Table of Contents

The Christian Annotator 1854.

The Christian Annotator 1855.

Ezekiel 38: 17.

The Christian Annotator 1856.

The Christian Annotator 1857.

WKELLY - The Christian Annotator:

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)

The Christian Annotator 1854.

(1854-58. Contributions by W. Kelly.)

The identifying code is the year, month, day, and page number of the contribution.

4_05_13 p. 126/7.

Genesis 3: 15, p. 105. — I am not disposed to admit such a principle as authority, early or late, unless it be divine authority, in the interpretation of Scripture. Nor ought a Christian to attach any value to the statements of a Jewish unbeliever like Josephus, especially on such a question. G.'s only argument against the Messianic application of the verse is the order of the clauses, that it should have been chronologically exact. But this is quite a mistake, as he can see by looking at Isaiah 2: 4, where a picture of the final glory is presented before the long burden of sin and judgment, which are, in fact, to precede it. How gracious of God, in pronouncing sentence on the serpent, first to assure the guilty pair of the enemy's total defeat, even if it had to be added that he was to inflict ever so painful a wound upon the woman's seed! It is His grace which, to me, accounts, in part at least, for this departure from the most obvious order — an order the less demanded here, where the nature of the actions necessarily implied which was historically to occur first. For clearly the bruising of the serpent's head was fatal, and therefore must needs follow his own bruising of the seed's heel. Isaiah 7, 9, 27, 53, Luke 22. 53, Heb. 2: 14, 1 John 3: 8, and Rev. 12, 20 afford ample light as to the true bearing of both clauses, without taking account of Rom. 16: 20, though I doubt not that it, like the rest, alludes to the Lord's judgment, in Genesis, of "that old serpent which is the devil and Satan." "Bruise" is not the only nor even the chief resemblance; the grand link with our text is in the overthrow of Satan (i. e. in the thing, and not in words merely). Doubtless the Septuagint gives τηρήσει, but what then? The New Testament, perhaps, as often translates afresh from the Hebrew, and not infrequently, as here, adds a new and equally inspired thought. And this is perfectly in accordance with the Apostle's use of Isaiah 50: 8, 9, in Rom. 8: 33, 34. The Church is, by grace, one with Christ, and therefore what the prophet said there of Him, the Apostle scruples not to say of her. The same beautiful principle applies to and explains the connection between Gen. 3: 15 and Rom. 16: 20.

4_05_13 p. 128.

Genesis 22: 1 The Spirit of God, by Moses, speaks of God's trying Abraham's faith, which is no evil, but an honour put on the friend of God. By the Apostle he is speaking of evil things; and in this sense, of course, "God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man," — clearly in the same sense. The context puts the meaning of each beyond dispute.

4_05_13 p. 128.

Leviticus 13: 12, 13, pp. 36, 83, 96. — The great truth taught here is, I believe, that where all is ruined, manifestly and confessedly so, the grace of God can and loves to bless. The leprosy covers all the skin from the head even to the foot; the priest considers; and pronounces clean. Compare with this Rom. 3: 19-26, and 5: 6-8 and 20. In the type it is not leprosy actively at work, for, if raw flesh appeared, the person should be unclean; but it is the miserable effect produced by the disease — all turned white. In the antitype, it is the case of one who knows it to be all over with him, who thereon ceases going about to establish his own righteousness, and submits to the righteousness of God. For a similar reason the Lord told the chief priests and the elders that "the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before them."

4_05_13 p. 130

Ezekiel 38: 2, 3, and Ezekiel 39: 1, pp. 8, 23, 24, 88. — 1. The true construction of these passages seems to be given in the margin, rather than in the text, of our admirable authorised Bible; but, this granted, we have next to inquire whether we are here to consider Bar as a proper name or a common noun. This depends on the bearing of the context, which is, to my mind, decisive, that the name of a country or people is in question: for what just sense has "prince of the chief, of Meshech and Tubal?" On the other hand, "prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal," affords an obvious and consistent sense. Such is the view taken by the elder Lowth and other English scholars. Gesenius pronounces the same opinion without hesitation. J. D. Michaelis, in his Supplement, attempts in vain to refute the presumed identity of Rosh with Russia. Let it be allowed that Rosh (Ρῶς)=a Scythian horde north of Mount Taurus, and our conclusion is strengthened instead of weakened. De Wette, also, who, spite of his rationalism, has produced one of the most faithful versions of the Bible which modern times can boast, renders the words " den Fürsten (in the first, and in the other two instances, Fürst) von Rosch, Mesech, und Thubal." Russia, Muscovy (or Moscow), and Tobolsk, are evidently intended, though their source may have been humble tribes from Anatolia, in Lesser Asia.

