isa. 53: 11. Verses 19, 20 are given accurately, "Repent ye, therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that so there may come seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord; and that he may send the Christ who hath boon appointed for you, even Jesus."

In Acts 4-6 there are changes requisite, but not perhaps of any great importance.

In Acts 7: 38 is perpetuated the old error of "church" in the wilderness, with "congregation" in the margin, the converse of Hebrews 2: 12, where "congregation" appears in the text, "church" in the margin. There is a good deal of uncertainty in the treatment of verse 53, the law "as it was ordained by angels," or "as the ordinance of angels," Greek "unto ordinances of angels." Undoubtedly εἰς διαταγὰς ἀγγ. is not an easy phrase, but means at injunctions or ordering of angels. (Cf. Matt. 12: 41; Gal. 3: 19.) In verse 59 if words must be intercalated, they are more right in saying "the Lord" than the Authorised Version, which detracts from His glory by inserting "God;" better leave out either and give, "invoking and saying, Lord Jesus," etc.

In Acts 8 verse 37 is with good reason expunged. Still stronger is all textual authority against the interpolated clauses in Acts 9: 5, 6, from "persecuted" to "Arise," or rather, "But arise;" for in error the conjunction has been omitted. This is a notable instance of Erasmus' temerity, misled by the Vulgate, the source of the corruption, founding the words in part on Acts 22: 10; Acts 26: 14. The Complutensian text is right, διώκεις ἀλλὰ ἀνάστηθι κ. τ. λ., and so all modern critics, and of course the Revisers. But the Complutensian is as wrong as Erasmus, and the rest who follow the inferior MSS in giving "Christ" rather than Jesus ( A D C E, fifteen cursives, Vulg., Syrr., Sah., Memph., Theb., Armen., Aeth. etc.) which the Revisers follow, as also "church" rather than "churches" in verse 31, the Compluten. giving the plural form in Greek, the singular in Latin.

In Acts 10 the most remarkable change seems the omission of "and fasting" in verse 30, the most ancient MSS and Versions omitting the words, the mass sustaining them.

In Acts 11: 12 is a very questionable adoption, "making no distinction" μηδὲν διακρίναντα* which rests on corr. A B and half-a-dozen cursives. The primary reading of the Sinait. with Laud's and a few cursives is μ. διακρίνοντα, but the bulk of MSS with all the versions support μ. διακρινόμενος, as in Acts 10: 20 where the MSS are not at all at variance. D and Syrp. omit the words, as Griesbach thought probable and Alford and Green certain. But the rendering is right in verse 17, as is the reading  Ἕλληνας, Greeks, (not  Ἑλληνιστάς, Grecians,) in verse 20, as many have pointed out long ago. There would have boon no great moment in mentioning the gospel going out to Hellenists, for there was no question from the first about Greek-speaking Jews. The grand point is the free action in the Spirit of these scattered brethren in preaching to the Gentiles, besides and apart from the formal mission of Peter to Cornelius; and that the Lord's hand was with them.

* οὐδὲν διέκρινε is the phrase for this in Acts 15: 9.

There is nothing to detain us in Acts 12, but Acts 13 presents many matters of question and interest. Would it not be better to have distinguished between" sent" in verses 3 and 4? The first is only let go, the second is really "sent forth," which when not distinguished might lead to false inferences in clerical minds. Still stranger is the adoption with Tregelles of ἐτροποφόρησεν which is the vulgar or Stephano-Elzevirian text and has high authority ( B etc.) with the great mass of cursives and other witnesses.  Ἐτροφ. has not only A C p.m. E and some cursives and almost all the ancient versions save the Vulgate, but Deuteronomy 1: 31 in Hebrew and the LXX (save a few copies of the latter), the intrinsic sense being in my judgment beyond comparison in its favour: and so Alford, Bloomfield, Griesbach, Green, Lachmann, Mill, Scholz, Tischendorf, Wells, and Wordsworth. Bengel too even thinks that the other word means the same thing, an alternative only in form, the context pointing to the sense of Deuteronomy 1 and Numbers 12, especially as Jehovah, whatever His grace, chastised their manners in the wilderness as is written for our admonition. Again, though the critical reading of verses 19, 20, is that of the Revisers, they involve themselves in an ungrammatical rendering of ὡς ἔτεσιν κ. τ. λ. as if it were ὡς ἔτη "for about four hundred and fifty years," instead of "in about four hundred and fifty years." The distinctive use of the dative and accusative in questions of time should not be overlooked in the version, as it is not in the context. On the other hand they rightly drop again" in verse 33, as the participle cannot mean "up" and "again," though it may mean either; which is expressly distinguished in verse 34. In verse 34 they draw no attention to the peculiarity of ὅσιος for "holy" or the preceding ὅσια.

In Acts 14 there is scarcely anything to change; in Acts 15: 34 is not now read by any critic of note, as not appearing in A B E H L P, some sixty cursives, etc.

In Acts 16: 7 they rightly give "the Spirit of Jesus;" but why in verse 12 "a city of Macedonia, the first of the district," when a principal city of the district of Macedonia" strictly represents the Greek text? Amphipolis had been for some time the capital of the district, and Neapolis was first in geographical order for one arriving from the East like the apostle. It is known however that a Greek city might be designated πρωτή without being the metropolis of the region, as for instance, Smyrna and Pergamos were so styled, though Ephesus was the capital of the province. And reasons were not wanting quite sufficient for such a claim on the part of Philippi, especially as Augustus had shown himself ready to show it uncommon favour.

Again in Acts 17: 1 why should ὡς δ. be translated "somewhat superstitious"? Very religious, devoted to higher powers, or given up to demon worship, seems rather the force of the word here. They rightly change "the Lord" into "God" in verse 27; but τὸ θεῖον, the divine, or what is divine, in verse 29, should not be confounded With θειότης or still less θεότης.

In Acts 18: 5 they correctly substitute "by the word" for "by the Spirit," whilst Alford would render it "earnestly occupied in preaching," and T. S. Green similarly.

In Acts 19: 16 it is "both of them," not the seven, but two of them, easily made into all, but not the converse.

In Acts 20: 7 it is correctly "when we came together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them," etc., and in verse 30 "the disciples."

In Acts 21: 15 "our baggage" or "effects" is right instead of "carriages."

Acts 22 affords little to remark on, but Acts 23: 9 ends correctly with "and if a spirit hath spoken to him, or an angel?" So A B C E and other good authorities, though the addition of the common text is not without numerous attestations. In verse 27 σὺν τῳ στρ. is not "with an army," but with the soldiery, or my soldiers.

In Acts 24: 14 the Revisers rightly say "a sect," or faction or parties, as they should have said, not heresies but sects or factions in 1 Corinthians 11: 19, and in Galatians 5: 20, as Titus 3: 10 should be factions rather than "heretical."

The only thing one would now notice in Acts 25: is in verse 5, where the Authorised Version deserts Erasmus and Stephens for the Complutensian and Beza (at least in his later editions, for up to that of 1565 he too omitted ἄτοπον). Only the modern critics (Alford, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles) exclude τούτῳ "this, as well as adopt ἄτοπον "amiss." It may be added that δυνατοί here does not refer to ability, as in the Authorised Version, following Erasmus and Beza, but to power, influence, or authority, as in the Vulgate potentes, not qui . . . . possunt.

In Acts 26: 17 ἐξαιρ. does not seem to mean deliverance or rescue, but taking Paul out from the people, and from the Gentiles. Verses 28, 29 are given correctly in the main. "In a little thou art persuading me to become a Christian. And Paul, I would to God, both in a little and in much, that not thou only but also," etc.

Acts 27 stands singularly in the ordinary Authorised Version. Verse 9 is "the voyage," not sailing or navigation; and down south-west or down north-west (verse 12) means the opposite point of the wind, i.e. looking north-east and south-east. In verse 17, χαλ. τὸ σκεῦος is not "strake sail," but "lowered the gear," and so scudded (οὕτως ἐφ.). In verse 30 the sense is to lay or carry out, not to "cast out," anchors; nor does verse 40 mean "taking up" but casting off the anchors; nor committing themselves but letting the anchor go into the sea; as also by τὸν ἀρτ. is meant the foresail, not the "mainsail." The revision in all this seems quite correct.

In Acts 28: the doubtful authority of the central part of verse 16 is acknowledged, and the whole of verse 29, the best witnesses being adverse, not only in MSS but in the ancient versions.

THE ROMANS.

The apostolic epistles afford quite another test of our Revisers; for doctrine far more than narrative materially affects our judgment, as in the earlier half of the New Testament, where a choice of reading or of rendering lies otherwise open to me. A right decision is, if possible, as much more momentous as it is more delicate. Of course we take the epistles as they stand in the English Bible.

The first verse of the first chapter of Romans affords an instance of loose or wrong views. "Called to be an apostle" is no less mistaken than "called to be saints" in Rom. 1: 7. As he was then an apostle, so were they saints. There is no need of supplying any words in either case; and in both the supply of "to be" rather weakens and falsifies, instead of justly defining the sense. It was for the saints in their call, as for the apostle in his, a fact. In neither case was it a birthright, nor was it a human acquirement; but they became, what they were, apostles or saints by calling. It was the call of grace, according to divine purpose, but an actual relationship, which "to be" at least obscures. So it is also in 1 Corinthians, Jude, and the Revelation, as well as in Romans 8: 28. Again, γρ. singular or plural, for "the scripture" or "the scriptures," regularly takes the article; so that, in Greek, there must be a specific reason here to render the word anarthrous. The epithets here and in Rom. 16: 26 are supposed by some to account for this, as others allege the propositions; but neither ground seems satisfactory; and it is weak to say that it was indifferent to insert or omit the Greek article. The expression here then appears to be purposely general. Further, the characteristic description of, not God's gospel only, but His Son, in verses 3, 4, is not as faithfully reflected in the Revision as one might desire: see also verse 16. So, in verses 17, 18, one doubts the need of saying either "a" righteousness or "the" wrath, the phrases being alike characteristic.

But the Version of κατεχόντων in verse 18 calls for the more notice, as the Company adopt a sense which has prevailed extensively among ancients and moderns; yet is it not the primary force of the word but rather a possible contextual modification, which the context here in my judgment proves inadmissible. The word means, not simply like ἔχειν, to have, but to have thoroughly, to take (Matt. 21: 38, Luke 14: 9), to possess (1 Cor. 8: 30), to hold, or keep if there be danger of losing, to hold fast (Luke 8: 5; 1 Cor. 11: 2, 1 Cor. 15: 2; 1 Thess. 5: 21, etc.); if there be an opposing power, to withhold or hinder. (2 Thess. 2: 5, 6.) What then is the connection of the passage helping us to determine which of these shades of meaning is best here? The apostle (ver. 16) was not ashamed of the gospel, for it is God's power unto salvation to every one that believeth, both Jew first and Greek. For God's righteousness is revealed therein from faith unto faith, according as it is written, But the righteous shall live by faith, verse 17. This may be fairly regarded as the subject-matter of the epistle. The next verse states summarily why such an intervention of grace was requisite if a man was to be saved righteously. For there is revealed God's wrath from heaven against (or upon) all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men that possess or hold the truth in unrighteousness. This is precisely what is unfolded in what follows to the end of Rom. 3: 20: first, every sort of ungodliness in the Gentile world, gross to the end of chapter 1, and more refined in the first half (vers. 1-16) of Rom. 2; where secondly he turns to the proof of unrighteousness in those that hold the truth in unrighteousness, which marks the self-satisfied and unbelieving Jew.* Nor is anything more common in Christendom than truth, or orthodoxy, held ever so firmly along with total disregard of practical righteousness. It was notoriously so at that time among the Jews. Assuredly this is a phase of evil against which God's wrath is revealed; and the warning is as solemn as it is instructive in the most comprehensive treatise inspiration furnishes on the foundation of Christianity. Stifling or hindering the truth is a part of men's ungodliness no doubt; but for this very reason it does not fit in so strikingly with the Spirit's distinction between every sort of ungodliness and unrighteousness of those that hold the truth in unrighteousness. It appears to me then that "hold down" or hinder," as the Revisers (English and American) say, does not give the true sense, nor does the marginal alternative "withhold" of the previous English Versions, still less "detain" of the Rhemish, with the Vulgate, Syriac, and Arabic. The Coptic is right, if I may judge from Wilkins. The Ethiopic is there quite unreliable, I believe therefore that the Authorised Version is right, not the Revision.

*Chrysostom (Hom. in loc. pp, 36, 37, Field, Oxon. 1849) seems rather unusually wide of the mark, taking verse 18 of one class, evil in dogma and life, of which the proof follows in verse 19 etc. Nor is he alone in the mistake of thus limiting "the truth" to the testimony of creation.

The Company have, as almost all allow, properly cast out "of Christ" (ver. 16), "also" (ver. 24), "of and fornication" (ver. 29), "implacable" (ver. 81). In verse 28 they render οὐκ ἐδ. "refused," which is beyond question more correct than "did not like" of the Authorised Version. From "proving," in the sense of assaying, the word comes to mean "approve," or think good, or choose; and "hateful to God" is the true force rather than "haters of God" in verse 30. Whether they are not deceived by sound in giving πρ. rather than ποι. the sense of "practise" is a grave consideration, though they stand not alone in their judgment; it affects the bearing of many scriptures from Matthew to Revelation as well as Romans frequently.

In Rom. 2 there is much less to arrest us. "Incorruption" is right, not immortality, in verse 7, as in Ephesians 6: 24 morally, and 2 Timothy 1: 10, as well as 1 Corinthians 15: 42, 50, 53. But "a" law in verse 13 seems objectionable, if they discard the article with the first νόμου and accept it with the second where Mr. Palmer gives the article. With Alford, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Wordsworth, the article should be in neither, and the version accordingly be "the law-hearers" and "the law-doers," or "the hearers of law" and "the doers of law" as Mr. Green. We all know that Bishop Middleton in his celebrated treatise repeatedly pronounces this form inadmissible; but it is his oversight of cases not in the New Testament only (Matt. 11: 13; Heb. 9: 13) but in the purest Attic Greek. (Plat. Phaedr. 808, 811, edd. Bait. Orell. et Winck.) Equally wrong was Mr. Gilbert Wakefield, who tries to account for the absence of the article in the sentence of Mark where it is well established. The governed noun need not therefore take the article, because the governing noun has it; whether it should take it or not depends on general principles. In verse 27 they have followed others in correcting the strange inaccuracy of the Authorised Version "by" the letter, etc. for which they give "with" to express the condition, not the instrument. The medium through which the act was done is not in question. But here again why not "who with letter and circumcision art a transgressor of law"? Of course the blunder of ἴδε "behold," for εἰ δέ "but if" (ver. 17) in the vulgarly received text, is corrected.

Rom. 3 offers more frequent and grave matter for inquiry. Thus the Authorised Version in the end of verse 4 is corrected into "comest into judgment," and "taketh vengeance" into "visiteth with wrath." But why should not the Revisers adhere to their usual "judgment" in verse 8? In the following verse they render προεχόμεθα "are we in worse case than they?" instead of the generally preferred "better," with the marginal alternative of "do we excuse ourselves?" The active voice may mean to have the advantage or surpass, the passive to be excelled; and so Wetstein suggested here, whom substantially the Company follow in their text, whilst giving the view of Hemsterhuis, Venema, Koppe and Wahl, in the margin, founded on one sense of the middle voice as such is beyond question of common usage. As the word occurs but once in the New Testament, we have no direct help to decide; but it has been pointed out that παρέχεσθαι is used (Acts 19: 24; Col. 4: 1; Titus 2: 7) where it differs from παρέχειν only by a delicate shade. Hence in not a few passages there is a conflict of readings between the active and the middle form of verbs, as in Luke 15: 9, John 14: 23, Acts 23: 13. Whether in the simple verb or in its compounds, the active and the middle in some cases approximate, though no doubt each has its appropriate application. In the present instance the middle voice suits the force intended, far more than the active προέχομεν: "are we on our part better?" And as the context favours this rendering, so it condemns the version of the Revisers beyond all others as well as their margin.* For in the previous verses the apostle had shown clearly that the Jews possessed signal advantages of an exterior sort over the Gentile; and this he was careful to press as aggravating their responsibility: for the argument towards the close of Rom. 2 might have seemed to place them all on one dead level. But if we, the Jews, have superior privileges, specially in having the scriptures, are we in ourselves better? Not so certainly; for we before charged both Jews and Greeks with being all under sin; and then scriptures are quoted from the Psalms and the Prophets exposing their sins in every way and in the highest degree. Thus the very law in which they boasted was the irrefutable witness of their universal and heinous guilt; that, as the Gentiles were already proved abominable, and the Jews were now convicted by what the law speaks to those within its scope, every mouth might be stopped and all the world come under God's judgment. And this serves to show the mistaken division here; — for verses 19 and 20 close this paragraph, the opening words being bound up with the citations from the law, or Old Testament. Sin was universal; law, far from delivering, wrought only full knowledge of sin. Man had nothing but unrighteousness for God: had God anything for man but wrath and judgment?

*Besides, will the Greek even bear the marginal sense, any more than Meyer's, "what then, have we an excuse?" The verb in this sense demands an object: and hence grammatically Wahl, etc. were compelled to find it in τι. But this construction would require the answer to be, not οὐ π., but οὐδέν.

"But now apart from law God's righteousness hath been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ unto all and upon all that believe." Such is the fresh subject, though in resumption of the great keynote just raised for a moment in Rom. 1: 17, but interrupted to let in the demonstration of man's state which called forth God's wrath. It will be noticed by the reader what havoc is made by the omission of καὶ ἐπὶ π. "and upon all" in verse 22. No doubt four or five of the oldest uncials with two cursives and some ancient versions and fathers leave the words out; and they are followed by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort. But the Homoeoteleuton simply and satisfactorily accounts for the slip, aided as it may have been by the inability of many to see the double bearing of the truth enunciated. For how readily the mind swerves to Calvinistic views, or to Arminian; and how few accept the truth in its fulness, of which extreme partisans see but one part, unintelligently opposed to the other part! The main body of uncials, cursives, versions, and fathers declares for the text as rendered in the Authorised Version. Even the mutilated form of some of the best Latin copies ("super omnes") bears witness against that abbreviation which has found favour. And though the expositions of Greeks and Latins have little worth or point, they show the fact; for it is no question of Jews and Gentiles, but of God's righteousness manifested unto all, going out toward all indiscriminately, and taking effect actually on all those that believe. To overlook the difference of the prepositions is unworthy, and yet more so to confound "all" with "all that believe." The old writers who state but misapprehend the difference were certainly not the men to foist in a clause which, giving both comprehensiveness and precision, falls in as strikingly with this epistle in particular as with all scripture generally. God's righteousness could not but be for all; but in fact none but believers profited by it through faith in Christ. Its direction was towards all, not merely in believers, but all mankind; its application was upon all that believe. To take away the former is to deprive it of breadth; to blot out the latter is to deny its depth and strength. "Unto," not "upon," all that believe is far short of divine truth. The ordinary reading just suits the gospel of God; that of the Revisers seems equally one-sided and useless. To say that God's righteousness is unto all that believe would be a truism.

On the other hand it is strange to see that they retain "a propitiation" with the Authorised Version in verse 25, instead at best of presenting a "propitiatory" or mercy-seat as the Greeks generally understood, and they themselves do elsewhere (Heb. 9: 5) and Tyndale did here. — The rendering also that follows, "through faith, by his blood," is by no means sure. In verse 28 it seems peculiar that "for" ( A Dp.m. E F G, many cursives, versions, and fathers, and hence received by almost all, notwithstanding B C K L P and the Syrr. etc. which favours "therefore") is not approved by the Company, but "therefore" as in the received text. What misled was the supposition that it is a conclusion from the argument preceding, but rather a reason in support of verse 27. They are bold men who reject the judgment of Alford, Bengel, T. S. Green, Griesbach, Harwood, Koppe, Mill, Scholz, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Wells, Wordsworth, and the Five Clergymen. Is it that Drs. Westcott and Hort have changed their opinion? Judging by Dr. Vaughan's text of Romans (1st ed.) they did not then oppose the critics. — Nor do the Revisers, seem successful in dealing with the anarthrous form of verses 31, 32, nor with the distinctive force of the prepositions, etc. in verse 30. It is not "the" circumcision and "the" uncircumcision, which would imply these bodies of people, but persons of either class as such: "by faith," not by works of law which Jews might plead, and "through their faith" if Gentiles believed in Christ: the one excluding legal pretension, the other honouring faith where it existed.

In Rom. 4 the main blemish is one perpetuated from the Authorised Version in verse 12, and probably due to not seizing the force of π. π., which means chief, or first characteristic, type of true separation to God; "father of circumcision, not to those of circumcision only [Jewish], but also to those that walk in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham, which he had in uncircumcision [Gentile believers]." The erroneous version appeared in Tyndale, but not in the other English translations (Wiclif, Cranmer, Geneva, and Rhemish), which rightly give two classes, not one only characterised doubly.

In Rom. 5 none can be surprised to hear that the Revisers adopt for their text "let us have" for "we have," though in Greek it is only the question of a long for a short ο, letters habitually confounded (Itacism as it is called) in the best and oldest MSS. The diplomatic groundwork, though seemingly strong beyond measure, is therefore really precarious, unless the context be also clear and sure. But in my judgment the dogmatic or inferential, not exhortatory, character in this part of the epistle decidedly demands the indicative rather than the subjunctive in Rom. 5: 1, 2, 3, as is strongly confirmed by the structure of verse 11, which does not admit of the latter. But souls weak in the gospel would naturally incline to the subjunctive of old as now. — Of course, "reconciliation" displaces "atonement" in verse 11. But it seems strange that the Company have not adopted, even in the margin, the excellent suggestion of the famous Dr. Bentley (Ellis, p. 28) presenting the first clause of verses 15, 16 in the interrogative form. The sense is clearer thereby. They correct the confusion of εἰς as if it were ἐπί in the elliptical verse 18, and rightly say "unto all men to condemnation," etc.; also of course "the one" and "the many" are accurately given throughout, with other corrections of interest.

In Rom. 6 the revision of verse 3 may dispel the delusion that all were not baptised, only many: a strange oversight of the force of the phrase. But baptism was to or unto, not "into," a person, though that of the Spirit was "into one body."

The revision of Rom. 7: 3, 4, "be joined to," is certainly better than the too definite "married" of the Authorised Version. The Greek exactly answers to the Hebrew, as for instance in Hosea 3, "To be, or belong to" is the literal and precise force. Again, it is high time that the doctrinal error involved in the editions of Beza, and repeated in the text of the Authorised Version, should be expunged. Indeed, it seems to lack the support of a single MS or even version, and to have been a mere conjecture of Beza founded on a misconception of Chrysostom, who really, like every other early ecclesiastical writer, had ἀποθανόντες (not -τος). That the law died is Antinomian in tendency; that the Christian died to law (Gal. 2: 19; Col. 2: 20, Col. 3: 8), is sound and fundamental truth. There is a various reading here (τοῦ θανάτου) supported by Graeco-Latin uncials, and mentioned by Origen as then extant in some Greek copies, and followed by the Vulgate (except the Amiatine, which gives morientes, though it should be mortui), and many Latin fathers. But this is to miss the means of discharge or quittance from the law. Of course the Rhemish, like Wiclif, adheres to the less correct form of the Vulgate, whilst all the other English Versions were right in this till the Authorised Version went farther astray than ever. Erasmus, not in his first but in a later edition, had paved the way for Beza's rash conjecture through a misuse of Chrysostom's comment on the passage. Dr. Bloomfield, in his Recensio Synoptica, v. 580, attributes ἀποθανόντος to accident. But this is beyond controversy a mistake, from not knowing the facts. Had it been found in Greek copies, it might have been so; but we can trace its first appearance to the intentional alteration of Théodore de Bèze. — Toward the close of the same verse (6) do not the Company go too far in translating ὥστε δουλεύειν ἡμᾶς, "so that we serve," and not "so as to serve," or "so that we should serve"? — There seems no effort on the Revisers' part to distinguish between σαρκινός (ver. 14) and σαρκικός as in 1 Corinthians 3: 3; 9: 12, though there is in 2 Corinthians 3: 3.

Rom. 8 is of mingled character. The Revisers are justified in excluding the last clause of verse 1, which, even if genuine, is incorrectly rendered in the Authorised Version. But why print "Spirit" with a capital in verses 2, 9 (twice), 11 (twice), 14 and 16, while they print it with a small letter in verses 4, 5 (twice) 6, 9 (twice more), 13, 15? Again, in verse 4 the textual rendering and the marginal should change places; and so perhaps in verse 11. In verse 24 they have adopted "who hopeth for that which he seeth?" on the authority, as far as I am aware, of the great Vatican uncial (1209) supplemented by the margin of a Bodleian cursive, Roe 16, conventionally cited among the Pauline copies as 47. No editor has as yet ventured to put this forward as the true text, though no doubt the resulting sense seems simple and suitable — indeed so much so as to look like the smoothing down of a rather rugged phrase. And it may be mentioned that Mr. Hansell's Oxford edition of the more famous uncials does not represent B aright, any more than older editors, ὅ γὰρ βλέπει τις, τί ἐλπίζει ; whereas Tischendorf reports its text (p.m.) as ὅ γὰρ βλ., τίς ἐλπ. The margin of verse 47 is the less trustworthy here as reading ὑπομένει for ἐλπ. though, strange to say, p.m. and A do the same. Is it not strange that under such circumstances so ill-sustained a reading should be the ground of a change in so grave a work as the publicly revised version of the New Testament? — In verses 27, 28, the added words in Italics only encumber and enfeeble the sense. The Spirit intercedes for the saints according to God and His nature, yet more than His will, which comes very short of the truth. And though the "purpose" be without doubt of God, still it has pleased Him not to qualify it here in any way, as the fullest explanation follows in verses 29, 30. The conformity to the image of His Son is in resurrection glory, far beyond and distinct from any transformation meanwhile by the Spirit as described in 2 Corinthians 3: 18. — The punctuation of verses 33-35 is better than in the Authorised Version, but not quite uniformly correct. "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth: who is he that condemneth [or shall condemn]? It is Christ Jesus that died, yea rather that was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us: who shall separate from the love of Christ? shall tribulation," etc. In the close of this part of the apostle's profound communication there is good and full authority, as is well known, for placing "nor powers" after (not before) "nor things present nor things to come."

The opening verses of Rom. 9 are fairly rendered in the Revised V. as in the Authorised, being substantially alike. The marginal alternatives are of no real weight; the last, like the American suggestion, being unidiomatic. For in such cases the predicate ought to have the emphatic position, and the subject should have the article in Greek, the only apparent exception being the LXX's rendering of Psalm 68: 19, which is acknowledged as corrupt. Mr. T. S. Green has inadvertently dropt the rendering of καὶ ἡ νομοθεσία, "and the law-giving" out of this portion. Verse 9 runs "For this word is of promise" or [one] of promise, the Revised seeming looser than the Authorised Version. And ought there not to be "one" vessel (not "a" merely) in verse 21, to express the first ὅ ? Verse 28 is presented in the abridged form of the oldest MSS and versions, which most modern editors prefer; the larger form seems assimilated to the LXX. Other omissions of loss moment occur here and there. The Authorised Version alone fell into the unmeaning error of "that" stumbling-stone in the last verse.

In Rom. 10: 1 all critics of weight on ample evidence, instead of "for Israel," read "for them," as following up Rom. 9. But the Revisers also adopt the briefer reading in verse 5, on small but ancient and good testimony. In verse 12 the Revisers go back in substance, though more correctly, to the English versions older than the Authorised Version, with a copulative perhaps needlessly inserted. They also drop as not duly authenticated one of the last clauses of verse 15 ("of those that announce glad tidings of peace") with the noble quaternion, A B C, supplemented by a few cursive witnesses, ancient versions, and early writers.

The latter part of Rom. 11: 6 is rejected by p.m. A C D B F G P, etc., with the ancient versions, save the Syrr. and Eth., and so is properly left out of text and margin by the Revisers, notwithstanding its presence (p.m.) in the favourite Vatican, L, and the mass of cursives. In verse 17 they adopt, on the doubtful authority of p.m. B C with the Coptic, the singular exclusion of καὶ "and." That the copyists took liberties with the verse is plain from D F G omitting  τῆς ῥίζης καί altogether, and in Latin as well as Greek. In verse 21 they discard (as do some modern critics) μήπως, and with the best copies read simply οὐδε σοῦ φείσεται in the face of Chrysostom's express contradiction. (iv. 338, Field, Oxon, 1849.) Certainly the preferred text is far easier than that commonly received, which is opposed to the well-known canon of diplomatic criticism. In verse 22 Θεοῦ "God's," is now given on weighty grounds. Verse 31 is an unhappy instance of misrendering; the comma if inserted should follow, not precede, τῳ ὑμ. ἐλέει, as the true force is "even so have these also disbelieved your mercy, that they also may be objects of mercy." The older English versions were right, following with the Pesch. and the Philox. Syrr., the Coptic, and the Vulgate, till the Geneva misled under the false guidance of Beza. Luther on the one hand and Estius on the other were nearer the truth; and so apparently Green, Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles.

There is little to arrest in the revision of Rom. 12. To render ὁ πρ. in verse 8 "ruleth" is a deduction from the close meaning of "presideth," though perhaps allowable and true; as in verse 10 the word translated "preferring" means being the first, or leading the way in the honour paid to each other. It is one of the strange phenomena of ancient copies that some (Dp.m. F G) should be found with the monstrous reading καιρῳ "time" or "season;" that Erasmus should have adopted it in his editions ii.-v. after having "the Lord" in his first edition; and that Stephens, Mill, and even Griesbach should have followed in his wake. The weight of external evidence as well as internal propriety so decidedly preponderates against this heathenish maxim that one is surprised to see greater weight attached to it by the marginal note of the Revisers than in the Authorised Version. Every recent editor of weight rejects it with A B Dcorr E L P and almost all the cursives, ancient versions and fathers, save some Latins. To buy up the fit time is one thing; to serve it is another, which wrongs the Lord to whom alone we owe allegiance unlimited. In verse 16 τοῖς ταπ. συναπαγόμενοι is rendered worse than in the Authorised Version, which adheres to the personal application prevalent with the Greek commentators. But the Revision on too narrow a view of the antithesis decides with some moderns for the neuter, "condescend to things that are lowly," adding in the margin the impossible literal rendering "be carried away with." Now condescension is not a christian feeling, but rather of Gentile patrons (cf. Luke 22: 25, 26). it supposes the maintenance in the saints of what Christ destroys and displaces by grace in a new creation; whereas "going along with," or some such rendering stronger than the "inclining" of the Five Clergymen, seems to me required by the word as modified by the context. It would be too much to expect in heathen writings the expression of a feeling there unknown; but Chrysostom (in loc.) fairly explain.* Theodoret's συγκατιέναι falls into the idea of condescension (Opera Omnia ex recens. Jac. Sirmondi, v. 134). Mr. Green gives "assert yourselves with the lowly."

*Webster and Wilkinson (ii. 439) suggest the singular idea that it may mean "carried off with," as if they could not resist the attraction of low company! But though undoubtedly used elsewhere (Gal. 2 and 2 Peter 2) in a bad sense, it means what is truly noble here.

In Rom. 13 are a few inconsiderable but warranted changes from the Text. Rec. and the Authorised Version, as in verses 1, 3, 7, 9.

In Rom. 14 they rightly omit the second clause of verse 6, as well as "both" . . . . "and revived" in verse 9. They also properly substitute "God" for "Christ" in verse 10. Then again they duly distinguish between "destroy" in verse 15, and "overthrow" in verse 20, which is neglected in some careful versions. On rather slender authority they leave out "or is offended, or is weak" at the end of verse 21. But they are certainly justified in relegating to the end of chapter 16 the doxology which some 200 cursives with L and others foist in here, though two uncials A P have it in both, and some in neither.

In Rom. 15 some few slight differences from the Authorised Version are adopted, as in verses 4, 7, 8, 17, 19, 29. In verse 16 is not some of the force of the apostolic phrase lost in the vague "minister of Christ Jesus . . . . ministering the gospel of God"? It is "serving sacrificially" as just after explained in an allusion to Numbers 8 — Mr. Green by the way leaves out of his version the English corresponding to εἰς τὰ ἔθνη in this connection.

Rom. 16 furnishes but inconsiderable variations. In verse 1 it should be "Cenchreae." — The "also" of verse 2 should be with "she herself," not with "myself." — "Prisca" is the true form in verse 3; as in verse 5 it should be "Asia," not "Achaia," and in verse 6 "you" rather than "we." Junias and Urbanus are preferable to Junia and Urbane." — In verse 16 the apostle added "all," which slipt out of the received text and Authorised Version. — "Amen" should disappear from the end of verse 20, after a benediction which some repeat with πάντων added as verse 24, contrary to A B C and other good authorities; as others omit it at verse 20. — "By the scriptures of the prophets" in verse 26 misleads: read "by prophetic writings" or scriptures, meaning thereby his own epistles on "the mystery," or the inspired writings in general of the New Testament. For the church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. (Eph. 2, 3.)

THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.

It is only needful to call attention to "called to be," in 1 Cor. 1, 2, as the error of the Rhemish version, followed by the Authorised Version and Cranmer. Wiclif seems better, But especially Tyndale and the Geneva version, as they gave "by vocation," and "by calling," which reflect the sense justly enough, though (strange to say) in Romans 1 both were wrong in verse 1, right in verses 6, 7. — Verse 24 helps to prove that the addition of "to be" is not only needless but wrong. — Again in verse 18 the Company gives us "are being saved" from not bearing in mind that the present participle may be, and often is, employed to present a class stamped with the character of salvation, rather than the process or fact going on. Compare the remarks made on the revision of Acts 2: 47. They forget the absolute present, which this must be, not an actual present, as already shown. — They are right in verse 21, "the preaching" or thing preached, as also "signs" for "a sign," in verse 22, as has been generally allowed; so also in the imperative force "behold," in verse 26 — They are justified again in their rendering of verse 30.

But in the first verse of 1 Cor. 2 occurs an extraordinarily violent change, the "mystery" instead of "testimony" of God. This of course turns on the adoption of μυστήριον (as in p.m. A C, some seven or eight cursives, the Pesch. Syr., and Memph., with some early citations, whereas all the editors of note, even the most extreme, properly adhere to μαρτύριον, with the great stream of authority early and later. Alford and Meyer treat it as a gloss from verse 7, Lachmann and Tregelles, bold as they were, reject it from their text. None but Drs. Westcott and Hort admit it. Was it not strange that a company of grave men, under the call to provide a version aspiring to general acceptance, should yield to so precarious and generally rejected a reading? The context is, in my judgment, certainly and irreconcilably opposed to the innovation. For the apostle distinguishes between his first announcing at Corinth the glad tidings, apart from every human effort to make the truth palatable, not knowing anything among them save Jesus Christ and Him crucified, and the speaking wisdom among the perfect or full-grown, God's wisdom in a mystery. This evident and most momentous contradistinction is ruined by endorsing the blunder of scribes, who confounded two words similar in appearance, and easily interchanged by any whose spiritual senses were not exercised to discern the difference. Hence Bengel gave this variant his lowest mark in the Appar. Crit., while in his Gnomon he expounds, with his usual fine tact, the difference between verses 1 and 7 in a way which shows how rightly must vanish from any place in the first. Griesbach gave a better mark to the reading than it deserves. Pott pertinently remarks that not καταγγέλλων but γνωρίζων or λαλῶν would suit μυστ. whereas it exactly fits in with μαρτ. — Omitting lesser points, the last clause of verse 13 appears to be inadequately rendered if we take the context into account. The marginal "combining" is the simple unmodified force of συγκρίνειν, to which is opposed ἀνακρ. directly afterwards. Now if the aim of the verse had been duly weighed, it would have been seen that it is a question, not here (as in verse 14) of receiving and knowing, but of communicating. Hence the conveyance of spiritual things by spiritual [words] is the meaning, rather than expounding or interpreting special things to spiritual men, though otherwise the words might quite bear this. Thus the source that revealed, the means of communication, and the power of reception, are shown to be in the Spirit of God. "Combining" is too vague; "comparing" or "interpreting" would do well for the receiver; but neither expresses properly the conveyance of the truth or spiritual things by the inspired agents in a medium of spiritual words.

In 1 Cor. 3: 3 they have rightly dropt "and divisions," and in verse 9 rendered the phrase "God's fellow-workers," instead of "labourers together with God," which is very objectionable, as irreverent and feeding human vanity. It is the more peculiar therefore that in 2 Corinthians 6: 1 our Revisers should there introduce the obnoxious idea in italics. So do the Five Clergymen, and Dean Alford in his version. They were fellow-labourers doing God's work; but to say "fellow-workers with God" is false and presumptuous, and so of course is "with him." — In verse 16 they make the apostle say, "a temple of God," as does Mr. T. S. Green. No doubt the phrase is capable of being so rendered in itself; but the truth forbids. It should be God's temple. The same oversight of the anarthrous construction often occurs. The Company were not masters of the use or absence of the Greek article. Whether the English should have the indefinite article or not depends on the nature of the case, and often on the truth as defined elsewhere. A similar error occurs in Ephesians 2: 22; it is common in other subjects also.

In 1 Cor. 4: 1 they have, like others, rightly added "Here" (ὧδε), though Mr. Green adheres to the received reading (ὅ δὲ), and translates "And for the rest of the matter." — And in verse 6 they follow the critical omission of φρονεῖν, which would then give "that in us ye may learn the [lesson], Nothing above what is written." There seems no need to depart from the historic force of the aorist in verse 18 (compare also their rendering of the aorist in vers. 8, 17).

The received reading "is named" in 1 Cor. 5: 1 gives place to the true and nervous sense resulting from its simple omission according to the best authorities. — In verse 9 they retain the Authorised Version, instead of the epistolary aorist, which, however, they express in verse 11. This insinuates the idea of some that the apostle had written a previous letter which we have not. Grammatically there is no doubt that both may refer to the epistle he was then writing, as every scholar must know; and νυνί may have a logical force, or a temporal, as required. Of course τῃ ἐπιστ. cannot mean "an epistle," as in the older versions, but "the," or "mine." — The revision properly omits "therefore," in verses 7, 13. It is a direct call in both, not a consequence.

The most important change in 1 Cor. 6, well known and fully sustained by authority, is the omission of the latter half of the last verse. Unspiritual men thought "the body" too low, and must needs foist in, "and in your spirit, which are God's," which distracts from the aim in view. The body of the Christian, which is even now God's temple by the Spirit's dwelling, soon to be conformed to the body of Christ's glory, is claimed meanwhile for his glorifying God therein, whatever be the difficulties or doubts or unbelief of philosophy.

In 1 Cor. 7 there are unwarranted additions of the common text struck out with good reason from verses 3, 5, and 39. — The chief mistranslations in the chapter, are, however, not rectified in the text, and in one weighty case at least not even in the margin. Thus "abusing," in verse 31 would answer to παραχρώμενοι, not to καταχρώμενοι (as the margin corrects, and the text in 1 Cor. 11: 18), and the great difficulty created by not extending "virgins" to virginity in both sexes (cf. Rev. 14: 4) is left without help, especially in verses 36-38, where the estate seems meant. Doddridge was more perplexed by this passage than by any other in the epistle; and no wonder, if he followed the Authorised Version, which the Revisers also follow. Verse 47, as he admits, "puts the issue of the matter on the man's own mind, the power he had over his own will, and his having no necessity; whereas if a daughter  or a ward were in question, her inclination, temper, and conveniency were certainly to be consulted; and it would be the same if the virgin spoken of were one to whom the man was himself engaged." That παρθένος should be extended from the person to the condition (παρθενία) is easy to see, though it may want proof. Perhaps we should hardly look for it in the classic language of the corrupt Greek mind. The difficulty of ἐκαμίζων, or rather of γαμ., the critical form, is null; were it γαμῶν, as Mr. Slade thought, in the case of his own virginity, it would be insuperable, for how could a man be said to marry it? If he took a wife, he might be said to give it in marriage by an easy figure, from just before speaking of keeping his own virgin estate — an emphasis very hard to apply to one's ward or daughter as assumed. The addition of "daughter" three times, in my opinion, makes the revision worse than the Authorised Version.

In 1 Cor. 8: 7 the Company, like Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles, have adopted συνηθεία, "through their habituation," with A B P, four or five cursives, Memph. Basm. etc., against συνειδήσει, "through their conscience," with the great mass of other authority. — They have also reversed the ordinary order in the latter part of verse 8.

A similar inversion occurs in 1 Cor. 9: 1. — Passing over minor matters, they have rightly inserted the omitted clause of verse 20. — Yet why translate ἀδόκιμος here "rejected," but in 2 Corinthians 13 "reprobate" as in Romans 1: 28? "Worthless" would be yet better than "rejected" in Hebrews 6: where it is a question of "land" or "ground."

From 1 Cor. 10 the Revisers have struck out some additions long abandoned on good authority, and substituted particles (or other words as in verse 9) more in accordance with the context, which had got changed by careless or meddling scribes. See verses 1, 10, 13, 23, 24, 28, 80.

"Traditions," in 1 Cor. 11: 2, though lawful otherwise, seems objectionable as exposing the unwary reader to a serious assumption of Rome, which tends and is even boldly used to subvert the authority of scripture. — In the margin of verse 19 they give "factions" or "sects," which more truly represents αἱρέσεις than heresies" or heterodoxies, which does not seem meant. They were parties in separation from the assembly, which the apostle warns must result from the "schisms or divisions already within. This is very important for many mistake the truth here taught and imagine that "schism" is the fruit of heresy;" whereas on the contrary splits without, or heresies" as here shown (that is, factions or sects), come from splits within (that is, "schisms" or divisions). Differences within are dangerous and bad; but when self-will and impatience burst all the bands of unity and boldly take shape as a party without, how much worse? The kindred word, "an heretical man" in Titus 3: 10, is thus rendered plain, as not necessarily heterodox, but independent and self-willed, impatiently breaking through unity in his self-confidence and disregard of the assembly. It is strange that the Revisers, or any one else, should continue the misleading "heretic," when it really means a sectary or party-leader. Hence it is no question of putting him out; for he was gone out; and Titus after a first and second admonition was simply to have done with him, "knowing that such a one is perverted and sinneth, being selfcondemned." The main mistranslations in the section relating to the Lord's Supper are corrected by the Revisers, though "guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord" in verse 27 may still leave the door open to mistake. But "Take, eat" and "broken" are rightly gone from verse 24, "covenant" appears in verse 25, "or" displaces "and" in verse 27, "the" supplants "that" twice in verse 28, above all "judgment" expels "damnation" which was always an inexcusable error refuted by verse 32, and "discern" is rightly used both for "the body" that is, the Lord's, and "ourselves" in verses 29, 31. These corrections, long known and sure, are none the less to be thankfully received in what is now so largely disseminated where the English language is used or known. Evil and superstitious doctrine, too common, will hence be detected; and by grace the truth will get in where it has long been obscured.

1 Cor. 12 affords much less scope for remark, as there was less disposition in the copyists or translators. In verse 2 the Revisers rightly read "when ye were Gentiles, ye were led away unto those dumb idols, howsoever" etc. — Verse 3 is also rendered better. — Needless additions of the received text vanish from verses 6, 12, 21.

I cannot but coincide with the Revisers in preferring "love" to charity in 1 Cor. 13 as elsewhere.

The changes in 1 Cor. 14 are almost as few as in 1 Cor. 12, but those made (5, 18, 25, 85, 37) seem well-founded, though it is strange that τὰ πν. in verse 1 and πν. in verse 12 should be alike translated "spiritual gifts."

Nor is there much to remark as to 1 Cor. 15. In verse 2 "are saved" is right, though not consistent with the work elsewhere. — One omission, of ἐγένετο, is notorious in verse 20. — "To God even the Father," in the Revised as in the Authorised Version, is not a happy rendering; and still less is Mr. Green's "to God the Father;" because both tend to lower the Son, as if the Father only were God, or as if the Father might be all in all, whereas it is really God (i.e., Father, Son, and Holy Ghost). Hence "to him that is God and Father" appears less objectionable. "To God and the Father" say the Five Clergymen, which sounds as if the Father were not God; yet this none can mean. There is a double correction though slight, in verse 41, as also in verse 47; see also verse 55.

In 1 Cor. 16 it is surprising that the Revisers support the various old English versions (Wiclif excepted) in verse 8, against the more natural sense which the Greek commentators prefer. His recommending them by letters is the point. — There is nothing else that strikes me as notable save in verse 22: "if any one loveth not the Lord, let him be anathema. Maranatha [that is, Our Lord cometh]."

THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.

In 2 Cor. 1: 9 the margin seems better than the text, which seems to betray ignorance of the truth conveyed. — In verse 12 the Revisers are pretty bold in absolutely discarding "simplicity" for the alternative "holiness" without even a marginal note. — In verse 20 they give the sense, if not perfectly, far better than the Authorised Version.

It is not at all clear, to say the least, that the apostle refers, in 2 Cor. 2: 3, 4, to the same letter. But in verse 3 he may speak of the present or second, and in verse 4 of the first, which would affect the version. Here the two are identified. — Verse 10 is rendered from a better text than the received. — "Leadeth us in triumph" in verse 14 is correct; but "in" them that "are being saved" does not agree with "are saved" in 1 Corinthians 15: 2 any more than with the truth. — Is not "retailing," or "trafficking with" the word, the point in verse 17? "Which" is an error, and rightly dropt in the revision.

In 2 Cor. 3: 3 is a bold adoption of the reading καρδίαις, with the version "tables that are hearts of flesh." It is to be presumed that the two Bishops Wordsworth, Dr. Scrivener, and other sober scholars in the Committee did not tamely give in, without a severe struggle, to what one of them not long ago called a "perfectly absurd reading." Yet that reading externally has the strongest authority. The Five Clergymen adopt the reading of the most ancient copies, but adhere to the Authorised Version, explaining it by "heart-tables of flesh." — But a grievous error follows in the very arrangement of the paragraph. The vital thread of connection is cut through by closing one section at the end of verse 11, and beginning a new one at verse 12. Now, whether we do or do not use parenthetical marks, there is one of the apostle's frequent parentheses in this chapter, embracing verses 7-16; so that, for the sense, verse 6 is followed (with a most instructive digression helping on the truth between) by verse 17: "for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life . . . . Now the Lord is the spirit." It is not that the Lord is the Spirit, as they print, which tends to confound the Lord Jesus, the spirit underneath the letter in question, with the Holy Ghost. I am convinced that spiritual intelligence of this most instructive scripture, as a whole, is impossible without seizing this; and it is, I submit, equally evident that the Committee cannot have perceived it: else they had not so divided what ought at least to have been left unbroken, if they did not supply the aid of the usual parenthetical signs to help the reader, as they do sometimes, but too sparingly. — Again occurs the strange version "a" new covenant, through their not apprehending the characterizing force of the anarthrous construction, to the detriment of the meaning. — "Came with glory" is right, only stating that it was "so brought in, and contrasted with the ministration of the Spirit (for it should be thus, not "spirit") being, or subsisting in glory. Compare verse 11 also.

In 2 Cor. 4 there are some peculiar changes, especially in verse 6, where they represent the apostle thus: "Seeing it is God that said, Light shall shine out of darkness, who shined," etc. Here they follow Tischendorf's eighth edition against his seventh, or rather p.m. A B Dp.m. and a few other witnesses against the great mass of manuscripts, versions, etc. — They are right of course in giving "the gospel of the glory," not "the glorious gospel:" a most unhappy rendering, which leads into all sorts of wrong thoughts, besides missing the truth. — In verses 10, 11 it is "Jesus" all through, not "the Lord," as the received text adds in verse 10.

In 2 Cor. 5: 3 they rightly adhere to the Authorised Version, rejecting the perversion of Dean Alford and others, as also in verse 7. — Of course they avoid the equivocal language of our version in verse 9. — But there are grave questions in verse 14, where, with the critics, they follow the stream of the most ancient manuscripts, and drop the hypothetical particle represented in the Rescript of Paris and many other copies, with the best versions, and, I think, most early citations. But in my judgment, whatever the reading or translation, the Bishop of Durham is not warranted in saying that a death to sin is meant, but death through sin, to interfere with a revelation so foreign to Christendom.

It is not true that all men have  died with Christ to their former selves and to sin, so as to be therefore bound to lead a new life — His life. Nor is this said here; but Christ's dying for all is used as a proof of death in all. There is even a contrast, "they which live," with all who died; and οἱ ζῶντες means not merely that they were alive, but that they lived spiritually, and of these as distinguished from all who died — of these only is it added that they should no longer live unto themselves, but unto Him who, for their sakes, died and rose again. The "all" who died are all men, who are naturally lost; "they who live" are the saved who are called to live to the dead and risen Christ, and no longer (as once) to themselves. It is true that these died with Christ to sin; but this is the doctrine of Romans 6, and not, of 2 Corinthians 5. It is here death through, and not to, sin; and the making it "to sin" introduces the confusion and heterodoxy evident in Dr. Lightfoot's doctrine. All men have not participated potentially, as he says, in Christ's death; for this is true only of those who live through faith, in contrast with all who died through sin. I doubt not that all are bought; but only believers have in Him redemption. through His blood, the forgiveness of their trespasses. The righteousness of God by faith in Jesus Christ is toward all, and upon all that believe. The gospel is not limited, as some would make it; but it is efficacious, though for faith only, unlike what others say. — In verse. 19 the Revisers avoid the error of the Five Clergymen, but the omission of the comma after Christ vitiates their rendering as compared with that of the Authorised Version. — The last verse is more energetic without "for," which some Greek scribes thought proper to insert rather early.

For 2 Cor. 6: 1 compare the remarks on 1 Corinthians 3: 9; and with verse 16 compare those on 1 Cor. 3: 16.

The Revisers are assuredly justified in connecting closely 2 Cor. 8 with the preceding chapter, the rest returning to what he had said in 2 Cor. 2, the end of which had led him out in a grand unfolding of the gospel, which some were even then quick to clog and adulterate by mixing the law with it; and the gospel led him out into an admirable setting forth of the service of Christ according to His death, resurrection, and glory in the power of the Spirit. From this rich digression he comes back to his question with the Corinthian saints. — Verses 8-10 are in general far closer than in the Authorised Version, though one may question the taste of "which bringeth no regret," in verse 10: not, or never to be regretted seems simpler. Verse 13 is more correct now.

In 2 Cor. 8: 3 and 4, stand more correctly in the revision; as also verses 7, 12, 19, 21, 24.

In 2 Cor. 9 there is, if possible, less to note: verses 4, 10, 13, 14.

Of 2 Cor. 10 the reader can compare verses 7, 13, 16, which give the sense better than the Authorised Version.

Their judgment as to the true text of chapter 11: 3 seems very questionable; but I do not argue it here, nor specify more.

2 Cor. 12: 1 should be weighed: see also verses 11, 12, 14, 18, 19.

Nor is there much to be noticed in 2 Cor. 13. But it seems strange that the Revisers should fail here also to preserve the force of the scriptures from ruin through vicious punctuation. Verse 3 ought to begin a new sentence, interrupted by a digression which begins with the latter half of that verse. and includes also verse 4; and the conclusion or apodosis of the sentence, which answers to the protasis of the first half of verse 3, follows in verse 5. So that if by external marks, we are to help readers who easily let slip the connection of thought, it would run thus — "Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me (who to youward is not weak but is powerful in you; for indeed he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by God's power; for we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him through God's power toward you), try your own selves whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves," etc. The arrangement, bad in the Authorised Version, is no better in the Revised; and perhaps this has contributed to the singular misconception which has prevailed as to the passage. How many misuse it to consecrate their inward workings of question and doubt as to God's grace toward them, as if this scripture set them so to work! It is really an irrefragable argumentum ad hominem and a withering rebuke to Corinthian vanity if they had any heart for Christ and His apostle. Since they sought a proof of his apostleship, why not examine themselves? They were their own selves the proof, unless they were reprobate — the last thing they thought. As surely, then, as they were in the faith, he was an apostle — to them without doubt who, through his speaking, had Christ in them. The whole force of this argumentative appeal turns on their assurance of being in the faith to the certainty of his apostleship; and this, generally misunderstood through stops which ruthlessly surrender all the links and ignore the parenthesis essential to be noted, is perverted by unbelief to prove that the apostle calls on the believer to search and see whether he be not an unbeliever after all! The Revisers certainly cannot boast of rescuing the passage from the confusion which here reigns in the Authorised Version, and almost all others. They probably just followed mechanically in the wake of their predecessors; for had they previously understood the reasoning of the apostle or stopped to consider the meaning of the text they were translating, it is hard to see how they could have overlooked the facts, that verse 2 closes the  previous subject, and that the new sentence passes from 3 to 5, with an intervening digression.

THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

The changes in this brief Epistle need not occupy us long. In Gal. 1: 6 the present force is properly given, "ye are so quickly removing" (not "removed"), and "in" (not "into") the grace of Christ, and of course, "unto a different [not "another"] gospel:" a very considerable correction of mere renderings, and long known to be necessary, for a single verse. So also the slight shade of distinction between "should preach" in verse 8 and "preacheth" in verse 9 is due to truth. — The revision of verse 18 seems more cumbrous and less Pauline than as it stands in the Authorised Version.

In Gal. 2: 2-4 we have to complain of the same defect in catching and conveying the scope, which we saw so conspicuously in 2 Corinthians 3 and 13, reproduced here also in a punctuation which quite destroys the true, and insinuates a false, connection. It is the more striking because the Company show no disinclination to avail themselves of parenthetical signs for verse 8, to which nobody demurs, though these are less required there than here: they were guided in both by their predecessors, who so marked verse 8 but not verse 8. There is strictly another insertion in verse 6; but there is perhaps less necessity there to indicate it, though there be parenthesis within parenthesis. The late Mr. Bagge was more right than Dean Alford or the Bishops of Bristol and Durham. — But the rendering of verse 16 in the text is really strange, "save" being here most inadequate to convey the strongly oppositive exception conveyed by ἐὰν μή. The margin "but only" is much better, for it excludes works of law, whereas "save" admits of them conjointly with faith in Jesus Christ. Now the entire argument, and especially this verse, contradicts any such combination. Justification is not by law-work; it is through faith. We believed on Christ Jesus that we might be justified by faith in Him, and not by law-works, because by law-works shall no flesh be justified. Hence every shade of orthodoxy concurs in giving a stronger opposition to the phrase than the Company convey in their singularly mild version. Law-works are excluded from being put with faith in Christ in order to justification. It is really stronger than ἀλλά, whatever the common point implied besides the contrast.

Here we see, too, how little the Revisers estimated the force of the anarthrous construction. They put in the margin "works of law," and "law," where their text gives "the works of the law," and "the law;" and they do not always mark this, as twice in the latter part of verse 16. It is as opposed to fact as to philological principle that the article was inserted or omitted arbitrarily. Prepositions are no exceptions, though from their nature they suit with peculiar facility the anarthrous usage; but the presence or the absence of the article depends on its general principle. Thus in Romans 3: 19 the article is twice required with νόμος, and once with a preposition; in verse 20 it is twice left out just as correctly, and in verse 21 it is once both omitted and inserted with ν., and in each with a preposition; in the last verse of the chapter it is twice anarthrous, and in both the object of verbs. It is bad grammar and perhaps feeble theology to confound νόμον with τὸν ν. The apostle generalises, though no doubt "the" law falls under the expressly characteristic term. So it is often in Romans, as in Galatians and elsewhere; but there is not the least backwardness or laxity in giving the article with this word or any other where its presence is really wanted. The indefinite article of our tongue would be quite improper in all or most of these cases; nor does English idiom forbid the exact representation of its anarthrous usage in at least very many instances like these cited, and Gal. 2: 19, 21, Gal. 3: 2, 5. — Verses 10-13 are valuable in confirming the refutation of the too prevalent fallacy, where we have the broad principle in its characteristic and therefore anarthrous form, and then the article for the particular matter of fact; see again the principle in verse 11, and the fact in verses 12, 13. If the Company had understood the true force of the anarthrous usage, they never would in my opinion have agreed to consign to the margin what ought to have been unhesitatingly set out in the text.

In Gal. 3: 1 they have rightly struck out the addition (from the end of Gal. 5: 7), though it has no little ancient support in manuscripts, versions, and Fathers, also at the end of the verse. — In verse 12 it is rightly "he" (not "the man"); but "upon" in verse 14 goes beyond εἰς (unto). It is not Paul, but his translators and commentators who fail in the force of the preposition. — In verse 17 the gloss "unto Christ" rightly vanishes. — In verse 20 the article is no doubt generic; but why should we not say "the" Mediator, though we only speak of one descriptive of the class? Perhaps in this particular instance it was desirable to avoid the equivoque of more previous mention, which is not at all the reason of its insertion here. Again, it seems to me that the italic insertion here is needless, and rather enfeebles the apostle's idea that it "is not of one" (that is, it supposes at least two parties, whilst God is one), promising and accomplishing Himself. — Nor is there any need of inserting "to bring us" in verse 24, where "up to," or "unto," is better than "until," as expressive of the object in view, and not of a temporal limit only. — Nor does the severance of "faith" from "in. Christ Jesus," here insinuated by the punctuation, seem warranted. — Our being one in Christ Jesus follows in verse 28; but here it is not one in Christ, nor Abraham's seed, that is being urged, But that the Galatian saints were God's sons through faith in Christ Jesus. Drs. Alford and Ellicott were right, not the Bishop of Durham. — In verse 28 they translate ἔνι by the more forcible "there can be," and omit the copulative in verse 29.

In Gal. 4: 7 the critical reading which rests on superior authority is adopted, for the comma softening down the sense in Text. Rec. and the Authorised Version. — But do the Revisers really understand the import of verse 12? The apostle exhorts the Galatians to be as he is, free from law, "for I [am] as ye." To say "as ye are" seems to spoil the thought, for at that time they were affecting the law, and from this he is earnestly dissuading them. They did him no wrong in affirming that he taught or practised freedom from the law in virtue of Christ's death; for such is the doctrine and the life of the Christian, as Romans, Galatians, and Colossians clearly prove. Are the Revisers justified in treating δι᾽ ἀσθένειαν as "because of infirmity"? No one, of course, questions that διά with the accusative ordinarily means "on account of;" but the question is, whether this narrow view which yields so strange a sense be here intended, when in poetry at least such a form was notoriously used to express a state in which one might be. The Greek fathers saw no difficulty in thus interpreting the Pauline phrase, and never thought of confounding it with the phrase in Thuc. vi. 102; and it appears to me that Nicias would have startled his audience beyond measure if he had said δι᾽ ἀσθένειαν ἔσωσα τὸν κύκλον, in the sense of "on account of an infirmity I saved, etc." though he might very simply be left behind on that account. Again, the version of verse 18 seems hazardous, and little agreeing with the context, though one can readily admit the difficulty of the passive form, which some believe to be a true middle. But the passive sense makes sad havoc in the verse and its connection

Gal. 5: 1 is an entangled question as to text and translation: whether the Revisers were wise in giving us so awkward a result seems doubtful. — Is the rendering of verse 10 English? "I have confidence to your word in the Lord" — confidence to, or toward a person! Who ever heard of such language save among youths whose mother-tongue got spoilt by Greek idiom? On the other hand the "in" of the Authorised Version goes beyond εἰς, which in this connection should be translated "as to." — Verse 12 appears to be fairly given. — The rendering of verse 17 is uncompromisingly accurate.

In Gal. 6 there is nothing specially calling for remark beyond the correct rendering of verse 11, and the omission of "the Lord" in verse 17.

THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

In Eph. 1: 1 the common class is obscured by putting in "the" before "faithful," like Dean Alford, though less than in the Authorised Version, reproduced by Bishop Ellicott. Mr. Green is more accurate. — I do not think that τὴν ἀπολ. in verse 7 is rightly rendered "our" redemption, though no doubt it is ours. The article simply designates redemption as a distinct object which we have in Christ, like παρρ. in Eph. 3: 12 where the Revisers do not say "our," and this properly. But passing over questionable points, is not the version of verse 11 distinctly for the worse as compared with the Authorised Version? It is exactly one of the marked points of contrast between the faithful now and Israel of old, that these are designated the inheritance of Jehovah, those are styled God's heirs and Christ's joint-heirs. Hence the force of ἐκληρώθημεν is that we were allotted our inheritance, not "made a heritage," the καί adding this to our being called. For there are two main parts in the blessing: our calling, and also our inheritance, which embraces the universe as put under Christ (cf. verse 10), given as Head over all things to the church which is His body. The church is in God's grace and purpose the heavenly Eve of the Last Adam, to possess all things, not merely the things on the earth like the first man, but the things in the heavens. Here accordingly it will be noticed that the apostle speaks not of the glory of God's grace (ver. 6), nor of the riches of His grace (ver. 7), but of His glory (vers. 12, 14). He looks not at present privilege, but onward to the redemption of the purchased possession which will be then, as distinguished from the redemption we have now through His blood, the forgiveness of our offences. There is no doubt that God purchased the church with the blood of Christ, and that the believers from among the Jews are now reckoned a people of possession, or peculiarly His own, as indeed are all saints. but this does not at all decide the true force of the purchased possession here, which is really the inherited universe when His glory dawns. There is no need for introducing the italic supplement "God's" here or elsewhere. Of our inheritance in that day the Holy Spirit of promise is meanwhile earnest, because we are not yet in possession.

- Next we have an instance of what seems nothing less than hardihood in the Company, due probable to scholastic influence overriding all right spiritual fooling: a too common fault in the Revised New Testament. Three of the primary copies with later uncials, also a single cursive, and a few Fathers, omit ἀγαπὴν τήν: an omission obviously accounted for by one of the most frequent causes of various readings, homeoteleuton. The omission, to my mind, gives us no sense; and this has positively passed muster as the collective judgment of the Company! "For this cause I also, having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus which is among you, and which ye show toward all the saints." Of course they say in the margin that many ancient authorities insert "the love;" but what temerity in adopting for their text what Lachmann alone (now followed by Westcott and Hort), never hindered by the least apprehension of divine truth, ventured to endorse! No doubt Bishops Ellicott and Wordsworth, and Drs. Brown and Scrivener, and one would hope others, protested, but were outvoted. Tischendorf and Tregelles were daring, especially after the Sinaitic MS gave sometimes its voice in accordance with the occasionally wild readings of the Vatican copy; but even they, in spite of their tendencies, here withstood this idolatry of ancient documents to the destruction of truth. Love "toward all the saints" (Col. 1: 4) should have guarded against such an error in their thoughts of Ephesians 1: 15, though each scripture has its peculiar form. — There are other things by no means sure in the chapter; but we pass on.

With Eph. 2: 18 compare Eph. 1: 7 and Eph. 3: 12. They are right in adopting ἐστε (verse 19), and εἰρήνην (verse 17), omitted in Text. Rec. — Against their dropping the article, though sustained by corr. A C P many cursives, etc., in verse 21, I have anything save objection; but their version, as so often in such cases, is in no way justified, though it might seem so on a first glance at the anarthrous form. But πᾶσα ἡ οἰκ. would imply that the building was complete, in contradiction to the express teaching of the clause that it is only in process — "groweth into a holy temple in the Lord." So the Revisers themselves render πᾶς οἶκος Ἰσραήλ in Acts 2: 36, though they give "every house" in the margin. This they might have done here with less opposition to God's word generally; for "each several building" is irreconcilable with what is everywhere else insisted on. There is no such thought in scripture as ecclesiastical independency, but intercommunion. It may not be here the church as one, but as a whole, not every part. (Cf. the revision of Matt. 3: 15; Eph. 1: 1; and many like cases.)

In Eph. 3: 7 was there any real need to say "that" grace of God? — Of course in verse 9 it is "dispensation" not "fellowship" as in Text. Rec. and Authorised Version, and "by Jesus Christ" disappears. — In verse 14 they appear to be justified in rejecting "of our Lord Jesus Christ," as also in saying (not all the, but) "every family." But they do not seem right in verse 18, which should be "being rooted and grounded in love in order that ye," etc. This adds to the clearness of the truth, if it be not absolutely needful. External authority is confessedly strong for the insertion of αί before ἐν Χ. Ἰ. in verse 21; but one does not wonder that Ellicott, Green and Wordsworth rejected, and that Alford hesitated to accept it even in the face of A B C and other witnesses.

In Eph. 4: 6 most editors, like many copyists, have lost the finely drawn truth by a misapplied love of uniformity. It is exceedingly hard to suppose the insertion of ἡμῖν (not ὑμῖν as in Text. Rec. and Auth. Ver.) unless it were really of God. Man would be prone to remove it even in the early days, as we find it wanting in A B C Ocorr. P and not a few cursives, etc. But the mass of testimony in MSS uncial and cursive, Versions and Fathers, favours "us all." And so beyond cavil does the internal requirement. For as the apostle had traced vital or intrinsic unity in verse 4, and external unity in verse 5, he closes with the unity of the God and Father of all, universally supreme and permeating, and withal most intimate for "us all," but this limited to us all (them who believe). No blunderer, still less a forger, could have hit on a shade of truth so unexpected beforehand, yet so momentous and happy when expressed. If people had introduced a gloss, they would have extended the pronoun to all three. — In verse 10 "due" measure seems hardly allowable. — Do not verses 22, 23, set forth truth in the person of Jesus? "Your putting [or having put] away," etc. (Compare Col. 3: 9, 10.) For the Christian it is a fact already accomplished in the Saviour, of which faith lays hold; as mysticism always strains after it in man's own feelings. — And what is the meaning, verse 30, of "the Holy Spirit of God, in whom ye were sealed"? etc. The sealing was in His power, or in virtue of Him. — The Revisers rightly say in verse 32, "even as God also in Christ forgave you."

In Eph. 5: 1 they correctly say "imitators" of God, and in verse 4 "befitting" for the obsolete synonym "convenient." In verse 5 they read ἴστε (not ἐστε) λ.; as also the fruit of "light" in verse 9, so agreeable to the context. But whether their view of the end of verse 13 is sound may be doubted. — With verse 20 compare note on 1 Corinthians 15: 24. — "Christ" is right in verse 21; and the more correct "washing" stands in the text of the Revisers as in the Authorised Version. Only they say "with" for "by" the word, which is regrettable perhaps. — In verse 29 it is "Christ," not "the Lord," as in the Authorised Version followed by Text. Rec. — In verse 30 they leave out the latter half in Text. Rec., as in the Authorised Version also.

In Eph. 6 but little appears to demand notice. — See verse 5 for a change of order, and verse 9 for a necessary correction of the Text. Rec. and of the Authorised Version. — The rendering of verse 12 is also much better, "high" places being unequivocally wrong. — The last verse ends rightly with an uncorruptness," or incorruption. "Sincerity" is misleading.

THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

Phil. 1: 5 is more correctly translated "in furtherance of," not "in" (εἰς), the gospel, as the same proposition should be "for" (Rev. Ver. "unto"), not "till" (Auth. Ver.) the day of Christ in verse 10. — In verse 18, instead of "in all the palace, and in all other places," the Revisers prefer "throughout the whole praetorian guard and to all the rest." — The interference with the true order of verses 15-17, to give a more mechanical exactitude, is rectified, whereas as originally written it is more forcible. — But verse 22 seems ill-represented. Does not καρπὸς ἔργου = operae pretium, worth while? Thus the connection would run: If to live in the flesh  (fall to me), this (is) to me worth the while; and what I shall choose I know not, whereas not only does the arrangement of the Revisers seem cumbrous, but the result is unsatisfactory.  "But if to live in the flesh — if this is the fruit of my work, then what I shall choose I wot not." What does this mean, if the sentence would bear so awkward and violent a construction? Even the literal sense given in the margin appears far preferable, "this is the fruit of my work," or this is to me fruit of my work. It gives me opportunity for longer labour and its yield in the Lord's harvest. — Nor are the Company happy in their rendering of the last words in verse 27, where they miss the apostle's animated identification of the saints with the faith of the gospel, personified as the agent engaged in conflict. Striving "with," that is, in concert with, is much better than "for."

In Phil. 2: 1 "comfort" and "consolation" rightly change places. — In verse 6 "a prize to be on an equality" is more correct than "robbery to be equal," as also "emptied himself" in verse 7. — In verse 9 the right reading "the" (not a) name is adopted, and "in" (not at) the name in verse 10. — But why 'things" instead of "beings" when we have the knee and tongue called to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord? Is not this very distinct from the personification of universal nature in Psalm 148 or elsewhere? The groaning or deliverance of creation in Romans 8 is quite another thing, and ὑποκάτω τῆς γῆς in Revised Version is not at all the Same as καταχθονίων here, being things which burrow, not the lost infernal beings. — In verse 80 it is surprising the Revisers did not see that the Rescript of Paris in giving simply "the work" preserves the true reading, to which others added ΧΥ or ΚΥ. But others must here have overborne the Bishop of Durham. The insertions are easily accounted for.

Phil. 3: 3 "worship by the Spirit of God" is the right; and "have I counted" in verse 7. — Of course that in verse 11 it is the resurrection from (or from among the dead, not "of" as in the Authorised Version, following the bad reading τῶν ν. instead of τὴν ἐκ ν., not to speak of the intensified form of the word (ἐξανάστασις) here, only occurrent in the New Testament, as has been often noticed and is obvious.

[But let me here express my astonishment at a very learned Reviser's comment on verses 12-16, as if St. Paul (!) held "the language of hope, not of assurance.......My brothers, let other men vaunt their security. Such is not my language," etc. What surprising ignorance even of the gospel practically! How could men so short of ordinary christian faith be expected to translate the New Testament adequately, no matter what their scholastic attainments? They may be pious, but do not see that the apostle treats of enjoying Christ experimentally, and then of being actually in glory with Christ, not in the least of assurance as to eternal life in Christ or the forgiveness of sins, which are matters of common christian knowledge. (1 John 2: 12, 13.) He could not rest in anything short of what characterised Christ — the out-resurrection and glory — to be with and as Himself on high. It was this prize he had not already obtained, in this respect he was not already perfected. There is no question of false security, but of eye and heart set on the goal above, instead of the profession of Christ combined with the minding of earthly things. Other scriptures denounce fleshly license; here judaising or fleshly religion. The Right Rev. Reviser is quite mistaken (pp. 70, 151, 152) in the apostle's drift. It is unchristian nomianism, not corrupt antinomianism, of which he here writes such solemn and even stern words of warning.]

The version of verse 20 is an improvement on the Authorised Version, but is it not feeble? We await as Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ. Salvation in this epistle is regarded as incomplete till the body of our humiliation has its fashion changed into conformity with the body of His glory.

The Authorised Version is duly corrected in Phil. 5: 2, 8, in its misunderstanding of the female names, a false reading, and a false rendering. — There are also corrections of misreadings in verses 18 and 23, But nothing of special moment. — The rendering is improved especially in verses 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 15, 17.

THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

Col. 1: 1, we have "Christ Jesus" rightly: verse 2, a proper omission of "and Lord Jesus Christ" and in verse 8 of "and" — "God the Father," etc. — But the Revisers are capricious in their treatment of οἱ οὐρ., giving sometimes "heaven," sometimes "the heavens." The inspired writers use the two phrases with distinctness of purpose. Thus it is always in Matthew "the kingdom of the heavens," but in the Revised Version, as in the Authorised Version, "of heaven;" and so with "your," "our," or "My Father which is in heaven," whereas really it is "in the heavens." Yet the evangelist uses the singular form in Matt. 5: 18, 34; Matt. 6: 10, 20, 26; Matt. 8: 20; Matt. 11: 23, 25; Matt. 13: 32;

Matt. 14: 19; Matt. 16: 1, 2, 3 (if 2, 3 be genuine); Matt. 18: 18 twice (Matt. 19: 21 being doubtful perhaps); Matt. 21: 25 twice; Matt. 22: 30; Matt. 23: 22; Matt. 24: 29, 30 twice, 35; Matt. 26: 64; Matt. 28: 2, 18. On the other hand, the Revisers rightly say "the heavens" in chapter 3: 16, 17, but not (in addition to the phrases already referred to) in Matt. 5: 12; Matt. 16: 19 twice, while again they give "the heavens" in Matt. 24: 29, yet the singular form wrongly in verses 31, 36. Similar caprice might be shown in Mark and Luke where both forms occur (for John's Gospel has only the singular), save that the Revisers in the Acts give the plural correctly in its two occurrences. In Ephesians they give the plural twice rightly, and twice as singular wrongly, as also in Philippians 3: 20, the only occurrence there. In our Epistle, chapter 1, they give the plural three times accurately in verses 5, 16, 20 (in Col. 4: 1 they adopt the singular variant), but not in 1 Thessalonians 1: 10. In Hebrews they are right save in Heb. 12: 23, 25, in both like the Authorised Version. In 1 Peter 1: 4 they are wrong, in 2 Peter 3: 5, 7, 10, 12, 13 right, in both again following the Authorised Version. In the Revelation there is but one plural occurrence, and the Authorised Version and Revised Version agree in reflecting it rightly.

- In verse 6 the Revisers follow the good authorities in giving "and increasing," or "growing" which the Text. Rec. omits, and in dropping the expletive "also" in verse 7, where they adopt the absurd reading of many ancient and modern authorities, ἡμῶν, "our," instead of ὑμῶν, their marginal alternative. Here however Westcott and Hort had not only Alford, Lachmann, Tregelles, to keep them in countenance, but the Elzevirian Text. Rec. of 1633. This however may have been a mere printer's error, like that of the copyists; for the first (1624) and the latter editions of the Elzevirs adhere to the reading of Erasmus, of the Complutensian, of Colinaeus, of Stephens, and of Beza; as it holds its ground rightly to this day. The ancient versions are unanimous in rejecting ἡμῶν; and no wonder: for the sense which would result from this reading is untrue, as it would seem that Epaphras, valued and faithful as he may have been, was in no sense "vice apostoli," as says a Latin commentator contrary to all others, Greek or Latin, who allude to it.

- In verse 10 "increasing in" seems a questionable rendering. Is not "growing by" better, as the margin suggests for the last word? — There is no doubt that "through his blood" should vanish from verse 14. It stands rightly in Ephesians 1: 7, whence probably it was introduced here. The person is the point here, not yet the work, which comes afterwards in verses 20-22. — "In him" in verse 16 appears a bald or mystic expression. It was in His power or in virtue of Him that all things were created. To be in Christ, to walk or dwell in Him, is for believers as intelligible as it is blessed; but for the universe to be created in Him, what is the meaning? It is assumption to Fay that we are shut up to any such rendering. No doubt ἐν is more than διά (the expression of the means or instrument) and supposes intrinsic ability.

- The next matter of weight for consideration is in verse 19, where the old fault of the Authorised Version reappears. There the excellent Tyndale led the way in error, Wiclif before and the Rhemish since being nearer the truth. The doctrine is as bad as the version, and derogatory to the Son as well as the Spirit in our epistle, and the very part where the prime object is to assert the glory of Christ in every way. For in Him all the fulness was well-pleased to dwell, and through Him to reconcile all things unto itself, having made peace through the blood of His cross. The margin offers a less offensive rendering than the Revised text; but Col. 2: 9 goes far to commend a version which needs no words to be supplied and wonderfully falls in with the grand aim of exalting Christ's person. — In verse 25 the context suggests "complete" rather than "fulfil." There was a blank left in the revelations of God; and the apostle, as minister not only of the gospel but of the assembly, was given to complete the word of God, who would now manifest to His saints the mystery hidden from the ages and from the generations. Such was the dispensation or stewardship of God given him toward the Gentiles. Compare Ephesians 3 "Perfect" in verse 28, as in Philippians 3: 15, means "full-grown," as the Revisers, following the Authorised Version "of full age," give in Hebrews 5: 14.

Col. 2: 3 does not exhibit a satisfactory text, though there are added and indefensible words in the text which the Authorised Version followed. It is very doubtful whether "and of Christ" should stand any more than "and of the Father," the importance of which omission would be that the version would run "in which." That is, all these treasures are in the mystery. — Nor is there need for "so" in verse 6. — "Of the sins" is an error in the common Greek text which the Revisers, with the critics, properly omit in verse 11. — But are they not adventurous in following the few uncials and cursives, though supported by Greek and Latin ecclesiastics, which drop ἐν and give the force "through" in verse 13? — In verse 15, dropping the interpolated copulative, they adhere to the literal or ordinary force of ἀπεκδυσάμενος, "having put off from himself," with Alford and Ellicott, which results in an apparently fanciful meaning, which it is hard to believe intended by the Spirit of God. Every scholar knows that later usage employed middle forms where a middle sense cannot be recognised, though there is a distinction from the active voice. Hence even Winer does not accept the strict middle sense here, any more than Meyer or others, inclining to some such force as in the Authorised Version. If God be the subject throughout, the Latin application to the Lord's divesting Himself of the flesh or body is out of the question; and certainly the word is rarely if ever used absolutely or with such an ellipsis. Theodoret and Chrysostom are vague, but regard Christ as the subject. — In verse 18 they drop the negative with several of our bolder modern critics, which would thus express the pretension of the mystics whom the apostle is exposing. — Their version of the last clause in verse 23 is no less bold, though no doubt it suits the context if it were tenable. But does the preposition πρς ever convey the idea of counteraction or adverse aim save from the context, as from any word of fighting or the like, of which there is no trace here? If "against" therefore be improper in this connection, the force would be a warning against ascetic treatment, without a certain honour due to the vessel of the Holy Spirit, which is really for satisfaction of the flesh.

In Col. 3 there is happily but little to remark. The stronger and more accurate force we saw in Galatians 3 reappears in verse 11. — But it is very questionable whether "Christ" is not changed for the worse in verse 13 into "Lord" as in A B Dp.m. F G, etc., Vulgate, etc. The Sinaitic reads "God;" the ordinary reading has ancient and extensive support, especially in versions and citations. — But the Revisers, with all critics, on the best authority have the peace "of Christ" in verse 15. — In the end of verse 16 they rightly give to "God," and omit "and" in verse 17, as well as "own" in verse 18. — In verse 22 it is rightly "the Lord," not "God" as in the Authorised Version following the Received Text; and the copulative is dropt at the beginning of verse 23, and the causal conjunction before the final clause of verse 24. — Of course the first verse of Col. 4 is properly connected with Col. 3 as its true close.

In the last chapter there is yet less to notice. — Verse 8 is a plain instance where the influence of most of the oldest copies has misled editors and the Revisers. The Paris rescript — and the mass of uncials and cursives and versions are confirmed in their reading as right by the end of verse 9 as well as the beginning of verge 7. — In verse 10 it is properly "cousin." — In verse 12 they rightly supply "Jesus" omitted in Text. Rec. — In verse 13 it is as in the best copies "labour," not "zeal," the manuscripts differing singularly. — The main question of verse 15 lies between "their" ( A C P, eight cursives, etc.) and "his" (D E F G K L and the mass with some ancient versions, etc.), "her" (though adopted by Lachmann who reads Νύμφαν, after the Vatican and very little more) being given in the Revisers' margin, and not "his," which seems strange.

1 THESSALONIANS.

In this Epistle the critical changes are few.

In 1 Thess. 1: 1 "from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." Origen expressly noted the words as not read in his day, though they are supported by the Sinaitic, Alexandrian, and many other good MSS and versions, etc. B F G and the best versions reject the words. — There are slight corrections in verses 8 and 10.

In 1 Thess. 2: 2 an expletive καί is expunged, as also γάρ in verse 9. — There is an omission of καί supplied at the beginning of verse 13, as of ἰδίους in verse 15 and of "Christ" in verse 19. As to translation, is not verse 13 awkwardly rendered? Translate rather, "when ye received God's word of message (or report) — God's word heard — from us, ye accepted not men's word, but as it is truly God's word," etc.

1 Thess. 3: 2 brings before us a text variously found in the MSS. But if συνεργὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ be read, as in the margin, "fellow-worker with God" will not do, for reasons already stated in discussing 1 Corinthians 3, etc. It is not the thought at all, however pleasing to man's nature. God employs labourers as work-fellows; but He is no work-fellow of theirs. It is irreverent. In the text they read διάκονον, "minister," as the Vatican copy omits τοῦ Θεοῦ, and thus either way the difficulty is avoided. But there is really none when the word is rendered, not as by mere scholarship, but in the knowledge of God. — A few lesser points might be spoken of, but the chief is the exclusion of "Christ" which Text. Rec. introduced on insufficient grounds.

In 1 Thess. 4: 1 there is a short clause omitted in Text. Rec. and Authorised Version which is here rightly given, "even as ye do walk." — The Revisers, I think, aptly render verse 4 "to possess himself of," as also of course verse 6. — In verse 8 it is "you," not "us." In verse 13 it is "we," not "I" as in Text. Rec. — In verse 14 the margin is right, "through Jesus." — The peculiarity of the "shout" is left out in verse 16.

In 1 Thess. 5: 3 the particle "for" disappears properly, as it should appear in verse 5. There is little else to note but the omission of ἁγίοις "holy" in verse 27, where if we take MSS, versions and citations into account, external authority is rather evenly balanced. If it were a solitary expression in the Pauline epistles, this would not really weigh against its occurrence in his earliest, and in so solemn a connection. I doubt the wisdom or certainty of casting it out here. It occurs also in Hebrews 3: 1.

2 THESSALONIANS.

The rendering of 2 Thess. 1: 8 is correct, not that of the Authorised Version which overlooks the two articles in the Greek, expressive of two distinct classes of men with whom the day of the Lord is to deal: those that know not God (the nations or heathen); and those that, if they know Him after a sort, obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus (unbelieving Jews). The addition of "Christ" here is questionable; B D E G K L P, some thirty cursives, half the ancient versions, and many ancients who cite, being adverse. — In verse 10 it should be "believed." — In verse 12 the weight of authority omits "Christ" at the beginning.

In 2 Thess. 2: 1 "touching" or "in behalf of" the coming or presence of our Lord Jesus Christ seems to be founded on a misapprehension of the contextual requirement. Nobody doubts that either is a good rendering of the proposition in itself. But the connected language may modify, as well as the subject. matter; and all this has to be weighed. Was it not assumed by the Revisers, as in Alford's Commentary, that the coming of our Lord was the theme which he was about to explain to the Thessalonians? "It is most unnatural," says the Dean in objection to the rendering of the Vulgate, Authorised Version and many ancient commentators, "that the apostle should thus conjure them by that, concerning which he was about to teach them." This however is exactly opposed to the fact; for he is beseeching them ὑπὲρ τῆς π. τ. κ. ἡ. Ἰ. Χ. κ. ἡ. ἐ. ἐ. ἀ. not to be quickly shaken by a false impression about the day of the Lord. This, not His presence, is the real subject in hand. They are so distinct, that the apostle entreats ὑπὲρ the one not to be troubled about a wrong view of the other. It is the confusion of the two which led to the wrong rendering, as it also forbids the right understanding of the argument and of the truth in the context. It is impossible to read attentively the chapter before and the following verses without perceiving that the apostle is treating of that day, as the Authorised translators rightly saw in verse 3. And therefore it is that in verse 8 we have, not of the Lord's coming merely, but "of the manifestation of his coming," which really for the sense coalesces with His day. The one is for the gathering to Him of His friends; the other, for the destruction of His foes. Hence it is most intelligible to beseech the brethren, for the sake or on account of that blessed hope, not to be soon agitated nor yet troubled by the error that the day of the Lord was there. He begs them by a motive of deepest comfort not to be upset by the delusion that the day was present. How could this be, as the Lord had not yet come and gathered His own to Himself on high? How could it be, seeing that the apostasy and the man of sin were not yet developed in all their matured and manifested lawlessness, as they must be for the Lord to execute His judgment on them when that day dawns? This may serve to convince serious readers that the actual misunderstanding was about the ἡμέρα or day, not the παρουσία or presence, as has been erroneously taken for granted.

Accordingly too the rendering, with a verb of entreaty as here, is properly "for the sake of," "by reason of," or, more tersely, "by," as in all the well-known English versions (Wiclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, Rhemish, and Authorised Version). It is uncritical to confound ἐρωτᾳν περί with ἐρ. ὑπέρ, as the Revisers have done; and the New Testament abounds with proof that, when it was a question of beseeching for a person or asking about a thing, the former is the constant and correct phrase. We are therefore entitled to infer that ἐρ. ὑπέρ has its own distinctive force; and as "on behalf" or "instead of" is excluded by the nature of the case, so the bearing of the context most naturally points to some such rendering as is in the Authorised Version, and beyond just doubt disproves "touching" in the Revised Version or any other rendering of like import. The Revisers however have correctly expunged the "by" of the Authorised Version in the same clause for the one article of course forms the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ into one closely connected object of thought with "our gathering together unto him," instead of dissociating them as the unwarranted insertion of "by" does.

- In verse 2, in the endeavour to be literal have they not missed our own idiom? Dr. Angus ought to be able to say whether "shaken from your mind" is good English. The Authorised Version is at least idiomatic. But they have restored the true reading of "the Lord," not of "Christ," and they have given the correct version "is now present" or rather "is present," instead of the misleading "is at hand," which has darkened expositors, preachers, and readers without end. — In verse 3 they rightly say "the falling away" or apostasy, and as rightly discard "as God," though it is hard to tell why they did not render more literally ὅτι ἐστὶν θεός at the end, instead of repeating the English phrase which represents the interpolated ὡς θεόν. — In verses 7, 8 they are quite right in giving us "lawlessness," and "the lawless one," instead of the words in the Authorised Version which would answer to ἀδικία and πονηρός. The latter half of verse 7 is also better rendered as a whole; and "Jesus" is added on excellent authority, of moment to set aside pseudo-spiritual applications of the verse, as "slay" or destroy is better than "consume," which is popularly employed to aid false interpretation.

- In verse 11 "sendeth them a working of error" rightly displaces "shall send them strong delusion" in the Authorised Version. But could they not do better for the force of τῳ ψεύδει than perpetuate the old "a lie"? How strange that both Bishop Ellicott and the late Dean Alford should so little comprehend the truth here set out as to fancy, because of verse 7 and the present tense, that God's sending this judicial delusion is now! What about the lawless one's presence in verse 9? It is the ethical, not the historical, present, an usage quite common in all philosophical and indeed other writings, as well as in holy scripture. The error in this case affects, not the translation, but the intelligence of scripture; but it does affect the version in "them that are perishing" as in verse 10 and often in other words elsewhere, where they convert a moral present into a direct or historical one under the illusion that this only is correct. — "Work and word" rightly take the place of "word and work" in the Text. Rec. and Authorised Version.

In 2 Thess. 3: 4 the "you" of Text. Rec. disappears. — There is a conflict of readings at the end of verse 6, whether it be "he" as in the Authorised Version, "they" as in the Revised Version, or ye" as in the margin. The singular is ill-attested; they" has the better claim. — In verse 12 they rightly change from "by our" to "in the." — The form of verse 14 "that ye have no company with him" may be right; but in so doubtful a case, does it seem wise or fair to commit the Revision to it?

1 TIMOTHY.

In 1 Tim. 1: 1 the omission of the italics supplied in the Authorised Version brings out better the force: "Christ Jesus our hope;" and "true" or "genuine" is better than "own" in 2. — The misreading of the Text. Rec. in 4 is the source of the wrong thought in 4, where the real point is God's dispensation or administration, not "godly edifying," which ought to be an effect of it. — In 5 they have well given "charge," as in 3 and 18, where "commandment" misleads, as many ignorantly think of the law, especially as this follows, not seeing the contrast. — It seems surprising that the Revisers in 9 should consign "smiters" twice to the margin, and give "murderers" in their text. The simple verb certainly means to thresh, or beat, rather than to kill; and the compound in well-known pieces of classic Greek is distinguished, as here, from man-slayers or murderers. (See Lysias, 116; Plat. Phaed. 114; Aristoph. Nub. repeatedly. — They rightly present the "gospel of the glory," instead of the unmeaning or wrong-meaning "glorious gospel." The glory of God into which Christ has entered is 'the true and full standard of judgment by which the apostle, who had beyond any other beheld it, measures that which is unsuitable for God and His own. How little those who desire to be law-teachers enter into this! — "King of the ages," in the margin, seems preferable to "King eternal" in the text of 17. Law had been just contrasted with the gospel: God was the sovereign disposer of the ages for His own glory. But here He is the only God; not "only wise," as in Romans 16, where the mystery is not revealed, but His righteousness in the gospel of indiscriminate grace, and the law is vindicated yet set aside in Christ dead and risen, and all is conciliated with the fulfilment of His special promises to Israel; none but the "only wise God" could. Here He is the "only God;" He may act in creation or in judgment, in promise, law, or gospel, but He is the only God, whatever be the difference of dealing or dispensation.

In 1 Tim. 2: 3 why should the Revisers give "desiring" (θέλ.) in 1: 7, and "willeth" (θ.) here, but "desire" βούλομαι in 8? In 2 Peter 3: 9 they render β. "wishing." Why this looseness and caprice? Buttmann's distinction (Lexil. i. 26), that θ. [ἐθέλω] is not only the more general expression for willing, which is true, but that kind especially where a purpose is included, as compared with β., which implies a mere acquiescence in the will of others, seems to be quite untenable even in Homer. It is β. which is used especially to express mind or purpose if required. Mr. Green is also faulty in giving just the same force to the two different words in 1 Tim. 2: 3 and 2 Peter 3: 9; so indeed are the old well-known English versions. — Is not the rendering of 5 clumsy, though close? — In 8, 11, the twofold mistake of the Authorised Version is rectified. Read "the men" and a woman." In 9 it is rather "deportment" than dress," which follows in 10. — In 12 a woman is forbidden to exercise (not merely to usurp) authority. Such full power over man is not hers. — In 14 the emphasis is not expressed in English, "quite deceived." It is a mistake to refer 15 to salvation through the birth of Christ. Bishop Ellicott has said what he can in detail as well as contextually for that application, as Dean Alford for "the higher meaning" of σωθήσεται as in the Revision, but I think in vain. To compare it with 1 Cor. 3: 15 shows a strange cast of mind.

In 1 Tim. 3: 3 the Revisers rightly omit "not greedy of filthy lucre," which was introduced from Titus 1, The caution here follows in 16 no lover of money." But is there no intended reference to disorder through excess of wine in πάροινον, which they give simply as "brawler," especially as "striker" follows? — Is "condemnation" of the devil correct in 6? κρίμα was either a suit, the matter for it, or the sentence. Mr. Green takes it as "strong impeachment from the devil;" but it seems rather his charge or fault. — In 16 there is little doubt that the true reading is ὅς, He who, rather than θεός, though this be implied. B is wanting, but A C F G, with some cursives and very ancient versions, support ὅς, as D and the Latins read ὅ, K L P and most cursives giving Θεός.

The Revisers render aright the beginning of 1 Tim. 4: 2, so strangely misunderstood in the Authorised Version and elsewhere. Demons might speak lies, of course but how can we fairly speak of their "hypocrisy," or of their own conscience?" It is instructive to see that beside the demons there are the misleaders and the misled. Translate, therefore, "in (or through) hypocrisy of men that speak lies, cauterised in their own conscience," etc. — "Saviour" goes too far in 10, which should rather be "preserver" but "both" is rightly dropped in an earlier clause of the verse, as "in spirit" is in 12.

In 1 Tim. 5: 4 they have with good reason omitted "good and." To say "acceptable" is just the truth. — The old error, "having condemnation," instead of at most "guilt," recurs in 12. Why should they not have said "an" ox when treading out corn? The Authorised Version is doubly in fault, "the ox that," etc. — In 23 they rightly give "Be no longer a drinker of water." The Authorised Version, "Drink no longer water," goes too far. — But in 25 ought they not to have rendered it "the good works also [are] manifest" (or, evident beforehand, etc.)?

1 Tim. 6 has not a few misreadings in the Text. Rec. and the Authorised Version. "The" teaching or doctrine is right in 1; and the close of 2 should be, "they that partake in (or profit by) the good service are believing and beloved." — The Authorised Version of 5 is opposed to all intelligence of the usage of the article. It should be that godliness is gain, or a way of gain, as in the Revised Version, where "from such withdraw thyself" is rightly omitted. In 7 the Revisers are probably right in excluding "it is manifest", (δῆλον), or the equivalent, in the various MSS. So also in 10 the Revisers properly say "a root of all kinds of evil," or of all evils. "The root," as in the Authorised Version, is good neither in doctrine nor in fact nor in grammar. — In 12 "also" only encumbers the sense. — It is surprising that the Revisers should in their text confound the sense of ζωογονοῦντος (A D F G, P, etc.) with that of the Text. Rec. ζωοποι. ( K L, the cursives in general, etc.) "Preserving alive" is admirably in keeping with the Epistle: cf. Ex. 1: 17, 18, 22, Judges 8: 19, Luke 17: 33, Acts 7: 19. To suppose a reference, as Alford, to "eternal life" above is outrageous, any more than to resurrection with Chrysostom or others. — In 17 they are justified in omitting "living." — In 19 it is "that which is really life," rather than "eternal life" after the Text. Rec.

2 TIMOTHY.

There are no remarkable changes which occur to my mind in the early verses of 2 Tim. 1. "Beloved child" in 2 displaces "dearly beloved son," and "supplications" stands in lieu of "prayers" in 3. — "Stir up" still appears in 6, instead of "stir into flame" (or "rekindle") in the margin. — It is hard to see why "discipline" should supplant a sound mind," in 7. — In 8 the truer force appears, suffer hardship with the gospel," etc. — What is the meaning of "before time eternal," in 9? — In 10 "incorruption" is right, the body being in question, not the soul, life for the soul and incorruption for the body brought to light by the gospel. — The omission of ἐθνῶν Gentiles or nations in 12 rests on the meagre testimony of A 17, contrary to all other authority; but no doubt the Cambridge professors favoured the omission, though Lachmann read the word in his later edition, while Tischendorf in his eighth edition joined Tregelles, swayed overmuch as usual by the Sinaitic, as well as by the idea that it may have been borrowed from 1 Tim. 2: 7. But the context would incline me to its acceptance. In the former Epistle it falls in with the testimony of grace: the glad tidings of a ransom for all could not but go forth to the nations. So here, the power of Christ in death and resurrection gives occasion to the manifestation of eternal counsel, wholly above the course of dispensation to Israel; and accordingly the gospel meets men universally in the grace and power of God, and hence in a life superior to death, and a love which no sufferings could daunt or quench.