2. Ought it to be assumed, without proof, that France, with the greater part of Continental Europe, is spoken of as "Gomer and all his band," or that the countries bordering on the Baltic Sea are called "Togarmah of the north quarters?" The sons of Gomer, we are told in Gen. 10: 3, were Ashkenaz, Riphath, and Togarmah. Now, while Scripture is silent about the locality of Riphath, it is certain, from Jer. 51: 27, that Ashkenaz belongs to the category of Asiatic kingdoms, and probably to the district between the Caspian and the Black Seas. What is said of Togarmah leads me, I confess, to look for it in the neighbourhood of the Caucasian range, and of Ashkenaz also, i.e. far to the north of Palestine, instead of the borders of the Baltic. It is, however, a fair and interesting subject for discussion; but it will be well to hear and weigh the evidence of Scripture before coming to conclusions.

I may add, that France and the other great powers of Continental Europe (Russia excepted) form the Bestial empire of Daniel and the Apocalypse; and this must be carefully distinguished from Gog and his adherents, who stand on altogether different ground. Great mischief ensues from not leaving room for the various actors, scenes, and times of the latter-day. Guernsey, April 16, 1854.

4_05_13 p. 132

Mark 9: 23, p. 6. — The first thing to be settled is the right reading. The received text, Griesbach, Knappe, and Scholz have Τὸ (or τὸ) εἰ δύνασαι πιστεῦσαι πάντα δυνατὰ τῳ πιστεύοντι. If this reading be preferred, how is the presence of the article to be accounted for? Mr. Green (Grammar of the New Test. Dialect, p. 205) supposes that our Lord was in the habit of putting this condition to those who applied to him for relief; a knowledge of which circumstance would lead a writer to prefix the article. The meaning would then be: Jesus addressed to him his ordinary and well known saying, "If thou canst believe." I am disposed, however, to think that the true reference is not to any such customary saying, but to the man's own, used just before, εἴ τι δύνῃ ; and that our Lord meant, The if you can is to believe (that is to say, the question of power, (or, if you can,) turns on believing); "all things are possible to him that believeth." The text of Lachmann is susceptible of the same translation, if you give it the same punctuation as the older editors, but he himself points thus: Τὸ εἰ δύνῃ πιστεῦσαι πάντα δυνατὰ τῳ πιστεύοντι, which he would translate, I presume, " If you can believe, all things are possible to him that believeth." But this evidently leaves the use of the article unexplained, if not inexplicable. The conjecture of τὶ for τὸ, like all conjectures which have no MS. authority, must be summarily rejected, and the Lausanne translation must be admitted to be here a mistake.

4_05_13 p. 134/5

Col. 1: 20. Page 108. — It may help H. F. B. to bear in mind that the grand thought of this Epistle is the fulness of Christ, and especially as Head of the body. Hence in chap. 1 Christ is viewed as chief in a two-fold way and sphere. 1. In verse 15 He is first-born of every creature or all creation; and this because He is the Creator (16). 2. In verse 18 He is first-born from the dead, and thus related to the Church as its Head. Corresponding to this, there is a two-fold reconciliation, "For all the fulness (i.e. of the Godhead) was pleased in Him to dwell, etc. . . . by Him to reconcile all things . . . whether things on earth or things in heaven; and you . . . hath He reconciled," etc. The latter is the Church; the former is creation in its largest extent, heavenly and earthly, but exclusive of the saints. Verses 23, 25 show that there is a two-fold ministry also. Paul was minister of the Gospel preached to every creature which is under heaven, and he was minister of the Church: two spheres of service, into both of which the Lord called him, but by no means all His labourers, some of whom may be specially of the one, some of the other.

4_05_13 p. 135

Ephesians 4: 26, p. 108. — T. E. H. and A. L. S. can compare Mark 3: 5.

4_05_27 p. 138.

Joshua 10: 12, 13, p. 122. — The earth was stopped turning round, and the sun and moon are spoken of just as we do, and as Joshua must have done. We know well it is the earth which turns round, and yet we say "the sun rises, sets," etc. It is remarkable that he should have claimed not the stopping of the sun but of sun and moon, the necessary effect of that which was wholly unknown to him, and yet he asks for that which, unless indeed God had disturbed the whole creation by unnecessary miracle, must have been the effect of the intervention of His power. Untaught by God, Joshua would have said, "Sun stand still." Taught of God he asks for sun and moon to do so, which is just what God's power acting in the simplest way would do. He could not have answered, as to a man folly taught of God, if Joshua had asked for the sun to stop and not the moon, without a very extraordinary derangement of the celestial system. To make the moon go on in its just apparent course when the earth was stopped, would have put the moon really out of its place. To have stopped the moon unasked, as well as the sun, would not have been the same testimony to Joshua, though a wonder. But Joshua is taught to ask both. The rotation of the earth is arrested, and all is done at his word, though Joshua never knew the earth turned round, and that sun and moon would thus stop together. — Irrationalism of Infidelity, pp. 209, 210.

4_06_10 p. 151.