- Why should the Revisers repeat the inaccuracy of the Authorised Version in 13? Timothy had heard the truth from the apostle in words taught of the Holy Spirit, and is exhorted to have an outline or pattern of sound words which he had thus heard, an inspired expression of what God has revealed, and this in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. For this power is needed, and Timothy is told to guard the good deposit by the Holy Spirit that dwells in us (i.e., Christians) — both the more urgently wanted because it is a time of departure, as Paul experienced before his decease. Hold "the pattern" misleads, as if Timothy had some well-known formula distinct from apostolic teaching.

In 2 Tim. 2: 3 the Revisers rightly adopt the ancient reading συγκακοπάθησον, but their margin gives a sense preferable to their text. The apostle is not here speaking of his own sufferings. The Text. Rec. οὺ οὖν (as in the Authorised Version, "Thou therefore," etc.) crept in early, as it is found in a few uncials, most cursives, and some ancient versions; but it is a mere clerical blunder. — In 7 it is correctly "shall give thee." — In 13 "for" is rightly added. — In the first clause of 19 they give, quite properly, "the firm foundation standeth," and "the Lord," instead of "Christ" in the last clause. — But the last verse affords an extraordinary sample of baldness in the Committee, which can hardly have been satisfactory to the Bishop of Gloucester and others. It is the sense preferred by Wetstein and G. Wakefield, and, singular to say, Bengel. It seems to me distinctly ungrammatical on the face of it, that a past act in contrast with present state should be represented by ἐζωγρημένοι, which really implies the present result of what has been done. To bear the sense given, the former ought to have been ζωγρηθέντες, as another has justly remarked. Doubtless the pronouns are distinguished, but it seems harsh indeed to refer αὐτοῦ to the Lord's servant with so much intervening. Beza's proposal seems best — "that out of the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him, they may awake for [or, unto] His will," that is, to do God's will. In the margin they do give substantially this alternative; but does it not seem extraordinary that the Committee was found pliant enough to endorse the actual text?

In 2 Tim. 3 there is little to notice for general readers till we come to 10, where the Revisers appear to me rightly to read the aorist with A C F G 17 rather than the perfect of the Text. Rec. with the mass of inferior authority (which probably slipt in through 1 Tim. 4: 6): "But thou didst follow up my teaching," etc. — In 14 they decide for the plural, as the margin explains, and so the most ancient MSS., though the ancient versions lean with slight dissent to the singular "whom," as in the Text. Rec. — The version of 16 is questionable. As it stands it might imply that some scriptures are not divinely inspired, which is certainly opposed to the scope. "Every scripture, being divinely inspired, [is] also profitable," etc., differs from the more usual rendering in the margin only in assuming, instead of asserting divine inspiration. In any case it is "every" scripture, which would apply in due time to what was yet to be written as well as to what had been already. It is purposely thrown into axiomatic form. If assumed to be God-inspired, it seems needless to say that it is useful or profitable. I therefore prefer in this the construing of the Authorised Version.

In 2 Tim. 4: 1 the Revisers reject οὖν ἐγώ and τοῦ Κυρίου of the Text. Rec. as well as κατά, followed by the Authorised Version, though sustained by the later uncials, almost all the cursives, and all the old versions, even the Latin and Coptic. The testimony of Chrysostom is perplexing, for he seems to support καί ( A D F G., etc.) as well as κατά. But assuming the critical reading, ought we not to render "I charge both by His appearing and His Kingdom?" And why say "the" living and "the" dead? — In the end of 4, have they reflected justly or fully ἐκτραπήσονται? Of course they correct "a" into "the" crown, etc. in 8, and that "love" into "have loved." — In 15 they adopt the reading "withstood" for "hath withstood." — In 18 they drop the initiatory copulative, and read only "the Lord" in 22.

EPISTLE TO TITUS.

In Titus 1: 4 the Revisers on first-rate authority read "grace and peace" instead of "grace, mercy, peace," as in Text. Rec. and Authorised Version. "Lord" is also omitted. — The first copulative is left out on high authority in 10.

In Titus 2: 5 "workers at home," not merely "keepers" there, as the Authorised Version following Text. Rec. a letter easily omitted makes the difference. — In 7 the true text is "uncorruptness, gravity," ἁφθορίαν, σεμνό τητα, not ἁδίαφθορίαν, σ., ἀφθαρσίαν, which last even the Elzevirs and Griesbach, with all modern critics, reject, though Stephanus received it in his edd. of 1546, 1549, and 1550, misled by the Complutensian editors not Erasmus. — In 13 the Revisers translate rightly "the appearing of our great God," etc.

Titus 3: 1 is right, "to be obedient," not "to obey magistrates," which is already implied. — In 5 they rightly follow the Authorised Version, and give "washing." "Layer" ought not to be even in the margin. (See Eph. 5: 26.)

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

In 2 ἀγαπητῃ, "beloved," of the Text. Rec., followed by the Authorised Version, is properly excluded, and ἀδελφῃ, "sister," takes its place on ancient and ample, authority. The internal superiority of the critical reading is obvious. But the rendering of 6 seems very dubious in every English version save Tyndale's, the worst perhaps being the Rhemish and the Authorised Version, followed by the Revisers for the sense, though with the change of "fellowship" for "communication." I believe it ought to be "thy fellowship (or participation) in the faith." They appear to me no less unhappy in the perpetuating of the Text. Rec. ὑμῖν, you," in the same verse, though supported by F G P, many cursives, etc.; but ἡμῖν, "us," has the excellent authority of A C D E K L, about fifty cursives, and other authorities. This would involve the alternative rendering of "acknowledgement" rather than "knowledge." "Jesus" should probably be omitted. — In 7 the true reading seems to be, as they prefer, χαρὰν γὰρ π. ἔσχον, "for I had great joy." Even the Elz. (1624) has χαράν instead of the Stephanic χάριν, though both gave ἔχομεν, "we have." — The peculiar emphasis of αὐτόν instead of the vulgar σὺ δέ is well given. προσλαβοῦ in the Text. Rec. was borrowed from verse 17, though many good authorities supply it here. — "Lord" should disappear from the end of 20.

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS,

Hebrews 1-12.

The opening of this Epistle seems to me unworthily represented in the Revised Version. In ver. 1 "Divers" twice is to make bad worse, though not so incorrect as the "diversely" of Tyndale, the one being obsolete for more than one, the other really meaning differently. They have, of course, substituted ἐσχάτου for the Text. Rec., ἐσχάτων, which has not the support of a single uncial; and they have avoided the error of "times" instead of parts or portions. "God having of old spoken in many measures and in many modes to the fathers in the prophets, at the end of these days spake to us in [the] Son." The last expression is evidently the truth of especial weight; and here the Revisers conspicuously fail. Indeed, the anarthrous construction is their habitual stumbling-block, as is the abstract usage of the Greek article, which requires the absence of the definite article in English. Their text is wrong in bringing in "his," which is not all the idea bore, though, of course, true in itself; whilst their margin, "a Son," is yet worse in every way, as being liable to grave misconstruction anywhere, and peculiarly at issue with a context which has for its aim to set forth His sole, intrinsic, and unapproachable glory as Son of God. The true idea is as Son, or in the person of Him who is Son, contrasted with His servants the prophets. Our tongue, however, does not admit of this characterising style of speech, like the Greek, after a preposition, but only in the nominative; and hence we must insert our article or even paraphrase it. But can there be any doubt that here, as too often in such cases elsewhere, the Revisers have missed the mark in a very essential point of truth?

- In 3 they give rightly the very image, or impress, "of His substance." "Person" is quite wrong, not only in translation, but in doctrine. For a wonder they are right about purification "of sins," perhaps to avoid the appearance of reading ἡμῶν as in Text. Rec. contrary to m p.m. A B Dp.m. all and many other witnesses. They ought to have translated similarly in Eph. 1: 7, Col. 1: 14, where they have ruined the sense by treating the article as a possessive four times in error. Nor is the omission of δι᾽ ἑαυτοῦ ["by himself] by any means so sure as to justify not even a notice in the margin. E K L M are no doubt inferior to A B P, Dp.m. giving δι᾽ αὐτοῦ, but both the Syriac, the AEthiopic and the Coptic are at least equal to the Vulgate and the Armenian. Indeed, Theodoret in his comment expressly says that δι᾽ αὐτοῦ should be read with an aspirate for δι᾽ ἑαυτοῦ (δασέως ἀναγιγνώσκειν προσήκει, ἀντὶ τοῦ, δι᾽ ἑαυτοῦ, B. Theod. Opp. ed. Sirmond. v. 549). Nor is there the least hint of the middle voice in the aorist participle, the more striking as the purification made was of the sins of others — assuredly not His own. The favourite Vulgate (factus) is here out of the way false, as it is in the next word, and often to the subversion of the truth in this epistle. In 4 the Revisers have improved on "being made" of the Authorised Version, which is very objectionable, but "having become" is not much better.

- The doubtful point of 6 is the Revisers' adoption of the margin of the Authorised Version, and consigning its text to their margin; the improvement is "first-born" for "first-begotten." In 7 and 8 and 13 it is better to assimilate if not render the same (for the first πρός is indirect, the second direct), instead of giving "of and "unto," as in the Authorised Version. Whether "of" in both cases is better than "as to" seems doubtful. But there is as little doubt that καί is wrongly dropt in the Text. Rec. and Authorised Version of 8 as that the Authorised Version is more correct than the Revised Version in not making a reciprocal sentence of the clause that follows, where the predicate by poetical inversion precedes the subject — a matter of no moment where the latter is defined by the article. — In 8 they have not adhered to the preterite rendering of the aorists, though there seems no reason why they might not have said, "Thou didst love righteousness and hate iniquity (or lawlessness). Therefore God, thy God, anointed," etc. And so in 10 "didst say," etc. — But it does seem strange that the advocates of the Vatican and a few others (MSS. A D p.m. etc. should have induced the Company to adopt ὡς ἱμάτιον, which reads so unmeaningly in the second clause of 12. Even Tregelles bracketed, and Lachmann alone adopted the gloss. It is a wonder they did not heed Tischendorf's reading ἀλλάξεις for ἐλίξεις, which adheres to the Hebrew, though resting only on p.m. Dp.m., Latin auxiliaries, etc., "as a vesture wilt thou change them, and they shall be changed," but the Vatican does not favour this. — In 13 why not "a" rather than "the" footstool?

In Heb. 2: 1 "lest haply we drift away" is a better rendering than in either the text or the margin of the Authorised Version, both of which are ungrammatical. But is "recompense of reward" well here, because it suits, though cumbrously Heb. 10: 35, Heb. 11: 26? Would not requital or retribution in our text, and recompense elsewhere be better English? The Authorised Version misled the Revisers' Version in this unusual excess of sameness. — In 4 it is hard to see why the Authorised Version should be followed in the text and the margin. — In 5 the "habitable" world as it really is would dispel some vague impressions which "the world" is apt to leave on ill-taught minds. — The version of Ps. 8: 4 is kept in 6, not quite in unison with Heb. 13: 3; but the preterite which prevails in 7 was forgotten in 6, — And why should we have "the" angels in 9 is in 7, where it is no question of the whole class but of beings thus characterised? Our language allows corresponding precision. And is it certain that ὑπὲρ πάντος means "for every man?" Why not for every [thing]? We have just heard of πάντα, τὰ πάντα, and τὴν οἰκ., and afterwards in ver. 10, but these of men also, not as πάντας but as πολλοὺς υἱούς. It is not that there is the least dogmatic difficulty as to all mankind, at least for one who applies Christ's death for all in 2 Cor. 5: 14, as His death through and for sin, rather than to it, which last is exclusively true of believers. It is a question only of what best suits the context. — In 12 "the congregation" is decidedly better than "the church," as in the Authorised Version. — In 13 they desert their preterite, perhaps owing to the Authorised Version of Isa. 8: 18. — In 14 is it not strange to consign the true order "blood and flesh" to the margin, and to adopt the other and commoner order in the text? — In 16 there is a well-known correction of the Authorised Version adopted; for it is a question not at all of having taken the nature of man, but of interest and succour for Abraham's seed, not angels. — In 17 "reconciliation" gives place very properly to "propitiation."

In Heb. 3: 1 "Christ" of the Authorised Version, following Text. Rec., disappears rightly. — But why in 2 "who was" or "who is"? "As being" is more correct. It is hardly to be supposed that Mr. Green meant to omit ὅλῳ with the Vatican, especially as he gives "all" in his version. — In 6 surely it is Christ as "Son over His house," not "a Son." Nor is there ground to say "our," but "the" boldness and the boast, rather than boasting or glorying, which would be rather καύχησις. — In 9 "wherewith," not "when," or "where," also "by proving," ἐν δοκιμασία, rather than ἐδοκ. as in the LXX. and Text. Rec., which adds με twice. — In 10, ταύτῃ, "this," not ἐκείνῃ, "that." — Is not the connection of διό (7) with βλέπετε (12)? If so, it is neglected in the Revised as much as in the Authorised Version. — In 14 as "partakers of Christ" has quite a different meaning, would it not have been better to have adopted throughout, as in Heb. 1: 9, a more suitable rendering? "Fellows" from Ps. 45 is scarcely desirable. Partners or companions might be used. In 16, for τινές of the Text. Rec., they read with most critics τίνες. For who when they heard, or in hearing, did provoke? In the end of 18 the disobedient means those who did not listen to the word. Hence in 19 it is "unbelief." See Heb. 4: 6, 11.

Heb. 4: 2 presents a notable instance of temerity. I do not speak of the clumsy literality of the word "of hearing," but of what follows, "because they were [in the margin it was according to some] not united by faith with them that heard." No doubt Alford, Tregelles and Lachmann were blinded by their fidelity to the more ancient MSS. Tischendorf, strengthened by the Sinaitic which rejects the pl. acc. form, corrected his early change from the Text. Rec. because of the paucity of witnesses in its favour, save the Syriac and some of the Latin. But a more monstrous result than the sense flowing from that which pleased the ancient copyists and the modern critics, as well as the Revisers, it is hard to conceive. Besides, even the marginal alternative fares hardly at their hands. What is the sense from "it was?" "Because the word was not united by faith with them that heard." How greatly inferior to the Authorised Version! If the ordinary reading, or its form in , had a place in the margin, the Revisers ought to have given it a decent rendering, not one which sounds almost ridiculous. Nothing can be more confused and incoherent with the argument than the sense attached to the favourite reading; and even most modern commentators who adopt it on diplomatic grounds give it up, save the late intrepid Dean of Canterbury, who will have no special reference to Caleb and Joshua, yet fairly owns that his own interpretation does not satisfy himself Without dwelling on minor points, 10 appears to be only in part corrected. The Authorised Version was misled by Tyndale and that of Geneva, and the rendering falls in with the evangelical misapplication of the chapter to a present rest for the soul by faith, instead of the rest of God, which we are to enter at Christ's coming, a stimulus to present labour and to fear of taking our rest now. It ought to be "ceased from his works as God from His own." It is clear that it can be no question here of Christ giving rest to all those that labour and are heavy-laden, but to those who already believed in, or at least professed, His name; else they would have been called to believe, not to fear, still less to diligence in every good work. One need say nothing of Owen's wild idea adopted by Ebrard and Alford that so describes Christ. Not so; it is the general statement that he who has entered into God's rest has himself to rest from his works — a truth which applies even to God, who rested after His works in creating. It is no question of bad works: God's own were certainly good. It is a mistake that this view converts the aorist into a perfect or present. For if any tense but the aorist were used in Greek, it might, nay must, have misled. Believers now are viewed as εἰσερχ and in no way as εἰσελθόντες and the finite verb is properly in the same tense. It is the case supposed when the rest is entered, not at all the present result of a past act in the perfect. If the present had been used, as often expressive of a general principle, it was obviously liable to mislead the reader, for the entrance is unquestionably future.

- In 14 is not "the" better than "our" confession? — But the close of 15 is more serious. To say "yet" as in the Authorised Version, following others since Tyndale, leaves the door open to misconstruction of the true meaning and even to heterodoxy. Indeed, not a few have drawn, what they scarcely could have done from χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας, that it means the Lord, however tempted, never sinned; whereas the true sense is that He has been in all things tempted in like sort, sin excepted. He never had our sinful temptations from a fallen nature such as James (James 1: 13-15) speaks of. For this He suffered on the cross, and now sympathises with us in out dangers, difficulties, and weakness. He knew these trials incomparably more than we; but there was no sin in Him, no evil proclivities in His nature as in ours. — In 16, why not "for seasonable help?" "Time of need" limits the succour too much to the moment of trespass; the former is the larger and more worthy sense, as it is the most faithful version.

In Heb. 5 the first thing we would note is the right omission of ὁ in 4, which would make it not hypothetic, but actual, which really is in the clause following. It is not therefore "he that is," as in the Authorised Version, following the Text. Rec., but, "as" or "when" called. — In 8 "though He were Son," or "Son as He was." is better than "a" Son, but there is no need of "the" before "author." — In 7, as in Heb. 11: 17, προσφέρω is confounded with ἀναφέρω, which does mean offer up as well as bear. — In 12 "the rudiments" do not go well with "the first principles" as may be made plainer by Heb. 6: 1, where our Revisers give us "let us cease to speak of the first principles of Christ." There is nothing better than "the beginning." First principles are never to be left; but the word of the beginning of Christ might safely be left to go on to the knowledge of His redemption and glorification, which are the true power for acting by the Holy Ghost on the new man. Without this is no "full growth" to which one is pressed on in Heb. 6: 1. Solid food is for "full-grown men," as in 14.

In Heb. 6: 6, "If they shall fall" in the Authorised Version is brought back to the true and literal force, "and have fallen." It was a fact described. — In 7 it is ground, or land, not "the" land. — In 10 they omit "the labour" on high and ample authority. — Is not "desire" defective unless more strongly qualified in 11? — There is no need of "a" forerunner in 20.

In Heb. 7 there is extremely little to criticise: a particle struck out in 4, the article in 5, 10, change of form in 11, 16, 18, and priests instead of priesthood in 14, a quotation curtailed a little in 21, and a particle added in 22, are almost all. — Of course, the mistranslation in the Authorised Version of ver. 19 is avoided by the Revisers. The Old English Versions in general treat it wretchedly, from Wiclif down, Rhemish and all. Not one seems to have heeded the plain fact that 19 is the correlative to 18, marked carefully by the regular μὲν . . . δέ, with the first parenthetic clause at the beginning of 19, which explains why the foregoing commandment was annulled. Think of Tyndale making 18 a period, so as to predicate of the law, that it not only made nothing perfect, which is true, but was the introduction of a better hope, which is not only untrue but utterly false. Cranmer follows him in this; but even Wiclif had avoided it, as the Geneva Version more. The Rhemish is, as often, ambiguous, and suggestive of wrong more than of right, probably the fruit of sheer blank ignorance of the truth. If the Authorised Version kept clear of positive error in the text, they brought it into their margin. The parenthesis of which they did not think would have proved a safeguard, as well as seeing the contrast between the foregoing commandment and the better hope, the one abrogated and the other brought in. Of the ancient version, the Peschito Syriac is perhaps the nearest, save the Philoxenian, which is closer still. Lachmann, in his early and later editions, punctuates the Greek correctly, but not the Vulgate, which may, if rightly divided, intend the true thought. Theophylact is more distinct than Theodoret or Chrysostom.

In Heb. 8: 1 there is no need to say more than "a" chief point or summary. — In 2 why "sanctuary "in text or "holy things" in margin? Surely it should be uniformly the holy [place] or holies here, Heb. 9: 8, 12, 24, and Heb. 10: 19. A needless "and" is rightly excluded. — In 4 the γάρ, "for," of the Text. Rec. and Authorised Version yields to the οὖν of the Revisers, or rather of the best ancient witnesses. "If then he were on earth, he would not even be a priest, since there are those that offer the gifts according to law"; for here again the article is no more desirable in English than in Greek, though it might have been used in both. It is not that it is optional for the same shade of sense; on the contrary, it is due to exactness in expressing character rather than mere fact. But the Revisers seem not at all alive to this refinement in either language. It will be noticed that τῶν ἱέρεων of the Text. Rec. with its counterpart in the Authorised Version disappears as the mere gloss of inferior and later copies. — Why "Testament" should be given in the margin of 8, 9, 10 is inconceivable, since the context, as well as the Hebrew, point only to "covenant." It is quite a different case in Heb. 9: 16, 17 but even there neither before nor after, "testament" there too being quite wrong in the margin of 15 and 20. — In 11 citizen or "fellow-citizen" is right on the best authority. There is no attempt at distinguishing the call to objective knowledge from the promise of inward knowledge or consciousness, though it has been often pointed out. The omission of "and their iniquities" or lawlessness is supported by but two great uncials (p.m. B.) and two cursives (17, 23), but by almost all the ancient versions.

In Heb. 9: 1 the Authorised Version did not follow the Text. Rec. in acknowledging σκηνή, Tabernacle. Like the Revisers it supplies "covenant." No doubt the former was mistaken from 2. The rendering at the close in the Authorised Version is untenable it should be, "the sanctuary a worldly one," rather than the Revisers' form, "its sanctuary, a sanctuary of this world." Mr. Green takes it as "the holy garniture," which is at least grammatical. — In 6-9 the present form is rightly given by the Revisers, "go in," "offereth," "hath not yet," etc., "is yet," "which (or, "the which") is," "are offered," "that cannot." Again, is it correct to confound λατρεύειν with προσκυνεῖν? No doubt λ. is not δουλεύειν, but divine service is the idea, and this whether of the Jew as here or of the Christian as in 14, Heb. 10: 2. — In the margin of 11 they give that strange reading of some old witnesses, "that are come," the spiritual sense of most, no doubt, controlling the hard drivers of diplomatic authority. At the end of this verse they give properly "creation," instead of "building," as in the Authorised Version. — But have they seized the true force of διά in 12? No one denies that the preposition from a local and temporal rises to a causal force, and  so to accompaniments, mode, or manner, etc. — In 15 it seems very questionable to say "a" death.

- The famous passage in 16, 17, is fairly rendered, though not so close as might be, and with an interrogation at the end which had better not have been. "Doth it ever avail," etc., is poor. The validity or force is more suitable here. That the alternative of "covenant" in the margin should not enter this parenthetic digression is to my mind plain from the fact that death of the covenanter is needless to a covenant's validity, whereas it is essential to the operation of a will that the testator die; as is here expressly argued by the inspired writer. Before and after these two verses it is a question only of "covenant." — In 21 the Revisers rightly say with "the" blood, whereas in a general statement, as in 22, it is in English as in Greek anarthrous. — In 24 "before the face of God is more energetic. — In 26 it is the consummation of the ages," not the equivocal and misleading end of the world" as in Authorised Version. It was when the past dealings of God in all ways of moral trial conveyed that Christ died as a sacrifice for putting away of sin. The new heavens and earth throughout eternity will display this. — 27 is feebler in the Revised than in the Authorised Version, "cometh" being quite uncalled for; judgment is as much the portion of men as once to die. — Then comes in 28 what grace gives to faith in Christ once offered and to appear a second time. At His first coming He bore sins of many (not of all: else all would be saved, but of all believers); He will appear again to those that look for Him, as far as regards them apart from sin, unto salvation, i.e., of their bodies, then to be changed into the likeness of the body of His glory.

In Heb. 10: 1 several obvious blunders of the Authorised Version are corrected: "the" coming good thing, "the same" sacrifices, they "offer." But how rash to endorse in such a work "they can"! It is known that this plural form is supported by A C D . . . corr P, and probably thirty or more cursives, etc., whereas the singular as in the Text. Rec. and with most critics has the suffrages of Dp.m., E H K L, and a fair number of cursives, some of the most ancient versions, etc. — Of course in 2 οὐκ is read with an interrogation on the best and fullest authority: so Erasmus, Stephens, and all the modern critics, contrary to the Complutensian editors, Beza, and Elzevirs, who omit it with some cursives, some Latin copies (not the oldest), the Syriac etc., which Wiclif and the Rhemish follow. — "In them" would be quite enough in 3, and better than "in those as in the Authorised and Revised Versions. — In 4 "blood," not "the" blood. — In 5 rightly "didst thou prepare." — But why in 6 "sacrifices for sins?" Why not adhere to the Old Testament familiar "sin-offerings?" So of course in 8. In both the Peschito shows how soon the knowledge of scripture evaporated after the Apostles, for that venerable version actually confounds the burnt-offering with that for sin. I purposely quote from Etheridge, "entire burnt-offerings for sin Thou hast not required. . . . entire burnt-offerings for sins Thou hast not willed." No offerings stood in more complete contrast than the holocaust and that for sin; and by this confusion also one loses the four classes here distinguished — burnt-offering, the minchah or unbloody corn oblation, the sacrifice of peace-offering, and the sin-offering. — In 9, as in 7, it is "I am come," not "I come" as in Authorised Version, and "O God" from the Text. Rec. is rightly dropt on the best authority.

- In 10 they correct the blunder of the Authorised Version, and read "once 'for all'" without italics. — In 12 it is rightly "he" (though it be οὗτος not αὐτὸς), not" this man" as in the Authorised Version. But the connection of "for ever" with the offering ono sacrifice for sins, instead of with "sat down," is an error of the first magnitude, common to Wiclif, the Rhemish, the Authorised Version, and the Revised Version, but not Tyndale, Cranmer, or Geneva. The sense of the phrase εἰς τὸ διηνεκές being continually or in perpetuity, rather than "for ever," is in its own nature incapable of being combined with the aorist, and can only go with such tenses as the present and perfect, which suppose continuance. To make the present construction orthodox, one must conceive some such ellipse "as [the efficacy of which lasts] for ever," which would be intolerable. The only party which the misrendering can serve is the sacerdotal one, which pretends to offer a continual sacrifice for the living and the dead; but in order to have the least real weight the Greek should have been προσφέρων, and we should have been landed back into the Judaism of verse 11, with which the Apostle is contrasting Christianity, which mainly depends on the completed act taught by προσενέγκας as in our verse. It is hardly possible to conceive a blunder in more direct issue with the entire teaching of this Epistle. — It is evident that the Authorised Version is not justified in giving the same force "are sanctified" to ἡγιασμένοι ἐσμέν in 10 and to τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους in 14. The Revisers rightly say in the one case "we have been sanctified," and in the other "them that are sanctified," not those that are (or were) being sanctified as in the analogous case of Acts 2: 47, 1 Cor. 1: 18, which we saw they happily forgot in 1 Cor. 15: 2. There is a moral present, and not merely an historical one of actual time. O si sic omnia. The late Dean Alford was consistently wrong in saying even here, in the face of 10, "them who are being sanctified." — Is there any need for marking the apodosis, formally at the end of 16, "then saith he?"

"Before" is certainly wrong in 15. — And why in 20 "by" the way? Why not "the new and living way which he dedicated for us," etc.? — In 21 a great "priest" is right. — But why "fulness" here and in Heb. 6: 11, when they gave in their text of Col. 2: 2 "full assurance?" — It is of course "hope" in 23. — Would not 28 open more correctly thus, "When one set at nought Moses' law," etc.? "A man that hath set," etc., offends against more than one point of importance. — In 34 it is not as in Text. Rec. "of me in my bonds," but on good authority "on those in bonds;" also ἐν of the Text Rec. disappears, and the true force is either "that ye yourselves," or "that ye have for yourselves," according to the reading preferred. — In 38 it is correctly "any righteous (or just) one." It may not be needful to interpolate "one" or "any man;" but there is no real ground for inferring that the same man is meant. The Hebrew and the Septuagint exclude such a thought, and certainly the Apostle did not intend differently. But the form differs according to Divine wisdom to warn the Jewish professor who professed faith but might not live by it.

It is a nice question as to Heb. 11: 1 whether ὑπόστασις here means grounded assurance as in Heb. 3: 14, or substantiating which more approaches the older view. The Peschito's "realisation" might express it best in this, as "demonstration" in ἔλεγχος. — In 2 ἐν τ. means "in virtue of this," or "by it" briefly. — In 3 the perfect is twice misrendered by the Authorised Version. It should be "have been framed," and "What is seen hath not come into being;" for the true reading is τὸ βλ. with the best authorities, not τὰ βλ. an accommodation to φ. which is in the plural. — In 5 "he hath had testimony" . . "that he had," not "he had" . . . "that he," as in Authorised Version. It is also before "the" translation, not "his" as in Text Rec. — In 6 it should be "draweth near" (προσερχ.), as usually, not "cometh" as in Revised Version, following Authorised Version. So also at the end of Heb. 10: 1, where the Revisers have draw "nigh," a rendering they give to ἐγγίζειν. 5 — Prepared "for" seems in our day better English than "to" in 7. — In 8 "was going" is preferable to went, especially after ἐξῆλθεν just before. -" Even "in" seems out of place; is it not "Sarah herself also?" Is not this a common mistake of the Revisers? "Even" is used properly where one means to express anything strange, as in 19; is this the idea here? They are right in excluding "and been persuaded of them," an addition of Text. Rec. in 13 on the slenderest testimony. — In 14 the Revisers render ἐπιζητοῦσιν, "seek after," which is all well; but would it not have been better to have given "seek out," not "after," to ἐκζ. in 6? — Here again in 17 we have twice over the confusion of προσφ. with ἀναφ. offering, and not offering "up." — In 26 it is "of," not "in" Egypt; Lachmann with the Alexandrian copy reading Αἰγύπτου as the Text. Rec. has ἐν — ῳ. — It was not needful to alter "for" into concerning "in 40, as the Revisers render περί in Heb. 13: 18.

In Heb. 12: 2 "faith," or the faith, seems to be the thought, not our faith as in the Authorised and Revised Versions. The Revisers say "hath sat down" for κεκ., having given "sat down" for the ἐκαθ. in Heb. 1: 2, Heb. 8: 1, Heb. 10: 12. The Authorised Version had said "is set" in Heb. 8: 1 as well as in the passage before us, so that they do not seem to have distinguished on principle. — But how was the Company persuaded into deserting ἑαυτόν or αὐτόν, accepted even by Alford, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles, on ample authority? Was it not by the strong pressure of Cambridge admirers of paradox if it be only ancient? No doubt they can cite D E, all p.m. with the same old Latin copies, the Pesch., etc. The resulting sense in this connection is not only inferior beyond comparison, but intolerable.

- 7 affords a remarkable departure from the Text. Rec. εἰ "if" for εἰς in the sense of "for." "For chastening endure (or, better, ye are enduring); as with sons God is dealing with you." The ancient MSS. and Versions remarkably consent against the text adopted by Erasmus, the Complutensian editors, Colinaeus, Stephens, Beza, Elzevirs. Bengel, whose critical insight was great, here failed, thinking the true reading to be the slip of a Greek pen, though he was well aware that the widespread testimony of the old version told a different tale. Even Matthaei, who loved to fight Griesbach, was here compelled to reject the few minuscules and accept the united voice of antiquity; and of course Alford, Lachmann, Scholz, Tischendorf, and Tregelles follow. Is it sound to say that if ye endure chastening God dealeth with you as with sons? Does His fatherly course depend on our patience? On the other hand, it is important to feel that we endure as chastening, not as punishment: οὐκ εἰς κόλασιν, οὐδὲ εἰς τιμωρίαν, as Chrysostom pertinently observes. It is as certain as such a thing can be that the text of his comment (Epp. Paulin. vii. 330, ed. Field, Oxon.) has been tampered with to make it accord with εἰ. — The version of 10 is properly cleared of obsolete speech, save that "us" and "our" rather enfeeble the form. — Ought not "to be" No chastening," etc.?" — "The" many in 15 is a doubtful reading sustained by two great uncials and as many cursives, etc., against all the other authorities. Cf. Mark 9: 26. — In 17 the Revisers have by the parenthesis set out duly the true meaning. It was not repentance, but the inheritance of blessing which Esau sought out with tears. — In 18 the Revisers omit ὄρει on fuller evidence than their insertion in 15; but they supply it from 20 in the general sense instead of adopting Mr. Green's singular turn, "to a fire to be touched and glowing." — If the true meaning of παρῃτήσαντο in 19 had been borne in mind, "deprecated," "declined," "excused" (see 25), it would perhaps make the absence of μή more probable as in P, 10, 73, etc., — Of course the last clause of 20 in the Text. Rec. is dropt.

- In 22, 23 the Revisers have failed to give the true connection, καί really indicating each new object, and consequently misrepresented the sense of this weighty passage. The myriads of angels are the general assembly, and "church of firstborn ones" are a new and wholly distinct group, here confounded with παρηγύρει, which really goes with ἀγγέλων. — How absurd to connect, as the margin does, a Mediator with a testament! With a covenant it is all right. — And why "than that of Abel?" According to Heb. 11: 4 it is Abel, as it were, speaking in his blood or death; παρὰτό in L. and others, but it seems a mere gloss for facility. — In 26 it should be "I will shake" instead of the present in the Text. Rec. — In 28 there is strong and abundant testimony for "we serve," where the Revisers rightly cleave to the common text.

In Heb. 13: 3 the Revisers correctly in general render a verse probably mistranslated through anti-Romanist zeal. But ἐν π. may, and probably does, mean "in all things," or every way, as in verse 18, and often elsewhere; whereas the masculine sense, though popular among Protestants, is here harsh in construction and can hardly be laid down absolutely if we bear in mind 1 Cor. 7. The imperative is right, and "undefiled" a predicate as "in honour." — The beginning of 5 is loosely translated. Surely ὁ τρόπος is the way of dealing without going further to make a smooth construction with the following clause. But the energy of the quotation is far better represented in this and the succeeding verse 6. It is not "may" but do say; and the interrogative is not only correct, but gives real point. — In 7 they have correctly treated the words as referring to their guides, not "who" but "the which" or such as spoke to them the word of God, whose faith they were to imitate, contemplating the issue of their career or behaviour. It was terminated, and they were to be recalled to mind, no longer to be obeyed like their living leaders (17). — "Jesus Christ" is the subject of the distinct proposition that follows. Indeed verse 8 might fittingly open a new parenthesis which would close with 16, though it is no bad transition from the teaching of the deceased leaders to the abiding sameness of the Lord Jesus. But the apposition insinuated in the punctuation of ordinary English Bibles is false. The unchangeableness of Christ is the guard against being carried away.

- In 9 the received reading followed by the Authorised Version περιφ. rightly gives place to παραφ. as in the Revised Version. It is not carried about as in Eph. 4: 14, but carried away out of the straight course. Here, however, as in Heb. 1: 1, the Authorised Version has misled the Revisers into "divers," not now for "many" but for various, ποικίλαις. "Diverse" would at least approximate, and perhaps the Revisers meant this, for their spelling is peculiar. As they interpolate an "e" into judg[e]ment, they may cut off an "e" from "divers." But the word really means motley or various. "Teachings" is unusual as a plural in our tongue, though in the singular it is all right. Probably Dr. Angus found it hard to resist the innovators. — In 14 we have no abiding city here, but are seeking after the coming one, for there is but one heavenly Jerusalem. "One" to come as in the Authorised Version is too vague, and incorrect. — Why should the Revised Version of 15 be more remote from the Greek than the Authorised Version in the last clause? Does the punctuation of 17 help the sense? "That they may do this" refers to the watching. The chiefs or leaders are to give account of their own duty, not of others' souls.

- In 20 they give "in the" instead of "through" for ἐν. It expresses the power or virtue in that blood in which God brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus. — In 21 the omission of ἔργῳ is precarious, even Alford, Lachmann, and Tregelles accepting it. On the authority of A C Dcorr. K M P, the cursives, Syriac AEthiopic, Armenian, etc., sustain it against Dp.m., the Vulgate, which none follow but Tischendorf abroad, and Westcott and Hort at home. The difference, however, seems right as to sense. There is rather better evidence in favour of ἡμῖν instead of ὑμῖν as in the Text. Rec., though none but the same editors adopt the change. Lachmann had in his early edition added αὐτός, and in his later αὐτῶ before ποιῶν, the latter of which has A C to support it, though manifest glosses. — In 24 it is "from," not "of," Italy.

EPISTLE OF JAMES.

Why should the Revisers perpetuate the traditional blunder of "The General Epistle of James"? The best critics drop καθολική, following B K, A C being defective, but A also dropping it at the end: so many Latin copies, and the Pesch. Syr. It is not "general," but specially addressed to the twelve tribes.

James 1: 1 has neither the closeness of a literal rendering, nor the freedom of the Authorised Version. If we are to adhere to the letter, it is in, not "of," the dispersion. The faith of James rises above all the present circumstances of God's ancient people, and addresses the nation as a whole, though distinguishing such of Israel as have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ. He thus maintains and expresses God's right over the entire people, wherever and whatever they may be. — In 3 "proof" or proving is better than "trying" in the Authorised Version. — In 4 "her" has properly given way to "its." — In 6 "doubting," "doubteth" are better than "waver," though κλύδων seems rather "a wave" or billow, than "the surge." — The punctuation, as expressive of the connection of 7, 8, is questionable, though the Authorised Version is hardly correct either in its representation of 8. It is rather a description of him that doubts. — Verses 9, 10 are given somewhat loosely, and with uncalled for neglect of the anarthrous construction. Why not an "flower of grass"? — In 11 the Revisers depart from the simple "scorching heat," not "wind," given to the word in Matthew 20: 12, and Luke 12: 55; but "goings" is better than "ways." — In 12 it should be not "tried," but the result "proved," or as the Revisers say "approved." "He" would have sufficed instead of "the Lord." The later uncials and almost all the cursives, etc., read "the Lord." — Why not in 13 "by evils" or evil things, rather than "with evil" as in the Authorised and Revised Versions?

- In 15 the Revisers overlook the abstract force of the article in Greek, where we leave it out in English. The Authorised Version is right. They follow nearly the Authorised Version in separating ἄνωθέν ἐστι from καταβαῖνον, but the Authorised Versions in 3: 15 seems just as correct, which they do not follow. It is known that in the oldest uncials, supported by the Latins, the reading is ἵστε, "ye know," not ὥστε, "so that." Then we would proceed, "But let," etc. The anarthrous form of 20 is ill reflected in the Revised Version, as in the Authorised Version. — In 21 "implanted" is correct. — In 23 and 24 it is to "consider" or contemplate, rather than "behold." — In 24 does not ὁ π. mean more than "he that looketh"? In 26 θρ. "among you" (ἐν ὑμῖν) is rightly rejected. But as distinct from εὐσεβεία, piety, it means the outward service of God, which "religion" inadequately expresses, though it is hard to find a better. — In 27 it is well to note this, lest ignorance — should treat the verse as a definition of true "religion," as men speak. The meaning is, that this is a pare and unsullied service before Him who is God and Father: to visit orphans and widows, etc. But the article is omitted before θ. καὶ π. in p.m. Ccorr. K L, very many cursives, etc.; it is read in other MSS. of the highest authority, as also in Text. Rec.

James 2: 2 of the Revised Version has rightly "synagogue," according to the peculiar bearing of the Epistle. — In 4 "partial" in yourselves of the Authorised Version goes too far; but "divided in your own minds" in the Revision scarcely hits the mark. The true force seems that they became divided, or made a difference "among themselves." For judges "of" evil thoughts, which is the literal rendering of the Authorised Version, the Revisers give "with." Of course the meaning is that they had evil thoughts, according to an idiom found sometimes in English. — In 5 the true reading on the best authority is τῳ κ. ("as to the world"), not τοῦ κ., still less τ. κ. τούτου, as in Text. Rec. followed in the Authorised Version "of this world." — In 7 is not the literal force preferable "that was called upon you"? — In 11 the Revisers rightly follow ancient authority in "dost" not and "killest," contrary to Text. Rec. — In 12 recurs the old inability to set forth the anarthrous construction: "a" law of liberty is not the sense but erroneous, though seemingly more accurate than "the" in the Authorised Version. The copulative of the Text. Rec. rightly vanishes. — In 14 it is a nice question whether the true thought be "faith" as in the Authorised Version, or "the faith": the Greek admits of either, and it becomes a question of contextual propriety. But "that faith" of the Revised Version is strong beyond warrant. It is the more strange, as in the same connection (17, 20, 22) they give "faith" as an abstraction or personification, and quite rightly.

- In 18 σου of R. Steph. ("thy," Authorised Version) is well omitted: why then should the Revisers interpolate "thy"? It was this feeling, no doubt, which led the scribes of C K L, and most of the cursives to insert the word. The real question is as to a final μου which B C and a few cursives omit. — In 20 ἀργή, "barren," as against ν., "dead" of the Text. Rec. and Authorised Version, is supported by B Cp.m. 27, 29, the best Latin copies, the Sah., and Arm. of Zohrab: slender in number, but grave, especially as assimilation easily accounts for the more popular reading. — In 21 would it not be less cumbrous to take ἀν. as on, or in, offering up? Compare 25 also. — In 22 they are right in preferring the margin to the text of Authorised Version. — In 23 there is no reason to say more than that A. was called "friend of God." — "The" is needless before spirit in 25, and of course its omission more exact.

In James 3: 1 "teachers" is correct, and judgment." — In 3 they rightly read εἰ δέ "now if," probably changed into ἰδού, through 4. — In 4 the Authorised Version needlessly adds "which," corrected by the Revisers, and "steersman" displacing "governor." — In 5, 6, the confusion of the copies and the editors is great; so that one may judge the more moderately of the Revisers' text and margin. "A" world, etc. of the Authorised Version is clearly wrong, and here set right. — In 8 they reject "unruly" of the Authorised Version for "restless." In 9 they accept "Lord" for God of the Authorised Version. — It is "the" fountain in 11, and "from the same "opening," not place merely. — In 12 it is "a" fig tree, and the last clause does not speak of a fountain, like Text. Rec. and Authorised Version, but says, with the Revisers, neither can salt water yield sweet. — The Authorised Version of 15 appears to me quite as exact as the change here. Compare James 1: 17. There is much difficulty in deciding the true force of ἀδ., whether it be without doubt, variance, or hypocrisy; as the verb of which it is compounded admits of a great variety of meaning. — The question in 18 is whether "in peace" should not, as in the Greek, precede "is sown."

James 4: 1 has in the Revised Version the more vigorous, critical text, but hardly in as terse English as is desirable. "Whence [are] wars, and whence fighting among you? [Are they] not hence, from your pleasures that war in your members?" For the margin of the Authorised Version is right in giving "pleasures." — In 2 ζ. when used in a bad sense, is "ye envy," or "are jealous." The first word means "ye lust," or "covet." — In 3 it is difficult to distinguish in our tongue the active and the middle of αἰτ. Dean Alford went too far in calling it "an unaccountable interchange;" whereas it is really an intended, though delicate, and, of course, intelligible difference. The middle as often has an intensive force. In 2 they did not ask with earnestness; in 3 they asked with indifference, and received not; or, if there was any earnestness, it was of an evil kind, to spend in their pleasures. 4 is an instance of a valuable correction. The weighty authorities, both MSS. and Versions, reject μοιχοὶ καί. The one designation, though in the feminine, embraces all men or women who sought the world in unfaithfulness to God and their own relationship of privilege. But both the Authorised and the Revised Versions failed to give the full force; for it is really friendship with the world as distinctly as enmity with God, which they rightly say. None of our English versions is right, 1 though none is here so wrong as the Rhemish, which, following the Vulgate, confounds ἔχθρα with ἐχθρά. But is there sufficient energy in the Revision, any more than the Authorised Version of βουληθῃ? It is "shall have chosen," or be minded.

- 5 seems in the Revised Version rightly divided, as had been long suggested. There are two grave objections to the more ordinary division: (1) Who can tell the Scripture alleged to be in view? (2) Where else is φθ. used in a good sense? I think, however, that the margin of the Authorised Version gives the best sense of π. φθ., "enviously." And why bring in "the scripture" into 6? Have the Revisers done well in adhering to "Be afflicted" in 9? Surely "Be miserable" would be more in keeping with their own version of Rom. 3: 16, and our next chapter, (James 5: 1), as well as with the deeper expression of wretchedness in the word. — In 11 is the correction "or" judgeth his brother; for an evil feeling might work in this rather than in speaking against him either was to judge the law. — In 12 also the Revisers rightly say, One is the lawgiver, etc.; but why "only" or "even?" They rightly give "but" in the last clause on authority ample as well as ancient, and "thy neighbour" instead of "another," as in Text. Rec. — In 13, it is not "such a" but "this" city, this city here, and "trade" or "traffic" is better than "buy and sell."

- In 14, "ye are" a vapour seems the best attested by far, if the copies be allowed to have misspelt; and, Bengel and Griesbach notwithstanding, ἔσται seems simply intolerable. It was probably meant for ἐστε, a much more emphatic phrase than ἐστιν, as in L, some cursives, and the Latin copies. Does not the text of 15 begin with obsolete English? The margin is not according to the Greek only, but intelligible according to our present speech. In this verse the reading strangely differs. The Revised Version bows to the general judgment of the critics, who follow AB P, etc. in adopting ζήσομεν instead of ζήσωμεν with K L, the mass of cursives, the Latins, etc. There is no doubt among unbiassed minds that the interchange of the long and short vowels is very common in the oldest MSS., which are, therefore, to be trusted in such a question less than in any other. I, therefore, incline to "If the Lord will, and we live, we shall also do this or that." R. Stephens even read π. in the subjunctive, but this appears to yield no sense, though read by many authorities.

James 5. Have not the Revisers, by too close adherence to the Authorised Version, lost some of the graphic force of verse 1? "Weep, howling over your miseries that are coming on." — In 6, "as" of the Text. Rec. is rightly excluded, though not a few authorities favour its insertion. — In 9, it is rather "groan" or "complain" than "judge;" and certainly it is "judged," not "condemned." — In 11, it is "endured," not "endure." — In 12, it is not "into condemnation," but "under judgment." — In 13, is it not praise, not psalms, that the cheerful soul was to sing? Godly order had been secured in 14; and the "saying" of the sick man (15), in answer to the prayer of faith, is "healing," which is, perhaps, in this case and the like the less equivocal word. "Confess," therefore (omitted in Text. Rec.), your sins one to another is the remarkable conclusion; it is confidence in mutual love, and in no way official requirement or sacramental efficacy for the soul at departure. The saints are to pray one for another, that they might be healed (16). The question as to the last word is whether it means fervent or in its working. The Authorised Version seems to have conveyed both, the Revised Version the latter. — In 19, the Revisers properly add "My," and say "a," not "the," sinner in 20.

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.

1 Peter 1: 1. Our language is not so lacking in power to characterise that it should be necessary to introduce "a" or "the" where Greek does not. Thus Peter, apostle of Jesus Christ" is really more expressive and correct than "an" apostle. Of course a similar remark applies to 2 Cor. 1: 1, Gal. 1: 1, Eph. 1: 1, Col. 1: 1, 1 and 2 Tim. 1: 1, Titus 1: 1, Phil. 1: 1, James 1: 1, if not to Rom. 1: 1, and 1 Cor. 1: 1, where the context modifies. 2 Peter 1: 1 and Jude 1 have nothing to render the indefinite article needful. Again "to the elect who are sojourners" is surely to go beyond the text which speaks only of "elect sojourners" dispersed in Pontus, etc. — In 2 we come to an important matter. What is the meaning of "in" sanctification of the Spirit? The Revisers have misrepresented the truth in several instances of dogmatic moment through a fancied accuracy, but mere literality, condemned by their own practice elsewhere. We have seen this in Col. 1: 16 and Heb. 1: 3, where "in" gives a false sense or nonsense, opening the door to grave error, which, where positive truth is lost, enters in often under cover of the vague or obscure. Now the Revised Version of Matt. 3: 11, Matt. 5: 13, Matt. 6: 34, 35, 36, Matt. 6: 7, Matt. 7: 2, 6, Matt. 9: 34, suffices to show that the Revisers knew they were in no way limited to "in," for they admit freely "with" "by," etc. But they too often overlook this, where their rendering yields no just sense or opposes other Scriptures. It was the more desirable to be right here, because some early Protestant translators had grievously failed as to it. Take Beza, who, swayed evidently by his theological views, gives us "ad sanctificationem Sp. per obedientiam," etc., which is doubly a falsification of God's word. Him followed our Geneva Version of 1555, "unto sanctification of the Spirit through obedience," etc. The Rhemish says, "unto sanctification of the Spirit, unto the obedience," etc. This would be inexplicable, as being destitute of just meaning, if we did not know that the Vulgate has "in sanctificationem Sp. in obedientiam," etc. The Version of Rheims of course follows it dutifully. The late Dean Alford seems to have been the most influential offender in this assumption of accuracy, adhering to "in" for ἐν, when the Authorised Version had idiomatically and correctly "by" or "with." To talk of the conditional element as environing, or the like, is mere jargon to excuse a translation which conveys no sound meaning. It is cloud and not light. Here the apostle lets the dispersed believers of the circumcision know that, instead of being externally separated in the flesh by rites as the chosen people of Jehovah, they were elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. The contrast is with Ex. 24: 7, 8, when Israel stood to obey the law under the blood which threatened death as the penalty, instead of cleansing from every sin those whose one desire was to obey as Christ obeyed. Compare 1 Cor. 6: 11, where "sanctified" is before "justified," as here sanctification is before obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus. It is the absolute setting apart of the soul to God from the first. Practical holiness is relative, and is pressed lower down in this very chapter, ver. 15, 16.

- In 3 it is "living," not lively, hope; not in this world, but above it by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. In 7 "of" gold is rightly dropt. — But in 10 it should he "prophets," not "the" prophets, as in the Authorised and Revised Versions, not the class viewed in their totality, but persons coming under that category. — In "they rightly say "glories." — In 12 "you" displaces "us" with reason as being more homogeneous: one way or another a common confusion in the MSS. — In 17 they correct the Authorised Version, "the" Father for "him as Father," and "every." for "each," man's work, "here " being quite an expletive. — In 22 the omission of "pure" rests on A B and the Vulgate, a feeble basis as against p.m. C K L P, all the cursives, and the mass of ancient versions and ecclesiastical writers, one perhaps excepted. But earlier in the verse "by the Spirit" is an addition without due warrant, as is "for ever" at the end of 23, and "of man" for "its" in 24.

1 Peter 2: 2 affords some difficulty for translation in the word λογικόν, unless we take it with the Authorised Version as "of the word." "Reasonable" as in the Authorised Version of Rom. 12: 1 falls too low, but is not the Revisers' "spiritual" too high? At least, it is not inherent in the word nor necessitated by its usage. "Unto salvation" at the end is sure on ample authority; for salvation, in Peter's writings — save in one exception that proves the rule, by the modification of the phrase to ensure a difference of meaning — looks onward to the final victory at Christ's revelation. — In 5 εἰς "for," is read by high and ample authority, and adopted by the Revisers in their phrase 'to be." — Verse 6 begins with "Because" on almost universal suffrage, "wherefore also" as in Text. Rec. has scarce a shadow of authority. But what is more important, the beautiful force of the first clause of 7 was lost in the Authorised Version, and even the marginal alteration was a mistranslation. Tyndale unhappily misled, and all the public English versions followed. Faith sees according to God. Christ is in God's eyes a chief corner stone, elect, precious. "To you therefore that believe [is] the preciousness." — Was it needful to define the general phrase εἰς π. in 9 by interpolating "God's own?" In the same verse "excellencies" is right.

- In 12 "which they behold" is not much in advance of the lax Authorised Version, "which they shall behold," as a reflexion of ἐποπτεύοντεσ. "Being spectators" would seem more correct — If "your freedom" be the necessary force of τὴν ἐλ., why not "your" wickedness, or malice, of τῆς κ. in 16? They are really common cases of abstracted usage. Dean Alford is more consistent in claiming the same possessive or quasi-possessive force for the articles with both words. And here it may not be uninstructive to note the weak and unsound attempt of that same dignitary to account for τῶν ἀφρ. ἀνθρ. in 15, as limited to such as reviled Christ as evil doers. For the apostle really speaks of men as a whole, and declares the race as such senseless. The phrase imports nothing less. — In 21 it is "you" twice, not "us" as in Authorised Version following Steph. (not Elz). The last clause supports the reading of the ancient MSS. — The margin of 24 ignorantly repeats the unfounded alternative of the Authorised Version, for both word and tense forbid the idea of a carrying up of our sins in Christ's body to the tree. Usage in the Septuagint, as in the New Testament, limits ἀνή . . . ἐπὶ to the single great act of bearing them on the tree.

1 Peter 3. In 1 and 2 "behaviour" is no doubt more intelligible English for our day than the obsolete "conversation" for manner of life in the Authorised Version. But is it correct to soften the force of the past participle in 2 in this case? — In 3 "jewels of gold," not gold merely. — The last word of 8 should be not "courteous," but "humble-minded," on ample authority, an evident link of connection with the gracious endurance which knows how to bless in presence of injury. — In 13 ζ. is more than "followers" or "imitators" (as in the Text. Rec. μ.) meaning neither, but zealous or emulous of good. — In 15 it is "the Christ," not God as such, who is to be sanctified as Lord in their hearts.

- In 18 to print "spirit" without a capital initial is matter for regret, if there be no real ground to doubt that the Spirit of God is meant. Had the phrase been as in the Text. Rec., τῳ πν., there might so far have been a better ground for supposing the spirit of Christ as man, though it would not have been decisive against the Holy Spirit. But the anarthrous phrase distinctly points to that Divine Person, though presented in character rather than objectively; and what is added conclusively proves this — "in which (or in the power of which Spirit) also he went and preached to the spirits in prison," etc. As the Spirit of Christ in the prophets (1 Peter 1: 11) testified beforehand of Christ's sufferings and the glories that should follow, so did His Spirit in Noah (Gen. 6: 8) strive with the antediluvians on the sure coming of the flood that was to take them all away from the earth. But this was not all; for disobedient as they were, they were to be, as they are, reserved in prison (certainly not paradise) for a judgment far more solemn. So the unbelieving Jews now might taunt those who believed, with a Christ rejected on earth and absent in heaven, as well as with their fewness; but the apostle reminds them that there were still fewer saved when the flood came, and rebellious unbelief entails a judgment graver far than anything which befalls the body, as illustrated by a time of waiting and testimony which the Lord also compares with that which precedes His return in power and glory.

- Is it accurate to render the beginning of 20, ἀπ. π., "which aforetime were disobedient"? Would not this require τοῖς ἀπ.? Is not the force rather "disobedient as they once proved when," etc.? Their being in prison was in consequence of their previous disobedience to God's patient warning. At the close of the verse "through water" is right, not "by" it. Water was the destructive element. through which grace saved Noah and those with him in the ark: cf. Cor. 3: 15. — In 21 the Authorised Version followed Beza (as did Elz,) in rejecting Stephens' reading, which is the ancient one, the Sinaitic cutting the knot by rejecting both. "You" is probably right; but ἐπερώτημα is rather "demand," anything interrogated, than the interrogation which suggests a dubious or misleading sense.

1 Peter 4: 5: why more than "living and dead?" Why "the"? Is it not equally good in English as in Greek? It is not the same sense. "The" makes judgment universal; whereas Scripture contrasts it with eternal life and salvation. See John 5 and Heb. 9 — Why "even" to dead? Why not "also"? As in 3: 19, 20, the apostle spoke of wicked dead, so does he here of righteous dead, as is implied in living according to God in the Spirit? Here also we have good news brought, not preaching only. — Ver. 11 is given fairly well. The meaning is that when one gifted of God speaks, it should be as oracles of God; not according to the oracles of God, the Scriptures (which is not in question, though in itself of course most right), but as expressing God's mind on that before us, as His mouthpiece: a serious, but not too serious, consideration; for has He not also given us His Spirit? And wherefore? Truly it supposes dependence on and confidence in God. Ministry also, it is well to remark, is distinguished from speaking, which is apt to become everything among idle people or the active-minded, and knowledge taking practically the place of faith as well as of love.

1 Peter 5: 2. "Tend" is better, as being more comprehensive, than "feed," cf. John 21 — never to he forgotten by Peter any more than by John. — But is the rendering of 3 exact? It is incomparably better than what the Authorised Version here gives, but "over the charge allotted to you" might be construed into one's church or chapel, one's congregation or parish or diocese. Now τῶν κλ. Very simply means the (i.e. your) possessions; and the point is that the elders should not lord it over the saints as their belongings, but ever tend them as the flock of God. Thus were they to be models for them. 4 it is of course "the" unfading crown of glory. — In 5 the needless addition of ὑποτ. "be subject and" in the Authorised Version, following the Text. Rec., is with reason excluded to the unimpeded and energetic flow of the exhortation. — In 8 the added ὅτι of the Text. Rec. clogs the vigour of words clear and ringing as a trumpet call.

- In 9 the difficulty of the article reappears, with the unhappy result of the old rendering put in the margin, and a worse adopted in the text. The real question seems to be between "in" or "with" faith. Take Rom. 14: 1: have not the Revisers rightly said "weak in faith"? It is the counterpart of the phrase before us. Here, not content with "the," they descend to "your." These things ought not so to be. — They rightly give "you" for "us" in 10, as the context ought to have shown, in confirmation of the best external authority, Further, it is "shall," not the opt. as in Text. Rec. with a few copies of slight account. — In 12 "as I suppose" or "account" is no slight or doubt of Silvanus, but the contrary. "Stand" is the reading of high authority, uncial and cursive, instead of the more popular "ye stand." — It is singular that the Sinaitic is not without a slight support in the margin of two cursives, and some of the oldest Latin copies say expressly what the Authorised Version gives in italics. But the Revisers seem justified in holding it to be some well-known sister, perhaps Peter's wife: the salutation of Marcus that follows confirms this. Dogmatically too it is difficult to suppose elect, or co-elect, said after Christ came otherwise than of individuals. In the Old Testament we have it said corporately or nationally; in the New Testament individually.

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.

2 Peter 1. 1 has the great defect of an equivocal or erroneous rendering of ἐν, (that frequent stumbling-block of the Revisers), and this in a text so much the more important as it is often pressed dogmatically, not seldom wrongly, owing to this very error. I do not dwell on "a" more than ones used needlessly here, as this has been frequently noticed elsewhere; but "faith with us in the righteousness" suggests in our idiom the object believed in. This is not the aim of the passage. The Apostle means that the Christian Jews, to whom he is for the second time addressing himself, obtained like precious faith with us "your apostles" (2 Peter 3: 2) in virtue of (or through) the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ; as the Revisers rightly give the last words in their text, though not in the margin. There were special promises to the fathers about the blessing of their seed, and God was righteous in fulfilling them. There has always been a believing remnant of that people, if of no other continuously. Jesus, not more truly man than the Lord God of Israel, has been faithful to that word of distinguishing favour; and if those Jews to whom Peter was writing received faith, like precious faith with the apostles, it was in virtue of His making good the promise to them and their children by giving them to believe. Such is the righteousness here meant. Hence "through" in the Authorised Version is substantially correct, as being less ambiguous than "in" of the Revised Version, which is apt to mislead by suggesting His righteousness as the thing believed in, instead of pointing out His fidelity to promise in bestowing faith on them. — It may be well to make no abrupt severance of 3 from 2; but surely it is still more requisite not to mar the connection of 3, 4, with 5, the former being a sort of protasis, as the latter is an apodosis in sense. Hence, if it be right to close 2 with a semicolon, it is intolerable to put a period after 4, and to begin 5 as a new sentence. "Since His divine power hath granted to us all things that are for life and godliness . . . . yea, and for this very reason, adding on your part all diligence, in your faith furnish," etc. All our old English Versions fail in this; none more than the Revised Version.

There is, however, an important correction which closes verse 3 (the margin of the Authorised Version being better than its text), as it had been in Tyndale and Cranmer. But the Geneva Version went all wrong, following Beza who know the true reading but plighted it for an inferior one, and even mistranslated the inferior one through his inability to make out its meaning "ἰδίᾳ δόξῃ καὶ ἀρετῃ, quae lactio in pancis admodum codicibus, iisque dubiae fidei, a nobis est inuenta: neque mihi sane probari potest." Now there are a dozen cursives at least, not to speak of four of the great uncials, in favour of ἰδίᾳ δ. κ. ἀ.; so that there is ample and excellent authority. And any reasoning on God's being denied elsewhere to call us to His glory cannot swamp the clear force here of being called by it. Then follows fresh reasoning on ἀρετῃ, the upshot being "mihi quidem multo probabilis videtur, διὰ praepositionem pro usurpatam, sicut etiam annotatiuimus Rom. 6 a. 4, et ἀρετὴν idem atque ἁγιασμὸν declarare," etc. No doubt the majority of copies support διὰ δ.κ.ἀ. In meaning the only difference that results is that the more ancient text adds "His own," but in any case it is "by," not "to." Adam innocent enjoyed the good around and gave God thanks; Israel was governed as well as tested by the law. God called us "by His own glory," outside and above all that is seen, and "by virtue," the spiritual courage that refuses the snares which would entice us from the path that leads there. Compare Rom. 3: 23, Rom. 5: 2.

In 2 Peter 4 is corrected the error of Tyndale, etc., and of the Authorised Version following them. They ought to have gathered from the preceding verse that δεδ. is, if not a deponent, middle in sense, not passive. The change of order in, "precious and very great promises" is abundantly sustained; indeed, the precise form in the Text. Rec. has scarce any support, but with a slight change many copies give it, some however having ὑμῖν for ἡ. mistakenly. — In 5 "And beside this" of the Authorised Version is as untenable as any other of the older English. The Revised Version is much better, save as we have seen the dislocation by their punctuation. But "in" your faith is right, as well as "supply," not "add to," and so throughout 6 and 7. Only the italic "your" six times over is needless. — In 8 "idle [marg. Authorised Version] nor unfruitful" is an improvement without "to be;" but surely εἰς here means "as to" or "as regards," not "unto" of the Revised Version any more than "in" of the Authorised Version. — The Revisers give, like the Authorised Version, rather a paraphrase of 9 than a close version. — In "the sense is "richly furnished" or supplied, not "ministered." — In 12 the true reading is μελλήσω, "I shall be ready," ( A B C P etc., with the most ancient versions), not οὐκ ἀμ. etc. as in the Text. Rec. and the Authorised Version, "I will not be negligent." The change at the close seems uncalled for, due probably to Dean Alford. — The rendering of 16, 17, is loose, not only in general form but even to the diluting ὑπό "by," to ἀπό "from" at the close. — But 19 is given much better by the Revisers, the inspired contrast of the lamp of prophecy with daylight dawning and the day or morning star arising in the heart being clearly given. — But it may be doubted whether the textual "private" or the marginal "special" of 20 gives the true force of ἰδίας. Divine prophecy is a vast connected whole, and. none of it comes of its own or an isolated solution. — For none (21) was ever ("in old time" was the error of Beza, etc.) brought by man's will; but moved by the Holy Spirit men spoke from God. It all converges on Christ's glory. There is no doubt a serious conflict of readings: ἅγιοι (Text. Rec. οἱ ἅ) instead of ἀπὸ has K L etc., ἅγιοι τοῦ Α. ἀπὸ Θ. ἅγιοι C. etc. But the critics generally prefer the text of B and several cursives supported by the Bodleian Syr. and the Coptic, which omit ἅγιοι.

In 2 Peter 2: 1 the Revisers give rightly "the Master" (δεσπότην) that bought them; for it is purchase, not redemption, which is in question. Purchase is universal; not so redemption, which is inseparable from faith in Christ and the forgiveness of offences. It is clear from the passage before us that the most wicked are "bought" by the Master, whom they deny to their own swift destruction; that they were "redeemed" is more assumption, and, in fact, a grave error. — In 2 it is "the" truth. In 4 it is "angels when they sinned," not "the angels that sinned," which would require τῶν ἀ. τῶν ἁ. and then would mean the whole; whereas the apostle speaks only of a part even of those that fell. Ταρταρώσας is the word translated "cast down to hell," and occurs here only in the New Testament. It means hurling into the lowest abyss. In the same verse there is a question of reading on which turns either "pits" or "chains," the more ancient copies inclining to the former, while the expression of Jude may have suggested the latter. — In 5 "N. an eighth" means with seven others. — If the Revisers render τηρουμένους in 4 "to be reserved," and in 2 Peter 3: 11 λυομένων "to be destroyed," why not κολαζομένους in 9 "to be punished"? Does not this suit εἰς ἡμ. κρ. better than "under punishment"? It is a class so characterised. — In 11 it is not "which are greater," etc., but "greater as they are," etc.

- In 12, 13 are hazardous changes, not "shall utterly (or, also) perish in their own corruption," as in the Authorised Version, but "shall in their destroying surely be destroyed," and "suffering wrong as the hire of wrong-doing," instead of receiving as they shall wages of unrighteousness." Here the Revisers have been induced, probably by Drs. Westcott and Hort, not without other support, of course, to accept the reading of p.m. ἀδικούμενοι. But will the reading, even if feasible on so slender a basis, bear the version? — "In the day-time" is a questionable reading of ἐν ἡμ. in this connection, and, as has been remarked, hardly consistent with τρυφήν, delicacy or indulgence of life, which might be by day quite as much as by night. Hence interpreters who differ widely in general, Calvin, Estius, Grotius, C. à Lap., De Wette, etc., prefer "ephemeral." There is another singular choice, not of rendering but of reading in the verse, ἀγάπαις A corr B against the overwhelming evidence of A D C K L P, almost all the cursives, and most ancient Versions, not to speak of early citations, for ἀπάταις followed by the Authorised Version. — Is "stayed," in 16, a real improvement on "forbad" of the Authorised Version, as rendering ἐκώλυσεν? "Withstood might represent it better than either, or Mr. Green's checked." — In 17 "springs" and "mists" are right; but the evidence in favour of "for ever" is strong. — In 18 τ. ὀλίγως ἀποφεύ. is the true text, not τ. ὄντως ἀποφυ. They were just escaping, not "clean escaped," or even "just fled." — In 20 γέγονεν "is become," not merely "is." — In 22 the Revisers may rightly omit the copula, but there is the usual laxity in expressing both the presence and the absence of the article: there hath happened to them the [import, pith, spirit] of the true proverb, A dog turned again to his own vomit, and, A sow washed to wallowing in mire.

In 2 Peter 3: 2 the Revisers rightly read and translate "the command of the Lord and Saviour through your apostles," ἡμῶν having quite inconsiderable support, even if it could then bear the Authorised Version. — In 3 the Authorised Version after Text. Rec. wrongly omits "with mocking." — The rather difficult verses 5-7 seem to be fairly given, though connecting πυρί with τεθη., rather than τη. as in the Authorised Version and most others. Of course "his" supplants "the same" in 7. — In 9 it is rightly "to you" on preponderant authority; but there is some question between δι or εἰς, the former of which Tischendorf adopts in his last edition with A, half a dozen cursives, and the ancient Versions generally. It would mean "on your account." — In 10 the Revised Version omits rightly "in the night." Here again we see how lax are their views of the article. — In 11 "there," not "then," is preferred by the Revisers on small but good authority, the copies greatly differing. "All" is an effort in the Revised Version, as in the Authorised Version, to express the plural which expresses every form of behaviour and godliness. — In 12 they justly discard the influence of the Vulgate in "hasting unto" (as indeed the margin of the Authorised Version suggests); but whether "earnestly desiring," as in the Bodleian Syriac adequately conveys the meaning is another matter. If they mean hastening the coming of that day in heart, for aught more seems far-fetched or worse, I believe them right; but this is rather exposition or application than rendering. — Nor is their version of δι᾽ ἥν, "by reason of which," though of course correct grammatically, the only one that is sure. The temporal sense is no less just. It is a question of context which suits best here. Bengel construes it with παρουσία. — The Revisers scarcely seem justified in giving αὐτῳ (14) so defined a force as "in His sight." Even Winer does not go so far. It might be "for" no less than "of" Him.

- From 15 we learn that Paul wrote to the Jewish Christians, as Peter did in big two Epistles. For it is idle to argue from 2 Peter 1: 14, 2 Peter 2: 10, or 2 Peter 4: 3, to set aside the plain force of the address. Nobody doubts that every word is for us who were Gentiles; but as little should it he doubted that they are both addressed simply to the Jewish dispersion in the parts designated. These scattered Jews had, before they believed, fallen largely into the evil and even heathen ways of those who surrounded them, Wieseler's notion of Gentiles in 2 Peter 2: 25 is at issue with both Paul and Peter. But if this be so, the reference to St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews is unmistakable, which speaks much of "the day." — The Revisers translate ἐν χ. κ.τ.γ. (18) no better than the Authorised Version. They have no right to say "in the grace," etc., any more than the Authorised Version "in the knowledge." The insertion of our definite article bore misleads. It is more correct to say "in grace and knowledge," etc.

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.

1 John 1: 1 stands better in the Revised Version, which not only makes each verse more distinct, but correctly distinguishes the tenses. It is in each "that which;" whilst the two later are not perfects, but simply preterites. — But there is no need for the awkwardness of "the life, the eternal life" in 2, any more than for "that eternal life" in the Authorised Version. Nor should the verse open with "For," but "And." — In 3 is not the true force "report" rather than "declare," or "show?" "Yea," etc., well represents καὶ δέ. — The first serious difference of reading is in 4, ἡμεῖς, "we," ( Ap.m. B P etc.) for ὑμῖν, "unto you" (Acorr C K L etc.); and again, ὑμῶν, "our" ( B L., many cursives and versions), for ὑμῶν (A C K P, the majority of cursives, and many ancient versions). R. Stephens followed the Complutensian editors in preferring "our," Elzevir followed Erasmus and Beza in adopting "you;" and so respectively the Revised Version and the Authorised Version. If "our" be right, it would join the believers with the apostles in the same joy through fellowship with the Father and with His Son. — But is it not strange,. that the Revisers adopt a text so ill supported as αὕτη ἐστίν (A, etc.), when there is such strong and united authority for the more emphatic ἔστιν αὕτη ( B C K L P, the mass of cursives, etc.), "And there is this message," etc.? Certainly the early editors, Erasmus, the Complutensian, and Colinaeus all give the emphatic form according to ancient authority, but not R. Stephens, Beza, and Elzevir. Was it Beza that influenced the Authorised translators in "This then?" He ventures in his notes to take καί as equivalent to οὖν where it is clear that it merely adds an entirely new subject; and this a "message," not "promise," as would be true if the text of all the older editors could stand. But it is really ἀγγελία, not ἐπαγγ., in spite of C P and some cursives. It is remarkable that our translators, in misrendering their text, stumbled on the version of the right text. — There is good authority ( B C P, etc.) for omitting "Christ" in 7, though most witnesses insert it: which one would think should have been stated in the margin.

1 John 2: 2 is a great improvement on the Authorised Version, where the words added in italics overstep the truth, and unwittingly imply a serious error. If "the sins of" the whole world were expiated, what would there be to judge? Never does Scripture so teach, save as to believers. Yet Christ died for every man — gave Himself a ransom for all; but only of believers is it said that He died and suffered for their sins, or bore them in His body on the tree. But He is the propitiation for the whole world, as well as for our sins; and so the gospel can go forth freely to all the creation. — Is 3 adequately rendered by the Revisers? Who could gather the difference between the present and the perfect in the opening clause? Even the Authorised Version makes a faint effort; the Revised Version none. Surely ἐγν. (the second "know") means "we acquired and possess the knowledge of." So it is at the beginning of 4 also.

Further, is it an intelligent division of the Epistle to make 3-6 a part of the paragraph beginning with 1 John 2? To my mind verses 1, 2, form the necessary supplement to the doctrine of 1 John 1 in both its parts (1-4, and 5-10), intimating not only the responsibility of the family of God, but the provision of grace to restore in the case of sin. Then 3 begins to unfold the qualities or characteristic ways of the life given us in Christ, the eternal life of the believer: obedience (3-6) and love (7-11), with their opposites. But this points to two paragraphs to be marked accordingly, which the Revisers have utterly missed by grouping 1 John 2: 1, 2 with 3-6 as if they were continuous; whereas the great break is after 2; and 3-11 might better have gone together, though it is perhaps more strictly correct to give first 3-6, and then 7-11 as distinct.

In 7 the true reading "beloved" is rightly followed, as fitly introducing the commandment — love. Also the Revisers as rightly expunge "from the beginning" at the end of the verse, however important these words are in the middle of it. — In 8 the rendering of the Revised Version is correct — "passing away," not "past," as in the Authorised Version. Past it will never be till Christ reigns in power and glory. Yet the same thing being true in Him and in the saints (whatever the difference of measure), the darkness passes away, and the true light does now shine.

Is not the arrangement of 12-29 objectionable? It gives evidence that the structure of the Epistle was not understood. For 12 is the comprehensive address to all the family of God (τεκνία) on the ground of their sins forgiven for Christ's name. Then 13 divides the family into the three classes of (1) fathers, (2) young men, and (3) babes (παιδία), respectively and specifically addressed again in (1) 14, (2) 14-17, and (3) 18-27; 28 and 29 resuming the general designation to the entire family as in 1 John 2: 1, 1 John 3: 7, 18, 1 John 4: 4, and 1 John 5: 21. Clearly therefore, if this be true as I feel assured, a new paragraph should not begin at 18 as in the Revised Version; as it might also have conduced to clearness if 12 had stood alone, and a new paragraph had begun with 28. No doubt the Revised Version has sought to distinguish τεκνία from the class contained under it (παιδία) by adding "my;" but is this the best way of marking the distinction? — Is it not due to the same lack of appreciating the truth intended that the Revisers like others adopt the well nigh absurd variant ἔγραψα instead of γράφω in the last part of 13? It is contrary to the plain facts of the context, and the necessary bearing of the verse. The Apostle had not written before to the babes; he was now writing to them as such for the first time, as in the same verse to the fathers and to the young men. Then he goes over the ground again to the three in 14-27, where ἔγραψα is requisite, not γράφω. It is granted that diplomatic evidence is decidedly in favour of the misreading ἔγ the end of 13. In fact, only K, a Moscow uncial, with a fair amount of cursives and some ancient versions, stands opposed to the great mass of ancient authority. It is one of the very few cases where a few witnesses of loss value contain the true reading disfigured from an early date, so that the error was widely diffused. The effect is most disastrous on the interpretation, as any English reader may see in Dean Alford's work, where we are thereby landed in the bewildering conclusion that we have three classes of readers, denoted the first time by τεκνία! πατέρες, νεανίσκοι, and the second time by παιδία, πατέρες, νεανίσκοι: a strange confusion, where the fathers are made. the central group, first introduced by τ. and then by π. as if these were identical, whereas there is the necessity of admitting that τ. and π. are differently addressed; a singular thing if they were the same clasp, to the loss of the truth that the first is the general designation, as the latter described particularly the youngest class. The inference is that τ. and π. address all the readers alike 1 and that "nothing satisfactory" comes out, which is very true. If γράφω be accepted till through 13, light dawns, and the beautiful order of the truth shines unmistakably. After speaking of all in 12, the writer first briefly addresses each of the three subdivisions, and then a second time more fully, as need required, which gives so much the force to the "fathers" where he could only repeat, without adding one word more; for Christ is all. — In 18 "there have arisen" or "come" is better than the Authorised Version, as last "hour" is more vivid. — In 19 it is rightly "they all are not of us," none are of us. The margin, like the Authorised Version, is in error, if not nonsense. — In 23 the true text is reinstated from the ignominy of italics on ample and unimpeachable authority ( B C P, about thirty-five cursives, Vulg. Cop. Syrr. Arm. Aeth, etc.). — In 24 οὖν, "therefore," is rightly dropt. — In 27 "the same" or "his" is a rather evenly-balanced question; but it is "true," not "truth;" and it is a question between "abide," or "shall abide," at the end.

In 28 "if" is better than "when," as the question is one of contingent consequence, and not exactly time. The margin has to be brought in to supply the deficiency of the Revised Version in rendering ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ. "From before Him" has been suggested. — In 29 the imp. form of the margin is, better than the ind. of the Revised Version; but there is no indication of the difference between the two words for "know." "Also" is by the Revisers adopted in the last clause; but in this epistle we have the older authorities agreeing in strange readings.

1 John 3: 1 is an instance of what appears to be an enfeebling gloss appended to the first part of the verse. ἐσμεν is admirable in 2; but here καί ἐσμεν seems justly questioned, though attested by A B C P, many cursives, and the Vulgate with other ancient versions. The Revisers rightly say "children," not "the sons" as in the Authorised Version. The apostle John brings out eternal life and to be burn of God; not the position of sons in contrast with slaves. Compare John 1: 12, 13. — In 2 they have corrected "it doth not yet appear" into "it is not yet made manifest," though it does not accord with their claim of precision for the aorist, which Dean Alford would render "it never yet was manifested." Of course actual appearing is meant, not making known by the word to faith, for this is already and clearly made; as the next clause indeed declares, without the copula of the Text. Rec.: "We know that, if He shall he manifested, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is." The "it" of the margin for "He," though approved by Tyndale, etc., seems uncalled for. — In 3 there is a strong effort to guard against the misconstruing of ἐπ᾽ αὐτῳ, "on him," by the italic addition of set.

- At length there is an adequate public version of 4, so long misrendered to the inculcation of endless error in theology: "Every one that doeth [or, practiseth] sin doeth [or, practiseth] also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness," not the transgression of the law, which is not imperfect only but false. Compare Rom. 2: 12, Rom. 4: 15, Rom. 5: 13, 14; and 1 Cor. 9: 20, 21. — In 6 "knoweth" in the text is a loose rendering of ἔγνωκεν, inferior to the Authorised Version. — From 13 "my" is rightly omitted; but the omission of τὸν ἀδελφόν near the close is questionable, the general truth being reserved for a later statement. — In 16 again we have the perfect ἐγν. rendered "know;" but while permanent effect is meant, a past act ought also to be implied: "We have known" or "have come to know." — The Text Rec. adds μου in 18: why should the Revisers supply "my"? — In 19 it is "shall we know," not "we know" as in the vulgar text followed by the Authorised Version. — I doubt greatly the soundness of the rendering of 20, though it is plain that the Authorised Version is rather free and breaks the connection. Some critics and grammarians are much perplexed to find or make the construction smooth, as omission seems to have been resorted to with the same purpose by the copyists. That Lachmann and Tischendorf should make a new paragraph after this verse, breaking the manifest and weighty link between 20 and 21, might seem incredible if it were not before our eyes. — I do not see how one can evade rendering 23 as in the margin, not as in the text, however unusual it may sound, which no doubt led to the tampering in 5. 58 lect εἰς τὸ ὄνομα. Compare John 5: 24, and other instances of like construction.

1 John 4: 2 is badly rendered, repeating the old failure of all our English Versions from Wiclif downward, the Rhemish being as often the worst. As the proposition stands in them all, the result is a grave and manifest error. For evil spirits do not shrink from confessing the bare fact stated. What they do not own is the person thus predicated; for this supposes His glory, yet in the humiliation of manhood. It would be senseless to talk of Moses or David, of Homer, Alexander, or Caesar, coming in flesh; for not one of them could have come otherwise. But the Son of God might have come in His own glory, or as an angel, or in any form He pleased. He was pleased to come in flesh, to come of woman, in the accomplishment of infinite grace. Hence the point here is the person that came in flesh, not the fact that He so came, which would be expressed by the infinitive or an equivalent and appended statement, whereas here we have the participle. It should be therefore "confesseth Jesus Christ come in flesh." — This is confirmed in the most direct manner, if we accept (as most modern critics do) the words τὸν Ἰησοῦν without further addition in 3. It is easy to understand in copies accretion more or less from the preceding verse.

- In 5 there is an effort by inserting "as" to guard against the inference which the Authorised Version might convey, that it is about (περί) the world, whereas it means out of it (ἐκ): a worldly source rather than subject. — But "in us" will never do for 9, though a seemingly faithful or literal rendering, as in the Rhemish alone of English Versions. It either deprives of all sense, or conveys a false idea. The true force of ἐν ἡμῖν in this connection is "in regard to us," or in our case. The Authorised Version renders as if the Greek were εἰς ἡμᾶς the converse of their error in Rom. 8: 18, where from the English we might suppose ἐν ἡμῖν must have been in the text. — See the some thing again in 16.

- In 17 the Revisers of course rightly say "with us," nearly as in the margin of the Authorised Version 1 instead of their barbarous textual rendering "our love," which is the destruction of the truth intended. Our love could never give us boldness in the day of judgment; whereas if divine love has been perfected with us, even to the giving the Christian now to be in this world as Christ is, we may well have such boldness. How wondrous is our identification with Him who is perfect! More wondrous if this be so now in this world that we should have boldness in that day. — There is in 20 a rather bold adoption of οὐ on small but good authority, instead of πῶς, but doctrine is not affected by it.

In 1 John 5: 5 the Revisers may be justified in introducing the copula, for which there is good authority. — In 6 there is a difficulty in fitly representing the change from δι᾽ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος to ἐν τῳ thrice in the latter clauses (ἐν being omitted in the last instance in Text. Rec. with most copies, but not the oldest save 8). Christ came by water and blood, not in the power of the water only, but in the power of the water and in the power of the blood. The believer's blessing is through the death of the Second man, not of the first; and this in virtue of His death, not only to purify but to atone. We need expiation, as well as purification; and both we have in the death of Christ; as the Spirit also bears witness, who is, and because He is, the truth. — It is needless to discuss verses 7, 8, as it is clear and known that the last half of the former and the first half of the latter are spurious: three (not six) witnesses, and one testimony. Without the living energy of the Holy Spirit the other two witnesses to the death of Christ were of no avail for us. The three unite to assure the believer on God's part that life is in the Son and nowhere else, as His death alone purifies and expiates. — There is needed correction in the text and translation of 13, which is encumbered in the Text. Rec. and Authorised Version, where there ought to be nothing about "and that ye may believe," etc. — Minor points might be added after this as before; but nothing further occurs to me just now as of any great moment in the revision of this deep and blessed epistle.

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN.

I. The Authorised and Revised Versions are questionable as to "lady." Kyria* is not without claim as a proper name instead of the apellative "lady"; while the idea of some that Eclecta is meant seems unfeasible, and indeed refuted by 13. But the Revisers rightly say "in truth" as characteristic of the apostle's love. Loving in truth supposes the truth known, but it goes farther and so stamps the love. Thus in fact the Authorised Version renders the same phrase in verse 4. Again, it is not well to confound ἐγν. with γιν., the perfect with the present part. "That have the knowledge of" might fairly represent the force. — In 2 the Revisers say "it" in the last clause to mark the change of construction. — In 3 they give correctly the future: "Grace shall be with us," etc. For ἡμῶν (A B L P etc., and so Stephens) they read here, instead of ὑμῶν as in K, most cursives, and so Elz. followed by the Authorised Version. Undoubtedly "you" is the more usual wish; but this is rather an assurance, and the peculiar form well admits of the apostle's putting himself with those addressed, as in the preceding verse. "The Lord" (κυρίου) is doubtful, though strongly supported, as some of the best uncials, cursives, and versions do not sanction it.

- In 1 "I rejoice" is a dubious rendering of the aorist, though I presume its adoption was mainly grounded on the perf. that follows, εὕρ., which certainly must mean, not "I found" only, as in the Authorised Version, but "I do find." The Revisers rightly give "we received." — "That we love one another" in 5 goes back from the entreaty of the apostle to the commandment of the Lord when on earth. — In 6 divine love is shown to be identified with obedience, or at least inseparable from it, as it really is in the new nature, eternal life in Christ. What created the need for thus pressing the truth is the fact (ver. 7) that many deceivers went forth into the world, those that confess not Jesus Christ coming [ἐρχ.] in flesh. The received text εἰσῆλθον, though supported by most, and in the Authorised Version, must yield to the more ancient and truer ἐξῆλθον. Of course the last clause should be "The" deceiver and "the " Antichrist. Here, too, it will be noticed that those who so wrongly contend for a continuous force in σωζόμενοι and ἁγιαζόμενοι, the Revisers included, are obliged to own that the present part. is timeless in this instance. Compare 3 John 3, where it is really no question of epoch. At any rate the late Dean Alford very properly shows that in these cases the present has nothing to do with time, but represents the great truth of the Incarnation itself, as distinguished from its historical manifestation [ἐλθών, 1 John 5: 6], and from the abiding effect of that manifestation [ἐληλυθότα, 1 John 4: 2); as all three are confessions of the Person  Ἰησοῦς χριστός, distinguished from the acuss. with infin. construction, which would have reduced the confession to simply the fact announced; whereas in each case it is the PERSON who is the primary predicate, the participle carrying the attributive or secondary predicate.

- There has been sad tampering with the MSS. in 8, and the text accordingly varies in the hands of the editors also. Thus Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Wordsworth follow A, eight cursives, and other good authorities, in the reading εἰργάσασθε, which gives the at best commonplace sense "ye wrought." These and others also, as Colinaeus and Alford with the Revisers, give "ye lose not" and "ye receive," but "we wrought." The text adopted by Erasmus and the Complutensian editors, by Stephens, Beza, and Elz., yields a touching appeal to those addressed, that the apostles and all who labour in the truth and for Christ might receive full recompense. Copyists, commentators, and critics missed the meaning, which is as delicate as it is forcible, though Beza was dull enough to say, in alluding to the text with the uniform second person, that the sense is the same. The Complutensians interpolate καλά after εἰργ., as does the Antwerp Polyglott; but not Goldhagen's edition, which seine have supposed a reprint of the Greek Testament in either. Romanist theology sought to draw from the verse a Scriptural ground for their Pelagian notion of the meritoriousness of good works. Its real drift was, as one might expect, generally misunderstood. — The correction in 9 is most important, "Whosoever goeth "onward," προάγων ( A B 98m.g. the best Latin, Sah. Aeth.), not παραβαίνων, as in the Text. Rec. and the more ordinary copies. "Transgression "is not the point, but development as to Christ, instead of abiding in the doctrine of Christ, His deity and humanity. It is really more forcible to Omit the second τοῦ χριστοῦ or αὐτοῦ, and so the oldest MSS. and versions, etc. — "Greeting" is the better rendering in 10, 11. — In 12 LA confirms K L P with most cursives in reading ἡμῶν, "our," with Erasmus, Compl., Steph., Elz.; but ὑμῶν, "your," has good and ancient authority.

* Dean Alford's reasoning (Prolegg. 186, vol. iv. ed. 3) seems open to exception, as he argues from the usage in the LXX. and New Testament as to Κύριος said of Jehovah to κυρία said of a woman.

THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN.

1, A similar remark applies here as to 2 John 1. — There is in 2 the better rendering of "in (lit. concerning) all things," not "above all things" as in Homeric usage. Thus simply is a strange difficulty, as others before had shown it ought to be, banished from our version. — In 3 it is rightly "brethren." Compare 2 John 7. The literal rendering "thy truth" would hardly convey the meaning, and "the truth that is in thee" as in the Authorised Version is not quite the thought, but "thy [abiding in the] truth, even as thou walkest in truth." — In 4 an omission is supplied, "these things," or "this." Only here Text. Rec. omits τῃ, which is read by A B C etc., and this the Revisers rightly follow, "in the truth." The marginal alternative of "grace" for "joy" would scarcely have received notice if the combined Vatican and Vulgate had not stood so high with the Cambridge school. — The correction in 5 is important, for the ordinary text is almost senseless, "to the brethren and to strangers." It is really toward the brethren, and that, strangers," τοῦτο instead of the second εἰς τούς. Gaius, or Caius, was thus open-hearted toward the preaching or teaching brethren, and this if strangers; and John would have him go on in that faithful work of love. He would have Gains, not merely to receive them, but to set them forward (6) on their journey worthily of God, who loves such men and such ways.

- In 7 "the Name" is the true reading on almost all authority worth speaking of, without "his" (αὐτοῦ), which is due to the Complutensian editors (not to Erasmus), followed by Beza and Elz. The best authorities give, not ἐθνῶν, but ἐθνικῶν, "of those of the nations" or Gentiles. — In 8 it is not ἀπολ., as in Text. Rec., but ὑπολ., to bear up or welcome. It may be well to mention here that p.m. and A join in the absurd misreading ἐκκλησία, instead of ἀληθείᾳ. This error may have been through the words that follow. How vain to idolize these venerable documents! Had B instead of A been one, we might have heard more on behalf of the variant. — From 9 the Text. Rec. drops τι, "somewhat," which the Revisers of course accept on excellent authority. They have done well to mark ἐπιδέχεται as distinct from ὑπολ. in 8. It is used for recognition or admission of authority, and sometimes for entertaining people. Never was a mistake greater than to conceive the Greek Testament lacking in precision. — So in 10, "bring to remembrance" is more correct than "remember," as "wicked" is preferable to "malicious." The casting out those who would receive the travelling brethren appears to have been an arbitrary rejection or declaring out, not a Scriptural expulsion or putting out on the part of the assembly. — Gaius was not to "imitate" the evil but the good (11). The copula of Text. Rec. should disappear. — In 12 it is rightly the sing. "thou knowest," not "ye know" as in the Authorised Version following Text. Rec. — It seems strange that in 14, as in 2 John 12, the margin does not represent, as in the Authorised Version, the literal rendering "mouth to mouth." — In 14 we find "the" friends rightly in the Revised Testament on both occasions. In the second epistle we have the children of the elect sister saluting; here as writing to Gains the apostle brings in the friends saluting and saluted. How refined and sincere is the love that is of God!

JUDE

1. The Authorised Version has "the," the Revised Version "a," servant. Judas, bondman, etc., is best, as often pointed out. "To them that are called" would answer to τοῖς κεκλημένοις rather than to τοῖς κλητοῖς, the called. But "for" Jesus Christ, though grammatical, is open to question; "in" as parallel would seem better, or perhaps "by." "Sanctified "in the Authorised Version is the right version of a wrong reading displaced on good authority by "beloved." — 3. It seems strange that Lachmann should by punctuation so divide the sentence as to impair or destroy what is otherwise simple and weighty. He puts a comma after the twofold ὑμῖν, the effect of which is to falsify the epistle; for it does not treat of the common salvation, but is an earnest contention for the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Mere scholarship without a spiritual mind is untrustworthy in divine things. In Text. Rec. followed by the Authorised Version ἡμῶν is wrongly omitted: the Revised Version inserts it correctly on high authority, and renders the text better in more than one word. — In 4 κρῖμα is rather the "charge" for which they were to be judged than "condemnation." Hence it came to mean the sentence or doom, as with us crime.

- In 5 the marginal rendering appears to be better than that of the text; but θεόν of the Text. Rec. is rightly rejected on ample authority. — The Revisers correct the double error of the Authorised Version in 5, "once knew." It should be "know once for all." "This" is an error, not of rendering like those just named, but of the Text. Rec. followed by Authorised Version. It should be πάντα, "all things," not τοῦτο, "this," as in the later copies. It is a mercy that the love of paradox with deference to A B etc. did not as in Lachmann and Alford introduce  Ἰησοῦς here, where Κύριος without the article, Jehovah, is the true reading. But why τὸ δ., "afterward"? Why not "in the second place?" In 6 "angels" rightly in the Revised Version, not "the" as if all were concerned. It is a defined set among the angels. But is "hath kept . . . unto" good English? "He hath in keeping" might do better perhaps; and so I see, nearly, Mr. T. S. Green.

- In 8 the Revisers rightly give us "yet," and drop "filthy," which is implied in the context, as they represent well the anarthrous force of οὗτοι ἐνυπν., which can hardly bear "these dreamers," but means rather "these in their dreams," or "dreaming as they do." — In 12 I think there cannot be a doubt of the article as the genuine reading, which gives vividness and objectivity to the σπιλάδες, whether sunken rocks or blots be meant. But it is not correct to impute to Beza simply the Authorised Version which construes ἀφ. with ἑαυ. π., inasmuch as the Syriac and ancient versions in general so take it, except perhaps the Vulgate followed by the Rhemish alone of English versions, which takes it with εὐωχού. — In 13 it should be the plural form "shames" or "disgraces," which is more usual in English, to guard from the equivoque; for they can clearly have no sense of shame. It means shameful things.

Do not the Revisers furnish an unnatural and misleading version of τούτοις in 14? What is the sense of "to these?" One can imagine a far-fetched way of supposing that Enoch prophesied to the corrupting apostates who shall meet their doom when the Lord is come in judgment, But a dative of reference is far simpler, "for," "as to," "of" as in all the English versions like others. They of course give "came" as in prophetic vision, not "cometh," which is to confound the tense system; and they translate ἐν here rightly with (i.e. amidst) His holy myriads. And here be it noted that Professor Volkmar's assumption that Jude quoted from the so-called Book of Enoch is not only unfounded but gross ignorance; for while the words in our epistle fall into harmony with all revelation, those of the Aethiopic document are as different from Jude's as they are opposed to the truth. The apocryphist makes the Lord come in judgment of His holy myriads! instead of His enemies, contrary to all scripture, but the not unnatural thought of any unbeliever, Jew or Gentile. It is untrue that Jude quoted from this pretended Book of Enoch. The κατὰ πάντων of our epistle (15) resists any such idea. Not improbably it was a Jewish forgery; and men who could resort to such iniquity have no true perception of the truth, as here we see that, if the forger meant to incorporate the words of Jude into his fable, he failed even to accomplish this seemingly mechanical task, and taught heterodoxy in the change he introduced, however slight in appearance. Compare either the English version of Laurence (chap. ii. p. 2, Oxford, 1821) or the Aethiopic (cap. ii. p. 2, Oxon. 1888). M. de Sacy renders the passage correctly enough, "Et venit cum myriadibus sanctorum, ut faciat judicium super eos," etc. His note adds: "Au reste, on pourrait supposer que 1'auteur du livre d'Enoch aurait emprunté ce passage de Saint Jude." Very likely the author imitated Jude, and incorrectly borrowed, as we have seen. Certainly Jude did not quote from this apocryphal book, as Professor Westcott like others seems to suppose.

In this same 15 Tischendorf retains αὐτῶν after ἀσεβεῖς as in the Text. Rec. contrary to his critical note (Ed. viii.), which rejects it on the highest authority, but he reads λόγων against weighty witnesses. — In 18 there is a question of text and of translation. Text. Rec., in accordance with the majority, reads ἐν ἐ. χ., in the last time; but the ancient copies give ἐπ ἐσχάτου [του] Χ., etc. attesting the article, B C etc. omitting it, which the Revisers follow. Compared with other varieties of the phrase, it would seem to mean "at the end of the time." — In 19 the true reading is ἁποδ. without ἑαυτούς, as Eras. Compl. and Stephens edited, but Colinaeus even before Beza and Elz. added it. The Rescript of Paris supports it and a few cursives, which may have been Beza's three old copies. But this sort of separatist is not to be confounded with the αἱρετικός in Titus 3, 1 Cor. 11, Gal. 5, for the mischief was according to the context from their being within, not from their going out. They were certainly far from the mind and grace of Christ; but if they separated the saints from themselves or themselves from the saints, it was not, it would appear, by an outward breach: they carried on their deadly and corrupting work inside. They were "sensual," as the Authorised and Revised Versions say, or rather "natural" men. Dean Alford reasons from the words, not from the written word, when he treats ψυχικοί as midway between πν. and σαρκικοί. For 1 Cor. 2, 3 plainly prove that σ. is the true midway term, and means one unduly deferring to intellect or fleshly feeling, but a saint (like the Corinthian believers); whereas ψ. means man in his natural and absolutely unrenewed estate, as indeed here described πν. μὴ ἔχ.

- In 22, 23, the authorities are most conflicting. Some like the Text. Rec. make but two classes, others three. One could not gather from the Greek or the English of the Revisers that some of the most venerable and best documents, supported by the oldest versions and other witnesses. point to ἐλέγχετε (A C, many cursives and versions), not ἐλεεῖτε (or ἐλεᾶτε), in 22; or yet more to διακρινομένους ( A B C etc., which they rightly follow. The Vulgate represents the ancient text fairly, save that it deserts its own rendering of δ. in verse 9, which substantially suits 22 far better than "judicatos." Dr. Wells and Bengel first vindicated the true text, in which the critics wonderfully agree. Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Wordsworth, Griesbach and Scholz are poor enough, Westcott and Hort worst of all; for what can be more absurd than for scholars to present, as an inspired text, such a jumble of readings as οὕς μὲν ἐλεεᾶτε διακρινομένους σώζετε ἐκ π. ἁρπά., κ.τ.λ.? For to construe this at all we must take the first words as a strict relative, and the first verb as an indicative, to the utter dislocation of the rest of the sentence, and the destruction of any just sense from it as a whole. The twofold ἐλεᾶτε of B cannot stand, nor the omission of οὕς δέ in 13 before σώζετε. The Revisers did adopt unhappily the first ἐλεᾶτε, but the rest of their text is all right. It seems surprising that they should not have named in their margin the good and ancient evidence for ἐλέγχετε.

- In 24 both Authorised and Revised Versions agree in adopting "you" as in B C L, many cursives, and all the versions of note, though Eras., the Compl., Colinaeus, Stephens, Bengel, etc. preferred αὐτούς, "them," with K P and some forty cursives. — In 25 there is no reasonable doubt that σοφῳ in the Text. Rec., followed by the Authorised Version, is well left out by the superior authority of the older MSS. and versions. It probably crept in from Rom. 16: 27, where it is as perfectly in place as here superfluous. But there are two omissions also of the Text. Rec., which are properly supplied by the Revisers, διὰ  Ἰ. Χ. τ. κ. ἡμῶν and πρὸ π. τ. αἰῶνος, which rest on ample and sure authority, giving of course additional force and beauty to this solemn yet comforting epistle, with its closing doxology.

THE REVELATION OF JOHN.

Rev. 1 - 5.

The closing book of the New Testament stands less correctly than any other in the received text. Hence there is much more comparatively to be noted in comparing the Revised Version with the Authorised. Happily among critics the agreement is unusually great, as few can justify the Erasmian editions, which he only partially corrected by the help of the Complutensian. Hence many errors have been perpetuated through R. Stephens, Beza, and the Elzevirs, of which no scholar acquainted with the more ancient authorities can doubt the correction. So great has been the effect of better copies (MSS. or Vv.), that perhaps no book in the New Testament now commands more consent among scholars as to its text.

Rev. 1: 1 affords an early specimen of rash innovation effected by punctuation, which has not commended itself generally, no not even to Lachmann. It was probably due to the influence of Drs. Westcott and Hort, who adopt it in their Greek text. Wiclif's is the only English version which preceded them in so strange a view; but J. H. Heinrichs contends for it in the tenth vol. of Koppe's edition, and wrongly, as I cannot but think with Dean Alford. — But there can be no doubt that they are justified with almost all critics, and on ample authority, in excluding τε "and" in the closing clause of 2. For the witness of John was the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, but visions seen by him: not consisting of visions in addition to the other two descriptions. He is here, not an apostle only, but emphatically a seer. Such is the character of the book. — In 3 there is no need as in the Authorised Version to say "this" and "those," but "the" in both instances. Some of the ancients and even a pair of cursives (7. 16.) give the demonstrative; but there is no real ground. — In 5 the change from "prince" to "ruler" is not much; "loveth" for "loved" is good; loosed" for "washed" is hazardous, though here Tischendorf too was swayed by the Sinaitic in addition to A C, etc., to give in to Lachmann and Tregelles. The vowel might easily have displaced the diphthong, especially as the rendering is thereby easier, though less akin to the Johannean style. The Greek commentators try to incorporate both figures. — In 6 the Revisers rightly say "a kingdom," and "the" glory.

- In 7 they purposely give "the" clouds, but might well have put "land" for earth in the margin. — They have also omitted the clause "the beginning and the ending," brought in from the end of the book, though the Sinaitic, etc. support it here. — In 9 they omit "also" of the Authorised Version following the Text. Rec., and "in the" before kingdom, to the great detriment of the force. "Of Jesus Christ" as in the common text cannot stand; but "in Jesus," though highly supported, is unexampled as to usage, which would seem rather to require "in Christ," or "in Christ Jesus," with excellent authority, and in the latter case very large. But "Christ" should disappear from the end of the verse, on the authority of A C P, etc. — In "a long interpolation after the first word in the common text disappears, and another after "churches." — In 14 "white as white wool" is self-evidently the sense intended; "white like wool" as in the Text Rec. and Authorised Version is not intelligible.

- It would seem also from Rev. 3: 18 that red hot, and so "refined" is meant in 15 also. "And the Living One and I was dead," opens 18 rightly. "Amen" should vanish, and Hades follow death. In 19 it should be "Write therefore" as is generally known; but why the vague "hereafter, at the end, and in Rev. 4: 1, instead of the more precise after these things," which is favoured by the context? John was to write (1) the things which he saw, (2) the things which are, and (3) the things which are about to happen after these (i.e., the seven churches as set out in the seven letters of our Lord): not, as Dean Alford so strangely says, the things seen supplemented by what they mean, which would demand τίνα instead of ἅ. In this, however, the Revised Version is right, like the Authorised Version and almost if not all others. — In 20 is not our tongue capable of reflecting the anarthrous usage of "angels," no less than of "seven churches"? If there is a defining genitive in the one case, there is a numeral in the other, which renders the predicate sufficiently definite without the insertion of our article in the one more than in the other.

In Rev. 2: 1 of course the Revisers correct "of" to "in" Ephesus, following a better text than the received one. — The confusion and addition in 3 are corrected on good authority. "And thou didst bear" shifts from being the first member to the second place, and is connected with "for My name's sake,"" and hast laboured" being expelled. — In 4 there is rightly the omission of "somewhat," but why omit "this"? It is better without addition. — Still more important is the exclusion of "quickly" from 5 on the authority of A C P, the Vulgate, Memphitic, and AEthiopic, though the Basilican Vat. and perhaps all the cursives support it as did the earlier editors. It was an addition of the copyists, perhaps from 16. — In 7 it is not in "the midst of" the paradise of God, but "in" it, "my" being probably a gloss.

In 8 the Revisers correct "is alive" to "lived." — In 9 they omit "works and." — In 10 for "none" they have "not," and "the" (not "a") crown of life.

In 13 they leave out "thy works and," but they refer in their margin to the uncertainty of the Greek text in the clause about Antipas; and assuredly, — as it stands in the Alexandrian and Parisian or even Sinaitic Uncials, it is hardly translateable. The later Vatican, and many cursives add αἷς as the Porphyrian and others have ἐν αἷς which removes the difficulty. I do not dwell here or generally on the effort to avoid the English perfect indefinite where the aorist occurs in Greek, as it is of such frequent occurrence. — In 14 "some," or persons, that hold is better than them that hold; and a similar remark applies to 15, which closes with "in like manner" instead of "which thing I hate," a mere blunder of some copies. — In 15 there is the curious fact of a reading (ἔγνω) introduced by Erasmus, whose MS. here failed, without one known witness, followed in the Greek Bible of Aldus (1518), Cephaloeus (1524), and by Colinaeus (1534); also in the editions of R. Stephens, of Beza, and of the Elzevirs. In the Complutensian it is of course οἶδεν, and so in all critical editions, Gratz following it, but not Goldhagen. Bengel avoided the error. Yet it is remarkable that all the English translations are right in giving "knoweth," which answers not to ἔγνω which they read, but to οἶδεν, a reading which few of them saw, or thought of.

In 19 a better text is followed by the Revisers, which the reader may see by comparison. "Service" should follow "faith," and the closing clause should be "and thy last works [to be] more than the first." — In 20 "a few things" is all wrong, and on slender ground. Indeed and some cursives give "much," some others "many things"; but the weight of authority is decisively against any qualifying term here. — In 21 the Revisers rightly say "willeth not to repent." Tyndale misled the English who followed him into the feeble, if not false, "repented not." — In 22 "cast," not merely "will," as it is also "her" works. — In 24 "and" if not "unto" also should vanish: an error in the Text Rec. as in the Authorised Version. So the "and" before "which" is spurious. — In 26 "authority" is better than "power"; as it should also be "he that" keepeth my works. — In 27 the highest witnesses support the present, not future, 4 "are broken to shivers," and "they" of the Authorised Version and the margin is questionable as the subject, instead of the vessels of pottery as in the Revised Version.

In Rev. 3: 2 the Revisers give "was" ready to die, reckoning from the time of strengthening, as "are" would be from the epoch of writing. Further, they omit the article on the testimony of A C and the margin of them Codex Reuchlini, which Erasmus too followed; but all others are adverse, including B P and the body of cursives, etc. Hence the Revisers translate "no works of thine." — "On thee" in 3 after "come" has very good authority, if not the best. — "But" should surely open 4, and "even" retire, both on excellent ground, Cod. Reuchl. misleading in both. — In 5 for "the same" read "thus," the adverb, not the pronoun.

In 7 there is a measure of uncertainty in the readings, but the sense is only affected in a slight degree. — But surely in 8 the latter half gives the reason, "because," not "that" as the Revisers say, connecting what follows with "I know thy works," and treating the intervening words as a parenthesis. Also is not "little power" more suitable to the context than "a" little, meaning some? Weakness characterised the Philadelphian assembly, but they kept Christ's word and denied not His name. — There seems no change of moment in 8, though a marked literality of rendering in the Revised Version, save that they depart from their usual preterite for the aorist at the close. — Nor is there anything to detain in 9. — In 10 they, with the critics, reject the opening "Behold" on ample and ancient authority. — In 12 I am not aware of any authority for the curious slip here in the Elzevir editions of the New Testament which read λαῳ people, for ν., temple.

Of course the error in 14 is corrected, and "in Laodicea" takes its place. — In 16 the true order is "hot nor cold." — In 17 there is good authority for repeating the article before "miserable," which certainly gives marked emphasis; but the chief MSS. omit, which makes the construction regular, as in the Revised Version. There is no doubt the Authorised Version erroneously omits it before "wretched," — Nothing calls for special notice in 18-22.

In Rev. 4: 1 a door "opened" is correct, as in Rev. 3: 8 The double "was of the Authorised Version is not necessary any more than "a voice" of the Revised Version. Compare 1: 19 for "hereafter." — The copulative disappears rightly from 2. — There is no effort made to distinguish κυκλόθεν from κύκλῳ. Yet distinction it is hard for any one to believe not intended, if one compare 3, 4, 8 with 6, Rev. 5: 11 in the true text, and Rev. 7: 11. Another has suggested "round" for the first, and "around" for the second, which admits more of detached objects surrounding, while the first may apply to connected objects though not exclusively. — In 4 the Revisers rightly give "thrones" not "seats," as in the Authorised Version. — But in 6 why a "glassy" sea? Does not ὑαλίνη point to the material in the vision, and not to its mere smoothness? "Glassy" answers to ὑαλοειδής or ὑαλώδης or ὑαλῶπις. It is the more important, because its force symbolically depends on its true meaning; and those who miss that meaning slip into all sorts of aberrations from the truth intended, as one may see in Elliott's Horae Apoc. and other works. Of course by "living creatures" is justly displaced the strange "beasts," which, given by Wiclif, survived in all the successive English versions down to the Authorised Bible. — In 9 and 10 the future form is correct, not the English present as in the Authorised Version. — In 11, "were," not "are," is the right word.

In Rev. 5: 3, "no one" is better than "no man," as in the older versions. — "And to read" in 4 is a gloss. So is "to loose" in 5. — In 7 "the book" is not duly authenticated; so that the Revisers rightly supply "it." — In 8 it is "the" saints. — In 9 it is "sing," not "sung." But the very material change is the quasi-absolute use of ἡγόρασας by the omission of "us," for which the Revisers substitute "men." This is not only sustained by A 44, Aeth., but confirmed in the strongest way by the verse following, as we shall see presently. "Purchase" is right, not "redeem."

Rev. 5: 10-Rev. 9.

In 10 the true reading is not ἡμᾶς, but αὐτούς, "them," which falls in with the omitted object in the preceding verse, and the verb that follows, "they (not we) shall reign." But "over the earth" is surely the right rendering of ἐπὶ following a verb of rule. When the place in which one reigns is required, it is ἐν. But ἐπὶ implies the sphere or subject over which the rule extends, as any one can verify in the Greek version of Kings and Chronicles, and indeed in any correct Greek writing. Apart from government or authority, ἐπὶ τῆς γ. might well mean "on the earth," but not when so connected as here. There is another question of moment in the verse which the Revisers seem to have decided wrongly, the present instead of the future of the last verb. The reign of the saints over the earth (or, if they will, upon it) — by the showing of the Revelation itself was not yet come till Rev. 20, after most weighty and striking changes, and it can only be anticipated here. It is untrue, even if the church were in question, (which it is not) that we are yet reigning, though made priests and kings in title. Compare 1 Cor. 4: 8, and Rev. 3: 21: even our Lord sits, the rejected but exalted King, with His Father on His throne, and has as yet only, given us the promise of sitting with Him on His own throne. He will come in His kingdom; and it is in the resurrection or changed state that we shall reign with Him, not in our natural bodies, nor yet in the disembodied condition. "Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? Know ye not that we shall judge angels?" (1 Cor. 6: 2, 3.) That the church now reigns in Christ, all things being put under her as under His feet, is Popery, not Christianity. True doctrine therefore confirms P and some thirty cursives, some of the best versions and early comments, as against A B, some twenty-six cursives, etc., especially as it is but the question of a central letter easily dropt. This can be readily seen in Rev. 20: 6, where the Alexandrian alone has the present against all other authority and the context, though it is not really so absurd there as in Rev. 5: 10. Yet the Revisers have introduced this violent and really unreasonable change, without even a marginal note to record the protest of one dissenting voice that understood its bearing. The Americans are equally silent.

- Naturally they correct in 13 the singular confusion of the Authorised Version, and give "on" the sea. They also mark the article "the" blessing, etc. Another important correction long known is the omission not only of "twenty four" in the middle but of the object at the close of 14, the effect of which is to imply that the elders fell down and did homage to the Lamb as well as to Him that sitteth on the throne, in accordance with the verse before. "Him that liveth for ever and ever" has not a known Greek copy to warrant the addition, which is due to Western influence. It is noted as singular that Ewald in his Comm. (Lipsiae, 1828), after drawing out well the critical correction of 9, 10, should have wound up his remarks by an irreverent and heterodox note on the verse before us, based on this unfounded reading due to Erasmus, who translated Primasius or a later copy of the Vulgate, and translated it ill, for he omitted the article before ζῶντι. The Complutensian text printed before Erasmus' first edition rightly omits the words.

In Rev. 6: 1 it is hard to see why the Revisers should render their correct text "with" a voice, as it is a nom. pend. They rightly read "seven," and as rightly omit "and see," though B and near forty cursives support the sense, not one known MS., the precise form (βλέπε, a conjecture of Erasmus) of the Text. Rec. The correction here is valuable; for the call of each living creature is not to the prophet or any other than to each horsemen, who thereon does come. Some have thought that the copyists were influenced by Ezek. 8: 9; possibly it was John 1: 39: if so, it was a strange blunder. Even if καὶ ἴδε, as is most likely, was inferred from the immediately following καὶ εἶδον (ἴδον), it was a baseless and fraudulent addition. A similar remark applies to 3, 5, 7. — In 2 there is no more to remark in the text than αὐτόν instead of αὐτῳ as in 4, 5 also, which is required by ample authority. The differing force can be a good deal better felt than expressed. The genitive would be the fact simply; the dative, a permanent relation; the accusative, activity on the part of the sitter. Here is of course no question of a state or fixed position as in Matt. 16: 18, Mark 6: 35, Luke 12: 44, John 8: 7, but there is an object actively in view. All three occur in connection with the throne in Rev. 4: 2 (acc.) 10 (gen.), Rev. 5: 1, 7 et 13 (dat.) as in Rev. 4: 9, Rev. 6: 16, used with marked precision, the more remarkable as in a book abounding with anomalous Hebraistic forms, yet disproving any imputation of ignorance. Dean Alford, in a note on the first, notices how the acc. is used uniformly on the first mention, thus bearing trace of motion toward; but then at sight of Rev. 11: 16, where it is not a first mention, he wavers, and gives up the gen. and dat. as seeming to have no rule at all: a conclusion due to his own defect of analysis. "Came" is better than "went."

- In 3, 5, 7, 9, 12, and in Rev. 8: 1, "had" should be omitted as in Authorised Version of 1. — In 4 "power" of the Authorised Version is needless. — In 5 "a balance" is right. — In 6 "as it were" a voice is required by the most ancient witnesses, though ancient versions, save Vulgate, omit it like our Authorised Version. — The Revisers are right in 8 as in 5 giving "saw," not "beheld" and "looked," as in the Authorised Version of 1 and 9. "By" is right in indicating direct agency, not "with," a general character of destruction. — In 9 the perfect participle, expressive of a permanent character or state, ought not to have been as in the Authorised Version merged in a simple preterite. For "were" read "have been." — In 10 it is rightly, "O Master, the" etc. — In 11 "a white robe was" given is alone true according to the MSS., and αὐτοῖς ἑκάστῳ is probably if not certainly right. For one could readily understand one or other left out by design as if needless, and the omission of ἐκ. would next lead to the plural form in the versions. It has been thought that ἑκάστοις as in Text. Rec. had the support of many cursives; but not one is known as yet. There is a curious lacuna in the Complutensian edition, marked in the Greek text in the way so characteristic and common in their accompanying Vulgate, so that we cannot cite that work as to the point. They have marked the defect wrongly however, for their line should have been after καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς and before ἵνα ἀναπ. κ.τ.λ., not before all. It was Erasmus probably who invented the plural, as well as ἑκάστοις. The marginal rendering of the Revised Version answers to the reading of B P and some fifty cursives; that of the Text. Rec. is probably Erasmus' guess once more, as we know of no Greek copy that warrants it. We know from Dr. F. Delitzsch's collation that Cod. Reuchlini, the great Rotterdam scholar's MS., has a lacuna similar to that which the Complutensian edition must have had, (doubtless from the ὁροιοτέλευτον of αὐτοῖς), and that it gave πληρώσωσιν and not πληρώσονται. The active sense is unsuitable. The Authorised Version is right; but how they drew it, unless from the Complutensian, it is hard to conceive, as the ordinary text conveys no such meaning. The critical reader can compare a similar conflict of readings in Rev. 9: 5, as to ἵνα β. 13. where the Complutensian editors give βασανίσωσι. — In 12 "lo" rightly vanishes, and the "whole" moon is read, on excellent authority. — There are changes in 13, 14, but too slight to detain us. — In 15 "the rich" properly follows the chief captains or chiliarchs; and the "caves" is better than "dens." — In 16 "said" was the mere carelessness of Tyndale, followed by the other Protestant English translations, Wiclif and the Rhemish being right. — But "their" or "his" wrath in 17 is a nice question, for high authorities support each, as in the case of "them" or "his" in 8; and it does seem singular that the Revisers do not notice the alternative in their margin.

In Rev. 7: 1 the omission of "and" is a strong measure, resting on A. C. and the Vulgate against all other authority; and here again no notice in the margin. "This," not "these things," is right. "At" instead of "upon" as at the end of this verse, is questionable. — In 2 we have "sunrising" for "east." — In 3 "in" is changed rightly to "on." — But "children," not "sons," is still the word in 4. — In 5-8 "sealed" disappears rightly, save at the beginning and at the end. — In 9 "these things" we find correctly for "this"; "out of every nation"; and "standing. "In 10 it is "they cry," not "cried." — In 11-13 there is scarce anything notable; but in 14 it is rightly "come out of the great tribulation." — In 15 "dwell among" is very properly changed into "shall spread his tabernacle over." — In 16 "strike" or "fall" is better than "light." — In 17 we have very literally "be their shepherd and shall guide them unto fountains of waters of life," as also "every tear. "

"Followed" in Rev. 8: 1 seems taken from the Authorised Version of 7. — In 2 "stand" is right, not "stood." The marginal "at," as in the text of the Authorised Version, seems more suitable than "over" the altar. But both Revised Version and Authorised Version miss the force of δώσει here. The Authorised Version might have drawn it from their own rendering of Rev. 11: 3, though efficacy is perhaps better than power, especially here. — The supply of the ellipse by Lyra and Corn. a Lap. and by Beza is erroneous; and "it" or nothing is too vague. "The saints" is correct. — In 4 "which came" should be dropt. — In εἴληθεν here as in Rev. 5: 7, one may be slow to believe that the perfect does not involve a continuance which the aorist does not express; but it is hard to say more than "took" as the Authorised and Revised Versions. But "the" fire is right. The order of the words at the end is not certain. — In 7 "And the first" is better than "The first angel," which was assimilated to 8, 10, and 12. "And the third part of the earth was burnt up," should be added as in the Revised Version. — In 10 it should be as a "torch." — In 13 the important variant "eagle" on ample authority displaces "angel."

In Rev. 9: 1, "fallen" is right, not "fall," as in Authorised Version, a fault of rendering rather than of reading, for πίπτοντα is given by not even one cursive. Pit, "of the abyss" is also better; and so throughout. — In 4 "said" is right, and "such" represents οἵτινες better than the Authorised Version, as being character and not more fact. — In 6 also the force is given more. — But why not put "shapes" in the margin, if it must be given, and have "likenesses" in the text of 7? "Was" is right; and again in the end of 9. The Complutensian, Griesbach, and Scholz have χρυσοῖ (not without considerable authority, but the true text is "like gold" as in the Authorised and Revised Versions. — In 10 have, "not had"; also the true text as in the Complutensian is "and stings" etc., as in the Revised Version, according to the best authorities. — In 11 "They have over them as king the angel" etc. is the correct rendering. In 12 "the first" woe is right. — In 13 the omission of "four" is questionable. — In 14 "one" saying seems uncalled for, even on the critical reading; but "at," not "in." — In 15 "the" hour, etc. — In 16 "armies" is correct, "and to be omitted. — In the latter part of 17 as of 19 the present is well. — In 19 "their" should be "of the horses." — In 20 and 21 the force is given more literally.

Rev. 10, Rev. 11.

The "rainbow" in Rev. 10: 1 is right, but of no great weight; nor the omission of "foot" in 2, nor "the" seven thunders in 3, nor "their voices" in 4, nor "right" hand in 5. Why in 3 have the Revisers suppressed "own"? They might have left the reason or measure of emphasis to the expositor. — But it is surprising that the Revisers should perpetuate in. their text so gross a misrendering as "time" in 6. The natural inference from that word is that eternity immediately succeeds to the sounding of the seventh trumpet; whereas it is certain from the book that a millennium and more must intervene after the seventh angel's blast before the great white throne and the new heavens and earth (i.e. the eternal state.) The marginal correction "delay" should have been in the text, meaning in this connection not time but lapse of time or space as in Rev. 6: 11. — They have, however, well rendered the Hebraistic cast of 7, "then is finished" etc., where "would have been" is more according to usual phraseology; and so in fact the Greek stands in the Text. Rec. as reflecting the Basilican Vatican and some eight cursives, several ancient versions, etc., but surely rather the correction of a copyist than the original text.

- The Revisers in 8 try to make regular another of the anomalous forms of the Apocalypse by inserting "I heard it." But why in some cases when it is clearly impossible in all? It seems better to translate freely in all these peculiar forms, which the received text, following the later scribes, has also essayed to present according to regular grammar; whereas it is clear that they were written intentionally in their ruggedness, the writer knowing well how to express himself in correct Greek. And why should the Revisers have departed from the "little" book of their predecessors? No doubt Griesbach, Lachmann, Alford, and Tregelles support them, following A C 6.14; but P, a few cursives etc., agree with the Erasmian and received reading, and the Compl. is only another form of the diminutive (as in 2) with B, the body of cursives, etc. This difference is not unimportant, but meant expressly in contradistinction from Rev. 10: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. The verses that follow (9, 10) in Rev. 10 support the diminutive. It must be remembered, too, that "book" is wrongly, given for "little" book by B, and some 35 cursives in 2, and that and others read it in 9 and with still more support in 10, where all critics adhere to the dim. as the Authorised and Revised Versions do. — No doubt the infinitive is a better text than the imperative, as in the Text Rec. of 9, as it is also the best attested. — In 10 when "displaces" as soon as." — In 11 "they say is, according to both numerous and the most ancient copies, instead of λέγει in the Text. Rec. wrongly translated he "said" with some of the Latins. And is not prophesy "over" a singular rendering? Granted that "before" as in the Authorised Version, and Tyndale's "among," and Wiclif's "to," are unusual with the dative "As to" or "concerning" is more suitable. The Revisers say "of," not "over," in John 12: 16, and quite rightly they seem inconsistent and pedantic here.

In Rev. 11: 1 the Revisers have rightly struck out the interpolation "the angel stood, saying." But here again they try to soften the singularity of the construction by their rendering of λέγων "and one said." The Bishop of Lincoln's comment allegorises the reed, speaking as Andreas in the Catena does in another way. — Surely the margin is better than the weaker text in 2. — With 3 compare the remark on Rev. 8: 3. — In the critical text of 4 we have another sort of irregularity, when in the same clause appears formal and rational concord; and the Revisers attempt no reflection of it. "Lord" of the earth is right according to ample and ancient witnesses. In 5 "desireth," or "willeth," is better than the ambiguous "will" of the Authorised Version; but "shall" desire rests on slight evidence ( A. 38). — In 6 may or "shall" desire is right. — In 8 why should it not be "their body, or carcase [shall be] on," etc.? Of course the Revisers rightly say "their" Lord. — 9 is not ill translated though worthily: "And from among the peoples do men." etc. "And some," or "men," or — "they," as in the A. V. is more compact. — In 10 "rejoice" without "shall" stands on full authority (save 38), and so the Complutensian edition, but not so "make merry," though in the best copies, still less "send," where even the Revisers give the future with A C, etc. — In 11 it should be "the" three; but why "the" breath of life? "That behold" or "beholding" is right.

- In 12 the Revisers adhere to "they" heard, as in the Authorised Version. But there is no inconsiderable testimony to "I heard." "The" cloud is the correction of simple mistranslation. — In 13 "that," not "the same." — In 15 it should be either "that" of our Lord, or "of our Lord etc. is come." Notoriously the plural form as in the Text. Rec, and the Authorised Version is the mistake of a few cursives. — In 16 "sit," not "sat." — In 17 "which," or "who," "wast" (without "and art to come",) stand on good authority. They change "hast reigned" of the Authorised Version into "didst reign." — In 18 "came" and several other minute changes are adopted. — The Revisers are right of course in separating 19, as indeed it is the introduction to the vision that follows, rather than the conclusion of chapter 11. Probably "that is" (ὁ) is right, as later critics think on good authority, though the omission of the article in B and most cursives, etc. must make it doubtful. "Testament" is all wrong, and everywhere save in Heb. 9: 16, 17, as already noticed.

In Rev. 12: 1 "sign" as in the old margin takes the place of "wonder," as in 3. The Authorised Version should have been consistent with its own rendering in Rev. 15: 1. Tyndale ought not to have departed from Wiclif in this. The order of the Greek also is better kept in the Revised Version, as will appear from comparing 1 and 3; but there is no great reason for dropping "appeared" here after adopting it almost everywhere else in the Now Testament. No doubt the Authorised Version had preceded them in giving 4 "was seen," in Rev. 11: 19, and so they might have given in Rev. 12: 1 and 3, as both give in Acts 13: 31, and 1 Tim. 3: 16. Generally both give "appeared." Further, "arrayed" and, "clothed" are interchanged as in the Authorised Version, though the Revisers use the former. — In 2 the Committee adopt a view of the text, in the insertion of an additional copulative, on the authority of C. 95, apparently confirmed by, some of the Latin copies, more extreme than most, including: Tischendorf, till the Sinaitic carried him away. Lachmann, in his lesser edition, followed the Alexandrian in having the copulative before ὠδ — In 3 "diadems" is right, as in Wiclif and the Rhemish, not "crowns" as in the Authorised Version, etc. — "Drew" in 4 is an error, not of text but of translation in all the English versions from Wiclif down to the Authorised Version. All the English versions, the Revised included, have "stood" for "standeth." It was Tyndale who misled the early translators in giving "as soon as it was born," instead of Wiclif's more correct "when she had borne a child" or "been delivered" as in the Revised Version. — In 5 all the previous translations avoid the simple a son, a man child," as in the Revision; as all give "was to" or "should" rule, and omit "the" nations. The better text would give the last "to" in Roman letters, not italics as in the Authorised Version.

- In 6 the replaced ἐκεῖ of the old Manuscripts makes a scarce sensible difference save perhaps in emphasis Hebraistically. — In 7 the anomalous construction τοῦ π. μετά "went to war," or "going forth to war with," is unquestionably genuine. The received reading ἐπολέμησαν is that of the known copy" and probably a more guess of Erasmus from Arethas or the context. Cod. Reuchlini and the Complutensians give τοῦ π. - 9 is now accurately rendered by the Revisers in the main; and so yet more plainly 10. — In 11 it cannot be as in the Authorised Version "by," but "because of," διὰ τό, nor their "lives unto the" death. — In 12 it is "woe to the earth and to the sea," not to "the inhabiters of," as in the Text. Rec. from Erasmus' Codex Reuchlini or 1. The Complutensian editors are right so far. But the Revisers follow the older form as in A C P and a few cursives, and hence say, "woe for," etc. At the end of the verse it is not mere lapse of time, which would be χρόνος, but καιρός or season. Erasmus' manuscript of Reuchlin had the article like A C P and many cursives. It seems the more strange that he omitted it like B, and most without comment.

- In 15 the Revisers have not improved on the Authorised Version. They might easily have done so by closing the verse with "by a river," instead of "the stream." — They are right in giving "of Jesus" in 17, omitting "Christ," which has only inferior Latin support. The oldest and even the most numerous juniors do not give "Christ." The Sinaitic and the Canonici 34 in the Bodleian (98) strangely read θεοῦ. It is a pretty bold step of the Revisers to decide the question of what follows, and put what commonly stands at the beginning of chapter 13 in the close of chapter 12, adopting "he," (not "I") stood, without a marginal note. No doubt there is good and ancient authority for this departure from the Text. Rec. and Authorised Version; but excellent judges decide for the common text, and in such circumstances change without a word of caution seems hazardous.

In Rev. 13: 1 the Revisers follow authority in "horns" and heads as against the Vulgate and Arm. Erasmus probably had no other ground for the erroneous order of the Text. Rec. than, besides these, the fact of Codex Reuchlini; having omitted by inadvertence κέράτα δέκα καί. They try to represent ἐπὶ τῶν κ. by "on," and ἐπὶ τὰς κ. by "upon." The received reading, answering to "name" in the Authorised Version, is not without good support (C P, several cursives, ancient versions, etc.); but the plural form has yet more, and was the first printed reading in the Complutensian edition. — There are critical questions in 2, but they do not claim attention here as the Revisers raise none in text or translation, save in their change from "seat" to "throne." — In 3 they rightly print I saw in italics, in accordance with the Complutensian edition; whereas the Reuchlin copy gave no authority to Erasmus, who ventured to insert εἶδον, probably following Latin copies (and not the best). I am unaware of any cursive save the valuable Parham 17 (95) which reads the word; but it was only brought from Mount Athos in 1837. ἐσφ. is not "wounded," as in the Authorised Version, nor yet "smitten," as in the Revised Version, but "slain," as in both margins; but "death-stroke" well renders πλ. τοῦ θ.

- In 4 the true reading is τῳ δ. ὄτι ἐδ., certainly not the Erasmian conjecture τὸν δ. ὅς ἐδ. as the Reuchlin MS. fails here. B and many cursives, however, had τῳ δεδ. Probably the Rotterdam scholar translated the Vulgate here, and so forgot the article before ἐξουσίαν following. There is an omission in the Text. Rec. followed by the Authorised Version of και before the second τίς, which the Revisers of course supply as amply justified. — In 5 there is considerable discrepancy as to βλ., but the ordinary text has the most ancient and best witnesses, though Lachmann adopted one shade of difference, and Tischendorf in his seventh edition another. But surely ποιῆσαι here is more than "continue," and means (as Dan. 8: 24; Dan. 11: 28, 30, 32 may illustrate) to do, act, work, practise, or pursue his course for 42 months. πόλεμον is a mere gloss from 7, though in B and most (as the Sinaitic has ὃ θέλει), and followed in the Complutensian and Elzevir editions, not in Erasmus, R. Stephens, etc. The Armenian version, etc., cut the knot by dropping the infinitive altogether. — In 6 too the plural has higher authority than the singular βλ. But the chief change is the discarding on good ground of "and" before the last clause especially if with Alford we take it as in apposition with God's name and dwelling-place. The Revisers, it seems, regard it as exegetic of the dwelling-place only. In 7 must be added "and people."

- In 8 it is certainly "name," emphatically singular, and indeed needing some means of expressing this, like "everyone" in the Revised Version, or "whose name soever," as Mr. T. S. Green proposes. Whether Dean Alford's reasoning influenced the Revisers is best known to themselves; but it is impossible to admit the soundness of bringing forward 1 Peter 1: 19, 20 as the same thing with our passage, for it expressly speaks of Christ foreknown before the world was founded but manifested before the end of the times. Here there is no question of Christ, purposed, — but of the name having been written from the world's foundation in the book of the Lamb that has been slain. To say that Rev. 17: 8 is cited irrelevantly here is surely idle. Christ's death is nowhere said to have taken place in divine counsels; it was foreknown, but took place in time. The Lord does the things known from of old, but they are nowhere said to have been done then. Is then the Authorised or Revised Version happy? It seems to be equivocal, if not misleading. A comma before "from" would have guarded the truth. The marginal note gives the right view; from which it would appear that the majority of the Committee preferred the wrong. The MSS. are in strange confusion as to 10. The common reading seems to give the sense; and the margin of the Revised Version expresses it better perhaps than the text.

- In 11 Codex Reuchlini misled Erasmus to edit in all his editions ὅμ. ἀρνιου (instead of ἀρνίῳ) followed in R. Stephen's first and second editions, but corrected in his third. It was right in the Complutensian edition. — Matthaei edited the gloss τοῦς ἐμούς "my people" that dwell. — Here in 14 "by the means of," in the Authorised Version as in other English versions, should be "by reason of"; also "who hath" is right. And truly eccentric is the preference with Lachmann of αὐτῃ (A C P) to αὐτᾳ ( B and almost all other copies). There is little here to remark in 15, 16; but the Revisers rightly with others strike out the first "or" of the two in 17, τὰ ὄν. τ. θ. ἢ τὸν ἀρ. being in apposition with τὸ χ.

In Rev. 14: 1 it should be "the" Lamb on preponderant authority, though the Porphyrian uncial and at least seven cursives, etc., are known to omit the article which the Complutensian edition as well as Erasmus followed. But the Complutensian had better guidance in reading αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ ὄνομα, as the Revisers translate, omitted by ὁμοιοτελευτον no doubt in Codex Reuchlini as by Erasmus, Stephens, and Beza, so in the Authorised Version. Hip name and His Father's name is right. For "written" scriptum, (γεγ) Erasmus had καιόμενον, the odd error of Cod. Reuchlini. in his editions 1, 2, and 3, reproduced in the editions of Aldus, Cephalaeus, etc. But if the idea of "burnt," inustum, had been meant, the form would have been κεκαυμένον, not καιόμενον which of course means burning. — In the last clause of 2 it should be ἡ φ. ἣν. . ὧς, "the voice which" . . "was as," etc., on the fullest authority, though the Text. Rec. is not without support. The Complutensian edition is right. — Ancient as well as modern versions, like the English, misled the Authorised Version here as elsewhere in "sung" for "sing," as of course it stands in the Revised Version. But a very nice question is suggested by the conflict of the witnesses: should it be "a new song," as in Rev. 5, or "as it were" etc. as in the Authorised and Revised Versions? BP, most cursives and versions, omit ὡς, whereas some good cursives, Vulgate, etc., insert it. As to editions Alford and Tregelles bracket the word, Erasmus, Stephens, Beza, Elzevir, down to Lachmann adopt it, while the Complutensians, Bengel, Griesbach, Heinrich, Tischendorf (finally as at first), reject it. "Purchased" is right here, and in the following verse, as in Rev. 5: 9. — The third "are" in 4, expressed in the received text, is probably to be understood only as in A C P, etc.; but this makes no difference in sense. — In 5 not "guile" but "lie" is the word. The MSS. (save A C P, 12) confirm "for," but the words "before the throne of God" seem to have not one known Greek witness.

- In 6 "in mid-heaven" is right. But "set" or "settled" seems better than "dwelt" for καθημένους. — The anomalous λέγων, for λέγοντα, at the beginning of 7, the Revisers try to express by "And he saith." The omission of τήν, "the," before θ. sea is very doubtful, though three uncials and at least as many cursives favour it. — The Revisers rightly omit "city," in" 8, and give "which," rather than "because," on good authority, though others not to be despised omit both, and make a new sentence begin here. The omission of the article as in Text. Rec. is unfounded, and due to Erasmus' carelessness, for the Reuchlin copy before him had no such barbarism. — There is little to note in 9, save departure from order, and in 10 the article wrongly inserted, which may have led to ἁγ. ἀγγ., instead of ἀγγ. ἁγ. or the omission of the epithet altogether, as in A, 26. etc. Is it a happy rendering to say "an eternal gospel"? Would not "everlasting gospel" or glad tidings be better? Neither here, nor in Rom. 1: 1, nor anywhere else is the phrase anarthrous because it had become technical, but because the object was to present it characteristically, in distinction from the good news, at a special time, of God's grace or of Christ's glory. This, true from the garden of Eden, is to be enforced by the solemn warning of judgment at the doors. The Revisers go back to Tyndale and the Geneva version. Did any of these appreciate its exact force? — Nor is there more to observe in 11; but 12 shows us ὧδε, inserted before the latter clause, to get rid of an anomaly.

- From 13 "to me" should vanish, though not without the countenance of cursives, versions, and commentators. Both Erasmus and the Complutensians endorsed it. The Revisers in the margin give the unmeaning division which some of the ancients espoused and Wiclif expresses, and the Rhemish. Tyndale, followed by Cranmer and the Geneva version, gave "which hereafter dye in the lorde," i.e., die in the Lord. But this is singularly far from the scope. On the contrary there was to be, when this epoch arrives, no more dying in the Lord: hence their blessedness is come, rest and reward assured. The Son of Man reaps the earth, and the vintage of unmingled wrath follows. It is the public award at the Lord's appearing, for those who had laboured and suffered for Him, and with especial view to the comfort of the saints dying in the Apocalyptic crisis. There was to be no more dying in the Lord, but rather the blessedness of such thenceforward. "For," not "and," their works, etc. — But ought not the Revisers, in accordance with their practice elsewhere, as in Rev. 4: 2, 4 (compared with 9, 10, and Rev. 13: 1, 16, Rev. 14: 9, 11), to have said "upon," not "on," the cloud? Cf 15, 16, in which last no doubt the genitive is right, not the accusative nor the dative. Neither σοι nor σου is to be read in 15. — In 18 the Revisers boldly adopt ὁ with A C, "he that," etc. But whence did our authorised translators get τῆς ἀμπέλου "of the vine"? Not from Erasmus or Stephens, but from Beza who refers to Arethas and the Complutensian edition, as well as two of his own copies and the Vulgate — O si sic omnia. — "As far as" fairly represents ἀπό in 20.

Rev. 15, Rev. 16.

In Rev. 15: 1 the Revisers give rightly "seven plagues, the last" (i.e., such as are the last), not "the seven last plagues" as in the Authorised Version. The reason is annexed why they were the last — because in them was finished the wrath of God. It is scarce necessary to add that "finished" is the true rendering Of ἐπελέσθη, not "filled up," which would answer rather to ἐπληρώθη, the reading of no copy whatever. In 2 occurs again the error of "glassy" in the Revised Version, — whereas the Authorised Version "of glass" is correct, as pointed out in the remarks on Rev. 4: 6. It is the symbolic material in contrast with the sea of water in the temple: no longer the means of cleansing, but the sign of fixed purity. The misrendering destroys the doctrine, as far as it goes, and insinuates either more sentiment or a false thought in lieu of the truth intended. Unlike the vision of Rev. 4, this sea was mingled with fire: those who reached it had passed through God's judicially inflicted tribulation, as their enthroned predecessors had not (having been caught up before it). "Them that come victorious from" is certainly more literal and pregnant like the Greek than "them that had gotten the victory over." It is the usual form of designating a class apart from time. But surely the marginal "upon" or the Authorised Version "on" the glass sea is right, not the mere "by" of the Revised Version. "On the shore" of the sea is a perversion, if the sea refer to the temple; and it would be hard to bring in the Red Sea among the allusions of Rev. 4. And if the Red Sea be excluded there, the beauty of the same image here, with the characteristic difference of mingled with fire, would be lost by including the Red Sea in it. To my mind the intention was to show these later overcomers as distinct, not only from the twenty-four elders, but also from the earlier martyrs of Rev. 6: 9-11. If so, there is no reason from the imagery of Rev. 4 in favour of "by" or "at as against "on," any more than from Exodus 15. "Over his mark" in the Authorised Version is the Erasmian misreading, with a few cursives, an addition opposed to all the best authorities. The Complutensian editors were right. "The" harps of gold seems to have been the blunder of all the English versions from Wiclif to the Authorised Version. Certainly neither Erasmus nor the Complutensians, neither Stephens nor yet Beza, receive the article, though given in B 2, 7, 8, 16, 29, 32, 35, 38, 39, 43, 47, 48, 50, 87, 94, 97, not to speak of Andreas and Arethas. But there appears to be no doubt that it is an error, probably from repeating the last syllable of the preceding word.

- It is hard to conceive why the Revisers preferred αἰώνων "ages," to ἐθνῶν "nations," in the face of Jer. 10: 7. No doubt the authorities are conflicting; but the Old Testament allusion is evident, and the context confirms it in the verse that follows. Probably the absurdly false reading which Erasmus (not the Complutensians) gave against his own MS. 1, and without any known Greek copy was due to confounding some abbreviation of seculorum for sanctorum, as Tischendorf conjectures; as it is likely that the Revisers' reading is due to 1 Tim. 1: 17. No wonder then that Bengel, Griesbach, Heinrich, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, T. S. Green, Alford, Wordsworth, hold to ἐθνῶν, if Westcott and Hort alone, or nearly so, prefer αἰώνων. But. should such a reading have found its way into the text of the Revised New Testament? Surely what has been discredited by so many and various critics of the highest eminence, on ample authority, ought not to be brought by Cambridge influence into a work which seeks universal acceptance. — In 4 the pronoun is not found in the best witnesses, though in most of the cursives etc., 95 shifting its place. The Greek for "holy" differs in the MSS., the best reading that which implies mercy in God (or piety in men), and not what means separation to God. So also the Revisers rightly say "the" nations; for they shall all come yet and pay homage before God, but this as the fruit of the manifestation of His righteousnesses or righteous acts, not of the gospel as now preached. The gospel of His grace calls and separates the believer to Christ in heaven.

- It is hardly "I looked" as in the Authorised Version of 5, but "I saw," as "behold" should vanish; for not even Erasmus' Codex Reuchlini has it and, of course, not the Complutensian edition. — But in 6 we have the portentous reading λίθον "a stone!" (A C 38, 39, 48, 90, 4) favoured by Lachmann and Tregelles, as lately by the Cambridge professors, against all the other authorities, though some support the plural form of linen. Ezek. 28 seems a poor ground in the gorgeous description of Tyre's prince for the holy executors of God's last plagues. No doubt, in Rev. 19: 14 the word used is β. not λ. But this is as it should be; for angels are quite distinct from saints, however much superstitious ignorance, never Scripture, tends to merge them together. Here again, what were the Committee about to let the redoubtable twain with their satellites persuade competent and independent minds into such a vagary, or at least so questionable a word? In the editions of L., Tr., and of W. & H., it is not so singular. A public work should have been better safe-guarded. — It is "bowls" in 7 rather than "vials"; and so throughout Rev. 16, etc. — In 8 it is "finished" as in 1. It was not yet Christ coming to execute judgment in person, and to reign righteously over the earth; but the ministers of divine providence come out to complete the seven plagues of God's wrath before the day of His appearing. It is no question of saints on earth drawing near into the sanctuary (as now by the blood of Jesus in full assurance of faith), but of none able to enter till the angels have finished their task of judgment.

In Rev. 16: 1 the Revisers give it literally "into," not "upon," and so in 2, 3, 4. The difference is maintained in the Greek, for it is strictly "upon" in the latter part of 2, 8, 10, 12, (of 4), 17. — In the Text Rec. of 2 it is wrongly εἰς in the latter part, but ἐπί is unquestionable. — Near the end of 3 τά seems omitted, as indeed B P and most cursives support the commonly received text. But A C, etc., give τά which might easily be dropt. The sense is substantially the same. — In 4 they say "it" became blood. — The change in 5 is greater, and on excellent authority. "O Lord" is omitted, and "thou Holy One" appears instead of "and shalt be." — In 6 "for" is dropt rightly. — In 7 it should be "I heard the altar say" on first-rate authority; as no doubt "another out of" is an interpolation due to the desire of softening so bold a figure. — In 8 "it" is probably right, rather than "him," as in the Authorised Version, which is put in the margin. — In 9 why not "the" men 9 on the other hand they say "the" God, etc. — In 10 as in 3, 4, 8, 10, 12, and 17 "angel" is excluded on very good grounds. Of course "throne" should displace "seat."

- In 12 it is "from the sun-rising," not "of the east." The article in the Greek is probably right. — In 16 the Revisers, like many, render "they," not "he." Grammatically, it might be either. If "they," it is the evil spirits as instruments; if "he," it is the One who employed them. — "Of heaven" in 17 is very doubtful, though read by the later B and most cursives. — In 18 are some slight corrections; and so there are in verses 19-21, but nothing calls for especial mention. "A man" has ancient and excellent authority in both MSS. and Versions, 99 men" rather more in Greek copies; and the Revised Version gives better the anarthrous form, as the Authorised Version would rather express the Received Text οἱ ἄνθ. with the mass of cursives. — In 30 the Greek means, not "the mountains were not" as in the Authorised and Revised Versions, but "no mountains were," etc. It is the old feebleness, or worse, in respect of the article.

Rev. 17, 18.

In Rev. 17: 1 μοι "to me" rests on the witness of a few cursives, etc. The omission is assuredly right, and has all the higher authorities, and the mass too. But there is conflict as to the articles in the last phrase; and Tischendorf would not have decided against A P, etc., which omit them, without very good reason. C. is here defective. It seems doubtful. — But the Revisers seem to give rightly a preterite or aoristic expression in 2 rather than a perfect. — In 3 it is "a," not "the," wilderness. — In 4 "precious stone." But why in the Revision, "even the unclean things of her fornication"? No doubt the Authorised Version renders loosely "and filthiness," etc., or rather follows the Received Text, — which was probably only Erasmus' guess, as Codex Reuchlini reads τὰ ἀκάθαρτα with almost all witnesses, and so the Complutensian editors and all the critics. — (6) "The" harlots, etc., say the Revisers rightly; and "of the" abominations also. This was a case, not of reading, but of mistranslation in all the older English versions, save that of Rheims. Besides, they had from Latin influence the "whoredom" or fornications of the Authorised Version margin as their text. In 6 why do the Revisers here perpetuate the "martyrs" of the Authorised Version? They give "witness" in Acts 22: 20, and in Rev. 2: 13, and of course everywhere, I believe, as indeed elsewhere "martyr" would be a ridiculous blunder; but why here? An oversight it is presumed. "A" great wonder seems strange English.

- In 7 "wonder" is no doubt better retained than "marvel." The Authorised Version erred in omitting "the" ten horns. — Erasmus too had no reason to leave out the article at the beginning of 8, for his copy had it all right; and so the Complutensian edition of course. But the translators rendered as if it were there. It was a strange freak of Lachmann to edit ἐγέγραπτο on the slip of A (ἐγέγραπται), which clearly should have been γέγραπται with all other authorities, save perhaps a cursive or two. The "name" or "names" is a fair question, as the witnesses are divided. But there is no doubt about the important correction at the end of the verse, παρέσται "shall come" or be present, A B P, more than 40 cursives, etc., as in the Complutensian edition. Even Erasmus' copy had καὶ πάρεστι as in C W, and at least half a dozen cursives besides; his καίπέρ ἐστιν which crept into the Received Text, and led to the Authorised Version, "and yet is" is simply baseless and absurd. The Vulgate, like the AEthiopic, gives nothing here: so of course Wiclif and the Rhemish, and also, strange to say, Tyndale and Cranmer. The Geneva followed the Stephanic Text. Only some of the copies joined παρέσται with ὧδε in 9, which last B omits and joins π. with ὁ νοῦς , and so perhaps the Vulgate and the English Versions that followed it. — In 10 the Revisers are justified, I think, in giving "they" for "there"; but are they right in "the" five, "the" one? They well drop the copulative after "five are fallen." — "is given rather better, "even he is an eighth," etc.

- So is 12 less equivocal in the Revised Version. — In 13 the Authorised Version gave erroneously "strength" as the equivalent of ἐξουσία. It should be "authority." — The ellipse in 14 is filled up cumbrously by the Revisers; I doubt that any supply is needed in English, and the briefer the better, if intelligible. — In 16 not "upon" but "and" the beast is the true reading and sense, as in all known MSS., uncial and cursive, and in the ancient versions, etc., save a few Latin copies, and Arethas, some omitting it altogether. The truth conveyed is of high moment; for thus it appears that the ten horns, instead of supplanting the beast, as in the past, are in the future to join him (cf. ver. 12) in destroying the harlot: a death-blow to the mere historicalist theory. The empire once ruled in unity; the divided kingdoms have ruled since; never yet has there been an imperial head guiding them all in vengeance on the harlot of Rome, any more than the destruction of the Emperor and his satellite kings under the Lamb and the glorified saints from heaven. (cf. Rev. 19.) If history records the two first, prophecy bids us await the two last: to treat these as past is trifling with scripture. It is for the beast at least a divinely executed and everlasting destruction, instead of being, as with the previous empires, a providential overthrow only. Compare Dan. 7: 11, 12. Babylon falls otherwise, as we have seen. — In 17 the reading of the Received Text is found in no known manuscript τὰ ῥη. τελεσθῃ and is probably due to Erasmus, even Andreas and Arethas refusing support. The true is οἱ λ. τελεσθήσονται, but the version is unaffected substantially. — I think that the peculiar sway of Rome is marked peculiarly in the Greek of 18, and not justly reflected in the Authorised and Revised versions any more than in the other older Protestant translations. Wiclif and the Rhemish cleaving to the Vulgate are more literal, but as usual crude enough.

In Rev. 18: 1 the copulative which introduces the chapter in the Received Text and the Authorised Version is supported by some cursives and ancient versions, and stands in the Complutensian edition as well as in those of Erasmus; but the best authorities discard it. But ἄλλον, "another," omitted in Codex Reuchlini and two or three more is read by all the uncials, the cursives generally, the ancient versions, and the Greek and Latin commentators, its it rightly appears not in the Received Text but in the Authorised Version. — In 2 it should be "cried with a strong voice," not ἴσχυι> φ. μ. as in the Received Text without known authority, but ἰσχυρᾳ φ. with the best and most. A and many cursives and versions have ἔπεσεν as fallen" twice, P has it thrice; but B, very many cursives and old versions and writers, read it but once. There are various insertions and omissions in the copies which call for no special notice here. "Hold"=φ. the prison where they are forcibly kept. "Foul" and "unclean" in the Authorised version represent ἀκαθάρτου. — In 3 occurs a singular discrepancy among the copies. Should it be πέπωκαν or πέπτω(ο)καν (or-ασιν)? "Drunk" or "fallen by"? Alford hesitated, Lachmann gave the last in his lesser and the first in his larger edition, Tischendorf and Wordsworth the first, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort the last, Bengel, Griesbach, and Scholz adhering to the same sense in πέπωκε of the Received Text. Here again are sundry variations in the copies, omitting or inserting strangely. "Luxury" or "wanton pride" seems better than "delicacies."

- In 4 are changes of order from that of the Received Text, but we may leave this. — In 5 Received Text (with 33, 34, if we trust Alter) is ἠκολούθησαν "followed," instead of the unquestionable ἐκολλήθησαν "were joined, heaped up, clave." The Authorised and Revised Versions both give "have reached" rather singularly. — In 6 "you" disappears for ample reason, as does "unto her" though the Received Text has here better support. "The" double is doubtful, even Lachmann omitting it with A B P and many cursives. — The ὅτι omitted before A:. in the Received Text of 7 makes no substantial difference in the version. — In 8 the best authorities (p.m. A B C P, about 35 cursives, good ancient versions, and ecclesiastical writers) concur in "judged," rather than "judgeth," as in the Received Text, with several cursives, etc. — In 9 "her" vanishes after "bewail" or "weep," though not without authority; and ἐπ᾽ αὐτήν "over her" displaces ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆ "for her," and again in 11. — In 12 the Revisers rightly leave out "the" merchandise (lit. lading or cargo); they also say "stone," and correct like small blemishes in this verse and the following 13, from which last fell out of many copies and the Received Text καὶ ἄμωμον "and amomum," or spice, after cinnamon, no doubt from similarity of ending. — In 14 "the splendid" instead of "goodly" are "perished" rather than "departed," which is an inferior reading. — "And" should not begin 16.

- In 17 is not κυβ. a "helmsman," or "pilot," rather than "shipmaster," as in the Authorised and Revised Versions? Ναύκληρος was rather the skipper or shipmaster. But ἐπὶ τῶν πλοίον ὁ ὅμιλος "the company in ships" (Received Text from Codex Reuchlini) is a wild departure from ὁ επὶ τόπον πλέων "that saileth to a place," meaning every passenger for a place, rather than, with M. Stuart, a coaster (i.e., one who does not go out to sea), as the last clause embraces as many as ply the sea. — In 13 it is of course "the," not "this," great city. — In 19 "their" ships in the sea. The article is omitted in the Received Text on slender ground. In 20 it should be "ye saints and" on excellent and abundant authority, also "ye" apostles, and "ye" prophets, but certainly not "thou" heaven, which is less correct than the Authorised "thou." But how came the Revisers to render ἔκρινεν "hath" judged, like the Authorised Version? In 21 ὅρ.=with a rush, or even "violence" as in the Authorised Version answers better to the usage of the Septuagint (Ex. 32: 21, Deut. 28: 49, Hosea 5: 10, Amos 1: 11, Hab. 1: 11, not to speak of the apocryphal 1 Macc. 4: 8, 30; 6: 33, 47), than the "mighty fall" of the Revisers. lit the classical writers it is used for "passionate feeling," or "indignation," never that I know for a great fall. — In 22 μ. is well given as "minstrels" or "singers," for it must mean something more distinctive than musicians." — In 23 "lamp," rather than "candle, and assuredly "sorcery," not "sorceries." — In 24 that "have been" slain or slaughtered. If the Hebraistic αἵματα be right, rather than the singular form, it is against the concurrence of the most ancient MSS., A C P, with some cursive support, etc. In Rev. 16: 6 36. 39. support αἵματα but A B C P and almost all the juniors read αἵμα.

Rev. 19.

"And" should disappear from the beginning according to the best and fullest authority ( A B C P, thirty-five cursives, Vulgate, Memph. Syr. etc., as against several cursives, Arm., Aeth., etc., followed by Erasmus, Complutensian, Stephens, Beza, and Elzevir. But there is as good authority for inserting ὡς "as it were" after "I heard"; and here the Complutensian and Elzevir differ from Erasmus, and Stephens whom the Authorised Version followed. The ancient order too has been departed from, and the grammatical form with perhaps not one copy by Erasmus, and so Stephens, Beza, Elzevir, but not the Complutensian editors who adhered to the constr. ad sens. of λεγόντων. καὶ ἡ τιμή "and honour" is an addition from preceding ascription of praise, but not without some small support of inferior authorities here. The Complutensian edition rightly left it out, but Erasmus followed his Codex Reuchlini in its insertion. τοῦ θ. ἡμ. θ. "of our God" with the best, and so the Complutensian, not "to" τῳ as some copies and ancient versions, etc., still less κυρίῳ τ. θ. ἡμ. as in Codex Reuchlini, Erasmus, Stephens, Beza, and Elzevir. — In 2 there is little to note, though the copies differ a good deal. The Complutensian editors omit the article before χ. as is done in the best copies, but the Codex Reuchlini with others reads it and misled the other early editors.

- In 3 there is yet less to say though the copies differ somewhat in form. — The order of words in 4 also differs even in the better copies, as of forms also. τῳ θρ., I doubt not, is here more correct than τοῦ θρ. as in the Received Text. The Complutensian here is no better than Erasmus. The Porphyrian uncial has τῶν θρ. — probably a mere lapse for τῳ θρ. The other uncials give the dative, not the genitive. With the saints they have the accusative, as in chap. 4 and 20; with God or Christ, the accusative the first time as in Rev. 4: 2, and Rev. 20: 11 (as in Rev. 14: 14, and Rev. 19: 11 also) the genitive or the dative afterwards, and not without a distinction. — The Sinaitic is very wrong in reading the plural in 5 "voices" for "a voice"; as the common text ἐκ is superior to ἀπό in A B C five-and-twenty cursives, etc., some of which add the further error of changing θρ. into οὐρανοῦ. Then τῳ θ. is supported by the best copies against τὸν θ. as in many cursives followed by Erasmus, the Complutensian, etc. καί before οἱ φ. wants the excellent authority of C P, but it has the very large support of A B, perhaps all the cursives and ancient versions. "Both" should vanish before "small," as in the Complutensian against Erasmus and those that went in his wake with Codex Reuchlini, etc. Compare Rev. 11: 18, which confirms the copulative in the first case, not in the last.

- In 6 the Complutensian edition has ὡς "as it were," after ἤκ. not Erasmus though his own copy has it corrected in red above. A Vienna cursive (36) has it after φ. The best copies give it, and of course before φ.; and so the Complutensian, Stephens, Beza, Elzevir. Singular to say, Lachmann omitted the second "as" with A and a few cursives, contrary to all other authority. λεγ. is only a question of form οντας, -- οντες, or — οντων, as in the Complutensian, which last has the best authority, the others arising from desired smoothness. The Revisers are here obliged to content themselves like the Authorised Version, with "reigneth" for ἐβασίλευσεν. In Rev. 11: 17 they have "didst reign" for "hast reigned" of the Authorised Version. It is not easy to convey in English its aoristic force; and such a case may have misled our old translators into a lower view of its meaning than is just. To represent it always in English as a simple preterite is a delusion. "Our" is lacking in the last clause of the Received Text, and hence in the Authorised Version, through Erasmus and the Codex Reuchlini, though not alone, for even A and others omit it. But there is ample proof for it.

- In 7 there is little but difference of form to note, as in 8 change of order. — In 9 copies strangely insert and omit, and shuffle; but such minute points are not my present object. — In 10 there is little textual to remark. The chief matter is that the best copies omit τοῦ before the first  Ἰ, where Erasmus is right, not Stephens, Beza, or Elzevir; and so before the second where the Complutensian joins them, with undoubtedly much cursive support, but not the best authority. It may be here noticed that the meaning of the last clause is to affirm that the Spirit of prophecy (not merely the Spirit in the apostolic epistles, but in the Revelation also) is the witness of Jesus. This might, from its Old Testament character, have been otherwise doubted. The prophecy too is His testimony; it is very different from the gospel, but it is His witness none the less. And further, it seems an assumption that it is a testimony to Him; for this would be either the dative in Greek (as in English), or the genitive after περί as a regular rule. It is the testimony Jesus is rendering in the book, whoever may receive or repeat it. Compare Rev. 1: 2, Rev. 12: 17. Tischendorf says that Lachmann omits καλούμενος (11), but it is only so in his earlier small edition (not in his later) with A etc. Indeed some of the best Latin copies add "vocatur" to "vocabatur," as Tregelles edits the Vulgate; and so it stands in Buttmann's contribution to the larger work.

- In 12 Lachmann agrees with the Received Text and Authorised Version in reading ὡς "as" with A, many cursives, and versions. The Revisers rightly discard this on ample grounds; and give "diadems" rather than "crowns." Tischendorf in his latest edition rejected his own previous yielding to B, five and twenty cursives, Septuagint, etc., in the addition of ὀνόματα γεγραμμένα καί as in the Complutensian also. The Sinaitic is too careless here to weigh much; the Alexandrian and Porphyrian preserve the true text; C here fails. — In 13 the vesture dipt in or sprinkled with blood marks Him as coming in vengeance, as in Isaiah 63, which it is utter unintelligence to apply to His own blood. He is the holy Avenger, as once the spotless Lamb. The Hebrew of Isaiah strengthens the value of "sprinkled"; but the Septuagint is little or no help. The MSS. fluctuate painfully. p.m. has περιρεραμμένον which Origen and the Latins confirm; P 36 ῤεραντισμένον — The majority with A B support, in the Received Text, βεβαμ. So reads the Complutensian, and καλεῖται like Erasmus; but the best have κέκληται (p.m. κεκλητο being a slip).

- In 14 the article repeated before ἐν is omitted by B and many cursives, to which the last syllable preceding probably contributed), as in Erasmus, Stephens, and Beza; but it appears in A P and many cursives as in the Complutensian and Elzevir, which the Revisers rightly prefer. "The armies that are in heaven" are the same glorified saints who had been in Rev. 17: 14 described as οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, not angelic but saintly, as is plain also from what follows; they were clothed in βύσσινον, fine linen, white, pure. Compare Rev. 15 where angels are said to be arrayed in linen (λίνον), or if we believe the Revisers with "stone" (λίθον) pure, bright; a still farther remove from the clothing of the saints. — In 15 the only notable change is the exclusion of καί "and" before "wrath" which the Received Text had with most from Erasmus' Codex Reuchlini, and a few others, Andr. in some copies, contrary to all the rest and the Complutensian edition. — In 16 the article is wrongly in T. R. from Erasmus downwards before "name"; but all English have rightly "a" name, perhaps from the Complutensian. — In 17 the Revisers have rightly "birds" rather than "fowl," and "mid-heaven," for "the midst of heaven." But the change of moment is "the great supper of God," on the authority of A B P, more than 35 cursives, and most ancient versions, etc., instead of "the supper of the great God" as in the Received Text from Erasmus (not the Complutensian) following Codex Reuchlini and a few others.

- In 18 the Uncials exhibit all three possible forms after ἐπί, genitive B P and most, dative , accusative A and a few followed by Lachmann. Our Authorised Version prints "both" in italics, following the Received Text, which was due to Erasmus. But the Complutensian had τε rightly with the best and most which warrant "both." But the τε after μικρῶν "small" is not read by the more ancient, though in B and more than thirty juniors which the Complutensian edition follows, not Erasmus. or the Received Text. — In 19 Lachmann with A and a few cursives has the strange "his" for "their" armies. It may be a mere slip from the end of the verse. The article should be heeded before π. "war," the or their war, though the Received Text after Erasmus and the Complutensian is not without support (1. 6. etc.) and lately the Porphyrian uncial.

- In 20 the reading of Erasmus and so of the Received Text is μετὰ τ. which is not so good Greek as μετ᾽ αὐτ. but makes no sensible difference in English. It rests on 1. 49. etc., against all of value. Tischendorf in his eighth edition abandons ὁ μετ᾽ αὐτ. as in B, many cursives, etc., for μετ᾽ αὐτ. ὁ as in P, etc. The reading in A 41 Cop. is a blunder οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτ. ὁ. and still more in 34. οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτ. ψευδοπροφῆται, "the false prophets with him." The article should be expressed before "miracles" or rather "signs"; but it as in the Received Text should disappear before θ. at the close, though the Codex Reuchlini was not alone in misleading Erasmus. Is it correct to say with the Revisers as well as the Authorised Version that "had" received etc.? His deceiving was not after, but before, they received the mark of the beast. B and most correct the solecism of A P, etc. τὴν λ. τοῦ π. τῆς κ. which Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Alford adopt. — In 21 how strange too that Erasmus in his first and second editions should not have τοῦ (right in his MS.) before καθημένου. In his fifth edition it is corrected. The true reading is ἐξελθ. ( A B P and almost if not all known authorities; ἐκπορ. "goeth" or "proceedeth" was Erasmus' guess, perhaps founded on the Vulgate, but contrary to his MS., Codex Reuchlini. The Complutensian is right, not Steph. nor Beza.

Rev. 20.

The Revisers in 1 have rightly "coming," not "come," as in the Authorised Version, and "abyss" as before for "bottomless pit," here and in verse 3. English idiom perhaps requires "in" his hand, rather than "upon" literally. The angel was seen in vision with the chain hanging on his hand. — In 2 "the" old serpent is more correct than the demonstrative "that," a not infrequent fault in the Authorised Version. But would not "who" be better than "which" following? "For" completes the sense before "a thousand years." — In 3 αὐτόν "him" has such slender authority after ἔκλ. that all critics feel bound to expunge the word, and translators rightly supply "it" as after "sealed." The copulative rightly disappears before μ. τ. which should be distinguished from the singular form, as the Revisers do in Rev. 7: 1, 9 (the only true case in the book); elsewhere it is plural, but even so the Revisers might have held to uniformity with advantage save in that case.

- In 4. even here Wiclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, as well as the versions of Geneva and Rheims, give "seats," instead of "thrones," most incongruously. Would not a semicolon have been preferable to a comma after "the word of God"? For the Seer has before him two classes of sufferers in the disembodied state, and there the dividing line is marked by a change of construction. The colon is all right after "unto them" in the earliest part of the verse; because these were already changed and had followed the Lord in glorified bodies out of heaven, as seen in Rev. 19: 14, and consequently were described as seated upon thrones. The saints who were slain after the translation of those symbolised by the twenty-four elders might seem to have lost all. They were too late for the rapture to heaven, and they do not survive till the Lord appears in glory to introduce His kingdom over the earth. And a distinction answering to the two classes of martyrs described in our verse had been laid down when the first of the two were seen at an early point of the Apocalyptic visions, the souls of those that had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. To their cry, "How long?" it was said that they should rest yet for a time, until both their fellow-servants and their brethren that were about to be killed as they should be fulfilled. Thus the second class is anticipated in verse 11, where the first are seen to have poured out their lives under the altar. In our verse they both are seen still to be in the separate state, the earlier and the later martyrs of the Apocalyptic period; "and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." They therefore lost nothing by being slain, whether those before the beast was manifested or those after that apostate power persecuted to death in all variety of antagonism to God and His saints. They now lived and reigned with Christ before the thousand years began, no less than the glorified assessors with Christ who knew the resurrection of life before either suffered. The glorious position of the Old and the New Testament saints in general appears in those previously seated on thrones. It was unnecessary to say that they lived and reigned, seeing that there they were long before risen, caught up to heaven, and are now seated on thrones when the world-kingdom of our Lord and His Christ was evidently come. The needed assurance is given in the later clauses for those who only appeared and suffered after the rapture and before Christ's reign on His own throne. Compare Rev. 3: 21. These too had His portion. As He died, lived, and will reign; so they too had been slain for His sake and now reign with Him, as do all saints from the beginning. And all are brought in one way or another into this verse, which does contemplate these special martyrs, but leaves room in its first clauses before the Revisers' colon for all the saints who had gone before, martyrs or not.

May I add that one could hardly conceive, if one did not know, interpreters so benighted as to suppose that "judgment was given to them" means that these saints were judged? No believer comes into judgment, but in the risen state all are destined to judge the world. How strange that orthodox men should blot this out! To make it the same as Eph. 2: 6, a present reign of the saints, is to confound prophecy with doctrine and lose all the special truth of the reign with Christ; as it is an utter mistake to take ψυχάς of bodies and apply πεπ. to all sorts of martyrdom. Every word seems in my judgment to convey the truth of what is abundantly set forth elsewhere — a resurrection not merely of dead persons, but also "from among" the dead. All must rise, unjust as well as just, but not all together, which is taught nowhere in Scripture, but rather what denies it. Christ rose from out of dead persons: so will the saints at His coming, leaving the rest of the dead undisturbed in their graves. And such is the plain teaching of 5. They await the resurrection of judgment, instead of rising from the dead a thousand years before to judge the world according to the wonderful purpose of God for the earth, before the judgment of the wicked dead and the eternal scene. What can be more emphatic than the words, "This is the first resurrection"? It is not the vision, but the explanation of it, not the riddle, but the solution. Indeed it is remarkable what plain language the Spirit uses here, which men have wished to allegorise.

But I turn from exposition to the less genial task of criticism. The Revisers like others have rightly omitted "But" at the beginning. — In 6 we have words which correspond admirably with the apostle's earnest desire in Phil. 3: 11,* which would be unaccountable if there be only a general resurrection when all rise simultaneously. "Blessed and holy is he that hath part" in it. There seems no escape from this but the desperate expedient of explaining it to mean some present Christian privilege, or a future state of Christendom, as many divines have done. The former idea is perilously near those who taught that the resurrection is past already; the latter is the unworthy dream of glory on the earth for the church without Christ, instead of contentment in suffering with Him and waiting to be glorified together. Almost all the witnesses read "reign" in the future, The Alexandrian alone here commits the blunder of the present tense, though it is really more inexcusable in Rev. 5: 10, where it had too many companions, which misled the Revisers. Here they rightly join the Authorised Version. In 7 there is little or nothing to note. — In 8 the Revisers say "to the war," rather than "to battle," the reading of αὐτῶν, omitted in the Received Text, not affecting the version. — So in 9 "over" is more correct than "on." There is no need to add "about" after "compass," or surround. "From God" is questionable, and probably imported from elsewhere, though many authorities insert the words as in the Received Text.

- In 10 "both" the beast, etc., should be there, though the Sinaitic omits. — In, 11 the order in the Received Text is not the best, but the Authorised Version has not suffered; nor in the reading αὐτοῦ for the better αὐτόν, the difference of which has been already before us. The insertion of τοῦ is right, but so are all versions. — In 12 it should be "the great and the small," as in the Complutensian edition and the Revised Version, though some good. copies favour "the small and the great." It is curious that all the other early Greek editions are wrong, all the early English versions right before the Authorised Version, save in omitting the article. But the omission of the articles in the phrase as in the Received Text has no support from any known manuscript. More than a dozen cursives omit the entire phrase, among them Erasmus' copy, Codex Reuchlini. Before "the throne" should supplant "God," which has trifling authority. Forms and order slightly vary from the Received Text, but do not affect the sense. — The critics from good copies improve the order twice in 13, but there is nothing to show in the rendering. — The only remarkable change in 14 is the addition at the end of "the lake of fire" on ancient and ample evidence.

- In 15 there is no change of reading to note, but the Revised Version is simpler than the Authorised Version. We may observe that here (11-15) it is not a judgment of the quick, as far as the nations. are concerned, as in the end of Matt. 25. Hence no question is raised how they treated the King's messengers, His brethren, who are to go out yet, ere the close of this age, and test the sheep and the goats according to the figure in the Gospel. Here it is a judgment of the dead, "the rest of the dead" left by the resurrection of the righteous, with the addition of the wicked devoured by divine judgment after Satan's last muster of the unrenewed Gentiles (7-9). Not a trace of a saint is seen in the dead before the great white throne. They had to answer in judgment for their sins, and not one is said to have been found written in the book of life; and no wonder, for it is the resurrection of judgment.

*The Bishop of Durham in loco (p. 151, Fourth edition) admits of course that the vulgar reading is wrong, and that the true is the final [but why final?] resurrection of the righteous to a new and glorified life. And then he speaks of "the general resurrection whether good or bad," which is a mere tradition opposed to Scripture. 1 Cor. 15 speaks only of the saints. There are two special resurrections, not one general.

Rev. 21: 1-8.

It is well that in the Revised Version the first eight verses form a separate section. Nowhere in the book is such a division more imperatively called for, though probably even the Revisers themselves do not all appreciate the importance of their own arrangement, which tends to guard the reader from confounding the eternal state with the millennial to the loss of their marked distinctiveness. For as Rev. 20 gave us the thousand years, during Which on the one hand Satan seduces no more and on the other the risen saints reign with Christ, as the power and pride. of man were put down at the beginning, so the last uprising of the nations when Satan is loosed at the end will come to nought, and heaven and earth depart, and God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ the Lord.

After this judgment of the dead a new heaven and a new earth are seen, for the first were gone away, and the sea, it is said, exists no more: a most weighty contrast with the world that now is, and also with the world as it is to be during the thousand years. Vegetable and animal life could not be without the sea, unless by a perpetual miracle which would be absurd. The sea is the greatest of separating barriers for the nations, as it represents the restless masses of mankind not subject to regular government. Then heaven and earth is in everlasting order and harmony, all the wicked being consigned to the lake of fire, and God all in all (1 Cor. 15: 28). Hence in these verses we have neither nations nor kings any longer; whereas we have both, and a state of things, however new and blessed, suited to both, in the section that begins with verse 9 down to Rev. 22: 5. But this is really retrogressive; when the Lamb is put forward prominently, and the governmental relation of the Bride, the Lamb's wife (the holy and heavenly city having the glory of God), to the nations and kings of the earth. In short, as we may see more when we come to the later section, it is as clearly millennial, as the previous short section now before us is post-millennial, when provisional dealings have no more place, and all is fixed for ever.

Hence there is an absoluteness of blessing in 3, 4, and a universal extent, strikingly distinct from the beautiful picture of the favoured complement out of all nations on the earth looking to the reign of Christ in Rev. 7: 15-17. Here it is a question of "men," and God Himself with them, tabernacling with them (not merely spreading His tabernacle over them), and they His people (or peoples) and He with them, their God. Nor is it only every tear wiped by Him from their eyes, but death no more and mourning and crying and pain no more, the first things being gone away and all things made new, which is but relatively true of the millennium. So all the wicked are seen to have their part in the lake of fire, which cannot be till the thousand years are over. The distinctive traits point therefore unmistakably here, not in the vision that follows, to the eternal state, of which Scripture says little, but that little full of pregnant instruction.

In 1 ἀπῆλθον (or — αν) is right, not παρῆλθε as in the Compl. edition as well as the Received Text following Codex Reuchlini and a few other cursives. The true reading is more energetic. The last clause is singularly tampered with in the Alexandrian uncial, "I saw the sea no more," which is quite short of the truth conveyed. So Dusterdieck is all wrong in talking about a new sea, for the text clearly distinguishes "the sea" from what is said of the first heaven and the first earth. — In 2 is one of those unseemly additions for which Erasmus appears to be responsible, following no known Greek copy but the Clementine edition and inferior manuscripts of the Vulgate. For the more ancient Latin copies (Am. Demid. Fuld. Tol. etc.) reject "I John" with ABP, more than forty cursives, and all or nearly all the ancient versions. And so also for putting καινήν at the end, not the beginning, of the phrase, which would perhaps admit of the marginal rendering of the Revised Version, though the text seems to me correct as in the Authorised Version. "Out of heaven from God" is the true order, though P 1.49. 79. and other cursives support the Received Text and the Authorised Version. It was not earthly, but "'out of heaven;" it was not of human source, but divine, "from God;" and, what is noticeable (though the marriage was recorded not here but in Rev. 19 more than a thousand years before), "made ready as a bride adorned for her husband."

- In 3, consequent on the descent of the holy city, a great voice is heard out of the "heaven" (or "throne"). It is hard to decide, and ought not to be closed up, as in the Revised Version, without even a marginal note, that some ancient authorities support the former, B P, almost all the cursives, and the ancient versions (save the Vulgate and margin of the Armenian as) against A 18. and the exceptions just stated. "The tabernacle of God [is] with men," His presence in the church now glorified and come down for the eternal state; and thus God will tabernacle (not "over" but) "with" them. On general principles we can say that men are changed thus to have God dwelling with them. "Peoples" is the reading of A 1.79.92. and perhaps others; but the mass, with B P and the old versions, supports, as in the Complutensian edition, the singular, which Tischendorf thinks more probably an emendation. It appears to me that αὐτοί might rather influence a scribe in favour of the plural and thus bring in the various reading. Tischendorf also omits with B, more than thirty cursives and several ancient versions, etc., θεὸς αὐτῶν or αὐτ. θ. and so the Complutensian edition, Tregelles, Westcott, and Hort.

- In 4 the Received Text, with A 1. etc., adds "God," but authority in general omits, as well as ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν in B and some fifteen cursives. Before θάν. and a few cursives etc. read no article, the effect of which would be to say "there shall be no death more," not "death shall be no more," as with the article in A B P and most. It is strange that ὅτι should be left out of the last clause, and that Tregelles should cite p.m. as omitting it, for there it is, but not the previous ἔτι, by an obvious slip, with the strange blunder of πρόβατα for πρῶτα. Even Alford and Tregelles bracket ὅτι, and Tischendorf accepts, as Lachmann, and Westcott and Hort reject it. But this is a narrow line for the Revised Version without a note to the reader that the mass of authority is opposed to A P, and some old Latin copies, though Am. and Fuld. may be doubted. — In 5 ἐπὶ τῳ θ. is right and best supported against τοῦ θ. as in the Received Text. The dative best expresses proper and permanent relationship. The variety is great as to κ. τ. πάντα, as it should be. "To me" is questionable; though P, most cursives and versions sustain it. "Faithful and true" is best supported.

- In 6 discrepancy again abounds. "It is" (as in the Received Text), or "they are" (A etc.), "done"; or "I am become," as in B P, etc. Yet the best supported reading which the Complutensian edition adopted is intrinsically the worst. The first seems to be only formed by Erasmus according to the Vulgate. The second appears to be right. The omission of εἰμι or insertion of αὐτῳ is scarce felt in translation. — In 7 "these" (not "all") things hardly can be questioned: so good is the authority. It is rather God's everlasting glory in Christ than the special glory of reigning with Christ, the Heir of all things, the final unchanging blessedness of the redeemed, each overcomer having God his God, and he His son, where the article is quite wrong. — In 8 the Received Text fails to give the article, though in Codex Reuchlini Erasmus ought to have seen it written above in red. The better authorities ( A P, some cursives, and old versions, etc.) support Erasmus and the Received Text (as against the Complutensian edition, Griesbach, Scholz, with B, very many cursives, and other ancient versions, etc.) in omitting καὶ ἁμαρτωλοῖς, "and sinners." The emphatic form is right in the last clause, where Codex Reuchlini misled Erasmus, etc., and P has only "death." No; it is exactly not death merely because of sin as in Eden at the beginning, nor destructive judgments on the earth as in the past or the future; but now at the end "the second death," because of grace and truth fully come yet rejected, despised, or corrupted. God is not mocked. If life in Christ be refused, all ends in endless separation and wrath from God; their part is in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone.

Rev. 21: 9-27.

The words "unto me" in 9 are rightly struck out as having no known authority in Greek MSS. Erasmus' Codex Reuchlini opposes the learned editor himself who ventured to father them. The Complutensian editors (save in 1 John 5: 7, 8) adhered to their witnesses, such as they were; and of course here the words do not appear. The Armenian Version has the words, and also Lips.4 as the first of the three Latin versions of the Apocalypse in the. Univ. Library of Leipzig is designated. "Quibus ergo (says C. F. Matthaei, x. 303, ed. Rigae, 1785) Codicibus nititur πρός μὲ Responsio apud Wetstenium in promptu est. Scilicet Codd. 1. 3. 5. 6. 13. 14. 15. Et qui semper Erasmo interroganti respondent: 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 28. Ergo omnino XIII. Cujus ergo hi recensionis sunt 9 Roterodamensis credo, aut Basileensis." It may be bitterly ironical — but is too true. Did Erasmus know of Armenian or Lips.4? If not, the same root of imagination bore the same wild fruit. In the Complutensian edition ἐκ τ. ἀγ. is rightly given, omitted not without the support of a few cursives by Erasmus, etc., down to the Received Text, but not affecting our versions. One cannot be surprised that copyists softened the solecism of τῶν γόμοντων in p.m. A P. 12. 19. etc. into τῶν γεμουσῶν as in corr. and as this was unsatisfactory into τὰς γεμούσας (as in 1. 7. etc.) or γεμ. without τὰς, as in B, and at least twenty-two cursives, etc., and so the Complutensian. B. and many omit τῶν before ἑπτά, The copies greatly vary in the order of the last words. But "the bride the wife of the Lamb" has the best authority, and the substantial sense is the same.

- In 10 "the great" should disappear, though Codex Reuchlini misled Erasmus, Complutensian editors, etc., not without six or more other cursives, and all the copies of Andreas' Comm. The manuscripts differ slightly as to the last words, but all the edd. are right, and so the versions, unless one except Wiclif, who has "from heume of God." — In 11 there is no copulative before ὁ φ. save in a few cursives and versions, which misled Erasmus etc., and the Authorised Version. The best authorities have it not. But Erasmus does give ὡς λίθῳ though wanting in Codex Reuchlini and other cursives, etc. — In 12 one cannot be surprised that Erasmus did not follow Codex Reuchlini, in ἔχουσα τε. But critics generally adhere to the solecism without τε as read in the best copies, and largely. Codex Sinaitic has the strange ἔχοντι in the first place, and ἔχοντας (corr. ἔχουσα) in the second, where the best also give that correction as their text, and Erasmus again gave ἔχουσαν. Lachmann alone of editors was bold enough to leave out "and at the gates twelve angels," a mere omission through similar ending in the Alexandrian, a few Latin copies, and the later Syriac. Some of the Latin commentators, through a slip of copyists, were actually led to imagine "angles" for "angels." And many and ancient copies support the addition of ὀνόματα (with or without τά) in the last clause, — which misled Lachmann, Matthaei, Tregelles (bracketed in his ed. N.T.), Alford (bracketed), and Tischendorf till his last or eighth edition. The latest criticism returns to the reading of Erasmus and the Complutensians, the common text in short, as represented in P 1. 37. 39. 47. 49. 51. 79. 91. 96. etc., save that τῶν should vanish before υἱῶν on good and full authority as against 1. 7. etc., a few giving τοῦ, and others omitting.

- In 13 Codex Reuchlini and Latin copies led Erasmus, etc., to omit καί three times, but the Complutensian is right. — In 14 Erasmus departed from ἔχων in 1, which is also read in A B P and several cursives, for ἔχων as in most with corr. ( p.m. omitting like the Aeth.) But it is doubtful if any MS. authorises ἐν αὐτοῖς as in Erasmus, Stephens, Beza, (1. like 7. omitting καὶ ἐν αὐτοῖς probably due to the Vulgate, but the margin of 1. adding in red καὶ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν). The Received Text from Erasmus also omits δώδεκα, "twelve, "before "names," though it stands in the margin of 1. The Complutensian is correct. — Erasmus followed 1. (which has other support) in dropping μέτρον in 15, though there can be no doubt of its genuineness; and so all critics. — In 16 Codex Reuchlini is defective, for it has not καὶ τὸ μῆκος αὐτῆς ὅσον τὸ πλάτος. Hence Erasmus seems to have translated from the Vulgate κ. τ. μ. ἀ. τοσοῦτόν ἐστιν ὅσον καὶ τ. πλ. displaces the first words. The Complutensian edition has σταδίους, and so A B and most, with Elzevir. But Erasmus etc., gave σταδίων, and so P 1, etc. — In 17 there is nothing that calls for our notice. — In 18 ἦν of the Received Text has large support, but is left out by the best, though Codex Sinaitic.p.m. omits ἡ and reads the substantive verb. ὅμοιον (Compl.) displaces ὁμοία as in 1. etc., as it has by far the best and most witnesses. — At the beginning of 19 καί stands in 1. 7. and many more, and so in the Received Text, as well as the Complutensian but not in the best MSS., or even the oldest Latin.*

z

- In 20 A B P and about 25 cursives have σάρδιον for — ος as in Erasmus, the Complutensian etc., with many cursives. Other shades of difference may be left. — But, in 21 how came Erasmus to give us διαφανής instead of the true reading διαυγής in 1. and forty more cursives, etc., as well as the uncials A B P? — Was it not odd of a scholar like Lachmann to edit after A ὁ before ναὸς αὐτῆς in 22? The last clause proves that it could not be correct Greek; and apart from this to make it not a predicate but reciprocal has no just sense. — In 23 ἐν is not in 1. and many other juniors, beside p.m. A B P, etc. Erasmus probably followed the Vulgate. But the Complutensian has it, and several cursives, as well as corr. Some have αὐτήν. — But in 24 there is the serious error in the Received Text of τῶν σωζομένων in accordance with the Codex Reuchlini. Probably it is due to some Greek comment as in Cramer's (Cat. P. Gr. vi. 577, Oxon. 1840, though τὰ μὲν οὖν σωζόμενα ἔθνη does not justify the confusion of the received text. And such I see is the opinion of Matthaei (x. 198) who cites a scholium of Andreas, which Tischendorf borrows. ἐν (1. omits) τῳ φ., as in the Received Text, should be διὰ τ, φ. on the amplest evidence; and καὶ τὴν τιμήν, though edited by the Complutensians as well as Erasmus, and not without more support than they knew, should disappear on better testimony. No doubt the words were imported from verse 26, which furnishes itself no other occasion for remark, save that Codex Reuchlini leaves it out altogether. — In 27 Erasmus found κοινων in his copy, which he changed into κοινοῦν without authority, and so it went on to the Received Text. The Complutensian had the true reading κοινόν as in A B P, and the mass of cursives etc. ποιοῦν is in 1. etc., but — ῶν is fully justified.

*It may interest the reader to know that the most learned of modern or indeed ancient writers, in the Natural History of Precious Stones, avows his wonder at the arrangement of the twelve foundation courses of the New Jerusalem. Notoriously it differs wholly from that of the High Priest's breast-plate, or Rationale as the Latins strangely render the λογεῖον or περιστήθιον. "Instead of this St. John has most ingeniously disposed of them according to their various shades of the same colour, as the following list will demonstrate, taking them in order from the bottom upwards."..."So minute an acquaintance with the nicest shades of colour of the precious stones will more forcibly impress the reader, if he should attempt to arrange from memory, and by his own casually acquired knowledge alone, twelve gems, or even half that number, according to their proper tints. The 'sainted seer' alludes in other passages...in a very technical manner" [iv. xxi: 11]..."Such allusions display that exact knowledge of particulars only possessed by persons either dealing in precious stones or from other circumstances obliged to have a practical acquaintance with their nature, which could never have been found in a Galilean fisherman, unless we choose to cut the knot of the difficulty with the ever ready sword of verbal inspiration." O the helplessness of unbelief in a man, however able, when he surrenders the true secret of holy writ!

Rev. 22: 1-5.

In 1 "pure" is rightly expunged as an expletive added by several cursives and other authorities, and, as adopted by Erasmus from the Reuchlin copy, current in the received text, but not in the great uncials, A B P (C being here as often defective) as well as in some thirty juniors and most of the old versions. — The first clause of 2 is connected singularly by the Revisers with verse 1: "out of the throne of God and of the Lamb, in the midst of the street thereof." Of course it is possible grammatically; and, if allowed, it would strengthen De Wette's severance of τοῦ ποταμοῦ from ἐν μ. and connection of it only with ἐντ. καὶ ἐντ. But it seems a strange and poor conclusion to the grand picture of the river of life proceeding out of the throne. That no version is known to us generally as favourable to such a construction is serious, when one considers the responsibility of a Revision intended for ordinary use, and not merely what an individual or two might suggest to students. Is it not going beyond the limits of what is fair, especially if it were the impression of a few men confident in their own judgment and ready in overthrowing the pleas of others?

Let me suggest the spiritual propriety as in my opinion confirming here the rendering hitherto and everywhere approved. The beautiful truth is laid down in the opening verse that at the epoch intended the throne is now styled the throne of God and the Lamb. It was not so before He came to reign; it will not be so when He delivers up the kingdom to God even the Father, when God (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) shall be all in all. And out of what is now first called the throne of God and the Lamb proceeds a river of life bright as crystal, the full unhindered power of enjoying that life eternal which the believer has here in utter weakness and with manifold hindrances. Such is its source, character, and time.

Then follows in verse 3 the weighty and interesting communication, that in the midst of the street or broadway of the heavenly city and of the river, on this side and on that, was the tree of life according to the promise of Christ in Rev. 2: 7. The paradise of God coalesces with the now Jerusalem. Life's tree producing twelve fruits, each month yielding its fruit, not merely on either side of the river, but in the midst of the street, points to the accessibility as well as full and varied supply of bounteous refreshment — this spiritually for the favoured on high. The leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations, here again pointing to the administration of the fulness of the seasons, when God will in Christ sum up all things, or put them all under His headship, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth — in Him in whom also we obtained inheritance. For the characteristic of that day will not be either the earth alone, or the heavens alone, but both, the scene of blessing and glory, and this in suited measure of character: the heavens supremely and absolutely, evil thence expelled for ever and never more to recur; the earth filled with glory in a form and measure adapted to a scene where not curse but blessing reigns in righteousness, even if a final uprising of the nations be in store at the end, when Satan is let loose once more to seduce, before the white throne judgment of the wicked raised for their everlasting doom. But under the reign of. Christ the coexistence is plain of the heavens and the earth with. their suited inhabitants and in due order to the glory of God. Hence, as we see, whatever be on high, the leaves of the tree for the healing of the nations. Where weakness was still, remedial grace was not wanting. The nations had the leaves, not a word for them about the fruits.

As an instance of the danger of speculation, through ignorance of the true bearing of these scriptures, let me call attention to the late Dean Alford's note on the end of 21 to which his comment on Rev. 22: 2 refers us. "There may be, — I say it with all diffidence, — those who have been saved by Christ without ever forming a part of his visible organised Church." Of course, if he meant, when the church is glorified above, at Christ's appearing and kingdom, the kings and nations of the earth form no part evidently of that higher object of divine mercy; why he should speak with diffidence of this, if it be all that is meant, is hardly intelligible. All that look with ordinary intelligence for Christ's coming to introduce the kingdom of God over the earth, assert this without hesitation; and as Alford so believed, it is scarce accountable that he should adopt shyness so unusual. Can he by some confusion of mind have meant that people have been saved by Christ without ever forming a part of it, while the church has been on the earth? "And so perhaps some light may be thrown on one of the darkest mysteries of redemption." I cannot comprehend such language in juxta-position, unless this last be his thought. If so, it is groundless, false, and mischievous; and the whole connection unjustifiable. Not a word is said about the salvation of these nations (τῶν σωζ. in 24 being notoriously spurious and even absurd); and "the mysteries" of God, being now revealed by Christ, and since redemption especially, are in no wise "dark." But the question raised is never in Scripture treated as a "mystery" at all, but as a plain and solemn warning to conscience in contradiction of the Dean's imaginary "light." "The darkest mysteries of redemption" are to a scripturally instructed mind a monstrosity.

It reminds one of the no less unhappy language on 1 Peter 3: 19, 20, which he applies, like the mass of men who do not understand the gospel, to Christ's preaching in His disembodied state to the disembodied spirits that refused God's voice at the flood! which, he says, "throws blessed light on one of the darkest enigmas of divine justice, the cases where the final doom seems infinitely out of proportion to the lapse which has incurred it." And then he even goes on to limit that it would be presumption in us to limit its occurrence or its efficacy! If I had not spoken plainly of such perilous language during the writer's life, I might scruple to denounce it now that he is gone. The true inference to be drawn by every intelligent reader is that men of learning are peculiarly liable, if not solidly built up in the truth of Christ, to be carried away by appearances of erudition, especially if they plume themselves on superior honesty, which is often no more at bottom than a rash confidence in themselves and contempt of others. The worst of all is ignorance of redemption, and hence sacrificing foundation truth. If the reader desires a full view of the passage on all sides, he may find it in the "Bible Treasury," ix. pp. 11, 30, 46, 58, 89, 138, 169, 265, 278, 334. Could Dean Alford have so much as realised his own words? The true stumbling-block for unbelief is, not the flood coming on ante-diluvian violence and corruption, but the unending doom of all who believe not. Now the passage speaks not of the latter, which was really in Alford's mind, but of the former which is independent of "the darkest enigma," as it certainly throws not a ray of what he calls "blessed light" on it. For what is implied in the inspired words is that those disobedient to the preaching of Christ's Spirit not only suffered a great temporal punishment, but are now kept like unbelievers generally for the final judgment. The entire comment is as illogical as heterodox; and the philology is no better. Truth in all naturally goes together. Archbishop Leighton had the soundest reasons to treat the notion of Christ's descent into hell as a dream; and that this passage if duly weighed proves no way suitable, and cannot by the strongest wresting be drawn to fit such a purpose. Heartily, and after the most careful scrutiny do I agree with that able, learned, and pious prelate against a baseless if superficially plausible assumption.

Singular to say, Erasmus in 3 rightly deserted the Codex Reuchlini, where it, 7. 30., and some fifteen more, etc., read ἐκεῖ "there," for which the Rotterdam scholar conjectured, it is to be presumed in accordance with the Vulgate, ἔτι "more," or "longer": a dangerous device, though here in fact the great mass of the best authorities, unknown to him, were found afterwards to justify the word. The Complutensian edition gives the erroneous reading ἐκεῖ. There was no reason for the Authorised Version to say "but," which the Revisers have replaced with "and." Absence of curse in the New Jerusalem is accompanied by the throne of God and the Lamb; and if we have their distinctness thus preserved, the next words involve or rather convey their oneness: "and His (God and the Lamb's) servants shall serve Him." So it is habitually with St. John. — In 4 the Revisers rightly say "on," (not "in") their foreheads." — So in 5 they as properly explode the vulgar "there" (ἐκεῖ) which Erasmus introduced from his copy, perhaps assimilated to 21: 25, though not unsupported and they follow the true ἔτι "more," as in A P, etc. There is yet another variety without either in the Basilian Vatican (2066) with considerable assent of other witnesses. The copies vary also in other particulars of no great moment, as "shall" give them light, in the best copies and even the Codex Reuchlini instead of the present as in Erasmus, and the Received Text, and the Authorised Version; and "upon" them, as in A etc. "Lamp" is better than "candle."