Leviticus 16: 22, p. 90. — There is no intimation that the scape-goat was put to death. The goat on which the Lord's lot fell was offered for a sin-offering; the other, as we know, was presented alive before the Lord. "And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the Children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness. And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited; and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness." Both were requisite to give anything like an adequate figure of Christ's atonement: — the one showing Christ towards God, glorifying Him up to and in death, and enabling God, so to speak, by the blood sprinkled upon and before the Mercy-seat, to act worthily of Himself; the other, presenting Christ as the substitute of those whose sins He bore, and bore away, so that they should never more be found.

4_06_24 p. 163.

Psalm 37: 3, p. 122. — The simplest meaning seems to be "and nourish faithfulness," or "feed in security." The Vulgate agrees with the LXX. De Wette gives "und pflege Redlichkeit," i.e. "and cherish honesty." Luther has, "nahre dich redlich," "feed thyself honestly." Ostervald and Martin exhibit respectively "te repais de vérité," and "te nourris de vérité." De Genonde renders this passage "nourrissez-vous de la vérité." The Latin version of I. Tremellius and Fr. Junius is "pascere fide." The margin is, I think, nearer the mark than the authorised text in our English Bible.

4_06_24 p. 163.

John 21: 15, p. 123. — The reference is clearly to the other disciples. Self-confidence was the root of the evil which exposed Simon Peter to deny the Lord. He had already wept over his open sin (Luke 22: 61, 62). Now the Lord probes all to the bottom, for He is plainly alluding to Peter's three denials.

4_06_24 p. 163/4.

Acts 8: 4. The scattered saints went everywhere, εὐαγγελιζόμενοι τὸν λόγον. The Apostles did not leave Jerusalem, and of course, therefore, were not among those who went about evangelising, as here recorded. But this is a very different thing from L.C.H.'s inference that the Apostles did not preach the Word.

4_06_24 p. 167.

Revelation 21: 1, pp. 39, 87. — As a question of exact translation, I must beg to differ from one of your Correspondents in his view of this verse. If θάλασσα were anarthrous, the authorised version would have been justified; as it is, "the sea was no more" is required, whatever be the interpretation. So in verse 4 of the same chapter, the doctrine of the article shows the right version to be "death shall be no more." Compare, in the same chapter, the construction of verses 22, 23, 25; and Rev. 22: 3, 5.

4_06_24 p. 169.

Heavenly Places, p. 79, has an uniform meaning in Eph. 1: 3, 20; Eph. 2: 6; Eph. 3: 10; Eph. 6: 12; and this, the heavens as the church's sphere of blessing in Christ, as well as of conflict with spiritual wickedness, in contrast with Israel, who were blessed on earth, and fought there with flesh and blood (i. e. the Canaanites).

4_07_08 p. 174/5.

Romans 15: 16, p. 108. —

1. The reference is plainly to the consecration of the Levites (Num. 8). Just as they were offered before the Lord, so the Church is the προσφορὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν, offered to God from among the Gentiles for His service.

2. Carrying out this allusion, the words λειτουργὸν and ἱερουργοῦντα are used; but the verse, as a whole, is so far from supporting the Romish assumptions, that it overthrows them in the clearest way; for it makes the entire body of the Church answer to the type of the Levites, and intimates that the Church is sanctified by the Holy Ghost to serve our great High Priest, as the Levites were separated to the service of Aaron and his house. Hence, also, λειτουργία is predicated of the Church's service in 2 Cor. 9: 12, and Phil. 2: 30, not merely of St. Paul's, as in Rom. 15: 16.

4_07_08 p. 175.

1 Corinthians 11: 10, pp. 27, 62, 86, 134. — The Apostle is treating of outward order among the saints, and of the relation in which the man and the woman stand to each other as to Christ. He urges, first, that the man, being the image and glory of God, ought to be uncovered, while the woman ought to be covered, inasmuch as she is the glory of the man. Then he adds, because of this official difference, that the woman ought to have on her head a covering in token of subjection, and this because of the angels; that is, that if the ministering spirits were present in the assembly, there should be nothing, even in such a thing as this, derogatory to Christ's will in them who shall be heirs of salvation.

4_07_08 p. 176.

Philippians 2: 25, pp. 38, 74. — The quality of the ἀπόστολος depends on the party ἀποστέλλων, as well as on the nature of the mission. Hence, I doubt not that the authorised translators have rightly distinguished between the mission of Epaphroditus, sent by the Philippians to minister to Paul's wants, and that of such as Paul sent and authorised by the Lord to build and regulate the Church. So, in 2 Cor. 8: 23, however devoted might be the brethren in question, "the glory of Christ," still they were but the messengers of the churches who were sending help to poor saints elsewhere. St. Paul was forward to remember the poor, and so they went together; yet there was an immense gap between his apostolate and their stewardship of these contributions, whatever might be his fellowship with them in it.

4_07_08 p. 176.