Rev. 22: 6-21.

In 6 the first ὁ is doubtful, though given in A 35. 92. The usual formula is κ. ὁ θ. as in B P and the cursives generally, as well as the Greek commentators. Rev. 21: 22 may be judged favourable to the repeated article. But there need be no hesitation in adopting πνευμάτων τῶν "spirits of the" (instead of the vulgar "holy, ἁγίων 1. 79. etc.) with the Complutensian on the most ancient and ample authority, all the uncials, etc. The Sinaitic is not quite alone in the addition of με after "sent." — 7 begins rightly with the copulative, as in the Complutensian, though Erasmus' Codex Reuchlini is sustained by many MSS., Versions, etc. — The Revisers in 8 correctly say "am he that heard and saw," not saw and heard. It is a characteristic fact apart from time. The best authorities also read τ. at the end of the clause. There are other differences of form not worth recording here. — In 9 the γάρ. "for" has no known authority in a, Greek MS., and is probably due to Latin influence. It is not in the Codex Reuchlini. Of course the Complutensian edition is right. Tischendorf mentions the omission of καί by the Codex Reuchlini before "thy crown," but not again before "of them which keep." Erasmus supplied them rightly, though not from his copy. — In 10 however the Complutensian agrees with Erasmus on the authority of a few copies (1. 49. 91. etc.) in reading ὅτι ὁ κ. instead of ὁ κ. γάρ with the best. Some manuscripts, as 4. 16. 27. 39. 48. 68. omit γάρ or ὅτι. — In 11 ῥυπῶν of the commonly received text is Erasmus' conjecture, his copy being defective from ὁ ῥ to δικ. ἔτι. The word should be ῥυπωρός as in all the well known Greek copies; but ῥυπωσάτω is likewise a similar guess, though the manuscripts divide between ῥυπανθήτω as in 18. 32. and ῥυπαρωθήτω as in B and more than 30 cursives. The Alexandrian omits the clause, Cod. Eph. Resc. is defective,

There need be no doubt that δικαιωθήτω as in the Received Text from Erasmus, etc., must give place to the Complutensian reading δικαιοσυνὴν ποιησάτω, which of course the Revisers follow, with the sense "do" or "practise" righteousness, not be justified or "be righteous" as in the Authorised Version. They are right also in rendering ἁγ. "be made holy," or sanctified. — Again, at the beginning of 12 the copulative has no real place, though Erasmus found it in his copy and did not conjecture it; but it is excluded by the mass of versions, and cursives. And the true reading is represented by "is," not "shall be," though B and more than 20 cursives favour the future form. — "Am" in 13 is all right in sense, but implied rather than expressed in the best copies. Without dwelling on lesser points, the chief difference is in the presence or absence of the article before πρ. first and ἔσχ last, as well as before ἀρ. "beginning," and 7. "end," which by the best authorities close the sentence. — The most extraordinary variant is in 14 where "that wash their robes," οἱ πλύνοντς τὰς στολὰς αὐτῶν ( A 7. 38. Vulg. Aeth., etc.) seems to be the true text. But it got changed into οἱ ποιοῦντες τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ "that do his commandments" in the common texts, Erasmus and the Complutensian, Stephens, Beza, and Elzevir. One could understand, as in Rom. 2, the unchanging character of God as reflected in His children, if the common reading were assuredly right; as it is, the critical text gives prominence to that washing* by grace which supposes not more the shedding of Christ's blood than the guilt that demanded it if expiation were to be righteously. Such are they who have title to the tree of life and go in by the gates into the city. — Verse 15 points out who are "without," the dogs and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and the murderers, and the idolators, and every one that loves and makes a lie. There is no evil so desperate as refusing or giving up the truth when the full revelation of grace is come. There is no ascertained authority in any Greek copy for δέ, even the Codex Reuchlini giving no warrant to Erasmus, who transmitted it to our ordinary text. The article is rightly excluded from the last phrase. Tischendorf inverts the making and loving with and half-a-dozen cursives, and a few ancient citations.

* Yet the Vulgate was not warranted in adding "in sanguine Agni" which the oldest Latin copies omit. But Beza was quite wrong in supposing that the rest of the Vulgate text was unfaithful to the best Greek copies.

In 16 there is the variety of reading ἐπί, ἐν, and neither before τ. ἐκκ. respectively, in B, most cursives, Syr., in A 18. 21. 38. 79. Vulgate, and in 1. 4. 11. 12. 31. 47. 48. Arm., etc. "in" or "for" the churches. The reading καὶ ὀρθρινός is doubtless Erasmus' coinage from the Vulgate, for ὁ πρ. "the morning." — Why in 17 the Sinaitic omits the articles so requisite before πν. and ν. it is hard to say, but so it is. Erasmus knew better without a copy; for the Codex Reuchlini is defective from "David" in 16. But he wrongly introduced ἐλθέ and ἐλθέτω where the Holy Spirit has ἔρχου and ἐρχέσθω. Nor should the copulative precede ὁ θ. though at least two cursives and many ancient versions etc. favour it. For λαμβ. τὸ ὑδ. the copies give λαβ. ὑδ. — There is a threefold error in the common text at the beginning of 18: συμμαρτυροῦμαι for μαρτυρῶ, and γάρ, which answers to nothing, as well as the suppression of ἐγώ, the guess-work of Erasmus from following the Latin copies. So also the omission of τῳ (though some copies omit it), τῆς, τοῦ, and the form ἐπιτιθῃ instead of ἐπιθῆ, and for ἐπ᾽ αὐτά, πρὸς ταῦτα, and ὁ θ. before instead of after ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν.

The omission of τῳ before β. is due to the same Latinizing source. Aldus, in his reprint of Erasmus' New Testament for his Greek Bible of 1518, did venture on the supply of τοῦ, but not, strange to say, of τῆς, nor of τῳ (bis), though of course the principle is the same. So in 19 ἀφαιρῃ is an evidently faulty effort to express the guilt of taking from the words of this inspired book, for which every manuscript has ἀφέλῃ, as βιβλίου is the correct form rather than βίβλου. Again ἀφαιρήσει is not the right expression but ἀφελεῖ. The next error goes beyond the form; for, as the Revisers agree with all critics, it is a question of "the tree," not of the "book" of life here, an error due to Latin influence, though even then the form would be incorrect as before. Erasmus mistakenly added και before τ. γ. and omitted τῳ in the last clause. All these points are of course rectified in the Revision. The Complutensian edition is right, save in ἀφέλοι though this is not without good support of MSS. In 20 Erasmus, the Complutensian, as well as Stephens with many cursives, read ναί after Αμήν, for which Beza substituted καί "pro οὖν." But even this was less daring than his notable proposal, founded on wholly unfounded premisses, to dislocate verses 12 and 13 from their place and foist them in, the latter before the former, between that which is printed as verse 16 and verse 17, to the utter destruction of the context, and particularly of the vital tie which binds 17 to 16, one of the loveliest touches in a book abounding with beauty in this kind. — In 21 A 26. omit χριστοῦ, a rather slender ground for excluding "Christ." Still less (A and the Amiatine Latin) has Tischendorf for ending with μ. π. Even the Sinaitic says "with the saints," as B. and the mass of cursives and versions say "with all the saints." With "you" all is a guess of Erasmus, as far as Greek copies are concerned, though here again he was influenced by some of the Latins. It is not to be supposed that he knew of ἡμῶν (30. etc.) for "our" Lord in the earlier part of the verse, but there too was misled by the Vulgate, etc. It is curious how the earliest, as well as the great multitude of copies, and versions etc., add ἀμήν, which nevertheless the critics generally drop.

On the Revised New Testament: American Corrections.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vols. 14, 15 [15 sections].)

There need be little hesitation in allowing

- I that "S." for saint is a remnant of tradition, at issue with the general sense of the term, which is ill applied for special honour to the inspired writers of the Gospels.

- II. But it is less easy to see why "the apostle" should be struck out from the title of the Pauline Epistles, or of "Paul the apostle" from the title of the epistle to the Hebrews. "General" is most unsuitable to the title of the Epistles of James and Peter. John and Jude have a "general" character, whether it be so said or not in the titles. The older MSS. say "The Revelation of John," which may be regarded as a compendium of Rev. 1: 1.

- III. Holy "Spirit" might well supersede Holy "Ghost."

- IV. If, "worship" be retained uniformly for προσκ., a note explaining its general sense is requisite.

- V. "Through" rather than "by" = διά with the genitive, in general, as well as when it relates to prophecy.

- VI. Are not all, or almost all the instances referred to causes of enticement to what is wrong, when therefore "tempt" is right enough? Such a verse as Rev. 3: 10 would seem more appropriate for "try" and "trial," like 1 Peter 1: 6.

- VII. The archaic "which" might well yield to "who" or "that," "be" to "are" in the pr. ind.; "wot" and "wist" to "know" and "knew," "halo" to "drag."

- VIII. "Demon" should displace "devil " for δαίμων or δαιμόνιον, and do possessed with a "demon" or "demons."

- IX. "With" should hardly move to the margin to let "in" there after "baptize."

- X. But "covenant" should every where take the place of "testament" except in Heb. 9: 15-17.

- XI. It is not merely in Luke 8: 15, 2 Cor. 1: 6, Heb. 12: 1, and James 5: 11, that "stedfastness" would not suit as an alternate in the margin for "patience"; "patient endurance" seems better.

- XII. The approximate rendering of ἀσσάριον as a penny, and δηνάριον as a shilling is preferable to the more distant "farthing" and "penny."

- XIII. "God and the Father" its the revived marginal rendering of the Five Clergymen, and worse rather than better than the Authorised Version, "God even the Father," as in the Revised Version of 1 Cor. 15: 2-1, the real sense being "to Him that is God and Father." In this way "our" or "His" may not necessarily go beyond "Father."

- XIV. To confine "fulfil" to "accomplish," and the like, might be well.

MATTHEW.

Matt. 1: 7, the marginal "for baptism" is fair; 10 (Luke 3: 9) "lieth at" hardly gives the moral force. — Matt. 6: 11 (Luke 11: 3) is neither "daily" nor "coming day," but "sufficient"; 27, "a cubit to the measure of his life" would be strange phraseology. "Stature" is the clear sense of Luke 14: 3, and so here, and in Luke 12: 29. — Matt. 8: 4, and elsewhere, "go" might suffice without "thy" or "your" way. — Matt. 9: 6, the truth is that the usage does imply "power" (8) as well as "authority." It is a nice point, sometimes, to say which predominates. Compare Rev. 9: 3, 10, 19; Rev. 11: 6, Rev. 20: 6, — Matt. 10: 39, and often in the Gospels else where, "life" is right, Let "soul." — Matt. 12: 23 seems a needless, even if lawful, change; though the Revisers expose themselves to it in John 4: 29; 31, slender indeed is the authority for the awkward marginal "unto you men." — Matt. 19: 14 seems no less uncalled for. — Matt. 20: 1, "that was" or "is" is alike uncalled for. Are we to say in Luke 2: 15 "the men the shepherds"? In Matt. 13: 23, 45 52, Matt. 18: 23, it is simply an enemy, a merchant, a householder, the shepherds. In fact, it was not emphatically a man that was hostile, but the devil, and a King who in truth was not a mere man. So in Matt. 21: 33, which may have led the Trans-Atlantics to "that was." — Matt. 22: 23, they are right in correcting the oversight of the Revisers; for it is a question between divided authorities, and not of mere Greek rendering; some deprecating "which say," others "saying" only. — Matt. 23: 9, "he who is in the heavens," if we adopt the more generally adopted reading; 23 is not "justice" but "judgment," as in the Authorised and Revised Versions. So Luke 11: 42, Matt. 26: 29. (Matt. 14: 25, Luke 22: 16, 18) is "will," not "shall." — Matt. 27: 27, the praetorium, or governor's palace: so elsewhere.

MARK

Mark 2: 4, 9, 11, 12, no doubt a "pallet bed" or couch, as elsewhere. — Mark 7: 4, "dip" is more literal than "bathe" or "wash." — In Mark 10: 13 if we say "were bringing" we should also say "were rebuking," a cumbrous form indeed, were it uniformly carried out. 32 is a question of reading, and the marg. uncalled for. In 45 "also" suffices. — Mark 11: 24, "have received" scarcely accords with the aorist, and is not idiomatic. — 14 is so obscure that "pure," "liquid," "spike," — may be contended for with nearly equal force.

LUKE.

Luke 1: 35 recurs substantially to the Authorised Version, save "is begotten" for "shall be born"; "of thee" being generally given up here. The Revised Version is awkward and improbable. 70 "of old" is weak. — Luke 2: 37, as there is an article in the Greek, cannot claim it in idiomatic, English for one more than the other. 37, "for" or "unto" is a slender question. Important points, as in 2, 14, 22, 38, are passed by in silence. — Luke 3: 14 seems as little happy In the American suggestion as in the Revised Version. "Harass none, nor accuse falsely" leaves the sense less restrained than either. In 20 the question of "to" or "above" is not much. But it seems strange that both the English Committee and the Americans have failed to observe that the true arrangement in 23 is to treat not as Wieseler ὡς ἐν. τ. Ἰ, but the two preceding words ὡυ ὡός also, as parenthetical and not part of the genealogy but a collateral remark before it begins. In the proper genealogical line "son" is not expressed; here it is, with the qualification in the strictest accordance with truth. The Lord was legally Joseph's son, and only so; He was really of Mary, whom even the Talmud attests as daughter of Heli. Luke therefore gives the natural line, which exactly suits his general scope, but would not prove Jesus to be the Messiah; whereas Matthew traces down from Absalom and David to Joseph, which was the Solomon branch with full legal title to Messiahship for the Jews, and this equally in its true place. The words would thus run: "And Jesus himself was at his outset about thirty years old (being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph), of Heli, of Matthat, of Levi," etc. It is not Joseph, who is here traced from Heli, but our Lord — of course through His mother. Matthew had already explicitly declared that Jacob, not Heli, begat Joseph; Heli not being of Solomon but of Nathan, and therefore unable to give the true succession to the throne of David according to Jehovah's oath. The Lord's title was complete legally, because Mary was espoused to Joseph, who was in the true Solomonic line. Jesus was the Son of God supremely, Mary's son really, and Joseph's legally; all of which must unite in the true Messiah exclusively. For according to scripture He must be God and Son of God, He must be man born of a virgin as none other ever was, and Son of David not merely from Nathan but from Solomon; and this text, rightly divided and understood, helps to clear the truth in an important way.

- Luke 4: 1 is not "in" simply, but "by" from connection with "led." — Luke 6: 1 shows strange indifference to the omitted "second-first" of the Revision. — In 16 "became a" is literal, as in Mr. Green's Twofold New Testament. But here again no notice of the Revisers' text and margin of ver. 35, while they strain out "Chuza," instead of the more proper "Chuzas" (see Smith's Dictionary), and "commanded" for "was commanding" or "charging (see Green). — In 33 they prefer the more figurative "drowned" to the more literal "choked." So in 9 they like "provisions" (12) rather than "victuals," "apart" (18) rather than "alone," and "was" for "should be" in 16: small points verily, even if correct, which may well be doubted. — In 11 the only point is "bathed himself" for "washed" in 38, as in Mark 7: 6. — In Luke 12: 49 the suggested text is strange, still more the margin. — Luke 13: 32, margin, is substantially Green's rendering. — In Luke 15: 16 can one doubt that the reading of B D L R, some cursives and very ancient versions, is a softening of the phrase which is certainly not found in the Authorised Version or its American revival? — In Luke 17: 6 the authority is preponderant for "have" rather than "had"; as "would have" is also right. — In 11 Dean Alford pointed out that the phrase may mean on the frontiers of both.

- In Luke 18: 5 the suggestion for the margin is at least not so odd as Meyer's rendering, offered in all gravity, "lest at last she — in desperation — should come and strike me in the face"! But the Authorised and Revised Versions seem more accurate in construing εὶς τ. with ἐρχ "continually coming." The query "and is he slow" etc., seems untenable, no less than "and yet." It may be well to read uniformly "Olivet" as in Acts 1: 12, rather than "the mount of Olives," as in Luke 19: 29, Luke 21: 37. In 42 I should be disposed to go farther, and keep "thy" day and "thy" peace in the text. The Americans may well speak of "some ancient authorities" reading the pronoun twice, for the omission of which one may easily account, not so for its insertion. — Luke 20: 20 "ruling power" says Green. — In Luke 22: 24 perhaps "should be," or is more idiomatic here than "is" or "was." 70, Mr. Green again. — Luke 23: 2 right; 15 right again. The Revisers were not entitled to ignore so many and good ancient authorities for "I remitted you to him." In 23, "urgent" is less ambiguous than "instant." In 46 the remark is well-founded. — In Luke 24: 30 perhaps the imperfect at the close should be marked. In 38 "thoughts" might suffice, rather than "debatings" or "questionings."

JOHN.

John 1 The Americans prefer "through" to "by" in 3, 10, 17; and perhaps it might be well thus to discriminate διά from έν which is often better rendered "by" than "in." — John 2: 17 as in Green. — John 3: 20 (as in John 5: 29) "evil" for "ill" is not much; nor "made full" for "fulfilled" — In John 5: 27 "a" son of man would be wrong, especially in the text. Read not "the," but simply "Son" of man. — John 7: 8 right; 21, 22, questionable; 23 right, but trivial; 38 strongly euphemistic, in contrast with their preference in Luke 15: 16. — John 8: 24, 25 right. 25 is rather a timid dealing with the wild mis-rendering of the Revisers, both text and margin. What the Americans would substitute for the present margin should go into the text; and those who demand positive connection of τὴν ἀρχήν, instead of one merely negative as commonly, can consult Dio Cass. Fragm. Peirese, ci. ὅτι μαὶ τήν ἀρχὴν ἐπικαλέσαι τι αὐτοῖς ετόλμησαν, κ.τ.λ. (Sturz' ed. i. 96; also ii. 342; iii. 688; iv. 52). This may satisfy the most imperious that the only rendering otherwise grammatical and suitable to the context is to give τὴν ἀρχὴν its idiomatic sense Of "absolutely" or "altogether." 26 needs no ridiculous margin of Gr. into. Every one knows that the word means "to" or "unto," just as well as "into." The Revisers' margin implies that "into" is alone correct, which is itself incorrect. — 44. I agree that "stood" is untenable, and to give the margin is unintelligible, as it is a question of rendering, not of reading according to these or those authorities. — 52, 53: so Green, etc. — 58 "was born" is fuller and more precise, but lacks the dignity of the Authorised Version "was."

- John 10: 8 shows the remarkable omission of "before me" in many eminent authorities. Tischendorf, in his 8th edition, has the unenviable singularity of forming his text accordingly: it might be worth mentioning in the margin. — John 12: 43 gives no just ground for "that is" before "of men" and "of God," nor is "from" needed for "of." Nor is there sufficient reason to prefer the Revisers' marginal to their text, if the margin is at all justifiable. 14 right, as against "we" in the Revision, notwithstanding many old authorities, which might be stated in the margin. — John 16: 25, 29: if "dark sayings," so also in John 10: 7. — John 17: 24 right. — John 18: 37; so McClellan. — John 21: 7 needs explanation rather than a marginal note.

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

Acts 2: 47 is better in the Authorised Version than in the Revision, whether of British or of Americans; but of the two latter the American version, "those that were saved," is not strictly grammatical. The British amendment, "those that were being saved," might be correct but for other considerations. Every scholar knows that the present tense, including its participle, need not be temporal, but may be what is called ethical. Hence the general truth and the particular context must often come in to decide the real force intended. In itself the words τοὺς σωζομένους might quite well mean "those that were being saved" if the present participle were only used relatively. But there is an absolute usage which drops all thought of actual time, and simply expresses a person (as ὁ ἐρχόμενος he that should come), or a class (as οἱ ἁγιαζόμενοι) characterised according to the word employed. And so the Revisers correctly take it in Luke 13. — "Are they few that be saved?" Are those to be saved low? "The saved" is true; but is not quite the thought. Compare 1 Cor. 1: 18, 2 Cor. 2: 15 (Rev. 21: 24 being no genuine occurrence). In Eph. 2: 5 is quite a different form, which does mean "ye are," or have been "saved." It seems impossible to admit the strict relative present with Peter's σώθητε just before in verse 40; for the aorist and the relative present cannot apply together. It must be therefore the absolute present, with no definite notion of time, which it is difficult in English to express justly. If the Americans meant this, they were right in their aim. But a full view of the Scripture use of the various forms appears to exclude the Revisers' version of the phrase. A Christian could not be said to be σωθείς or σεσωσμένος, if he is only in process of being saved. If σωζόμενος be applied, as it is, to such an one, it must be apart from time, referring to no particular moment when the action takes place. — In Acts 3: 21 as in Acts 15: 18 "from of old" is well enough. — But it is hard to see why we should go back to "it" in Acts 8: 16 from the "he" of both Authorised and Revised Versions. They are, however, in my opinion quite right in adopting the critical reading ἐτροφ., instead of the received ἐτροπ. which seems a mere though early blunder of B and most others, but not of A Cp.m. E, some good cursives and all the ancient versions save the Vulgate. It is pleasant therefore to find Alford, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Wordsworth, supporting Griesbach, Mill, etc. Bengel in his Gnomon labours elaborately to show that, though the orthography differs, the notion is the same. It is painful to see the error, which Deut. 1 refutes, perpetuated in the Revision. This was due probably to Drs. W. and H. — The marginal of Acts 14: 8 had better be omitted. — In Acts 15: 23 the weight of testimony is against the insertion of καὶ οἱ before ἀδ., but the American rendering is harsh indeed, however well meant, as compared with the more natural one in the Received Text. — In Acts 17: 22 "very religious" seems nearer the mark than "rather superstitious." — In 19: 31, Asiarchs" with a marginal explanation is suggested; but if so should there not be "Praetors" or Duumvirs in Acts 16: 20, 38, and "Politarchs" in Acts 18: 6? — With Acts 20: 38 we cannot agree. It is a question of Scripture and spiritual judgment amidst the collision of witnesses. — For "many," in Acts 21: 10 and Acts 24: 17 they would give in the text the Revisers' marginal "some." "More" than might have been expected is the source of the phrase. — The question raised in Acts 23: 30 is between ἐξαυτῆς which the Revisers prefer on the excellent authority of B H L P, most cursives, Syr. Pesh., Sah., Memph., Theb., etc., and ἐξ αὐτῶν A E, a few cursives and Versions. Alford, Green, Westcott and Hort adopt the former, as Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles the latter. — The Revisers are, I doubt not, right; though it might be well, with the Americans, to add the other in the margin. — In Acts 25: 3, if we will be exact, it is rather laying "an ambush" than "a plot" or "wait." — I doubt that either Revisers or Americans have hit the mark in Acts 26: 28, 29. "In a little thou art persuading" etc. "Both in a little and in a great," [degree] etc. — In Acts 27: 37 the omission of 200 in the Vatican MS., and the Sahidic version is not, as is suggested, worth notice in the Revisers' margin.

ROMANS.

Rom. 1: 17 "from" faith is here objectionable, as loading the reader naturally to the error of conceiving from one degree of faith to another, from less to more. This is not at all the thought any more than "by" in the Revised Version, which makes no just sense with "is being revealed." Hence the Revisers separated it from ἀπ., its true connection, to "righteousness," which alters the truth and mars it. in the gospel God's righteousness is revealed by faith unto faith in the gospel. — Still worse in 18 is the rendering of the Revisers "hold down," or of the Americans "hinder." Either is to lose the point, which is to mark God's wrath against not only every sort of ungodliness, but unrighteousness of men that hold the truth in unrighteousness. Firm orthodoxy may go with practical disregard of. righteousness. Holding truth down is scarcely sense; hindering it adds no worthy idea to the phrase. Holding the truth is a solemn caution for professing Christians now, as once for Jews.

Rom. 2: 12 is a curious instance of the Revisers' neglect of their own claim laid to superior accuracy in the aorist. Why should not the "have" be omitted twice in the text without any marginal Greek? — In 13 the Americans are as wrong in saying "the" law twice, as the Revisers with their "a" twice. It means the law-hearers, the law-doers. Bishop Middleton was mistaken in laying down absolutely, that, if the governing noun has the article, the governed must also. But this does not justify Dean Alford in overlooking the proper force of the anarthrous construction, which gives law a general character instead of specifying only that of Moses. — In 14 they are quite wrong in mistranslating μὴ ν. after the Revisers had corrected the similar error of the Authorised Version. So "having no" is correct, instead of "not having the." — Again it is not 14, 15 only but 13 also which constitute the parenthesis. The connection of "in a day when," etc., is with "shall be judged," at the end of verse 12. — In 15 they seem right, and also 18, and 22.

In Rom. 3: 9 it is pleasant to say we are agreed; and 21. — As to 23, compare Rom. 2: 12. — In 25 right; "set forth a mercy-seat (or, propitiatory) through faith in his blood," omitting marginal 9, 10 and 11. — To make a paragraph of 31 seems needless. It well closes the verses from 21.

Rom. 4: 1 it appears to me, according to the best testimony ( A C D E F G, some cursives, and ancient versions, etc.) connects our forefathers (or fathers) according to flesh, "not hath found according to the flesh" (K & P, most cursives, etc.) as the Americans would prefer for the text, relegating the former to the margin. Westcott and Hort follow B, 47p.m. and Chrysostom's comment in cutting the knot by the omission of "hath found" altogether. In Rom. 5: 1, 2, 3 they are quite right in preferring "we" to "let us" as the Revisers say. The change of ο to ω is one of the most frequent errors in the oldest copies; and this accounts for the subjunctive displacing the indicative to the grievous detriment of the sense, whatever ingenious pleaders may argue to the contrary. As to 7 agreed.

In Rom. 6: 5 is it not a marvel that a considerable number of sensible men should not have been struck by the oddity of "united with him by the likeness of his death, we shall be also by the likeness of his resurrection"? It is really identified with the likeness in each case respectively. One would not impute a dogmatic aim or effect; but united with Christ by the likeness of His death or of His resurrection is strange doctrine, if indeed it have any proper sense. — And why change "serve sin" in 6 into "be in bondage to sin which is sadly ambiguous at best? — Yet worse is the rendering of 10 on which the Americans are still silent; the Authorised Version gives the only true sense. — In 7 we may of course explain in the margin δεδ. as released, cleared, discharged, "hath his quittance," etc. But it is of moment to hold "is justified" in the text, though it is singular to see the Revisers departing from their own canons of exactness as to the aorist and the perfect in this short verse. "Freed" as in the Authorised Version is equivocal, and might be confounded with that "liberty" which the Spirit of the Lord produces. From the structure of the word we see that the justification here meant is expressed not as an act but as a state. It is hard to see what is gained by the suggestion on Rom. 7: 25, which is not very smooth English, without being closer to the Greek.

In Rom. 8: 3 it is simply for the text a return to the Authorised Version with the R. V. rendering in the margin. I believe it should be "Spirit" (not "spirit," as if it was ours only) in 4, as well as 5, 6, and in 10 as well as 9, 13. The anarthrous construction does not deny the Holy Spirit to be in question, but presents it as character, rather than as the person objectively viewed; which might be no less true of Father and Son: only it is, from the nature of the case, more frequently so predicated of the Spirit. This is a great blemish in the Revised Version, as it was even worse in the Authorised Version, being uniformly a small "s"; which Dr. Scrivener throughout has rectified in the excellent Cambridge Paragraph Bible of 1873. — As to 13, agreed; though it is a small question; and so 24, if not 26 (as before). In 34 it is a question of an accent, and so of a tense present or future. The future I presume to be due to Drs. Westcott and Hort after Lachmann (Tyndale, the Geneva, and the Rhemish giving it of old); and perhaps one may add the Hebrew of Isaiah 1. In the Septuagint also we find the future, but quite another phrase. It seems to us with Dean Alford that ὁ δικαιῶν naturally loads to the present ὁ κατακρίνων and that the balance and the emphasis might be preserved better throughout by a colon before "who," not only between verses 34 and 35, but also between 35 and 36.

The marginal alternatives presented as to Rom. 9: 5 are unworthy efforts of unbelief to enfeeble the plain testimony of the text to the Divine glory of the Lord Jesus, and the American note sins against the usus loquendi like others. — 22 is a marginal that weakens the sense.

They are right in preferring to begin the paragraph of Rom. 11 with verse 11 rather than 13. — How strange that the Americans fail to notice the error in the misrendering of 31? For it really opposes and upsets the very doctrine the apostle is teaching in the chapter, insinuating a notion flattering to Gentile conceit, and at issue with all the prophetic word?

But "spiritual," if strange in the Revisers' margin is worse for the text of Rom. 12: 1 as the rendering of λογικός, which may mean of the mind, intelligent, or again according to the word, but should not be confounded with πν., however truly they may coalesce. In verse 6 the question is whether "faith" is not better than "the" or "our" faith. Abstraction gives the article in Greek in contrast with English; which the Revisers have often overlooked, as e.g., in verses 2, 3, where "our" is erroneously introduced from inattention to the principle. The Americans seem even less at home if possible here, Is we may see by their suggestion on Verse 19 and other places.

There is an important error to notice in the Authorised Version at Rom. 16: 26 perpetuated by the Revisers which the Americans have overlooked. "The scriptures of the prophets" is a misleading sense. The apostle uses quite a different phrase for what is promised through God's prophets in holy scriptures. Here he carefully defines the mystery or secret kept in silence in times of old, but now manifested and by prophetic scriptures (such as he and the other inspired men of the New Testament were writing) according to command of the everlasting God made known for obedience of faith unto all the nations. Prophetic scriptures here mean emphatically and distinctively the New Testament epistles in which God was pleased to reveal the mystery of Christ and the church, in pointed contrast with the law and the prophets when the mystery was hid and He had covenant dealings with His ancient people separated from all the nations.

1 CORINTHIANS.

1 Cor. 1. 18. The reader is referred to the remarks on Acts 2: 47 for a solution of the difficulty in the right construing of the absolute usage of the present participle here and elsewhere. The Revisers by keeping to its temporal force introduce confusion into the truth by setting one scripture against another; the Americans do not sufficiently guard themselves against confusion of the tenses, though their version may be justified and explained, But what is already said may suffice. Those who affect greater precision than the Authorised Version here have slipped into error through narrow views of the Greek, in aid of unsound doctrine. — I do not see why "discernment" (19) etc., should displace "prudence" or "understanding." — "There are" (26) has been suggested as a simpler alternative in the margin than "have part therein," which is cumbrous.

1 Cor. 2: 6. It is hard to see how the Revised Version could have done better than to give "perfect" in their text, and "full-grown" in the margin. — 8, "knoweth" say the Revisers, and the Americans "hath known:" "hath come to know" is more the idea, I suppose. — "Of" seems to have a delicacy in 12, rather than "from" God, though this of course is true also; but "were" is better than "are." As to the end of 13 the note on the Revision applies no less to the American suggestion. "Comparing" or "combining," though possible renderings of the word in itself like "expounding" also, are unsuited to and excluded by the scope of the verse and clause, which bears on the communication of what was revealed, or spiritual things, in spiritual [words]. It is a description of the intermediate process between God's revelation, and the believer's reception, of the truth, in all three the Holy Spirit having His own blessed part. He is the power of all, as the chapter teaches. — "Natural" means "soulish," not necessarily "sensual," as wrongly given in James and Jude. It is man as he is without the teaching of the Spirit through the word revealing Christ. Nor is there need to say "the" but "a" natural man. Neither the Revisers nor the Americans show adequate care as to the presence or absence of the article, though it was well known that the Authorised Version needed much overhauling.

1 Cor. 4: 8. Why not "reigned"? No doubt, "have" reigned reflects the perfect rather than the aorist. Nor is any notice taken of the Revisers' "hath" set forth in 9, any more than I "have" transferred in 6, or "hadst" in 7. — They seem right in 9, but questionable in 21.

1 Cor. 5: 9, 11. Having already commented on the Revised Version here, I need not repeat what was then advanced. The suggestion only makes bad worse, both here and in 10.

1 Cor. 7: 6. "Concession" may be less equivocal than "permission," which might mean on the Lord's part. — I think the Americans beyond just doubt wrong in their preference of the margin to the text of both Authorised and Revised Versions. — "Faithful" is the right word in 25, and "present" in 26 as always. And what is gained by "that is upon us?" Is it not then "present"? — As to 31 we agree. But they pass by greater mistakes, as pointed out in November, 1881.

1 Cor. 8: 3, may be, though "of" idiomatically means the same thing in this connection. — 8 might be well

1 Cor. 9: 10 π. in the New Test. means "altogether," "quite," not "assuredly." — In 27 there is no more reason to bring into the margin "have been a herald" than the analogous form in 1 Cor. 1: 23 and elsewhere. — 1 Cor. 11: 10 seems trivial. — 19 "heresies" is a word that misleads; the sense is "factions" or "sects. "In 27 "unworthily" means in an unworthy manner," and is less prolix.

1 Cor. 12: 31 seems to me better in the Authorised and Revised Versions than in the American suggestion as in Alford and others.

1 Cor. 13: 10, last clause, is in the American preference as in Dr. S. Davidson, etc. — In 13 it is the greater "of," not "than," these; and hence our "greatest."

1 Cor. 14: 3. Perhaps "encouragement" in the true derivative sense here. — 33, 34 the order of the Authorised and Revised Versions seems far better than in Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, etc., whom the Americans follow.

1 Cor. 15: 2 right. — 8 seems awkward, though the article should be expressed. — 19 is better in the Authorised and Revised Versions than in the proposal of the Americans. — 33 in both the Revised Version and the American correction is inferior to the Authorised Version. — 34 is more faithfully given in the Revised Version. — 44, 46 should be compared with 1 Cor. 2: 14 - 51, as in the American suggestion after Meyer, would interpret the apostle as saying what is untrue, i.e., that no Christian should die. The Authorised and Revised Versions are right. Alford, Green, Davidson, the Five Clergymen, all reject the change.

2 CORINTHIANS.

2 Cor. 1: 9 is a reasonable suggestion. — 15 is slight enough. — 24 Authorised and Revised Versions right, the margin of the latter is not the thought.

2 Cor. 2: 14 would be weakened by the separation from the preceding verses. — 15 may be compared with 1 Cor. 18 and Acts 2: 47.

2 Cor. 3: 9 affords probably an instance of an early correction in the dative for the nominative; but the older copies have it, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles adopt it, and the Americans translate accordingly, putting the ordinary text and version in the margin. — 18, κ. does not here mean "reflecting" but "beholding," as in Philo's Legis Alleg. iii. 33, ed. Richter p. 154. The etymological notion of a mirror is merged and only hinders the sense in this derived application. The Americans are partially light; as they are quite in discharging the strange marg.5

2 Cor. 4: 3 may be compared with 1 Cor. 1: 18 and in particular Acts 2: 47.

2 Cor. 7: 8, 9 is Rinck's, Lachmann's, Tischendorf's, and Green's punctuation, which the Americans prefer. It seems even harsher in the Greek than in English, as I cannot but agree with Alford.

2 Cor. 12: 7 is certainly of doubtful acceptance as it stands in the Revised Version and their Greek text where διό seems an unmeaning appendage. Lachmann makes some sense by closing with τῶν ἀποκ. and beginning afresh with διὸ ἵνα μὴ ὑπ. and so Westcott and Hort. Tregelles punctuates in the wildest way, sticking to his oldest copies right or wrong. No wonder that the Americans cannot approve of the text and suggest as they do.

GALATIANS.

Gal. 1: 7. The Americans would like Winer's view in the margin. It seems poor. — 10 has nothing about "seeking" in the first clause, nor "striving" in the second. Acts 12: 20 illustrates π. which means in this connection "to gain over" or "make a friend of."

Gal. 3: 1 seems too vague in margin 4. It was after that lapse of time. — 16. The margin (2) is better than the text or the softer American view. — 20 stands cumbrously if even correctly in the Revised Version. It would be better if only a comma displaced; "and yet;" which applies to the Americans as well. — 22 is one of the very many cases where the Revisers forsake their judgment as to the aorist without reason. — In 23 is an instance that they forgot that personification gives the article in Greek, but not in English. The Americans have noticed the inconsistency but correct γέγονεν in 24 from "hath been" to "is become." It is clearly more than the simple fact, ἐγένετο. — The Americans do not notice the strange punctuation of 26, due, I presume, less or more to the Bishop of Durham's influence. I do not admit that the context points to any such severance between "faith" and "Christ Jesus. "

Gal. 4: 12 "Become" is well for "be" and "am become," for "am"; but the great oversight in the Revised Version is in the last word; for if we are to supply, it should be "were," not "are." They had been Gentiles without law; and Paul maintains freedom from law by Christ dead and risen as the normal condition of the Christian, not getting under law after faith in Christ like the Galatians actually. No supply might be best. — 16 is well enough. — In 18, 19, a dash would be better after "you," and before "my children;" for the Revisers have put, not a comma, but a period between the verses.

Gal. 5: 1 is a perplexing question of text. If ῃ be read, the Authorised Version is substantially right; if omitted by the Revisers, and the οὖν read after στ., their version is (I think) correct, rather than marginal 4. — The suggestion on 12 is too vague for the text, even if the sense. — 20 should be compared with 1 Cor. 11: 29.

Gal. 6: 1 does not mean surprised "by," but taken or detected "in." — Nor does "since" suit 10 like "as."  In 11 it is the epistolary aorist, which in our idiom means "I write." The Revisers are right in saying "With how large letters," γράμμασιν. Had Paul meant to say "how long, or large, a letter," as in the Authorised Version, etc., the proper Greek would be γράμματα. And π. well expresses the length of the letters, not of the letter, which is by no means long.

EPHESIANS.

Eph. 1. 16 See the note in the "Bible Treasury" for December, 1881, page 378. The suggestion is right.

Eph. 2: 2. It is really "authority" rather than "power"; and "powers" would appear to be erroneous.

Eph. 3: 13. The American suggestion, which we find in the Syriac and elsewhere, seems as unworthy of the truth and general context as unsupported by the surrounding words.

Eph. 6: 9 is literally "the Master of both them and you." To warrant the suggestion, the Greek might have been ὁ καὶ αὐτ. καὶ ὑμ. κ.

PHILIPPIANS.

Phil. 1: 16, 17. The suggestions seem uncalled for, as already implied in the text. — 22 seems to me as ill rendered by the Americans as by the Revisers. Living and dying were before the apostle — to live, Christ; and to die, gain. But if to live in the flesh [were his], this, he says, is to me worth while, or fruit of work to reap; and what I shall choose, I know not [or cannot tell, for γν. may mean either]. The "if" of the Revisers and correctors seems quite out of place from not separating the last clause, whether we omit marginal 5 or not. To regard καὶ as introducing the apodosis appears only to embarrass. The Bishop of Durham confesses how doubtful that construction is here, and how awkwardly the sentence runs even if admissible.

Phil. 2: 1 is a questionable change, though on the surface "exhortation" may seem close. — 6. Is not "subsisting" a more suitable word than the suggested "existing"? The verse runs better in the Revised Version, "a thing to be grasped" not fitting in well. — 14 διαλ. is used for "questionings" as well as "reasonings," and "disputes," and may be so used here. — 15 5 "become," instead of "be," is suggested (I presume) the better to mark γένησθε rather than ἦτε (A D E F G etc.) which Lachmann preferred.

Phil. 3: 8. "Refuse," as in the margin, is a wider and well supported sense rather than "dung," though this too the word σκύβαλα meant. — 9 "of" God to my mind keeps up the idea of intrinsic and immediate source rather than an external removal, and at any rate a more remote starting-point like "from." — 12, "lay" and "laid" hold on are all well for apprehend and apprehended; but the better point in the margin of the Revisers over their text is in taking ἐφ᾽ ῳ in the usual sense of the condition, or occasion, which gives character to what is spoken of, for that," "seeing that." — 13 is the same thing.

Phil. 4: 4. Assuredly "farewell" does not deserve a place in the margin here. Indeed the Americans should have objected to it in the margin of Phil. 3: 1. Here it is monstrous: for what is the meaning of "Farewell in the Lord alway?" and why not, if it be so, say in 1 Thess. 5: 16, Farewell "alway"? There indeed they omit their marginal note properly; but they should not have given it here. — In 19 "fulfil" is one of the singular aberrations of the Revision Committee, without even a marginal alternative. The sense is "supply" as in the Authorised Version.

COLOSSIANS

Col.  1: 36 is their first suggestion, and the very strange one of ἀπό "for," rather than "from," as of course it means. Perhaps Alford misled them w'o says it is "temporal," and not "hidden from," which is exactly what it says and is. What do the Americans mean by "for the ages and for the generations"? It is hard to see why the Revisers were not content with the Authorised Version. "All" seems a loose way of representing the doubled preposition and article. — No notice is taken of the real mistakes in the Revision of 16 and 19, and of the unhappy severance of 24, etc., from the previous verses; by which the double ministry of Paul is cut through, whereas the connection adds much to the force. Also the word "fulfil" in 25 should be "complete." There was a blank page of revelation which Paul was called to fill up. "Fulfil" is another and her erroneous idea.

Col. 2: 15. The Americans are right in preferring in substance the Authorised Version to the Revised Version, though they would put their text in the margin.

Col. 3: 5. "Put to death" is best, and marginal 12 uncalled for. — In 16, not improbably the Americans are right in thus following Alford, Bengel, etc.

1 THESSALONIANS.

1 Thess. 2: 6, "burdensome" fails to express the claims of weight, charge, or authority here meant.

1 Thess. 4: 12 is more "honourably" or "reputably" than "honestly," or "becomingly," as suggested.

1 Thess. 5: 22 is "form," not "appearance."

2 THESSALONIANS.

2 Thess. 2: 2. The Americans are here thoroughly wrong in all Greek, profane as well as sacred; for ἐνέστ. means "is present," and not "is just at hand" or "impending." — 10. See Acts 2: 47, etc.

2 Thess. 3: 2 agreed.

1 TIMOTHY.

The Americans have little to suggest on the R. V. of this Pastoral Epistle, and that little but of dubious value. They have nothing to say about the best way of dealing with the anacoluthon or absence of the ordinary consequent clause after 1 Tim. 1: 3, 4. Nor do they notice the feebleness of "a" dispensation of God in the latter of these verses. They are right of course in accepting with the Revisers "charge," as against the "commandment" of the A.V. which confounds the thing meant, either with the "commandment" in ver. 1, or still more fatally with the law treated of in ver. 7-10; as did the late Dean Alford in the amazing error of talking about "the law of God in the gospel!" as the true force of τ. π. in 5 even contradicting the true connection with π. in 3, taken up again in 18. There is no effort to express better than the A. and R. Vv., the anarthrous construction in 9; and surely the margin7 of the R. V. ("smiter") might have well displaced the text ("murderer"). It can scarcely have been forgotten by classical students that Demosthenes uses the term in the broader application of ill-usage, and that Plato in a dialogue so well known as the Phaedo expressly distinguishes man-beaters and man-slayers. The more comprehensive force seems therefore decidedly preferable. — Again, they hate nothing to say to the strange insertion of the English article because the

Greek one is requisite in the ὑγ.δ. in 10, a not infrequent fault in the R.V. Nor do they remark on the R.V., worse than the A.V. in unduly defining the general expression with which ver. 12 concludes. Undoubtedly it was to His service that our Lord appointed Paul, but what is said is appointing me to ministry (or service), though I was beforetime a blasphemer, etc. Instead of these, which have importance more or less, they say on 16 for "hereafter" read "thereafter," where in truth neither is called for, τ. μ. "those that should." And in 18 they would substitute the margin' for the A. and R. Vv. which seem both wrong in directly connecting προαγ. instead of προφ. with ἐπὶ σέ. The sense is "the foregoing or preceding prophecies as to thee."

On 1 Tim. 2: 4 they observe "Read who would have all men to be saved," instead of the Revised "who willeth that all men should be saved." It is the expression of desire, not of counsel. — In the rest of the chapter they only refer to 15, and would have margin to exchange place with the text. Here again both Revisers and correctors seem at fault, and the A.V. is more accurate; for though the thing child-bearing is well rendered "in childbearing," without "her" which is not intended, still less tenable is "the" as if pointing to the virgin Mary's, which is wholly foreign to the passage, pace Ellicott after Hammond.

Not a word have they on the weighty 1 Tim. 4. In 1 Tim. 5 they only suggest as to 12 to read "pledge" (with margin Gr. faith) for "faith," a questionable rendering indeed. In 1 Tim. 6: 2 they would read "are minded" for "desire."

2 TIMOTHY.

They would reverse the Revised "incorruption" and restore A.V. "immortality" as the rendering of ἀφθαρσίαν. Very probably they were misled by Drs. Alford and Ellicott, or by others who misdirected them. For it is an error that the body is not in question here. Life refers to the soul, as incorruptibility to the body, both brought to light by Christ through the gospel. His resurrection was victory over death, which annulled its power; as the gospel brings us even now by faith into that which will be finally displayed in full at His appearing in glory. "Immortality" is a fatal step backward.

The only other American suggestion is as to the last verse of 2 Tim. 2. They, as in the A.V., prefer it all to refer to Satan, "having been taken captive by. him unto his will," with the margin lightly modified. The manifest objection to the A.V. lies in the reference of the two different pronouns to God. Hence Beza led the way in taking αὐτ. of the devil, ἐκ. Of God. Bengel's notion of spiritual captive by the Lord's servant, adopted by the Committee, appears highly unnatural. G. Wakefield has the extraordinary turn "after being rescued alive," and so far differs from the Revisers; but this was to forget the perfect and give an aoristic sense rather to the participles, besides the etymological force. To wake up to God's will after having been captive to Satan is simple enough.

TITUS

affords scope for three notes: Titus 1: 2, the strangely loose "long ages ago" for margin to "before times eternal," the singular rendering of the Revisers. But it is easier to disapprove than to do well. The meaning is before the ages of time, though it seems not very satisfactory as a version.

In Titus 2: 13 they would make the text and the margin of the Revision exchange places. Either way the person of Christ shines in glory. The context seems here to favour the text as better than the margin.

As to Titus 3: 10, "factious" is certainly less equivocal than "heretical," which is apt to be taken as heterodox; whereas a leader of a sect or party outside is meant, in contra-distinction from a schismatic within. The true meaning is of moment, as in other ways, so in utterly overthrowing De Wette's unbelieving effort to deny the apostolic and inspired claim of the Epistle by assuming the later ecclesiastical usage for this word. In reality it rather proves the contrary; and thus its true Pauline sense here confirms the fact that he who wrote 1 Cor. and Gal. wrote this letter to Titus. 2 Peter 2 allows of debate as to the precise shade of meaning, but in the Epistles of St. Paul there can be no just doubt of the same sense; and it is not the later or ecclesiastical usage.

HEBREWS.

The opening of this great epistle suggests grave questions in abundance, which the American committee slip in silence. They say nothing of the Revisers' departure from their rule as to the rendering of the aorist in Heb. 1: 2, or the remarkable expression ἐν υἱῳ, where "in His Son" gives the idea inadequately, though it is difficult to represent it well in our tongue. For "as Son" is too vague, and "in the person of the Son," or "in the Son," would answer to ἐν τῳ υἱῳ, as in the contrasted phrase ἐν τοῖς πρ., the meaning is that God spoke to us in One so nearly related to Him as Son. Very poor is Chrysostom's comment, Ἰδοὺ πάλν τὸ ἐν υἱῳ διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ φησι, πρὸς τοὺς λέγοντας τῳ πηεύματι τοῦτο ἁρμόζειν. Ὁρᾳς ὅτι καὶ τὸ, ἐν, διά ἐστι; (Interpr. Epp. Paul. vii. 9. Field, Oxon. 1862.) So among the Latins Primasius, followed by a crowd down to our day, though not without a numerous and weighty protest. Again, in the dynamic sense of personal agency in π. is unnoticed, if the reading of the three oldest copies prevail against the mass in the omission of "by Himself." It is curious to see how Ebrard over and over discusses π. as if it were active, and the Vulgate renders it as a present, instead of a past and completed act. Nor is there a word on the questionable place of "again" in 6; but their first counsel is to omit marginal ("spirits"), which seem to be on just ground; for why "make" angels "spirits," seeing that they are all assumed so to be in 14? The parallelism also points to "winds" here. The notion of making the winds His angels, and a flame of fire His servants, is ungrammatical and inadmissible in both Hebrew and Greek. The Lord really causes His angels to assume the shapes He sees fit. — In 9 they would add to the first "God" marg. "or, O God." Certainly many have so supposed, though Ps. 50: 7 proves the analogy to the A.V. and the context (to my mind) is consistent with this alone. It is as man, not as God, that the Lord could be said with any propriety to be anointed. Compare Acts 10 and the very title of Messiah everywhere. In the aspect of divine glory we should not hear of "Thy fellows." The Authorised and Revised Versions, were right as they are.

In Heb. 2 we have no remark till 16, where they propose for the text, "doth he give help to," instead of "take hold," which they would relegate to the margin. It comes really to the same sense, the one being the literal meaning, the other derivative. It is not angels that Christ takes up, but Abraham's seed. The assumption of humanity was taught previously in 14, and is in no way alluded to here, though no doubt His interest in the seed of promise is a consequence. The Authorised Version was a huge blunder — physically, grammatically, contextually, and dogmatically. Christ was Himself the woman's Seed; but to take on Him as a nature Abraham's seed is unintelligible. Besides, the present tense was therefore changed into the past to give it an appearance, but in vain. There is no contrast with the nature of angels; and if there were, the seed of Abraham would be a strange opposition. So that Chrysostom who made a similar mistake had to desert the text, and puts it as the nature not of angels but of men that He took up; just as King James' translators got farther away from the truth than the versions which preceded theirs.

It will be observed that they do not comment on the concatenation of 9, where the Revisers join some of the moderns against the ancients, nor on its close where an interesting question arises, excluded by all the English Versions; though it is well-known that the Greek fathers take it as neuter, which enlarges the scope and is in keeping with what has gone before, whereas we hear of "many sons" in what follows, not of all mankind.

Their only other reference is to 17, where they with Alford, Green, the Rhemish, etc. prefer "become" to "be" a merciful etc. Those who adhere to "be" as in the Authorised and Revised Version, do not differ in sense, believing that our Lord only entered on His proper priestly functions when He ascended on high. If He were on earth, He would not even be a priest, there being those who offered the gifts according to the law. His is a heavenly priesthood.

In Heb. 3 the points noticed are of the slightest, "where" for "wherewith" (9) as in margin," and the so" of the Authorised Version ("is an alternative in the margin), in 11 where the Revisers have "as" — in Heb. 4: 3 also. It is curious that all the older English Versions were right and hid "where" till the Authorised Version. — Had they remarked on the too common dilution of the Revisers which re-appears in 6, there would have been true ground of exception; for surely "as Son" is the sense, not "as a son." — They might have well pointed out also the loss of connection in 14 with Heb. 1: 9, which all the old English Versions fail to keep up; not to speak of marking in the best way the links of the closing verses.

In Heb. 4: 2* they are right about the singular text of the critics, adopted indeed on most ample diplomatic authority but with the strangest resulting sense, in the face of the great corroboration of the common text lent by the Sinaitic copy to the three known cursives, backed by the Vulgate and other Latin MSS., the Pesch. Syr. etc. — But they do not object to the unfounded emphasis given to "that" rest in 3, nor to the enfeebling of 10, by withholding "own" at the end. They only would read in 7, "To day, saying in David, so long a time afterward (even as hath been said before), Today if ye," etc. — Not even the serious error of "yet" in 15, imported from the Authorised Version into the Revised, draws out a word of remonstrance. "But yet" in Tyndale was a slight guard; the Rhemish is the best, for it has no supplement, as none is needed, and any such as is here insinuates the heterodoxy of its merely meaning that He did not sin. The statement however goes farther incalculably, and teaches that He was tempted, or tried, in all things in like manner, or according to our similitude, sin excepted — not sinning merely but "sin" excepted. In Him was no sin: it is that not only He did not sin, but there was nothing of the kind in Him. He knew no sin. — They are silent as to the last verse where "to help us in time of need" is freer even than the Authorised Version which omits the "us:" "for seasonable help" is surely better than Alford's "for help in time." To limit it to "today" is not warranted.

* No wonder that they would have the text and marg.5 change places, reading in margin, "many ancient authorities," etc.

On Heb. 5 they have nothing to offer. Yet we have again in 8 the worse than needless "a" Son after the quotation in 5, and "first principles" instead of simply "beginning." We may and ought to go on to full growth or "perfection," but should never leave first principles.

Hence in Heb. 6: 1 they fail to put the case in its full force, though quite justified in rejecting the strange paraphrase of the Revised text. The margin7 is preferable; and "full growth," or margin,8 should have displaced "perfection" in what follows, for it is equivocal if not misleading, and 5: 14 should have prevailed with the Revisers as to our verse. But was it not worth their notice that, it is "land," not "the" land? — They are warranted (9) in somewhat more than marg.1 "near to" and preferring "belong to" perhaps.

On Heb. 7 not a word, not even on the interesting difference of εἰς τὸ διηνεκές, here and in Heb. 10: 1 rendered "continually," in Heb. 10: 12, "for ever," as compared with εἰς τὸν αἰωνα, "for ever," Heb. 5: 6, Heb. 6: 20, Heb. 7: 17, 21, 28. It means without interruption or break, continuously, or in perpetuity whether relative or absolute; a precision of the utmost moment both as to Christ and as to the Christian, as may appear farther on. The difficulty raised by Commentators as to eternity has no real ground in the phrase.

Heb. 8: 8 has little to recommend it; for among the ancients it was expressly noticed that the apostle spoke of blaming, not it, but them; and it seems the natural construction to take αὐτοῖς with μ. rather than λ. — But was there reason to say more in 1 than "a" chief point? So in 8 "days" are coming. — Nor is there an effort even to express the different words for "knowing" in 11.

On Heb. 9 they have more to say, and first would have the margin6 of 4 change place with the text; that is, they would read in the text "altar of incense," and in the margin censer. The ancient Versions, including the Memphitic of Wilkins, save the Latin of the Clermont MS. (avrevm habens altarem) and the Aethiopic which is here nil in its vagueness, are decidedly in favour of the Revised text, not of the margin. The word as in Philo and Josephus might express either; but the connection of the censer with the high priest's action on the Day of Atonement obviously strengthens its case against the golden altar. It is plain that in 2 Chron. 26: 19 θυμιατήριον "censer" in the king's hand is distinguished from θυσιαστήριον τῶν θ. "the altar of incense." Compare also Ezek. 13: 11 in the LXX with Luke 1: 11; Rev. 8: 3; Rev. 9: 13, which seem conclusive against the identification, and sustain the Authorised Version against Smith's Dict. of the Bible, i. 58, 288. For "parable" in 9 they would render π. "figure" and so in Heb. 11: 19, as in the Authorised Version for both. This seems no great matter, and rather a question of linguistic taste than of substantial exactitude. It is agreed that "now" present is needless, as "then" in Authorised Version is erroneous. Much more important is διά in 12, which the Authorised Version renders "by," the Revised Version "through," probably in the same sense. It is a total mistake, to limit the preposition even with a genitive to the instrument or means, for it also expresses time or state; as here how Christ entered heaven, not whereby. "With," as in Rom. 2: 27, is the more correct, intelligent, and reverent sense, as there the Revisers properly say in contrast with the Authorised Version which has no just meaning, in Heb. 9: 12 a possibly improper one. It was the way of atoning efficacy in which He entered, not the medium. Compare 1 Tim. 2: 15 for another shade of thought, "through" or "in," not "by." — In 14 they would add as a margin "Or, his et. sp.," I presume, to exclude the Holy Ghost from this offering, or at least to predicate it of His own spirit, as Alford etc. understand without "his." But this is to miss the great truth on which christians even from the most ancient times fell so soon away to their great loss; they failed to see His perfection as man in thus ever acting in the Spirit even to the closing and crowning fact that by the Spirit He offered Himself spotless to God. And if called here "eternal," it is in exact keeping with the character of this Epistle where the christian Hebrews are taught to view all their blessings thus, in contrast with the temporal standing, privileges and hopes of the earthly people in its best estate, salvation, redemption, inheritance, and covenant. — Their last point is merely to substitute the. categorical for the interrogative form in 17 by substituting margin5 for the text. It is possible, though unnecessary: the sense amounts to the same.

In Heb. 10: 1 it is a pleasure to agree heartily with the Americans in refusing "they" can ( A B D corr P and some 30 or more cursives) against the rest of the uncials and cursives, confirmed by the ancient versions, which connect "can" with the law. "They" cannot be said to be in analogy with the Epistle: if defensible, it must be by making it in sense impersonal. And then follows the Lachmannic oddity of a period after πραγμάτων, and beginning a new sentence "They can never by the same sacrifice," etc. Therefore it is here proposed to read margin9 "many ancient authorities read they can." — But not a syllable of protest do they utter against the error of the Authorised Version repeated in the Revised Version which takes vr. 12 εἰς τὸ δ., continuously, with Christ's having offered one sacrifice for sins, whereas its true connection is with His session at God's right hand. Wiclif alone exhibits the same mistake, not Tyndale nor Cranmer nor the Geneva V. nor the Rhemish, strange to say. If it were indeed a participle present, it might go to prove the theory of the mass as a continual offering from the cross for the sins of living, and dead. But the aorist falls in naturally with the contextual argument on the unity of the sacrifice because of its perfect efficacy; and the "continuously" goes with the utmost propriety and characterizes Christ's seat on high, though only stated as a fact. There He took His seat, not precisely "for ever," but "uninterruptedly" in witness of His completed and accepted sacrifice, instead of standing day by day to renew the same ineffectual offerings, — not "for ever" but henceforth expecting till His enemies be set a footstool of His feet. It may be of interest to note that the same phrase is used just after, in 14: by one offering Christ has perfected uninterruptedly the sanctified. His saints have been perfected without a break to disturb their acceptance, as freed from their sins by His blood. Their communion may be interrupted and is by every sin allowed: their clearance from guilt is as perfect as His work can effect. Out of communion we are powerless and fail to enjoy; and His advocacy restores our souls by the washing of water by the word which gives self-judgment. But the standing of the believer is in Christ and according to the value of a work which has so purged the worshipper that they have, as Heb. 10: 2 says, no more conscience of sins. The conscience is so purged as to know that all one's sins are gone before God.

In 22, 23 the Americans prefer margin7 to the Revised text, but without sound reason, it seems to me; for the three verbs of call in the three verses are connected in due order, the approach being as simply strengthened by the two perfect participles which follow, as the holding fast the confession of our hope is sustained by the faithful promise of God, and the considering one another to provoke to love and good works, carried out especially in this habitual gathering together and by exhortation in view of the day approaching. Why sever "our body washed with pure "water" from the foregoing? and why connect it particularly with what follows? Each of the subjunctives introduces a new scope, and has its own supports adjoining, and in no case, preceding. — The superiority of "our own assembling together" is not obvious. — As to 34 it is a question between "ye yourselves have" A H, some cursives, ancient Vv., etc.), — or "ye have for yourselves" (D E K L, the mass of cursives, etc.). Margin1 seems to me to be a mere blunder; and I could not say that any ancient authority countenances it, or if so, what matter? There are foolish enough things beyond doubt in the fathers.

The suggestion on Heb. 11: 1 is unobjectionable. Here is the sense: — "Now faith is confidence (Heb. 3: 14) in [things] hoped for, conviction of things not seen." The rendering proposed for the text in 5 seems a mere twist without adequate ground. If no more than this could be questioned, the Revisers had small reason to fear criticism.

In Heb. 12 they draw attention to the strange want of judgment in the Revised text of 3. There are a few ancient and excellent authorities which read the plural in one form or another; but the singular "himself" or "him" is the reading of Alford and Lachmann, of Tischendorf and Tregelles, none of whom lacked boldness in acting on a few old copies. The learned editors of Cambridge adopt it in their Gr. N.T. and were probably the chief influence in bearing down the opposition of others in the Committee. In 17 it is important to observe that what Esau sought diligently to obtain with tears was the coveted blessing. To have sought repentance with tears yields no good sense. This may show that an intervening parenthesis is desirable to help the unintelligent reader. It was not however a change of his father's mind but of his own for which he found no place. There was no real looking to God about his sins.

It is to be regretted that the Americans seem as far as the Revisers from correcting the vicious arrangement in 22, 23, where they all failed to see that καὶ defines each new clause after the first in the sentence from 22-24. Mount Zion is the first; then comes the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem; next myriads of angels, the general assembly; after that the church of the first-born, enrolled as they are in heaven; then God Judge of all; next spirits of just men made perfect; then Jesus mediator of a fresh (ν. not κ.) covenant; and lastly blood of sprinkling speaking better than Abel. It is confusion to mix up the church of first-born ones or heirs with the μανηγ. which really is in apposition with μυρ. ἀγγ. "To the general assembly and church" etc. is a muddle, the first term of which should end the previous object enumerated; the second begins a new one with the conjunction prefixed.

In Heb. 13: 18 "honourably" or "rightly" is better than "honestly" as now limited in English. — But in 20 "an" eternal is very much to be doubted. They did not suggest "an" eternal Spirit in Heb. 9. Our tongue does not always admit of the characterizing power of the anarthrous Greek construction, as may be seen in almost every salutation of the Epistles and often elsewhere. Hence we are forced sometimes to use our definite article where Greek has none. More noteworthy far than any of these three is the true bearing of ἐν in 20, where the Revisers do not improve on the Authorised Version rendering of "through" by theirs of "with," for which they add the margin, "or, by Gr. in." It is to be feared that our American friends with the Committee at home hold Calvin's strange idea, which Bleek of late defends though one hardly likes to put it on paper, of Christ's taking the blood with Him to heaven. It is really and simply in virtue, or in the power, of His blood. — In 24 it seems needless to add the margin, "or, the brethren from." It was implied, though Wiclif and the Rhemish have supplied it, following the Vulgate as usual slavishly.

JAMES.

It seems surprising that the Americans, less bound as they are by traditional bias than most in the old world, should heed the title given in the Authorised Version where it is clearly opposed to truth like this of our Epistle. Had "General" been applied only to the First of John and to that of Jude, every thoughtful person would have seen it to be true in fact. For the title is no part of the original text and differs in the ancient copies. The δωδεκάφυλον, οr whole nationality, of Israel was before the inspired writer's mind, not the church at large as the term Catholic or General supposes. If any were disposed to the notion of a spiritual Israel, "that are in the dispersion" ought to dispel it. One has only to examine or think of the extra-Pauline Epistles to see how absurdly they are designated the Seven Catholic Epistles, though they were from a date early enough to satisfy those who prefer post-apostolic antiquity to scripture.

The Americans are not wrong in preferring "proving" to "proof" in James 1: 3, as Dean Alford also felt. — They do not question the arrangement of 6-8; but is it not simpler and truer to take verse 7 as parenthetical, and 8 as a description of the doubter figuratively set forth in 6, rather than in apposition with "that man" in 7? — Did they not feel the importance of the plural form relegated from the text of 13 to margin? God tries faith and patience, He never tempts to lusts, which are from within. — So 17 has no notice beyond a return from the Revised Version "boon" to the Authorised Version "gift." Now we all know that the first of the two words, though properly expressive of the act of giving may be and often is used for a gift or present; but is it conceivable that we should have the two terms without a distinction other than brought together and differently qualified? Ought we not to allow that "every good giving" is here distinguished from "every perfect gift?" The character of the act good, the result in the thing given perfect, the Father of lights is the source, in contrast with evil in act and result flowing from self. — We need not repeat other remarks on the Revised Version made in April 1882, which do not appear to have presented themselves to our friends.

On James 2 we have nothing suggested. It is agreed that they rightly cleave to the Authorised and Revised Versions of 1, and reject the unsatisfactory alternative of Bengel, Calvin, Gataker, or others. So, also, the bringing in of "synagogue" for the more general "assembly" as in the Authorised Version is a sound correction for reasons which may not have occurred to the Committee on either side of the Atlantic. — One can understand also the text and margin of 4, though it be questionable if either side, be the best rendering of the word δ. — But ought they to have passed by the needless introduction of the English indefinite in 12? — Nor is "hath" called for in 13. — It is more surprising they should consent to "that" faith of the Revisers in 14. Even Dean Alford would regard the Greek article as only that of previous mention. Its emphatic force is quite unnecessary. — In 18 thy literal sense seen in the Revised margin seems better than their text and as in the Authorised Version, which is substantially Tyndale's. It appears to me that "the" is more forcible than "thy" with "works" and "faith" at the close: "Show me thy faith apart from the works [i.e., produced by it], and I will show thee by [or from] my works, the faith" [i.e. which produces them], neither carrying the English article without some such paraphrase. See the Revisers' own rendering in 26. The article here means the works proper to, faith, the works one has a right to expect from faith. It seems extraordinary that the English Versions at 19 should have deserted the text before their various translators and given what answers only to the Cambridge Greek Test of 1881, as well as the Revisers' margin, no doubt greatly due to the learned Editors' influence. For though the uncials and cursives in general differ greatly in the order of the words, the sense is the same as is represented in the Revised text; and so the mass of ancient versions. The margin has only the Vatican, backed up by Scrivener's. a c 1 m and Theophyl. All other critics justly insert the article, which makes the textual rendering imperative. — Very likely ἀργή "barren" in 20 has a claim of superiority over νεκρά dead (which may well have slipped in from the context); but was it not incautious to support the Revised Version in ignoring even in the margin what cannot be denied to have the great preponderance of ancient evidence? — In 23 "friend" of God is much more expressive, as well as more strictly correct, than "the friend." — Again in 24 why be parties to severing μ. "only" from "faith?" The connection with substantives is common and well-known. — And why "the" Spirit, when our idiom here admits of close adherence to the Greek? The last clause illustrates on the other hand that in Greek the article may be with "faith" if not with "works," where the Revisers properly enough have it not in English. Indeed with "works" the witnesses very generally insert it, save two great uncials and two cursives. Origen can scarcely be reckoned in; for he makes both "faith" and "works" here to be anarthrous.

James 3: 1. appears to be encumbered rather than helped by the proposed supply "many of you," as G. Wakefield had suggested long ago; it is sufficiently implied in the phrase itself. This is the sole suggestion from the west. — Yet there are delicate questions, especially in 6, while there is little doubt of the critical readings in 3, 6, and 9. — Elsewhere the cumbrous rendering of the Committee in 15 has been noticed, which we do not repeat; and it is a grave question whether "in peace" should not be connected with "fruit of righteousness" rather than with "sown" as in the Authorised and Revised Versions. G. Wakefield made it qualify "fruit," as if equivalent to Heb. 12: 11.

In James 4: 4 there is but a marginal explanation suggested of "adulteresses," "That is, who break your marriage vow to God," without a word on James 5. There is no sufficient reason to doubt the soundness of the critical change, which all accept save that Tischendorf strangely connects the word μ. with the sentence before (3), not with 4. But the feminine only and fully expresses the corruption of all who tamper with the world, instead of keeping themselves unspotted from it. — In 5 the Americans rightly endorse the double query that divides the verse; but is it by any means sure that the Revisers are right in adopting the transitive form of the verb according to A B 101. 104. in the latter half? It is precisely a case where the most ancient MSS. are least reliable; for they often interchange η with ι, ο with ω, when the self-same thing is really meant. Of course the resulting difference of sense amounts to little; for according to the great mass of copies, versions, and early citations, it attributes to the Spirit Himself His dwelling in us; according to the favourites of the critics, it means God's causing Him so to dwell, which certainly agrees well with the words that follow. — It is of interest to notice the aorists in 7-10, as compared with the presents in 2-6 (excepting of course God's gift of the Spirit), though difficult to express in English. — Then in 11 we return to the present, where continuance is meant to be laid down, rather than the urgency of having it done, duration being merged. — Strange it seems that the Americans had not a word of question on the omission of the first γάρ "for" in 14. Even Tregelles only brackets the word. On rather less evidence Lachmann omits the second, the presence of which, I presume, led the copyists of p.m. B etc. to omit the former. B omits the article before ζ. also, as well as (with P its companion) in the second clause. — In 14 the readings from itacism are confusing enough. — Nevertheless, in spite of B P etc. θελήσῃ "shall have willed" is better than θελῃ or -ει, and if we are to read ο (not ω), the balance inclines to taking καὶ ζ. κ. π. together. — In 16 "every" rather than "all." — In 17 is there to be no difference caused by the anarthrous form? "To one therefore knowing how to do right, and doing [it] not, to him it is sin."

James 5: 1 gives the aorist with the present participle, so as to combine instant weeping with habitual howling, because of their sins and the Lord's speedy judgment. But nobody is blamed for what is so hard to express suitably. — Why, however, is the last clause of 3 "have" laid up? "Ye laid up" etc. seems more concentrated and graphic. The Americans might have recalled the British Committee to their own rule; but it is hard to rid the mind of habit and prejudice; and the true form sounds somewhat harsh to an English ear. The perfects are used with such propriety in 2, 3, and 4, that it is idle to suppose the aorist is used in vain between them. So in 5 it should be "Luxuriously, ye lived on the earth and indulged yourselves; ye nourished ... condemned ... killed," etc. All is summed up conclusively in the view of the writer; who nevertheless guards against possible misuse by his transition to the present in the closing words, "he doth not resist you." (Compare also ver. 7-10). — Bentley's conjecture (Phil. Lips I. 34) of ο κς, or ὁ Κύριος, for οὐκ was as unworthy as needless. — In 16 "A righteous man's supplication" is sufficient and exact. — In 20 it seems arbitrary to omit in the margin a notice of "his" soul, supported as it is by A P more than half a dozen cursives, and all the ancient versions save Sah. Arm. of Zohrab, and adopted by, and two such editors as Lachmann, and Tischendorf in his last and eighth edition. Neither Erasmus nor Alford nor Compl., neither Stephens nor Beza nor the Elzevirs read the pronoun, but Colinaeus does.

1 PETER.

As regards this fervent Epistle of Peter so full of that which is calculated to "strengthen his brethren," the western Committee appear to be well pleased with the work of the British Revisers. At any rate they themselves have nothing but two at best questionable remarks to offer, which we shall examine in their places, one on 1 Peter 2: 2, the other on 1 Peter 5: 2.

1 Peter 1: 1, 2, in the Revised Version, may be given in a form that suits English readers; but the strict force is, "Peter, apostle of Jesus Christ, to pilgrims (or sojourners) of dispersion, of (or in) Pontus etc. elect according to foreknowledge of God [the] Father, by sanctification of [the] Spirit, unto obedience and blood-sprinkling of Jesus Christ." The absence of the article is intended, though no doubt our tongue does not admit of the omission so — uniformly as the Greek. These are the Israel of God, not Gentiles (to correct a frequently perverted scripture), however truly the latter may partake in the same blessing; but Gentiles are not addressed in the greeting, only the christian remnant of Jews in the designated quarter of Asia Minor. Farther ἐν assuredly does not mean "through;" but "by" may sometimes represent it better than "in," which of course is the common equivalent in English. To assume that it should always be "in" is ignorance of or inattention to the usage: see 5 for the difference of "by" and "through." Some, again, would limit "of Jesus Christ" at the close to the blood-sprinkling; but this is unfounded and obscures the great truth that the christian is set apart to Christ's obedience as truly as to the application of His blood. The anarthrous form quite falls in with this: had the article been there, it would have pointed to Him personally; as it is, we have Him giving character to obedience and blood-sprinkling, in contrast with law-obedience and blood of victims which confirmed the old covenant as a penal sanction. The idea is neither obedience of faith (or believing with the heart the gospel), nor obeying what our Lord enjoined; but as He obeyed in the dependence and loving confidence of sonship, so we now practically as under grace and possession of eternal life in Him. The strange mis-translation through misunderstanding of the latter words is even more striking among some of the Reformed than in older translations or comments; but it need not occupy us now, as it has been already dealt within this review.

- 6 "in" here also is very doubtful in the "manifold temptations" or "trials," though quite right at the beginning of the verse. ἐν in such cases expresses way and character, which "by" suits English; not the instrument identified with the agent like the simple dative, still less the means distinct from that agent like διά. I do not see how talking about "the element and material" helps intelligence. — In 7, as in 13, the Revisers rightly translate, like the Authorised Version, ἐν "at" the revelation. What is the use of following the foreign fashion, and saying "in" the element, in time, in which it shall be manifested? It is to lose English in a childish literality of Greek. — But is 8 in the Revised Version as accurate as in the Authorised Version? The Americans have not observed, more than the British Revisers, that theirs would answer to μή, not to οὐκ. It should be "having not seen." In the same verse the Revisers rightly correct "in" to "on," for the connection of εἰς ὅν is not with ἀγ. but with one or both participles; but, if with both, the Revised Version fails by supplying an object to the first and so connecting the words with π. only. Translate therefore, "on whom though now not looking but believing ye exult" etc. Were the connection with the verb as in the Authorised Version, ἐν ῳ would be the construction required. The ancient versions appear to be for the most part singularly loose and unsatisfactory, as the Pesh. Syriac and Vulgate, which omit and add wildly. The Philoxenian Syriac is correct. The older English are inexact, Wiclif and Rhemish being the worst.

- In 9 Mr. T. S. Green rightly adheres to "salvation of souls," or in a general form soul-salvation. — In 11 it is hard to convey some little intimation of the phrase, which marginal3 (Gr. unto) scarcely meets, "the sufferings [that came] unto Christ," or "of Christ" as in the Authorised and Revised Versions. — Whether ἐν be or be not read in 12, the right version is "by" (hardly "with" as in the Authorised Version alone of English versions), the Rhemish treating the dative as a genitive absolute! in collision with all grammar, doubtless in subserviency to the Vulgate. I am disposed to take ἐν on full external evidence backed up by the usus loquendi already explained, notwithstanding A B and three cursives, meaning "in virtue of [the] Holy Spirit," who is looked at, not as a distinct personal object as in 11, but as a characteristic power for preaching the gospel. Only ignorance of the truth would therefore deny His presence personally in those who thus preached. The anarthrous form is the only correct one for expressing character, as here intended. — But why pass over the mistaken text of the Revisers, following the Authorised Version in 15? The marginal4 is more right,  Ἅγ. being not a predicate but the virtual substantive of the phrase, "after the pattern of," or according to, "the Holy one that called you." — It seems peculiar that 20 should have passed muster with its uncalled for, not to say incorrect, "who was," as if the article were there. The force is rather, if we must supply anything for English ears, "foreknown as He was," and omitting "was" before "manifested."

In 1 Peter 2: 1 is not "malice" (marg.8) better than the Revised text "wickedness"? It is allowed that the latter more general term may be well in such texts as Acts 8: 22. — What has been said before in re-viewing the Revision need not be repeated now; but it seems to me that λογ. is one of those words which the christian revelation wanted and modified for its own purpose, elevating it from "reasonable" as in margin' or "belonging to the reason," as the Americans suggest, to "of the word." Compare Rom. 12: 1. — In 5 is it not loose to render the text, "ye also ... are built," as in Authorised and Revised Versions P Read "yourselves also ... are being built" etc. — In 7 why not say, "A stone which the builders rejected, this was made head corner-stone"? — In 9 it ought to be more general, "a people for a possession," though doubtless God's possession is meant. — In 10 "God's people" suffices: and at the end "obtained" without "have," the fact now simply, in contrast with the previous state of Lo-ruhamah. — In 13 "to king" is best. — In 16 "having freedom," — the thing freedom as a cover of the thing malice. Even the Revisers do not say "your" wickedness; nor should they with freedom. The article is with both in Greek, not as a possessive, but because contrast makes the two objects, or in a measure personifies them. — The difference of aor. and pres. in 17 it is difficult to convey tersely in English. — The Americans rightly reject the supply of "them" (with Alford) or "things" (with Huther, etc.), and adhere with the Revisers to the Authorised Version with Wiclif and Rhemish. Tyndale gave here "the cause" (Pesh. Syr.), Cranmer "the vengeance," Geneva "the punishment."

1 Peter 3: 1 shows a rendering similar to 1 Peter 2: 18, and slightly different from 1 Peter 2: 13, where it is the aorist, expressive of once-for-all action, as the need presented itself; here it is the present as expressing continuance or habit. — In 2 it is remarkable that those who contend for "in" almost to nausea abandon it here, where it might be, for the freer version of "coupled with fear," which has descended and prevailed since Tyndale. — In 3, 4, complication might be avoided by "On whose part let there be, not the outward ornament of" etc... "of the meek" etc. — In 12 it is "Jehovah's eyes," and "Jehovah's face." — It is not in 15 "Lord Christ," but Christ as Lord as in the Revised Version. — In 17 "to suffer doing well than doing ill," i.e. for the one rather than the other. — Is it not strange, first, that the Revisers should have perpetuated the error of the Authorised Version in 20, "Which ... were," as if the Greek had been τοῖς, and next, that the Americans should be insensible to the mistake? The absence of the article proves the participle to be part of the predicate and assigns the reason of their present imprisonment, "disobedient as heretofore they were when" etc. — In 21, "not putting away of filth of flesh, but demand" etc.

1 Peter 4: 1, 2, the anarthrous construction is little heeded here by the Revisers or the Americans; see also 5, 6. — Nor is the plural unintentional which has been relegated to the margin.10 — In 11 there is need of little, if any, supply: "Let it be" would make the sense plain to the dullest. — In 12 "count not as strange the burning [i.e. of persecution] taking place among us for trial, as though" etc. It is not "has taken place" nor "which is to." The Revised Version is fairly good.

1 Peter 5: 1. As the Revisers adopt οὖν "therefore," they have no right to "the" elders. It would be general in that case. — In 2 the weight of authorities is rather equally divided for and against the words "according to God," in the Revised Version but not in the Authorised Version. The Rhemish has the phrase following the Vulgate, and so Wiclif ("bi God") and Cranmer "(after a Godly sorte)" in a parenthesis of italics. The Complutensian editors have it not, any more than the Vatican MS. and others; the Sin., Alex., and Porph. uncials give it. But there need be no hesitation in rejecting the American preference of the error of the Authorised Version in Rom. 8: 27, which our translators never ventured to repeat as to the same phrase in 2 Cor. 7: 9, 10, 11, Eph. 4: 24, or 1 Peter 4: 6, which is in contrast with κατ᾽ ἄνθρωπον and really is a far different idea from and far larger than κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ with which they would identify it. Beza influenced the Authorised Version, and Wetstein sought vainly to defend it; but the heathen, who are so unwisely quoted in that defence, could hardly be expected to understand "after a divine sort" or "character," in contrast with what suits a man. It is nature and mind rather than "will." — Other points may be left at present.

2 PETER.

On the Second Epistle the American Committee have a little more to say, but not much. In 2 Peter 1: 1, they prefer marg.4 to the text, and therefore would have them exchange places. Is not this a singular choice? Even G. Wakefield, heterodox as he was, translated as the Revisers. No scholar who has adequately weighed the construction contests that the omission of the second article admits of two persons strictly united in joint agency, where the phrase does not describe a single person. Contextual scope must decide which is intended; but even where it is a unity of two before the mind rather than one person, which is expressed by the one common article, the phrase seems impossible unless both stood on precisely the same platform of nature or position. Now I am disposed to believe that in the Epistles of Peter, as in that to the Hebrews, the inspired writer meant to strengthen those addressed in the great truth that Jesus was the Jehovah of Israel, the true God, no less than the Father. The righteousness in question was His faithfulness to promise in bestowing faith on them; for it could be said to the Jews, beyond any other people under heaven, "To you is the promise and to your children, and to all that are afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Him." Of them only, since Abram, is there at all times a remnant according to the election of grace.

Again no notice is taken of that common fault in the Revisers, the needless enfeebling indefinite article of ours twice over. Our tongue does not require "a" before "servant" or "bondman"; yet it seems harsh to omit in English "the" before "righteousness," though Mr. Green does so. "In" the righteousness might mislead, because here it would tend to convey the idea of righteousness as the object of faith,* according to a favourite dream of Calvinistic theology, which is in no way meant, as even the Puritan Dr. John Owen candidly acknowledges. God was righteous in giving them faith no less precious than the apostles' according to His promise to the fathers. "By" in the Geneva V. is legitimate or even "through," though this last might be taken the mere means (διά); whereas it is their God and Saviour's fidelity to His word, in virtue of which He secured their believing. If "in" were. thus understood, it would be all right, as in ver. 2, where the form of the phrase is not quite the same as in 1 and is correctly given in almost all versions. — The reading in 3 is not altogether sure, B K L and the great majority sustaining the common text, Erasmus and the Compl. edd., Stephens, Beza, Elzevirs; etc. whilst A C P, a decent little corps of cursives (at least 12), and a very weighty portion of Vv. support ἰδίᾳ ("by His own"). The difference in result is however much less than it might seem at for what after all is the dogmatic distinction between "through glory and virtue," and "by His "own glory and virtue?" Little or nothing beyond emphatic appropriation of glory to God, in order to enhance its bearing on the believer's call by it.

But how came the Authorised Translators to make so stupendous a blunder as to render διὰ δ. "to" glory? They were misled by the Geneva V., as it was by Beza, who knew the reading approved of by most modern critics, yet rejected not it only but the unequivocal meaning of his own text in deference to his theological idol. Hence he sets Rom. 9: 23; Rom. 15: 7; 1 Cor. 2: 7; 1 Thess. 2: 12, etc. against διά here in its regular sense, and will have it used for εἰς! as in Rom. 6: 4! — both, it need scarce be added, baseless and very reprehensible blunders, to the ruin of the truth conveyed by the Holy Spirit. But he is right in taking ἀρ. of man (as in 5), and not of God, the plural in 1 Peter 2: 9 having quite a different force, whatever Dean Alford may have urged. We are not like Adam who had to abide in his first estate, but sinned. Neither are we like Israel under the government of the law given by Moses to control and condemn. We are called out of our evil and ruin by God's own glory in hope, which demands meanwhile virtue, i.e. energy in refusing our own will or case. Bengel did not understand the passage.

- The "your" is uncalled for six times in 5-7, while the small point is noticed of changing "love of the brethren" into "brotherly kindness" as in the Authorised Version, and the former is relegated to the margin. — Of still less significance seem the suggestions as to 17, 18, of "was borne" and "borne" for "came" and "come," though of course the literal meaning, with the omission of  the marg.12 13. Without doubt the Authorised Version is less accurate than all its predecessors in 18. This voice we (emphatically) heard come, "borne," "uttered," from heaven, not "which came" merely. It is better it should be, as the Americans suggest, "by the Majestic glory"; so Winer had long ago remarked (Moulton's ed. 462), "all other explanations being arbitrary." Luke 1: 26 means "by" or "of" God, not "from," if the reading were certainly ὑπό. — In 20 no remark is made on the vagueness of interpretation, any more than on the dubious text of 21.

* So it is in the misreading of the Sinaitic MS. εἰς δ. and in some Latin copies, contrary to the unquestionable stream of testimony.

In 2 Peter 2: 13 they would for "love-feasts" read "deceivings" and say in marg.12 "Some ancient authorities read love-feasts." Assuredly it is strong, in a New Testament that aspires to universal use (dislodging the Authorised Version) to adopt a reading on the very slender testimony of Acorr B and a cursive, with perhaps the Vulgate and some versions, vague enough in all conscience, as all other authority, and hence only by Lachmann, Tregelles, and the recent Cambridge editors. — There seems in fact little to detain in this. But one might have that the anarthrous form of the Greek in the last verse might have had a notice, "A dog" returned, etc. and "A sow" when washed etc.

On 2 Peter 3 they are wholly silent. Yet the first verse seems to invite correction. "This [is] now, beloved, a second letter I am writing to you." As the first was written to the christian Jews in Asia Minor, so was the second for the same parties: a fact which has no small bearing on ver. 15 and the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews. God would give the simple a divinely formed conviction without going beyond the bounds of scripture. Paul's epistles too, including that written to the christian Jews, were scripture.

1 JOHN.

Our friends have yet less to remark on the profoundly interesting and momentous Epistle before us. The Revisers have indeed corrected serious errors in the Authorised Version, and in general done well. But was there nothing to notice till near the end of 1 John 3? Why "declare" in 1 John 1: 2 and again in 3? The Revisers had already given like the Authorised Version "declared" to ἐξηγ. in John 1: 18. They are quite right in discriminating ἀπαγγ — from ἀγγ. But why not adhere to its strict sense "report"? They correctly cleave to "message" for the uncompounded substantive in 5.

- "Report" for ἀπαγγ. in 2, 3 is just as suitable as in its ordinary usage. The Revisers have shown undue deference to the Authorised Version in contenting themselves from the beginning of the New Testament with "tell" or "show" "bring word" or "report" being better in the first occurrence (Matt. 2: 8). There are cases where the context makes "report" harsh; but here, so far is this from being so, that no word appears so appropriate to my mind. It admirably suits the peculiar relation of the apostle to Christ on the one hand and to the saints addressed on the other. It imports the authority that sent the message, or at least the source whence it was brought. Again, is it not peculiar to give here only "the life, the eternal life?" — Though the precisely same structure occurs in 1 John 2: 25 they are content with "the life eternal." One need not adduce other phrases to show how little it was called for. — In 4 it is well known what conflict there is in the readings and the editions, and this in a twofold question. Should it be ἡμεῖς or ὑμῖν? and again ἡμῶν or ὑμῶν? If apparent difficulty will have weight, as goes the familiar maxim of all textual the first person must be allowed to be the less obvious; a corrector's hand would probably bring in the second. Even Stephens and Elzevir do not agree as to the last pair, the Compl. edition joining the former, as did Beza in his first edition, but not in those subsequent. So Tischendorf wavered in both clauses, his eighth edition adopting the first personal pronoun. Both MSS. and Vv. of the highest character have additions unmeaning or worse.

- In 5, as has been already stated, the true word is ἀγγελία "message," which all critics endorse, though excellent authority sustains the unquestionable error of ἐπαγγ. imported here from 1 John 2: 25 where it is certainly right. That this is so finds confirmation in 1 John 3: 11, where ἐπαγγ. occurs again in some first-rate authorities, though it really is nonsense. This is one of the cases where Colinaeus alone presents the true reading. Did the Authorised translators know this? It is curious that they should give the true sense from the false text of all the other old editions. — In 6 we see as elsewhere, "the" darkness. Perhaps the abstract use of the article was forgotten. It is a question of specific darkness in contrast with "the" light, which would give the article.

- In 7 "Christ" has not only many suffrages but some authorities of weight; yet there can be little doubt that the Revisers have rightly dropt it. In the same verse it is surely open to question at least whether "every" sin be not more exact than "all." To this may be opposed "all" unrighteousness in 9; but there is meant "every" kind of act, though it be less easy to say so in English of these moral ideas where "all" is on the whole best. To the repentant believers God is faithful and just, not only in remitting their sins as a whole but in cleansing them from every shade of unrighteousness. It is the principle in all its absoluteness, as John loves to speak. See again the force of the present in 7, not mere historic actuality, but the abstract truth, which from the first abides true for the believer. Even in 10 the aorist is avoided, as being the tense of narrative; it is the question of our being no sinners, the denial of our being in that position, which gives God the lie. This is a bolder evil and more flatly opposes His word than saying we have no sin, bad as this self-deception is. The perfect presents the general truth of a continuous state resulting from past acts.

In 1 John 2: 1 the Americans should have observed the need of discriminating τεκνία from παιδία in this Epistle. The former term beyond doubt includes the family of God as a whole, the latter designates only the youngest portion. Hence, if we adopt "little children" for the one, "babes" might well express the other; if for τ. we are content with "children," we might add "little" children for π. in 13, 18 where alone it occurs here. It is confusing and misleads to express no difference as in the Authorised and Revised Vv. Again, none would gather that "righteous" at the end is anarthrous. Bp. Middleton need not excuse the writer; who means to draw attention especially to that quality "as righteous." The general sense, however, of 1, 2, is accurately given in the Revised Version where the Authorised translation had greatly failed. — So it is in 8, where the Authorised Version exaggerates while it is also feeble. The darkness is not "past," but passing away. — Why the Revisers say "hath" blinded in 11 does not appear. The fact was enough for the Spirit of God. — In 12 there is no doubt that the weight of external evidence is greatly in favour of ἔγραψα, but there is sufficient testimony in support of γράφω. This, in my judgment, is demanded by internal considerations, easily mistaken by superficial scribes who in all probability changed the form of the verb to suit their perversion through ignorance. The complications of commentators are as helpless as those of the critics. Hence Dr. Wordsworth joins with those whom he often opposes. The truth intended is perfectly clear, though ancients and moderns agree in missing it. There is first the γραφω, "I write," to the little children or entire family; the apostle writes to all because their sins are forgiven them for His name's sake. Then follows to each section, fathers, young men, and babes, thrice γράφω, "I write." But next is thrice repeated the form ἔγραψα, "I wrote," which goes over the ground again, with increasing enlargement to the "young men" (14-17) and to the "babes" (18-27), after which the comprehensive τ. "little children" is resumed in the Epistle, as it had preceded. I presume that the scribes did not observe this, and imagined the threefold connection lay in the end of 13 with 14, and so assimilated the form of the verb. They ought to have seen the threefold exhortation of 13, taken up again and expanded in 14-27. — The version in 19 is literally correct (not margin2); but is it a good idiomatic rendering? It is not the universality that is denied, but its predicate: "none are of us;" or "all are not of us." The Authorised version or the margin2 is not sense. Compare the end of ver. 21 and the points may be left.

On the whole the Revised Version of 1 John 3 is good; so that criticism is justly disarmed. Important, errors in the Authorised Version are corrected in 1, 2, 3, and 4. It is in 19, 20 that the Americans would read and punctuate "him: because if our heart condemn us, God" etc. (with the present text in the margin). It appears to me that neither is right, and that God being greater than our heart, and knowing all things, is brought in, not for consolation where our heart condemns but to deepen self-judgment. It is state, not standing, that is in question. The construction is peculiar from the double ὅτι, which is not without example in the New Testament without construing it as "because," but referring to the opening words.

1 John 4 does not furnish matter for the correction of the American Committee. Yet they might have noticed failure in reflecting the force of the text of 2, 3, which, it appears to me, would not prove a barrier insuperable to an evil spirit animating a false prophet. Nay, some of these insist with great force on the Lord's coming in flesh, as Irvingites, etc. Wherein then lies the ground? It is the confession of the person, not, of the bare fact. It should be therefore: "every spirit which confesseth Jesus Christ come in flesh is of God; and every spirit which confesseth not Jesus is not of God." It is the divine One comb in flesh that is confessed or not,. The evil spirit might urge that He came in flesh, to deny His deity or to insinuate the fallen character of His humanity, which last in effect denies His Godhead and makes the atonement impossible. Indeed this is the great root-lie of Satan against the truth among nominal christians. — Passing hence to 9, "in us" of the text is liable to misunderstanding, margin1 being far better; so in 16 also. — In 17 is an important correction, we may say by the way.

So, as all know, in 1 John 7, 8, not to speak of 6, as in 13, the true text is correctly represented in the Revised Version. — There remains in 18 the American preference of margin2 himself (for "him" in the text on the slender witness of Ap.m. B 105. as opposed to all other authority). Dean Alford went so far indeed as to translate "it keepeth him" i.e. the divine birth pointed at in the aor. part. γεννηθείς, "he that was begotten." Mere theory, it seems to me, would deny the reflexive pronoun here.