1 Timothy 3: 2, 12, p. 38, is not, in my opinion, parallel with 1 Tim. 5: 9. It must be remembered that in those days nothing was more common among the Gentiles than for a man to have more than one wife. Many, doubtless, among the early converts were in these circumstances. Every thoughtful person will feel the difficulty of such a state of things. Now one provision of the Holy Ghost was that none such, whatever his grace or gift, was eligible to the office of elder (or ἐπίσκοπος) or deacon. Among the requirements was, that they should be husbands of one wife. 1 Tim. v. 9 is not a question of the married but of widows, and so the phrase is quite different, "having been (γεγονυῖα) the wife of one man" (comp. ver. 11). I am aware that the modern German editors connect γεγονυια with the clause before, and not with what follows, but I am satisfied that they are wrong, and that our version is right, as it is in harmony with the sense here given.

4_07_08 p. 176.

Hebrews 3: 1, page 38. — St. Paul, I believe, very simply contrasts the Lord Jesus, our Apostle and High Priest, with Moses the Apostle, and Aaron the High Priest of the Jewish system, the earthly calling.

4_07_08 p. 176.

Hebrews 9: 14, p. 109. — The meaning is, I think, very plain. Πνεῦμα αἰώνιον means the Holy Ghost, in contrast with the fleshly cleanness procured by Jewish ordinances. Such a purification was but temporary. But Christ offered Himself by the eternal Spirit unto God. Spotless as He was in every way, and voluntary as the offering might be on His part, here as in all else He acted by the Spirit, and the Spirit is designated "eternal," in contradistinction to the transient ordinances of Israel under the law; just as elsewhere in this Epistle we have "eternal salvation," "eternal judgment," "eternal redemption," "eternal inheritance," and everlasting or "eternal covenant."

4_07_08 p. 176.

Hebrews 9: 15-17, p. 109. — Professor Scholefield's view is one which, in substance has been held by many before him, as Doddridge, Macknight, Michaelis, Parkhurst, as well as by Barnes, Tait, Green, and other well-known contemporaries. They take διαθήκη all through in the sense of "covenant," which involves our viewing διαθέμενος as = "covenanting victims," and ἐπὶ νεκροῖς as = "over dead [sacrifices]." Respectable as may be the opponents of this sense, the context is, to my mind, decisively in its favour. I understand it thus: —

"For where a covenant is, there must necessarily be brought in the death of the covenanting [victim]. For a covenant is sure over dead [victims], since it is never valid while the covenanting [victim] liveth."

4_07_08 p.179

Rev. 1: 20. Page 87. — Are not the angels of the seven churches their mystical representatives? Thus, in this book, Jesus has his angel, and there are angels who hold the four winds (7), one that had authority over the fire (14), and another of the waters (16), not to speak of those that had the trumpets and vials in John's visions. Vitringa considered that the allusion is to the angel of the synagogue, which he identified with the ἀρχισυνάγωγος. But the latter thought is certainly an error, as the angel of the synagogue was only a sort of clerk (or as we say, sexton), and in no way the ruler: so that this allusion, if intended, precludes the idea that the angels of the churches were ἐπίσκοποι, as the learned professor and others have conceived.

4_07_08 p.181

.... As regards the passages at the close of Mark 16 (9 et seq.), and at the commencement of John 8 (1 - 11), I agree with your Correspondent that Professor Tischendorf had no sufficient grounds for bracketing them as suspicious. But he states his reasons, such as they are, and this intelligibly enough, in the foot-notes. "A Plain Scholar" may not be aware that even Griesbach indicated a probable omission as to both, and that Lachmann, while retaining the former, has gone so far as to eliminate the latter from his text. I mention this, not as approving of such rashness, but to show that Tischendorf is not alone in conceiving that he had authority for his course.

But I must avow my conviction that Acts 8: 37 stands on a very different footing. The most ancient MSS. omit the verse; accordingly it is omitted by every critic of weight known to me. Griesbach, Matthiae, Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf are of one mind as to this, and it must be remembered that it is as wrong to add to as to take from the Word of God. The believer may be assured that God never fails to watch over His own Word, and to supply adequate evidence to such as have grace to receive, and obey, and love it as His.

P.S. — Having procured Tischendorf's second Leipsic edition, I find that "A Plain Scholar" is mistaken in supposing that the footnote he cites is the reason for omitting Acts 8: 37 from the text. On the contrary, Tischendorf is there giving the authorities which add σοῦ after καρδίας. These are — the Codex Laudianus, an uncial MS. of the 7th or 8th century, besides others and some versions; Beda's Greek MS. (which was perhaps identical with Laud's, before named, and now in the Bodleian Library); Cyprian; and a work entitled Praedestinatus, which some attribute to Vincent of Lerins, a well known theologian of the fifth century. The fact is, that the learned editor first mentions the authorities in favour of the received text, with their discrepancies, and then, at the close of his note, shows that all the ancient uncial MSS. which have been collated and contain this chapter (save E., i.e., the Codex Laudianus), with more than sixty cursive MSS., and many versions and Fathers, omit the verse.