2 JOHN.

All the notice taken of the Revisers' work is to say "1 (and 5) "lady" add marg. Or, Cyria." Either the British Committee have been remarkably successful or the American company have not been clearsighted, or some one else is disposed to be fastidious, which in any unfair sense I abhor. For there seem to be graver questions than of Cyria for "lady," though so understood from Athanasius (not to speak of Syrr.) down to Bengel, Griesbach, De Wette, Lachmann and Tischendorf. Wetstein, Grotius, Bp. Middleton, like R. Stephens in his third edition of 1550 (not in those of 1546 and 1549), decided for Electa as the proper name. This however seems disproved by the last verse of the Epistle, where it would be equally harsh to consider that her sister bore the same name, or that the epithet should be used so equivocally, if it be a proper name in the first verse. There remains the more generally accepted sense given in the Authorised and Revised Versions and all the older English, save the Rhemish; whereas the Vulg. and Aethiopp. (if not the Sah. and Memph., which seem ambiguous) support "elect lady," which Jerome took as symbolic of the catholic church, an alternative meaning in Cramer's Cat. Pat. Gr. viii. 146, as it was held by other ancients. It was an error no doubt, as was the application to Corinth, Philadelphia, Jerusalem; no less than the tradition which gave it to Drusia, Martha, or the Virgin Mary, each of whom has had a defender. But one sees not why in this case the anarthrous construction in 1 should be unheeded, "to an elect lady" etc. Where the sense requires the article as in 13, it is duly inserted. Some for another purpose have reasoned on the greeting, not of the elect sister, but only of her children, forgetting that she might be deceased or absent from the place whence John wrote, and in either case could not be included in the salutation sent. But the entire phrase, as it forbids the symbolical interpretation, general or particular, corroborates most simply the ordinary view, only with our indefinite article; which phrase may have been employed to veil the name of the lady, while the fact and duty are carefully recorded. — In 3 no notice is taken of John's peculiar phrase παρά, "on the part of God," not ἀπό, "from God" as in the Pauline Epistles. It is more intimate (cf. 4). That Cod. Sin.pm and more than ten cursives here read the more distant preposition ἀπό cannot shake the ordinary text, either here or, in some of them, the omission of the second παρά. It is a much more doubtful question whether κυρίου "Lord" should be inserted in the same verse. authorities plead for and against. It would be the solitary case, if genuine, of so designating Christ in John's Epistles; but then it is the solitary case of a full and solemn salutation. Still I cannot but regard it as no less questionable than other assimilations to the style of the apostle Paul. — But had our American friends no compunction at the introduction into the version of the epistolary aorist or English present in 4, without even an intimation in the margin? In 3 John 3 they on the contrary give the proper aoristic to the text but the epistolary in the marg.! which involves the rest of the verse rather harshly in the same form. The perfect εὕρ. "I have found" does not prove it even in this Second Epistle. He only intimates the permanence of the discovery, while he does not go beyond the expression of a definite time of joy. — On the question of εἴχαμεν or εἴχομεν in 5 we need not enter now, nor the true connection of ἵνα. — The Revisers did well in abandoning the Text. Rec. and Authorised Version in 7; for "entered" (εἰσῆλθον), though supported by K L P and many cursives, etc. has no just sense, but ἐξῆλθον "went," or are gone, "forth." Compare 1 John 4: 1, where there is no various reading in the corresponding word. On the other hand the same objection applies here as in 1 John 4: 2, 3. It is not the bare fact that Jesus was to come in flesh, but His person as so coming, which the deceivers do not confess. The participle, it will be noticed, is abstract or, as Alford says, altogether timeless. And very energetic is the statement, that "the" deceiver and "the" antichrist meet in him who thus dishonours the incarnate Son of God, though there is one full and final person according to prophecy to sum up and close the dismal category in his own time, whom the Lord Jesus will destroy in person. — In 8 reigns great confusion of copyists, who did not like the first person here, as being unusual and tampered with more or less from early times, The common text appears to be right. — But the Text. Rec. of 9 is utterly wrong in παραβαίνων "transgressing," which flowed from prevalent feeling and ignorance, instead of προάγων, going forward or taking the lead, the contrast of abiding in the teaching or doctrine of Christ — the truth of His person. "Going before [you]," as Alford suggests, like John 10: 4, is ridiculously poor and wrong. It is rather development, — a characteristic of the school of tradition which deifies the church, or the yet more irrelevant invention of heresiarchs impatient to advance beyond the limits of revelation. Neither prizes the truth and nothing but the truth, both go outside the truth to its destruction, utterly ignorant of the whole truth, which Christ is at least as much as what He taught. The repetition of τ. χ. "of Christ," in the latter half of the verse is superfluous. The oldest and best authorities not only omit this, but adhere to the order of "the Father and the Son," contrary to A and Latin copies. — In 10 "your" is uncalled for. Had more definiteness been intended it was open to the writer to have said τήν or even to have added the pronoun: εἰς οἰκίαν is intentionally characteristic, or as we say "at home," and all the more forcible in certain cases. The antichristian teacher, coming to set forth Christ, was neither to be received, nor even greeted. It is the most extreme case, because it is no question of intelligence or privilege like church matters, nor merely discipline, but of foundations: the Christ of God was at stake; and woe be to the man who betrays Him! To confound this with other things, grave indeed in their measure, as some do who boast, is dense ignorance, and shows a lie in the right hand, which will work ruin. Here uncompromising rejection is but due to the injured Son of God. Even to greet is spurious sympathy and real sin. — In 12 our "I was not minded" fairly meets οὐκ ἐβ. (better than ἠβ.) — It is surprising that ἡμῶν "our" should not be preferred to ὑμῶν, "your." If A B, a good many cursives, and most ancient Vv. sustain the latter, K L P, many cursives, and ancient Vv. support the former, as the critics are rather evenly divided, Griesbach, Scholz, Tischendorf, and Wordsworth for ἡ. as Alford, Lachmann, Tregelles, and the Cambridge Editors for ὑ. But the first person couples the apostle with those he is writing to, a weighty element in the joy of those concerned, which the second person leaves out, in my judgment to the weakening of the truth here conveyed.

3 JOHN.

The American Committee would blot out marg.2 to 4 and in 8 give "for" (like the Authorised Version "to") rather than "with" as in the Revised Version. On both a word may be said in each place.

In 1 (and 3) the exclusion of the article is exact and not without its importance in this as in the previous Epistle, character, and not objectiveness, being intended. Compare this with the end of 4 where in "the" truth is right, though the article is omitted by Ccorr K L P. There is no loving or walking in truth, if we have not "the" truth to walk in. — In 2 the poetic sense of περὶ π. is quite untenable here, though adopted by Beza and in the Geneva Bible before the Authorised Version. It is contrary to all sound doctrine that John prayed "in primis" or "above all things" for Gaius' prosperity. As to, about, or in all things he prays that he may prosper and be in health, even as his soul prospers — this last the hinge on which he could pray that he might fare well in circumstances and bodily health. To make either or both his especial prayer is not unscriptural only but unreasonable, and below a Jew if not a heathen. Is it not startling that so flagrant, a fault should have got in, and since the Reformation too? Certainly Wiclif is loose ("of all things I make preier that thou enter and fare wilfulli?" etc.), is be overlooked apparently the first "prospere" of the Vulgate, to speak of no other flaw.

Tyndale, though right in his version of π. π., strangely deals with ὑγ. is "faredest well" which would answer better to εὐοδ., and so the Rhemish. Erasmus, though right where Beza led the way in error, extinguished all the touching grace of the verse by his impersonal vagueness, de omnibus opto, ut prospere agant et recte valeant, sicut" etc. — Had our Trans-atlantic friends nothing to say of the marg.1 to 3? To take it as present was in no way due to the participles following the verse; and less, if possible, to the purposely general statement in 4. — In 4 the marg.2 seems extravagantly wrong, even though B 7.35. Vulg. in its best copies (save Tol. etc.) Memph. favour it. Wiclif ("I have not more grace of these things than that" etc.) and the Rhemish ("Greater thanks have I not of them than that" etc.). help to expose its hopeless unsoundness. The error for a scribe was easy, but hard for a sober and intelligent believer. Some have a morbid partiality for a singular variation; but none as yet had the hardihood to adopt it save the learned editors of Cambridge in their recent work. — Is not the rendering of the Revised Version in 5 likely to support Lachmann's reading ἐργάζῃ rather than the unquestionable ἐργάσῃ, not to speak of failing to distinguish ἐργ. and ποι.? Otherwise there is good service rendered in most that follows, where the Authorised Version has serious mistakes or shortcomings.

- In 6 let me say that, though we cannot well express the anarthrous ἐν. ἐκκλ. as here meant, Winer has no better reason than elsewhere to account for the omission by any peculiar property in the word or any license in its usage. Such explanations spring from mere defect of analysis. Nor is the sense before "a" church, as translates Mr. T. S. Green; though grammatically possible, the sense is unsuitable. The absence of the article is to express character; they witnessed of Gaius's love before (the) assembly, not man nor yet God only, but ecclesiastically as such. Compare Acts 9: 15; Acts 19: 19; Acts 28: 35; Rom. 12: 17; 2 Cor. 8: 21; 1 Tim. 5: 20; 1 Tim. 6: 12. It is rigidly accurate, though English does not appear capable of well expressing the nice shade. — In 7 one might say "for on behalf of the Name, they went forth," rather than "because that for the sake of" etc. ὑπὲρ τ. ὀν. here hardly imports the same as διὰ τὸ ὄν. αὐτοῦ in 1 John 2: 12."Welcome" in 8 is a reading differing from the Received Text and should be noted. The word means to "take up" or "sustain" and should be distinguished from "receive" in 9, 10, the first use of which seems not recognising the apostle's authority in what he wrote, or rejecting him virtually, the second not admitting, to fellowship rather than hospitality, the visiting brethren, but casting out of the church those, who would do so. "For" was Dean Alford's notion, but "with" as in the Revised Version and others seems more forcible.

- In 9 there is a short but weighty omission in the common text in which the Revisers reinstate τι "somewhat" on the strong authority of A B C 7.68. Sah. Memph. et Arm. corr with more than ten cursives etc. join K L P and most cursives in omitting the indef-pronoun, but the former add ἄν which gives to the verb the force of "I should have written to" etc. And this appears to be the ground of the Vulgate's extraordinary "forsitan," the "peradventure" of Wiclif, and the "perhaps" of the Rhemish; which any christians should have felt and known to be out of harmony with divine truth, and simply impossible: I mean, not the reading ἄν, but the Latin rendering followed by its English reproducers. It would seem from the context in 10, that the subject, matter communicated was the apostle's commendation of the evangelizing brethren, dear to him, but offensive in the eyes of Diotrephes. He stood on assumed authority and resisted the apostle, the highest authority then on earth, who stood for the truth and loved those who walked in it and preached it on behalf of Christ's name.

JUDE.

The Americans in 1 would (like the Geneva, Rhemish, and Authorised Versions) read "Jude" for "Judas," adding in marg. Gr. Judas: a remarkable note, especially from those who do not value current customs like the old world. Yet they adopt "Judas," not Jude, in Matt. 10: 4, etc. passim Matt. 13: 55; Mark 6: 3; Acts 5: 37; Acts 9: 11; Acts 15: 22, etc. In Matt. 1: etc. they do not object to "Judah" for the same word. Such variety in English seems undesirable. The Revisers, with Wiclif, Tyndale, and Cranmer, seem to me fully justified in giving "Judas," save in citations from the Old Testament where they perpetuate the Hebrew form. As usual we have no notice of the Revisers' failure to deal with anarthrous description, which they have represented aright in the second member, not in the first. Was it not as easy to have said, "servant of Jesus Christ," as "brother of James"? "A" was uncalled for in either case. It has also been remarked (in B. T. Aug. 1882, p. 127) that τοῖς κλ. should not be confounded with τ. κεκλ. as the Revisers do, whereas the Holy Spirit pointedly employs the perf. part. in the two included words of predication, but the verbal adj. with the more direct address.

There need be no hesitation in dismissing "sanctified" for "beloved" on the authority of the best MSS. and almost all the ancient versions as well as distinct citation in early times. But it is question able whether "for" is right with "kept." That the saints are and were both beloved and kept has great force in so solemn a sketch of imminent apostacy as is here portrayed. But the mischief was by these destroyers getting in, not by erring men going out in outward separation, as is generally and unintelligently assumed. It would have been a great mercy, if they had gone out as in 1 John 2. Ver. 19 is no real difficulty for this view; for the rest of the Epistle proves they were within, intent on their evil purpose or blinded instruments of a worse; and therefore their divisive way was within, not without, so far like the Pharisees among the Jews. — In 4 the Americans would have "written of beforehand," and put "set forth" into the ρογ. They overlook also the old inaccuracy of taking κρῖμα αs "condemnation" which is rather κατάκρ. In effect, it becomes this; but we ought always to translate correctly.

- In 5 they have allowed to pass the feeble rendering of the Authorised and Revised Versions, "afterward;" whereas its force seems to be to mark "the second time" of divine action: first, He saved a people out of Egypt; in the second place, He destroyed them. Still wider of the mark were Tyndale and Cranmer who connected τὸ δ. with "those that believed not." The Rhemish follows the Vulgate in the true sense; and if some wonder at "Jesus" there, let them remember that excellent authority supports this word, though κύριος, Jehovah, (or ὁ κ. "the Lord," in the Text. Rec.) has perhaps stronger claims on our acceptance. — In 6 they do not notice the scarcely English phrase "hath kept ..... unto," though one may shrink from G. Wakefield's "keepeth" as hardly a right rendering of the perf. But "hath in keeping" might suffice. — And why in 7 should not "the" have been avoided with δίκ as well as "a"? — So in 8 too. It is not spiritual defilement, but fleshly. "The" makes it too concrete, as in all the old English versions. — And had they no question about the rendering of ἑα υτ ποι. in 12, even if ἀφ. be severed from the preceding and connected with the following, as the Revisers prefer, with the Authorised Translation after Erasmus and Beza? "Shepherds that . . . feed" is a fertile if legitimate rendering of ποι., if "deluding" is a wild suggestion of Wakefield, though he sends us for confirmation to a lengthy note on Luke 17: 7, 8, in his Silva Crit. ii. 85 -90. — Elsewhere has been a full comment in these pages on the odd rendering of 14 "to" these, so that there is the less need to enlarge now. "For," "of," "as to," are legitimate renderings here. But "themselves" as in the Elzevirian text of 19 is an addition to that which is attested by the most reliable witnesses, and looks as if meant to clench the ecclesiastical meaning given to ἀποδ. which means separatism, but of a definite kind within rather than without. To treat it as schism, or rather "heresy" in its scriptural force of a party gone outside, is quite at issue with the intimations of this Epistle. — On 22 the Americans would add a not very important marg. note.

THE REVELATION 1.-7.

Having discussed the details of the Revised New Testament in this closing book with comparative minuteness, I may be allowed to notice more rapidly what little the American Committee have to say.

They merely propose the omission of two marg. notes, in 8 of marg.8, and in 13 of marg.11 There are insertions of less account than the former; and few of greater moment than the latter. For though the text ("a son of man") seems literally faithful, John 5: 27 ought to have made not only the Revisers hesitate as to their text but our Transatlantic friends still more doubt the wisdom of their rejecting the marg. note. The Greek, like the Chaldee of Dan. 7, has not the article as is notorious, because the aim is to describe the human character of the glorious person that was seen, rather than to point to Him as a known object. Our language fails to reflect this characterising force of the anarthrous phrase; for if we say "the," it makes the person as such more prominent than the original warrants; if we say "a," it excludes Him who was well understood to be seen in the character of Son of man, which we can express better in the Gospel than here. The Father gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is Son of man, though He is also Son of God and as such gives life to every one that believes. Here, in John's great prophecy, it is more difficult to set it out adequately in English, and one can hardly avoid saying "the" Son of man, though in Italics or brackets or some such expedient, to show that it is not in Greek but due to the exigencies of our tongue. But as "a son of man" in the Revised text falls short of the truth, so the omission of the marg.11 in 13 by the Americans is a bolder departure still as giving up a truer alternative. The insertion of the article in Greek would have spoiled the real bearing of both passages. How to give the best possible English equivalent may be questionable; but "a son of man" is not the sense meant either in Dan. 7 or in Rev. 1 any more than in John 5

In Rev. 3: 2 they for the Revisers, "fulfilled" read "perfected." But is not the true version "complete" rather than either? "Perfected" is appropriated by the Revisers, and without objection on the part of the Americans, to another word and for another thought, as in the Epistle to the Hebrews.

In Rev. 4: 6 what they mean by "'of the throne' add marg. Or, before" seems unintelligible. I can only conjecture that they propose "before" as an alternative for "in the midst of." If so, it is plainly untenable; for in the same verse, and distinguished from ἐνώπιον τ. θρ., is ἐν μέσῳ τ. θρ. which can only be rendered "in the midst of the throne," an idea quite different from "before." The proposal is still more mystified by referring us to the comparison of Rev. 5: 6, and Rev. 7: 17, where we have the Lamb, not "before," but "in the midst of the throne."

So in Rev. 5: 6 their marg. addition seems quite unfounded and apparently due to Dean Alford's strange note, probably misled by the Germans, one of whom is so ignorant of the elements of Apocalyptic imagery as to conceive the Lamb on the sea of glass! Perhaps the American Committee may have slipped into this notion. Certainly that sea was "before" the throne. How dangerous is this guess work!

To Rev. 6: 6 they would append an explanatory note in the margin, instead of the more vague words of the Revisers. — In 11 "completed" appears once more to be best; or, "complete" their course, if the active form is to prevail as in many, and some ancient, authorities.

Of Rev. 7: 17 it is unnecessary to say more.

REV. 8-22.

Not a word have the Americans to say of Rev. 8: 3, though they might have seen the technical force of δ. admitted in the Authorised Version of Rev. 11: 3, which the Revisers have now blotted out everywhere in the book — i.e. give power, or render effectual. All the previous versions differ, and all are as wrong, it appears to me.

In Rev. 10: 6 they rightly prefer the marg. alternative "delay" to the textual "time," as in the Authorised and Revised Versions. "Time" in fact only misleads; as, according to the book itself, more than a thousand years elapse from the seventh angel's beginning to sound, before eternity is come; whereas every one would infer from these versions that eternity must at once follow the sounding of that trumpet. But χρόνος in the Apocalypse as elsewhere is regularly used for "a while or space," a "lapse of time that intervenes" i.e. a delay:* see Rev. 2: 21, Rev. 6: 11, Rev. 20: 3. So it is for example in Acts 14: 3, 28, 15: 23, 18: 20, 23, 19: 22, etc. There is really no excuse for the mistake of the Revisers. It is a mere perpetuation of traditional ignorance. Indeed it would be hard for any one to produce a single instance in the New Testament of the abstract force of "time," in contrast with "eternity," which is so arbitrarily conceived to occur here. Mr. E. B. Elliott's addition of it prolonged" or "extended" is quite uncalled for.

*So far Vitringa is quite right (Anacrisis Apoc. 577): "non sunt accipienda absolute, acsi sensus eorum esseti cum clangore Tubicinii Septimi omnia terminatum ira Secula, quae Deus Ecclesiae suae in his terris destinaverat, expectandam gloriosam ἐπιφάνειαν, quae finem impositura sit verum sublunarium motibus et afflictionibus Ecclesiae; quomodo bene multi Interpretes haec verba explicarunt; sed restricte secundum ipsius Ioannis interpretationem, eo quem dedimus sensu: Moram nullam temporis esse intercessuram inter clangorem Septimae tubae et oraculorum propheticorum implementum," etc. Every scholar knows that this sense is classical as well as Hellenistic. it is the only one that waits the context and falls in with the truth in general.

In Rev. 12: 4 there is no doubt that the Americans are justified in giving a present force to the principal verb ("standeth"), and hence to the correction that follows. The truth is that here as in the Old Testament prophecy the Seer was expressly inspired to intermingle the past with the present and future. All was thus felt the more vividly to be before God who made His word known. This has led to a little swerving from a literal rendering.

In Rev. 13: 1 (or end of Rev. 12) the Americans rightly contend for at least a marg. addition to "he stood" thus: — "Some ancient authorities read I stood etc., connecting the clause with what follows." Why, it is the reading of B P, all the known cursives save two, more than one ancient version and the Greek commentators Andreas and Arethas. Tischendorf retains it, notwithstanding, in his eighth or last edition. Was this beneath a marginal notice? — In my opinion they are no less right in suggesting that marg.5 and the text, ver. 8 should exchange places. (Comp. Rev. 17: 8.)

In Rev. 14: 6 they would for "an eternal gospel" read "eternal good tidings." Would not "everlasting" be more correct? There is a shade of difference in our tongue. I do not find that the Americans contend for "good" or "glad tidings" elsewhere: why here only? — But ἐξηράνθη in 15 does not mean "ripe" but perhaps "over-ripe" or simply and literally "dried up." Why should this be departed from?

Rev. 15: 2 seems to be in the Revised Version as strongly rendered as the Greek can fairly bear.

Rev. 16: 9 does not stand happily in the Revised Version though expressing the Greek article in English — at least so it seems to the Americans and to me. It is another case with 11, as all agree. — The margin might have been added in 16.

In Rev. 19: 15 there is no good reason why those who said "God, the Almighty" (or some equivalent) in Rev. 1: 8, Rev. 4: 8, Rev. 11: 17, Rev. 15: 3, Rev. 16: 7, 14, Rev. 19: 6, should say, "Almighty God" without the English def. article in this verse.

In Rev. 22: 3 is a needless departure from the almost invariable rendering of the Revised Version no less than of the Authorised Version in "do service" for the simpler "serve." The only approach to it elsewhere is in their version of Heb. 12: 28 where they have "offer service"; but they might plead εὐαρέστως as modifying the sentence and inducing them to prefer "offer service well-pleasing to God," instead of the dignified simplicity of our old "serve God acceptably." However this be, in the Apocalypse it is hard to imagine why they should depart from their own well-nigh uniform practice, to give us a more cumbrous form in accordance with none of their predecessors.

FRAGMENT. — The absence of elders in Corinth necessarily made the charge to the assembly direct. How blessed for a day when they cannot be regularly! And how unworthy to complain of their absence now and to neglect the word that was given to direct in such circumstances!

The Salt of the Earth.

Matt. 5: 13.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. N5, p. 86-87.)

The Lord had laid down in vers. 5-9 the distinctive moral qualities suited to the kingdom of the heavens, with the supplemental blessednesses in sufferings (10-12). He now proceeds to state definitely their position here below according to His mind. The first is given in ver. 13, answering to righteousness, as we saw in the earlier qualities He endorses; the second in 14-16, answering to the outgoing energy of grace, remains for its separate notice in due season.

"Ye are the salt of the earth; but if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It availeth for nothing any more but to be cast without and trodden under foot of men" (ver. 13).

The disciples were familiar with salt not only in ordinary life but in the oblation to Jehovah, "the salt of the covenant of thy God": "with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt" (Lev. 2: 13).

And so we read of "a covenant of salt": as expressive figuratively of what was to be preserved inviolate and unchanging (Num. 18: 19; 2 Chron. 13: 5). Accordingly the Lord, in Matt. 9: 49, 50, declares that "every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. Salt [is] good; but if the salt become saltless wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace one with another."

If fire represents God's avenging judgment of evil, salt does no less clearly His preserving power in relation with Himself. For, as the Lord lets us know, the figures of the law are now by and in Him translated from the past shadows into present and everlasting realities. There is therefore a necessary dealing with "everyone" because all are ruined by sin. Faith bows to this now, as unbelief braves the warning to find it solemnly true and too late vindicated for eternity before the great white throne, and the unquenchable fire that follows. But as grace sent the Saviour to bear God's unsparing judgment when He made Jesus on the cross sin for us, so the believer judges himself all the more when he recognises in Him that suffered without the gate the true and divine sin-offering, consumed to ashes without the camp; Whose blood enters in all its value the holy of holies, and entitles himself boldly to approach even there. with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having the heart sprinkled from a wicked conscience, and the body washed with pure water.

He then, there, and thus was salted with fire in a way of absolute perfection as none other could be, as those who reject Him must be in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. But all who believe enjoy the full efficacy of that fire of God which He endured for our sins, whilst given to judge ourselves as in the sight of God and to reckon ourselves dead with Him to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus; for he that died is justified from sin as well as sins. We have also the privilege of "every sacrifice salted with salt." It is not only that "our God is a consuming fire" against every evil thing, every inconsistency with relationship to Him and with His nature; but as offered to God, our bodies even as a living sacrifice, we know and have the seasoning with salt that we may be kept pure and incorrupt, abhorring any working of flesh as vile and condemned in Christ's death.

The disciples had yet to learn that wondrous and mighty sacrifice of His; but here they find themselves set in the only position which suited Him, and them too associated with Him. Its moral nature, not only inwardly but publicly, is here conveyed by the words. "Ye are the salt of the earth." To the Son as to the Father anything but this pure and purifying or at least preservative savour was intolerable for the kingdom of the heavens which they were to enter on the earth. The law, as we are told, made nothing perfect. And Moses, in view of Israel's hardheartedness, allowed what could not be when God was revealed in a Son. In that divine light He looks for suitability to His holiness. How it was to be made good in them they did not yet know; for the discourses on the mount did not unfold redemption nor yet the new birth. But there could be no doubt that this was the plain and certain expression of the place in which the Lord set His own.

Let it be noticed that they, and only they, and they emphatically, were "the salt of the earth." The Lord does not say the salt "of the world." This will come for fuller elucidation when we consider what was meant by their being "the light of the world," not of the earth. But when thus distinguished as here, we may remark now in pointing out the force of our text, that "the earth" means that ordered scene where God had dealings beyond other parts. It was then as of old where Israel was set; as it was about to be enlarged by the outward profession of His name far beyond the land of Palestine. The Lord accordingly begins with that position of conserving purity, alike privilege and responsibility. "Ye are the salt of the earth." Less or other than this was unrecognisable since He, the Son, came and called into association with Himself. The life He communicated to the believer, and the redemption He would accomplish for his sins, would be explained fully in its season. But here He shows what consisted with the Father, as well as the kingdom He would establish.

But He adds words — most grave words — "If the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted?" Profession there would be, and an excellent thing it is, if it be a heart testimony to God, true not only in word but in deed. Here, at the beginning and still more clearly at the end of His communications the Lord prepares us to expect what soon and increasingly became evident how hollow and false it was to become; and He intimated by His question and comment that the true and holy savour if once lost would be irreparable. Whatever grace might work individually, or with a few here and there, the pure position cannot be restored. Salt is itself. Nothing outside can give the saltness that disappears. Wherewith shall it be salted?

He goes farther, and pronounces its unfitness even for the useful purpose of fertilising supplied by that which is most offensive. Saltless salt is unavailing even to manure the earth. It is only fit to be thrown outside, and trodden under foot of men. And so it will be, as it has been. When Christianity vanishes and only a savourless Christendom remains, men have trodden it down as more worthless than Judaism or even Gentilism, and the more insufferable as so much prouder and more persecuting. And so it will be when the final blows come for Babylon; and the powers which once had their illicit commerce with her shall hate the harlot, and make her desolate and naked, and eat her flesh and burn her with fire. Not only is God strong in judging her, but she shall be trodden under foot of indignant men.

Gathering or Scattering.

Luke 11: 23.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. N6, p. 56-58.)

"He that is not with me is against me and he that gathereth not with me scattereth." It is always an important question for the servant of Christ to put to himself, if not next to others, Am I doing the will of my Master? The first manifestation of the divine life in the heart of Saul of Tarsus, was to put him in the place of obedience through faith in Christ, and to subject the once stern self-righteous Pharisee to the will of another. Hitherto his own thoughts had been a sufficient guide to him for persecuting the disciples of the Lord Jesus. He verily thought that he was doing God service; as Naaman had been governed by his own thoughts in regard to his desired cleansing from his leprosy (2 Kings 5: 11). Now it was, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" And the answer, "It shall be told thee," left no room for the exercise of his own will in service to his new Master.

As neutrality is impossible in the things of God, so independence cannot be allowed in the servant of Christ. It necessarily follows that a spiritual discernment of the Lord's mind is of the last importance. To have an understanding of the divine objects brings increased responsibility to the one who knows and a heavier judgment if disobedient; while a faithful exercise of the gift bestowed brings increased blessing. "To him that hath shall more be given." If we could divest ourselves of conventionalism and of the natural and traditional thoughts of men about God and Christianity, or what men call religion, we should find it far easier to understand the teaching of the Lord Jesus in the Gospel of Luke than we do. It is God Himself visiting His people in grace, and Christ the minister of grace to us in the spirit of lowliness and constant dependence upon God, which so well becomes a true man of God. A multitude of the heavenly host are presented to us, giving expression to their unbounded delight in the hearing of the shepherds (Luke 2: 8-14), as the world can find no room for the First-born Son of God and Son of Man; while Imperialism only takes official record of the child's birth as of any other. The world's ignorance of, and complete indifference to, the purposes of God are thus fully manifested. Thus it is made clear that man is guilty, lost, and dead, yet all the while religious; and this last condition prevents him from profiting by grace, as Luke 15 demonstrates. The Lord Jesus, God's faithful Messenger of grace, finds difficulties accumulate in His pathway, so casting Him upon God in prayer, as in the beginning of this chapter. For man's religious position cannot be acknowledged; it is a false one for a sinner till born of God.

Even the disciples themselves confess their ignorance as to the right and suitable way of approach to God, and the Lord graciously instructs them; for they at least by grace believed and were upright (vers. 1-14). But this is not all: we may not stop at the supply of our own need; we are encouraged to go to God about others. The prayer "Give us" has been answered, one's personal need has been satisfied, but the circumstances of "a friend of mine in his journey" together with my own poverty and incapacity to help him, are pressing heavily upon my spirit, inducing earnestness, importunity, continuing instant in prayer, and the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man is answered. There may be apparent indifference, as Elijah experienced on Mount Carmel ("Go again seven times"); but it is only apparent. Human friendship may indeed break down when too much strain is put upon it. God is honoured when thus counted upon, although indeed in infinite wisdom far beyond that of any earthly parent (vers. 9 -13). But in truth a dumb spirit has taken possession of the heart of man: he has no voice for God either for prayer or praise (ver. 14). God was in Christ in power for man's deliverance from bondage to the "strong man armed," as well as in a fulness of grace which could bless abundantly. But pride and hatred closed up every avenue to the heart of man that he might not receive the love which Christ brought, and sealed his lips against the confession of need or praise for good received. It was here that the religious man showed how fully he was under the power of Satan by openly blaspheming the Holy Ghost, for, then as now, manifestly the Spirit was the only power which could make the grace of God effectual for man's blessing.

The Lord Jesus in His ministry used every argument calculated to impress sinners with a sense of the reality of that grace of which He was the fulness and channel; and to move them by faith to profit by it, telling them that "they ought always to pray and not to faint." There was the fullest encouragement to do so; but man was disinclined for this, and would rather take the place of a worshipper, however false, thanking God for something as to his condition which was really a denial of the truth ("God, I thank Thee that I am not as other men"). Such being the case, Christ's real work was gathering saints and not dispensing the blessings of grace that man might continue to claim them in his natural condition.

Many have thought and said that if only they had sufficient wealth, and authority, they could make the world a paradise and every creature happy, by dealing with the circumstances which are the fruit of sin. But this would leave God's nature, His holiness, His righteousness, and His love, unknown, the conscience untouched and unpurged, and would not truly draw the sinner to God. Had the fulness of the Father's house only been intellectually conveyed to the prodigal in the far country, he would never have thought of returning. Of course man has lost much, everything in fact; but God has concerned Himself about His own loss of the world, and especially of man in it. Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; and He will, with the necessarily awful but revealed exception of the lake of fire, eventually re-establish God's authority and judgment of evil, "that God may be all in all."

What He is doing in the meantime is calling and receiving sinners and by His Spirit gathering to His name. This is far better than effecting an outward reformation, yet leaving the sinner in his old place of distance in the far country. The Lord Jesus was "minister of circumcision," sent unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel, that they might be gathered; as it had been the object of prophetic testimony in the O.T. dispensation. The presentation of Christ to the people and His utter rejection proved that unbelieving Israel would not be gathered ("How often would I have gathered thy children together. . . and ye would not" (Matt. 23: 37)! The failure of Messiah's mission God foreknew; and it is fully acknowledged from Isaiah 49: 4, and onward. But Jehovah's answer discloses those counsels and purposes which are having their full accomplishment in the calling out from Jews and Gentiles into the church in this acceptable time; only for this, the heavenly glory of Christ is necessary. "Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of Jehovah." This remarkable prophecy shows us the exact order of events as recorded in the N.T. i.e. the temporary failure of Christ's mission to Israel; a suffering and rejected Messiah, received and glorified in heaven, made to be God's salvation unto the ends of the earth. Here then is the divine centre for all. "I, if I be lifted up (rejected) from the earth, will draw all unto Me" (John 12: 32).

We see this gathering to Christ Himself in many places in the four Gospels, but especially in the Gospel of John where the necessary presentation of Christ to the earthly people is shown to be a failure from the first. "He came unto His own things and His own people received Him not." But from the time that Christ took His seat at the right hand of the Majesty on high, the Holy Spirit was given to effectuate this. There is nothing else in the mind of God as to blessing for man, but this gathering to Christ. If He were not God, it would derogate from God; yet is He man also there, as here, in wondrous grace and truth. He alone is God's centre of unity, Head to the church over all things. The Holy Spirit sent by the Father and the Son is now occupying Himself upon earth, not only for the gospel, but to accomplish the Father's purpose for the glory of the Son; viz., "that for the dispensation of the fulness of the seasons He might gather together in one all things in the Christ " (Eph. 1: 10). At His coming it will be in displayed glory before all creation; now it is only He exalted above as "head over all things to the church," and here known only to faith.

In a day of religious activity, when many schemes are afloat for the promotion of revivals and the awakening of religious enthusiasm, this divine purpose may be easily lost sight of, and christian workers may become quite satisfied with creature blessing, for spiritual and social reformation, On the other hand where the truth is known and professed and its importance recognized, there may be a sad and inexcusable deficiency of love to Christ and to those that are His, as well as of evangelistic zeal, so that the privilege attaching to the servant of gathering with Christ is grievously if not idly surrendered. True knowledge of revealed truth may degenerate into doctrinal pride and self-complacency nauseous to Christ (Rev. 3: 16), while zeal without knowledge will make the sinner's blessing the end and object of our service instead of Christ's glory. No company of Christians, however gifted and intelligent, could rightly say "He that gathereth not with 'us' scattereth" — which was John's thought in Luke 9: 49, 50. But this word of the Lord Jesus challenges every one of His servants today, "He that gathereth not with Me scattereth."

"Christian Science" (falsely so-called).

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. N2, p. 237-238.)

Such is the name of a new substitute for the Personal Christ the Son of God and His redemption. It is of American growth, but not limited to the U. S., Brazil, and Canada; for it has already sent forth suckers into England and Scotland, France and Germany. This is the language in which the Rev. Geo. Tomkins, D.D. (formerly a Baptist minister), speaks of its rise:- "THE REVELATION OF CHRISTIAN SCIENCE [the emphasis is his own] came to Rev. Mary Baker G. Eddy in the year 1866 and its truth and power were immediately demonstrated by signs following." . . . "It is the perfect salvation from sin and sorrow, disease and death, which Christ Jesus came to bring. Christian Science, in a word, is the law of 'God-Good' Principle, Being, Life, Truth, Love, and Eternal Harmony — put into practice here and now.

This however, and almost all else, is but tall talk and empty vapour. Coming closer, is not Christ only "Impersonal" Truth? "Once we thought that each mortal had a soul of his own, and that this soul could be divided from spirit; but in the light of Christian Science we know that there is but one soul, one Spirit, and that God; and that this two-edged sword, Truth, separates all the beliefs of mortal mind from the thoughts of divine mind." . . . It "boldly declares there is no personality, neither personal good, personal evil, nor personal men!" Such is the use made of 2 Cor. 5: 16. This awful delusion openly denies not only the Father and the Son, but also the devil and a man as persons. It is thus more daringly opposed to all truth than Judaism or even Paganism, and leaves no room for that association of the believer with God the Father, through the Lord Jesus the Son, which we know as Christians. It is one of the many antichrists against which the Epistles of John so solemnly warn us as to be in the last time.

Take another and distinct proof of its blasphemy. "This Christ-Truth is His second coming, which is mentioned and referred to in the Bible over three hundred times." . . . "Now He has come — IMPERSONALLY!" "We consciously [? confidently] declare that 'Science and Health, with key to the Scriptures' was foretold as well as its author [Dr. T.'s italics], Mary Baker Eddy in Revelation 10. She is the 'mighty angel,' or God's highest thought to this age (verse 1) giving us the spiritual interpretation of the Bible in the 'little book open' (verse 2)." Naturally and necessarily therefore Mrs. Eddy's little book supersedes the Bible, as Swedenborg's volumes do for the N. J. church, and Joe Smith and Pratt's impostures for the Mormonites ; yet they all pretend to accept the Scriptures!!! Alas! it is as hollow and guilty, as when a feast was proclaimed to Jehovah; but in reality Israel worshipped a molten image, having changed their glory for an ox that eateth grass.

Another of these effusions has been sent and lies before me. It is by the Rev. W. P. MacKenzie of Boston. It too is mere naturalism with the usual perversion of scripture to give a gloss of truth. "Its postulate (says be), rather should one say its axiom, is this; that by PROVING THE UNREALITY OF SIN, DISEASE AND DEATH, YOU DEMONSTRATE THE ALLNESS OF GOOD." This is really to set aside the O. and N. Testaments, to lose the profit of repentance and the blessing of faith. Torture is done to Wiclif's version of Luke 1: 77; for though he does say "science of helthe," the remission of sins which qualifies the phrase, in the original and in his translation as well as of all others, proves that the remark is baseless as well as wicked, and a mere play on words to mislead the unwary. The salvation "of souls" is there meant, as 1 Peter 1: 9 says. Body-salvation is a truth which the new heterodoxy rejects; it awaits Christ's second coming, which they also deny in any true sense, as indeed the faith as a whole. But inasmuch as this debasing folly is so thoroughly infidel as to deny that each man has a soul, it is needless to speak to them of soul-salvation. If there is but "one soul, one spirit," and that "God," if there is no personality, good or evil, there is no need, or room, for a Saviour. It is really a hideous dream of Pantheism, if not yielding to faith, assuredly to wake up for the second death, which is the lake of fire.

___________

(B.T. Vol. N2, p. 237-238.)

BAPTISM clearly signifies death; and it is not the baptising but the coming out of the water which can be applied to resurrection [as in Col. 2: 12]. The giving of life is in no way the sense of baptism even as a figure, but leaving the life of Adam by death (the death of Christ), and entrance through that gate into a wholly new place and position.

The Sermon on the Mount as a Whole.

Matt. 5 - 7.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. N5, p. 7-8.)

As the different parts of our Lord's wondrous instructions have been before us from time to time, though not in the orderly form, it seems not without interest to survey it comprehensively. Also it is well to take note of the striking difference between the task assigned to the First Gospel as compared with the Third. In the latter we have various portions dealing with the persons or things to which the instruction applies; whereas the former presents all in an unbroken fulness. Hence if we had not Luke's Gospel, we should not have known the interruptions, which in fact did occur, on the occasions for drawing out the teaching applicable.

It is known that many excellent persons have tried to make out, for the clearing up of what enemies treat as discrepancies, that our Lord repeated the same or. very similar instruction under different circumstances. Assuredly on the one hand no one would affirm that the same truth may not have been often reiterated in the course of His service here below. But on the other there is no proper ground for doubting that the Spirit of God has in a remarkable and deeply interesting way presented the same teaching in a differing connection and with distinguishable shades, according to the divine design of the books which incorporate it. Thus there is no need to conceive a new rehearsal, in order to reconcile (as it is called) the writings, or to vindicate the credit of the writers. It is on the contrary the wisdom of God in which the Holy Spirit acted when He thus directed the so called Evangelists. For we must not assume that Matthew and Luke entered fully into His reasons for so inspiring them. What is certain is that they were so led of Him as to give us the truth of God, the more perfectly to fulfil His purpose in each.

Take, as the first instance in fact, the account of Luke 6: 12-49, and compare it with the chapters of Matthew; as also Luke 11: 1-13. and 33-36. Quite aware that pious men have argued from "the plain" in Luke 6: 17, opposed to the "mountain" in Matt. 5: 1, one is constrained from the clear evidence of both to reject such a solution of the difficulty felt as to the identity of the discourse at the same place and time. For Luke's language does not mean "a plain," but rather a level place or plateau on the mountain, up to which the Lord went to pray all night, before calling the chosen twelve, and then coming down with them, so far as to meet a crowd of His disciples and a great multitude of the people out of all Judea and Jerusalem. It was clearly the same discourse; but the Spirit acted, not as a mere reporter (which is not the manner of inspiration) but as an infallible editor, as it were, for the distinctive design of each Gospel.

Hence we may observe that Matthew does not relate here the apostolic institution, as Luke does at this time and place, like Mark, who omits the sermon as being occupied with His work rather than His words. Matthew was led to reserve that call as its fitting place to the mission to Israel in Matt. 10 which corresponds with the beginning of Luke 9. Ignorance or error is out of the question for the Evangelists, but too true of those who carp at what they do not understand, The first striking distinction in the discourse is, that in the briefer sketch Luke was given the address personal, "ye," not the abstract "the" as in Matthew before the final benediction of verse 11; while Matthew was led to reserve his far fuller woes till Matt. 23 which was a later time.

The Kingdom has no such place in Luke as in Matthew. It is those that gather to Christ and follow Him truly who are blessed; and thus for man as he is, outside and despising Him. The contrast of what Messiah authoritatively said with what was said to the ancients is peculiar to Matthew. Luke gives fully the great and new morality of loving our enemies, being merciful as our Father also is, not judging or condemning, but remitting according to the divine pattern; as Matthew gives the pointed teaching on practical righteousness in acts and words, prayer and fasting as directed against hypocrisy; and the prayer for disciples comes in here in Matt. 6: 9-13. In Luke it is not only reserved for a moral connection with heeding the word as the appropriate exercise of life according to God, but we learn too that it was the Lord's answer to a disciple's request. To record this in Luke's Gospel was as suitable, as to leave it out in Matthew's who presents the Lord in all meekness but full of authority, without taking notice of any such human circumstances.

This too explains why the First Gospel gives it not only as an unbroken whole, but in immediate sequence of a very broad and general view of His service and the wide impression produced (Matt. 4: 23-25). In a similar way His teaching next follows, though historic detail was given later.

But not to see that these ways of the inspiring Spirit are perfect for the adequate revealing of Christ's various grace and glory, and in no less admirable adaptation to man's condition and wants to conceive that they are blemishes of human infirmity, is indeed to be dim-sighted if not blind. Such are those who, if they do not altogether deny God's word, "Just hint a fault and hesitate dislike; Willing to wound, but yet afraid to strike." But if we are to be kept in these difficult and dangerous times, if we are not to he carried away by superstition or by scepticism, we need uncompromising adherence to scripture and dependance on His guidance who inspired every word from God but through man, and to be now characteristically (I do not say absolutely) able to say, as could not be of old, "we know," as we read in the Epistles of Paul and John particularly, not said of themselves only but of Christians their brethren, who have God's Spirit dwelling in them.

As to the sermon, it is instruction in the righteousness proper to all that enter the Kingdom of the heavens. Those born of the Spirit alone can meet the state of soul blessed in the Lord's eyes. It is not a requirement as on Sinai, but Christ's description of such as suit the Kingdom. Not a word of grace to sinners is uttered. It is not the gospel of God's grace to the lost, but His words for His disciples; and personal obedience is the rock at its close. To misrepresent this is mere error; and it is evangelical men who find most difficulty. Others no doubt are wholly wrong; but we must not confound it with redemption or saving grace.

Matt. 5 is not only a sketch of what the blessed ones are, but with the authority of Law and Prophets fulfilled, not weakened, the higher conduct suited to the Kingdom, in contrast with what God of old forbore with, now that the Father's name is revealed, and relationship with Him.

Matt. 6 speaks of the inner life or ways as seen of the Father, distinct from the world, and its cares apt otherwise to be absorbing.

Matt. 7 shows their due attitude to others, saints or sinners, with counting on God encouraged, and avoidance of false prophets (no matter what their gifts), and practical submission to Christ's words.

Now, my reader, if you have not judged yourself as lost and found by grace, salvation in Christ and His work, how can you face the Sermon on the Mount? It is far more to be dreaded by you than the Ten Words of Sinai with all the terrific sights and sounds which accompanied them. Jesus invites and urges you to come to Him, and even assures that "him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out." Have you ever so come? Come now. Delay here is most dangerous.

Jesus, the Son of God.

W. Kelly.

John 1: 29-43

(B.T. Vol. N11, p. 197-202.)

The great truth that underlies the Gospel of John is the Godhead of that Man who was thus walking on the earth. I do not mean merely in its explicit statement of Him, but in that which implies it constantly, as is ever more wonderful to him that attentively weighs the word of God. Thus His divine glory comes out in the most indirect ways and unexpected forms; hence souls grow in strength by that infinite display of love — Jesus nowhere more truly God than when a man. He was indeed a man: but this was little or nothing in itself, unless He were God. Then what a truth and what a love! What humiliation on His part! What infinite blessing to man, at least to the souls who believe! The Word was made flesh, but He was the true God; and hence it is that we find, whenever He speaks or acts, by whatever the Spirit of God traces Him, Godhead is there behind the veil.

John the Baptist's testimony here has quite a different character in itself and another effect on the soul from what we find in the other Gospels. Where else does he treat of Him as the Lamb of God? The Messiah, the coming King, the perfect Servant engaged in the work of God, the woman's Seed and Son of man — these we do find elsewhere; but here we have Him as the Lamb of God in a far more comprehensive relation than with the old and favoured people. He is the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world. Thus it is that He is presented in a universality of blessing through His work that could not be in any one but a divine person. Certain it is that He is shown here habitually in this character. "This is the Son of God."

Hence it is that in the Gospel of John it is not a question of the dispensations that disappear or succeed one another, but of what is vital and unchanging because divine. Hence. too, therefore, it is when dispensations have passed away that the full meaning of such a word as this is realised. It is not particularly now, nor in the age that follows, but in the eternal state, that it will be manifest that He is the Lamb of God who taketh away (not our sins as believers but) sin in its totality. We know how it is usually quoted for a sense altogether different. It is not really to meet that which we are found in and forgiven by faith in His blood, but when the world shall be clean rid of it all. Sin will be banished wholly from the universe. What a testimony to His glory, who by His work effects it all! I refer to this prevalent error the more plainly and pointedly, because souls may be suffering under the influence of this too common confusion in things which so materially differ. It is not a question of the saint on earth in whom the Spirit of God dwells. The error helps on the delusion of Satan, not alas! outside, but in Christendom. There is the subtlest snare for man. It is Babylon.

What is Babylon? Is it not the cage of every unclean bird and beast? What havoc is not there, particularly of the truth ? God has been most of all dishonoured there. It may be, as in the present case, by only one letter, but that makes all the difference between truth and error. All Christendom then says or sings, Christ is the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world. How blinding is worldly religion!

Can we not now register our growth in the truth by the words we used to say ignorantly, but dare not repeat now at all? They are positively false. Indeed I know scarcely a more injurious error than this if logically carried out. Christ is "the Lamb of God which takes away the sin," not the sins, "of the world." One is a blessed truth, the other is a mistake with the gravest consequences. It is to enfeeble or destroy the peace of the believer, and to pillow unbelievers with hopes that work ruin to themselves, with dishonour to God and His Christ.

Nor do I believe that any bodies in Christendom have contributed to this error so much as those who boast of their liturgies. Remission of sins for faith is an integral part of the gospel, which supposes that the sins of unbelievers, far from being taken away or forgiven, will be the more sternly judged because of unbelief in Christ.

But this verse, misinterpreted as we have seen, has helped on the errors of Christendom from sub-apostolic days. It was among the delusions which gave impulse to the departure that undermined the gospel of God; nor am I aware of a single Protestant Confession which has cleared itself from perpetuating this error, though they differ widely enough otherwise.

The dissenters too, who stand for extemporaneous prayer, are no better. If you went into a place where there is no prayer-book, you would find the self-same doctrine, and the same misuse of this very Scripture. So ingrained is the error that, if you stated the truth, they would affirm that it was a distinction without a difference. Thus everywhere the truth of God is entirely set aside for tradition, which is man's thought, and subversive always of God's truth.

The only party that succeeds in a compromise is Satan's synagogue. Where souls in the forms of prayer are habitually fed with such an error as this, it is vain for the pulpit to assert the truth opposed. The heart prefers error to truth, for the truth exalts God and humbles man. And Satan is striving to lower the person of Christ, to Whom that word testifies. Hence it is, no matter what you take up, though it were a "Life of Christ," the uniform tendency is to dishonour Him, and in the same proportion to blot out the real difference between believers and unbelievers in relation to Him. There may be every kind of reverent language and pious desires, but it will never suffice for God without the truth, that is, Christ. Error puts all down on the same level, but this gives, in vain. everything to the world, as it takes away every distinctive blessing from. the believer. They humanise Christ and they deify man as he is.

How full and refreshing the testimony of God-Christ as His Lamb taking away the sin of the world in due time; the same is He which baptiseth with the Holy Ghost (vers. 29, 33)! They are the two works of the Lord Jesus, in the words of John the Baptist — His great earthly and His great heavenly work. We must not confound the bearing of our sins in His own body on the tree with taking away the sin of the world, as He will, for the new heavens and the new earth, When it is a question of sin-bearing, it is "our" sins (1 Peter 2); when it is a question of taking away, it is the world's sin. This is the ultimate effect of His work. The Spirit looks onward by John in the full sense of what Christ was eventually to accomplish, an immense work in connection with His divine glory. He "appeared for the putting away of sin" by the sacrifice of Himself. Hebrews 9 speaks of His purpose to put sin away. It is not the time when it was to be done, but the end for which He appeared. The work was effected on the cross; but the full results of the cross are not yet manifested.

John bare record with another declaration — that he knew Him not. It was not to be in anything human. Of course the heavenly work needed a divine person. It is even more distinct, for who could give the Spirit thus? None but God could take away the sin of the world; and John knew Him not, though he came baptising in view of His manifestation to Israel. So also now there is an equally great heavenly work which He wrought at Pentecost, the effect of which still goes on. He Himself never was to be baptised by the Holy Ghost, which signifies the bringing entirely out of one position into another.

Quite another thing is said of Him. "Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, the same is He which baptiseth with the Holy Ghost." We are said to receive the Holy Spirit of God, and to be "sealed unto the day of redemption." A believer is sealed now by the Spirit; an unbeliever at all times needs to be quickened. Were the unbeliever sealed, it would be woe to him; it would fix him (if it could be) in his state of ruin. "In whom after that ye believed ye were sealed." It is not a question of what the interval may be. It might be long or short. But no man is sealed the very instant he believes. First, there is the Spirit of God bringing him to judge himself and his sins before God. Thus is the soul born of God; he believes the gospel and finds peace. Men were cleansed by the word, or born of the Spirit, before the gospel. In reality it is the word by the quickening energy of the Spirit revealing Christ that effects this. The word brings home God's judgment of sins now, instead of by and by. Hence it is mischievous to date a soul's conversion or quickening from the day when it receives peace or is made happy.

It is of the deepest consequence to bring souls to repentance, as much really as to bring them into peace. People talk often of having peace with God long before they know what it means. They may have joy before. There may be a bright revelation to the soul through Christ which they are apt to call peace; but for solid peace the soul must have found its all in the work of Christ, entering by faith into God's mind about itself and Him. Consequently it can rest only in that full redemption of the Lord Jesus. Then the Holy Ghost seals. There can be no sealing until Christ and His work are thus rested on. The two things are distinct — to be born of the Spirit of God, and to be sealed on the ground of Christ's redemption. When the soul has submitted to the righteousness of God, the Spirit seals it.

But our Gospel is bringing us into the truth of Christ's person, as applied to whatever the Holy Ghost traces it here. He was not baptised by the Spirit, but He baptised others by the Holy Spirit. "Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit," etc. There was an entirely special glory in our Lord's case. The Spirit was as the dove, not, as on the day of Pentecost, the rushing wind, or the tongue of fire.

Yet was Jesus man, and joined those who confessed their sins and were baptised with water. But at the very moment the heavens opened and the Father's voice was heard, and the Holy Ghost descended on Him, but no baptism of the Spirit for Him, no power needed to bring Him out of the position in which He was to a new and better one. It was as on a man that the Holy Ghost came down, on Christ without blood; no sacrifice did He need, no offering for sin, for in Him was none. Yet it is the believer that most of all confesses, what he is and what he, has done, and the Holy Ghost not only descends, not only abides, as on Christ, but now baptises believers into one body. It is divine power that puts us in entirely new associations in and with Christ. But the body is not the only great truth of God. It would be wrong to state that the baptism of the Holy Ghost effects it alone. The unity in John is very different from that of Paul. It is never the unity of the body, but that which is of Christ in us. Being thus formed by the Spirit of God, it has the character of deeper intimacy, and is rather family unity, giving communion of mind, feeling, and purpose. We have had the work of Christ on earth in respect to sin; before the work of redemption there could not be baptism of the Holy Ghost. The work must be laid as a basis which would glorify God, and is to take away the world's sin. Now this work is done, and we can be thus baptised.

But many are quite incredulous. They hold that the Old Testament saints were just as much thus baptised; only we have better knowledge and can judge of everything, and so on. This is not the only error. They are doctrines that flow from a low estimate, if not of Christ, certainly of His work, and consequently there is no thorough judgment of sin or the world. Doubtless some would be disposed to talk of "peculiar views." How little have such souls been exercised by the word of God? We used, when denominationalists, to have peculiar views; we are getting rid of them now through the Lord's mercy.

The testimony of His work now follows the declaration of His person. So the two disciples heard John speak, and followed Jesus. But we fail to see the force of this, unless we see who it was that gave the testimony. According to the Lord Jesus Himself, of all that are born of women, none was greater than His messenger, John the Baptist. Yet the effect of it is that the disciples leave him for Jesus. "Behold the Lamb of God" had sunk into their hearts. Now we see this blessed result: they followed Jesus.

Here comes out the glory of the person of Christ. If He had not been God, what a slight it would have been to have given up John the Baptist! John was the greatest of God's servants; but he says, "He must increase, but I must decrease." God was there in "the man Christ Jesus." This truth abides still, and we see it open out a little, when "Andrew findeth Simon, and he brought him to Jesus" (ver. 42).

Now I want to show that there is another truth of the highest possible importance taught in all this. God is not merely saving souls, but gathering to Jesus. Do we want to know what He is gathering-for and what to? It is to Jesus. One was there, God, that was not only from the beginning, but who looked right on to the end. There may be other things to intervene, but once we find this immense landmark, what a change! Jesus is not merely a Saviour but a centre, and this is what the Spirit here brings before us. There is nothing else to give us both firmness and humility. It communicates a deep sense of what God has at first done, and is still doing : for we are simply recovering what God has laid down in His word. It is what has long since slipped out of mind in Christendom.

This further truth I would now press on those that are here. It is not enough to have salvation, still less to have life in Him, and forgiveness through His blood. God also gives us Christ as His one central Object for gathering together. His love to us, His glory, would not be satisfied with conferring blessings on us. He makes Christ to be the one adequate and abiding centre for the saints on earth. If He had not been God, it would have been a derogation from His own honour. But as He is God equally with the Father, to own Him thus is the Father's joy. In all things the blessed Servant of God, that Man alone was God, and in Him we find the true centre.

But the knowledge of Christ as the Lamb of God precedes this, as we see here. Then God puts this desire into our hearts. The Destroyer of the works of the devil, the Deliverer from sin, attracts our hearts and we go forth to Him (Compare Heb. 13: 13). No person or polity, doctrine or creed, is worthy of such a place. It is due to Christ from all that are His. It is not a question of a centre by and by in heaven. Scripture shows us the value of Him now as the divinely-given centre on earth. So in Matt. 18: 20, He says, "Where two or three are gathered together unto my name, there am I in the midst of them." What a joy to have Him thus! We shall ever be around Him in heaven; but why defraud Him and our own souls of the privilege, not to say bounden duty, of the same principle now, and on earth? It is His holy and unquestionable will about us; and we dishonour Him if we do not gather to Him here below.

Let me refer you to other scriptures that prove the importance of it, as Matt. 12: 30. "He that is not with Me is against Me; and he that gathereth not with Me, scattereth abroad." The believer is called to take his stand for and with Christ, and to make Him his one and continual centre for gathering souls to. It goes far beyond the fact that one believes "for he that gathereth not with Me, scattereth." The first is for myself, the second is for my work; and in both respects Christ is all. He is my Lord and Saviour, He is also my centre, and, in whatever way seen, He is, in all His divine perfection, the needed and the given One; and, as His own, God works that we should be gathered to Him and gather. There may be seductions and trials, and these not on one side merely, but on all sides. There may be fair appearances, efforts after union if not unity, and success may be claimed where Christ is not the centre. There may be sorrow and shame where He is thus acknowledged, sometimes wrong done and sometimes a right thing in a wrong way. We are not to be moved on the one hand, nor to be insensible on the other. For where God's centre is owned in faith it is in general a question of grace and patience, though possibly at times a question of judgment, but all these things turn in the long run to Christ's glory, and then what joy for those who wait in faith!

Thus Christ as the centre for saints on earth becomes of the deepest practical moment. There may be all kinds of centres, but, whatever they be, they are rivals. Every one but Himself is repudiated by God's word, and really it would be an unworthy centre for His people were we to substitute for Himself anything in the Bible — say the highest truth — His body, the church. For that very reason you would have, not only a spurious centre, which has wrought infinite mischief, as we see in Catholicism, Romanism, etc.; but besides, the very narrowest of all narrow parties; you would merely have those that understand the church of God! A similar result would follow if the Lord's coming became the central object and test for gathering to. We have been speaking today of the Lord's coming, and the very souls who need most the loving gracious care of Christ are the very persons who would then be rigidly shut out, for how little is their intelligence in this or anything else!

Where Christ is held to truly as the centre, it will be found that the affections freely flow towards all that He loves. If you have the true centre, can it be doubted that you will find yourself with the true circumference? It is His name by faith in it which alone gathers according to God, and those who answer to it are welcome to Him, and should be to us. Hence also it appears to me quite a mistake to set forth the church or its principles as the remedy for the present distractions of God's children, but to set souls right with Christ. I have never met a Christian who simply and fully entered into the liberty of Christ without also finding out the value of Christ as the true centre for saints. Let them only know Christ better and His redemption, and then follows the heart's decision to cleave to Him in every way. On the other hand, I have known many, familiarly learning the church, the Lord's coming, and other grand truths, who nevertheless remain in their old human associations. If we all owned the same person, work, and centre in Christ, we should all circle in harmony around Him.

But it is, alas! far from the fact; and men cleave each to their systems, which thus, whatever they may argue, become a rivalry of Christ. Nor should one wish to hurry any soul. Those who hear and refuse Christ as a centre should be left with the Lord. I have known those who seemed even spiritually-minded to turn out quite unsound in faith, so that, if you had only known, you would have thanked God for keeping such away. If then you are content with Christ as the centre, gather you with Him, and He will approve it when He comes again.

But if you are not gathering with Him, what forfeits? Oh, what scattering! oh, what an utter collapse of zeal and labourI Can you deny that His word warned you? Which is the case with you? To what centre are you really gathering? Have you the "open door" and Christ inside, Christ in the midst? Are you looking and labouring in the Spirit to that centre? He is worthy, He alone.

But there is another passage to be noticed. briefly, in Mark 9: 40, "He that is not against us, is on our part." Here it is a question of largeness of heart in what is wrought, and not of the paramount claims of Christ personally. Hence it is no longer "me" but "us" and "on our part." "And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out demons in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my. name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us, is on our part." The danger. is here of narrowness in service, not of speaking against the Son of man and the Holy Spirit. The faithful should appreciate true service wherever it is, but can only gather with Christ. We have to bear this in mind. There is such a thing as, work done in the name of the Lord Jesus, which is not done within the circle that is formed round the true centre. And what have we to do? Meddling as little as possible we should heartily own whatever is done in His name, but cleave to Himself as our security as well as our joy and boast.

You may see often a servant of Christ in a false position yet blessed to others largely. Do you envy it? Or would you depreciate the work done? The Lord answers to the faith in His name without the least endorsing what even we regard with deep regret. Be content yourself to keep His word and not deny His name. Do not forget the distinction between the sovereignty of Christ's grace and the Christian's fidelity to His person. I can understand an unhappy man always murmuring; but those brought into the richest blessing may well rejoice like Paul, in Phil. 1. But do not confound largeness with laxity. Of all things under the sun there is, in a saint, nothing worse than looseness; but the more right we are by grace, the more we can afford to be gracious. Cleaving to Christ then, let us watch against the narrowness that is only occupied with our own things. If in Matthew we have Christ against Satan, in Mark, on the other hand, we have the place we should give to a servant, even if not with us. The Lord Jesus did not, could not, say as regards Himself what He says about His service. Compare Luke 9: 5 for the one and Luke 11: 23 for the other. The Gospel of Luke is pre-eminently full of great moral principles.

It is not then that we pretend to have what God does not give to all His children. But we want them to see all that Christ is to His own even on earth, as well as for them in their sins. We seek no party, and I dare say a big party is but a bigger evil. But there is only one thing which truly preserves from every snare to the glory of God, and that is Christ. Let Him then be the object of our souls. May we be kept by the Spirit in all subjection unto His blessed name.

Nor is it only that we have the divine centre in Christ, in order to be thus kept from building up something that has to be taken down when He comes, but we are in the midst of dangers, and snares, and evil. How are we to be kept from these? By Jesus, the same yesterday, today, and for ever. The same divine person provides for all the difficulties of every day. He is the light of life, as well as the centre for our zeal and labour. Every word of God is precious and profitable, as every scripture is inspired of Him; but we need to read Christ in it to reap the full value: and for this we may count on the Spirit of God who is here to glorify Christ.

I do not believe that the word of God, apart from Christ, ever does suffice for His purpose or our blessing. The word written is meant to associate with Christ, and not to dispense with Him. God has given us His word. So He says to Philip, "Follow me" (ver. 43). He is "the way," as well as "the truth," and "the life." How blessedly we have Himself set out in God's word! If a person is in difficulty and a situation opens out for him, he might think it providential. but he is required to do certain things he knows to be wrong. Is he then to follow Christ or evil? The voice of Jesus is heard, "Follow Me." Thus in our whole path by His grace we have the same Christ that engages our affections and service. Is Christ, then your object? He is the HOLY, the TRUE; and those that hear His voice will cleave to Him. Christ who is the constant spring of blessing, is the safeguard of every saint in this world of vain show.

The Lord then, is "the way" as He expressly says of Himself in John 14, as truly as He is the attractive centre; and we need Him quite as much for our way now on earth. Are we competent to pass safely through this wilderness where there is no way? Only by cleaving to Christ as "the way." It is a great thing to work to Him, as well as from Him, and for Him; but there is no adequate, no absolute, preservation from slips and deviations on our part, or from the misleadings of others, let them be ever so wise in the main, save by following Jesus. He only is the way. We have to "beware of men"; we do well to try by the word what saints say and do, but we may, we ought to, unreservedly follow this divine and divinely given way — our Lord Jesus. It was not needed in the paradise of man unfallen ; it will not be in the paradise of God, where all will be according to His will and glory in unfailing goodness, and no seducer intrude more, no weakness or lack of vigilance expose on our part. But whether we look at what is without, or bear in mind what our nature is within, we do deeply need a sure path through the world, away above its motives and maxims and habits and objects. And here we have the One God delights in, even Christ, not only as the Lamb of God, and the centre, by grace and truth, for the saints, but as the way to follow through all snares and difficulties and dangers. Who that knows would fear to follow Him? May we learn to know Him better as the only way! "If any man serve me, let him follow me: and where I am there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour."

W. K.

"Sorrowful Words from a Sorrowful Heart

to beloved brethren in the Lord."

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. 17, p. 379.)

Such is the title of a short paper from an anonymous brother. Sorrow for sinful acts and state is of God, where the truth is still faithfully clung to in the sorrow, It is a mistake if it be supposed that many have not mourned overt high and hard self-confidence, not merely where wrongs were done, but slighting grace, the only healing principle in an evil day. Any one, even unconverted men, can condemn mistakes slashingly, not only erring themselves in an opposite way, but fostering and confirming the pride of knowledge (often equivocal) and the assumption of an impregnable position, or "true ground" (often a delusion). "Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." Either grace or truth alone, perhaps only so-called, misleads. It is not the Christ we received, in Whom we are to walk, if we would walk acceptably to God. Is there Philadelphia nowhere, because Laodicea is come?

Nothing unkind is said or insinuated (for I really do not know); but it seems pertinent to ask if our dear brother who thus sorrows, cleaves to the Lord with full purpose of heart? Or is he, through despair because of the faults of others, giving up thorough devoted heart-adhesion to the truth he values so highly in the writings of a departed brother? To own without acting on the truth is bad testimony. Is he as a fact walking in the love he feels so lacking generally? Is he also "walking in truth"? This surely is essential. Has he no greater joy than to hear of any children of God so walking? Truth and love together magnify the Lord. Is he, whatever be the weakness, keeping Christ's word and not denying His name? Or is he while complaining of others shirking the cross and tampering with those ways of christendom which he once judged to be faithless?

Brotherly kindness, and love above that even, are surely of God; but are they not, as the rule, where the truth is most prized? Or does our brother take the ground of "I, even I, only"? In this case he must forgive one who desires to weigh before God his "sorrowful words," and has nothing but the kindest affections toward their author, if he express the fear that he deceives himself and is hardly fair toward not a few. Surely God has His 7,000; and they are not so hidden, now that the Holy Spirit is come down, as to escape a single eye. For gathering to Christ's name is a distinct and abiding part of our allegiance. He died not to save only but to gather together in one. No true heart, cognisant of this, will ever make it secondary. One may have to purge himself from vessels to dishonour; yet one cannot rest negatively there, but follow His will with those that call on the Lord out of a pure heart. Without this it is vain to talk of love. "Hereby we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and do His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not grievous" (1 John 5: 2, 3).

C. H. Spurgeon's "Winning Souls for Christ";

And "Driving away the Vultures from the Sacrifice."

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. 17, p. 16.)

It is a pleasure to bring these addresses before christians who might not otherwise hear of them.

The first is an earnest exhortation delivered to the members and friends of the Open-air Mission, with not a few wise and wholesome counsels for the better promotion of the work.

The second is a sermon on Gen. 15 which gives characteristic expression to the preacher's abhorrence of those whose false teaching would profane or do away with the sacrifice of Christ. "Deprive Us," he cries, "of the sacrifice, and behold an army which has lost both its banners and its weapons of war. The gates of hope are closed against the guilty when the atonement is denied. The windows through which light should come to the penitent are sealed against a single beam of hope when once you take away the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ our Lord. Therefore will we drive away the ravenous birds as long as we have a hand to move. As we love the souls of men, we will spend our last breath in the defence of our Lord's substitution. Can we bear to see man's last refuge taken away? God forbid! Away, ye evil birds. The heroes of old chased the harpies from their feasts, much more would we drive you from the altar of our God." So would we; and we should only add to the intensity of our action, if we felt as we ought the dishonour the misleaders are rendering to God and to His Son in that infinite work, to which the Holy Ghost bears His witness for the remission of sins. Let us pray for Mr. S.

Bishop Strossmayer on the Speech.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. 9, p. 160.)

It seems right to say that Bishop Strossmayer wrote not long ago to the Francais, repudiating the speech at the Vatican Council against papal infallibility attributed to him in many home as well as foreign publications. He declares that he never uttered anything derogatory to the Roman see. If one did not know the casuistry of worldly religion, this might seem decisive against the thought of such a speech from him; but it is likely that, if delivered at all, it may have been so highly seasoned by others as to afford an occasion of denying its genuineness when the dogma was passed, and the heat of opposition gone. It is hard to suppose that Bishop Strossmayer said nothing like it in the face of the general rumour.

____________

Copyright

(B.T. Vol. 9, p. 175-176.)

TO THE EDITOR OF "THE BIBLE TREASURY."

Dear brother,

It seems only right to inform your readers that the abridgment of the Memoir of Daniel Mann, referred to in your last number, was made by a christian lady in the South of France, a member of the Free Church. This lady writes for the "Eglise Libre" and furnished her narrative to that Journal. Her object was to supply an article adapted for the generality of French readers. The tract referred to was reprinted from the four or five numbers of the Journal referred to, the publisher undertaking to print it as a tract before he know from what source it was obtained.

The right of translation not having been reserved, no reflection can be cast upon the lady who abridged the narrative; but as we are not only to recognize legal rights, but to act graciously one towards the other, the London publisher has since been communicated with and compensation been offered, in case he considered his rights were infringed upon. This he declined.

The printer's name was through his mistake omitted on the first few hundred copies which were issued. When this error was discovered, it was immediately corrected as publications cannot legally be circulated in France without the name of the printer.

Yours faithfully,

Oct, 11th. B.

[The foregoing statement is printed as explanatory of the circumstances. Every unbiassed reader will see that it is no real justification. If a christian writer does not reserve his legal rights, this leaves it open to any one to translate but not to mutilate. I do not agree with "B.," that this is a question of acting graciously or not, but rather a plain moral wrong. Even a worldly person of upright mind ought to feel the impropriety of such mutilation without leave first obtained on good and candid and christian grounds. A money compensation might suit the world but hardly a Christian: the publisher did right to refuse.

As to the general duty of seeking to spread testimony to Christ, and especially gospel truth, in the French as in all other tongues, I warmly sympathize with every such effort if directed after a godly sort. I should counsel every servant of the Lord to reserve no rights; but this gives no sanction to perpetrate a wrong. — Ed. B. T.]

Sufferings of Christ.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. 6, p. 205-206.)

Cannot "One still distressed" understand the statement that our Lord both anticipated the smiting, and that it actually came on the cross ; and that neither one nor other is in Scripture used for atonement, but rather for His humiliation and rejection in which atonement was wrought? There was anticipation in spirit before the cross, and there was actual smiting on the cross; but how does this prove that smiting is atonement? Of course the smiting was present, and not anticipation, and, as all admit, actual atonement was there; but where is smiting said to be atonement, save in traditional phraseology? Nor is it that those who prefer to speak with Scripture wish to force their convictions on their brethren; but why should others who are in this merely led by custom denounce those who cleave to God's word till it can be shown they have mistaken it? Page 36, to which reference is made, does not teach that the actual smiting of Christ was before the cross. The correspondent is mistaken: why persist in so evident an error, acted on by others? Ought any one to lay so serious an insinuation without proof? The alleged proofs are to my mind evidence of nothing but mistake and ill-will. Not many readers are aware that Mr. B. W. N. has just written on this subject (14th Nov. last). Does he then hail as his allies the men who, as calumny pretends, have adopted doctrine so similar to his own? If Mr. D.'s doctrine were in the least like that of Mr.N's tract which was condemned in 1847, he might well triumph that old foes were now (unwittingly perhaps) his friends. But mark the solemn fact. Mr. N., instead of the smallest agreement with those he calls. "Darbyites," evidently feels that, of all men living, they are the most opposed to bits views. But, further, he adopts the same line of argument which is common to all the attacks on Mr. D.'s pamphlet. He does not admit more than they do, that there was anything but atonement in the cross. He certainly betrays a treacherous memory (in the face of what he has written and what we too well know) when he denies that he "ever maintained that the Lord Jesus suffered either in life or in death except sacrificially and expiatorily as the Redeemer;" but assuredly he now takes up the same argument as the other detractors of Mr. Darby. In the sight of God Mr. N. and they are thus together, though they may have other reasons and motives which keep them apart. I entreat them to pause, and all brethren to weigh the fact well.

As to an attempt at criticism on Psalm 69: 26, to reason from a blunder in the Septuagint and the Vulgate against the certain force of the Hebrew original shows only bad logic, bad scholarship, and bad divinity.

But what will the reader think when informed that the statement as to the Septuagint and the Vulgate (of no real weight against the Hebrew, even if correct), is not warranted by fact? No doubt most known copies of the Septuagint have that strange version, τῶν τραυμάτων μου  ("my wounds"), which has influenced many. But in accordance with the Hebrew, another reading is known (τραυματιῶν), in a manuscript marked 115 in the ponderous edition of Holmes and Parsons. Of course, editors vary, as they lean to one or other of these texts. But I cannot, with the Hebrew before me, hesitate myself which to consider correct, and which an error; particularly as it may have been only a slip of the scribe. For the difference consists of a single letter, — the most diminutive to a proverb, — an iota! As one here agrees with, and the other differs from, the Hebrew, what fair mind can doubt which of the two in this has the best claim to represent the truth? "My wounds" has no right to be put forth as a just translation of chalaleka "thy wounded ones." The Vat. and Sin. are copies of the Septuagint of great value generally, but in this instance preposterously wrong. The Portuguese (115) is another copy of the Septuagint and here commends itself as being exactly in accord with the original, and so with some probability represents what the translators really gave out. At any rate, if the Seventy originally gave king Ptolemy the ordinary Greek text, they did not ("Y.Z," may be assured) represent the Hebrew as it is. The Hebrew MS. variation in the singular, as far as I can see, has no weight. It seems due to assimilation.

Haste and want of knowledge, once more, are equally apparent in the appeal to the Vulgate. For it happens that there are three well-known Latin versions of the Psaltery in the works of Jerome. The Roman and the Gallican profess to be merely versions, less or more corrected, of the Septuagintal translation of the Psalms, and naturally reflect here the mistake we have seen in the common copies of the LXX. But the true Hieronymian version from the Hebrew exhibits "vulneratos tuos" ("thy wounded ones"), faithful to the original and substantially what we have in our common English Bible. The Roman and Gallican Psalteries were not true translations, but only versions of a version: Jerome's direct work from the Hebrew confirms, instead of unsettling, our Authorised Version.

But if the verse certainly speaks of the association of others with Christ in being smitten and wounded, it is beyond a doubt that atonement is not in question, or that others have a part in atoning (which no Christian can allow). Why then hold out against God's word?

The context of Zechariah 13 is just as decisive, that smiting is not atonement; though He who was smitten on the cross did also, as forsaken of God for our sins, shed His blood for them, suffer for them, die for them, and so make atonement. But gathering His sheep was the effect of atonement, as scattering was the effect of smiting, which was rather the general outward fact; while the forsaking of God is a far deeper thing, yea, unfathomable. It is dulness of apprehension as to the atonement, and want of faith in the power and precision of Scripture, which makes men anxious to press such scriptures as Psalm 69 and Zechariah 13 into the service of a truth still more profound, and abundantly asserted elsewhere in both Testaments. But what can be expected from any who could think that to believe the Psalms, or Old Testament, is a development of the New Testament?

"Y. Z." has more reason for his difficulty in comparing pp. 36 and 59. But it is evident to a fair mind that, in p. 59, suffering from God is spoken of as direct infliction from God; and the doctrine of the writer is and has always been, that this is atoning. Whereas His shame and rejection as Messiah are only taken from God by piety and faith, but were in fact the doing of wicked men. Hence in p. 36 Christ is not said to have "suffered from God" as in p. 59. They are called "the suffering under the government of God," which can only be objected to, I think, by those who do not understand what it means.

The Talmud.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. 7, pp. 18, 36, 57, 76, etc.)

If the writer of a recent article in the "Quarterly" meant to catch men by a sudden surprise, his friends have reason to congratulate him. High-churchmen have paid homage; low-churchmen, and no-churchmen, down to the most cynical of sceptics, have lavished no ordinary praise. Protests have not been wanting and these have about them this character damaging to the Review, that they come from persons who know somewhat more of the portentous sea of Jewish tradition than those who have been equally precipitate and lavish with their eulogy. No doubt the mind of man is readily excited by a plausible apology, where evil is skilfully hidden, and, what panders to the spirit of man in general, and particularly of the present age, is set forth with no small cleverness. Into this trap people fall the more readily where ignorance has strangely imagined that a vast body of writings, the storehouse of ages on all subjects from the veriest common-place to the most momentous and awful, by men, some of them of mind and feeling, could be without glowing thoughts and bright coruscations of fancy and counsels not wanting in wisdom and prudence. It was also forgotten that these active spirits were seeking to refine on and supplement such materials as no men or ages could have who knew not the scriptures of truth. What then accounts for an acceptance so ready and general among partisans who are usually arrayed in deadly strife?

Doubtless, a variety of causes may operate. First there is the great amount of interest which the writer, by dint of a lively style and allusions to poetry, history, biography, antiquities, jurisprudence, and philology, contrives to cast over a theme insufferably dull in dull hands, but which he knows well enough how to set forth in the best colours and to adorn with worldly taste and judgment from without. Next, there is the national characteristic, this country's love of fair play, especially for that which has been popularly thought good for nothing, which too often disposes the crowd to applaud an able defence of what is really indefensible. Thirdly, the seeming indifferentism* but real unbelief of the day disposes a vast number of men, who discuss religion as a science without any renewal of heart or conscience toward God, to hail anything which tends to weaken the uncompromising authority of revealed truth. Witness the avidity with which a pretended pre-Adamite man is caught at, or transmutation of species, or a blank in an old sacred codex, or a faulty reading (provided it differs from what is the received text). But lastly, there is another and if possible graver consideration for those who believe the inspired prophecies. Scripture is plain and positive that the end of this age will see, first, the apostasy, and, then, the manifestation of the man of sin. Christendom will be betrayed far and wide, and the main active agents of this spiritual but infidel declension will be Jewish. Whatever, then, tends, like this article, to bridge over the yawning cavern which severs Christianity (and even yet Christendom) from Judaism, whatever lowers the unutterable value of the New Testament by an illusive exaltation of Rabbinism, prepares the direct way for the lawlessness and lawless one of the latter day — for the amalgam of west and east, of Christendom and Judaism in a universal brotherhood, bound together by the lie to which God will retributively consign those who refused the love of the truth that they might be saved.

*"A mighty change has come over us. We, children of this latter age, are above all things utilitarian. We do not read the Koran, the Zend Avesta, the Vedas, with the sole view of refuting them. We look upon all literature, religious, legal, and otherwise, whensoever and wheresoever produced, as part and parcel of humanity. We, in a manner, feel a kind of responsibility for it. We seek to understand the phase of culture which begot these items of our inheritance, the spirit that moves upon their face. And while we bury that which is dead in them, we rejoice in that which lives in them. We enrich our stores of knowledge from theirs, we are stirred by their poetry, we are moved to high and holy [!] thoughts when they touch the divine [!] chord in our hearts.

"In the same human spirit we now speak of the Talmud. There is even danger at hand in this chivalresque feeling — one of the most touching characteristics of our times — which is evermore prompting us to offer holocausts to the Manes of those whom former generations are thought to have wronged, may lead to its being extolled somewhat beyond its merit." It is hard to say whether the folly or the profanity of this extract is the more deplorable. How can such sentiments pass muster in a periodical even nominally christian?

It is hardly worth while pointing out the exaggeration of the writer. He puts antithetically against each other the frequent allusions to the Talmud in discussions doctrinal, philological, archaeological, classical, scientific, legal, etc., and contrasts this universal talk with the universal neglect of the Talmud. But is this fair or fact? There may be, for all that, a sufficient and sure knowledge of the character of the Talmud from those who judge of it chiefly through Selden or Buxtorf, through Lightfoot or McCaul, through Grätz or Jost, through Frankel or Gfrörer. Prideaux is popular enough, Stehelin and Steinschneider not unknown; and periodicals too have diffused their information. Have all these sympathy with controversialists such as Wagenseil or Eisenmenger? There are perhaps a thousand Greek scholars for one competently versed in Rabbinical literature; yet among the mass of educated men who are tolerably familiar with the Aristotelian syllogistic system, how few have even read the Organon! What would be thought of parading some parish priest who mistook this famous logical collection for an instrument of music? Page 419 breathes more of a scribe's contempt for the unlearned than of good sense to say no more

The fact really is that, though students in general may be ignorant of a thousand details as to the printed editions and MSS. of the Talmud (as they are of most works, save a few more about the scriptures), they have had a far truer conception, in our opinion, of the Talmud than this new article, with all its charms, is calculated to impart. And if we know less of the Talmud than of the Koran, whose fault is this? How comes it to pass that the Jews have done so little to furnish a critical edition of their boasted oracle? It cannot be for want of means or literary ability, nor, if the reviewer is to be trusted, for lack of value to almost every province, moral and intellectual, of art, science, literature, laws, and religion. Why has no Rab, Rabbi, or Rabban done for this incomparable treasury what the Reviewer allows has been constantly done for the merest trash in Greek or Latin, Sanscrit or Persian? Why was a critical essay two years ago left off? Why have the two distinct versions of the Talmud brought forth no more than a first volume? To shun the light may have influenced. Lack of sufficient encouragement does not often, in this world, hinder the publication of things good, bad, or indifferent. Even had the Jews been altogether unaided, would it not be strange and humiliating indeed, if this were their true and sole reason why recension and translation have hitherto proved abortive? It is a long while since the blame could be laid at the door of the censor (pp. 420-4); and as to papal denunciation (p. 422), the Talmud only shared with its neighbours. What did popes spare of good or bad unless it served themselves?

It is a curious coincidence, but no more, that the first edition of the Talmud appeared in Venice in 1520 A.D., the same year when Luther burnt the pope's bull at Wittemberg.

Has the Reviewer, then, answered his own question, "What is the Talmud?" Wherefore all this marshalling, if not multiplying, of difficulties (pp. 424-430)? Why this mystification of the reader? The desire is evident to fill the imagination with airy notions of its vast depths and wondrous treasures, its ethics, ceremonies, doctrines, physics, metaphysics, medicine, etc. Then he would have us believe that it is fair to compare it with such a work as the Justinian Code!* Is this, then, a fair answer to the question which he tells us, "no one has yet satisfactorily answered?" Is this the excuse for its prurient indecency? "But the Talmud is more than a Book of Laws. It is a microcosm, embracing, as does the Bible, heaven and earth. It is as if all the prose and the poetry, the science, the faith and speculations of the Old World were, though only in faint reflections, bound up in nuce." Is this an answer to "What is the Talmud?" An advocate, however zealous, ought to be more careful.

* Had the Reviewer forgotten that there is such a book as the Bible? In this ignoring of scripture for tradition about it, however, he speaks truly of the Jews, if not his own feeling. Tradition in Judaism, as in Popery, superseded the scriptures in fact.

We are next told (p. 426) that the origin of the Talmud is coeval with the return from the Babylonish captivity. The Rabbinical theory is, that the oral law was coeval with the written law, and that both, however differently transmitted, date from Moses at Sinai. And so it is allowed in pp, 430, 431. There seems no reason to doubt that from their return the traditional system grew up. But it is not true that the little company of returned captives were "transformed into a band of Puritans." The notion of "a fierce and passionate love" thenceforth for the scriptures (if "the scanty records of their faith and history" mean them) is a romance. The prophecies of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi disclose with unerring distinctness a wholly different state. Our Lord explains it parabolically but with transparent clearness. "When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest and finding none." The unclean spirit of abominations did then disappear; and so they have continued ever since. But as surely as the Jews still continue a Christ-rejecting generation, that spirit of idolatry will overspread and prevail once more, little as they expect such a catastrophe. "Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept and garnished." Such was its condition after the captivity, such when Jesus was rejected, and such it is still. And therein lies their danger. There is no power of God that has filled the house. There is essentially a negative theology, than which nothing more exposes to Satan. So will it be with Israel. "Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there; and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation." (Matt. 12: 43-45.)

At any rate, the post-captivity state of the Jews might be more truly called poverty-stricken than Puritan; and it was during this dearth, when the house was "empty" and "swept" that it had the "garnishing" of tradition — the ground-work of the Mishna, which is supposed to have been copied by R. Jehuda about the end of the second or the beginning of the third century. This in its turn gave rise to its "complement," or comment, the Gemara, of which two remain: that formed by the school of Tiberias, called the Jerusalem Talmud (one vol. folio), as the larger compilation founded by the school of Babylon is published as the Babylonian Talmud (12 vols. folio). It is hard to see why so great a mountain should be constructed out of matters so commonly known by all who take interest in the sons of Israel and their history. Dr. Edersheim has given a popular yet sufficiently exact compendium of all that most persons will care to know of the subject in his "History of the Jewish nation since the destruction of Jerusalem under Titus" (Edinburgh: Constable; London: Hamilton, Adams, & Co., 1856). The reader will find information both abundant and trustworthy in his pleasantly written book (already recommended in these pages) which sacrifices neither the glory of Christ, nor the truth of the Bible, but blends them with real love to the Jews.

The traditional system is either ritualistic or rationalistic, and often both together: so it was among the Jews; and so it is more than ever showing itself in Christendom at this very hour. Hence the moral significance of this paper, and the ominous import of its fitting into the taste and feeling of opposite factions just now.

The apologist allows that the process of drawing new precepts from the old may have been too freely applied. "Yet, while the Talmudical Code practically differs from the Mosaic, as much as our Digest will some day differ from the laws of Canute, and as the Justinian Code differs from the Twelve Tables, it cannot be denied that these fundamental laws have in all cases been consulted, carefully and impartially as to their spirit, their letter being but the vessel or outer symbol. The often uncompromising severity of the Pentateuch, especially in the province of the penal law, had certainly become much softened down under the milder influence of the culture of later days." (p. 432.)

No christian reader can weigh the spirit of this extract without feeling that it betrays infidelity as regards the Old Testament; and the man that slights the divine authority of the Hebrew scriptures will never be found true to the claims of the New Testament, as will soon be evident in the reviewer. Who but an unbeliever would dare to compare the statutes of Moses (even those relating exclusively to the people and land of Israel) with the laws of Canute or the twelve tables? It is not merely the notion of development into the Talmud (like the civil law of the empire, or the British Digest some day) which is so evil, but the blindness which fails to apprehend the essential difference between the Mosaic institutes, and every other law of every other nation. Was not the law given by Moses God's law? — God's law throughout? Was it so with Canute's? or the twelve tables?

Again, the idea of development, natural in the growth of the human mind and of the collective wisdom of ages, is precisely negatived by the fact of a divine revelation. It is here that ritualists and rationalists find their common point of meeting. They are both of them infidel as to God's word and in disparagement and dislike of its unswerving authority they sympathize: the one setting up the ever accumulating traditions of men, mainly of the past; the other asserting their own right of free handling in virtue of human progress.

But God's word, whether for Israel in their rudimentary place, or in its fulness of light for the Christian is itself and refuses admixture. Marvellously adapted by human instruments for man's heart and conscience, it is the revelation of God, as nothing else is. It may be explained, well or ill, but it admits of no development. Its divine perfectness is such, that to add to God's word what is of man is to be found a liar. The teacher may unfold, the exhorter enforce; but the truth is there fully revealed for unfolding and enforcement. The Lord works by those He raises up and sends to minister; but the thing ministered is His own word, the only source and standard of truth.

Of the truth the Church is the responsible keeper, not the teacher but the guardian of it. The Church is taught by instruments given of the Head; the Church never teaches: otherwise development would follow to the denial of a complete revelation from God. The Church is bound to be the pillar and ground of the truth; but it is of truth not latent in the Church or to be evolved by human skill; it is of truth revealed of God. Hence the written word is the resource for the believer in the perils of the last days, not the Church, nor a teacher, not even the blessed Spirit of God, but scripture, though the Holy Spirit alone makes wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (2 Tim. 3.)

To return, however: the believer will not admire the estimate which insinuates the contrast of the mildness of later Judaism with the rigour of the Pentateuch. The truth is, that in divine things the enemy's effort (alas! too successful) is to enfeeble the absolute authority of God's word by every means and at all cost; hence, to bring in changes and shifts, development and tradition, anything rather than what God says — needless ceremonies where God. has left liberty; and laxity, more or less, where He demands uncompromising severity. Thus, in result, faithless man, in contempt of the divine revelation which it is his privilege to possess and his responsibility to obey, claims credit for the softening down of old barbarism, especially in the penal law, under the milder influences of the culture of later days. Alas! for poor proud man. Does he not know that as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law? How will the plea of "later days" with their boasted improvements stand in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ the Lord?

It is not necessary here to trace the process of this development of the law in the hands of the scribes. Let us turn to the reviewer's statement of the relation of the Talmud to Christianity.

"Were not the whole of our general views on the difference between Judaism and Christianity greatly confused, people would certainly not be so very much surprised at the striking parallels of dogma and parable, of allegory and proverb, exhibited by the gospel and the Talmudical writings. The New Testament, written, as Lightfoot has it, among Jews, by Jews, for Jews, cannot but speak the language of the times, both as to forms, and, broadly speaking, as to contents (!) There are many more vital (!) points of contact between the New Testament and the Talmud than divines yet seem fully to realize; for such terms as 'redemption,' baptism,' ' grace,' 'faith,' 'salvation,' ' regeneration,' ' Son of man,' Son of God,' 'kingdom of heaven,' were not as we are apt to think, invented by Christianity, but were household words of Talmudical Judaism, to which Christ gave a higher and purer meaning."

Is it not manifest that it is the reviewer whose notions are both confused and dishonouring to Christianity through his desire to apologize for Rabbinism? He that dooms himself to explore the weary waste of the Talmud will travel far to discover a real parallelism to the gospel in dogma and parable, allegory and proverb, save where drawn unquestionably from the Old Testament. Almost all the terms cited are borrowed directly from the earlier volume of inspiration. The main difference is that the rejection of Jesus by the Jews gave occasion to the Holy Spirit to bring them out in a new and incomparably deeper light, so as to be the form of expressing christian privilege before "that day" dawn when the old promises in their primary import shall be fulfilled to the restored and repentant people of Israel, then looking on Jehovah-Messiah whom they pierced.

Thus "redemption," which in the Old Testament is mainly the application of God's power to deliver His people from their foes, is, as characteristically though not exclusively, in the New Testament by the blood of Christ. Take Psalm 14 and Isaiah 59 and compare their connection in the Old Testament with the use made in Romans 3. In the psalm, the awful picture of the people's sin ends with the desire that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion, and the anticipation of their joy when Jehovah brings back the captives. In the prophecy, a similar picture of their moral ruin closes with the distinct prediction that the Redeemer shall come to Zion. In both it is redemption by power. But if we examine what follows the citation of these scriptures by the apostle Paul, it is plainly God's gratuitous justification by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. But how? Is it His coming in power and glory to deliver? Nay; "whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood "

Similarly we might trace how each of the terms quoted is transfigured when seen on the holy mount with Jesus in their midst, as compared with their use in that vast collection of mummies, the Talmud. Founded on the Old Testament, if not directly borrowed from it, the Rabbis degraded what the inspiring Spirit of the New Testament transformed with vivifying power and made them to be, as Christ said, spirit and life. Even the advocate of the Talmud is compelled to own the power of His name in this respect. What was ἀγάπη in the dialect of Attica before the Holy Ghost made it to be the chosen expression of such love as was seen in Christ, and described in 1 Corinthians 13 or 1 John 4? It is the truth conveyed which is the real matter, and not the words as employed by Greeks or Jews. Who ever used them as they are used in the New Testament?

We are next told that "no less loud and bitter in the Talmud are the protests against 'lip-serving,' against 'making the law a burden to the people,' against 'laws that stand on hairs,' against priests and Pharisees! The fundamental mysteries of the new faith are matters totally apart; but the ethics in both are, in their broad outlines, identical. That grand dictum, 'Do unto others as thou wouldst be done by,' against which Kant declared himself energetically from a philosophical point of view, is quoted by Hillel, the president, at whose death Jesus was ten years of age, not as anything new, but as an old and well-known dictum 'that comprised the whole law.' The most monstrous mistake has ever been our mixing up, in the first instance, single individuals, or classes, with a whole people; and next, our confounding the Judaism of the time of Christ with that of the time of the wilderness, of the Judges, or even of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Judaism of the time of Christ (to which that of our days, owing principally to the Talmud, stands very near) and that of the Pentateuch are as like each other as our England is like that of William Rufus, or the Greece of Plato that of the Argonauts." (pp. 437, 438.)

Can anything exceed the calm unbelief of such sentiments as these? the constant glorifying of man and his progress? the solemn fact, along with this and not very consistent with it, but most true, that the Judaism of today morally identifies itself with the Judaism of the time of Christ? The believer at once feels how fatal is the confession; for the rejection of Jesus demonstrates that "that generation" thereby manifested to the full their hatred of the Father and the Son, as His own lips of grace and truth laid to their charge. (John 15.) Nothing more certain! But in an organ which, though said to be at present edited by an Independent, is the staunch support of the established religion, and boasts of articles by Anglican bishops, professors of divinity, and other eminent functionaries, who could have expected that a paper should be received, approved, and applauded, which dares to single out for a favourite stage of programs and attainment, singularly like the state of our day (the usual theme of vaunting to the human mind), the age which crucified the Lord Jesus, and sealed its guilt in blaspheming the Spirit's testimony to the suffering but exalted Son of man? Had he owned that the Jewish nation (save the remnant that received Jesus and so escaped) become then, through their unbelief and God's judgment of it, a pillar of salt, and that the Talmud has largely contributed to perpetuate to this hour so awful a monument of sin and shame, it had been nearer the truth.

That there are in the Talmud beautiful moral apothegms of right and wrong borrowed from Moses, no man who values and upholds the honour of God's law could or would deny. But it is utterly false that the New Testament does not go far beyond, not the Talmud only, or any other code of religious tradition, but even the inspired Old Testament. The presence of a divine Person, a man, on earth among us was in itself the introduction of what was necessarily new and beyond all past experience: still deeper was the change for others in virtue of the mighty work of redemption He wrought on the cross, made known and made good in the faith of those who since then are born of' God, by the operation of that other Paraclete, the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. Thus, what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. The very ground of proper christian holiness was unknown before the death and resurrection of Jesus; and the power was wanting till the Spirit of promise was given. Hence, in Old Testament times, however we may delight in ways of faith, and love, and obedience (which far transcend mere power, be it what it may), no saint before Christ did or could count himself dead to sin and alive unto God, as every real Christian is privileged and exhorted to do. None then could take the place of a worshipper once purged and having no more conscience of sins; none was called as we are to imitate God as dear children and walk in love as Christ loved us. How incalculably this distances loving one's neighbour as oneself, good and right as this was! Christ is the measure as well is pattern now for the Christian, not self.

This suffices to show how entirely the reviewer overlooks the real character of Christianity as well as the awful condition both of the Jews that crucified Jesus and of the Judaism of our day that is confessed, through the Talmud's influence, to resemble it strongly. "The misconception (we are assured) as if a God of vengeance had suddenly succeeded a God of love, cannot be too often protested against. 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,' is a precept of the Old Testament, as Christ Himself taught His disciples." No Christian doubts that God is and has always been both love and light, as Scripture speaks; but government by a law, however righteous (and this unquestionably was the principle of His dealings in Israel), is as different from His display of grace in Christ, as earth is from heaven. It is a just demand that man should not steal, murder, or covet; but what is the law that justifies the ungodly through the faith of Jesus? which quickens those dead in sins, raises them up, and seats them in heavenly places in Christ? Certainly it is the one and only true God; but it is God now, not merely dealing with the propensities of the first man, 'but blessing in His mercy the merest sinners because of redemption in Christ, the Second Man. It was not by the law, but by the grace of God, that the Saviour tasted death for every man.

Even this reviewer owns that the "law was developed to a marvellously and perhaps oppressively minute pitch," though he is bold enough to say "only as a regulation of outward actions." What will the christian reader think when he next hears that "the 'faith of the heart' — the dogma prominently dwelt upon by Paul — was a thing which stood much higher with the Pharisees than this outward law?" Was Paul then in error? or the Lord Jesus? Is the Christian who reads Matthew 3, 9, 12, 15, 23, to believe these scriptures? or should he take the reviewer's word that the wholesale denunciations of scribes and Pharisees have been greatly misunderstood? "There can be absolutely no question on this point, that there were among the genuine Pharisees the most patriotic, the most noble-minded, the most advanced leaders of the party of progress." It would have been more to the point if he could have affirmed with truth that they bowed to God in a just estimate of their sinfulness and fled for refuge to that only name given under heaven whereby we must be saved. Christianity does not deny many and excellent qualities in Pharisees. Mark 10 lets us know how Jesus beheld with love the rich young ruler who had a good conscience as to the law, but turned away in sorrow from Jesus who claimed a self-renunciation and a following of Himself in His path of suffering and shame, which nothing but the mighty power of God's grace can give any soul to take and keep. Does the reviewer believe the Lord's declaration that the tax-gatherers and harlots go into the kingdom of God before those most patriotic, noble-minded, advanced leaders he admires? What is the good of a "party of progress" which deceives the soul in this world and turns you into a deadlier rebel against God's kingdom than the most despised of men and dissolute of women?

Alas! it is evident where the heart is from the sentence that follows: "The development of the law itself was nothing in their hands but a means to keep the spirit as opposed to the word — the outward frame  - in full life and flame, and to vindicate for each time its own right to interpret the temporal ordinances according to its own necessities and acquirements." A more dangerous and delusive fancy there cannot be. There never breathed the man who walked and taught in the spirit of God's will as Jesus did; yet none ever honoured as Jesus the word of God. And Jesus branded the scribes and Pharisees of Jerusalem with setting aside the command of God because of such traditions as fill the Mishnah. They were not temporal ordinances, but injunctions of God, which the Judaism of Christ's age annulled, from no necessity whatever save the licentious will and pride of man. No time, no man, has a right to weaken the authority of God's word. This is no question of "black sheep" among the Pharisees, but of the principle of human tradition which made them all a party of declension from scripture. The Talmud must inveigh against its own existence if it upheld divine revelation against the traditions of men.

The reader will have noticed the indifference already betrayed by our reviewer, as by worldly men in general, for the mysteries of Christianity as compared with its morals. It would be too gross to deny the practical fruits which the faith of Christ has manifested in the face of the narrow selfishness of the synagogue and the bolder impurity of heathenism. Two methods of neutralizing the weight of such a testimony are usually adopted by the enemies of the gospel: one the divorce of christian morals from the revealed dogmas; the other, the insinuation that as good morality was taught by Jews — that the New Testament and the Talmud are therefore well-nigh identical in what affects life and godliness. Indeed in one place at least (cited before) the writer's zeal carries him so far as to speak of "the striking parallels of dogma and parable, of allegory and proverb, exhibited by the gospel and the Talmudical writings . . . . There are many more vital points of contrast between the New Testament and the Talmud than divines yet seem fully to realize." We have seen how unfounded are his instances in proof of this intrepid assertion, and that the use of "redemption," "baptism," "grace," "faith," "salvation," etc., if more thoroughly looked into, point to a conclusion precisely the reverse of this superficial estimate. It would rather go to prove that, while the inspired writers of the New Testament were led in God's wisdom to employ the Hellenistic dialect and phraseology, already familiar to Jews in their widely used Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures, they employed some terms, common to them and the compilers of the Talmud, in senses as contrasted as the scope of the Talmud is with that of the New Testament. They differ as time and the earth that now is differ from eternity — as far as man does from the God of grace and holiness.

Christianity essentially consists in the revelation of a divine person, who was man withal as truly as He was God, and who, suffering on the cross, wrought the mighty work of redemption. This alone conciliates perfect light with perfect love, a sin-hating and a sinner-pitying God who deigns out of His own pure grace to save guilty man by faith, and yet so as not only to justify, but to glorify His own character in the very righteousness which justifies the believer. This (though not this only) is revealed in the New Testament. It is not the law merely but the truth; and the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven is the power both of enjoying and of testifying this admirable display of our God and Father in Christ the Lord. The Old Testament prepared the way for this new thing which was to fill up the interval between God's rejection of the earthly people Israel till they repent and own the Messiah whom they rejected, and then the old hopes of the chosen nation (sown in a generation to come born of God) shall revive, and Israel shall come forward, under Messiah and the new covenant, and inherit the land long promised to their fathers, and thus shall they be a blessing to all families of the earth, instead of a curse, as their unbelief has proved far and wide to Gentiles for eighteen centuries at least.

It must be evident, therefore, that it is folly as well as wickedness, to sever the ethics of Christianity from its fundamental mysteries. To attempt it is to seek to cut off the head from its body. It is nothing but mutilation and death. It is false that the distinctive christian truths "are matters wholly apart." The morals of a Christian cannot be found, save with the faith and confession of the Lord Jesus. For though the δικαίωμα or righteous import of the law is only fulfilled in him who is not under the law and who walks after the Spirit, not after the flesh, it is not true that the fulness of christian morality is contained even in that. Love is the fulfilling of the law; but nowhere is it said or meant that love, as revealed in Christ and made good in the Christian, does not now go far beyond. "If," says the great apostle of circumcision, "when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable [not merely righteousness, but grace] with God, for even hereunto were ye called ["ye" Christians, not Jews]; because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps; who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth; who when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not, but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously," etc. Christ is life as well as truth, and these things are inseparable in fact, though in thought they may be distinguished. He was the manifestation of what God is toward sinners as well as His own children in an evil world. The law, and beyond this no Jew can go, is but the claim of what man should be. Christ, not the law, is the image of God, and the exemplar of the Christian who is called to imitate God and walk in love as Christ did, who loved and gave Himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour. The law can but condemn and kill the guilty. In Christianity God commends His love toward us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. From faith in this, and more than this, in His infinite death and resurrection, flows the morality of the gospel. What has Hillel or any other comparable? They cannot rise above self and man. The ethics of the Christian have their source in union with a Christ who died and rose, and is now on the throne of God — in God Himself thus manifesting Himself in Him. Are they then "totally apart from" the mysteries of the christian faith? Are they, in form or substance, in breadth or depth, identical with the sayings of any Rabbi that ever breathed?

The reviewer protests against the notion that the Jewish sabbath savours of grim austerity. It was (says he) a feast day, honoured by fine garments, by the best cheer, by wine, lights, spices, and other joys of pre-eminently bodily import. Does this illustrate the parallel between the morals of the Gospel and of the Talmud? Entirely is it granted that the Puritans are no more to be trusted as expositors of law and gospel than they of the broad-church school, who take advantage of the New Testament doctrine as to the sabbath, in order to deny the divinely sanctioned character of the Lord's day, mistaking their own license for christian liberty. In truth the essential distinctness of the two days illustrate well the difference between (not merely the corrupted Judaism of the Talmud, but) the Mosaic institution in its best estate, and Christianity. "The sabbath was made for man," especially for Israel when that people was called and formed. It was the last day of the week, when man having toiled six days ended with the seventh as a solemn and beneficent sign, the present benefits of which the Israelite shared not only with the stranger but with the dumb brutes that served him. But the Christian begins with his first day —  his, did I say? It is rather the Lord's day, but given to them that know and love Him, the day of new creation and of grace on which His Saviour and Lord rose from the grave to which man, and pre-eminently the Jew had consigned Him before and throughout that fatal sabbath, which was "an high day," in their guilty infatuation. Thus Christians enter on each week of their pilgrimage here below with songs of resurrection, that the first day may shed its heavenly light on each day that succeeds, and govern the conscience and cheer the heart of those who through much tribulation must enter into the kingdom of God. And fully am I persuaded that the last or seventh day will be for Israel a day of joys and of import far higher than those bodily delights with which they now essay to cheer themselves in their protracted exile from the "pleasant land." I say not that God will not vouchsafe them, then and there, joys of an earthly and natural kind; for God means to vindicate Himself from the old libel of His enemy, and will yet bless this earth delivered from every vestige of the curse, with that exception indeed which but proves the rule and keeps up the witness that its deliverance will be of His mere mercy, after all had been lost by sin and Satan.

And when that bright day dawns on this world, will not the Jew be there? Assuredly he will; and in the highest seats here below, when God will delight to pour out His blessing bountifully on every creature of His hand then living, but holding fast His order, that Israel shall be the head and the Gentiles the tail. Not His people only, but all nations shall then bless Him with one accord and add their cordial Amen. Above in the heavenly places will the world then behold the Church of God that is now (since redemption and the descent of the Holy Ghost) being called out to the confession of the Crucified, the sharer of glory with Christ on high, Head of the Church, King of Israel, and Son of man, whom all people, nations, and languages shall serve as long as the earth endures. For God has made known to us the mystery of His will according to His good pleasure which He has purposed in Himself for the dispensation of the fulness of times; namely, to head up all things in the Christ, those in the heavens and those on the earth, — in Him in whom we have also obtained an inheritance. But as we then shall be glorified above, joint-heirs with Him as His bride, so Israel shall be the inner circle of blessing, His inheritance here below, and the nations that are spared, blessed according to His goodness and sovereign will each in its due place. Alas! poor Israel is toiling for rest as yet, but the true sabbath will surely come at the end. The Christian has entered intelligently on his blessing by faith; at least it is his deep shame if it be not so. Christianity supposes that for us the Deliverer is come and has finished the work by which our sins are blotted out on the confession of His name; but that He has gone on high, having made atonement. There the Christian follows Christ in faith; for the Holy Spirit meanwhile has come down to be the witness of accomplished redemption and the earnest of the glory we shall have with Christ where He is. But Israel must wait without until He, the great High Priest, comes forth; and then shall they, astonished and afflicted but delivered, learn that He is none other than the Nazarene. "They shall look upon Me whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for his only son." (Zech. 12.) They shall find in Jesus thus seen their sacrifice as well as their Saviour, their Priest, Prophet, King, yea Jehovah the God of Israel.

Thus truly read, the Sabbath and the Lord's day are strikingly distinctive, and each of them a sign and pledge of blessing respectively for Israel and man, and for the Christian. On his portion the Christian enters at once by faith, possessing all things, yet having nothing in appearance of what he knows to be his in and with Christ, till He comes again. It is for him the first day of the week, and in this light he is called to walk now. But the Jew awaits the last day for his blessing when Jesus shall appear to his salvation; though not without tears of bitter sorrow, joy will come in that cloudless morning. Eternal praise to Him who has already done such things for us though known now only to faith, for they are unseen! Eternal praise to Him who, in the day when we shall appear with Him in glory, will make Israel glad in His salvation, and swallow up the face of the covering that covers all people and the veil that is spread over all nations!

From such hopes in both Testaments it is a descent to take up the account of Hillel and Akiba striving unsuccessfully to arrange the oral traditions of the Rabbis, or of the equivocal success of Jehuda "the saint," who is said to have reduced them, though still unwritten, to one code about A. D. 200.

But it is in vain to justify the reign of tradition which superseded the Mosaic law by the fact that Magna Charta is not the general appeal in English law courts of the day. (p. 443.) Rather does it evince the unbelief that everywhere lies under, and often on, the surface of this paper. The law given by Moses was the law of Jehovah: has Magna Charta to boast of such an origin or character? Alas! so far gone is the Jew that the Christian has to remind him of his own singular and exceeding privileges. "For what nation is so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the Lord our God is in all things, that we call on him for? And what nation is there so great that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law which I set before you this day?" The writer excludes God from the case and evidently sees a progress from barbarism to civilization in the appeal of modern Jews to the Mischnah, rather than the Pentateuch.

There is nothing to surprise in the absence of hell from the Mischnah. Even the Old Testament treats of the eternal scene in good or evil but dimly. Light and incorruption were brought to light by the gospel as the apostle expressly tells us in 2 Timothy 1, and as is evident in fact. God acted on the souls of the fathers by promises. His dealings with the children of Israel were in view of present government in the world, though passages in Job, the Psalms, and the Prophets went farther, till Christ came telling all things, and the Holy Spirit was sent to guide the apostles into all the truth. Now it is not temporal judgments which are executed or spoken of, but wrath is revealed from heaven, no less than God's righteousness in the gospel. If it be merely a question of dealing with wrongs, death closes all questions.

On the other hand, to make the highest virtue lie in study of the law, if thereby be meant the oral tradition that overlaid it, is the proof of the degradation to which the holy nation was reduced. For such an exaggerated value attached to Rabbinic micrology one must look to the scholastic disputes of the dark ages, or the place assigned to Chinese literature in later times, to find a counterpart.

Further on, I may show how far there is room for boasting of the "humane, almost refined, penal legislation of the Talmud." Once they had God in their midst judicially enthroned, and the Lex Talionis was no dead letter of the law. Him they had lost; and if Sadducces would retain the letter when the spirit was there no more, the Pharisees, who were covetous, were content to make bodily injuries redeemable by money. Both were insensible to their dismal loss, and I can see no ground for congratulating one party more than another. (pp. 444-6.) But the serious thing to note is the constant undisguised preference of man to God, as is plain in the following extract: "Practically, capital punishment was abrogated even before the Romans had taken it out of the hands of the Sanhedrim. Here again the humanizing influence of the 'traditions' had been at work, commuting the severe Mosaic Code." (p. 448.) A similar process goes on now among men who have no respect for God's word nor sense of the responsibility of those who bear the sword in civil government. (Gen. 9, Rom. 13.) In their eyes it would seem that the blood of a murderer has more price than that of his victim; and God's vindication in the matter is the last thing in their thoughts. The Christian, I need scarce add, who knows his calling on high, is outside such questions; but it is a serious one for those it concerns.

The reviewer next sketches the growth of the vast mass of discussion and exegesis, which followed the collection of the Mishnah, and much of which afterwards entered the Talmud, as the Gemara or commentary on that text: and this in a double form — the Palestinian in East Aramaean toward the end of the fourth century, the Babylonian in West Aramaean which was not closed till about the beginning of the sixth century. But it is natural to tradition to add interminably; and so the Talmud in its turn led to new comments.

Two elements enter here (p. 451) into the apology: first, an apparent measure of shame with the desire to save the Jews from being absolutely tied to the Talmud; secondly, an effort to account by an extraneous cause for the plain fact that nothing else can compete with its authority as regulating the Jews in law and religion. "Only this much we will add, that the Talmud, as such, was never formally accepted by the nation by either General or Special Council. Its legal decisions, as derived from the highest authorities, certainly formed the basis of the religious law, the norm of all future decisions; as undoubtedly the Talmud is the most trustworthy canon of Jewish tradition. But its popularity is much more due to an extraneous cause. During the persecutions against the Jews in the Persian empire, under Jesdegerd II., Firuz, and Kobad, the schools were closed for about eighty years. The living development of the law being stopped, the book obtained a supreme authority, such as had probably never been dreamt of by its author."

Alas! man knows himself no more than he knows God. The nation did formally and universally accept the law of God before it was written, and, as their first recorded act after it was heard, broke it in its most fundamental precept, by making and worshipping the golden calf, before Moses carried it down from the mount written by the finger of God. They were thus ruined in principle at the starting-point of their history; for assuredly to proclaim their idol worship a feast to Jehovah did not mend matters. The long-suffering patience of God was most admirable and instructive: though not without solemn judgments on evil, how full of pledges of blessing both in the wilderness and in the land for those who had eyes to see and ears to hear! But for the mass all was vain; and this is so true that, when Amos announced the captivity that was slowly but surely approaching, he let them know that divine judgment takes account of the first sin, though it may wait till the last degree of insult against God makes patience itself no longer tolerable. "Have ye offered unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel? But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves. Therefore will I cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus, saith the Lord, whose name is The God of hosts." (Amos 5: 25-27.)

After their political ruin and with increasing force as they felt themselves shorn of the witnesses of their ancient power and glory, grew up the Rabbinic system. Extraneous circumstances no doubt helped it on, when it became instinctively and more than ever the idol of the scattered people. No formal assent was needed; no general or special council gives effect to that which commands the evil heart of unbelief. To be credulous where man speaks goes along with lack of faith in God — to slight His law or revere the Talmud, as of old to lead Jesus from Caiaphas to the praetorium while not entering themselves that they might eat the passover undefiled! — such is man, such the Jew. "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which showed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it." (Acts 7: 61-53.) May we profit by the solemn lesson! Having the selfsame nature, though (thank God) not this only, we are exposed to similar danger; and Christendom is the humiliating proof how soon and far and wide it has carried souls away. Nor is any time, condition, or character exempt from the snare. Nothing delivers from it but absolute submission to God and the word of His grace, and this in liberty of heart by the power of the Spirit.

The reviewer ingeniously tries to palliate the Haggadistic or legendary part of the Talmud, as poetry, "a thing beloved by women and children and by those still and pensive minds which delight in flowers and in the song of wild birds. The 'Authorities' themselves often enough set their faces against it, repudiated and explained it away. But the people clung to it, and in course of time gave to it and it alone the encyclopaedic name of 'Midrash'." Will this plea stand? Were not the 'Authorities' the authors and compilers and editors of the Haggadah? Did not the writer know that the Talmud itself (chag. 14) applies Isaiah 3: 1 to this question, comparing the Halacha to bread and the Haggadah to water, because the latter was even more frequently required, and refreshed more than the former? Their explaining it away is no more than they continually do to scripture: is this too "poetry," a thing beloved by women and children, etc.? It is a perilous task to extenuate man's word, which invariably, though unintentionally and unconsciously, supplants the revelation of God. Scripture became a mere point d'appui, as is notorious for the Halacha and the Haggadah alike. Nor is it correct to say that the authority silently vested in the Talmud belongs exclusively to its legal or Halachistic portion. The Rabbins feigned that God Himself prosecuted their legendary investigations and decided according to their legal determinations. Difference of interpretation only gave occasion to wit; for it was accepted by the sages that diverse comments might legitimately belong to the same text, and one be as right as the other. A wild mysticism was the result, erroneous metaphysics, and absurd physics, false history, and ridiculous geography, heathen myths and spurious morals, by dint of' allegorising the letter and literalizing the figure of scripture. Not the fancy of women and children, but the famous R. Gamaliel framed thirty-two exegetical canons for the Haggadah.

The reader may well be spared the detail, is well as the special pleading, in the review from pp. 452 to 455.

Coming to views of creation, we are told that the gradual development of the Cosmos is fully recognized by the Talmud, which assumes "destruction after destruction, stage after stage." We need not travel beyond the inspired record for three patent facts of great and manifest importance. 1st, the original creation (Gen 1: 1); 2ndly, the chaos to which, somehow, the earth was reduced (ib., 2); and 3rdly, the various stages of formation that succeeded when man was to be morally tried. (ib., 3, et seq.) Of "destruction after destruction" the passage does not speak, of a chaos after original creation, it does. There may have been of course a variety of intervening changes; but scripture is silent here at least. It hastens to its great aim — the moral displays of God and man, and hence dwells far more on putting the universe in order for man's dwelling on the earth and God's ways with him. The notion of God destroying former worlds because they did not please Him, and saying 'This pleases me,' when He made the Adamic earth, is worthy of the Talmud. It is to count God such an one as ourselves. He was wise in all. This scene, with everything He had made, is pronounced very good; and the rather as man was about to fall under the power of evil and to drag down the subject creation in its fall.

The Haggadistic view of God's providence was quite as unworthy. God clothed or unclothed Himself, wore phylacteries, armour, etc. He did not concern Himself with man's affairs, but left the nations to the rule of this star or that. Israel was the theatre of His concern. He spent in study three out of the twelve hours of the day, three in exercising mercy to the world, three in providing food for it, and three in amusing Himself with Leviathan, save indeed that since the Romans destroyed Jerusalem there was no more amusement above, and these three hours were devoted to instructing such as had died in infancy. With three exceptions (life-giving, rain, and raising the dead) God as chief Rabbi conferred with His angelic Sanhedrim, which in cases of dispute consulted the sages on earth. May the Lord pardon one's recounting such profane absurdities!

The Persian philosophy left its traces on the Talmud, as did the reveries of the Greek cosmogonists, and there is much in common with the Gnostics who troubled and corrupted early Christians, especially as to angels and demons. It is hardly necessary to say that Rabbinism denies a Mediator between God and man (p. 457). Credulous as to that which even if true could not profit, they believe not the truth which alone can purify the heart by faith. They were only consistent in opposing divine revelation, old or new: they give up the Divine unity for idols; they refused the incarnate Word, their own and only Mediator, but loved fables about Samael, and Naama, and Lilith, and Asmodi, which could only do harm to women and children, and turn still and pensive minds to dreams of some things worse than flowers and the song of wild birds.

Their notion that miracles were beings created before the seventh day, and among them the art of writing, must be left to the reflections of every sober mind. In a miracle the laws of nature, as they are called, are not changed, but the divine will which formed them is pleased to operate sovereignly. Nor is a miracle, as others say, a more general law, but the action of God's will and power in some given way without suspending the laws of nature outside the particular case. Lazarus is raised, Bartimeus sees, a leper is instantaneously cleansed. They are the objects of miraculous intervention; they are withdrawn from their previous condition — from the law of death, blindness, leprosy if you will; but the law itself is not changed. Infidelity here, as everywhere, is simply an exclusion of God from man on earth — at least of God as a real living One acting as He will though ever in view of adequate moral ends. A God Epicurean, or Stoic, may be the representation of the Koran or the Talmud, but assuredly is not the God of the Bible in any of its parts. Pantheism characterizes their immutable laws of nature, as well as their psychology.* So the punishment of sin is made temporary, even Satan himself being saved at last. The Sohar (M. Ex. 85) even taught that the Messiah in Paradise (!) took and bore the sins of Israel. But they took care to deny the two capital truths which Christianity insists on as bound up with Christ's person — the descent of God to earth, and the ascension of man to heaven. How intent is man on denying what most of all displays and exalts the moral glory of God, though to his own eternal ruin.

*"Miracles are considered in the Talmud — much as Leibnitz all the movements of every limb of our body — as only possible through it sort of prestabilitated harmony — i.e., the course of nature was not disturbed by them, but they were all primevally 'existing' 'preordained.' They were 'created' at the end of all other things in the gloaming of the sixth day . . . . The Laws of Nature went on by their own immutable force, however much evil might spring therefrom" (p. 457). Platonism is plain here, and as to souls.

Teulon's Plymouth Brethren.

W. Kelly.

B.T. Vol. 14, p. 267 etc. [8 sections].)

(The History and Teaching of the Plymouth Brethren. By J. S. Teulon, M.A., Prebendary of the Cathedral, and Vice-principal of the Theological College, Chichester. Published under the direction of the Tract Committee, London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, etc.)

CHAPTER 1.  - INTRODUCTION.

Here are the words with which the author begins his task. "The religious movement with which these pages are concerned has arisen during the present century. From very small beginnings it has in the course of fifty years attained a wide-spread influence, and has enlisted under its banner persons of distinguished rank and of the highest intellectual culture. Nor has its work been by any means confined to the country of its birth. It has found a home in many continental States; it is well known in the colonies, and in America; while in most of the larger towns of Great Britain its representatives have their places of assembly" (p. 5). The next words are not so correct: — "Though it employs evangelistic agencies to make its tenets known, and to gather in its converts, the main instrument of its propagation has been the press rather than the pulpit [an unwitting mistake], and numbers, to whom the society itself is little more than a name, have unconsciously imbibed its principles from a perusal of its periodicals, its pamphlets, and its leaflets." There might have been added larger works of exposition, as well as hymns, to the sources of indirect influence among such as have never known their oral ministry, and have never seriously considered the responsibility of acknowledging divine truth by a practice corresponding to it. One could not desire the truth to be less owned as of God; but it is deplorable for all who thus trifle with that which is meant to form our hearts in fellowship with Him and to fashion our walk every day. But the truth is that, whilst a call went forth from the earliest days of Brethren to the converted (none so distinctively recalling souls to Christ and the church, in the confession of the present ruin of Christendom), activity in the gospel also characterised them from the first, as the late Mr. J. N. Darby used to say; and none had larger or more correct means of knowing its truth.

To what then must be attributed such impressions as those of Mr. T. and many more? To two causes particularly: the narrowness of those outside, who, because of the earnest pressure of the divine word as a whole on all saints, inferred indifference to perishing sinners; and, again, the still more culpable onesidedness of individuals within, who really were and are under the error of slighting evangelistic zeal, and of restricting themselves, and all subject to their influence, to the testimony of Christian and ecclesiastical truth. Now it is not and never was possible to hinder such aberrations; and wise men in our midst have not only reproved shallow and mischievous pettiness of this kind, but felt, spoken, written, and laboured with all largeness of heart as well in the gospel as in the church. I do not doubt, however, that (whether in the English establishment or in dissent) evangelical preoccupation with the work of awakening souls is the most fertile source of this reproach; for it is jealous of any advance in scriptural intelligence beyond the barest elements. Even a full gospel is apt to be regarded with suspicion by such as think it the sole worthy aim to arrest the godless and win the careless to Christ. Many years ago I remember hearing of a little meeting in a small town in Wilts, where were about a dozen brothers, all of whom used, after the Lord's supper on each Lord's day, to disperse themselves over the neighbouring villages, freely and earnestly preaching the glad tidings; yet even there and then people used to say, Brethren never preach the gospel to the unconverted! Could infatuation be more complete? Is it of any use to reason with minds closed to the force of facts so patent?

The next remarks are better: "It is always instructive, and often most interesting, to trace the rise of an influential school or sect, to note the circumstances which gave it birth, and the different forms which it has assumed in the course of its development. Such movements are not the result of chance; nor do they merely represent the product of individual piety, genius, or self-will. Though in most cases they may be referred to some individual founder, they could never gain wide acceptance unless they were felt in some measure to supply some want of the age; and therefore a careful study of them will often furnish us with a key to the religious history of the day in which they arose. But the interest and instruction are multiplied tenfold when the movement under consideration has arisen in our own age. It then becomes a paramount duty to examine it with care. It throws light upon the period in which we live, and even in its most abnormal developments may remind the church of the day of some portion of her inheritance of truth which has been forgotten for a season, but for the revival of which the circumstances of the time are imperatively calling; while on the other hand the special character of any false teaching which may accompany such movements demands the attentive and dispassionate examination of all who desire to see their way through the perplexities of their time, and to secure the religious interests of their country" (pp. 6, 7).

Note in passing the importance given by our author to "age" and "country": no one intelligent in the true character of the truth on the one hand, and of the church on the other, could so think or speak. Even a divine institution is superior to such considerations, and if possible more evidently as also more absolutely that word of God which liveth and abideth. Christ gave Himself for our sins to deliver us out of this present evil age. We are not of the world, as He is not. But, to proceed, "All these considerations apply in full force to the remarkable movement with which we are now concerned. Its rapid growth, its wide-spread influence, its tenacious hold on those who join it, all go to show that it is felt by many both in this and foreign countries to furnish seine kind of supply to the religious necessities of the age. An examination of it then may help us to see what these necessities are, and should lead Churchmen to inquire further whether the Church herself out of the abundant stores committed to her keeping is not fully able to supply them." (Ib.) Mr. T. may be assured that those he cross-examines hail the fullest and most minute scrutiny of any. alleged heterodoxy, knowing that error is as dishonouring to God as damaging to man. God's word will not fail also to show how far the Anglican body answers to His system of the church. For we can do nothing against the truth but for the truth.

CHAPTER 2. — THE HISTORY OF THE PLYMOUTH BRETHREN.

There is this difficulty in speaking of the early facts that those with whom the movement commenced in Dublin are now passed away. If any information from one of the earliest can be relied on, two brethren in Dublin began to take the Lord's Supper together not later than 1826, and a few by degrees joined them. It was not merely for the study of the scriptures, mutual conference and prayer. A great accession of spiritual power came in with Mr. Darby who relinquished his clerical position in 1827, and published his "Nature and Unity of the Church of Christ" in 1828. Later on, Mr. A. N. Groves, so far from suggesting any distinctive truth or practice, only, dropt in among them, and always remained, as a sort of "free lance"; he never shared their decided convictions, but retained to the last a link with the ordinary ways of Christendom. Mr. J. G. Bellett also was slow in breaking off his old connections. There may have been others of similar feeling. But these remarks are quite inapplicable even to those who preceded Mr. D., as well as to himself. The late Dr. C. has named to me his distinct abandonment of his ecclesiastical associations at an earlier date than is here set down, before he saw his liberty to remember Christ in the breaking of bread. Probably the hearty welcome of such as still frequented their churches or chapels might easily lead to the notion that none for a time saw farther. It is, however, a positive error; for those who began to meet together were far from wishing to attend ordinary services. That they originally meant meetings of a subsidiary character is the dream of one — perhaps of more — who always wished something of the sort, and, of course, never could be regarded as going with Brethren intelligently or thoroughly. It is true that Mr. G. remonstrated with Mr. D., and mainly because of his own view of Matt. 13: 30, which proves that he never had the least real light on the nature of the church; but who ever heard of a single brother sympathizing with Mr. G.'s mistake, save members of sects outside who naturally and highly approve of it?

There are other flaws in the account. The society at Teignmouth (to which, as I understand, allusion is made) was strictly Baptist; and Mr. B. W. Newton never received English orders. But that he did not adopt in due time and in its full extent the principle of "open ministry" (though it be not a phrase used by wise brethren) is disproved by his paper "On the Apostacy of the present dispensation" (Christian Witness, v. 83-99), as the following extracts bear witness, though the expression be not accurate, as is usual in Mr. N.'s writings. "And accordingly it is not in the rejection of Jesus, nor the rejection of God as God, but in the rejection of God as at present acting on the earth, viz., in the Spirit in the Church, that we find the great present evidence of the apostacy of the dispensation to which we belong. In the 12th chapter of the 1st of Corinthians we find the relation of the Holy Spirit to Christ's body the Church very clearly unfolded. First, He gives it its living power of unity. By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body; and, secondly, He rules in the Church, for He divideth to every man severally as He will."

"Here then are two things. With respect to the first, the loss of that manifested unity to which the Church is called, and the little concern manifested by believers as to what schism is, and its danger; these and other questions connected with this rejection of the Spirit as the author of union, have been so frequently dwelt upon in this work, that I pass this part of this subject now, and confine myself to the second, viz., the refusal to own the Holy Ghost as the One who alone can and who alone does give order and office in the church of God."

"Such gifts, then, are given; such persons endowed by the Holy Ghost do exist: the question is, does the professing Church of God bow to the Spirit's appointments? or does it reject them, and substitute others in their stead? . . . . I need not refer to the Church of Rome to show how 'office' is supposed to give to carnal and unregenerate men authority to minister to the Church of God, though no spiritual nor even moral qualification be found in them; for these things are equally found, equally defended in the Establishment of our own country. Those whom the Spirit qualifies are set aside, and those whom man qualifies are substituted in their room.

"If not, where is the Church whose only care it is to see to whom among them the Spirit has divided any of His blessed gifts? and to own such and to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake, whether they be rich or poor, high or low, learned or unlearned? "such be the order of ministerial recognition, it is well; but if not, if things which the world has and handles, things with which the Holy Spirit (whom the world cannot receive) has no communion, regulate the arrangements of the Church of God, — if education or rank, the will of the prince or the landowner, or purchase-money, control the appointment,  -  then it is plain that it is the world which rules, and not the Spirit of God."

Again, "the necessary effect of such a principle's operation is so decidedly to put the voice of the people in the place of the Spirit of God, that we cannot regard the dissenting systems less chargeable with this sin of refusing to acknowledge the Holy Ghost than the Establishment. Indeed in theory the latter is more consistent with the truth, for it does allow that all authority and regulating power descends from God, and cannot have its origin in or sanction from man."

Had Mr. N. abode in the principles here enunciated and applied, none could have asked more; but, as is well known he gave up much here and elsewhere taught by him,* and betrayed what was far more serious, fundamental heterodoxy as to the doctrine of Christ. To "presidency" no intelligent brother objects, seeing that it is laid down in Rom. 12: 8, and 1 Thess. 5: 12, apart from all question of apostolic authority in appointment. Mr. T.'s information was incorrect.

*At the Clifton meeting, Mr. Newton, speaking of ministry and the points connected with it, told me that his principles were changed." J. N. D.'s Narrative of Facts, C. W. Eccles. iv. 22.

Whatever the difference as to prophecy, the rupture at Plymouth in 1845 was mainly on ecclesiastical grounds (that God was practically displaced in His assembly through a subversion of our confessed principles, and evil not only unjudged, but through the suppression of a weekly meeting for enquiry the remedy for much taken away). It is certain that through corrupting influence at that time in Ebrington St. the church's responsibility to judge evil was denied, as well as the unity of Christ's body on earth. He who in such circumstances could justify going on with the Ebrington Street party seems to me without conscience as to holiness and without faith as to unity, abandoning the rights of Christ in both.

Mr. N.'s heterodoxy as to Christ appeared, as Mr. Teulon says, about two years after; and the exposure was so convincing and complete that all the leaders implicated printed and circulated each an unreserved confession, save Mr. N., who owned but the use of wrong theological terms and a misapplication of Rom. 5., and withdrew his tracts for re-consideration. Not only did no good fruit appear thence, but he subsequently wrote a letter on Christ's Humanity, in which he maintained the principles of his former tracts and sought to defend or explain them, thus annulling any supposed worth in his "Acknowledgment of Error." It is owned, even by one opposed to us, that "the errors without any doubt touch the foundations of our faith, and by this means overthrow not only the unity of the church, but its very existence." It is really anti-christian doctrine. How could any soul who loved Christ and was jealous for His glory be "satisfied"?

Meanwhile the Baptist brethren at Teignmouth had migrated to Bristol, and, after giving up their peculiar principles, had at length professed to own the great truth of the presence and free action of the Holy Ghost in the assembly; so that a little company of brethren previously separate were induced to be with them on the common ground of saints gathered to Christ's name. In 1848 partisans of Mr. N., now all but universally regarded as anti-christian, were received at Bethesda, their meeting-room, and this, as Mr. Darby's circular states (not Mr. T.), "with a positive refusal to investigate the Plymouth errors." (C. W. Doctr., iv., 254.) "A paper was read, signed  by Messrs. Craik and Müller and eight others, to the body at Bethesda in which they diligently extenuate and palliate Mr. Newton's doctrine, though refusing investigation of it, and blame as far as they can those who have opposed it." (Ib. 255.) And these avowed partisans, who would have been everywhere rejected among us on the word in 2 John, were deliberately received and kept in so as to drive out a considerable number of godly brethren whose remonstrance was set at nought. "The Letter of the Ten" is the paper in question, which is far from repudiating those blasphemies, but rather an elaborate excuse for a very flagrant defiance of unity and indifference to fundamental error. Mr. T. seems not aware that Bethesda subsequently was so roused by the remonstrance of their friends as to hold seven meetings in which they did publicly judge the errors to be as blasphemous as Brethren had affirmed. But even so they got rid of the Newtonian partisans privately! so that two of the Ten leaders went out, in avowed dissent from that theoretic judgment, and set up a cause of their own and had Mr. N. to help at the Music Hall. The movement failed however; the other Newtonians left Bristol; and the two leaders (who had thus joined in open support of an anti-christian teacher on Bethesda's own showing) were allowed to come back on their owning that they should not have left Bethesda, without one reference to the real wickedness of supporting an Antichrist! Those who make much of Mr. Darby's over-sanguine visit to Mr. Müller after the seven meetings, take care to hide this overwhelming proof of treachery to Christ, as well as Mr. Craik's declaration in 1857 that the judgment expressed in the Letter of the Ten had never been repudiated.

It is true that Open Brethren, "the followers of Messrs. Müller and Craik," as Mr. T. calls them (p. 18), maintain the mutual independence of their different assemblies. They are on congregational ground. Is he not aware that no church principle is so diametrically opposed to those which governed Brethren from the beginning? An invisible unity all Independents allow in heaven; Brethren had no communion save on the ground of Christ's one body on earth, though they freely received godly persons from orthodox societies in His name, but never as recognising for a moment their associations as of God. And so they do still; whereas, if I am informed aright, Open Brethren at home and abroad rather boast of their care — to me sectarianism — in receiving none without formal reception by their churches, though probably many among them have not slipped into this. Extremes meet; for many of the Park Street party are no less sectarian, and independency is necessary to carry out these innovations.

I do not dwell on what is said in p. 19 of "Mr. Darby's followers," save remarking, (1) that if "they are willing to receive individuals" from among the various religious bodies to the Lord's Table, they are adhering to that original principle; and (2) that Mr. D. himself in his Bethesda circular excepted cases of ignorance of what had passed, whilst refusing to receive from Bethesda and of course all on the "loose ground," as opening the door to that terrible evil from which at great cost God's mercy had delivered us.

It is incorrect to say there was "a division" in 1866 or at any other time on the score of Mr. Darby's Views of Christ's sufferings. He was most ignorantly and unjustly assailed, and a few turned aside; but too inconsiderable a number withdrew to be so designated, sorrowful as it was for any to go, and especially on such an illusive ground. Mr. T. is wholly misinformed as to the views in question and would do well to study the incriminated pamphlet.

CHAPTER 3. — THE CHURCH.

The doctrine of the church is viewed as essential to a full understanding of Brethren's position. A better proof of this it would be hard to conceive than the fact that a short treatise was once issued under two forms: first, with the title of "One body and One Spirit," setting forth the Scriptural testimony to the nature, membership, ministry, government, and discipline of the church; next, with the title of "The 'Brethren,'" and no other change than the addition of a few lines at the beginning to explain its special aim. This excepted, it was the same essay. What was drawn from Scripture as to the essential characteristics of the church exactly suited the "Brethren," taking into account what no intelligent Christian would deny, the absence of the Apostles etc. on the one hand, and the present ruin-state of Christendom on the other. The author is quite correct in his remark, which goes farther than he contemplated.

But after stating that Brethren assert the church's existence from Pentecost and not before (because it supposes the accomplishment of Christ's sacrifice, and the presence of the Holy Spirit on earth consequent on Christ's ascension to heaven, p. 23), he says, p. 24, that "so far the teaching of the Brethren does not differ from that of the Church herself, *and is fully "borne out by the most express testimonies of the New Testament," (See S. Matt. 11: 11; S. John 7: 39; Heb. 11: 40.)

* Curiously enough, the Presbyterian Mr. Thos. Croskery, in his soi-disant "Refutation," controverts this in the wake of Mr. B, W. Newton, and insists rabidly on the existence of the church before Pentecost. He too follows others in strange mistakes about the early days of Brethren. Not merely does he repeat the absurdity of Mr. A N. Groves being a "founder"! (a very pardonable idea in the attached members of his own family and especially in such as never go beyond their crude thoughts); but he speaks of a society formed at Plymouth in 1831, including Messrs. B. W. N., Tregelles, Soltau, etc., and of Messrs. M. and C. establishing a similar society at Bristol. It was, if I err not, only in 1831 that Mr. Darby was first introduced through Newman at Oxford to Mr. G. V. Wigram, Sir. L. C. L. Brenton, B. W. N., Jarrett, etc. The others were later, especially Bristol not beginning on any ground of resemblance to Brethren.

The texts cited are an unfortunate selection, not one of them directly treating of the church, only collaterally. But we need not dwell on this; for the proofs in the New Testament are many and express. But where and what has Anglicanism taught about it? It is hard to say. The notions of its teachers and members are notoriously conflicting. The vast majority seem to hold that the invisible church has gone on from the beginning, and will to the end; and that there has been a visible church, concurrent with the invisible, and inclusive of it. The former seems clearly implied in the Collect for All Saints' Day: "Almighty God, who hast knit together thine elect in one communion and fellowship, in the mystical body" etc. When greater strictness of speech is intended, we hear of "the Christian Church" or something equivalent,. Where have the standards of the Church of England committed themselves to any definite teaching on the nature of the church, Christ's body? That they have defined it to be a distinctively New Testament or Pentecostal creation, till our Lord comes again, is more than doubtful. The teaching of Brethren on this head is in general confessed to differ essentially from that of Nationalism or Dissent. "Send to us Thine Holy Ghost," etc., as in the Collect for the Sunday after Ascension day, is not a petition heard among those who truly believe in His presence as sent down to abide with us for ever. And so prays year by year an Evangelical conglomerate of Anglicans, Methodists, and other Dissenters, for a fresh outpouring of the Spirit.

"But here we are met by the astounding assertion that this sacred society, so divine in its origin, so well provided with all that was necessary to preserve it from age to age, is in a state of hopeless irremediable corruption. . . . The continuance of God's goodness to her was suspended from the beginning upon the condition of her continuance in His goodness: that continuance, the Brethren say, has not been fulfilled, therefore her doom is sealed," sp. 24, 25. The assertion is solemn; but why "astounding," if Brethren but believe and declare what Scripture says? This then is the question: how is it written? God has not left the decision to our spiritual perception or intelligence. Humility — of all consequence to the believer —  might well shrink from pronouncing sentence on that which normally ought to be an object of such loving service and of profound respect as God's church here below. For this reason as for others He has graciously given ample testimony, so as to cut off hesitation and thus range true humility on the side of faith in His word, a due sense of Christ's glory, and a conscience exercised to discern both good and evil. Not that in the worst times provision is not made for the truly faithful: God fails in nothing. The ruin is owing to the creature only, notwithstanding rich favour, adequate power to sustain, and abundant warning; but even so the ruin is in the public or common answer to the glory of the Lord now, and in no way touches the security of individuals in His grace.

What then saith the Scripture?

Matt. 13: 24-30 is plain. The servants thought to correct the mischief done by the enemy; the householder ruled it irreparable till the judgment at the consummation of the age. Only then does the Lord allow the extirpation of the tares sown at the beginning. No wonder a ruined crop is not regarded as peculiar to these latter days: did it not exist in a "measure from the beginning"?

Rom. 11: 20-22 is no less decisive. The Gentile grafted into the good olive-free., which has replaced the broken off Jewish branches, stands "by faith," not by indefeasible right as Rome vainly claims in the face of the very epistle which contradicts it; and it has God's goodness expressly if it continue therein: "otherwise thou also shalt be cut off." — Christendom, no less than the Jew. Now let any believer read as before God the close of Acts 2 and 4, and then let him, judging by that standard, answer whether professing Christians have continued in God's goodness. If not, what is the sentence of His word? Excision, beyond controversy, whatever the patience of God meanwhile.

The Corr. and Gal. are not cited, because they speak for the most part of particular assemblies, and not of a general state as in the two Scriptures reasoned on. But assuredly we have the evidence of no small evils blighting the testimony to Christ in both. Morally as well as doctrinally, leaven of a Sadducean or of a Pharisaic type was already threatening the whole lump. If the light in Ephesus shone brightly, so much the more sad that the Lord is heard by His servant John charging its angel, "Remember therefore whence thou are fallen and repent and do the first works: or else I come to thee and will move thy candlestick out of its place, except thou repent." Can any sober Christian doubt that the threat was soon executed? To the Philippians the apostle says "All seek their own, not the things of Jesus Christ." Was this continuing in God's goodness? "Many walk of whom I told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is destruction, whose God is the belly, and whose glory is their shame, who mind earthly things." Is this continuing in God's goodness? If not, what then? The epistle to the Colossians supposes a more deadly evil at work there. philosophy and vain deceit, not without religious forms, which struck at the glory of the Head as well as at all the privileges of the Christian in union with Him. Was this continuance in God's goodness?

But these, grave as they are, are dust of the balance before 2 Thess. 2, where the apostle declares that the mystery of lawlessness already worketh: only there is one that restraineth now, until he be out of the way, and then shall be revealed the lawless one, whom the Lord Jesus shall destroy; etc.: or, as he had intimated earlier, the falling away, the apostacy, shall come first, and the man of sin be revealed. There are thus from apostolic days three predicted and connected stages: the mystery of lawlessness, the apostacy, and the man of sin or lawless one revealed, fill the Lord Jesus is revealed for his destruction. Is this continuing in God's goodness? Is it not a breakdown of the Christian society complete enough to satisfy Mr. T. if he believes the inspired apostle? The latter part of the New Testament would only confirm in the strongest way the beginning; but more than enough is cited to show why it is not regarded by Brethren as a matter of surprise.

And who can deny the analogy of the fall in man, of the ruin in Israel, and of the misgovernment of the Gentile powers? At the appearing of Christ shall be, not merely the full judgment of all those, but the glorious substitution in grace and power, and the blessed display, of the divine purpose in all those systems where the creature had so disastrously failed,  when taken up by the Second Man to God's praise.

As to the means or evidence of Christendom's ruin, it is. certain that the world is in the New Testament ever regarded as wholly antagonistic to the Father, whose children we are, and its friendship is enmity with God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ. We are not of the world, as Christ is not who died for all that they which live should no longer live to themselves but to Him who for their sakes died and rose again. To seek and embrace the world is worthy of Babylon, not of her who is espoused as a pure virgin to Christ. It is the acceptance of evil which is fatal, not the entrance of a hypocrite or an unbeliever who deceives. Now Article xxvi. quietly seeks to sanction evil having chief authority in the ministration of the word and sacraments, because done in Christ's name! whilst it speaks of a discipline which is as inadequate in practice as it is worldly in principle. Yet in the Homilies the right use of ecclesiastical discipline is laid down as the third mark of a true church; and Commination read in Lent is a sorry substitute for the godly discipline which needs to be restored. Is this then the church sustained through God's faithfulness of grace?

Mr T. erroneously imputes to Brethren the notion that apostolic appointment "belonged to the Church only while it was among the Jews," p. 27. On the contrary all admit that the choice of elders is most distinctly made by Paul and Barnabas among the Gentiles, not to speak of Titus later still under the Apostle's direction in Crete. On the one hand the New Testament discloses a direct supply of gifts from Christ the Head for the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the 'building of the body of Christ; and this, till we all attain unto the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a full-grown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ, Eph. 4. This grace cannot fail, because it rests exclusively on His ever active love to His own. Hence (if we heed Scripture) ordination never was practised as to apostles or prophets, as to evangelists, or pastors, or teachers: if so, where? when? by whom? or on whom? It is allowed on the other hand that the apostle, or an apostolic delegate, did choose and appoint elders, not the disciples choosing and the apostles appointing, but the apostles for the disciples. But the Scripture which demonstrates this is equally clear that no provision is made in it to perpetuate this ordaining authority. Gifts according to it were to abide, not those local charges. It is vain to reason from that which we think must or ought to be: those who assert are logically bound to prove; and we can readily and certainly do so for the gifts, not those who claim the local charge of elders. This would imply apostolic succession; as we frankly allow to the Anglican the invalidity of dissenting ordination. But what of their own? It is in general confidently derived from Peter, who is to this end made the first bishop of Rome, and thus would secure the primacy also. But this is to ignore and annul Scripture, which assigns the apostleship of the circumcision to Peter, as of the uncircumcision to Paul, who ought to have been, but was not even imagined to be, the spring of orders in the west by the ecclesiastical fabulists. God has thus poured confusion on the clerical scheme, which is opposed to Scripture even in its theory.

And what is the practical issue? That the apostle Paul could not produce a valid title, and that Bishop Colenso can; that Dr. Pusey was a qualified presbyter, and that Mr. Spurgeon is a quack. this which Mr. T. must substantially admit (save perhaps a quibbling assumption as to S. Paul) be not what he calls "encroaching on the jurisdiction of the Holy Ghost, and so far as human power can do so, hampering His work among the sons of men," p. 28, it will at any rate receive no more refutation here. It is the genuine and necessary working of the clerical system in direct opposition to the free action of the Holy Spirit within the assembly of God.

The argument in pp. 30-35 fails to prove that the church was meant, according to God's will, to be an unholy body. We have never denied that it quickly fell from its holy standing, and that He let us know that so it would be, but nowhere to sanction evil in it. It is not Brethren who overlook the parable of the wheat and the tares, but such as falsely apply to church constitution and discipline what the Lord explained to be the mingled crop of righteous and wicked in "the world" under the reign of the heavens till the Lord execute judgment in His day. The popular interpretation is demonstrably unsound, because it sets Matt. 13: 30 in irreconcileable antagonism to 1 Cor. 5. For, so misapplied, the Lord in the parable forbids that purging out of the manifestly wicked which the Spirit enjoins peremptorily in the epistle! Rightly understood, the two Scriptures are in perfect harmony, as Brethren see, and Anglicans etc. do not: for the Lord prohibits present extermination of the wicked, whereas the Holy Spirit insists on their excommunication. Till judgment they are to be together in the world; the wicked are not to be together with the righteous in the church, but to be put out.

Again, Matt. 22: 10 is no less perverted to justify the evil thought of unholiness in the church; for it speaks solely of those whom the Christian call finds, indiscriminately in the servant's eyes, and not at all what grace does for the guilty when clothed with the marriage garment. A false doctrine always involves misuse of Scripture, as this to sanction ("bad and good" within the assembly. So Matt. 24: 12, Acts 20: 29, 30, 2 Thess. 2, 1 Tim. 4, 2 Tim. 2, 3, 1 John 2, 2 Peter 2, 3, Jude, prove nothing more surely than "that the dispensation would fail," if every one who names the Lord's name is really responsible to depart from iniquity. Brethren are the last to suppose "that the divine charter of the Church would be cancelled, or the Presence of Christ be withdrawn from the work of His hands" (p. 33).

All this is mistake of the question. Brethren hold the terrible growth and development of that evil which has ruined the public testimony of Christendom, 'but the inalienable responsibility of all that are His to depart from iniquity, according to the abiding Charter of the church, and counting on Christ's unfailing presence in the midst of even two or three gathered to His name. And the teaching of the Epistles fully corroborates this; for while grave evil manifestly did enter, holy discipline is made obligatory. Would the apostle Paul, or the church in general, have owned the assemblies in Corinth, Colosse, or Galatia, if they had rejected his authority and kept the denounced evil within? Would it have been godly to have gone on if the whole lump had been leavened? It is rebellious insubjection to the Lord's commandments that would unchurch. So with the seven Apocalyptic churches: the Lord denounces terrible evils in several; but it is to have the evil judged. If they had not repented, would they have been churches of God all the same? This is the ecclesiastical corruption which Brethren deny; and to lay the ruin or cessation of churches on God's providence rather than on man's sin seems to Brethren more worthy of a professional divine than of a believer.

There is equal confusion and error as to out views of ordination and ministry in pp. 35-52. No brother denies the common application of 1 Cor. 9: 1 to Paul and the twelve; and the argued parallel between the miracles, ministry, and methods of S. Paul and S. Peter in no way enfeebles the heavenly character of Paul's apostleship, which is a fact as patent as it is important. In this way only has he been regarded as typical of others since, who in an incomparably humbler way have been given of Christ. as gifts for the perfecting of the saints. It is unfounded that Brethren do or ever did expect that all the ministers of Christ would have a miraculous call like his, any more than the apostle expected it. And none more than Brethren have dwelt on his appointing elders with Barnabas, or his directions to Timothy and Titus. More elders could not thus appoint; none but an apostle or his delegate with express authority to this end. But that neither had permanent diocesan place 2 Tim. 4: 9, 21, Titus 3: 12 show, besides total silence as to the continuance of such powers. They had a direct and limited commission defined during his life without a word providing for the time following his death, though. he supposes this at hand in one of these very Epistles.

This may suffice to show others, if not Mr. T., how he misunderstands the scriptural truth on which our position is founded. We do not believe there is any "radical change in the church's constitution" (p. 40), but only in exterior means of government, which never were indispensable for the churches, and are recognized before they were appointed. (Acts 14: 23 and Titus 1: 5). Elders therefore were desirable, but not essential, But we do believe, as scripture warrants, that those to whom evangelising and teaching were committed by Christ will surely continue till the end. These are not elders, but gifts with which "exceptional arrangement" never had to do. It is all wrong therefore to talk of the elders etc., being "succeeded by another system utterly unlike it;" for the supply of gifts was before the local charges, went on with it side by side, and alone can be proved to abide.

Local charges clearly, even when apostolically appointed, are not the gifts which depend on the risen Christ, the ascended Read. Hence these abide now as then, being directly raised up by Him, like Judas and Silas, like Apollos, like Epaphras or Epaphroditus, like Trophimus or Tychicus or Archippus or Zenas. They were gifts unto the work of ministry, unto edifying of the body of Christ. We insist on Christ's guarantee of continuing such gifts till the church be complete. But local charges cannot be in due scriptural order without an apostolic authority, which those who assert are bound to prove. If Mr. T. own the continuance of these gifts, as he appears to do in pp. 40, 41, we have no controversy on this head; but he assumes without proof that the local charge of elders abides. If he or any other can show us authority competent to appoint presbyters, Brethren would be the last to despise aught that is really of the Lord. Brethren abstain from such appointments, because confessedly none among them lays claim to any such authority. But they are unaware of its existence either in Nationalism or in Dissent, to say nothing of the idolatrous system of Rome. If authority be asserted, it ought to be unquestionable. Imitation, however close, is unreal. If it does not even resemble the trite and divine, what is its worth? The inspired record has living value, as in other ways, so in this of exposing unreal pretension. In a day of ruin it lays bare spurious authority, and it establishes the gracious provision of God for His children even then, that the simplest need not stray nor sit down in the poor consolation of accepting the lesser of two evils. There is always a holy path for the faithful.

CHAPTER 4. — THE RESOURCE OF THE FAITHFUL AMID THE RUIN OF THE CHURCH.

"The first step that they insist on," says Mr. T., "is entire separation from the Church and all other christian societies. This is of course a necessary consequence of the view they take of the state of those societies. The arguments against separation, which may be fairly urged in dealing with the members of other sects, have no place here. If universal Christendom is in a state of utter condemnation, if the fires of Divine wrath are destined shortly to consume it, separation becomes not only lawful but necessary. If is worse than useless, it is sinful to remain in a society, which lies under a Divine sentence, and accordingly the very first requisition of the Brethren is 'Come out from among them, and be ye separate.' It is admitted, indeed, that individuals who abide in 'the ruin' may be saved at last; but by 'touching the unclean thing' they deprive themselves of the fulness of Gospel privileges, and especially of that great blessing of visible unity which Christendom at large has forfeited for ever." (pp. 43, 44.) Does Mr. T. really think we claim to restore "visible unity"? That we are bound, ceasing from the causes and results of disunion, to insist on the true ground of unity and thus walk, is another thing, and true.

Doubtless this is said with upright intention, which indeed characterises our author favourably, in contrast almost singular with others in their critiques; but every intelligent person among Brethren would demur to the opening phrase, "entire separation from the Church," etc., and for the simple and sufficient reason that we regard "separation from the Church" as entirely unjustifiable. The church may surely lose its character (as at Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Rome, says Article 19) not only in life but in faith, by departure from its distinctive principles. If there be acceptance of evil in its confession or its conduct, then separation from evil according to scripture is imperative; because its leavened condition is incompatible with its claim to be considered Christ's witness, and hence with God's aim, nature, will, and authority, as made known in His word, which acts and is meant to act on the conscience of the believer.

Time was when all western Christendom was Romanist: Mr. T., it is to be presumed, holds cheaply their reproach on the Anglican body of "entire separation from the Church"; nor does he want any reason from us for not joining any of "all other Christian societies." He assumes that the Anglican establishment is "the Church," which we deny, believing it to be at issue with God's constitution of the Church in its headship, its ministry, and its membership. For (1) the Sovereign's chief government of estates ecclesiastical is inconsistent with Christ's headship; and none can serve two masters. (2) The ministry is doubly unsound; not only in claiming godly order and lawful consecration for its "bishops, priests, and deacons," without and against scripture, but in rejecting the free action of the Holy Ghost in gift, which is the only true scriptural ground of Christian service, now that we have neither apostle, nor apostolic vicar, to validate local charges. And (3) as the rubric insists that every parishioner shall communicate at the least three times in the year (only excepting an open and notorious evil liver or an impenitent offender in wrong or malice), it is plain that its membership is fundamentally vicious by embracing the decent world as a whole, instead of contemplating none but those baptized by the one Spirit into the one body, believers on the Lord Jesus Christ, enjoying the like gift of the Holy Ghost as God gave at the beginning. Brethren therefore separate, from the Anglican establishment, not for its state only through abuses of various kinds, but because its constitution, were there no abuses, essentially differs from that of God's church as revealed in scripture; in order to walk together, confessing their weakness and shortcoming, on the imperishable principles of His church. How faithfully carry out the church according to God's word, without separating from what is opposed to its nature? This we seek to do.

Mr. T. allows that "with perfect truth" we point to Christ as the true centre, and to the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven as the true power, of unity. Only he adds, that in so saying we but echo "the voice of universal Christendom; for no truths have obtained more general recognition than those just named" (pp. 44, 45). Would to God this were the fact! Though not a young man, nor unacquainted with all that bears the name of the Lord all over the earth, I know of no Christian society which either confesses them as the truth, or even attempts to reduce them to practice, as already shown in Chap. III. It is an amiable but grievous misapprehension: no evidence is even essayed of what really does not exist. But having stated what is manifestly unfounded (though in good faith, as Mr. T. does not quite comprehend the matter), he immediately after shows that, in asserting too much, he in effect says nothing. For, closing one paragraph with the flourish about "the voice of universal Christendom," he opens the next with the words "But having abandoned the divinely constituted society [by which, I suppose, he means Anglicanism now, and Romanism for many centuries before the Reformation!], in which the expression of those truths has ever been found by those who sought it (!), they are obliged to seek for their realisation by a method of their own." But this is as wholly mistaken as inconsistent. For how could there be the disunions of Christendom, or the different denominations which men call "churches," with their manifold and even discordant tongues, in nothing more notorious than their slight of Christ as the centre, and the Holy Spirit as the power, of unity, if they all uttered, and uttered truly, this one voice? And if we listen to the Anglican society alone, nothing is farther from the actual fact, nothing less before the minds of its founders, than such a practical development of these truths as is soon in the church of the Scriptures. They just wished to turn over the people en masse from Popery to Protestantism, and to a Protestantism of their own, different from Luther's on the one hand, and from Calvin's on the other.

So far, too, are Brethren from abandoning the divinely constituted society in which the expression of those foundation  - truths of the church of God are found, that it is precisely on this they have fallen back, in ceasing to do this unscriptural thing, or in correcting that unscriptural thought. They clear themselves of every known accretion, sectarian or worldly, in order to abide faithfully in their relationship to the Lord Jesus Christ, as members of His body. They own and act on the truth of His body, the church, and nothing else; welcoming all others who give credible witness that they are His, and in the position wherein God has set each of them in the church. This, in its poor measure, is holding fast, not casting aside, the only ecclesiastical association of which God speaks, for it is on the ground of the assembly instituted by Him. Inventions ecclesiastical of man, ancient or modern, are of no account in their eyes; because they are substitutes for, rivals of, and rebels against, that which alone is of God. If we hear the scriptures, we cannot overlook the saints from Pentecost meeting in the power of the Holy Ghost round the person of Christ, and thus worshipping and holding communion with the Father, as Mr. T. describes the aim of Brethren. Nor can it be denied that, according to the Acts and Epistles, the Holy Ghost did act in the assembly as well as individually, to exalt and endear the Lord unto the glory of God, in the varied need and to the blessing of all concerned.

Thus even St. Paul was but a minister of the assembly (Col. 1): the minister of an assembly is unknown to scripture, and therefore an encroachment on God's revealed will. Disorders might enter, but scripture rebukes and corrects them, were they but an inopportune display of miraculous power. The commandment of the Lord enforces edification and order, but unquestionably on the ground of the presence and free action of the Holy Ghost in the assembly. To abandon this is to abandon the only divine constitution and the sole normal working of a church, as such, which scripture furnishes. The very aberrations at Corinth were the occasion of the fullest instruction on church matters in the New Testament. Christendom in general, and Anglicanism in particular, have not even sought to realise "the assembly" of scripture; but resorted, each sect, to notions and practices of its own. Brethren, whatever their weakness, and it is not small, own the obligation of cleaving to the assembly, while they avoid the assumption and imitation of apostolic authority.

Mr. T. states fairly on the whole (pp. 46, 47) what Brethren hold as to gifts according to the word, save that he does not with it all connect the Lord's place whose glory the Spirit is here to make good. Hence the prominence given to His authority in 1 Cor. 14, where the exercise of gifts in the assembly is regulated. But the practical difficulty is pleaded: "who is to decide whether this or that brother possesses the requisite gift?" To an outside mind, to a theorist, the solution seems difficult, and the more if God be left out; but why doubt His gracious care in that which so nearly concerns Himself and His children? No one would conceal that questions arise here as everywhere; but God watches over those who desire to do His will; and in practice there is perhaps more loss from the backwardness of those who might help but shrink from an overstrained sense of responsibility, than trial of patience through the forwardness of the incompetent. Men of spiritual intelligence in scripture are found generally and everywhere among Brethren; and it is easier to pass before a bishop's examining chaplain than to deceive such, though they assume no authority to interdict, unless error or other evil should draw out open rebuke or even more. It is a delusion to suppose (as in p. 48) that there is in any instance for the assembly an approach to electing its own ministers for the time being. The Lord is counted on, and the Holy Spirit knows how to guide. But along with this outside the assembly we have always maintained individual responsibility in the exercise of gift; each servant being responsible to trade with the goods entrusted to him for this purpose by the Master. (Matt. 25, Luke 19.) In No. iii. of "Lectures on the Church of God" there seems absolutely no ground for the imputation. The page, if not the words, should have been cited.

To worship with its central institution, the Lord's Supper on the Lord's day, Brethren have recalled the attention of Christians. Mr. T. notices this in pp. 48-50, with the discipline in 50-52 scripture enjoins to guard all; but his comment is slight. It is Matt. 18: 20, rather than 16: 18, (p. 53) that we point to for the Lord's guaranteed presence to two or three gathered to His name — the highest sanction and highest favour the church enjoyed even at Pentecost. Christendom as a whole has become like "the camp" of Israel; an earthly religion for man in the flesh, which suits the world and seeks its glory, instead of boasting only in the cross, walking and worshipping in the faith of the heavenly glory of Him who was here put only to shame and death. Mr. T. (p. 54) repeats to us the old popish cavil against the Reformers: if Brethren are right as to the assembly, where are we to find a true expression of it from the apostolic age till now? He forgets that this is part of the evidence as to the ruin-state of Christendom. Had we seen any saints manifesting, in ever such feebleness but truly, God's assembly, we should have found ourselves there, instead of beginning afresh on that ground in separation from all the systems which ignored it. The argument in p. 55 drawn from ecclesiastical history is therefore quite worthless. So the scriptural argument in p 56, founded on "elders." etc., does not even touch the question of the assembly; as any Christian ought to see from the undeniable fact that churches are fully recognised before those charges were appointed in them; no elders as yet being referred to in Rome or in Corinth, but the strongest presumption of their absence. It is the old error of confounding the church with the officials, where there were officials, and of denying the church to be where they were not; a probably Ignatian invention at issue with scriptural truth.

But pp. 57-59 are worse, and illustrate how tradition ever tends to unbelieving views and ways. For it is boldly laid down that the regulations in 1 Cor. 14 have reference to a state of things which no longer exists. Why then should Anglicans or others habitually quote, for practical guidance, words out of this chapter from ver. 1 to ver. 40? It is granted at once that Mr. T.'s unbelief is logically more consistent with the routine of his system, as of the rest of Christendom. But one's heart prefers the well-meant but blundering application of these precious words of the Lord, however little they suit arrangements which essentially differ from the order and decency demanded by holy writ. Does Mr. T. question that the "order" of the assembly laid down in 1 Cor. 14 was then invariable "in all churches of the saints"? So little is that "order" founded on the miraculous endowments of tongues or miracles, as his argument assumes, that one of the objects of chaps. 12-14 is to lower the overweening value set on those displays by the ostentatious brethren in Corinth, and to claim the superiority of such a gift as "prophesying," because it builds up the assembly. Power is inferior to spiritual intelligence, and the higher gifts which the Corinthians slighted in their folly abide to this day for comfort, edification, and exhortation.

The real ground of the regulations, then, is the presence of the Spirit sent down to remain in and with us for ever. Undoubtedly (and there we have no controversy with Mr. T., but with Irvingites or mere fanatics) tongues and other miracles ceased; and when they did, the references to them would no longer apply. But therefore to infer that the always and immeasurably more important "state of things," which turned on the presence of the Spirit and His free action in the assembly, no longer exists, is as unfounded as it is ruinous. Sign-gifts formed but part; and, however momentous for the time, being vouchers of the Holy Ghost's presence as a new and stupendous fact, are not to be compared in value with those gifts which laid the foundation and were to carry on the building of God's habitations by the Spirit. The regulations of 1 Cor. 14 implied of course the very small part of the Spirit's power which wrought in a tongue or its interpretation; but they contain the general course of the assembly, and from first to last they subordinate extraordinary powers (even when in action) to the spiritual and ordinary ways of the Holy Ghost in building up the faithful. It is the traditional school of Christendom which assumes the transitory character of 1 Cor. 14 because in it are some regulations of sign-gifts passed away. But this chapter regulates also speaking to edification, exhortation, and comfort, which believers need at least as much now as ever; and it refers to prayer, and singing, to blessing and thanksgiving, which are surely not "a state of things passed away," any more than the assembly it. self, and its responsibility to be energized of the Spirit in subjection to the commandment of the Lord.

It is Mr. T. and his friends who are therefore plainly opposed to all sound reasoning on this head; 'but, what is worse, they practically treat 1 Cor. 12, 14 as a state of things dead and gone, because the extraordinary or sign gifts no longer exist. And what can be less sound than to claim that they truly heed the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, because they imitate the apostle or his vicar, without the commission they enjoyed, as compared with Brethren who refuse to go beyond their province, and can too easily use these very Epistles to refute traditional pretensions? If Mr. T. could show us with the least appearance of solidity persons with such true apostolic title to appoint elders or deacons, we should gladly bow; for we have not the most distant aversion to the exercise of just authority. But our faith in the word and our value for apostolic order arm us strongly against mere imitation or assumption, even if it could boast of the hoary old age of fifteen centuries, instead of the rather green one of three or four.

What is erroneously branded as our "entirely modern system" (p. 59) is the very same in substance as that in which all assemblies at the first found themselves which had not the added privilege of an apostle or apostolic delegate to choose elders for them. We frankly own the deficiency in this respect, as they no doubt did; but we refuse unscriptural methods of appointing these charges, such as Christendom has long adopted, as different from one another as from God's word. To use such methods would be a loss not a gain.

Mr. T. admits "the undoubted truths" Brethren have enshrined in that early churchism which we find in Holy Writ, and which he unintelligently libels as a novel system. But his verbal admission that "far more discipline is needed" in Anglicanism, according to the desire of the Commination Service, floes not rebut the fact of its shameless absence, especially when one of its own standards confesses the right use of ecclesiastical discipline to be one of the three marks of a true church. And the prayer in the second collect for Good Friday, or any little development of what they call lay agency (p. 90), cannot atone for their absolute annulling of the only principle and practice of the assembly known to God's word, to which Brethren, if alone, by grace adhere; though it be equally binding on all the members of Christ's body. "What! came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?" To separate from an unscriptural system is not to separate from the church (p. 60) but from that which never was the church. Neither in Anglicanism nor in Dissent was Christ ever in any real sense the one, centre, nor the Holy Ghost the one power, of gathering. Separation, if we find ourselves in what is false, is a necessary first step toward carrying out the true. But we need to be guided only by the word and the Spirit of God, with Christ before our eyes; for error is easy and manifold, and truth is one. All real Christians are members of the one body. Oh that they were content, judging before God themselves and all that hinders others justly, to let go the petty differences that scatter, and to hold fast Him who died to gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad!

CHAPTER 5. — JUSTIFICATION.

It is confessed (I.) that the truth of justification, including pardon and acceptance, is asserted by Brethren "with an emphasis and an earnestness which leaves nothing to be desired; their frank and unreserved recognition of them accounts for much of their influence on the religious life of the present day, and if in the details of their teaching on this wide subject, we find some things which we are compelled to criticise severely, their main points of agreement must never be forgotten" (pp. 62, 63). The grounds for Mr. T.'s criticism of details will perhaps appear to be his own want of light; the soundness of the doctrine on that which is of all importance for the individual soul is allowed in general by their censor, as well, it might be, if it but echo scripture. In Anglicanism is any approach to this true? Are they not, like others, obscure and shallow as to God's righteousness, where they are not in error? never corresponding in their measure with the depth and accuracy of God's word? Art. xi. (of the Thirty-nine Articles) says: "We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own merits or deservings; wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification." This does not say much, if anything, for our present question; yet it were well if most Anglican preachers taught accordingly. Very different is the Tridentine statement: "Quae enim iustitia nostra dicitur, quia per eam nobis inhaerentem iustificamur: illa eadem Dei est, quia a Deo nobis infunditur per Christi meritum." This at least is Egyptian darkness: the bold identification of man's righteousness with God's; and the profane effort to consecrate this virtual denial of our justification on the one side, and of God's righteousness on the other, by making Christ's merit its source. It is the gospel of God's grace ignored, — yea, apostate rejection of Christ's salvation for every one that believes, in order to set up more naturalism under the forgery of Christ's name.

II. "But further," (says Mr. T.) "they have done good service in bringing out into a clear, strong light, one aspect of the doctrine of justification which some previous systems had lost sight of, viz. the close connection of this great gift with the resurrection of our Lord On this point they have been misunderstood by some of their opponents, who speak of the prominence given by them to the doctrine of the resurrection as though it involved a depreciation of the work that was done upon the Cross. The following quotations will prove that they are in little danger of falling into error on this head; whilst at the same time they show the exact place assigned by them to the resurrection in the economy of Redemption" (pp. 63, 64). More than one writer is cited, with the comment, "in all this there is nothing which detracts from the value or the dignity of the sacrifice offered upon the Cross. On the contrary, it is but an echo of the teaching of St. Paul," etc. (p. 65). The fact seems to be, that Mr. T. has learnt a little through reading various tracts, though not enough to form or warrant a solid and ripe judgment.

How little there is a just claim to discernment is evident from his speaking of a "remarkable resemblance" between the treatises of the Brethren on this particular point and some of the writings of the Tractarian school; though he doubts the ridiculous fable of the British Quarterly Review (p. 409 of the No. for Oct. 1873) that Brethren derived their doctrine of justification from Dr. Newman! (p. 67). That Irvingism as well as Tractarianism protested against Evangelicalism on this head is true; and so did Brethren: but their ground was as different as the aim and the result. For the Irvingite used to get rid of all just thoughts of Christ's work, on which justification depends, by the statement that it is at-one-ment which was the true want and real blessing, not atonement in the sense of sin-bearing on the cross. And very similarly the late Bishop of Oxford used to say, that the essential difference between the Puseyite system and his father's Evangelicalism lay in the Tractarians giving to the Incarnation the value which the Evangelicals assigned to the cross. Thus these two new parties (Irvingites and Tractarians) wholly departed from the truth; for they laid the stress, not on the infinite work of redemption, where evil was divinely judged and borne away for faith, but on the Word made flesh — the blessed manifestation of the person of the Saviour. This is a grand truth, no doubt; but rather a means to the end of vindicating God in His mercy to sinners, which in no way gives effect to His grace in saving us from our sins, so as to range His righteousness on the side of justifying the believer. Incarnation was the display of living grace in Christ; but His blood-shedding made it a just thing for God to justify the believer. His law, and much more than His law, had been perfectly illustrated in His life here below; but in His vicarious and sacrificial death God made Him who know no sin to be sin for us, that we might become God's righteousness in Him risen and glorified.

Hence Irvingism and Tractarianism alike keep the soul on this side of the cross, where sin was not yet dealt with; and remission of sins is a hope, rather than a possessed privilege, according to the efficacy of Christ's blood in the sight of God, and the believer knowing himself in Christ risen from the dead. Wherever that is so, there is no deliverance from law, any more than from flesh and the world; but those so beguiled are kept still under the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto they desire to be in bondage. Every one is, at least all the baptized are, viewed as in a salvable state; and none can he regarded as truly and for ever saved — this being the vain confidence of heretics! So, on their own showing, no papist was farther from the truth than Drs. Newman and Pusey when insisting on their Tractarianism. Faith was made by them the sum of christian virtues! Hence justification by faith meant justification by the fruits of the Spirit!! Thus they coalesced with the old Pelagians and modern Quakers, with mystic and self-righteous schools of all ages; which may differ in form,  - but agree in making an amelioration within the real resting-place, with God's mercy in Christ a sort of make-weight for all shortcomings.

Indeed, nothing serves to put in stronger contrast their absolutely opposed doctrine, than the way in which such a case is handled as the believing robber on the cross in Luke 23. Dr. N. is, of course, obliged there to admit salvation without priest, sacrament, or works; but then he essays to guard his system by attributing the saving virtue to the faith as implicitly containing all, and having extraordinary merit in those exceptional circumstances! The truth, on the contrary, is that grace gave his awakened conscience to rest without hesitation on the Saviour, the first-fruits of His suffering for sins, and the striking witness of immediate, everlasting, and complete cleansing by the blood of Christ for the paradise of God. In none other is there salvation; for neither is there any other Name under heaven that is given among men, wherein we must be saved. There is real contrast where Mr. T. fancies a "remarkable resemblance;" and the Tractarian idea is as dark, as Brethren have been given to present "in a clear strong light" not one aspect only, but the entire field of this truth as revealed in scripture. The Evangelical view is not false, like that of the Tractarians and Irvingites, but rather meagre and shallow, being sometimes clouded by bringing in the law without warrant of God's word, to supplement the true way of justification in virtue of the death and resurrection of Christ.

This brings us to III., where we are told (p. 69), that "Brethren have certainly not assigned its proper position, viz. His obedience to the law of God during His earthly life"; and that their statements are a recoil from the Puritanism of the seventeenth century, the active and passive righteousness of Christ imputed to us, as taught then and since chiefly by nonconformists. Strange to say, Mr. T., though he does not apparently adopt this system, is not unwilling to draw a shaft or two from its quiver. We certainly do not deny the fact, or the importance, of the Son of God born of woman, born under law; but the connection of these facts in scripture is, not with His obeying the law to acquire righteousness for Himself or for us, but "that He might redeem them which were under the law [Jewish believers] that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye [Galatian believers] are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father." Jew or Gentile, all who believe have now, in virtue of redemption, the indwelling of the Holy Ghost given to us. Not only does scripture never divide Christ's work in Puritan fashion, but it never makes our Saviour's fulfilment of the law "an essential qualification" for His work on the cross; His perfection as man, on the contrary, went far beyond the law, which was the measure imposed of God on fallen and sinful man. In all His life, and in every act, there was not only the perfection of man toward God, but of God in man and toward man. No believer doubts, therefore, that there never was a flaw, inwardly or outwardly; but even the mildest form in this legal school of presenting Christ's life does unwitting dishonour to Him, who, though He came under law, glorified His Father immeasurably beyond it throughout life up to death — the death of the cross.

2. To make of Christ's death a fulfilling of the law for us, His legal obedience, is a perversion of scripture, and most offensive to all right feeling. It was by the grace of God He tasted death for every man. He came to do God's will, taking away the first — what the law required — that He might establish the second; by which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Hence, instead of making law of none effect through faith, we establish law; for law never had such a, vindication as when the Lord Jesus died, a victim under its curse, and the answer to all its sacrificial types. Certainly, the humblest among Brethren believe this at least as fully as the vice-principal of Chichester College, without denying the boundless grace of Christ's death, as if it were but a part of the moral law, i.e. a human duty, to the slight of the divine judgment of sin.

3. "It is perfectly clear" that the language in Rom. 3: 21, and in Gal. 2: 21, goes farther than is here and generally allowed. We are not at liberty to curtail an absolute statement, more especially when we have to do with inspired words. Men may plead their lack of foresight, or infirmity of expression: God's word needs no such apology. It is untrue that the apostle excludes "simply" our own legal obedience from the work of justification: in the widest way, he glories in God's righteousness apart from law, and expresses it in terms altogether unrestricted in Rom. 3.

So in Galatians 2, the apostle declares that, if righteousness came through law, then Christ died in vain. It is not giving full scope to scripture, if we limit this to our obeying the law. The apostle puts it absolutely; no interpreter is entitled to make it relative. Witness how strange and lame the plan is: first, our righteousness or justification by Christ's obeying the law for us; and then His death, to extricate us from wrath, because of our sins! Is there not an inversion of divine order in this imaginary scheme? How it stands in contrast with the beauty of scriptural truth! For however Christ glorified His Father (and He did, so perfectly) in His life on earth, He was truly the grain of wheat which abode by itself; alone, till dying, it bore much fruit. So He suffered for our sins, and rising from the dead, gave us a place in Him, to live evermore of His life in resurrection, set free from all condemnation (Rom. 8: 1-4).

Thus, not only were we justified in the power of His blood, but we have "justification of life"; a truth unheard in the pulpit, and unknown to divinity schools. They try to drag the mind back to the days before redemption, when God had not yet condemned sin in the flesh in His own Son; not only a man in the likeness of flesh of sin, but a sacrifice for it, a sin-offering: whereas scripture brings into prominence first His death, and then His resurrection; that the believer may know himself set free from the law of sin and death by a wholly different law — the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. For indeed we died with Christ and were raised together with Him; not only He dying for us, but we dead with Him, as our very baptism attests. Those greatly err, therefore, who would send us back with the Puritans to the legal estate before the cross, or the peace made through its blood, instead of going forward, according to the unquestionable doctrine of Paul, into the estate of Christ's risen life, and the liberty of the Spirit which is characteristic of Christianity.

Be it noticed that the establishment of law in Rom. 3: 31 has not the least connection with Christ's obeying it, as the Puritans say, to give us active righteousness. For the entire context is decisive in speaking only of Christ set forth as a propitiatory or mercy-seat through faith in His blood, and thus displaying, apart from law, God's righteousness, both in vindication of His past forbearance and in the present time; so that He might be just and might justify him that has faith in Jesus. This is a law of faith which excludes Jewish boasting or Puritan theology; for the sole establishing of law, which is here set forth to our faith, is Christ's death, without the least reference to His making out righteousness for us by obeying the law in His life. Never was law so solemnly and gloriously established, as when the divine Saviour bore its curse on the cross; its authority was uphold by that which delivered from its penalty.

The use of the law made by the apostle in Rom. 5: 20 is to point out that it came in beside or by the bye; that the offence, or trespass under law, might abound. It is an added matter and subordinate aim, quite distinct from the direct teaching, just before, of that one act of righteousness, or obedience of One, which alone could constitute any righteous; and, in fact, does so for the many. This incidental allusion, however, in no way warrants the modern dogma of the active righteousness, but rather pointedly omits any such idea as intended of God, turning us at once away from the special and secondary object, to dwell on the grand general triumph of grace abounding over sin; "that, as sin reigned in death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Rom. 8, 4, refers, not to Christ obeying the law for us, but to the righteous requirement of the law fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. It is practical righteousness in such as live of Christ's life, to produce the fruit of righteousness which is by Him to God's glory and praise, loving God and their neighbour. But this is Pauline truth, not Puritanism. Those under grace (not law) are led to bear fruits of the Spirit: against such there is no law. We who died to sin, how shall we any longer live therein? For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under law but under grace." Is it possible to conceive contradiction more direct to the Catechism on the Westminster Confession.

IV. It is objected, also, that the gift of justification is hold to be abiding. This is to predicate the safety not of all the baptized, but of all born of God. Every simple Christian believes that a professor may draw, back to perdition. It is not said, that "whatever sin or failure there may be in our course, our salvation is secure": individuals may thus speak among Brethren, as elsewhere. But the warning is, that a man who does not buffet the body and lead it captive may have preached to others and be himself rejected (or a castaway). It is clear that the objector, like the mass in his own system and others, does not hold the eternal life of the believer in any just and uninterrupted sense. Yet Scripture is plain on this momentous truth. It is natural that those who think that life — one cannot properly call it eternal life  - may be lost and regained, should regard justifying grace as equally defectible: ideas not only unknown but opposed to scripture. The Colossian christians were not singular; yet the apostle could thank the Father who made them meet to be partakers of the saints in light, as he could tell the Hebrews that we have been sanctified through the offering of Jesus Christ once for all; yea, that by one offering He has perfected for ever — in perpetuity, or for uninterrupted continuance — those that are sanctified, as all real christians are.

No one doubts that, in case of sin into which anyone may fall, true self-judgment and confession, which is a virtual seeking forgiveness of his God and Father, are needful to restore the communion which has been interrupted. We reject the false thought, so destructive of "grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ," that the relationship is thereby lost; we repudiate the unbelieving way which would merge converted and unconverted in a promiscuous fashion. "Forgive us our trespasses" is a question between the children and their Father; to bring in the unconverted ruins it; and this is what Mr, T.'s system does. Thus every sense of relationship vanishes; and daily government is confounded with forgiveness for eternity.

It is inexact that Heb. 10: 2, any more than 10, 14, speaks of the offering apart from its application to the saints. The doctrine on the contrary is, that as Christ its now seated in unbroken continuance at God's right hand, so we christians have been and are perpetually perfected by His infinitely efficacious work according to God's will. It is unbelief as dishonouring to God and detrimental to man to deny the application as it is to deny the virtue of Christ's sacrifice. The Anglican may, like the Romanist, deny the present application to the believer; as the Socinian, like other infidels, denies the atoning value of His death. But to withhold a needed treasure comes to the same result as if there were no treasure to withhold. It is not Brethren, as some Methodist preacher said, who confound in any way the offering with its application, but dealers in tradition, who fear to trust and teach the full abiding blessedness, resulting from Christ's work to every believer.

With Christ's work the apostle sedulously binds up its application to us by faith: "And the Holy Ghost also beareth witness to us: for after He hath said . . . . and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." The application is just the point in Heb. 10, as the sacrifice itself rather in Heb. 9; and he judaizes who teaches repeated purging by Christ's blood. Under the law there were repeated sacrifices, and repeated cleansings thereby; under the gospel, as there is one everlasting efficacious offering, so also one complete and enduring purgation. There is, along with this, the constant need of cleansing by the Spirit's moral use of the word, "the washing of water by the word" (John 13: 10); but the blood abides for the believer in unchanging virtue before God. 1 John 1: 9 is the simple fact, and no question of time; else one perverts it to contradict Heb. 10, Rev. 1: 5, and the scriptures in general which treat of redemption by Christ's blood.

V. The last point attacked here is Brethren's view of baptism. Mr. T. goes too far in assuming divergence from scripture. We insist on baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2); we call on those awakened, like Saul of Tarsus, to be baptized and wash away their sins, calling on the name of the Lord (Acts 22.) We regard it as baptism to Christ's death (Rom. 6: 12; Col. 2), burial with Him by baptism to death; as a putting on of Christ (Gal. 3); as that which, in a figure or in answering fashion, saves (1 Peter 3.) The washing of "regeneration" is quite distinct from new birth (see Matt. 19), and in Titus 3 distinguished from the "renewing of the Holy Ghost.

Now we affirm by the scriptural test the Anglican doctrine is unsound, For there, as in Romanism, baptism is made the means of the new birth; whereas we are told that it is burial into Christ's death, and not a channel for the communication of life. Let Mr. T. weigh his own examples: had not the sin-convicted Jews life at Pentecost? had not Saul life before baptism? No doubt "the gift of the Spirit" was subsequent: but it is a total fallacy to confound, as they do, birth of the Spirit with the Spirit given to believers, a power and privilege beyond life. Calvin was right in denying John 3 to teach Christian or any other baptism; but this error lies at the root of all the Services, Catechism, etc. New birth is nowhere attributed to baptism in scripture. "As many as are baptized unto Jesus Christ are baptized unto his death." Baptism is therefore a sign of salvation by Christ's death, and in no way a means of quickening. Still less does baptism give union with Christ. "By one Spirit we were all baptized into one body" — a baptism never in scripture mixed up with water-baptism. And can one fail to see that the apostle Paul could never say he was not sent to baptize but to preach, if their system of quickening ordinances were true? All is confusion in these traditional schemes and their advocates. Alas! faith and the word and preaching are nowhere, in order to exalt ordinances as life-giving, and the sacerdotal class supposed to be invested with their administration on our Lord's part. The apostles James (James 1: 18) and John (1 John 5: 1), Paul (1 Cor. 4: 15) and Peter, 2 Peter 1: 23), all expressly and exclusively connect being born again with the word of God, never with baptism; which represents not life given, but the believer's dying with Christ to sin; so that he is thenceforth (and it is initiatory) to reckon himself dead to sin. The Book of Common Prayer ignores all this; as one versed in scripture will gather from its confounding things that differ.

CHAPTER 6. — SANCTIFICATION.

It is entirely allowed to our critic that the doctrine of sanctification is vital. If wrong there, people are wrong fundamentally, if not fatally. We do not shrink from the closest scrutiny, having only scripture to form our faith, without the bias of human formularies to warp the judgment. Here again it is conceded that Brethren's general doctrine as to the source and agent of sanctification is that of the Church in all ages." (Pages 90, 91.) "But when we proceed to enquire into their views as to the nature and working of this gift, their. peculiarities begin to show themselves." Whose view is really defective and unsound will soon appear.

Thus Mr. T. wholly misunderstands the question in thinking that, according to Brethren, sanctification in any Christian application means "the mere setting apart and consecrating to God's service" (p. 92); as in sanctifying the sabbath (Gen. 2), the firstborn of Israel (Ex. 13), or the temple of Solomon (1 Chron. 7: 16). No book, tract, teaching, or brother, of the least consideration, ever so reduced "sanctification" as bearing on the separation of a sinner to God. Methinks such a sense could be found by every Anglican (though not there only) much nearer home; but the notion is absolutely unknown among Brethren. Indeed, Mr. T. himself is radically in error; for in this connection he can see only "a prolonged  process by which evil dispositions are cured, evil habits are broken off, and the man more and more renewed in the spirit of his mind after the image of Him that created him."

Now any intelligent reader of our writings ought to know without a shadow of doubt that we hold, as unequivocally and fully at least as himself, the practical sense of sanctification, as in 1 Thess. 4 and 5, and Heb. 12: 14. Accordingly Mr. T. is compelled to own that Brethren admit the importance of sanctification in the practical and of course progressive sense, as taught in these texts; but he alleges that they "direct attention mainly to the former meaning [i.e., the absolute setting apart of the person to God which they declare to be that most frequently employed in scripture" (p. 94); and three writers are cited in confirmation of it.

Now the fact is that Mr. T. overlooks the nature of the sanctification in principle, or absolute setting apart, of the believer to God, which all Brethren hold as that first sense, contradistinguished from practical holiness in the second place. Far from those that regard it as a form or even "an empty form," they believe "sanctification of the Spirit," to take the phrase in 1 Peter 1: 2, to be inseparable from the quickening grace of Christ, by which the soul has new and everlasting life imparted which it never possessed before. Is not this if true its most momentous sense? For, unless this be realised as a groundwork, practical holiness has no place and is an impossibility; whereas if the person is thus set apart to God by the life-giving operation of the Spirit, begotten by the word of truth, practical holiness becomes an immediate and felt responsibility of every day, as scripture declares and experience shows abundantly. Yet it is in this primary sense that the word is for the most part, if not altogether, unknown in the language of theology. Hence Brethren are the more bound to urge it, in zeal for God's truth all but universally ignored, and therefore in love and bounden duty for the best interests of God's church.

When Old Testament usage is referred to, it is merely for the general idea of setting apart to God. But no brother conceives that in the New Testament it is an outward form, as so often in the Old. On the contrary, sanctification of the Spirit" is by the apostle of the circumcision contrasted with the separative ordinance of a fleshly kind familiar to every Jew. Ours is inward and real, as being of the Holy Spirit; who thereby constitutes the person thus severed from the world a saint, not in name or profession only but in deed and truth having been begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of God which liveth and abideth.

Now this is the fuller meaning generally attached to the term sanctification in the New Testament, which is put by Mr. T. and his Anglican friends, and Roman Catholics, and Protestants in general, "quite in the background," to say the least; whereas Brethren only, as far as I am aware, are witnesses of this great truth, having recovered it from the rubbish of ages into its just and commanding place as set out  in Scripture. So unaccustomed is our censor to the truth and depth of sanctification in its primary New Testament sense, that he never realises his own misconception of the matter in dispute. But he is inexcusable in supposing that, if any sober mind contended for a mere consecration as generally used in the Old Testament, the same person could say that such a consecration involves and secures everlasting salvation. This is the inconsistency of the reasoning in pp. 95, 96, not in the least degree of those he criticises. Brethren affirm that the New Testament speaks of a primary sanctification which is complete, as in 1 Cor. 6: 11, where it is no more a progressive thing than the washing or the justification mentioned before and after. Will he or any Pelagian even argue that this means our old nature getting better? Is he not compelled to own that the apostle here beyond cavil treats the Corinthian believers, not as gradually advancing in holiness, but as already sanctified in fact? Others like Dean Alford may lower it down to mere Old Testament consecration, in direct antagonism to Brethren's teaching that it is a real and everlasting separation to God.

We all heartily agree that every Christian is called to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and that this is sanctification in the secondary sense of practical separation from evil to a fuller enjoyment of God. But we agree with Mr. T. that "the difference between their teaching and that of the rest of Christendom" in the primary sense lies far deeper than phraseology; and as he does not face the scriptures we cite, let some one else essay the task. 1 Peter 1: 2 demands full consideration on this head. The ordinary view, which maintains for the New Testament only or chiefly sanctification in the sense of progressive holiness, makes this scripture unintelligible or worse. For with such a view practical holiness would precede the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ or justification, which might suit a Romanist perhaps, but is flat contrary to all Reformed doctrine. Again, practical holiness would precede obedience, and thus expose souls either to fall into the substitutional notion of Christ's obedience, which is assuredly not taught here, or to mere nonsense, for obedience is a large part of practical holiness instead of being its result or aim.

And Mr. T. ought to have learnt, from one of the papers he cites, the hopeless difficulties into which the prevalent ignoring of sanctification in its primary New Testament sense brings even able and pious men. Take for instance Beza's version "ad sanctificationem spiritus, per obedientiam et aspersionem sanguinis I. C." To what was such a perversion due? Certainly not to lack of scholarship, for none of the early Protestants was a better Greek and Latin scholar than the successor to Calvin. It was owing solely to the same mischievous tradition which blots out the fundamental and primary New Testament sense of sanctification, seeing scarce anything more than the secondary progressive sense which nobody combats. It is worse even than the unmeaning Vulgate version, which makes ἐν and εἰς equivalent; for Beza renders ἐν ad and εἰς per! If he had known the truth to which Brethren have recalled attention, the difficulty would have vanished

Peter tells the believing remnant of the dispersion in Asia Minor that they were elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father in (or by) sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience and the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. They would at once feel the allusion to Ex. 24, where the mediator Moses sprinkles with blood the book and the people, pledged to obey the law under the sanction of the death attested in that blood. Now it was a personal election, not a national one according to the call of Jehovah, but of God revealing Himself by the blessed name of Father, in the separative power of the Holy Spirit, that it might be living reality and not an external and fleshly form; to obey as the Lord Jesus obeyed and to be sprinkled with His blood which speaks of peace made through His cross, instead of that which threatened death as the penalty of disobedience.

As Mr. T. evades the truth, though plainly set before his eyes, so he is wrong on all the doctrinal issues he specifies as involved in the primary sense of the word.

I. Rom. 6, 7, and Gal. 2, 5, with other scriptures, exclude the law as a rule of life from sanctification in every sense. "We who died to sin, how shall we any longer live therein?" "Sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under law but under grace." "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ, that ye should be to another who was raised from the dead, that we might bring forth fruit unto God." Thus through Christ's efficacious death are we delivered, not merely by His life communicated to us, nor by His death for our sins only,  - but also by our death with Him who is risen, and we in Him. It is not that the law is dead, as the Authorised Version says (Rom. 6: 6), following the unfounded and dangerous misreading of the Received Text; but we, if we had been Jews even, are, as believers, discharged from the law, having died to that wherein we were held. The law lives to condemn the guilty, and the awakened soul submits to its killing power. "For I through the law am dead to the law (the clean opposite of a rule of life), that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ, yet I live; no longer I, but Christ liveth in me; and that [life] which I now live in the flesh I live in faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me." This is the true rule of life for the Christian. The power of sin, on the contrary, is the law, says the apostle in 1 Cor. 15: 56: not because the commandment is not holy and righteous and good, but because the material on which it acts —  the flesh — is only evil continually. Life is not in the law, but in the Son of God; and what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and [as an offering] for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteous import of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. Those under the law, or that desire to be, break it by biting and devouring one another. Those who walk [in or by] the Spirit do not fulfil the lusts of the flesh. "But if ye are led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law." Can words more definitely negative the notion that it is our rule of life? This is Christ held up in the word brought home by the Holy Ghost. Against the fruit of the Spirit there is no law; but grace alone produces it. And bear in mind that the point discussed in this place is not justification, but practical holiness and the power that forms it.

II. It is wholly false that the truth of our primary sanctification hinders, for it immensely promotes, the pressure of growth on our souls. The converse is true, and the real danger of Christendom's ignorance is that millions are full of words, thoughts, feelings, efforts after practical holiness, who have never been sanctified personally, but are still dead in trespasses in sins. We must have life in Christ, and stand in our true relationship to God, before the question of a holy walk or growth in grace begins.

III. The truth of our primary sanctification by the Spirit in not the least degree renders void the solemn warnings of scripture (1 Cor., 2 Cor., Heb. 5). Indeed these warnings pre-suppose the Christian's privilege, and we are admonished to "hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast to the end"; "to hold fast the confidence and rejoicing of the hope firm to the end." "Cast not away therefore your confidence which hath  great recompence of reward." "We are not of them that draw back unto perdition." Doubtless these exhortations or warnings act only on the faithful. Formalists may shudder for a moment, but pay no obedient heed; and, not being sanctified by the Spirit, their endeavours after practical holiness are only a fair show in the flesh. Godly Anglicans know this but too well.

IV. The last objection is simply a denial of what every intelligent Christian holds: the coexistence of the two natures, the old man and the new, in the believer. It agrees indeed with the low views set forth on original sin by the Council of Trent and Popish theology in general."' But the Articles 9, 15, 16, should have taught better; not to speak of the perfect apostolic doctrine, the best of all. Ignorance of life in Christ, as well as of redemption, lies at the bottom of this, in which all Arminians would join. May we say, if it be needed by any one that has read our writings, that we seriously object to the error expressed in the Authorised Version of Gal. 5: 17, last clause? It is untrue and unholy. We are responsible never to sin, and the Spirit is in us to give adequate power to prevent it. Verse 16 contradicts the rendering of 17: the Revised Version is right. The Authorised Version here naturally means an excuse for sinning, one of the consequences of non-deliverance from law, the other on the opposite side being the presumptuous thought of perfection attainable here below, into one or other of which all are apt to fall who know not the gospel by faith. From Tyndale the English versions were bad. The more do I regret that Mr. Green and the Bishop of Durham differ from Bishop Ellicott and Dean Alford in saying that here seems to denote simply the result. Any sense here but purpose is as opposed to the context as to truth and holiness.

CHAPTER 7. — THE CHRISTIAN'S RULE OF LIFE.

I am sure that those who, like our author (p. 119), say that our statements on this subject recall the vagaries of Antinomian heresy, can have no direct or full acquaintance with them, any more than understanding of those he criticises now. The fatal defect in all those misguided visionaries, singular to say, is the same defect which appears no less in their legal adversaries. Neither side knew life in Christ risen from the dead as the real present life of the Christian. Both A. Burgess and R. Towne, to take those clashing combatants of the Commonwealth period as an instance, were on the same superficial ground where most pious people in and out of the National Establishment are found today; unless some are yet lower, putting their trust in saving ordinances. But most look for evidence of fruits of the Spirit to satisfy themselves that they are indeed born of Him, leading to so much internal examination as may give a hope, and often plunging the godly in Year. How different this from the blessed grace and truth in Christ, the object of faith before our souls, which by the Spirit are brought into living association with Him! Thus there is a real life imparted, and the believer is united to Christ, and looks to share the bright inheritance of glory along with Him. Even now, in virtue of this wondrous grace, God has not only forgiven us all trespasses, but quickened us together with Christ, raised its up together, and seated us in (not yet with) Him in heavenly places.