4_07_15 p. 186.

Judges 9: 13 The explanation is easy to any one who will consider the preceding verse (9). Clearly the allusion is to the use of oil and wine in the offerings to God, no less than in the honour, service, and social intercourse of man.

4_07_15 p.187

Isa. 14: 12. The king of Babylon is intended here, the final holder of the power which was first vested in the hands of Nebuchadnezzar. It is the last head of the beast (Rev. 17), for the context supposes that his destruction is contemporaneous with the deliverance and blessing of Israel. The scene is of course future in any full sense. For styling Satan "Lucifer" there is, probably, no ground, save the fancy of poets, or the misinterpretations of the Fathers.

4_07_15 p.188

Isaiah 65: 20, p. 145. The meaning is, that in the millennium, or day of the Lord, the life of the Israelites shall reach its full measure. It is to be as before the flood, and better still. The death of one an hundred years old will be the death of a child, and even then death at that age will be as a direct judgment or curse on sin.

4_07_15 p.188

Zechariah 11: 8, 12, 13, p. 156. — The three shepherds may perhaps allude to the great religious leaders of our Lord's day, the Pharisee, the Sadducee, and the Herodian. The staves represent Christ's twofold authority — beauty, to gather all the nations, and bands to unite Judah and Israel under Him. The first was broken when He came, because of the corruption and unbelief of the Jews: God's purpose to gather the nations as such (not out of them) was postponed, as the poor of the flock were given by degrees to know. Then follows the goodly price at which the Messiah was valued, which becomes the signal to set aside also, for the time, the union of the long-severed houses of Israel. The chapter closes with the desolations caused by the idol shepherd, the last Antichrist, and his judgment.

4_07_15 p. 189

Matt. 10: 23 This passage presents no difficulty in the way of the pre-millennialist. Our Lord implies that the preaching of his disciples is to go on in the land before he returns as Son of Man. Other Scriptures teach us that their testimony will be interrupted, and that themselves are to flee, at a given sign, before the great tribulation sets in. Hence it is plain that the whole parenthesis of the Church is passed over, being outside the field of view here, as elsewhere. Compare Dan. 9: 26, 27.

4_07_15 p. 190.

Luke 7: 35, p. 107. — The Lord had been just speaking of the folly and caprice shown by the men of this generation. They were like the young people in a market-place, who thwart each other in every possible way — no dancing when one pipes, no weeping when one wails. Just so when God sent John the Baptist in the way of austerity and outward separation, even from the ordinary food of men, he was calumniated: when He sent the Son of man in the way of the most familiar love, they mocked as well as reproached. The one was too strict, the other too free. The gladness of the one and the sorrowful strain of the other were both disdained. But adds the Lord, "Wisdom is justified of all her children." And thereon the beautiful tale is added by the Spirit which illustrates this. The woman which was a sinner is the contrast of the unwise generation, and enters the family of Wisdom, which is justified of this as of every other child.

4_07_15 p. 192.

John 10: 8, p. 107. — Clearly, the Lord does not include the prophets among the thieves and robbers; but all who set up to be "the Shepherd," such as Theudas and Judas of Galilee, and all who virtually treated the sheep as if they were their own (not God's), such as the rulers who had just cast out the man whom Jesus had healed.

4_07_15 p. 192.

John 14: 16, p. 157. — The promise of the Holy Ghost in person, and to abide for ever (in contrast with the Lord's brief sojourn), is here intimated. The display of His Power through the disciples had been spoken of in verse 12. The glory of Jehovah had been once seen in Israel. After that the Word, made flesh, had tabernacled here below. The Holy Ghost, lastly, was given, not certain of His operations merely (whether old or new), but Himself personally, just as truly as the actual presence of the Son of God on earth had preceded Him. "It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you" (John 16). Hence the force of Eph. 4: 4, "one body and one Spirit," for "by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body." What the soul is to the natural body, the Spirit sent down from heaven is to the one body, the Church. And as He is the formative and animating energy of the body in love, truth, and holiness, so is He the true spring and sustainer of its hope, as in Rev. 22: 17. There the Church is heard, with fresh affections, longing for Jesus, who had been just named "the bright and morning star." When the Bride bids Him come, it is not mere feeling. "The Spirit and the Bride say, Come." In every case the idea is of a divine person, another Paraclete, in and with the Church, and not mere influences, which latter phrase often covers an heretical denial of the Holy Ghost's personality, as it is still more frequently the expression of unbelief as to His continual personal abiding in the Church on earth.

4_07_15 p. 193.

John 17: 21, 23. p. 107.  -  I think that there is an important difference between the unity in verse 21 and that in verses 22, 23. The first is, if I may so say, the unity of grace, the second is the unity of glory. The first was presented to the responsibility of the world ("that the world may believe," etc) at Pentecost. The second will be accomplished to perfection ("perfect in one" when Christ and the Church appear together in glory, when the world shall know that the Father sent the Son, and loved the bride as He loved the bridegroom. Then, as we are told elsewhere, the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Jehovah (Isa. 11: 9) and of His glory (Hab. 2: 14), as the waters cover the sea.

4_07_15 p. 193.

John 18: 6, p. 157. — Permit me to protest against M.P.'s statement. It is destitute of the least semblance of proof or even probability; nay, it is contrary to the entire context, both before and after. Had the soldiers or officers been Jews — I will not say disciples — the idea would not be so unreasonable. But, as it is, what more inconsistent with the notion of voluntary obeisance and saluting our Saviour as their temporal King, than a party of Caesar's heathen soldiers, led by the traitor Judas from the chief priests and Pharisees? Peter, rash as he was, made no such mistake when he cut off the ear of Malchus in his zeal. The truth is, that the scene, like very many in St. John's gospel, sets forth most significantly the divine glory of Jesus. Other evangelists omit it, because the Holy Ghost inspired them to present our Lord in other ways. But that gospel which, above all, develops the grace and glory of the Word made flesh records the fact which so strikingly illustrated who and what He is who answers to the humble name of Jesus of Nazareth.

4_07_15 p. 196.

Colossians 3: 15, p. 147. — Here it is the peace, not of God, as such, but of Christ, as is allowed by all critics of note, on the authority of the best MSS. and versions. The general strain of the epistle, and of this verse, is in its favour.

4_07_15 p. 196/7.

2 Timothy 3: 16, p. 158. — The Greek here is, πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ωφέλιμος π. δ., which it is well to state, as some early ecclesiastical writers have given rise to mistakes. Thus Origen, though he elsewhere cites the passage correctly, in at least one place omits καὶ and adds οὖσα ὠφ, ἐστι. The Syriac is confused, but much to the same effect, apparently, as are the Coptic and other versions, and several Fathers. The copies of the Vulgate differ: at any rate, the text preferred by Lachmann (8vo. 1850) exhibits, "Omnis scriptura divinitus inspirata et utilis ad docendum," etc., which is equivalent to the authorised version; while the Sixtine and Clementine editions agree, I believe, in reading "est utilis," and they are followed by the Rhemish translators, De Genonde, etc. The best MSS. that contain the epistle attest καὶ to be a genuine reading, and all the critical editors known to me, as Griesbach, Knappe, Matthiae, Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf agree as to this with the Textus Receptus. In the face of this, it is singular that Luther should render it, Alle Schrift von Gott eingegeben ist nüsse, etc., i.e., "every writing given (prompted or inspired) by God is profitable," etc. To this there are two obvious objections: first, γραφή nowhere occurs in the New Testament in the sense of mere writing, but of Scripture, or, figuratively, of the truth contained in it; and secondly, καὶ is not translated at all. A similar reasoning applies to some modern cavillers, save that they give a show of noticing the conjunction. As Bp. Middleton justly remarked, "he who can produce such an instance will do much towards establishing the plausibility of a translation which, otherwise, must appear, to say the least of it, to be forced and improbable." They can produce none. On the other hand, besides 1 Tim. 4: 4, Heb. 4: 13 affords a parallel construction, and both vindicate our common translation as the only tenable one. If the last clause of the passage in Hebrews were to be rendered after the proposed fashion, there would result "all naked things are also open unto the eyes," etc.; whereas the real sense is, that all things, be they ever so hidden, are bare, and exposed to the view of Him with whom we have to do.

Your correspondent G. says, that the article is not necessary with πᾶσα: I go farther and affirm that it would be improper in this place. The Spirit had just referred to the ἱερὰ γράμματα which Timothy had known from a child. Then he adds that all that comes under the category of Scripture, πᾶσα γραφή, is given by inspiration of God, and profitable, etc. If the article had been inserted, the sense would have been unsuited, if not worse (either some particular Scripture as a whole, or the definite. totality of Holy Writ); whereas the anarthrous form, with the distributive meaning of every Scripture, is simple, forcible and perfectly accurate. What was wanted and intended was to characterise every Scripture —  of the New no less than of the Old Testament — as divinely inspired, and profitable for the varied purposes of the Holy Ghost. So in 1 Tim. 5: 18, a passage from Luke 10 is called "the Scripture," as well as one from Deut. 25; and Peter, in his second epistle, classes the epistles of St. Paul with the other Scriptures. It may be added, that in 2 Peter 1: 20, γραφή has no article, and yet, beyond a doubt, it means Scripture. There the absolute form of the negation deprives the word of the article, as the distributive design takes it away from our text. Thus, in every respect, I cannot but conclude that the critics alluded to, far from proving themselves "very learned" as to this question, have only exposed their ignorance and their temerity. Even De Wette, disposed as he was to rationalism, confirms the authorised version, as do the Lausanne translators, Beza, Diodati, Ostervald, Martin, etc.