Now neither the Antimonians nor the Legalists understood these fundamental privileges of the Christian's standing in Christ, and I see no trace that they are one whit better known even by real Christians generally in our day. Hence the inability to appreciate truth on most subjects, particularly on such a question as the one before us, where Mr. T. admits "the evident desire of many of their writers to enforce a high standard of practical holiness" — a thing never true of real Antinomians. We may here again see shortly whose doctrine and logic are most at fault.

Now it is an unguarded statement of Brethren's assertion of scriptural truth, that "by the law, they explain themselves to mean, not the whole Mosaic system, but the moral as distinguished from the ceremonial portions of it" (p. 116). Mr. T. ought to know that, in the tenth vol. of the Collected Writings of one most esteemed among them, there occur on this very point the following words, with which every brother would concur: — "If I speak of moral law (which scripture does not) I make it by the very expression a fatal thing to be delivered from it. Yet Paul says, the Christian is delivered from the law. If I make of the law a moral law (including therein the principles of the New Testament) and all morality in heart and life), to say a Christian is delivered from it is nonsense, or utterly monstrous wickedness; certainly it is not Christianity. Conformity to the divine will, and that as obedience to commandments, is alike the joy and the duty of the renewed mind. I say, obedience to commandments. Some are afraid of the word, as if it would weaken love, and the idea of a new creation; scripture is not. Obedience, and keeping the commandments of one we love, is the proof of that love, and the delight of the new nature. Did I do all right, and not do it in obedience, I should do nothing right, because my true relationship and heart-reference to God would be left out. This is love, that we keep His commandments. We are sanctified to the obedience of Christ. Christ Himself says, The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me; but that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father hath given me commandment, even so I do. His highest act of love is His highest act of obedience. But this it is that just makes it so mischievous to put the Christian under the law, and change the scripture phraseology to another, and speak of the moral law being gone as a rule of life; and having no passage in which 'moral law' is used, quoting Paul's statements as to 'law,' from which he says, and insists on it as one of the chief topics of his teaching, we are delivered. Not merely that we are not justified by its works (yet we should be if the moral law were kept, and so he declares, 'the doer of the law shall be justified'); but that we are delivered from it. A Christian is delivered from it, because it is ruinous in its effect to every fallen son of Adam. Is it morality that is ruinous, or obedience to Christ's precepts? That were a blasphemy to say, and shocking to every christian mind. But it is of law the apostle declares, what was ordained to life he found to be to death. (Rom. 7.) It is a ministration of death, and ministration of condemnation (2 Cor. 3: 7-9). As many as are of its works — on the principle of it — its works are not bad ones — are under a curse (Gal. 3: 10). That is, law means, in the apostle's use of it, something else than a rule or measure of conduct. It is a principle of dealing with men which necessarily destroys and condemns them. This is the way the Spirit of God uses law in contrast with Christ; and never, in christian teaching, puts men under it, but carefully shows how they are delivered from it — are no longer under it. Nor does Scripture ever think of saying, You are not under the law in one way, but you are in another; you are not for justification, but you are as a rule of life. It declares you are not under law but under grace; and if you are under law, you are condemned and under a curse. It must have its own proper force and effect. Remark, it puts it as a principle contrasted with grace. But will a man say, You wrong us in saying we hold that a Christian is under law? I ask, How is that obligatory which a man is not under? — from which he is delivered? No, the apostle carefully insists that the law is good, that it is not the fault of the law that we are condemned, if we have to say to it (but he as carefully declares we are if we have); and that in fact we are delivered from it; that if led by the Spirit, we are not under law. He uses it to express a principle, a manner of dealing on the part of God, contrasted with grace. That is the way he speaks of law. I repeat it, scripture speaks elaborately of being delivered from the law as ministering death and a curse, declaring that we are not under it. Use the term 'moral law,' and say so, and see where you bring us." (Doctrinal iii. 4-7.)

One might have written to the same effect, but I considered that the words of an essay written solely to expound the truth, not to contradict another, would be more to the purpose, and therefore I add this extract more, to save needless argumentation: -"I declare according to scripture that law must have its effect, as declared in the word of God, always necessarily upon whatever is under it; but that that effect is always, according to scripture, condemnation and death, and nothing else, upon a being who has in him a lust or a fault; that it knows no mercy, but that it pronounces a curse upon every one who does not continue in all things written in it; and that whosoever is of the works of the law is under the curse. Now in fact the Christian has sin in him as a human being, and alas! fails; and if the law applies to him, he is under the curse; for it brings a curse on every one who sins. Do I enfeeble its authority? I maintain and establish it in the fullest way. I ask, Have you to say to the law? Then you are under the curse; no escaping, no exemption. Its authority and claims must be maintained, its righteous exactions made good. Have you failed? Yes, you have. Then you are under the curse. No, you say; but I am a Christian: the law is still binding upon me, but I am not under a curse. Has not the law pronounced a curse on one who fails? Yes, you are under it; you have failed; and are not cursed after all! Its authority is not maintained; for you are under it: it has cursed you, and you are not cursed! If you had said, I was under it, and failed, and Christ died and bore its curse! and now, as redeemed, I am on another footing and not under law but under grace, its authority is maintained. But if you are put back again under law after Christ has died and risen again, and you are in Christ, and you fail and come under no curse, its authority is destroyed; for it pronounces a curse, and you are not cursed at all. The man who puts a Christian under law destroys the authority of the law, or puts a Christian under the curse; 'for in many things we all offend.' He fancies he establishes law but destroys its authority. He only establishes the full immutable authority of law, who declares that a Christian is not under it at all, and therefore cannot be cursed by its just and holy curse." (Ibid, 10, 11.)

Is it not strange that Mr. T. had this very paper under his eye, as appears from his quotation in p. 117, and yet laboured under the impression he states as to the moral law?

I. First then, how comes it that we do not find Anglicans, any more than Puritans, dilating. (as the apostle does) on the death of the Christian from law, and on his deliverance so as to be under grace, not law? Brethren dwell on it, as believing in its reality and all-importance through redemption; if others do not, it is because, not understanding it, they feel not its comfort.

But it is sought to neutralise the christian's death to law by reducing it to the relations of law to man unrenewed. Of course this is common ground: all agree (1) that the law cannot justify a sinner; (2) that it cannot give fife or power; and (3) that, far from quickening, it provokes by its prohibitions the evils in the flesh it condemns. But it is wholly false that these cases exhaust or explain the apostle's teaching. Gal. 3: 10 is said evidently to mean as many as depend on their works of justification, also Gal. 5: 18, and Gal. 2: 19. Here we fairly join issue. Our censor maintains that in these passages the apostle is not treating of the law as a rule of life, but of those unrenewed men who looked to the law for justification; we maintain that Scripture embraces both and sets aside all such misuse of the law. In his unconverted state Paul was once alive apart from law; when renewed he through law died to law that he might live to God. So far from being in this last state, a man seeking justification by law, he is showing the great christian privilege of death with Christ as the one door of deliverance, after realising death in his conscience as the inevitable consequence of being under law. He only when converted owned all its force in death that he might be cleared, not only from sin but from law, and live to God; he could say, I am crucified with Christ, and no longer live I, but Christ liveth in me.

This evidently goes farther than resting on Christ's blood for the remission of sins. It is a person dead with Christ and alive in Him to God, dead to law as well as to sin, but Christ living in him. Paul is explaining the principle of the life of faith right through the course, on the ground of the grace of God in deliverance from law. In Gal. 3 the apostle is avowedly correcting the Galatian error of seeking perfection in flesh by law after receiving the Spirit by the report of faith; which is enough to refute the defective view of Mr. Teulon. This he follows 'by citing Deut. 27 to show that law has no blessing, nothing but curse for as many as take the principle of works of law. This is not merely justification, but life; and both are by faith, not law. Even as God blessed Abraham before the law, and has now made good the promise to us, faith having come, and ourselves (even if we had been Jews) no longer under the tutelage of law (Gal. 3: 23): a passage which strikes even a prejudiced mind. As to Gal. 5 it is extraordinary how any one could apply the latter half otherwise than to the exclusion of law from being our rule of life. After freedom by and in Christ the Galatian saints were to beware of being again in a yoke of bondage. The whole thing is excluded, not only justification by law, but having it as a rule of life, to which he opposes walking in and by the Spirit as truth and power against fulfiling flesh's lust. The latter verses treat exclusively of life and walk, not under law, but under grace, as opposed to Catholicism as to evangelicalism. No one denies that one so walking can and ought to derive divine guidance from every part of the Old Testament as well as from the New Testament.

With this agrees of course all that the Epistle to the Romans says on the matter, and it is remarkably full as well as precise. Not so Mr. Teulon (p. 127), who from 1 John 3: 4 says that as ἀνομία means disregard of law, walking in newness of life must involve the keeping of the law — as wrong in philology as in doctrine. "Sin is lawlessness," say the Revisers correctly. Mr. Teulon reasons from transgression or disregard of the law, the old error of the Authorised Version so fertile in mischief on this head. Lawlessness is that selfwill which sets God's will at nought for one's own, if one never had heard of the Ten Commandments, the open contrast with Christ who came to do, and ever, the will of God His Father, which went immeasurably beyond the law, even as the Christian's obedience should also. But necessarily the greater includes the loss: and if ono walks according to the Spirit as we ought, a fortiori is the righteous import, the δικαίωμα, of the law fulfilled in such a conversation. Our walk as Christians ought to be by the Spirit the suitable expression of the life we have in Christ, governed by the whole word of God.

The query in Rom. 6 is the usual objection of the flesh, that sovereign grace seems to allow living in sin. This the apostle answers, not by asserting the law as the Christian rule as if we were Jews, but by declaring that in our very baptism we died with Christ to sin, and therefore buried with Him have now to walk in newness of life. He argues, not from a motive, but from the blessed fact of Christ's death and resurrection in which the baptised profess to have part. But he goes onto declare that by His death we have done not only with sin, but with law and are under grace, and that sin shall not have dominion over us because we are: a solemn consideration for those whose teaching keeps them under law.

Even Mr. Teulon confesses that Rom. 7 certainly seems at first sight against his view. If he understood it duly, he would feel that the truth of Christ's death and of ours who believe with Him closes the question of law which has dominion over a man only as long as he lives. But the christian as such has died, or become dead, to the law by the body of Christ, to be to another, to Him who was raised from the dead that we should bring forth fruit to God. To be under the law, when we have thus Christ risen, is in the apostolic doctrine spiritual adultery and exactly the system here commended to us, but rejected by us.

II. The reasoning (p. 131-137) on man's position with God between the fall and the law of Sinai is in the usual style of hypothesis, without and against Scripture, to the total loss of the understanding of God's ways when man was without law, and when put, as Israel alone was, under law; but wholly distinct from the gospel going out as now. And some of us know enough of the Fathers to say that they know the truth even less than an evangelical: so that all of what is called the ancient church teaching weighs less with us than one shred of Scripture.

III. It is unfounded that Christ is by the apostle opposed to the law only as the ground of justification and as the source of life. Christ is the pattern Man whose example is set before us, and whose words by the Holy Spirit transform us as we behold Him on high. It is false that, because the Lord came under law, we ought to be; for even those under it (the Jewish believers) He came to redeem that they might receive sonship, as Gal. 4 carefully shows. Whereas the Galatians became sons through faith, without any such previous subjection to law, and had the Spirit of His Son sent into their hearts accordingly. The mischief for them was coming under law in any shape, ceremonial or moral, after Christ was known, the very thing which is so unintelligently urged on us. And it is an exceeding though of course unintentional derogation from the depth and height, length and breadth, of Christ's doing the will of God to lower it down to its least part, the obedience of the law. No one doubts that this is true in every Christian walking not after the flesh but after the Spirit; but we are called far beyond law every day to imitate God as dear children, to walk in love, as Christ also loved us and gave Himself for us; to endure a great fight of afflictions; and when we do well and suffer, to take it patiently. This is not law (though we do love God and our neighbour, as no doubt all believers ever did), but it is grace with God, and the path of those who follow Christ's steps.

Chap. 8. — THE RELATIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN TO THE WORLD.

It is not correct to imply (p. 142) that the ancient separatists, and not the church, separated themselves as far as possible from the world. It is no less an error, that Brethren, even the strictest, denounce secular life generally, as though it were a service of Satan, and only allow those they can influence to practise medicine and a few handicraft trades. In their ranks have we not seen men of every degree, barristers, solicitors, bankers, manufacturers, merchants, landlords, land-agents, farmers, authors, artists, musicians, accountants, actuaries, chiefs and subordinates in the civil service, or in trade and commerce, as well as in educational work of all grades and varieties? In fact it would be hard to say where they are not found, save in the coveted places of worldly legislation, religion, and power, which must now be shared with notorious profligates, papists, revolutionaries, and infidels.

As to military and naval service, Brethren leave the question (as scripture does) to the conscience, intelligence, and devotedness of the individuals concerned. Even among Anglicans, one has rarely heard of a godly youth seeking a commission. But many an officer, naval and military, has been afterwards brought to God. Now while we deprecate all pressure, we cannot but value the grace which leads some to sacrifice their earthly interests by abandoning what true-hearted believers must feel to be unsuitable to Christ and the christian. "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight," etc. One can understand a man in a high position of this sort hesitating as he thought of his large family, perhaps with no other provision; but it is a sorrowful fact that professional teachers of religion, established or dissenting, are generally the most forward in lulling consciences asleep, and encouraging christians to oppose the evident spirit, as well as the plain words, of scripture. Is it not ominous of coming and speedy judgment on Christendom? — of that long-suspended sentence, "Now is the judgment of this world"?

Really Mr. T. is not acquainted with the facts on the one hand, nor does he know the principle on the other. He appears to think that Brethren will have no "intercourse with the unconverted"; which is absurdly and notoriously untrue, (as it would be in distinct opposition to the ruling of the apostle in 1 Cor. 5: 10); and he evidently treats it as extreme error "that they refuse to associate themselves with others, even for religious purposes, unless they are assured that those with whom they join are, in their view, 'converted men,'" etc. p. 14 3. "Even for religious purposes!" why, this is just what is so serious. We have no peculiar "view" about conversion, but are quite content to abide by the adequate testimony of christians, whether churchmen or dissenters. To be associated for religious purposes with men who are not credibly regarded as reconciled to God is as monstrous in our eyes, as that christian work should be done by christian men seems to our friend's mind. The truth is, that we know and desire no society for such purposes save the one and only one that God has formed — His church; and even in the present scattering of its members, we would meet on no other principle than that one, which is equally open to, and, binding on all, the faithful, the one body of Christ.

Yet Mr. T. in the next paragraph (pp. 143, 144) admits, as he must, that separateness from the world is involved in the very idea of a christian; and that nothing should be undertaken which prejudices our position as members of God's household, or impairs in the least degree our loyalty to Him. But he instantly shrinks from the consequences, and demurs to the loss of secular office, and pleads for a mixed society for christian objects; he talks of "theories," but in truth it is the practical result which repels and tries him, like others.

We have seen how wrong the common notion of "the flesh" is: along with it goes no less lack of understanding as to "the world." And it is of painful interest, however instructive, to note how want of divine light as to both corresponds with ignorance of the Spirit's power and workings on the one hand, and of "the Father's" love and glory on the other; and this practically, quite as much as doctrinally. But this by the way, as being too large a theme for a passing discussion.

It is evident that Mr. T. does not believe that man as he is in his best estate, fallen man, is altogether vanity; and worse, dead in trespasses and sins. He does not believe that baptized man, at least, needs to be born of God; and he argues (pp. 145-147) as if Christendom were not swayed, like China or Japan, by the gratifications of sense, the attractions of wealth and grandeur, or the aspirations of intellect. Can he really mean that society in London, or even Chichester, has not the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life, as its ruling principle? Human society in itself is estranged from God. Christian profession does not alter this — nothing but life in Christ by the power of the Spirit, faith working by love, which every saint is responsible to display, dead to sin and to the law, as well is crucified to the world and the world to him.

So little is our author acquainted with revealed truth, that he strives to find a plea for the world in the paradisiacal state (p. 148); whereas it is plain from scripture that the distinction of nations and tongues was due to the divine judgment on mankind which would unite in selfwill and independence of God, to make itself a name, and therefore was by His sentence and power  - broken up into nations by separating languages. And it is a dogmatic fact of the deepest import that Adam only became a father after he was fallen, and an outcast from God. Subjection to the powers that be, and prayer for the sovereign and all in authority, in no way furnish the shadow of a proof that a christian ought to exercise worldly authority. The reasoning, in pp. 149, 152, is beside the mark: no christians now on earth so strongly urge submission to every such institution as Brethren, as Mr. T. seems to know, with readiness to suffer where they must obey God rather than man. And this it is which has ever and chiefly provoked the enmity and scorn of the political nonconformists; and where, one grieves to ask, are they not political? Alas! are churchmen, so called, better in this respect? or are they not both running a race of rivalry for the things of the world, its influence, honours, and emoluments — the one to keep, the other to gain, indirectly if not directly? One may point to p. 169 in proof of the low naturalism into which Mr. T., like most, is fallen. "We are therefore(!) justified in regarding Him [the world-rejected and crucified Christ!] being in the fullest and highest sense the Founder modern philanthropy! as He is also the Author and Giver of that advanced scientific knowledge (!!) which has made philanthropic effort so much more efficient than it used to be in supplying the needs, and in alleviating the sufferings and sorrows of mankind." Is it not an awful delusion to misrepresent the Lord of glory as if He were the Author and Giver of that scientific knowledge in modern times, of which some of the most impious infidels have been among the chief discoverers and promoters? Men who dare to say such things should have at least the wit to refrain from perverting Scripture to support their unholy assertions.

Nor is it true that the christians of the apostolic age were so exclusively of the lower orders as to yield no possible cases of declining rank and political office; or that there is anything to exclude the most unworldly brother from being in an imperial household or the treasurer (or steward) of a city (p. 153). The reasoning that follows to the end of the chapter (pp. 154-170) is even weaker than this, or founded on more misconception of the facts. The worst of all, however, is the darkness it betrays to Christ's will and glory. To the christian, the governing consideration ought to be that which, being His pleasure, bears witness to His grace and truth, and so magnifies His name in a world which cast Him out, even to the death of the cross. It is in vain to cry up the refining and elevating influence on the world of a course which sacrifices His glory; what grief of the Holy Ghost who is here to promote it according to the will of God the Father! The philanthropy of God, according to scripture, is the last thing Brethren disparage; it is blotted out and falsified by admixture with the world, which can have no real fellowship with the cross any more than with the heavenly exultation of Christ; as the church ought to have none with the world whose "friendship is enmity with God." To tax the christians who value high positions in the world with instinctive "selfishness or covetousness," albeit in that "flesh" which is in all, might have some semblance of truth, even if it sounded uncharitable; to attribute it to the "theory" of Brethren, if this be the truth of God, as we are sure is a libel as bold as it is ignorant.

An extract from the fifteenth chapter (omitting the notes) of the "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" will afford a striking comment on this point; as it shows that what a clergyman now censures in Brethren, the sceptical historian ridicules, whilst he mingles praise, in the early church: "It is a very honourable circumstance for the morals of the early Christians, that even their faults, or rather errors, were derived from the excess of virtue. The bishops and doctors of the church, whose evidence attests, and whose authority might influence, the professions, the principles, and even the practice of their contemporaries, had studied the scriptures with less skill than devotion; and they often received in the most literal sense those rigid precepts of Christ and the apostles, to which the prudence of succeeding commentators have applied a looser and more figurative mode of interpretation. Ambitious to exalt the perfection of the gospel above the wisdom of philosophy, the zealous fathers have carried the duties of self-mortification, of purity, and of patience, to a height which it is scarcely possible to attain, and much less to preserve, in our present state of weakness and corruption. A doctrine so extraordinary and so sublime must inevitably command the veneration of the people; but it was ill calculated to obtain the suffrage of those worldly philosophers, who, in the conduct of this transitory life, consult only the feelings of nature and the interests of society.

"There are two very natural propensities which we may distinguish in the most virtuous and liberal dispositions — the love of pleasure and the love of action. If the former be refined by art and learning, improved by the charms of social intercourse, and corrected by a just regard to economy, to health, and to reputation, it is productive of the greatest part of the happiness of private life. The love of action is a principle of a much stronger and more doubtful nature. It often leads to anger, to ambition, and to revenge; but when it is guided by the sense of propriety and benevolence, it becomes the parent of every virtue; and if those virtues are accompanied with equal ability, a family, a state, or an empire may be indebted for their safety and prosperity to the undaunted courage of a single man. To the love of pleasure we may therefore ascribe most of the agreeable, to the love of action we may attribute most of the useful and respectable qualifications. The character in which both the one and the other should be united and harmonised would seem to constitute the most perfect idea of human nature. The insensible and inactive disposition, which should be supposed alike destitute of both, would be rejected by the common consent of mankind as utterly incapable of producing any happiness to the individual or any public benefit to the world. But it was not in this world that the primitive Christians were desirous of making themselves either agreeable or useful.

"The acquisition of knowledge, the exercise of our reason and fancy, and the cheerful flow of unguarded conversation, may employ the leisure of a liberal mind. Such amusements however were rejected with abhorrence, or admitted with the utmost caution, by the society of the fathers, who despised all knowledge that was not useful to salvation, and who considered all levity of speech as a criminal abuse of the gift of speech. In our present state of existence the body is so inseparably connected with the soul, that it seems to be our interest to taste with innocence and moderation the enjoyments of which that faithful companion is susceptible. Very different was the reasoning of our devout predecessors; vainly aspiring to imitate the perfection of angels, they disdained, or affected to disdain, every earthly or corporeal delight. Some of our senses indeed are necessary for our preservation, others for our subsistence, and others again for our information, and thus far it was impossible to reject the use of them. The first sensation of pleasure was marked as the first moment of their abuse. The unfeeling candidate for heaven was instructed, not only to resist the grosser allurements of the taste or smell, but even to shut his ears against the profane harmony of sounds, and to view with indifference the most finished productions of human art. Gay apparel, magnificent houses, and elegant furniture, were supposed to unite the double guilt of pride and of sensuality: a simple and mortified appearance was more suitable to the Christian, etc.

"The Christians were not less averse to the business than to the pleasures of this world. The defence of our persons and property they knew not how to reconcile with the patient doctrine which enjoined an unlimited forgiveness of past injuries, and commanded them to invite the repetition of fresh insults. Their simplicity was offended by the use of oaths, by the pomp of magistracy, and by the active contention of public life; nor could their humane ignorance be convinced that it was lawful on any occasion to shed the blood of our fellow-creatures, either by the sword of justice or by that of war; even though their criminal or hostile attempts should threaten the peace and safety of the whole community. It was acknowledged that under a less perfect law the power of the Jewish constitution had been exercised, with the sanction of heaven, by inspired prophets and by anointed kings. The christians felt and confessed that such institutions might be necessary for the present system of the world, and they cheerfully submitted to the authority of their pagan governors. But while they inculcated the maxims of passive obedience, they refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defence of the empire. Some indulgence might perhaps be allowed to those persons who, before their conversion, were already engaged in such violent and sanguinary occupations; but it was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of princes. This indolent or even criminal disregard to the public welfare exposed them to the contempt and reproaches of the pagans, who very frequently asked, what must be the fate of the empire, attacked on every side by the barbarians, if all mankind should adopt the pusillanimous sentiments of the new sect? To this insulting question the christian apologists returned obscure and ambiguous answers; as they were unwilling to reveal the secret cause of their security: the expectation, that before the conversion of mankind was accomplished, war, government, the Roman Empire, and the world itself, would be no more. It may be observed, that in this instance, the situation of the first Christians coincided very happily with their religious scruples, and that their aversion to an active life contributed rather to excuse them from the service than to exclude them from the honours of the state and army.

"But the human character, however it may be exalted or depressed by a temporary enthusiasm, will return by degrees to its proper and natural level, and will resume those passions that seem most adapted to its present conditions. The primitive Christians were dead to the business and pleasures of the world; but their love of action, which could never be entirely extinguished, soon revived, and found a new occupation in the government of the church. A separate society, which attacked the established religion of the empire, was obliged to adopt some form of internal policy, and to appoint a sufficient number of ministers, entrusted not only with the spiritual functions, but even with the temporal direction of the christian commonwealth. The safety of that society, its honour, its aggrandisement, even in the most pious minds, were productive of a spirit of patriotism, such as the first of the Romans had felt for the Republic; and sometimes of a similar indifference in the use of whatever means might probably conduce to so desirable an end. The ambition of raising themselves or their friends to the honours and offices of the church was disguised by the laudable intention of devoting to the public benefit the power and consideration which, for that purpose only, it became their duty to solicit. In the exercise of their functions," etc.

"The Christian religion, which addresses itself to the whole human race, must consequently collect a far greater number of proselytes from the lower than from the superior ranks of life. This innocent and natural circumstance has been improved into a very odious imputation, which seems to be less strenuously denied by the apologists than it is urged by the adversaries of the faith; that the new sect of Christians was almost entirely composed of the dregs of the populace, of peasants and slaves, the last of whom might sometimes introduce the missionaries into the rich and noble families to which they belonged. These obscure teachers (such was the charge of malice and infidelity) are as mute in public as they are loquacious and dogmatical in private. . . . As the humble faith of Christ diffused itself through the world, it was embraced by several persons who derived some consequence from the advantages of nature or fortune . . And yet those exceptions are either too few in number, or too recent in time, entirely to remove the imputation of ignorance and obscurity which has been so arrogantly cast on the first proselytes of Christianity. Instead of employing in our defence the fiction of later ages, it will be more prudent to convert the occasion of scandal into a subject of edification. Our serious thoughts will suggest to us, that the apostles themselves were chosen by providence among the fishermen of Galilee, and that the lower we depress the temporal condition of the first Christians, the more reason we shall find to admire their merit and success."

To fair minds the parallel will appear sufficiently evident between sceptical attacks on the early church and modern criticism of Brethren. They are both due to a similar unbelief, which slights Christ and the things unseen, and seeks at any rate to enjoy the present. When Christendom becomes infidel, judgment is at hand.

The world then is that social system which binds men together here below for pleasure or profit, ambition or utility, in real independence of God, whatever its professed religion or irreligion, It is characterised in scripture by rejecting the Son of God and ignoring the Holy Spirit. The death of Christ, instead of delivering it from Satan's thraldom, was rather that unspeakably solemn fact whereby he became its prince and the god of this age — the present evil age. The outward recognition of Christianity has not made the world cease to be the world, but rather given occasion for its greater guilt; first, by the unbelief that corrupts the truth, and, secondly, by the more daring infidelity which is rapidly casting the truth off and apostatising from it. And what will the end be? The divine judgment of Babylon, and of the two beasts — the world-power and the religious power: Rome is apostate and Jerusalem is apostate, in their last unholy alliance against the King of kings and the Lord of lords, when He shines forth from heaven for the sudden and irremediable destruction of themselves and their adherents. God has graciously disclosed this supreme catastrophe, in order to warn and guard His own from every current of error (more especially from all the novel expedients and experiments of the age, where man is sought, and his wisdom is trusted without God's word or Spirit), that they may the more diligently cleave to the only Lord and Saviour with full purpose of heart, cheered by the blessed promise that He is coming quickly to receive them unto Himself; that they may be in the Father's house where He is, and accompany Him when He appears to judgment.

"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the world, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof; but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."

Chap. 9. — PROPHECY.

Although the last chapter of our critic is the longest, there is less to notice than in most. And no wonder: for the true difference of others from Brethren lies in the dearth of light, or even of exercised judgment, on the prophetic, Scriptures found among the denominations of Christendom. One must except a section of the godly in Anglicanism who have learnt substantially to agree. The rest are like dissenters without anything of careful research, and hence holding little more than traditional notions of one kind or another. Brethren certainly differ in this, that without a formula most have definite and harmonious convictions with clear Scriptural proof.

Their distinctive contributions are here (1). 188) said to be, first, the rapture of the saints before the appearing of Christ; secondly, the character and work of the Jewish remnant; thirdly, and in close connection with both, their peculiar opinions as to the day of judgment. If no more than these were true, they are of the highest interest and value; for without giving them full weight the prophetic scheme is wholly incomplete and even unsound, and the practical profit is almost nothing for the Christian.

(1) Mr. T.'s reasoning is simply the confusion of things that differ, the common mistake of all who, with imperfect knowledge of God's word, venture to discuss things too high for them. Nor is he happy in arguing from another possible rendering, as when in p. 190 he essays to nullify the unforced deduction from Col. 3: 4. What difference for the point in hand does it make whether we say "shall be," or "shall have been," "manifested"? The teaching of the word is that when the Christ is manifested, then shall we also with Him be manifested in glory. Our life now is hidden with Christ in God, the manifestation of both Him and us in glory will be at the same moment. If the manifestation of Christ in glory be assumed to be before the rapture of the saints to heaven, the hypothesis is refuted by this Scripture. Christ does not appear alone in glory and then translate the saints, as many unscripturally conceive. If they shall be manifested together at the same time in glory, it needs no arguing to prove that the risen saints must have been caught up to Him before. People may argue against this from tradition or philology; but it is vain: Scripture is too plain.

Hence our Lord not only comes for the saints, as in John 14: 3; Thess. 4: 15-17, referred to by Mr. T., and in so many more Scriptures, but He is said to come with them, He glorified in them, they manifested in the same glory with Him, as in 1 Thess. 3: 13; 2 Thess. 1: 10; Col. 3: 5; Jude 14; Rev. 17: 14; Rev. 19: 14. In order to come with Him they must beyond doubt have been previously removed to Him; and this all Scripture binds up with His coming. The distinction therefore between His coming and His appearing, revelation, manifestation or day, is certainly and positively made in terms which ought to leave no question, if one compare 2 Thess. 2: 1 with ver. 8 of the same chapter; for where would be the propriety of speaking, first of His coming or presence, and then of its epiphany or manifestation, if His coming simply be His appearing or manifesting? If His coming and the gathering of the saints to Him be intimately associated, we can understand that there is a further and later step when He displays His coming or presence in the destruction of the man of sin. And the mere reading of the texts cited suffices to prove to any intelligent soul that the evasion sought in the same page, ("the saints or holy ones, who will accompany our Lord from heaven, will not be the redeemed from among men, but the 'holy angels,'") is untrue; for angels are not "called," and never designated as "faithful" though "chosen," but redeemed men alone are; and in one of these passages they are described as arrayed in β. bright, pure, which in the context is said to be the righteousness of the saints, not of angels who are expressly arrayed otherwise. Angels do attend the Lord in that day; but the saints here described are distinct and in more intimate relationship.

Further, Mr. T. has to learn that the παρουσία or coining of Christ is in no way denied to be so modified as to coalesce with His day or appearing; as for instance when combined with "the Son of man," for this is His title judicially as He lets us know in John 5: 27. Hence it is in vain to cite Matt. 24, 25, or Luke 17; for no one denies that "the coming of the Son of man" in these and kindred Scriptures implies manifestation, any more than one denies that it is still His π. when He appears or manifests Himself in that day. But it is illogical as well as unscriptural thence to infer that there may not be the π. or coming before these terms of display can apply. Hence an the reasoning, if so it is to be called, in 192, 193 is null; and the only approach to it, as to 1 Thess. 4, 5, has so strong a contrast drawn that it is inexcusable to identify the chaps. How overlook what the apostle in chapter 4 says to them "by the word of the Lord," and what themselves knew perfectly before that new revelation? It is clear therefore (p. 194), that in the very passage, or rather passages, drawn to oppose, there is no ambiguous testimony to the distinction Brethren affirm to be revealed in Scripture. Mr. T. is equally superficial as to 2 Thess. 1 where the apostle is relieving the Thessalonians from their uneasiness about "the day," which, far from being already there for their terror, will see affliction awarded to those that afflict them, and to the afflicted saints rest with those who taught them the truth. Brethren hold that this righteous recompence will not be till the revelation of the Lord from heaven. Nor could any man expose his ignorance (p. 195) more than by identifying Christ's "coming" in 2 Thess. 2: 1 with "the day" in 2; for the apostle uses the comfort of the one against the disquieting false use made of the other. And we have already seen that, in verse 1 it is "the coming" of the Lord, in verse 8 the manifestation or epiphany of His coming, the phrases as strikingly different as their connections and consequences. He is no less in error (p. 196) as to 2 Peter 3 where that great apostle uses the threat of "the day of the Lord" to warn those who mocked at "the promise of His coming." Is this express identification? It shows how little the Scriptures are understood.

The parable of the tares, so often resented to deny ecclesiastical discipline, has no less violence done to it here (p. 196). Brethren do not dispute that the mixed profession goes on till the harvest, or end of the age, and that the gathering of the wheat will be in that season of varied operation occupying some time. But that Christ's appearing is what gathers them is not taught here; and it is contradicted by Col. 3: 3. We all admit that the blessed hope and appearing of the glory are closely joined parts of His π. or coming; but this does not identify His coming and appearing, which last is the time of public award in His kingdom, and therefore is fittingly urged as in 1 Tim. 6, and elsewhere, where responsibility is in question. It is erroneous theory and evil practice which fail to discriminate Scriptural truth intended to keep one waiting devotedly and intelligently for Christ's coming. "Signs" are predicted and "times" announced for others, who must pass through the great tribulation. "The Spirit and the bride say, Come."

(2) As a great deal of what Brethren urge as to "the remnant" is allowed, it is only necessary to refute the denial of any grave distinction in our privileges as members of Christ's body now, as compared with those to be saved for earthly blessings and the new covenant under the Messiah in the latter day. Here again the same fatal confusion meets us. The olive tree is not the body of Christ, wherein Jew and Gentile are one (p. 209); any more than the everlasting gospel, or good news of the woman's seed to bruise the Serpent, divulged from Eden across all the ages, is the same as the immensely developed message of grace preached by the apostle Paul, though no doubt about the one Anointed Lord and Saviour. But these matters have been so often and fully discussed that we may safely leave the matter; and the reader, if he cares not to search, may be asked just to weigh the question for a proper answer.

(3) One might point out a single word in John 5: 24. The believer cometh NOT into judgment, saith the Lord. And as to Matt. 25: 31-46, it is a question of the nations, not of men dead or risen; as in Rev. 20: 11-15 we see (from the context and itself) the wicked dead only. All this entirely falls in with 2 Cor. 5, where manifestation before the judgment-seat of Christ is the point, with the unbelievers coming into judgment; just as in Heb. 9 we are told, "as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment, so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for Him, unto salvation."

That the believer will give an account of all, bad or good, done in or through the body, and that he will receive accordingly, is certain; that the unbeliever will be no less manifested before Christ is as certain as that in his case, rejecting Christ and all else given of God for his soul, it will be judgment. But Scripture carefully distinguishes for Christ's glory and the believer's blessing what tradition here again confuses to its own loss and God's dishonour. In the white throne judgment, erroneously supposed to be universal, we only hear of those whose names are not found written in the book of life, those cast (for what was written in the other books) into the lake of fire. No wonder that, knowing thus the terror of the Lord, we would persuade men. It is a poor inference that we are terrified for ourselves: if delivered by grace, how simple and right that the heart should go out earnestly and freely after others!

The fact is that the early Christians soon slipped from the full gospel, and the mystery of Christ and distinctive Christian privilege and truth generally: and the English Establishment, being now as ever a compromise, though it rejected the Pope, has recovered little of what had been so long lost.

The Morrow

Matt. 6: 34.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. N5, p. 113-114.)

There is another fear that is apt to cause trouble, forecasting the trials of the morrow. How fertile is the heart, in creating difficulties, and forgetting our Father as a real and constant resource!

"Be not anxious therefore for the morrow; for the morrow will be anxious about itself: sufficient for the day [is] its evil."

The morrow is in God's hands, not in ours. And He gives us the place of sons, as well as of children, on a firmer ground than could be even when the Lord here addressed His disciples. As He said to the Father before His suffering, "I made known to them thy name and will make it known"; so too He did in the fullest way in His message through the Magdalene, "Go to my brethren, and say to them, I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God." The relationship rested now on the definite ground of His death and resurrection, wherein their sins were blotted out, and themselves in the same nearness to His Father and God, as well as to Himself, the Firstborn of many brethren.

The one awful difficulty, sin, was not only removed by His cross for the believer, but made in His death the occasion of glorifying God as He never was before and never needs to be again. His love and man's hatred met there for the triumph of good over evil to faith, as it shall be to sight when Christ takes His great power and reigns before every eye. There Satan was vanquished to faith, where he seemed to the natural eye absolute victor. There not only the outward, but yet more the religious, world disclosed to faith its hateful unrighteousness and its utter infamy. There the very disciples prove their worse than nothingness. There the righteous One suffered to the utmost that God might be just and justify all that believe, and that grace might send out the glad tidings even to all that do not believe. For God thereby clothes with the beet robe the guilty, bankrupt, ragged prodigal who turns to Him in the faith of the Name, the name of Jesus.

Thus the work of Christ, and the present indwelling of the Holy Spirit consequent on it, set the new relationship in the clearest light and on the most solid footing which even God in Christ could give it. O what dependence on Him becomes such as know themselves thus blessed! What confidence in His love to us today and for ever! Why then allow the least worry about tomorrow?

That men of the world should be troubled is natural. They know not God. Still loss do they cry, Abba, Father. Their satisfaction is in their substance, their position, their pleasure. Their uneasiness is because all in this life hangs on a trembling balance, between their fellows whom they cannot trust, a life as uncertain as the wind, and a God whom they dread as their Judge, and with too good reason as they are.

But the child of God, why should he give way to anxiety about the morrow? He is entitled to happy boldness on his own part and assured love on His Father's to do His will to-day, whatever the trial. God is equally above tomorrow's anxiety, which he can cast on Him, if it come. Sufficient for the day is its evil. Christ is our burden-bearer. Through Him we more than conquer. If God be for us, who against us?

Some who read these words may be still in their sins, and not reconciled to God. If you cannot be contemplated in a warning to believers, you have an especial danger in putting off to the morrow the call of the gospel which God makes to you today. "Behold, now is an acceptable season, behold, now is a day of salvation." Delay will only increase your sins, and harden your heart to resist the Spirit to your imminent danger. Be not like the naughty and foolish child, so quick to say, I will never do it again; I will be good tomorrow. Be honest with God today, and own the sin, and yourself a life-long sinner, and confess the Lord Jesus the only Saviour, counting on God's grace to save you in His name. How many have put off to a morrow that never came! So perilous is it not to own the sins today to Him who waits to be gracious, and can keep as truly as He forgives.

The Treasure, and the Heart.

Matt. 6: 21.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. N5, p. 132-134.)

The moral principle here laid down by our Lord calls for our deep and constant heed; and the more, because the flesh ever deceives, and struggles against it, to indulge itself under fair disguise and for reasons seemingly strong and excellent. But we walk by faith. not by sight, and only so rightly.

"For where thy treasure is, there thy heart will also be."

Where faith is not, a present object engages the heart, and becomes the treasure. It is self in one shape or another, whereby Satan is the master, and not God: what then must be the end for eternity? The most prevalent is what our Lord calls "filthy lucre"; for money is the readiest means of gain for gratifying carnal lusts. It may be the heart abandoned to the pleasures of sin for a season. Power again is the ambition of some, as fame is of others. Also it may take a religious direction as readily and more dangerously than a literary one, or for worldly honour. In such ways men perish, even where no grossness appears, but the nicest refinement.

Christ alone delivers and preserves from all such snares. He is given and sent by God to win the heart by His ineffable grace, adapting itself to our guilt and misery and worthlessness through sin, to save the vilest from his evil, to reconcile unto God, to be life as well as righteousness to him who had neither, to associate with heaven, and thus separate from the world not only in all that is evidently bad but in all that claims to be good or its best, that we should no longer live to ourselves, but to Him who for our sakes died and rose again. And as this is for the Father's glory, so is it by the Spirit's power who is here, sent forth now from heaven on and since Pentecost, to glorify Him who never sought His own will but at all cost that of God.

Christ is therefore the true treasure, and in and by Him the riches of God's grace, yea and far beyond all question of need, to the praise of the glory of His grace which will make us like Himself before Him, not only in nature but in relationship as far as this can be. But we have this treasure meanwhile in earthen vessels, that the exceeding greatness of the power may be of God and not from ourselves. "Wherefore we faint not; but though our outward man is decaying, yet our inward man is renewed day by day. For our momentary light affliction worketh for us more and more exceedingly an eternal weight of glory; while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal."

Hence our Lord urges our not laying up for ourselves treasures upon the earth where moth and rust spoil, and where thieves dig through and steal; but to lay up for ourselves treasures in heaven where neither moth nor rust spoils, and where thieves do not dig through nor steal. "For where thy treasure is, there thy heart also will be"! The heart follows necessarily the object of its affection; and Christ, the treasure of the Christian, was not of the earth but comes from above, from heaven, and above all. "What He hath seen and heard, this He testifieth; and none receiveth His testimony. He that received His testimony set to his seal that God is true. For He whom God sent speaketh the words of God; for He giveth not the Spirit by measure. The Father loveth the. Son, and hath given all things [to be] in His hand. He that believeth on the Son hath life eternal, but he that obeyeth not (or, is not subject to) the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3: 32-36).

It is not only then what the treasure is, but where that the Lord presses on our heed. And this truth of the treasure in heaven derives great accession and force from our Lord's ascending where He was before (John 6: 62), no longer Son of God only as He came down, but Son of man as He is now also in heavenly glory. For this is the proper and full way in which the Christian knows Him. Wherefore we henceforth know no one according to flesh; but if even we have known Christ according to flesh, yet now we know [Him] no longer. So if any one [be] in Christ, [it is] a new creation.

To Christ glorified is the Christian united by the Spirit, now that he rests on redemption accomplished. He that is joined to the Lord is one spirit. Only then and there could it be. Hence having died with Christ and being raised together with Him, we are exhorted to seek the things that are above where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God, to set our mind on the things that are above, not on the things that are upon the earth. For we died, and our life is hid with Christ in God. And we wait that, when Christ our life shall be manifested, we too shall then be manifested with Him in glory.

We may notice that in Luke 12 the connection of this truth expressed more broadly ("For where your treasure is, there your heart also will be"), is not only with the warning of the precariousness of all save a treasure in the heavens, but with the Lord's coming as a proximate hope. "Let your loins be girded about, and your lamps burning; and ye like men waiting for their own lord whenever he may leave the wedding, that when he cometh and knocketh they may open to him immediately." It would be scarce possible to conceive words more clearly indicating the call to be constantly looking out for Him.

Altogether the aim is unmistakable if we are walking in the Spirit. We are now "heavenly" in title (1 Cor. 15: 48, 49), and we expect on the surest authority to realise it even for our bodies at His coming. Let us see to it meanwhile to live, serve, walk, and worship, consistently with our faith and our hope. Nothing short of this is the Christianity of the N.T. when the many things were known which the disciples could not bear till they had redemption through His blood and the gift of the Spirit. When the Spirit was come from Him on high, He did not fail to guide them into all the truth.

Reader, beware of being deceived. If you are not a disciple of Christ, if not born of the Spirit, the Lord's exhortations are inapplicable to you: you are not yet one of His. Own your evil and guilty state before God. Own Him the only efficacious Saviour, the Son of man come to seek and to save the lost. Then indeed such words as His to the disciples will be precious and blessed by grace to your soul. But you must be born anew, born of God, to receive and understand them. Beware of those who deify ordinances to Christ's disparagement, and their own vain pride of a baseless office.

The Types of Scripture.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. 1, p. 99 (p.103) [7 sections].)

('Review of 'The Typology of Scripture; viewed in connection with the entire scheme of the Divine Dispensations'. By Patrick Fairbairn, Professor of Divinity, Free Church College, Aberdeen. Second Edition, much enlarged and improved, vols. i, ii. Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1854.)

No. 1. — HISTORICAL GLANCE, AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES.

Every intelligent Christian will allow that the subject of types is of deep interest and importance. Notoriously, however, many shrink from it as if it were forbidden dangerous ground, shrouded in perpetual fog through which at intervals some gleams of sunshine pierce with difficulty. Not that this tract of Scriptural study is not rich and varied and attractive. No line of things in the Bible abounds more in living instruction, in appeals to conscience, in comfort to the heart, in confirmation of faith so much the stronger in the end because indirect in appearance. All one's old knowledge of that blessed book abides, as far as it was real; but, with a true insight into the types, comes a fresh and super-added light, which attaches the affections and the mind with immensely increased tenacity to the word of God. Not merely is it sweet to ponder over the scenes, the beings, the circumstances of the past, and the ways of God displayed in them; all this is enhanced when their typical aspect is laid hold of. Like the bread which multiplied under the hands and word of Christ; whence, after the thousands had fed, more is left to be carefully gathered up at the end, than existed at the beginning when none had eaten. If then the types had been commonly neglected, it is because they have been ill understood.

To this neglect the Greek fathers, and even the graver Latins have largely contributed; not intentionally of course, but through their lack of spirituality and sound judgment. Under their labours, if we may judge from their remains in many and ponderous folios, the field produced a crop, large perhaps, but mingled with baneful and unsightly weeds. Scarcely less luxuriant and capricious in their fancies, though far more redolent of Christ, were the divines of the seventeenth century, such as Cocceius and Witsius abroad, or Mather and Keach at home. For instance, if we select from the writings of Augustine, the greatest light of patristic antiquity, we have in his work on the gospel of St. John (Tract. xxiv. cap. vi. 5,) the following typical view of the miraculous loaves. The five loaves are taken as the five books of Moses, — not wheaten, but of barley, because they pertain to the Old Testament. As is barley, so is the letter of that Testament, with a rough and tenacious integument, but the marrow within. The lad that carried them and the two fishes, is conjectured to be Israel, bearing their burden with childish feeling, but not eating. The fishes are supposed to set forth the two anointed offices of Priest and King! This is certainly a match in extravagance, if not in the quantity of minute resemblances, to Guild, who, according to Dr. Fairbairn, reckons up no fewer than forty-nine typical links between Joseph and Christ, and seventeen between Jacob and Christ. Now while we assuredly gather that Joseph is, for reasons which may appear another time, an eminent figure of the Lord, we agree with our author that such superficial analogies as these writers make much off are unworthy to be considered as types. "Thus Jacob's being a supplanter of his brother is made to represent. Christ's supplanting death, sin, and Satan; his being obedient to his parents in all things, Christ's subjection to his heavenly Father and his earthly parents; his purchasing his birthright by red pottage, and obtaining the blessing by presenting savoury venison to his father, clothed in Esau's garment Christ's purchasing the heavenly inheritance for us by his red blood, and obtaining the blessing lay offering up the savoury meat of his obedience, in the borrowed garment of our nature," etc., (vol. i. p. 30).

From those who in ancient or in modern times had thus slipped out of the place of safe and humble inquiry into that of hasty guess-work, the reaction was too easy into the cold rationalistic theology of the eighteenth century, which blighted, almost indiscriminately, "the precious" and "the vile" of their predecessors. Indeed, it was not the typical portions of Scripture merely which then suffered an eclipse. Christ Himself was most indistinctly, if at all, seen as the sun of the Bible system; and, very naturally, that which prefigured him and his work sank in like proportion. Hence it has almost come to be an axiom among the popular guides of the day, "that just so much of the Old Testament is to be accounted typical as the New Testament affirms to be so, and no more" (Prof. M. Stuart). "By what means," says Bishop March, "shall we determine, in any given instance, that what is alleged as a type was really designed for a type? The only possible source of information on this subject is Scripture itself. The only possible means of knowing that two distant, though similar, historical facts were so connected in the general scheme of divine providence, that the one was designed to prefigure the other, is the authority of that book, in which the scheme of divine Providence is unfolded." So too Mr. H. Horne and many more. A principle narrower or more arbitrary can hardly be conceived. For it demands no profound research, nothing more than a careful reading of the New Testament, to observe that the way in which it mentions some Old Testament personages or events in no wise excludes others from a typical relation. Rather does it give us samples, some plain, and others more obscure. Far from discouraging, the New Testament stimulates the fullest and minutest investigation of the Old, the Holy Ghost using both as the perfect source and standard of revealed truth.

If it were merely meant that we must not, in our inference from a given type, overstep the teaching of dogmatic Scripture, none could object. If we were thereby exhorted to caution, where no express warrant labels the type, the counsel would be valuable. But it is plain, if one read Genesis without bias, that Adam and Eve have no marks there which so unequivocally distinguish them from Cain and Abel, that the former pair, and not the latter, had a typical design. One of the rigid school answers that St Paul decides the question as to Adam in Rom. 5, and another ventures to think that he is nearly as plain about Eve in Eph. 5. Not at all, cries the voice of Mr. Lord across the Atlantic, the word τίπος Only means a similitude, not type properly, in Rom. 5, and nothing of the sort is said in Eph. 5. Thus the direct tendency of this demand for chapter and verse in the New Testament touching the Old is to limit us to a minimum of typical instruction, if not to rob us of it altogether.

The fact is, that Scripture differs from mere books of information and science, inasmuch as these are wholly irrespective of moral condition and may be mastered alike by the evil and the good, while that depends on our measure of subjection to the Spirit of God. And as the children of God are not equally spiritual, so they differ in the degree of their understanding of and relish for all that is of God. If all Christians had a single eye, every one would be full of light. But this is not so. Each has to contend with influences, prejudices, prepossessions, etc., which, as far as they work, obscure the judgment, and thus lead to differing views and practice. Hence it is that the evidence of the word which is irresistible to one is weak or null to another, rightly or wrongly, of course, as a man is led by the Spirit. To take the same example as before, a man better taught than Bishop Marsh would see ground, in Jude 11 and Heb. 12: 24, for interpreting Cain and Abel typically. And if they are to be so taken, why not Lamech and Seth, of whom serious and interesting facts are recorded in the same chapter? Again, the hardest exactor of express New Testament authority can scarcely deny a formally typical force to the deluge. (See 1 Peter 3.) Has then the subsequent altar which Noah built no future bearing? Nor God's blessing of him and his sons, with His solemn committal of the sword of government and the covenant with the earth and all flesh? And the city and tower in the plain of Shinar, has it no language for our ears, — that Babel, where language was confounded by the judgment of Jehovah, and the various tongues of men began? if Sarah and Hagar, if Isaac and Ishmael have the explicit sanction of Scripture, is it not implied as to Abraham and Lot? If Melchizedek cannot be disputed, what are we to infer about the combinations of the Kings and their conflicts, what about the intervention of the head of promise and the deliverance of his earthly-minded kinsman? Are all these great connected circumstances unmeaning, save as moral and historical? Is "the possessor of heaven and earth" an immaterial title there and then, because, "the most high God" merely is cited in Heb. 7?

In short, there might be reason in thus confining our investigation to those portions of the Old Testament which are employed unambiguously as figures in the New, if the New Testament either professed to be, or in reality was, an exposition of all the parts of the Old. But all must confess that this is not the case; which it ought to be, if types are to be sought nowhere in the Bible beyond the very limited horizon which is formed by the direct notices and explanations of the latest revelation. On the contrary, we have here either passing allusions, or large principles laid down, because God addresses his family as having an unction from the Holy One, and knowing all things. "I have not written unto you," says St. John, "because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. . . . These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." Again, the Holy Ghost says by St. Paul (and this just after glancing rapidly over a number of typical transactions in the history of Israel) — "I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say," That is, the New Testament pointedly addresses itself not to the ignorance of Christian men, but to their capacity to use the word of God aright in virtue of the Holy Ghost dwelling in them. This is so much the more remarkable as being said to the Corinthians, whom the same epistle had characterized as babes in Christ. "I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. Nevertheless," says the Apostle, "I would not have you ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea," followed by the statement that these things were our examples (literally, types, figures of us).

Now, is it possible for an unprejudiced man to read this last passage, and to gather from it that the Holy Ghost is laying down a systematic summary of all that was typical in the journeyings of Israel? Is it not rather true that we have simply an application here, as elsewhere, of so much as naturally bore on the question in hand, the danger of idolatry, etc., and of being content with ordinances without life! So, afterwards, there is a striking use made of the fact, that Israel after the flesh ate of the sacrifices, and were partakers of the altar; as, in the preceding chapter, direct reference is made to the law of Moses. "Thou shalt not muzzle the month of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope, and that he that thresheth should be partaker of his hope." Spiritual husbandry was the grand idea in the mind of the revealing Spirit. Further on, in the same chapter, the Apostle applies the special provision which God enjoined in behalf of the priests and all the tribe of Levi; that, as they had no part nor inheritance with Israel, they should eat the offerings of the Lord, and his inheritance. Evidently, therefore, while there is nothing like or pretending to be, a catalogue raisonnèe of Old Testament figures, they are profusely used, in addressing believers (not Hebrews merely, but Gentiles also); and as clearly those used are cited not in the least degree as exceptional cases, but rather as specimens of a vast class which pervades the Bible.

Is it then seriously contended that the brief direction respecting the ox in Deut. 25: 4 is picked out by the Apostle as the sole word in the chapter which has special application to Christians? Of course that was what the Spirit wanted in 1 Cor. 9, and what the saints who are exhorted needed to weigh. But if the occasion had demanded it, was there not typical instruction of the deepest moment in the same context? In the first verses, it is as to a brother, even if in the wrong, and justly to be punished; in the last verses it is touching the sworn enemies of the Lord and his people. Forbearance towards Amalek would be indifference to the honour of the one, and the wrongs of the other. The judge must see the faulty Israelites beaten according to his misdeeds, but with a fixed limit, lest "thy brother should seem vile to thee." We are satisfied, also, that the central details of the chapter are equally written under the same prescient eye: the ordinance for perpetuating each family name in Israel; and the keeping up, under severe penalty, of purity and delicacy of feeling, even where those nearest to us are menaced or suffering; and the maintenance of the most thorough integrity in all dealings, small and great, in the sight and blessing of the Lord.

Take, again, the provision for the Levites in Numbers 18, etc., alluded to in 1 Cor. 9: 13. Is that to be dislocated from its connection, and to be regarded as the only food for the servants of the Lord found there? Is the priestly rod of Aaron, once dead, but now alive again for evermore, without fruit for us? Is its sole use as a token against the rebellious children of Israel? As to the red heifer in Num. 19, we presume that the most clamourous demand for apostolic endorsement must bow to Heb. 9: 13. It was as appropriate in itself as in the circumstances and season where it occurs, — the type of Christ sacrificed and brought home, by the Spirit of God, to the individual saints in the wilderness, where an unintentional defilement is contracted by contact with the things of death: in a word, the shadow of God's gracious way of restoring communion with himself, when interrupted in our wanderings here below. It is not redemption which is in question here, but priestly grace and the remembrance, in the Spirit, of Christ's suffering to meet those unwilling soils which might be too lightly slurred over in the desert. And is it conceivable that grave men should think the scene of Meribah (Num. 20) to be a mere historical fact? They are compelled to allow more in the serpent of brass in the following chapter, because of the Lord's word to Nicodemus in John 3. Is the land which lies between given up to barenness? Or is it only fallow ground, because men have been slow to take and till it in the name of the Lord? Strange indeed would it be, that God should have written his word as those deem who acknowledge that Num, 18 and 20 are eminently typical, but strip withal the intervening portion of all such claim, in the face of a narrative at least as full and as striking!

So in 1 Cor. 10: 1-10 a few leading facts are alluded to as, having befallen the Israelites, and chiefly recorded in Exodus and Numbers: the passage through the Red Sea under Moses, the manna, the water from the rock, on God's part; the lust, idolatry, tempting Christ, and murmuring, on theirs. Are we then to exercise no spiritual judgment respecting the other displays of God and man, no less solemn and profitable! Are we not to enquire how they too bear on the future, using those which are infallibly determined as our help, with the general analogy of Scripture, to search into the rest, for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God? If there is no dispute about the Red Sea, why should there be about the waters of Marah? If the manna was unquestionably typical, why doubt the Sabbath connected with it? If the smitten rock in Horeb is pregnant with lessons for us, why sever from it the subsequent conflict with Amalek? Why nullify the beautiful picture which follows in Ex. 18, where Gentiles and Jews eat bread before God, and the leader of the people lays down the order and means of right government? Again "the worship of the golden calf be so full of warning, what of the judgment which Moses executes with the sons of Levi?["] (Ex. 32.) Has the pitching of the tabernacle without the camp no voice for us, and the deepened fellowship which Moses enjoyed with the Lord there, and his earnest pleading before him? Here, again, the New Testament casts its unwavering light upon an incident which, without it, we might have made of no account; for at first sight, it might strike the careless reader as the least promising, in a typical point of view, — the veil which Moses put on his face in speaking with the children of Israel, and took off in going in before the Lord to speak with him, 2 Cor. 3.

To deny a figurative force to these other circumstances in Exodus, because one or two only may have the direct stamp of St. Paul, is to deprive us of an incalculable amount of their value. To say that we cannot understand them clearly and certainly, according to our general intelligence of Scripture, is to reduce Christians to the alliteration of a former economy: it would justify that dulness of hearing which the Apostle censures in the Hebrew saints, Heb. 5. They were unskilful in the word of righteousness, and needed to be taught explicitly what they ought to have been teaching. He had many things to say respecting Melchizedek; but their senses were comparatively unexercised to discern both good and evil. And when he does open that remarkable story as a shadow of Christ, he in no way intimates that all was said which might be said, but only what they were able to bear. Sufficient is furnished to quicken, not to clog, their feeble spiritual digestion. Thus no use is made of the bread and wine which Melchizedek brought out to the victors, while there is considerable reasoning upon the dignity of his office and person, surpassed only in the real and eternal glory of Christ. The moment the argument of the epistle requires the actual exercise of Christ's priesthood to be treated of, the Apostle glides on to the Aaronic intercession within the veil, based upon sacrifice. (Heb. 7: 25, Heb. 8-10.) How arbitrary, then, to assume that we have more, in such New Testament expositions, than clear light cut upon certain landmarks, that, thus using what we have, more may be given?

This is entirely confirmed by what we read of the holy places, sacrifices, feasts, and other rites, stated or occasional. It were utterly unreasonable, if we may venture on the ground of the objectors, to hold that the mercy-seat, the candlestick, and the altar are the only vessels of the sanctuary which have a typical significance, because others are dimly, if at all, explained, while these are clearly alluded to in Rom. 3, Rev. 1, and Heb. 13 respectively. Is it merely the covering-lid which had a meaning, and not the ark of the covenant itself? — that holy throne whereon God rested in moral judgment of his people, the law within, and the cherubim its external supporters? The table, too, with its twelve loaves, had this no far-reaching value, as well as the candlestick with its seven branches? And the two altars, with their suited spheres, is one blind, and has the other alone an eye that looks onward? Were the robes of glory and beauty, which the high priest wore, for mere passing show? Or if the curious girdle tells a tale of service, what are we to infer as to the ephod and robe, and broidered coat, and breastplate and mitre? Their consecration, too, is surely something for us; for if Christ loves and has washed us from our sins in his own blood, he has also made us kings and priests. In short, all things are ours — the washing, the blood-sprinkling, and the anointing; and all the sacrifices too, the sin-offering, burnt-offering, ram of consecration, and meat-offering. There were, no doubt, reasons why the Apostle could not then speak particularly of the sanctuary and its vessels, There is no reason to deny the force of all as figures, though we may not have equal clearness of view about each. The same considerations apply to the feasts and other ordinances in Leviticus. It is most anomalous to own that the passover and its accompanying feast of unleavened bread had a prophetic bearing, and to disown it in the feast of trumpets. It were passing strange that Pentecost should have its fulfilment, and that Tabernacles should have none. How much more simple and harmonious to infer that, as a whole, not merely the Levitical system, but the historical facts and times, persons and things of Old Testament Scripture, were ordered, selected, and presented in the word of God, so as to teach a little to those of small faith, more to those of larger spiritual measure, with all ever-increasing fulness as the eye becomes more single to Christ, and the ear more attuned by the Spirit to his voice?

But if this last remark be admitted, as it is to us clear and certain, their fallacy is obvious who try to squeeze the types of Scripture into a human system. Every branch, indeed, of revealed truth has been stripped of its bloom and fragrance by a similar process. If there be any which more than others resist, and suffer from such violence, it appears to us to be the very twain which Dr. Fairbairn has chosen — the kindred themes of Scripture type and prophecy. His school has not been safe or happy. He is a good deal enamoured of, and tinctured by, the novel speculations of German critics. He is keenly attached to the spiritualizing tendencies, which would blot out, if they could, the special hopes and inheritance of Israel from the chart of God's future counsels. He does not see that the church is but a little, though an exceedingly blessed and glorious, part of the purposes of God as to man. Accordingly, the work which God has now in operation, and which contemplates by grace ourselves as its objects, becomes in his view the all-absorbing idea. Every other of which the Bible speaks is as much as possible conformed to that standard. The state of things under the fathers and Israel is exalted somewhat, the characteristic points of the present economy are considerably depressed, the grand distinctions of the age to come are well nigh ignored, so as to obliterate, as far as fancy can, those differences of dispensation in which God has been thoroughly testing man, and displaying his own righteousness and grace and glory, to the ultimate and abiding joy of all who trust in him.

We would not be understood as slighting much that is really good and valuable in Dr. F.'s book. A good deal of what we have been insisting on in this paper is truth common to him and to us. Nor do we mean that Dr. F. is singular in making the church, so-called, the great centre of movement in his system: for theologizing in general are in the same way disciples of Ptolemy, rather than of Copernicus. But Dr. F. has the unhappy distinction of working out this fundamental error more systematically, as far as regards his two subjects, than perhaps any one who has gone before him. How this vitiates his work will appear abundantly. Thus in chap. 2, in showing how the relation of type and antitype implies that the realities of the gospel were contemplated from the beginning, he says that on this account "the gospel dispensation is called the dispensation of the fulness of times"; whereas it is as plain as can be that Eph. 1 so speaks of the future administration of the universe, when God shall gather together in one, under Christ's headship, all things both which are in heaven and which are on earth. And this is so far from being confounded with the aim and objects of the gospel dispensation, that the following verses pursue the latter topic in relation to those who are being gathered out from both Jews and Gentiles. If Dr. F. deny the justice of our accusation on the plea that, in this same vol. i., page 61, he speaks of the Redeemer as "Himself the beginning and end of the scheme of God's dispensations," we answer that he means the Redeemer solely in relation to his church, as far as human blessing is concerned. His various glories are merged in this one. Son of David Son of Abraham, Son of man — all these and more are exclusively limited to him as head of the church. Thus, no space is left for the various circles which have him for their common centre.

Dr. F. cannot prove that which is the very substratum of all his writings. We have shown more than once in the Bible Treasury, that the church of God, properly so designated, is peculiar to the present dispensation: Dr. F. affirms, without even attempting to demonstrate, its identity throughout all dispensations. Hence, to take in all the redeemed, he is compelled to reduce the idea of the church to "a nursery for training souls to a meetness for immortal life and blessedness." Were this an adequate definition, his conclusion doubtless follows; for nobody questions that God has always been saving souls by his word and Spirit. But we deny his premises, and submit that he overlooks the doctrine of Scripture. It is not a question of words merely, as some would say, but of things. The New Testament is explicit, that the church is based upon redemption, not promised only but — accomplished, and demand. the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven as its formative power, uniting all, whether Jew or Gentile, in one body, of which Christ in heavenly glory is the head — a condition which was not true of the times anterior to the cross, and is not nor can be predicated of the saints who are to be called on earth during the millennium. Clearly, then, it is not a question of being saved only, but of other and higher privileges, ordered in the sovereignty of God and super-added to salvation. Dr. F., we repeat, cannot prove his thesis. He takes it for granted and continually asserts it because it is absolutely necessary to his system. He will hardly take advantage of a mistake in the common version of Acts 7: 38, where "the church in the wilderness" means simply, really, and nothing but the Israelitish congregation there. Almost as rationally might it be argued from the mere term that "the church" is intended by "the assembly" in Acts 19. Neither the one nor the other, in the foundation or in the form, was the church of God as presented in the Scriptures which develop it. Dr. F. may flatter himself with being spiritual (as contrasted with Jewish or semi-Jewish interpreters), because he sees not Israel only but the church under the tutelage of the law and the rudiments of the world. He may reproach us with being Jewish, because we affirm that the Jews and not the church had to say to the Babylonish captivity. To us, we avow, it seems distressing confusion, to apply what is said of Israel to the church, as if it were all the same thing organically, though now improved and enlarged. To use it, as he does, without proofs, is to build without a foundation.

Dr. F. objects, with justice, to the vagueness of the rules laid down by such as Glassius, and offers his own specific directions, which are a decided improvement. But the fact is, that the most important pre-requisite for rightly interpreting the types is an adequate knowledge of the truth of which they are the forms. Thus, if a person confounded the character of two different acts, offices, dispensation, etc., he would in similar ratio make a jumble of their prefigurations. Another element of some weight is the nature of the surrounding context. This, duly applied, would cut off many popular turns, (e.g., the appearance of Esau borrowed by Jacob, which some make to figure the imputed righteousness of Christ!) Here, however, are Dr. F.'s five canons:

"Nothing is to be regarded as typical of the good things under the gospel, which was itself of a forbidden and sinful nature." (I. 138.)

"We must be guided not so much by any knowledge possessed, or supposed to be possessed, by the ancient worshippers concerning their prospective fulfilment, as from the light furnished by their realization in the great facts and revelations of the gospel." (I. 143.)

We must "be careful to make ourselves acquainted with the truths or ideas exhibited in the types, considered merely as providential transactions or religious institutions." (I. 143.)

"The type has properly but one radical meaning, yet the fundamental idea or principle exhibited in it may often be capable of more then one application to the realities of the gospel." (I. 152.)

"Due regard must be had to the essential difference between the nature of type and antitype." (I. 157.)

It is the practical application which is the main difficulty. God and his word will never admit of rules which can save us from the need of being spiritual, whether in intelligence or in walk. Such rules, like creeds and articles, have scarcely any positive value, though they may be of use negatively for checking and correcting men in a path of error.

No. II. — PRIMEVAL TIMES.

"The dispensation of Primeval and Patriarchal times," is the general title prefixed to Book Second of the Typology. We must be forgiven if we regard it as a misnomer and an evidence of that laxity of thought which everywhere characterizes the work. The era from the creation to the days of Noah is not, properly speaking, the sphere of dispensations, any more than the eternity which opens with the creation of the new heavens and new earth, — God's blessed answer at the close to man's miserable fall at the beginning of human history. The primeval epoch is nowhere in scripture styled a dispensation, or anything equivalent. It was not a course of time, marked by a certain specific character, and ruled by divine principles on the part of God; and this is the true meaning of a "dispensation," save where the word is used in the wholly different sense of a stewardship, or administration, (οἰκοίομνα) as in 1 Cor. 9: 17; Eph. 1: 10; Eph. 3: 2.

Doubtless, from the fall to the flood, God did not leave Himself without witness; but the period was not characterized by government entrusted to man. The law was not then given to a people separated from all others by peculiar privileges, nor had Gentiles as yet been suffered to exercise universal empire in the sovereignty and providence of God. These things and more (not to speak of the developed dealings of promise and grace) came in subsequently to the deluge, and they are the subject-matter of the dispensations, the millennium included, when every principle which has crumbled in the feeble hands of man, of Israel, and of the Gentile, shall be established and maintained in manifest unfailing glory by the Lord Jesus Christ. They will flow on till the judgment of the dead before the great white throne terminates such displays of God's ways among men, and ushers in the everlasting state; when they who despised or abused the holy grace of God shall meet the due reward of the evil which they feared not; when the family of the second Adam 4Iiall enjoy the blessedness procured for them by their Head, in whom they, while here, had trusted.

For, looking more closely at these early days, do we find anything like a period regulated under God on distinctive principles? The facts are as simple as they are opposed to the notion. There was a positive place and command given to Adam. "And the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Obviously such was not the tenure outside Eden, or afterwards. It was not a principle which governed men, or any portion of men, during a finite period. The tree of life, the creation-tree, was barred from the outcasts by divine power; and this, not in judgment only, but, in a certain sense, in mercy. For man was in sin, and death was the declared penalty. Not to have executed the sentence would have dishonoured God, would have introduced hopeless confusion into His dealings, would have set His words openly at nought. And besides, what could "living for ever," then and thus, have been but never-ending misery to him whose sin was unremoved? But if the transient condition of Paradisiacal innocence differs essentially from the fallen sinful humanity which succeeded, there was no new system, set up thereon by God, no subsequent human test given to the antediluvians. Man sinned then without law, as afterwards he sinned under it.

It will be said, perhaps, that the first Adam had no sooner broken down, than God appeared and announced the last Adam. There is no doubt that such is the bearing of the judgment which God predicted of the serpent in Gen. 3. Unquestionably, also, His providential might and wisdom secretly ruled then, as always. But the question is of distinctive dispensational dealings on God's part, extending through the antediluvian period; and the answer is, there were none. These ages, ruled by characteristic features impressed on them by God, find their suited place and scope in the space that intervenes between the deluge and the "end" (1 Cor. 15), when, the kingdom being given up, God shall be all in all.

As to all this Dr. F. gropes in the dark, though it is but fair to add, that his mistakes are not uncommon. Thus he says, "In the whole compass of sacred history we find only three grand eras that can properly be regarded as the formative epochs of distinct religious dispensations. They are those of the fall, of the redemption from Egypt, and of the appearance and work of Christ, as they are usually designated; though they might be more fitly described, the first as the entrance of faith and hope for fallen man, the second as the giving of the law, and the third as the revelation of the gospel. For it was not properly the fall, but the new state and constitution of things brought in after it, that in a religious point of view, forms the first commencement of the world's history." (Typ. i. 191, 192.) It is plain that he is doubly wrong, in what is included, and in what is omitted. For instance, the all important manifestation of God's ways to Noah (forbearance towards mankind founded on sacrifice, divinely instituted government, and covenant with the earth) have no place in Dr. F.'s scheme of divine dispensations, though its leading principles are still in force. On the other hand, it is absurd to call the fall "a dispensation," or even God's announcement of the woman's seed in judging Satan. Nor was the clothing of Adam and Eve with skins "a dispensation," any more than the Lord's setting a mark upon Cain. Not that faith did not take account of all these things, and look out for a Redeemer, who, if bruised Himself, should effectually destroy the evil one. But these are not the characteristics of dispensations, but rather the basis on which, substantially, all believers rest during every dispensation. But we must now turn to Dr. F.'s various chapters in their order.

The first (i. pp. 200-213) is devoted to a sketch of the fundamental truths which the history of the fall embodies. These, according to our author, are the doctrines, 1, of man's guilt and depravity; 2, of God's righteous character and government, 3, of grace and its provisions for the fallen; and 4, of the headship principle, by which, as ruin has come in through one, so through another the heirs might share in blessing. To these ideas, of course, we do not demur; but to us they seem more like the divisions of an ordinary sermon, than the unfolding of the magnificent Adamic types, In fact, the last point alone can be viewed as typical; the others are prominent moral lessons, but not types. It may seem incredible, but as far as we have observed, it is the fact, that the most momentous and strikingly beautiful shadow of better things, connected with our first parents, (save that referred to in Rom. 5: 14,) is passed over in dead silence in this systematic treatise! The mystery of Christ and the Church, prefigured by Adam and Eve (Gen. 2), is not found there; it was a great thing in the Apostle's eyes (Eph. 5), however little it appears to be in Dr. F.'s

Incomparably better in this, and indeed in every respect save plainness of style, is the "Synopsis of the Books of the Bible." "In Gen. 2 we have the special relationship of man with God, with his wife, (type of Christ and His Church,) with the creation; and the two great principles, from which everything flows as regards man, established in the garden, where man was placed in blessing; namely, responsibility, and a sovereign source of life — the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the tree of life. In these two things, in conciliating these two, lies the lot of every man. It is what is developed in the law, and in grace in Christ. The law put life as the result of the perfect obedience of him who knew good and evil — that is, made it depend on the result of our responsibility. Christ having undergone the consequence of man's having failed, becomes (in the power of a life which had gained the victory over death, which was the consequence of that disobedience) a source of life eternal that evil could not reach, and that in a righteousness perfected in a work, which has taken away all guilt from him that has share in it — a righteousness in which we stand before God according to His own mind, and righteous will, and nature. His priesthood applies to the details of the development of this life in the midst of evil. In the garden the knowledge of good and evil did not yet exist; obedience alone, in refraining from an act which was no sin if it had not been forbidden, constituted the test. The condition of man, in contrast with every other creature here below, found its source in this; that, instead of springing from the earth or water by the sole word of God, as a living being, man was formed and fashioned from the dust, and God places him in immediate relationship, as a living being with Himself, inasmuch as he becomes a living being through God Himself's breathing into his nostrils the breath of life. All animated creatures are called living souls, and said to have breath of life; but God did not breathe into the nostrils of any in order to their becoming living souls. Man was, by his existence, in immediate relationship with God. It is important to consider this chapter as laying down, in a special manner, all the principles of the relationship of man, whether with God, with his wife, or with the inferior creation. Here were all things in their own order, as creatures of God, in connection with the earth; but man's labour the means of their growth and fruitfulness. Nor did rain from heaven minister fruitfulness from above. The mist that watered it rose from the earth, drawn up by power and blessing, but not coming down. Yet man was, as to his place, in a peculiar one in reference to God. Man did not dwell in heaven. God did not dwell in earth! but God had formed a place of peculiar blessing and delight for man's habitation, and there He visited him. Out of his garden, where he was placed by the hand of God as sovereign of the world, flowed rivers, which watered and characterized the world without. Upon Adam reposed the duty of obedience. The image of God upon earth, in the absence of evil from his nature, and as the centre of a vast system around him and in connection with him, his own proper blessing was in his connection and intercourse with God. As soon as God had redeemed a people, He dwelt among them. Here He created, blessed, and visited. Adam, created the conscious centre of all around him, had his blessing and security in dependence on, and intercourse with, God. This, as we shall see, he forfeited, and became the craving centre of his own wishes and ambition, which he could never satisfy. Earthly nature, then, in its perfection, with man (in relationship with God by creation and the breath of life that was in him) for its centre; enjoyment; a source of abiding life; a means of putting responsibility to the test; the sources of universal refreshment to the world without; and, if continuing in his created condition, blessed intercourse with God on this ground — such was the position of the first and innocent Adam. That he might not be alone here, but have a companion, fellowship, and the enjoyment of affection, God formed, not another man, (for then the one were not a centre,) but out of the one man himself, his wife, that the union might be the most absolute and intimate possible, and Adam head and centre of all. He receives her, moreover, from the hand of God Himself. Such was nature around man, what God always owns, and man never sins against with impunity, though sin has spoiled it all, — the picture of what Christ, the church, and the universe shall be at the end, in power, in the obedient man. As yet all was innocence, unconscious of evil." (Synopsis i., pp. 10-13.)

Chap. iii. is as striking a sample, perhaps, as could be chosen of the confusion which reigns in the author's system and book. The shadows and the realities, too, of God's ways in the government of the world, are lumped with the truths of redemption in one crude heap. Thus (in spite of considerable modification of his, views put forth in the first edition, in spite of a professedly careful induction from their various notices in scripture, in spite of reviewing all the descriptions of their form and appearance, their designations, their positions and their agency, direct or indirect) Dr. F. sums up: that the cherubim were in their nature artificial and temporary forms of being, which united the highest kinds of creaturely existence on earth — man's first and chiefly; that they were set up before faith as representations of earth's living creaturehood, especially of its rational and immortal, though fallen, head, with reference to better hopes, which from the first gave promise of restoration, and afterwards shone with clearer light; that this restoration to life was intimated to be in accordance with God's holiness; and that thus God's purpose was betokened to raise humanity to a higher than its original destination.

For our part, we cannot but see in the cherubim the emblems of God's throne in connection with the creature and its responsibility — God's judicial action in power, which has reference to this world in contrast with redemption. We do not say, in contrast "with the redeemed;" for they, in a certain sense, will judge the world, but that is not redemption. The governing throne of God may meet, as it were, redemption; but they are exactly opposite in principle, because the latter is based on God's grace and power, the former on the responsibility of the creature.

The principal occasions where the cherubim appear are four. In Gen. 3: 24, they do not hold forth mercy; but, along with the flaming sword, menace the creature, now guilty, if he dared to force the way. The thought there is the title of God in glory and judgment. "So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden, cherubims and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." What has promise in a new man to do with keeping the way of that tree? Is man, in the presence of retributive justice, a keeper, in any sense, of the way of a tree of life? The idea is untenable and absurd. God's act in clothing the guilty with a garment which had its origin in the death of another (ver. 21), God's word in ver. 15, did betoken mercy, but not the cherubim.

As to the cherubim in the tabernacle, (with two added in the temple,) the thought is at bottom similar. Formed of the same piece, they were the sides and supporters of the throne where God sat in Israel, the Judge of all, though in special relationship with His earthly people in whose midst He displayed Himself. The cherubim here, as elsewhere, were the symbolical executors of the divine power in judgment. "Here, (as we are well told, in the 'Synopsis,' p. 73,) God manifested Himself as the supreme God in His moral being, armed with power to enforce respect to His laws, and to keep account of all that was done." Hence Ps. 99: 1: "the Lord reigneth; let the people tremble [as in correct Bibles]; he sitteth between the cherubims; let the earth be moved." It is still a throne where His majesty and judgment claim respect and fear. There is not the most distant hint of promise. So in Ex. 26 the tabernacle itself was composed of the same materials as the veil, the figure (as we know from Heb. 10) of the flesh of Christ, in His essential purity, with all the divine graces adorning it. The cherubim, which were there too, give still the idea of judicial power, which Christ has, and will exercise as man. (Comp. John 5: 22; Acts 17: 31.)

Next, while Ezekiel describes the likeness of a man associated with them, the feet are straight, and the face of an ox answers to that of a cherub, as has been often remarked, though man's face was there too. The human form was generally in view, but the characteristic face or foot was an ox or calf's. Then, that they were not supports of the throne is impossible to admit for a moment. (Comp. Ezek. 1: 22, 26; Ezek. 9: 3; Ezek. 10: 18; Ezek. 11: 22.) The firmament was over their heads, and above the firmament a throne. From this, the fullest description, doubt is excluded. They were the basis of God's throne in the execution of judgment upon Jerusalem. They reappear at the close of the prophecy, when God is sanctified in the heathen or Gentiles, dwelling judicially in Israel, "for out of Zion shall go forth the law." Ezek. 28 speaks of one destroyed from the midst of the stones of fire, and cast out of the mountain of God, because he was lifted up with his own beauty. But, instead of the anointed cherub there being a promise of restoration from a fallen condition, it is expressly said, (ver. 19,) "thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more." As to the Hebrew or Greek words, translated rightly "living creatures," Dr. F. seems to forget that they are the commonest terms possible for describing animals from Genesis downwards. Life is emphatic, as also activity and intelligence symbolized by the wings and eyes; but that it was, in the highest sense, spiritual and divine life, is more than the author has proved. Neither do we pretend to determine how far God may be pleased to use man as His throne in a figurative sense (that is, as the seat of His power). It is clear that the living creatures are the representative heads of the four main classes of created beings on earth — of such as were subsequently preserved in the ark. And even Dr. F. is compelled to own that their agency, as in Ezek. 10, is the putting in force the wrath of God, not promising spiritual life and restoration to fallen man.

Indeed Dr. F. cannot but acknowledge something analogous in Rev. 15 where one of the living creatures is represented as giving into the hands of the angels the last seven vials of God's wrath. "Nor" (says he, i. p. 239) "is the earlier and more prominent action ascribed to them materially different — that connected with the seven-sealed book . . . . . . "The work, in its fundamental character, was the going forth of the energetic and judicial agency of God." So say we, and, stranger still, in the words of him who had taught, two or three pages before (p. 236), that they are "an image of mercy and hope!" Further, he has no right to assume that the living creatures join with the elders in the new song, the redemption song, of Rev. 5 — at least, not as if they were celebrating their own share in the benefits of salvation. For it is well known, that the most recent and certainly one of the ablest of New Testament textual critics rejects the "us" in Rev. 5: 9 (as every scholar does in the following verse); the reference in that case being to the saints in ver. 8, and not to either elders or cherubim, though it be they who sing. They do not therefore "plainly stand related to the redemption as well as to the creative work of God" (i. p. 240). And as to our author's way of accounting, in the same page, for the disappearance of the cherubim, after Rev. 19, it is wholly unsatisfactory; because in p. 238 he had contrasted the royal elders and them as the actual and the ideal respectively, and in p. 240 he says, "that the ideal give way to the real." The fact is, however, that in the Apocalypse the elders and living creatures vanish from view together. Nay, we are convinced that Ezek. 43 shows the cherubim, after this very epoch, upon earth as active as ever in a blessed and glorious but judicial way, when the Lord reigns. They do not therefore fade like the stars, but shine most in the day of the Lord; and their existence, so far from being temporary, is best fulfilled in that bright day, and this, because the creation and government of God, with which we have seen them inseparably bound up, will have their fruition, and accomplish their proper ends, in that day. On the whole, then, the author's scheme, as to the cherubic figures, is as unreasonable and open to objection as any speculations of his German friends which he justly condemns. That restored man may be connected with God in this place, we believe; but the place is displayed divine glory in creation and judgment.

Want of space compels us to pass over the two next chapters (4, 5), which deal with sacrifice and the Sabbath; but we do so the rather, as they will recur in a fuller form when we enter upon Israel's history and institutions. Chap. 6, with the Appendices, occupying the remainder of the volume, we reserve, if the Lord will, for our next.

No. III. — TYPICAL PERSONS AND THINGS IN THE BOOK OF GENESIS.

Dr. Fairbairn devotes chapter 6 to "typical things in history, during the progress of the first dispensation." The chapter, as long as it is varied, he subdivides into six sections, as follows: 1, the seed of promise — Abel, Enoch; 2, Noah and the deluge; 3, the new world and its inheritors, the men of faith; 4, the change in the divine call from the general to the particular — Shem, Abraham; 5, the subjects and channels of blessing — Abraham and Isaac, Jacob and the twelve patriarchs; and 6, the inheritance destined for the heirs of blessing. We think that our author is not a whit more successful in tracing these shadows of an auxiliary and supplemental character than we have found him in treating of the grand primary and symbolical facts.

Thus he considers that through Abel knowledge was imparted, especially in regard to "the principle of election, which was to prevail in the actual fulfilment of the original promise." Now we do not doubt that the names, given to Cain and Abel respectively, do indicate the hasty hopes, and perhaps the subsequent disappointment of Eve; as the name of Seth not obscurely bespeaks her confidence in God and His purpose, spite of her past mournful experience. Neither do we question that in the Cainites, as compared with the line that followed, we have the children of the world and the men of faith. But this principle of election is equally and even more strikingly true, when we come to the history of Ishmael and Isaac, of Esau and Jacob, not to speak of Abraham himself, the conspicuous example of a man chosen, called, and faithful. All the emphasis of italics fails: Dr. F. states merely what is common, instead of drawing the distinctive lesson.

How much more masterly is the sketch given in the Synopsis (pp. 15-17). "Abel comes as guilty, and (unable as he is to draw near to God) setting the death of another between himself and God, recognizes the judgment of sin — has faith in expiation. Cain, labouring honestly where God had set him to do so, externally worshipper of the true God, has not the conscience of sin; he brings the fruits which are signs of, the curse — proof of the complete blinding of the heart, and hardening of the conscience of a sinful race, driven out from God. He supposes that all is well; why should not God receive him? Thus is brought in, not only sin against God, which Adam had fully wrought, but against one's very neighbour, as it has been displayed in the case of Jesus; and Cain himself is a striking type of the state of the Jews. In these two chapters (Gen. 3, 4), we have sin in all its forms, as a picture set before us in Adam's and Cain's conduct: sin in its proper original character against God, and then more particularly against Christ in figure, with its present consequences set forth as regards the earth. . . . . . . In the history of Lamech we have, on man's part, self-will in lust, (he had two wives,) and vengeance in self-defence; but I apprehend an intimation in God's judgment that, as Cain was the preserved though punished Jew, his posterity at the end (before the heir was raised up, and men called on Jehovah in the earth) would be sevenfold watched over of God. Lamech acknowledges he had slain to his hurt, but shall be avenged. — In the second chapter, then, we have man in the order of created blessing. In the third, man's fall from God, by which his intercourse with God on this ground is foreclosed. In the fourth his wickedness in connection with grace, in the evil state resulting from the fall. Driven from the presence of God, Cain seeks, in the importance of his family, in the arts and the enjoyments of life, temporal consolation, and tries to render the world, where God had sent him forth a vagabond, as agreeable an abode as possible, far from God. Sin has here the character of forgetfulness of all that had passed in the history of man; of hatred against grace and against him who was the object and vessel of it; of pride and indifference; and then despair, which seeks comfort in worldliness. We have also the man of grace (Abel, type of Christ and them that are His) rejected and left without heritage here below; man, his enemy, judged and abandoned to himself; and another (Seth) the object of the counsels of God, who becomes heir of the world on the part of God. We must remember, however, that they are only figures of these things, and that, in the antitype, the man who is heir of all is the same as He who had been put to death."

As to Enoch and Noah, Dr. F. is just as vague as usual. "Enoch, as being the most distinguished member of the seed of blessing, in its earlier division, and the most honoured heir of that life which comes through the righteousness of faith, is undoubtedly to be viewed as a type of Christ" (p. 278). Why and in what respects he is so to be regarded does not appear, save in a mere amplification of what is here cited: and that is evidently rather the characteristic of Christians than of Christ. Nor indeed have we any doubt that such is the true reference: for Enoch aptly sets forth the proper testimony and portion of the Church, as Noah strikingly represents the place of the Jewish people. The one bears witness beforehand to others of the Lord's coming in judgment, and is himself caught up previously, to be with Him in heaven; the other, a "preacher of righteousness," is preserved through the divine judgments to begin the new world's history, governing in the name of God. But the author's system precludes his understanding these truths, and consequently blinds him to their foreshadowings. There are more than doubtful speculations in these sections, but we cannot occupy ourselves with discussing them. Noah was the chief of a state of things where evil existed, but was restrained by authority committed to man by God; where sacrifice was the basis, and the rainbow was the sign of divine forbearance, an express covenant being made that no flood should again destroy all flesh upon the earth.

Equally indistinct is the sketch, in section 4, of the time and persons subsequent to the deluge. As to this we must again draw on the Synopsis (pp. 19-23). "This special judgment and the special blessing, in connection with Israel, begins to show itself, for we are yet on earth here. The historical course of Noah's family is brought out in connection with these two points, the blessing and the curse in Shem and Ham. But this is a new subject, and we begin afresh with chap. 10. Chaps. 10 and 11 give us the history of the world as it was peopled and established after the deluge, and the ways of men in this new world. The posterity of Noah is given by families and nations, out of which from the race of Ham, arises the first power which rules by its own force and founds an empire; for that which is according to flesh comes first. By the side of this we have then the universal association of men to exalt themselves against God, and make to themselves a name independently of Him, an effort stamped on God's part with the name of Babel, (confusion,) and which ends in judgment and in the dispersion of the race, henceforth jealous of and hostile to each other. Lastly, we have the genealogy of the race by which God was pleased to name Himself; for God is the Lord God of Shem. The importance of these chapters will be felt. The preceding chapters gave us, after the creation, the great original principles of man's ruin, closing with judgment, in which the old world found its close. Here we have the history of our present world . . . . . . The result of this history is that the world is set out by families. The fashion of this world has obliterated the memory and the perception of this, but not the power. It is rooted in the judgment of God.; and when the acquired force of this world becomes weak, will be ever more apparent, as it now really works. The fountain heads were three, first named in the order — Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: the first being the family in which the covenant was to be established, and with which God was to be in relationship; then he who was in hostility with God's family; and last, though eldest and proudest, the Gentile Japheth. In the detail Japheth is given first. The isles of the Gentiles in general, that is, the countries with which we are familiar, were peopled by his descendants. But the great moral questions and power of good and evil in the world arose elsewhere, and the evil now (for it was man's day) before the good. The East, as we call it, was in the hands of Ham. There power first establishes itself by the will of one in Nimrod. A mighty hunter — force and craft — works to bring untamed man, as well as beast, under his yoke. And cities arise; but Babel was the beginning of his kingdom; others he went out and built or conquered. Another branch of his family is marked as forming the races in possession of the inheritance destined of God for His people. Shem comes last: the father of Hebrews, the brother of him who has long despised him as possessed of an elder brother's title.

"Such is the general result in the peopling of the world under God's ordering. The way was this. Man sought to make a centre for himself . . . . . Will characterized all now; but in a multitude of wills, all impotent as centres, what can be done? A common centre and interest is sought, independent and exclusive of God . . . . . . They must get a name for themselves to be a centre. And God scatters into nations by judgment what would not fill the earth by families in peace. Tongues and nations must be added to families to designate men on the earth. The judged place becomes the seat of the energetic will of one — the apostate power. The beginning of Nimrod's kingdom was Babel. Tongues were a restraint and an iron band round men. In them God's history begins; He is the Lord God of Shem. We have dates and epochs; for, after all, God governs, and the world must follow — man belongs to God . . . . . . But of known history God's people have ever been the centre. This comes down to Abraham. And here again a new element of evil had become universal, at least practically so: — Idolatry (Joshua 24: 2). We have seen the wickedness and violence of man, his rebellion against God, and Satan's craft to bring him into this state; but here an immense step is made, an astonishing condition of evil appears on the scene. Satan thrusts himself, to man's mind, into the place of power, and so seizes the idea of God in man's mind, placing himself between God and him, so that men worship devils as God. When it began scripture does not say; but the passage cited shows that it had contaminated even Shem's family, in the part of it which scripture itself counts up as God's genealogy in the earth, at the time we have arrived at. Individuals may be pious; but in every sense the link of the world with God was gone. Here, therefore, we change entirely the whole system and order of thought; and a principle in exercise without doubt from the beginning, but not manifested in the order of things, declares itself, and comes into evidence in the history of the earth. Abraham is called, chosen, and made personally the depositary of the promises."

But we must now turn to the rich field of scripture in which Dr. F.'s fifth section professes to glean, — Abraham and Isaac, Jacob and his sons, as the subjects and channels of blessing. The history of Abraham he divides into three main parts — the call and its results (Gen. 12-14); the covenants (Gen. 15-17); and the sacrifice of Isaac (Gen. 22) Here, again, we do not overlook many observations true and valuable, but we have to repeat that, viewed as a typical treatise, his method and applications are meagre and defective, when not absolutely erroneous. But here also we must quote the "Synopsis," which is to us a far pleasanter task than criticising the Typology, "The revelation of God, when (we are) far upon Him, sets us out on the journey of faith, inspires the walk toward heaven. When in the heavenly position, God reveals Himself for communion and worship, and a full revelation of His ways. The Canaanite is in the land; but the Lord reveals Him. self, shows the heir and inheritance when the Canaanite will be gone; and so Abraham worships by faith as before he walks by faith. This is the full double function of faith. The rest of the chapter (Gen. 12) is the history of his personal want of it. Pressed by circumstances, he does not consult God, finds himself in presence of the world, where he seeks help and refuge, and denies his true relationship to his wife, (just as has been done it respect of the Church,) is cherished by the world, which God at last judges, sending Abraham again out from it. During this period, and until he was returned to the place from which he started, he Lad no altar. When he left Egypt and returned to his strangership in Canaan, he had what he had before. What a warning for Christians as to the relationship of the Church with Christ! And however the world may be a help for the Church, this relationship cannot be maintained when we seek that help." Then, as to Gen. 13, it is remarked that we have in Abraham the path of the heavenly man, and in Lot the believer linked with the world and suffering its vicissitudes, as soon appears in Gen. 14. "Such are the just discipline and faithful ways of God. These last circumstances are the occasion of the manifestation of the Kingly Priest, King of Righteousness and King of Peace, i.e., Christ, millennial king of the world, blessing victorious Abraham, and on Abraham's behalf, blessing the Most High God, who had delivered his enemies into his hand. In this picture, then, we have the final triumph of the family of faith over the power of the world, realized in spirit by the Church for a heavenly hope and association with Christ, and literally by the Jews on the earth, for whom Christ will be Melchizedek — priest in full accomplished position — Priest on His throne, Mediator in this character, blessing them and blessing God for them; God Himself then taking, fully and indeed, the character of possessor of heaven and earth. When God had thus revealed Himself, according to this establishment of blessing in power on the earth, through the priestly, king Melchizedek, naturally the actual blessing of the chosen people finds its place; and in Gen. 15 we have the detailed instruction of the Lord to Abraham regarding the earthly seed and the land given to him — the whole confirmed by a covenant where God, as light to guide and furnace to try, deigns to bind Himself to the accomplishment of the whole."

We need not dwell on the episode of Gen. 16 — the effort on Sarah's part to forestall the promise of the Lord in the preceding chapter, which ends, as all that is of the will of the flesh and of man must, in disappointment and sorrow. Gen. 17 brings in God on the scene, the Almighty God, who talks with Abraham, opens out larger and higher hopes, not legally but unconditionally, though with circumcision annexed, i.e., a sign which confessed the death of the flesh. Gen. 18 - 21 is a fresh and beautiful unfolding of the thoughts and dealings of God connected with the promised seed. Then comes the figure of the death and resurrection of the seed in Gen. 22; the disappearance of the covenant form of blessing (Sarah) in Gen. 23; and the call of the Bride for the risen Bridegroom in Gen. 24 The history of Jacob is the striking prefiguration of God's ways with the earthly people, Israel, as we have had before the heavenly people, the Church. In the closing chapters, which concern the twelve patriarchs, we have the deeply interesting type, in Joseph, of Him who was sold by His brethren to the Gentiles, and, as it were, dead; afterwards, and unknown to his kin, exalted to the right hand of the throne, whence He administers all authority over the world; has, meanwhile, a Gentile bride and children; but at length is made known to His brethren in glory, who had scorned Him in humiliation, who owed all to His sustaining wisdom and love, and, finally, are established through Him in the best of the land.

This mere syllabus of the types contained in the history of Genesis must suffice for the present, particularly as other papers in, our current and future numbers will indicate what we conceive to be a truer and more distinct application. But we cannot close without a word on the sixth section, wherein the question of the inheritance is discussed. Here, though there is much that is sensible at the beginning, Dr. F.'s system necessarily distorts his conclusion and deprives him of one half of the truth. He proves clearly that the promise of Canaan to the fathers, as well as to their seed, involves the resurrection from the dead. He owns that, so far, the Rabbis, with all their blindness, seem to have had juster, because more scriptural, notions of the truth and purposes of God, than some popular Gentile theologians, who have been too much tinctured by Platonic philosophy. But when he proceeds to reason that as the risen body is to be glorified, so the inheritance it occupies must be a glorified one too, it is manifest that he overlooks other and connected truths. It does not seem to occur to him that, in the kingdom of God, earthly things are found as well as heavenly (Comp. John 3; Eph. 1: 10, etc.; Col. 1; Rev. 21.) At the least, he cannot take for granted the very thing which is denied by a large body of christian men. Our scheme — that is, as we are convinced, the scriptural one, — is neither heaven alone, nor earth alone, but both united under the dominion of the Lord Jesus Christ, with the glorified saints in the heavenly places, and men, in their natural bodies, especially Israel, blessed for 1000 years on the earth. These are harmonious but varied spheres of blessing, the risen saints being the instruments of the truly divine joy of love and beneficence with Christ, yet more conspicuously than the evil spirits are now the instruments of Satan's malicious and destructive power. It is remarkable that, as to this, Dr. F.'s quasi-spiritualism ends in denying the proper heavenly glory of the risen saints. All the inheritance they have to look for is the renovated earth. The testimony of John 14 and 17 the doctrine of Ephesians throughout, and of Hebrews, and not to speak of the Epistles of Peter and Jude, the pictures of Revelation go for nothing. The Church is reduced to a glorious earthly inheritance, after all, and, by a poor juggle of words, this is called heaven! "God can make any region of His universe a heaven . . . . and why might He not do so here," etc.? But why, then, speak of both heavens and earth in the time of incipient and of perfected glory? The reason is, because the Bible distinguishes what Dr. F. here labours to confound.

To notice the appendices at any length would detain us too long. Suffice it to say that they refer: — A. to typical forms in nature; B. to the Old Testament in the New, under six heads; C. to the doctrine of a future state; D. to sacrificial worship; and E. to the question whether the original relation of the seed of Abraham to the land of Canaan affords any ground for expecting their final return to it. This Dr. F. decides in the negative, chiefly because he assumes that the present dispensation is the last, and that the brightest visions of glory in Old and New Testament prophecy are to be realized either in the Church as it now is, or in the eternal state. No room is left for the distinctive features of the millennium for earth or for heaven. Dr. F. reads them not in his Bible.

No. IV. — THE HISTORIES OF EXODUS.

Here we enter upon the broader field of a people the special object of God's dealings. Individuals there are still, of course, prominent instruments for good or ill, as God or the enemy governed. But the distinctive display is of God's pity and power in behalf of His unworthy Israel, whom He redeems triumphantly in the face of their oppressors. But His people, as proud alas! as they were poor, abandon the two-fold revelation which God had made of Himself, whether as the Almighty God of their fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or as the One who was now first known in peculiar relationship as, Jehovah. Yes! unwittingly, but most truly, they look away from the promises, and cease to lean on His outstretched arm who had gotten them the victory, and at Sinai this fatal word was passed, "All that the LORD hath spoken we will do;" and the law came in with its awful distance, and darkness, and death too, too near. Up to this God had acted in pure grace towards Israel. But they appreciated His ways no more than they judged themselves aright. With the ignorance and self-confidence of the flesh, they supposed that, just as they were, they only needed to know the will of God in order to render an acceptable obedience: the rock on which splits every unconverted man who, in a measure, owns his responsibility to God, but assumes his freedom and his power to serve. But their pride had a speedy fall; and the golden calf witnessed the crash of the tables of stone, followed by a new interference of God, who, along with the law, introduced the mediatorial principle and unfolded, in the tabernacle and its vessels, etc., the beautiful shadows of the grace and truth which should come by the Lord Jesus Christ.

Such we conceive to be the general outline of this most instructive book. At the details we must now glance, and with scanty help from the "Typology," which, even here (vol. ii. pp. 4-6) resumes the assault upon the proper hope of Israel, or, as it is there styled, "the Church."

Exodus 1 is the preface or introduction, presenting, in a few graphic strokes, the children of Egypt in the iron furnace, when "there arose up a new king which knew not Joseph." Their increase and their might excite his crooked and malicious policy. In vain "The more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew." Not content with a rigour which embittered the captive with hard bondage, the king devises a murderous scheme, which, however, depended for its success on lowly women, who "feared God, and did not as the king commanded them." The persecution of man not only drew out the favour of God in behalf of those menaced, but, in His singular and wise providence (Ex. 2), the daughter of the cruel king became the shield of Israel's future deliverer, in the person of the infant Moses. We might have imputed the secreting of the babe to mere amiable or strong parental feeling; but Heb. 11: 23 shows that this is to overlook a deeper thing. "By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three mouths of his parents." "But, although providence responds to faith, and acts in order to accomplish God's purposes, and control the walk of His children, it is not the guide of faith, though it is made so sometimes by believers who are wanting in clearness of light. Moses' faith is seen in his giving up, when grown to age, all the advantages of the position in which God had set him by His providence. Providence may, and often does, give that which forms, in many respects, the servants of God for their work, but could not be their power in the work. These two things must not be confounded. It gives that, the giving up of which is a testimony of the reality of faith and of the power of God which operates in the soul. It is given that it may be given up: this is part of the preparation. This faith acted through affections which attached him to God, and consequently to the people of God in their distress, and manifested itself, not in the helps or reliefs which his position could well have enabled him to give them, but in inducing him to identify himself with that people, because it was God's people. Faith attaches itself to God, and appreciates, and would have part in, the bond that exists between God and His people; and thus it thinks not of patronizing them from above, as if the world had authority over the people of God, or was able to be a blessing to them. It feels (because it is faith,) that God loves His people; that His people are precious to Him, — His own on the earth; and faith sets itself thus, through very affection, in the position where His people find themselves. This is what Christ did. Faith does but follow Him in His career of love, however great the distance at which it walks. How many reasons might have induced Moses to remain in the position where he was! and this even under the pretext of being able to do more for the people; but this would have been leaning on the power of Pharaoh, instead of recognizing the bond between the people and God. It might have resulted in a relief which the world would have granted, but not in a deliverance by God, accomplished in His love and in His power. Moses would have been spared, but dishonoured; Pharaoh would have been flattered, and his authority over the people of God recognized; and Israel would have remained in captivity, leaning on Pharaoh instead of recognizing God in the precious and even glorious relationship of His people with Him. God would not have been glorified. Yet all human reasoning, and all reasoning connected with providential ways, would have induced Moses to remain in his position: faith made him give it up." ("Synopsis," pp. 55-57.)

Nevertheless, like the blessed one whom he foreshadowed, his own received him not. He is rejected by that Israel whom he loved. "There is a difference (says the author of the "Synopsis," p. 58) between this type and that of Joseph. Joseph takes the position, as put to death [in figure], of Jesus raised to the right hand of the supreme throne amongst the Gentiles, in the end receiving his brethren from whom he had been separated. His children are to him a testimony of his blessing at that time. He calls them Manasseh (because 'God,' says he, 'has made me forget all my labours and all the house of my father'), and Ephraim, ('because God has made me fruitful in the land of my affliction'). Moses presents to us Christ separated from his brethren; and although Zipporah (as well as Joseph's wife) might be considered as a type of the Church, as the bride of the rejected deliverer, during his separation from Israel, yet, as to what regards his heart, his feelings, which are expressed in the names he gives to his children, are governed by the thought of being separated from the people of Israel. His fraternal affections are there. his thoughts are there; his rest and his country are there: he is a stranger everywhere else. Moses is the type of Jesus as the deliverer of Israel. He calls his son Gershom, that is to say, a 'stranger there,' 'for,' says he, 'I have sojourned in a strange land.' Jethro presents to us the Gentiles, among whom Christ and His glory were driven when He was rejected by the Jews."

Dr. Fairbairn's observations on the "bondage" call for scarcely any comment, chiefly because there is so little in them. It is a mistake to look for typical instruction here. Thus, in the first of these sections, he draws the lessons: 1st, that the bondage was a punishment from which Israel needed redemption; and 2nd, that it formed an essential part of the preparation requisite for their occupying the inheritance. (Vol. ii. pp. 12-22). This is followed by another dreary essay on the "deliverer and his commission" (pp. 23-33), occupied upon some of the more obvious facts in the early part of Exodus, the position of Moses, his first haste, his subsequent shyness, the burning bush, and the name of God,* and closing with some deductions: 1st, as to the dueness of the time; 2nd, as to the deliverer's arising "within the Church itself;" 3rd, "not altogether independent of the world;" and 4th, as to his being "peculiarly of God." As little can we say of the long discussion that succeeds. (See. 3, "The Deliverance," pp. 34-57).

*"'I AM' is His own essential name, if He reveals Himself; but as regards His government of and relationship with the earth, His name — that by which He is to be remembered to all generations — the God of Abraham, of Isaac, of Jacob. This gave Israel, now visited and taken up of God under this name, a very peculiar place. In Abraham first God had called any out, first to him given any promises. He first had been publicly called apart from the world, so that God called Himself his God. He never calls Himself God of Abel or of Noah, though, in a general sense, He is the God, of course, of every saint. Faith itself is here pointed out as the way of righteousness. In Eden God, in judging the serpent shall announced the final victory of the promised seed. In Abel He had shown what acceptable sacrifice from a sinner was — not the fruits of his labour under judgment, but the blood God's grace had given to him, which answered his need; In Enoch, clear and absolute victory over death, and removal from earth, God taking him; In Noah, deliverance through judgment when the world was judged. Then a new world begun, and a ceasing, through the sweet savour of sacrifice, to curse the earth, and a covenant for its preservation from any future destruction by water. But in Abraham we have one called out from the world (now worshipping other gods) brought into separate and immediate connection with God, and promises given to him — a person called to be the object and depositary of God's promises. This gave him a very peculiar place. God was his God. He had a separate place from all the world with Him as the heir of the promise. He is the stock and root of all heirs of it. Christ Himself comes as seed of Abraham, who is the father also of the faithful as to the earth. Israel is the promised nation under this title. As regards election they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. In this name consequently, as His eternal memorial, God would now deliver them, At the same time God foretells, that Pharaoh will not let the people go, but takes clearly the ground of His authority and of His right over His people, and of authoritative demand upon Pharaoh that he should recognize them. Upon his refusal to do so, he would be judged by the power of God." (Synopsis, pp. 61, 62.)

Much is said of the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. It is really a simple matter. It has its parallel in the ways of God with man on a large scale; as when He gave up the Gentiles to a reprobate mind, and poured judicial blindness on the Jews. So He will yet do with professing Christendom, sending them strong delusion, because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved. In Pharaoh's case, as in all the others, the will was utterly wrong, and opposed to God from the first; when this was distinctly pronounced, God did harden and covered them with darkness to their merited destruction. God never made Pharaoh, nor any one else, to be wicked; but they, being wicked, had adequate and urgent testimonies which, by God's judgment, served but to blind the king, who from the first scornfully asked, "who is Jehovah that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not Jehovah neither will I let Israel go." In p. 40, Dr. F. seems to speak of the miraculous vouchers which Moses was instructed to work at the commencement of his operations, as being precisely the field on which Pharaoh might be tempted to think he could successfully compete with Moses. But it was forgotten, perhaps, that though one of them — the change of the rod into a serpent, and vice versa — was repeated before the king and the magicians, these signs were primarily intended for Israel rather than for the Egyptians (Exodus 4: 1-8, and 29-31). There is no attempt to explain their significance. The first appears to set forth the rod of power, assuming a satanic character, but afterwards restored to its true place; and the second, the deeper ruin of man, as fallen into loathsome uncleanness, cleansed by God's immediate power and goodness. The third, which was more judicial in its nature, does not seem to have been called for by the Israelitish elders, but fell, in a yet more aggravated form, not as a token, but as a plague on the Egyptians — the change of what was originally given for refreshing man and fertilizing the earth into the revolting image of judgment and death.

As to the plagues Dr. F. remarks how excellently they were fitted to expose the futility of Egyptian idolatry, and to show how entirely everything there was at the disposal of the God of Israel, whether for good or evil. The first nine gradually ascend from the lower to the higher provinces of nature and of nature-worship, till the tenth sounds the signal of Israel's redemption in the death of Egypt's first-born, announced from the beginning (Ex. 4: 22, 23). But our author fails to discriminate the two parts in the deliverance. He notices "the firstborn," as representing all, and the blood of the lamb as the sign of mercy rejoicing against judgment, and the "borrowing" (Ex. 3: 22; Ex. 12: 35, etc.) as meaning really and simply a demand with which the Egyptians willingly complied, if they did not rather invite the Israelites to ask. But the precious, spiritual import of the Passover and Red sea must not be expected. For this we turn to the "Synopsis," p. 65. "What happened at the Red sea was, it is true, the manifestation of the illustrious power of God, who destroyed with the breath of His mouth the enemy that stood in rebellion against Him — final and destructive judgment in its character, no doubt, and which effected the deliverance of His people by His power. But the blood signified the moral judgment of God and the full and entire satisfaction of all that was in His being. God (such as He was in His justice, His holiness, and His truth) could not touch those who were sheltered by that blood. Was there sin? His love towards His people had found the means of satisfying the requirements of His justice, and at the sight of that blood, which answered everything that was perfect in His being, He passed over it consistently with His justice and even His truth. Nevertheless God, even in passing over, is seen as judge. Hence, likewise, so long as the soul is on this ground, its peace is uncertain, its ways in Egypt, being all the while truly converted; because God has still the character of Judge to it, and the power of the enemy is still there. At the Red sea God acts in power according to the power of His love: consequently the enemy, who was closely pursuing His people, is destroyed without resource. This is what will happen to the people at the last day, already in reality, to the eye of God, sheltered through the blood. As to the moral type, the Red sea is evidently the death and resurrection of Jesus and of His people in Him; God acting in it in order to bring them out of death, where He had brought them in Christ, and consequently beyond the possibility of being touched by the enemy. We are made partakers of it already through faith. Sheltered from the judgment of God by the blood, we are delivered, by His power which acts for us, from the power of Satan, the prince of this world. The blood keeping us from the judgment of God was the beginning. The power which raised us with Christ has made us free from the whole power of Satan who followed us, and from all his attacks and accusations. The world who will follow that way is swallowed up in it."

The fourth section of this chapter introduces us to the march through the wilderness, with the manna, the water, and the pillar of cloud and fire. The opportunity of the song of Moses was too good to lose for a thrust at those who by and by expect "a corporeally present Saviour, inflicting corporeal and overwhelming judgments on adversaries in the flesh." Dr. F. would gladly reduce the grand future dealings of God to providential actings, or victories to be won by spiritual weapons. The Lord coming to judge the quick — the habitable earth — is an unpalatable truth. Because He did not come in the type, it is inferred, most illogically, that He may not be personally looked for in the antitypical conflicts of the last days. But if Dr. F. can thus unseasonably foist in his postmillennial prejudices, he is apparently unable to see how the entrance of the desert is inaugurated with a song of triumph, which bespeaks faith's estimate of their complete deliverance by God's power, the security of His counsels in their behalf, and their confidence in His guidance all the way through.

Nevertheless, it is into the wilderness, not into Canaan, that God's deliverance brings His people: there trials of every sort appear and thicken. For three days after the song, they go through the wilderness and find no water. (Ex. 15: 22.) Nor is this all; when they find some at Marah, the water is bitter. Spite of their murmuring, the Lord hears Moses, and shows him a tree, which, when cast in, made the waters sweet. "If death has delivered them from the power of the enemy, it must become known in its application to themselves (bitter to the soul, it is true, but, through grace, refreshment of life, for in all these things is the life of the Spirit). It is death and resurrection in practice after the deliverance. Thereupon we have the twelve wells and seventy palm trees* — types, it seems to us, of these living springs and of that shelter which have been provided through instruments chosen of God for the consolation of His people" (Synopsis, p. 68).

*The Lord adopted this number in His two closing missions of the disciples to Israel.

Ex. 16 shows us Israel murmuring again, but the Lord answers in nothing but grace; though, as Moses and Aaron protested, the murmuring was against Him, and not them. They had murmured at Marah, yet the bitter waters were immediately sweetened. They murmured, now hungry, but the word is, "ye shall see the glory of Jehovah." "I have heard," says He, "the murmurings of the children of Israel." What, then, was Moses to report? judgment? Wrath did come upon them another day, when, despising the manna, they insisted on meat, and persevered in their lust, when they ought to have been ashamed and sorrowing at their self-will and unbelief, rebuked by the miracle which laid it at their feet. But Taberah beheld the graves of lust (Num. 11.) This, however, was after the law came in, and God righteously judged the sinners who presumed to make the blessing depend on their own power of obeying it. But up to Sinai it was not law, but grace. "Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." Accordingly the Lord told Moses to say, "at even ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be filled with bread: and ye shall know that I am the Lord your God," Their absolute need was now plain. In the wilderness, who but God could supply bread for such a multitude? But he did supply it bountifully, and at their doors. "He that gathered much had nothing over, he that gathered little had no lack; they gathered every man according to his eating." Notwithstanding it was so given that day by day they must depend on Himself; no store could be — save to mark the sabbath, the day of rest. It is Christ, the true manna from heaven, who gives eternal life and brings us into rest. And this is the more striking, inasmuch as Ex. 17 discloses (in the rock giving out water, followed by the fighting with Amalek) the clear type of Christ imparting the Holy Ghost, who animates and strengthens us in our conflicts. Here, too, the people had murmured for thirst, as before for hunger: but as grace rained bread and gave them rest, so did it supply living waters from the smitten rock, their refreshment in the battle that quickly ensued. The connection of the manna with the Sabbath is as useless in Dr. F.'s hands, as is the war with Amalek after the waters had flowed from the rock. So with the type of Joshua, (who always represents Christ in spirit fighting for and with His own,) going forth, while Moses, sustained by Aaron and Hur, is interceding on high. "Sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace." There is no fighting in Egypt. At the Passover, at the Red sea, God alone smote the foe; but now that the people are redeemed — now that they have found in Christ food and rest for their souls, and have received through Him the Spirit. as a well of water springing up into everlasting life, they are brought into conflict, victory in which is sure, for it is Jehovah that wars, through Israel, with Amalek. It is He who orders it to be written and rehearsed that He will utterly put out the remembrance of the enemy from under heaven. But then He wars through His people, and they are as dependent on Him in the fight as previously they were for their food. From this, their earliest struggle, but a struggle never to be relaxed till God alone take all in hand, the people are taught that to win the day is not by courage nor by strength, not by numbers nor by skill, — nay, not by a just cause, were it the Lord's own cause and His people the assailed, not the assailants, Israel must learn the lesson, trying to flesh and blood, that all their success depends on the hands held up for them above. Blessed be the name of God! the hands of our mediator are never heavy. He needs no Aaron nor Hur to stay His hands; He is all that we want. Our need is to war only in dependence on Him; to be confident of victory, but no less confident that without Him we can do nothing; when victorious, to build our altar to Him who is our banner; but even in victory and in worship to be watchful, because Jehovah's oath is — "war with Amalek from generation to generation."

The thoughts of our author on the cloudy pillar demand no particular notice; but it may be remarked that the striking scene in Ex. 18 is passed — by in the "Typology." And no wonder; for it is the sweet foreshadowing of an era whose true features are effaced for the eyes of the writer. From the Paschal lamb and the Red sea we have had the types of grace reigning through righteousness. These are closed and crowned by the appropriate figure in chap. 18 of the millennial kingdom and glory. Zipporah, the Gentile bride of Moses (who had been hidden in the father's house while the process of Egypt's judgment and Israel's deliverance was going on) is now manifested with the bridegroom, The name of the second son, Eliezer, first appears; for, as Moses said, "the God of my father was mine help, and delivered me from. the sword of Pharoah," the application of which, to the circumstances which immediately precede the joy of the millennium, must be obvious. Moreover the Gentiles are there, set forth by Jethro at the "mount of God." Gladly the Gentile blesses Jehovah, who had delivered His people from their oppressors, and confesses that He is greater than all gods. That is, we have the prefiguring of the day when the sons of the stranger shall he "brought to the Lord's holy mountain; when. their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted on His altar; when (the Lord having avenged the blood of His servants, and proved His mercy to His land and people) the nations, not in principle merely, but in result, shall rejoice with them; when a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment. "He shall judge thy people with righteousness, and thy poor with judgment. The mountains shall bring peace to the people, and the little hills by righteousness." "In his days shall the righteous flourish, and abundance of peace so long as the moon endureth."

The second chapter (pp. 86-194) is devoted to the subject of the law, and consists of six sections: I. What properly, and in the strictest sense, is termed the law, viz., the decalogue, its perfection and. completeness, both as to the order and substance of its precepts; II. Apparent exceptions to its perfection and completeness as the permanent and universal standard of religious and moral obligation — its reference to the special circumstances of the Israelites, and the representation of God as jealous; III. Further exceptions — the weekly Sabbath; IV. What the law could not do — the covenant-standing and privileges of Israel before it was given; V. The purposes for which the law was given, and the connection between it and the symbolical institutions; and VI. The relation of believers, under the New Testament, to the law — in what sense they are free from it — and why it is no longer proper to keep the symbolical institutions connected with it.

That which has given us most pleasure is the frank acknowledgment in the last section, that Christian liberty involves deliverance from the law, not as to justification only, but as to walk and conduct. He rightly argues that it is this last respect which the apostle has in view in Rom. 6, 7. He meets the objection that this is to take away the safeguard against sin, by illustrations taken from a child no longer under parental restriction, and from a good man's relation to the laws of his country (pp. 178-182). The chief defect is — that this liberty is not set upon its right basis; viz., the possession of a risen life in Christ, as the consequence of accomplished redemption, and the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, as the power of communion and obedience, so fully brought out in Rom. 8. Hence, for the want of understanding this, Dr. F. falls into a line of thought which is foreign to scripture. Thus, he says, p. 181, "if only we are sufficiently possessed of this Spirit, and yield ourselves to His direction and control, we no longer need the restraint and discipline of the law." That is, he seems to consider our being under grace, and not law, as a point of attainment, instead of seeing that it is the common and only recognized ground on which the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus places all Christians. The death and resurrection of Christ are the key to this. It is not that the law is dead, but that in Christ we are dead to it, and alive to God under grace. Christ risen is our husband now, and not the law, "that we may bring forth fruit unto God." Rom. 8: 34 shows distinctly the triumphant result. The law never got its righteous requirement from a sinner. But what it could not do, God has done through redemption and grace. He has in His Son executed sentence on sin, not on acts merely, but on the whole thing, root and branch, thus perfectly freeing us who believe, "that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit."

NO. V. — THE TABERNACLE, AND ITS VESSELS.

The introductory section of our new chap. ii. (book iii.) enters at great length into the question why Moses was instructed in the wisdom of the Egyptians. Much of the argument appears to us extremely human, and it may be doubted how far anything satisfactory to the author himself is elicited. Such discussions tend to draw away attention from the genuine source of Moses' commission — the vision of glory in the burning but unconsumed bush — to the circumstances that preceded that great sight, or the flight into Midian forty years before. The worldly lore of Moses had no more to do with the deliverance which God wrought for His people, than the honour proffered by Pharaoh's daughter. The influence of these earthly advantages was rather negative than positive, inasmuch as they put Moses to the test, and proved whether he sought honour and ease for himself, or was the ready and willing servant of God's glory in behalf of Israel. Particular care seems to have been taken by God to guard against the rationalistic dream that either the redemption from Egypt, or the subsequent legislation in the desert, was derived, in any degree, from his early training in the learning of Egypt. Much more reasonable would it be to point us to the lessons he learned in solitary walk with God, as he tended the flocks of Jethro in the wilderness; for even the deliverer had to discover, by painful experience, that he was entirely dependent on God for the time, and the manner, and the wisdom, and the power that delivers. God would mark evidently that Egyptian might and knowledge could claim no part in His wonderful work. What was learnt there must be unlearnt first in lonely discipline; and the hasty zeal which supposed that his brethren must understand all at once the purpose of God is set aside, that the saving strength might have its spring and its direction in God Himself.

From more than one distressingly low and carnal reflection on this head, we turn to the happier theme of the tabernacle, or habitation of God, which He in His condescension deigned to occupy until the due time came when He settled His people in the outward rest of the kingdom — of course in type. A tent was all He would use previously; but that was the tent of meeting - not merely where Israel was to meet, but wherein God was to meet them. It was also called the tabernacle of testimony, because in its inmost recess lay the ark containing the tables which bore witness of that which God required from man.

In regard to the materials and general structure of the tabernacle and its utensils, Dr. F. discards symbolical meanings, and conceives simply that such metals, fabrics, etc., were employed as were at hand, and conveyed the most fitting impressions of God's majesty. Hence precious stones, gold, silver, blue, and purple, and scarlet; hence the choice of shittim or acacia wood, as the common and only suitable tree in that part of Arabia. But separate and spiritual meanings are eschewed as "without any solid foundation," splendour of colour and rarity being the grand considerations. "So far as the metals were concerned, we see no ground in scripture for any symbolical meaning being attached to them, separate from that suggested by their costliness and ordinary uses. A symbolical use of certain colours we undoubtedly find, such as of white, in expressing the idea of purity, or of red, in expressing that of guilt; but when so used the particular colour must be rendered prominent, and connected also with all occasion plainly calling for such a symbol, This was not the case in either respect with the colours in the tabernacle." Of course, we altogether reject such an arbitrary settlement of the question, as well as the reason for it in the contradictions of typologists. Our ignorance, or that of others, ought never to weigh when we approach a book filled, as scripture is, with a divine purpose from one end to the other. If it were simply a description of some human personage, decked out after his own fancy, we could understand no stress laid upon the choice, save as evidencing, his own state of mind; but to assume that God directs certain colours, etc., to be used, corresponding with a pattern shown above to Moses, and that no moral meaning is to be gleaned from all, is a far more serious error than the precipitance which suggests a mistaken signification. It is to create a solitude, a waste, and to call it peace and wisdom. It is to give up seeking to understand a precious part of God's word.

"Of what, then," says Dr. F., (vol. ii. p. 236,) "was the tabernacle a type? Plainly of Christ, as God manifest in the flesh and reconciling flesh to God." With the general idea we agree, if we did not know that the sentence only keeps the promise to the eye, for in p. 243 the characteristic error of the typical writers is said to be for the most part understanding everything "personally of Christ." It may be, too, that the phrase, "reconciling flesh to God," is not intended to convey anything strange and unsound, But we do object to it as an unscriptural expression, calculated to cover and countenance the evil spirit of semi-Irvingism, which, we fear, is far from being wholly exorcised from its northern haunts. The Bible teaches, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself; but that is another thing, and evidently in contrast with His government under the law, which put sinful men far off, instead of seeking such. When Jehovah came down on Sinai, bounds were set, and death menaced him who should venture to touch the mount. But God was in Christ, reconciling, not repelling, and trespasses were discovered in all their hatefulness, but not imputed, as was necessarily done in the legal system. Such, too, was the aspect of God in Christ, not merely to Israel, but to the world. But this has nothing really in common with "reconciling flesh to God." Still less is there anything resembling it in the blessed actings of God which laid the basis of all reconciliation in the cross and death of Christ. For man was too far gone to be profited even by the incarnate Son of God: he was lost, and salvation by blood was absolutely needed, and a new and risen life from God, The true doctrine, then, is not that Christ's flesh was the representative and root of all flesh as redeemed, but that He has reconciled us who believe, in the body of His flesh THROUGH DEATH. Thus divine favour flows through, and rests on the ground, not of incarnation merely, but of redemption. Christ was the "seed corn," no doubt, but that figure is the one expressly used by our Lord to show that, till death and resurrection, there was and could be no fruit of like kind. "Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." Enemies as we were, we could not be reconciled to God save by the death of His Son. Nothing short of the cross could reconcile us unto God in one body, because there only the enmity was slain. Hence, whatever the blessed and perfect display of God and man in His person here below, Christ is never treated as head of the body till He arose "the beginning, the first-born from the dead," and ascended to heaven. He was born King of the Jews, as He had ever been and ever shall be the only begotten Son of the Father; but headship of the Church was a new relationship, only taken in resurrection and heavenly glory. As to all this no small confusion reigns in the "Typology."

The true design of the tabernacle, viewed in all its parts, in the book — of Exodus, we believe to have been mainly two-fold. First, there was the display of the ways of God to man; and secondly, there was the presentation of man, or of the priests who acted for man, to God. A remarkable proof and confirmation of this appears in the arrangement, which at first sight seems peculiar, not to say disorderly; for the golden altar, on which the incense was burned, is not classed with the other vessels of the sanctuary (Ex. 25), nor is the layer treated of in the full description given of the outer court where the great brazen altar of burnt-offering appears (Ex. 27.) It is absurd, if we only think of Moses, to imagine that such a disposition of the holy vessels was the result of negligence or hazard; it is wicked so to think, if we own that God inspired the book, and directed the entire matter. As the directions stand, all the details of the vesture and consecration of the priesthood come in between certain of the holy vessels. It is not that they divide those pertaining to the holy of holies, nor even those of the holies in general, from the court outside. Man might have so arranged things, and called it order.

But the order of God is always profound and complete, and our wisdom is to follow and learn, not to judge, save in the sense of discerning its admirable propriety. Here, though not obvious, and thus more manifestly from above, the grouping is beautifully perfect. For we have the priests regulated in their due place (Ex. 28, 29) before the Spirit enjoins those things which distinctly typify the means of drawing near to God, or what the priests required for their sanctuary services. In other words, the first portion runs from Ex. 25 to Ex. 28: 19, and consists of the various manifestations of God, from the ark in the most holy place down to the brazen utensils and pins of the exterior court. The next two chapters concern Aaron and his sons, with the prefatory verses about the oil which fed the ever-burning lamp — though even here we doubt not that the idea, true of every institution before the priests are formally introduced, is the manifestation of God spiritually. But after they are fully brought before us, we have, in Ex. 30 the golden altar of incense, reserved till now, the ordinance of the atonement, the money for the service of the tabernacle, the layer of brass, the holy anointing oil, and the perfume or incense for use "before the testimony." The reason is plain. These, one and all, set forth, not God's displays to man, but the gracious provision for such as draw near to God; and therefore they rightly follow the account of the due attire of the priests, and of their official inauguration. This divine line of demarcation has altogether escaped the notice of Dr. F., or of the German theologians whom he generally follows.

The consequence of neglecting God's land-marks is plain. Another order usurps its place, and confusion is the inevitable result. The view borrowed from Hengstenberg is utterly inadequate to account for the phenomena within and without the sanctuary: it gives no key to the remarkable groups in which God has set things. It is a poor solution of these enigmas to lay down as an indisputable maxim that the holy of holies presents the things to be believed concerning God, and the holy place the things to be done by His believing people. Or, to cite the words of our author, "as Christ's whole undertaking is something sui generis, and chiefly to be viewed as the means of salvation and access to heaven, provided by God for His people, — as under this view it was already symbolized in the furniture and service of the most holy place, it is better and more agreeable to the design of the tabernacle to consider the things belonging to the holy place as directly referring only to the works and service of Christ's people." (p. 333.) Said we not truly that when Dr. F. spoke of the tabernacle as a type of Christ (p. 536), his words were not to be trusted? Here the larger, though we allow not the most momentous, part is spoken of as directly referring only to the works and services of Christ's people. Now we deny not, for a moment, the blessed manner and extent of the Lord's identification of His people with Himself; we allow that this is marked in a clear way in the instruments of service which met the eye in the sanctuary. But we affirm that the explanation offered fails in seizing the really salient points of the truth God is disclosing and this as to both divisions of the tabernacle, not to speak of its surrounding court. Thus the ark is entirely divested of its true bearing, when viewed as the symbol of "the means of salvation." The mercy-seat was really the throne of God's holy presence in the midst of Israel; the law beneath, which attested the righteousness which He could not but exact, and the cherubim, not looking outwards, as in the day of glory, pictured by the temple's order, but looking inwards and towards the mercy-seat. They were the emblems of the judicial power which guarded His throne and righteousness. Now not a word appears in all this, shadowing the means of salvation. Hence, Dr. F. is compelled to connect therewith the rites of the great day of atonement, as detailed in Lev. 16. But this is to wander from the end of the Spirit in the book of Exodus, in this particular part of it, which does not bear on the way and means of approaching God, but develops the various displays of God Himself. The design is to display God enthroned according to the rights of His moral nature, though in relationship with Israel.

The table of shittim wood, overlaid with gold, which comes next, but without the veil, of course, is the manifestation of God in man, as the golden candlestick is His display by the Holy Ghost — both the one and the other found in perfection in Christ Himself, like that closest of all set forth in the holiest. In every particular, then, Dr. F. is in error. None of these vessels, as exhibited in Exodus, properly refers to the means of salvation and access to heaven; all of them refer directly to divine manifestations in Christ, however by grace we may have fellowship and identification with Him in some of them. The same remark applies to the particulars about the tabernacle, its coverings, veil, and door in Ex. 26, as well as to the court and such of its contents as are given in Ex. 27. In this space, outside, the great altar overlaid with brass was the conspicuous object, where the people met God, or rather where He is here represented as manifesting Himself in righteousness about sin and in love to the sinner — the place, not of sin-offerings, but of burnt-offerings, where Christ, by the eternal Spirit, offered Himself without spot unto God, where he who believes may draw near to God displaying Himself in grace.

Again, if we glance for a moment at the golden altar in Ex. 30, the seriousness of the error is apparent, for being an instrument of service outside the veil, it must directly refer only to the works of Christ's people, according to the canon of Dr. F. That is, Christ is positively blotted out from the ministrations of the sanctuary. The golden altar and its incense directly refer to us, and not to Him, according to this calmly stated but rash theory. Are Christians really prepared for this?

Dr. F. may introduce saving clauses to conciliate those who would reject such a summary rejection of Christ from a large, if not the highest, department of His priestly office: for we must not forget that in the types Aaron acted, not only in the holiest, but in the sanctuary; not exclusively, of course, but most prominently. In the antitype, it is Christ in various spheres, Christ in the highest heavens, Christ in the heavenly places, the proper and destined home of our glory, and Christ in relation to the earth, that we have set forth in the tabernacle and its external precincts, where Israel drew near to God. But it is quite clear that if Dr. F.'s view were correct — if the sharp line of limitation which appropriates the inmost shrine to the types of Christ as the object of faith, and the apartment outside the veil to the representation of what Christians should be and do, — the Lord Jesus must not be immediately and directly connected with any vessels save the ark and the mercy-seat. And even on his own showing, the theory which thus limits the Lord to the holiest, and His people to what was found on the other side of the veil, does not stand the test: for, as we have seen in a previous part of the book, (and it is repeated here too,) the cherubim, made of the same piece as the golden mercy-seat, are regarded by the author as representations chiefly of "redeemed and glorified humanity," the "ideal heirs of salvation" (p. 302). Christ, therefore, instead of being the grand object as well as expression of God, instead of being impressed on the entire tabernacle, and on every part within and without, is restrained to the narrowest bounds that can be conceived.

Happily, the system is most inconsistent, and the language used, even respecting the altar in the court, is such as to suggest to others, if not to the author, that Christ alone is the full answer to that altar, as well as to the burnt-offerings which characterized it. Thus he says, in p. 283, "this altar of sacrifice was to be the grand point of meeting between God and sinful men, between God and man as sinful; and only by first meeting there and entering into a state of reconciliation and peace, could they afterwards be admitted into His house, as those who had the privilege of communion and fellowship with Him. The altar was, in a sense, God's table," etc. And where but in Christ is such a table, or meeting-place, between God and sinful man to be found? We trust that Dr. F. looks for it in Him only, and would repudiate it any where else. But if so, his systematic parcelling out of the sanctuary and its court is fundamentally defective and erroneous. Christ is set forth everywhere, according to the heavenly pattern, and this in relation to sinful men on earth, as well as to His saints as such, and to God in the intimacy of His being and as the supreme object of worship and allegiance. The most holy place naturally answers to the heaven of heavens, and the holy place to the lower heavens, according to the principle laid down in Heb. 9: 24 — the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not man, as they are called in Heb. 8: 2. The court without would, in like manner, correspond with the earthly scene of the manifestation of God to man and of his approach to God, as a sinner coming out of the world, not as a saint or priest, which, is a relationship rather appertaining to the holy place. That we are justified in thus viewing the whole universe, including the heavens and the earth, as the house or habitation, "the true," answering to the figures made with hands, is to us evident from Heb. 3: 4, "Every house is builded by some man, but he that built all things is God." The application of this could hardly be mistaken by an unprejudiced mind, least of all by the Hebrew believer, especially connected as it is with Moses the servant in the house of God. It is true that the tabernacle also applies to the Church, as the dwelling or house of God — Christ's own house, as we are here designated; and it is realized in the highest sense in the person of Christ Himself, the true temple. But these are far from being incompatible representations, but rather so many concentric circles round the one great thought — the habitation or dwelling-place of God, which, true of all, is emphatically verified in Christ and in His body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all.

We do not, of course, coincide with Dr. F.'s incredulity, (p. 2 30,) as to any special and spiritual reasons for the drapery and disposition of Ex. 26, 27 though fully allowing that the details of this (as of every other subject, which depends on the measure of our subjection to scripture and intelligence in the Spirit) are open to ready misapprehension, and may be abused by mere fanciful conjectures. On these the reader will find some profitable hints in the "Synopsis," pp. 75, 76.

No. VI. — THE PRIESTHOOD.

The investiture of the Priesthood, laid down in the two following chapters Ex. 27, 29), is deeply interesting, though both clothing and consecration have scanty measure dealt out in the "Typology." Aaron had to be clothed with special vestments for drawing near to the Lord, as representing the people whose names he bore; the type of what Christ does for us in heaven, hidden in God, like the high priest in the most holy place on the great day of atonement. A priest supposes miseries, infirmities, failures; he is a mediator to intercede for and represent the people before God. By this gracious provision our wretchedness becomes the occasion, not of judgment, but of the display of God's compassion and tenderness, while our great High Priest presents us to God in His perfection. The detail of this appears in these types. Redemption is supposed as the ground. Priesthood is not to redeem, but to maintain those redeemed in spite of failure. The garments, etc., figure that which is real in Christ, exercising His priesthood for us.

The Ephod was characteristically the priestly garment. It was made of the same materials and colours in the veil, save that no cherubim are here, for it was the emblem of Christ's essential purity and varied graces, apart from His judicial rights. Gold, too, was here, not in the veil — the emblem of divine righteousness, which has its appropriate place, when the veil was rent in Christ, the heavenly priest. It had two shoulder-pieces to it, and stones of memorial, which bore the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. There was an embroidered girdle which accompanied it, the sign of service, and a breastplate, which was to be carefully secured to the ephod, and which also bore twelve precious stones, each inscribed with the name of a tribe. Thus, if Aaron drew near to God, the weight of the people was upon his shoulders. So our government is upon Christ, in the presence of God. His glory there, His nearness to God, cannot be separated from us, He is there for us. Nor — is it merely a question of His strength bearing us up before God, but in Him we find all the precious reality foreshown by the breastplate of judgment. If a ray of God's goodness and glory shines on Christ, it shines also on us, who are carried on His heart; for the heart of Christ presents us before God. It is not some special things on our part, but ourselves that He presents, according to the love which reigns between the Father and the Son. We are continually before God, who never hides His face from us. He may chastise us for our faults, that we may not lose communion with Him, nor be condemned with the world. But if His face were hidden from us, it would be hidden from Christ: it is hidden now from Israel under law and the guilt of rejecting the Messiah. When we fail, it is a cloud that rises between God and us. Our will or our weakness is the cause, not the sovereignty of God. Nor is it that we require to be redeemed afresh, or that the blood-sprinkling needs to be repeated; but we have One who acts for us, and represents us worthily before God. He has the true Urim and Thummim in the breastplate of judgment. The blessing is given according to the lights and perfections of God; and our judgment is borne upon His heart before the Lord continually, for it was a question, we must always remember, not of acquiring righteousness, but of maintaining before God the cause of a failing people, and this, in our case, according to divine righteousness, which we are made in Christ. The consequence is moat blessed and sure. Grace is exercised, not merely because we return to the God we had slipped or wandered from, but to bring us back. Hence St. John does not say, "if any man repent," but "if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." The love Christ exercises about us springs from Himself. Thus we see, in Peter's case, it was not after his restoration, nor even when hiding for shame, that Christ said, "I have prayed for thee." It was before he fell. Christ's intercession was going on all the while. It is exercised because of our getting wrong, not because we are right. Our feebleness calls out the grace that is in Him. It may be an answer in the way of strength, or chastening, or warning, and then chastening is not needed. But in whatever way, it is of grace; and He obtains the needed blessing for us, according to the favour which God bears Him. Christ looked upon Peter, and this before Peter wept. It was just at the right moment, wrong as Peter had been. We know not what Peter might have done next; but the look sent him outside to weep. Much more is this true now for all saints; for the atonement is finished, the righteousness is accepted on high, and Christ is there to keep or set us right. He has undertaken our cause through the wilderness, where a merely righteous power could not bring us through, but rather consume us by the way. He keeps us for a "memorial before the Lord continually." He sustains us according to the power of inward grace before God. He bears us all and each in a detailed way, each by name engraved on His heart. According to our particular individuality He sustains us, and God looks upon us in the fulness of the complacency He has for Christ; just as we receive a child that is sent to us, according to the affection we have for its father.

This is precious; and the rather as it is the positive and divinely given provision for us in remembering, and yet counteracting, our individual imperfectness. Viewed as one with Christ, as members of His body, we are perfect: but this is a totally distinct thing from His representing us before God as priest, which is expressly to meet our failures. In the one cue we are seen in Him; in the other He acts for us on the footing of a righteousness which never changes nor fails, in order to reconcile our practical state and circumstances on earth with the standing which faith has in Christ above.

In these beautiful garments, then, was the high priest called to represent Israel, and neither shoulder-pieces nor breastplate could be loosed from them, that their names and their cause might be in perpetual remembrance. Aaron could not be thus with God, save as representing Israel. Equally impossible is it for Christ to stand in God's presence apart from us. His value in God's sight is thus drawn down on us. He became a servant when He took the form of man. He might have asked twelve legion of angels, and gone out free; but He chose to be a servant for ever. He did the will of God in His life, and in His death He bound Himself anew and eternally, and will thus manifest the grace of God, even in the glory, when He will gird Himself, and make His own servants sit down to meat, and come forth and serve them.

Such is our position by virtue of the priesthood of Christ. "If we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin." If a fault is committed, is there condemnation? No: but this is not because the gospel is less holy than the law (which is quite the contrary of the truth), nor is it because God thinks lightly of the sins of His children (which are, indeed, incomparably more grievous and dishonouring than the evils of others), but because Jesus Christ the righteous is there for us. But then He does deal according to His own light and perfection, even when He feels for us in all our need and weakness. It is the same in learning things of God, as in our daily judgment. It is according to Urim and Thummim that He instructs and guides us. What under law would be my ruin becomes by His grace the occasion and means of instruction. It is not only when we have outwardly failed that Jesus intercedes, but when in holy things we go to worship God, how often something comes in which cannot suit the holiness of God, distracting thought, human feeling, admiration of fine tones in singing, etc.! God would not have us to think lightly of such a thing, for it is through want of habitual communion with Him; but He comforts us with the assurance that we have got in Christ the reality of Aaron's mitre, with its golden plate and inscription — HOLINESS TO THE LORD. Thus when we worship, we may bow down and look up, not in lightness indeed, but in happy, holy liberty. We ought not to be satisfied without the full tide of affection going up to Him from us; but let us ever bear in mind that we are accepted because of His holiness. Hence in a new and higher strain may we take up that ancient oracle: "Sing unto the Lord, O ye saints of his, and give thanks at the remembrance of his holiness." The iniquity cannot be accepted, but it never goes up. We may always go to God because of Christ's constant appearing in His presence for us. He bears our failures that they may be judged — our weakness and ignorance, that strength and instruction may be given; but His heart is always engaged for us; His love is drawn out by our very and every need. It is not, on the one hand, that the evil is not corrected; nor, on the other, that we are put out of God's sight and memory for it, but that it is remedied because of Christ's all-powerful pleading — the same One who is the propitiation for our sins, and in whom we are accepted. This gives us courage to apply unsparingly the divine light and standard to our ways — not as if the question were of expecting condemnation by and by, but, emboldened by His grace, to judge ourselves thoroughly now. Our privilege is to increase in the knowledge of God Himself. We sin if we walk not in the light we have received. There is holiness in God's presence, but there is unfailing grace also. Our enjoyment is in the measure that we, by the Spirit, realize what we are in Christ before God. Our prayers rise in holiness before Him, because Christ is there. The taints and soils in our holy offering disappear through His mediation. While this makes us feel the extent of the love of which we are the objects, may it fill us with thanksgiving, and our joy be full! "Such an high priest became us."

But we must allow ourselves to quote an admirable passage from the "Synopsis." "The ground-work of the priesthood, then, was absolute personal purity — what we may call human righteousness — every form of grace interwoven with it; and divine righteousness [typified respectively by the fine linen and the gold]. It was service, and He was girded for it, but service before God. The loins were girt, but the garments otherwise down to the feet. This was especially the robe all of blue . . . . . . Introduced into the presence of God, according to divine righteousness, in the perfection of Christ, our spiritual light, and privileges, and walk, are according to this perfection of Him into whose presence we are brought. Christ bearing our judgment takes away all imputative character from sin, and turns the light, which would have condemned it and us, into a purifying, enlightened character, according to that very perfection which looks on us. This breastplate was fastened to the onyx stones of the shoulder above, and to the ephod above the girdle below. It was the perpetual position of the people, inseparable from the exercise of the high priesthood as thus going before the Lord. What was divine and heavenly secured it — the chains of gold above, and the rings of gold with lace of blue to the ephod above the girdle beneath. Exercised in humanity, the priesthood and the connection of the people with it, rests on an immutable, a divine and heavenly basis. Such was the priestly presentation of the high priest. Beneath this official robe he had a personal one all of blue. The character of Christ, too, as such, is perfectly and entirely heavenly. The sanctuary was the place of its exercise; so the heavenly priest must himself be a heavenly man; and it is to this character of Christ, as here in the high priest, that the fruits and testimony of the Spirit are attached — the bells and the pomegranates. It is from Christ in His heavenly character that they flow: they are attached to the hem of His garment here below. His sound was heard when he went in and when He came out; and so it has been and will be. When Christ went in, the gifts of the Spirit were manifested in the sound of the testimony, and they will be when He comes out again. The fruits of the Spirit, we know, were also in the saints. But not only were there fruits and gifts: worship and service, the presenting of offerings to God, was part of the path of the people of God. Alas! they also were defiled. It formed thus also part of the priest's office to bear the iniquity of their holy things. Thus the worship of God's people was acceptable, in spite of their infirmity, and holiness was ever before the Lord in the offerings of His house — borne on the forehead of the high priest, as His people were on the one hand presented to Him, and on the other, directed by Him, according to His own perfections through the high priest."

There is nothing particularly calling for notice in the remarks of Dr. F. on the ceremony of consecration. He does not appear to distinguish the two anointings of Aaron, though he sees the fact of course, and objects justly to Mr. Bonar's view as unsatisfactory. The truth is that the first unction of Aaron is a beautiful allusion to the Lord Jesus, who needed not blood as a prerequisite, but without sacrifice, and by reason of His own inherent and perfect holiness, was capable of being anointed with the Holy Ghost and with power. Such we know was the fact. But thus He was necessarily anointed alone. Therefore was the necessity of a second unction, if others were to share it, — the true sons of Aaron, whom God gave Him. Risen from the dead, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, He received the Spirit afresh (Acts 2: 33), and shed it on the disciples, who were now constituted His priestly house. They were sinful men, and the blood was essential as a preparation for the holy anointing oil, which represented, not the operation of the Spirit in cleansing (already set forth by the washing of water), but His presence in the way of power. They were now endued with power from on high. Nor is it wonderful that a writer, who holds such views as Dr. F.'s, should be incapable of appreciating the deeply interesting scene which preceded the fire that consumed Aaron's offering in Lev. 9: 24. First, Aaron blesses the people on coming down from his various offerings; then he, with Moses, goes into the tabernacle, and both come out and bless the people, when the glory of Jehovah appears, and the fire of divine judgment burns the offering, in token of plenary acceptance and favour; and this on the eighth day, the day of resurrection-glory. The application is obvious, save where a false system blinds the eye,. First, there is Christ, as priest, blessing in virtue of sacrifice; and then Christ, as king and priest, goes for a short season into that which typifies the heavenly places, and coming out blesses the people, and the display of glory and acceptance takes place in that day. It is a beautiful witness of the millennial kingdom and worship — not of the Church within, but publicly manifested glory.

No. VII, — THE OFFERINGS OF LEVITICUS,

In the present paper our aim will be to present a sketch of the chief subjects of interest in the third book of Moses. Within our narrow limits, no more can be contemplated than a rapid survey of the leading and distinctive ideas, as far as they are understood by us. Hence, also, we shall make use of what is excellent and instructive in the "Synopsis" rather than occupy space with a detail of errors and defects in this part of Dr. Fairbairn's "Typology."

It is evident that the grand thought here is not, as in Exodus, the deliverance and redemption of God's people and their establishment, as such before Him, whether under the law, or under the mediatorial system of divine government, which gives room for figures which are the manifestation of God to man, and for such as set forth the presentation of man to God, both alike, and only, found in Christ. In Leviticus the, characteristic, theme is access to God — the means or forms of it (Lev. 1 - 7); the persons charged with it (Lev. 8, 9); the things suitable to those standing in such a relationship with God, and the discernment of what defiled (Lev. 10 - 16); the provisions of the day of atonement for the purification of the sanctuary, the priesthood and the people (16); directions for guarding from impurity both people and priests, in their relations with God, with each other, or in any respect whatever (Lev. 17 - 22); the entire circle of the feasts, viewed as God's assembling His people around Himself, and His ways towards them from first to last (Lev. 23); then we have the intervention of the priesthood that there might be light before God, when darkness reigned without, and that the memorial of His people might be ever fragrant, side by side with the blasphemy of Jehovah's name that sprang from the union of an Israelite with an Egyptian, and its terrible doom. Next we have the sabbatical year, and the jubilee for the land, which God claimed as His own; and the blessed consequences for the heirs, as well as the inheritance. All pertained to Him, and He would surely, in due time, assert and make good His rights in their favour. No sale nor slavery should prevail when once the trumpet sounded on the part of God. If Lev. 26 opens out the miserable consequences of setting at naught the principles which God had laid down for the intercourse of His people with Himself, it does not close without a promise that on their repentance, whatever their ruin, He will remember the covenant with the early and the later fathers, when he made known His name to them respectively, as Almighty and as Jehovah. The restoration of Israel will behold all the might and unchangeable purpose unfolded in both titles. The book concludes with the regulation of vows, according to the valuation of the priests.

Thus we may observe how justly Leviticus has been styled by some one, "the priest's instruction-book," Accordingly, it is not the solemn utterance of God from Sinai, but "Jehovah called unto Moses and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation." (Lev. 1: l.) He is in the midst of a people already recognized as His, and He is communicating His mind as to their due means of approaching Him. Manifestly, the work of Christ furnishes the sole ground on which God could have such relations. The book, therefore, begins with the various figures whereby the Holy Ghost foreshadowed that work, in all its aspects to God and to His people. It is to be remarked, also, that God begins, not with that which most nearly touches the need of the sinner, but with the display of perfectness which satisfied His own heart, in Jesus devoting Himself, at all cost, to God's will, to death, even the death of the cross. In other words, whatever may be the result in blessing to the sinner, God begins with His Son giving Himself up without spot, that God might be glorified. Hence we see the key to the difference of the order here, and that which governs when the wants of man (priests, Lev. 8 lepers, Lev. 14 or any others) are in question. In these cases, the sin-offering has ever the first place; but in the original institution, where Christ is looked at rather than the sinner, it comes last.

The first great distinction, then, is between the offerings for sin and trespass, and those which precede them in the earlier chapters of Leviticus. The burnt-offerings, the meat-offerings, the peace-offerings, were alike offerings made by fire, of a sweet savour to the Lord; they represent, in various forms, the infinite perfectness of Christ's offering of Himself to God. On the other hand, the sin and trespass-offerings were charged and identified with sin, and were never viewed as offerings of a sweet savour. The very word which described their burning was distinct, as was the place; for, save in a very partial and exceptional instance, offerings for sin were burnt outside the camp.

Of the three voluntary offerings, which rose up variously indeed, but all as a sweet savour, and expressive of the perfectness of Christ and His sacrifice unto God, the Holocaust, or burnt-offering, is the first in order and importance. It was to be not only unblemished, but the best of its kind — "a male without blemish." "Nothing can be more touching or more worthy of profound attention, than the manner in which Jesus thus voluntarily presents Himself, that God may be fully, completely, glorified in Him. Silent in His sufferings, we see that His silence was the result of a profound and perfect determination to give Himself up in obedience to this glory; a service, blessed be His name, perfectly accomplished, so that the Father rests in His love towards us . . . . So in the burnt offering, he who offered, offered of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. Thus Christ presented Himself for the accomplishment of the purpose and glory of God. In the type, the victim and the offerer, were necessarily distinct: but Christ was both, and the hands of the offerer were laid on the head of the victim in sign of identity." (Compare Ps. 40 with Heb. 10; John 10: 18; John 14: 30, 31; Luke 9: 51.) "How perfect and full of grace is this way of the Lord; as constant and devoted to draw near, when God should be thus glorified, and submit to the consequences of His devotedness, (consequences imposed by the circumstances in which we are placed,) as man was to depart from God for his pleasure. He humbles Himself to death, that the majesty and the love of God, His truth and righteousness may have their full accomplishment through the exercise of His self devoting love."

"The offering was to be made the subject of the fire of the altar of God; it was out in pieces and washed, given up, according to the purification of the sanctuary, to the trial of the judgment of God; for fire as a symbol, signifies always the trial of the judgment of God. As to washing with water, it made the sacrifice typically what Christ was essentially — pure. But it has this importance that the sanctification of it and ours is on the same principle and on the same standard. We are sanctified unto obedience. He came to do the will of His Father, and so, perfect from the beginning, learns obedience by the things which He suffered; perfectly obedient always, but His obedience put ever more thoroughly to the test, so that His obedience was continually deeper and more complete: He learned obedience. It was new to Him as a divine person — to us as rebels to God — and He learned it in all its extent. Furthermore, this washing of water, in our case, is by the word, and Christ testifies of Himself that man should live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. This difference evidently and necessarily exists, that as Christ had life in Himself, and was the life (see John 1 and 5) we, on the other hand, receive this life from Him; and while ever obedient to the written word Himself, the words which flowed from His lips were the expression of His life — the direction of ours." . . .

"Here, then, Christ completely offered up to God for the full expression of His glory, undergoes the full trial of judgment. The fire tries what He is. He is salted with fire. The perfect holiness of God, in the power of his judgment, tries to the uttermost all that is in Him. The bloody sweat and affecting supplication in the garden, the deep sorrow of the cross, in the touching consciousness of righteousness, 'Why hast thou forsaken me? — as to any lightening of the trial an unheeded cry — all mark the full trial of the Son of God. Deep answered unto deep, — all Jehovah's waves and billows passed over Him. But as He had offered Himself perfectly to the thorough trial, this consuming fire and trying of His inmost thoughts did, could, produce nought but a sweet savour to God. It is remarkable that the word used for burning the burnt-offering is not the same as that of the sin-offering, but the same as that of burning incense. . . . . . . It is not in the sacrifice we are considering that He has the imposition of sin on Him, but the perfectness, purity and devotedness of the victim, and that ascending in sweet savour to God: in this acceptability — in the sweet savour of this sacrifice — we are presented to God. All the delight which God finds in the odour of this sacrifice blessed thought! — we are accepted in. Is God perfectly glorified in this, in all that He is? He is glorified then in receiving us. Does He delight in what Christ is, in this His most perfect act? He so delights in us. Does this rise up before Him a memorial for ever, in His presence, of delight? We also, in the efficacy of it, are presented to Him. It is not merely that the sins have been effaced by the expiatory act; but the perfect acceptability, of Him who accomplished it, the sweet savour of His sinless sacrifice, is our good odour of delight before God, and is ours — its acceptance, even Christ, is ours. We are one with Him."

The meat, or cake-offering, sets forth Christ as a living man here below, and this as offered up to God. "His offering shall be of fine hour; and he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense thereon." "This meat-offering, taken from the fruit of the earth, was of the finest wheat? That which was pure, separate, and lovely in human nature was in Jesus under all its sorrows, but in all its excellence, and excellent in its sorrows. There was no unevenness in Jesus; no predominant quality to produce the effect of giving Him a distinctive character. He was, though despised and rejected of men, the perfection of human nature. The sensibilities, firmness, decision, (though that attached itself also to the principle of obedience), elevation, and calm meekness, which belong to human nature, all found their perfect place in Him. In a Paul I find energy and zeal; in a Peter ardent affection; in a John tender sensibilities and abstraction of thought, united to a desire to vindicate what he loved, which scarce knew limit. But this predominates in a Peter. In a Paul, blessed servant though he was, he does not repent, though he had repented. He had no rest in his spirit when he found not Titus, his brother. He goes off to Macedonia, though a door was opened in Troas. He wist not that it was the high priest. He is compelled to glory of himself. In him, in whom God was mighty towards the circumcision, we find the fear of man break through the faithfulness of his zeal. He who would have vindicated Jesus in his zeal, knew not what manner of spirit he was of, and would have forbidden the glory of God, if man walked not with them. Such were Paul, and Peter, and John. But in Jesus, even in man, there was none of this unevenness; there was nothing salient in His character, because all was in perfect subjection to God in His humanity, and had its place, and did exactly its service, and then disappeared. God was glorified in it, and all was in harmony. When meekness became Him, He was meek; when indignation, who could stand before His overwhelming and withering rebuke! Tender to the chief of sinners in the time of grace — unmoved by the heartless superiority of a cold Pharisee, curious to judge who He was — when the time of judgment is come, no tears of those who wept for Him moved Him to other words than 'weep for yourselves and your children,' — words of deep compassion, but of deep subjection to the due judgment of God. The dry tree prepared itself to be burned. On the cross, tender to his mother, and trusting her in human care to one who, so to speak, had been His friend, and leant on His bosom, when His service was finished — no ear to recognize her word or claim, when His service occupied Him for God — putting both blessedly in their place, when He would show that before His public mission He was still the Son of the Father, and though such, in human blessedness, subject to the mother that bare Him, and Joseph His father as under the law; a calmness which disconcerted, His adversaries; and in the moral power which dismayed them by times, a meekness which drew out the hearts of all not steeled by wilful opposition . . . . . . In a word, then, His humanity was perfect, — all subject to God — all in immediate answer to His will, and so necessarily in harmony. The hand that struck the chord found all in tune — all answered to the mind of Him whose thoughts, of grace and holiness, of goodness, yet of judgment of evil, whose fulness of blessing in goodness were of sweetness to every weary ear, and found in Christ their only expression. Every element, every faculty, in His humanity, responded to the impulse which the divine will gave to it, and then ceased in a tranquillity in which self had no place. Such was Christ in human nature. While firm, where need demanded, meekness was what essentially characterized Him, because he was in the presence of God, His God, and all that in the midst of evil . . . for joy can break forth in louder strains, when all shall echo, 'Praise his name, his glory.'"

The prohibition of the leaven is explained fully in the pages which follow, and the mingling with oil, as well as the subsequent anointing, and other particulars. "He knew no sin; His human nature itself was conceived of the Holy Ghost. That holy thing which was born of the virgin, was to be called the Son of God; He was truly and thoroughly man, born of Mary, but He was man born of God. So I see this title, Son of God, applied to the three several estates of Christ, Son of God, Creator, in Colossians, in Hebrews, and in other passages which allude to it: Son of God, as born in the world; and Son of God as risen again from the dead. The cake was made mingled with oil, just as the human nature of Christ had its character, its taste, from the Holy Ghost, of which oil is ever and the known symbol. But purity is not power, and it is in another form that the bestowment of spiritual power, acting by the human nature of Jesus, is expressed. The cakes were to be anointed with oil, and it is written how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power, who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil. It was not that anything was wanting in Jesus. In the first place, as God, He could have done all things, but He had humbled Himself, and was come to obey; hence only when called and anointed, He presents Himself in public, although His interview with the doctors in the temple showed His relation with the Father from the beginning."

The peace-offering may be briefly noticed. "It is the offering which typifies to us the communion of saints — according to the efficacy of the sacrifice — with God, with the priest who has offered it on our behalf, with one another, and with the whole body of the Church. It comes after those which presented to us the Lord Jesus Himself, in His devoting His life even to death, and His devotedness and grace in His life, that we may understand that all communion is based on the acceptability and sweet odour of this sacrifice, not only because the sacrifice was needed, but because therein God had all His delight . . . . . . Such, then, is all true worship of the saints; it is joying in God, through the means of the redemption and offering of Jesus; yea, one mind with God, joying with Him in the perfect excellency of this pure and self-devoted victim, who has redeemed and reconciled them, and given them this communion with the assurance that this their joy is the joy of Jesus Himself, who, has wrought it and given it to them. This joy of worship necessarily associates itself also with the whole body of the redeemed, viewed as in the heavenly places, whether actually gone before us, or yet in the body below. Aaron and his sons were to have their part also. Aaron and his sons were ever the type of the Church, viewed as the whole body of its members, having title to enter into the heavenly Places and offer incense — made priests to God. For these were the patterns of things in the heavens, and those who compose the Church are the body of heavenly priests to God. Hence worship, true worship, cannot thus separate itself from the whole body of true believers. I cannot really come with my sacrifice unto the tabernacle of God, without finding necessarily there the priests of the tabernacle. Without the one priest all is vain; for what without Jesus? But I cannot find Him without His whole body of manifested people; God, withal, has His priests, and I cannot approach Him but in the way which He has ordained, and in association with and in recognition of those whom He has placed around His house, the whole body of those that are sanctified in Christ, That which walks not in this spirit is in conflict with the ordinance of God, and is no true peace-offering according to God's institution." The remaining remarks on the required cleanness of the offerer, and on what constitutes real spiritual worship, are very valuable; but for these we must refer the reader to the work itself.

Last of all come the sin and trespass-offerings, the offerer here being regarded, not as a worshipper, but as a sinner; so that the question was not, at least in the first instance, his identification with the acceptability of the victim, but rather the victim's identification with his guilt. The entire distinctness of the subject from the preceding offerings is marked by a fresh statement of the Lord speaking unto Moses. Indeed a similar formula is used in introducing the subdivisions which relate to wrongs done to the Lord and wrongs against a neighbour. (See Lev. 4: 1; Lev. 5: 14; Lev. 6: l.) The first thirteen verses of chapter 5 are transitional, a sort of appendage to the first great class treated in chapter 4 but withal sliding into the character of trespass, and accordingly called by both names.

It will be observed that, in the first two of the four cases in Lev. 4 (i.e. the sin of the high priest or the people as a body,) the blood was sprinkled seven times before the veil, and it was put on the horns of the golden altar; in the last two cases (i.e. of a ruler, or an ordinary Israelite,) the blood was merely upon the hems of the brazen altar. The reason is plain. In the former all communion was broken, and needed to be re-established; in the latter it was not the body whose communion was gone, but an individual only. The grand lesson is that God can forgive, but can never be indifferent to sin, let it be where it may; and that He ever deals according to His own rights and dignity, dwelling in the midst of His people.

Another thing worthy of note is, that however strongly the identification of the victim with the sin confessed might be shown in burning the body without the, camp, the burning of the fat on the burnt-altar testified with equal clearness that He who was made sin for us was He who knew it not. Indeed, as has been justly remarked, "nothing was so stamped with the character of holiness, entire, real separation to God, as the sin-offering." It was the same thing pre-eminently in the blessed reality. Christ's bearing sin was what most manifested holiness, where all was perfectly holy.

Lack of room compels us to omit further details; but we hope, if the Lord will, to notice other types in separate papers, and not as reviewing Dr. F., which we here close.

Letter to an Unbeliever.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. N4, p. 351-352.)

30th July, 1903. Dear Mr. N.*

(*This letter was the second written to a stranger, an avowed sceptic. Being returned to the writer, as the other was not known to the P.O., it is printed that it may appeal to souls in similar darkness.)

Yours of the 28th was sent on to me here; and I leave on Saturday.

I regret that my letter only interested you. But this cannot surprise one who did not really believe till grace troubled his conscience and made him feel the vanity of his religion after the flesh and the world. Faith in church or chapel is nothing: Christ alone counts.

Bear in mind that revealed truth condemns the world, and must be so unpalatable to men, that one cannot expect their testimony save unwittingly. Yet the Roman remains (for we have no more) testify by the way to the appearance of Christ at the very time when Scripture puts Him in Palestine; and to a new faith in His followers, most offensive to those who loved, or at least sanctioned, the demoralising idolatries of Jupiter, Venus, Mars, and the other imaginary deities, or real demons, the empire honoured. I am away from my library or any books that I could cite. But if you are familiar with the scanty residue of the Latin classics so-called, you will not have forgotten the references in the brief historical works of Tacitus (bitter, haughty, and cynical as he was), or in the Lives of the Caesars by Suetonius, or in the Letters of Pliny the younger from his Bithynian government with the Emperor Trajan's replies. The later scoffing sketches in Greek of Lucian (of Samosata) also bear witness to the facts of Christ's history ("more suo," of the Punch style, or indeed lower still), and notably of His most widely known follower the apostle Paul. It is irrational (taking the ground of nature) to doubt what even these avowed enemies of Christianity attest. The men who then defended traditional and effete Paganism, regarded it as a new and dangerous superstition. That they did write of Christ and of His religion in a hostile spirit is beyond controversy, as then uprising and progressing far and wide. Pilate's act, as crucifying

Him, is disputed neither by Jew nor by Gentile. So that we assuredly have adequate proof of His birth, life, and death from His enemies, confirming the allegations of scripture. Later still, Celsus and Porphyry wrote against Christianity as philosophers. But the outward facts are not disputed; and Christ's allowed miracles are imputed by Gentiles to magic, as the Jews at the time imputed them to Beelzebub.

There were good and necessary reasons why His resurrection could not be seen or attested by outsiders. In general it called for chosen witnesses familiar with Him. Again, how could a Greek, still less a Jew, get over a resurrection? and this predicted at least a thousand years before by David (Ps. 16: 9-11)? Over and over it was announced beforehand to His own disciples; but they never took in so strange an intimation till it was accomplished. To own that fact, at least to believe God in it, is to become a Christian, if one by grace get possessed of heart, conscience, or sound judgment. For Him to be raised as He said, on the third day, was to lay the foundation of the gospel. The God who alone raised Him from among the dead gave in that fact the mightiest proof possible that the world, Jew and Gentile, hated Him whom His unjust judge acquitted yet gave up to the murderous will of Israel. God then and thus vindicated the Man who will come to judge quick and dead. How could any sober man expect unbelieving Jews or Gentiles to record such a wonder to His glory, and to their own necessary condemnation? Yet thousands of unbelievers were brought to believe, and suffered for their faith unflinchingly.

As to the Bible being the word of God, it speaks to conscience as no other book does, from Genesis to the Revelation; and the variety of the inspired writers only and greatly adds to the wonder. Its existence, if isolated as historically shown from Moses to the Patmos prisoner of Domitian, would not prove its inspiration, as it now does. Miracles were passing evidence; prophecies, deeper and more permanent. But the True and Faithful Witness, Jesus Christ (who stands morally aloof from all men before or after) fills the gap between the O.T. and the New. He is the object to which the Old pointed (though only His humiliation, and His unseen glory be fulfilled, and the visible display of His goodness, power, and glory remains to be, as it surely will). He is the foundation and the substance of which the N.T. is the record; and He sent the Holy Spirit, that the humblest men He chose might convey the record adequately by His power, and that others might profit by faith everlastingly.

Its own internal evidence is at once the plainest, readiest, and most convincing to all those that love the truth. There is just published "God's Inspiration of the Scriptures" (if I may be allowed to speak about a book of mine), in which the most stringent demand of a divine authority, differing essentially from every other writing, is laid down; and this principle of divine design, shown to be palpable in all its parts, is applied to the various books of the O. & N. Testaments. May I ask you to do me the favour of reading what ought to be, unless I deceive myself, more satisfactory than many letters? It is to be had at T. Weston's, 53, Paternoster Row; or to be read at the British Museum, if it be as yet producible at the round Reading-room.

As to the grievously inconsistent state of those who pose as Christians and profess faith (if now indeed this last can be alleged) in scripture as God's word, I can only bow my head, and humbly acknowledge the shame. For what is worse or more shocking than grace abused? But even here a wonderful fact claims attention. The O.T. predicts from first to last the like distressing ruin of the Jews through disobedience and idolatry, crowned by their rejection of the true Messiah. The N.T. no less clearly predicts the shameless ruin of the Christian profession, with true men of God of old and now, walking in faith, humility, and holiness. Both Testaments predicted that the Messiah, the crucified Lord Jesus, will return in glory, and execute judgment on professing Christians and Israel; as also on the nations who still hold to their false gods or their incredulity, apart from both.

Perhaps, dear Sir, you will allow that I have honestly replied to the substance of your letter, as I have no reason to shirk a single point raised. God too will help all who truly look to Him in their need. Since, as a young man, I was enabled to turn my back on the world and on more guilty Christendom, and by grace sought not its favours nor feared its frowns, but decided simply to believe, walk, and worship as Christ's bondman and withal His freedman, I have known true peace and joy in believing here, and I look for what is far, far better for ever with Him. Believe me, dear Mr. N.,

Sincerely your friend and servant for His sake, W. K.

On Recently-discovered Uncial MSS. Of the Apocalypse.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. 4, p. 352.)

The Editor of the Bible Treasury wrote lately to Professor Tischendorf, pointing out a discrepancy between his written report (in February, 1860) of Rev. 5: 9 in the Sinai MS. and the printed text of the same verse, just edited by him; the former omitting, and the latter giving, ἡμᾶς. The Professor replies (in a letter dated Leipzig, Sep. 8, 1860), expressing his great regret that pressure of labour at the time of his report exposed him to oversight, and confirming the representation made in his edition of the New Testament printed from the Cod. Sinait. The reader, however, will bear in mind that the mistake, now rectified by the learned critic, had no influence on the text of "the Revelation, edited in Greek," the reported readings having come too late for insertion save in the Introduction (pp. xv.-xviii.).

Professor T. adds the important information, that at his last visit to St. Petersburgh he has found an Uncial Palimpsest, of about the eight or ninth century, and of good character otherwise, which contains the Acts, the Pauline, and the Catholic Epistles, with the Apocalypse. This, as a whole, he hopes to give next year in his "Monumenta." The following are a few of its readings, as communicated to me:-

Rev. 1: 18, αἰωνων, without ἀμηυ (like A. C. 36, 38, Erasmus);

Rev. 2: 2, κοπον, without σου, omitting εἰναι also;

Rev. 2: 9, την θλιψιν, without τα ἐργα σου. Like C., it has  Ἰουδαιων,

Rev. 2: 13, που, without τα ἐργα σου.  Besides, it has neither και nor ἐν αἱς.

In Rev. 4: 13, it reads ὁμοιος (sec.), with A., etc.

In Rev. 4: 4, it omits ἐν;

Rev. 7: 8 has Βενιαμειν;

Rev. 11: 6, την ἐξουσιαν;

Rev. 11: 10, εὐφραινονται;

Rev. 11:12, ἀναβατε;

Rev. 11: 18, φθειροντας, as Erasmus edited;

Rev. 12: 6, τρεφουσιν, with C.;

Rev. 12: 10, αὐτους;

Rev. 14: 4, οὑτοι (sec.), without εἰσιν, like A. C. 28, Erasmus;

Rev. 14: 13, ἐν χριστω, like C. He adds,

Rev. 17: 2, ἐχοντα; but I do not understand it, and suspect some mistake.

"We have this treasure."

2 Corinthians 4, 5.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. 2, p. 79-80.)

It is wonderful the liberty the Holy Ghost gives in the soul. Not that we have no conflict — we have; but we have to maintain it in the power of the Holy Ghost. We possess this treasure, and we have delight in it. We not only know that we are saved, but we enjoy it. It was the desire of the apostle to be in full possession of what he now knew by faith, but was not fully brought into the possession of. He had the treasure, but not in glory. Therefore he says, "we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house, which is from heaven." He was not groaning because of the weariness of the way, the trials and difficulties here; but he had such a consciousness of the blessedness of the treasure, that he groaned to possess it unhinderedly in the presence of God.

It is good to have the joy now, but there is always a tendency to confidence in the flesh. The spring of all this liberty, and joy, and blessing, is that we have seen Christ. We have seen Him in glory. The eye of faith has rested on Him. We could not have this joy without the certainty of redemption accomplished, which we have in the man Christ Jesus, being accepted in glory.

The sufferings of Christ touch the affections, but do not give this joy. An attachment is formed for God, and he would not go to another; but this is not all He gives us. We must be able to say, 'I have got redemption — all my sin is gone — all that was against me is taken away through the One who died, and is received into glory,' in order to have this joy and longing for the glory as the result. It is all contrary to the life of the flesh. Where the life of the flesh ends, the life of the Spirit begins, and practically we have power in the life of the Spirit in proportion as the flesh is dead. CHRIST BEFORE THE SOUL is the key to these chapters and those that precede.

In 2 Cor. 1 he says, "we had the sentence of death in ourselves" — no trust in natural life. All that was of the first Adam gone, dead, and therefore nothing would touch the ground of his confidence "in God which raiseth the dead." That confidence clearly sets aside fear of things around. If dead to the law and dead to Satan, what power has he over a dead man? The principle of power is that we are dead. Faith acts on this.

2 Cor. 4. "We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; for God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." Then he says, "we have this treasure in earthen vessels." What treasure? Christ. Paul has seen the one who has put away his sin — who is his righteousness — who is in glory. He sees Him, and he says, 'that is what I want.' In seeing Him I see one who has the power of life, who has passed through death and overcome it. I have this one — Christ. This is the treasure. I have it in an earthen vessel; but I have it. John says, "the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life," etc. There is Christ, this eternal life. I have Him in that glory known to faith. I shall have this life, the full fruit of eternal redemption in glory. Abraham believed that God was able to perform; but we believe that the Father raised Christ from the dead. It is done, and His being there in glory is the proof that all is done.

Our standing there in the presence of God is the fruit of the work being finished. "He has appeared once to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." He has brought me to God. Has He brought me in my sins? No. I should not be there at all if not cleansed. "He was made sin for us." "He hath appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." There is the resting-place of the soul. Then, in this chapter, He (Christ) is presented as the power of life. I have the treasure in "an earthen vessel." It is a vessel that hinders, for it is earthen; but the faith that sees the treasure has put us in possession of life. If I have life, it is because I have Christ. "He that hath the Son, hath life." "In Him was life." "He is our life," and "when Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall we also appear with Him in glory."

Another view of it is Christ, the life down here. When I look at Him down here, I can say, "There is my life." If I look at myself, I see the life mixed up with much that ought not to be; but when I look at Jesus, what obedience! what patience! what graciousness! and I say, That is my life! I can bless God for giving me such a life. He was perfect in everything. What rest it gives to the spirit to be able to say in beholding all that perfection in Him, "That is mine!"

But now, when I think of power, I must look up to Christ in glory for it. If this earthly tabernacle were dissolved, "we have a building of God," etc. The essence of the character of life is Christ in glory. In Rom. 1 He is declared to be "the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead." The principle of the power was seen in His being raised from the dead. We have a title in Him to say always, we are dead. Therefore it is "Reckon ye also yourselves to be dead unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord." When we come to live practically in this, way, it is always "bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus." We cannot manifest this life of Christ practically, but as we are reckoning ourselves dead. If I walk by faith, I am bearing about in my body the dying of the Lord Jesus. If I walk by sight, Christ is not my object, or my power. "We are delivered unto death." (2 Cor. 4: 11.) Sometimes it is necessary we should pass through trouble to break down the flesh, which cannot live by faith. Paul had to go through trial, but through it all, he was beholding by faith the treasure. "The life that I live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God." There is the full revelation of Christ, known to faith, and the certainty that when I see Him I shall be like Him. He is my righteousness now, and when I see Him in glory, I shall be like Him — and this I groan for, and earnestly desire.

Does not His love refresh my spirit now? — does not His love restore my soul (happier not so to need it)? There is no cloud, no fear of judgment, but certainty of being clothed, and therefore there is the earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with the house which is from heaven. So strong was the desire for this, that he did not even think of dying — "not for that we would be unclothed," etc.

What is the secret of this? He had not only seen life in Christ, but Christ Himself, and he saw that this life could cause that "mortality should be swallowed up of life." He had faith in that power of life in Christ that it could effect this — death would slip away and not be. Do you believe in this power of life? As long as there is a soul to gather in, His long-suffering continues, but the power exists. Then the apostle goes on to speak of dying. What can death do? If I die before Christ comes, I am in His presence. I shall only depart from this mortal body to be with Him. "Therefore we are always confident," etc.

"Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we maybe agreeable to Him." "For we must all appear (or be manifested) before the judgment seat of Christ."

How are we all to be manifested? All will give an account of themselves, (the saints when they are caught up to be with the Lord, the wicked at the end of the millennium.) The saints give account of themselves in glory. What will be to be judged in the saint? He is identified with the very principle that will judge, if he is the righteousness of God. What was there to judge? Conscience is not awakened by it at all for the believer, for that is purged; but it does awaken something. "Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men." There is not only righteousness, but love. He sees the terror of judgment. The sight of the righteousness that judges is the occasion why he sets about preaching to others. It puts love in activity, and then he adds another thing: "We are manifest unto God," not we shall be. I stand in the presence of the glory now, and whatever does not suit that glory, is judged now. It acts on. the conscience in the way of self-judgment. We want this light, but we must have perfect confidence in God, for there can be no happy play of the affections, if there is not this confidence. We cannot have fellowship with a person, if we think He is going to condemn us; but "our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." We cannot have confidence, if we have not a perfect conscience. (Heb. 9, 10.) This we have by Christ our righteousness, He having obtained eternal redemption for us. What there is a memorial of now in God's presence, is, that my sins are put away by that one perfect sacrifice. I have a righteousness perfect, and so infinite that I can never get out of it.

CHRIST is the centre of everything for the heart.

When I think of the exceeding and eternal weight of glory, it may seem too much for me; but when I see the Lamb there, as the Light thereof, it puts my affections in play. It is the Lamb that was slain for me — the Lamb that took away my sins.

There is grace needed every day for us passing through the wilderness, but not for us to rise up to righteousness, as if we had it not, but to walk according to it. Christ takes knowledge of our wants. Thus there are two parts of His present blessing for us; Himself the object for our affections, and His constant supply for our daily need. We have the righteousness, and we wait for the hope of it, the glorious hope which is suitable to the righteousness of God. We rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Scripture Queries

Q. Heb. 10: 5. D. S. invites remark on current lowerings of the holy Person of our Lord, and the attempt of some unhappy men in our day, as in times gone by, to insinuate that because He was truly and perfectly a man, His body was a dying body like any other's, and Himself all His life under the curse of God, not merely made a curse on the cross.

A. I agree with our brother that such views are the fruit of the enemy's effort to dishonour the Son of God on the side of His humanity; that capable of dying the Lord was, and that as a fact, (the blessed foundation of all our peace and hopes, as well as the vindication of God's grace and truth in dealing with men,) He died, as every believer knows and confesses; but that this is quite distinct from being, like a sinful man, per se under a necessity of dying; and that, whatever the importance to us, and the divine perfection of His ways of goodness and holy suffering during His life, never till the cross did He suffer atoningly, never was He forsaken of God but there and then. Ignorance is one thing, and, more or less, is our common lot; opposition to fully declared light of God, is quite another. Thus, some have even held that our Lord went into the hell of the damned to suffer there, else His work had not been complete. But it would be a very different thing, now that the truth as to atonement is better understood, for people to systematize crotchets like this. Such antagonism to truth is the enemy's work, and tends to heresy. Though an old and abused form, it is none the less of value to bear in mind that the true faith is that we worship.

John Wesley

True stories of God's servants.

John Wesley, by Frances Bevan,

Second Edition Revised.

Advantage is taken of a new issue to recommend this interesting work to every christian household. It is well that souls, especially the young, should know what grace has wrought in days gone by, and none the less because the present state of the Methodist Society so little answers to the simplicity and unworldly devotedness of the past. Here too the young will have the guiding help of one who has known how to combine a genial appreciation of what was of God in the movement with an adequate discernment of Wesley's grave defects, The publisher has brought it out at a very moderate price.

On "Hopes of the Church" J.N.D.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. 8, p. 240, 255-256.)

To Correspondents.

More than one draw attention to Mr. E. White's extracts from the second edition of Mr. J. N. Darby's "Hopes of the Church," which I here reproduce:-

"With the immortality of the soul man can still connect the idea of self — of power in the body; but where the leading truth is the resurrection of the body, and not the immortality of the soul, man's impotency becomes glaring." p. 30. "Before coming to direct proofs, we would express our conviction that the idea of the immortality of the soul has no source in the gospel; that it comes, on the contrary, from the Platonists; and that it was just when the coming of Christ was denied in the Church, or at least began to be lost sight of, that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul came in to replace that of the resurrection." p. 32. "And finally (says Mr. W.), there is this note on p. 66, commenting on Matthew 25: 46, in order to show that that passage does not refer to the judgment of the dead, but of the living: 'That which has given rise to the supposition that it is the judgment of the dead are these words — These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal; but this only means that the punishment of the living will be final, like that of the dead.'"

* "As to that expression (2 Tim. 1: 10), 'brought life and immortality to light,' immortality signifies the incorruptibility of the body, and not the immortality of the soul."

It is plain that it is the second extract (from p. 32) which most suits Mr. W.'s object. But would it not have been more candid if he had extracted the next few words which contra. dict, not Mr. D.'s previous statement, but his own object? "This was about the time of Origen. It is hardly needful to say that we do not doubt the immortality of the soul; we only assert that this view has taken the place of the doctrine of the resurrection of the Church, as the epoch of its joy and glory." I quote the same paragraph from the same second edition; and I appeal to Mr. E. W. whether it was upright, by omitting words, bearing on the point immediately after, to give the appearance to the readers of the "Christian World" (who are very unlikely to know or to take the trouble of examining Mr. D.'s writings) that he ever held the mortality of the soul, when in fact he has invariably maintained its immortality. Nor is it correct that these paragraphs have been quietly dropped, or any one of them, out of later editions. I have before me now the latest form in which the work stands in his "Collected Writings," and I find that all three appear, the first and third unchanged, and the second only so modified as to render such an effort as Mr. W.'s no longer practicable: "The idea of the immortality of the soul, although recognized in Luke 12: 5; 20: 38, is not in general a gospel topic." Otherwise all remain as before; and this, which was always the author's conviction, he no doubt put in to cut off a phrase misused by others, whether consciously or not, so as to insinuate or commend a notion which he from the first abhorred, and more than ever now that its frightful accompaniments and consequences cannot be hid.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE BIBLE TREASURY.

Sir, — You "Appeal" to me whether my course, in using quotations, from Darby in a letter to the Christian World, has been consistent with "uprightness." I presume that in making this "appeal" to me directly, you be willing to print an answer, and that answer is as follows. In noticing my letter to the Christian World you have omitted to quote the very words which decisively prove the absence of any intention on my part to misrepresent Mr. Darby. I have no desire to retort the charge of dishonesty on you in this suppression. Probably your friends would as little believe it respecting you as mine will believe it respecting me. It suffices me to say that in the warmth of zeal against a doctrine which you think "frightful in its consequences," you have allowed yourself to commit an injustice unworthy of your well-earned character as a honest scholar and a sincere servant of Christ.

The words to which I refer are these, and they immediately, followed the quotations from Mr. Darby. "Now these statements of Mr. Darby, though strangely contradicted by others, contain the essence of the doctrine of life in Christ only, whether he intended it or not." The words in italics supply a full and direct reply to your allegations. I was well aware that Mr. Darby's declaration, that "the doctrine of the immortality of the soul has no source in the gospel," had been often cited by others, and to his great discontent, because unaccompanied by any reference to the notorious fact that he holds and has always held that doctrine, and professes it explicitly even in the very same page which contains the quoted sentence. I was therefore resolved that at least this complaint should not be made against me, and therefore added the words which intimate that Mr. Darby's "statements" so quoted were strangely contradicted by other statements, obviously intending the very sentences which follow, and which you cite as evidence of my dishonesty. The word "strangely" as introduced for the very purpose of showing that the seeming "contradiction" supplied by the passages not quoted by me was very remarkable, he holding firmly the truth of the doctrine of the soul's immortality, yet affirming that it had "no source in the gospel." Moreover, the "contradiction" was admitted to be so striking as to leave it open to question whether Mr. Darby could have really "intended" his words to be taken in the absolute sense which they seem to suggest.

But this is not all. You wholly misrepresent the object of my quotations from Mr. Darby. That object, most evidently, was not to show that he did not hold the doctrine of the soul's immortality, but to show that he did not hold it on the ground of scripture authority; in his own words, that it "has no source in the gospel," an expression than which none can be stronger. I was not called on then, with this object alone in view, to enlarge upon the fact that Mr. Darby held the doctrine for reasons extracted from his own head. My point was in his confession that it was "not in the gospel," and my practical inference was that tenderness should be shown to those who thence conclude that it is not a doctrine with divine authority.

The object of the citation of the note on Matthew 25: 46 was, in the same way, not to show that Mr. Darby ever agreed with me on the general doctrine (a folly and a misrepresentation of which I feel wholly incapable); but to show that the word "ternal," as occurring in the phrase, "everlasting punishment," was even in that crucial passage explained by Mr. Darby to "mean only" final, a criticism sometimes made by persons who agree with me, but severely denounced whenever it is offered to your religious associates.

To conclude, Mr. Darby himself has felt that his language was remarkably liable to be quoted against him, for he, as you tell us, has now altered the clause chiefly in question to this — that "the idea of the immortality of' the soul is recognized in Luke 12: 5; 25: 38." You call this a "modification" of the former expression ("as no source in the gospel"). I call it an express retractation; and gentlemen who have placed themselves under the necessity of so materially altering their words should be somewhat slower in charging respectable opponents with direct "dishonesty" in quoting them. For Mr. Darby, notwithstanding (ling many differences of judgment, I cannot but feel on several accounts a true admiration; and the last thing which I should wish to do would be to misrepresent him, or to act as if truth could be advanced by dishonour.

I am, sir,

Yours faithfully,

EDWARD WHITE.

[The simplest course in answer to any question of fair dealing toward Mr. W. is to insert his letter. He and our readers will judge for themselves. Otherwise a mere abstract would have been given of his reply, as before of the complaints made against his use of "Hopes of the Church."

Let him be assured that there was not the slightest wish to suppress a word which might plead in his favour or in explanation; and that the motive fop not citing more from his letter was simply to avoid further discussion, though even as it stands the substance of what he thinks of importance has been already given and answered, though not inserted as a quotation. I trust that it will be satisfactory to Mr. W. and to those who complained to know that, though quite mistaken in his notion of Mr. D.'s meaning, he has in my opinion shown himself guiltless on the question of fair dealing or the want of it. I will now try to convince him of the misapprehension which lay it the bottom of his wrong use of Mr. D.'s words and of the insinuation of a shift or change in the thoughts of he latter. If Mr. W.'s point and object are thus mistaken, his inferences must of course fall to the ground.

Mr. W. considers that there is a strange contradiction between the two statements, "that the idea of the immortality of the soul has no source in the gospel," and "that we do not doubt the immortality of the soul." If Mr. D. had denied the soul's immortality to be a truth of the scriptures, there would be just ground for the charge of so strangely contradicting himself. But it is not so. I have no doubt that its frequent citation is due to the fact that most people, like Mr. W., unconsciously confound "the gospel" with the word of God, and think Mr. D did not hold the soul's immortality on the ground of scripture authority because he denied it to have its source in the gospel. It is well known that the primary basis of that truth is not the gospel but Genesis 2: 7, where Adam is said to become a living soul (not, as other animals did, without but) by the inbreathing of Jehovah Elohim. Not a natural fact like this, however important in itself, but resurrection is a truth of the gospel. Hence this was no question among orthodox Jews, who held, save the materialist Sadducees, the immortality of the soul. But the resurrection of the body, exemplified in Christ risen from the dead, is the fundamental truth of the gospel, which got completely displaced by the Platonizing of the early Fathers. This is the true meaning and intent of Mr. D.'s words, which Mr. W. entirely mistook, as is plain from his present letter. For he supposes even now Mr. D., by denying "the gospel" to be the source of the doctrine of the soul's immortality, to mean that it had no source in scripture and that he himself held it for reasons extracted from his own head. The fact is that Mr. D.'s language was precise, Mr. W.'s construction is loose and erroneous. To prove a doctrine by reason is the last thought that would occur to Mr. D. He will now understand also that there is no change whatever in the author's thoughts, but only a modification of phrase in order to hinder the misunderstanding of others. There is not nor ever was the least gound for he charge of contradiction. The truth is that Mr. W. gravely misinterpreted the main sentence quoted, though I give him credit for believing that he meant no wrong to Mr. D. The "express retractation," as Mr. W. calls it, falls with the rest. Lastly, I can assure Mr. W. that Mr. D. by the expression "final" did not mean to impair the force of "eternal" in Matthew 25, whatever may be the idea of others who employ that term for a different purpose. — Ed. B. T.]

Whitefield's Journals.

W. Kelly.

Whitefield's journals, to which is prefixed his "Short Account" and "Farther Account," with appreciations, etc. Edited by William Wale, London: Henry J. Drane, Ye Olde St. Bride's Presse, Salisbury House, Salisbury Square. Fleet Street, E.C.

(B.T. Vol. N5, p. 336.)

In this day of revival efforts, American and Welsh, Mr. W. Wale has reproduced for the first time since 1756 the journals of one more blessed thus than any since his day, as Wh. too led the way in preaching the simple gospel wherever he found an open door, but chiefly out of doors. By none was he more opposed and reviled than by his own fellow- churchmen, though he never left the Anglican Establishment and always claimed to be an English clergyman. It is clear however that he was regardless of the parochial system and the Canons, valuing chiefly the Articles, but in heart owning every soul that loved the Lord, and seeking the salvation of the lost wherever he found them, not only over Great Britain and Ireland, etc., but in America which he visited at least seven times when the voyage was incomparably more tedious and trying than of late years. He knew little beyond the glad tidings, and God's love both sovereign and in relationship, with its obligations and effects on the heart and the walk. But his devoted and self-denying zeal in that service of the Lord had no superior if equal in modern times. And his journals vividly reflect his heart and his labours, whatever the few drawbacks which one has no care to specify as is easily done by those who are immeasurably inferior in weightier matters.

George Whitefield was admitted a poor scholar or servitor of Pembroke College, Oxford, in 1733 (as he was born in Gloucester in 1711), and soon joined the Wesleys and their few associates in the University, earnest but dark spiritually and called Methodists even then, knowing truth no better than T. à Kempis and the heterodox W. Law. By Bp. Benson of Gloucester he was ordained deacon in 1736. His preaching from the very first made an extraordinary impression; yet then more from his impassioned earnestness than from his growing sense of grace in which he ere long far outran J. and C.

Wesley and almost all the rest of his friends. No doubt his most powerful, flexible, and expressive voice concurred with his warm affections to form a vessel suited to his gift from above. He was even before J. W. in preaching in the open air, as he did first on Hannam Mount to the colliers of Kingswood, near Bristol. Later at Blackheath and at Kennington it is said that he was heard by not less than 30,000 at one time. Even the grossest infidels like Bolingbroke, Chesterfield and Hume listened with awe and emotion; and great were the results among the anxious and the simple.

The Journals do not carry us down to the rupture with Wesley who clung to Arminianism; but its warmth cooled down so far that Whitefield spoke of his desire that Wesley should preach his funeral sermon, as Wesley did for his long-severed friend. Yet in fact Whitefield died near Boston, Mass., on the 30th Sept., 1770, worn out even at that early age by toils beyond man's endurance with impunity. His sermons give but a faint sense of his preaching; but three volumes of his letters extend to the week of his death, and with his discourses and tracts, make up six volumes, published in 1771.

I doubt much that the great preacher would have sanctioned the appreciations of men however popular, not sound in the faith, though he would have valued that of W. Cowper.

Scripture Queries and Answers.

Bible Treasury, 1857-1906.

Volume 1 (3/18 JND)

The Resurrection, etc.     p35 Not WK

The day-star arising in the heart.   p133 prob. WK

Genesis 1: 1      p164 prob. WK

The Basket of First-fruits    p164 JND

The Ten Virgins (Matthew 25: 1-11)   p165 prob. WK

The Lord returning from the Wedding (Luke 12: 36) p165 prob. WK

"Not to company"     p165 prob. WK

Obedience and Sprinkling of..blood of Jesus Christ. p165 prob. WK

The position of the Apostles in Glory.  p166 prob. WK

The righteousness of God.    p196 prob. WK

1 Corinthians 15: 29.     p197 prob. WK

Suffering in the flesh.     p213 JND

Visible and invisible Church    p214 prob. WK

2 Corinthians 5: 10 (Manifestation before brethren?) p243 JND

Psalm 24.      p244 not WK

Obedience and justification by faith.   p261 prob. WK

Psalm 22      p278 prob. WK

2 Philippians 3: 11     p278 prob. WK

Volume 2 (12/39 JND)

p16  definitely WK (compare Christian annotator 1856)

p31 prob. WK

p63 1. JND, 2. prob. WK, 3. prob. WK, 4. prob. WK, 5. prob. WK

p80 1. prob. WK, 2. prob. WK

p111 1. prob. WK, 2. prob. WK, 3. prob. WK, 4. prob. WK

p128 1. JND, 2. prob. WK

p144 1. prob. WK, 2. JND

p159 1. JND, 2. JND, 3. prob. WK, 4. prob. WK, 5. prob. WK

p192 1. prob. WK, 2. prob. WK, 3. prob. WK

p224 prob. WK

p256 JND

p272 JND

p287 1. prob. WK, 2. prob. WK

p304 JND

p335 1. JND, 2. JND, 3. prob. WK (hmm...)

p351 1. JND, 2. JND

p367 1. JND, 2. prob. JND

p381 prob. WK