4_07_15 p. 197.

Hebrews 9: 23, p. 52. — "An Inquirer" is directed, among other Scriptures, to Eph. 6: 12 and Rev. 12. as casting light on the question why heavenly things should need purification.

Next, the meaning of "earthly things" as contrasted with "heavenly things" in John 3: 12, is not difficult. The kingdom of God embraces both, and, as the Old Testament chiefly develops the former, so the New Testament dwells almost exclusively on the latter. The Lord here teaches that regeneration is indispensable to the Jew even for enjoying the earthly things of that kingdom. Compare Ezekiel 36: 25 - 38, from which Nicodemus, a master of Israel, ought to have known it. Even Israel must, as a nation, be born again before they can have their earthly millennial blessings. If this was not believed, it was vain to speak of the higher department of God's kingdom.

4_07_15 p. 197.

Hebrews 11: 39, 40, p. 78. — The "better thing" is evidently distinguished from "the promise" which the faith of Abraham and of subsequent Old Testament saints embraced. It means, blessed as "the promise" is, that God has in His counsels something superior "for us (that is, for those who now believe.) The only question is, whether κρεῖττόν τί  is to be restricted to present dispensational blessings of a higher order, or whether it also extends to a difference in glory. Of course it is not forgotten that Abraham looked for a city, etc., and that many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of Heaven. These and similar texts do not, however, decide the question; nor do I attempt now to say more than that the verses predicate "something better" of the New than of the Old Testament saints, whether that "better thing" be present or future. They received not the promise: We, meanwhile, are being called to something better; and, when our calling is complete, they shall be made perfect. Compare, for a similar distinction, Heb. 12: 23, the church of the first-born, and the spirits of just men made perfect.

4_07_15 p. 198/9.

2 Peter 1: 20, p. 52. — There is this great difficulty in the way of the view proposed by φιλος, that he assumes ἐπίλυσις to be "ability to reveal things," "the exposition of the previously unknown, unrevealed mind of God." It really means solution, or explanation; and so our translators probably understood the term. No prophecy of Scripture is (or is made, γίνεται) of its own solution; it was so originated, and formed of the Spirit, as not to be self-interpreted: it must be taken, in order to be understood, as part of a grand scheme which attests the glory of Christ; and this sense, which results from a close examination of the verse, is entirely confirmed by the context. Christ received from the Father honour and glory when the voice came to Him from heaven, which "we heard," says the Apostle, "when we were with Him in the holy mount." But this was not all; the vision of glory was bright but transient, the voice of the Father but briefly heard. "But," adds he, "we have also the prophetic word more abiding, whereunto ye do well," etc. The testimony of the Spirit in the prophecies is (not more certain or true, but) more stable than the glorious but fleeting mount of transfiguration. Both bear witness to the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ; yet of the two the prophetic word is the more permanent. It is a light that shines in a dark place; but it is till the day dawn, and the day-star arise in our hearts. Nor can it be duly entered into if isolated from His glory, of which it is the herald; for, in truth, at no time did prophecy come by man's will, but holy men of God spake, as borne along by the Holy Ghost, who delights to glorify Christ. I believe that Bishop Horsley's exposition is founded on a view substantially similar.

4_07_15 p. 199.

2 Peter 3: 10-12, pp. 27, 39. — By "elements" the Apostle means, I think, the materials of which the crust of the globe is composed. As the world was once inundated by water, it will be melted down by fire, to form a new earth, atmospheric heaven, etc.

4_07_15 p. 199.

1 John 3: 9, p. 27. — The clue to this and other difficulties is to be found in the singularly abstract character of St. John's Epistles. Here, for instance, the believer is viewed according to the new nature which he possesses, in contrast with the world, which has none of it; but the same Apostle does not forget to say (in 1 John 1: 8), "If we (i.e. the family of God) say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." And these two very different but equally true statements naturally flow out of the context, which contains each of them. In chap. 1 the great idea is the eternal life, which was with the Father; He, being the true light, teaches us that God is light, and, while calling and enabling us to walk in the light, discovers to us what we are in ourselves: hence the appropriateness of 1 John 1: 8, et seq. In chap. 3 it is not so much this personal and absolutely perfect manifestation in Jesus, as its nature and spiritual features characterising God's children, and contrasted with the world; hence the suitability of 1 John 3: 9, etc.

4_07_15 p. 199.

The power of working miracles, p. 142. — It is evident that your correspondent does not know that the onus probandi lies upon those who assert such a power, and not upon those who deny it. All that the close of Mark 16 can be made legitimately to prove is, that certain miraculous signs were to follow them that believe. And they did, as is shown in the Acts of the Apostles. The Lord does not here or anywhere else guarantee their continuance to the end. What makes this the more striking is, that in Matt. 28 He does promise to be with His disciples alway, even unto the end of the age; but there is no promise that He would give signs till then.

4_07_22 p. 200.

Songs of Degrees (p. 145) are supposed by the Septuagint and Vulgate translators to have been sung on the steps of the temple. Luther renders the word, "in the higher choir." Many refer them to the going up from captivity; but this would scarcely embrace them all. A recent writer conceives that they afford internal evidence of being written for the great feasts of Israel, when the males went up to appear before the Lord.

4_07_22 p. 207.

The Thessalonians (1 and 2) pp. 109, 142. — The appearance of contradiction between these two Epistles is due, partly to a mistranslation of the clause ὡς ὅτι ἐνέστηκεν ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου, and partly to the confusion, so general even among prophetic students, of the παρουσία (i. e. coming, or presence) with the ἡμέρα (or day) of the Lord (2 Thess. 2: 1, 2).

1. It is impossible to defend the rendering of ἐνέστηκεν. The words which are used in the New Testament to convey the idea of "at hand," "near," or "nigh," are ἐγγὺς, or the verb ἐγγίζω, or the perfect of ἐφίστημι. But ἐνίστημι is never so rendered in the New Testament, save in the passage before us (compare Rom. 8: 38; 1 Cor. 3: 22, 7: 26; Gal. 1: 4; 2 Tim. 3: 1; and Heb. 9: 9). Such, too, is its evident force in the Greek Bible, though I have not noticed it above six times, and these in the apocryphal Book of Maccabees. In almost every text of the New Testament where the term occurs, the sense of present, or actually come, is absolutely required; in several, the word is used in contrast with μέλλοντα or things to come, so that imminent, or impending, as some suggest, is there necessarily excluded. If this be allowed, the meaning is plain. The error did not arise from a misconstruction of the First Epistle, but from false teachers who rested on a pretended letter, and affirmed that the day of the Lord was come, or present. So the version of Lausanne (seconde édition, etc. 1849) has "que le jour du Christ est la." This St. Paul had never said, nor anything that could give a colour to it. On the other hand, after the Second Epistle was written, he repeatedly insists on, and implies the nearness of, the Lord's return, as any one can see in Rom. 13: 12; 1 Cor. 15: 51, 52; 2 Cor. 5: 2, 4; Phil. 4: 5; Heb. 10: 25. In these epistles, stretching down to the close of his ministry, he teaches, quite as clearly as in 1 Thess., that the day is at hand. It is a mistake then to suppose that a doctrine so plain, so certain, and so often urged by St. Paul (not to speak of James, and Peter, and John, who teach similar things) is contradicted in 2 Thess. 2: 2. What the Apostle combats is the very different proposition, that the day of the Lord was arrived. A somewhat kindred error is exposed in 2 Tim. 2: 18; and it is perhaps worthy of mention, that Chrysostom, in commenting on our text, refers to the passage in 2 Timothy as being of similar character.

2. "The coming of the Lord" is used in contrast with "His day," not as equivalent expressions. The same thing appears from a close inspection of 1 Thess. 4: 13-18, and of 1 Thess. 5: 1-11, the former dwelling on the παρουσία, the latter on the ἡμέρα of the Lord. The one is associated with the idea of the joy and blessedness of the saints caught up to be with Christ; the other with the execution of judgment, and the appearing of his glory to the world. The former is a mystery revealed in the New Testament; the latter, whether in a partial or a full sense, was already familiar to the readers of the Old Testament. The same distinction re-appears, in my opinion, in 2 Peter 3, where, in reply to those who scoffed about the promise of the Lord's coming, the Apostle presses the solemn fact of His day, when all nature should melt under the hand of God; the day of the Lord being here taken in its largest sense, as the period of divine intervention and government, and so embracing the millennial reign and the judgment that succeeds it. On the whole, then, the Apostle's meaning seems to be this: —  He beseeches the brethren in Thessalonica not to be shaken by these alarms that the day of the Lord was come; and this for a twofold reason: 1. That the Lord was to come and gather them to himself, which, of course, was yet future, and, 2, That the evil which that day is to judge was not yet manifest, and, therefore, the day of His judgment was still delayed. I may just observe, by the way, that the English Bible quite rightly renders ἡπὲρ in this passage "by," or "for the sake of." Such is its force after verbs of entreaty, as here. W. K

4_07_22 p. 207.

1 Timothy 6: 5, pp. 109, 165. — There need be no question about the last clause. Apart from the following verse, and the bearing of the context, it is impossible rightly to render νομιζόντων πορισμὸν εἶναι τὴν εὐσέβειαν, as the authorised version does. The Greek article requires "that godliness is gain," not the converse.

4_08_05 p. 214

2 Kings 2: 9. "A double portion" is an allusion to the share of a first-born or eldest heir. Thus, in Gen. 48: 22, Israel says to Joseph (who got the birthright of Reuben, 1 Chr. 5: 1, 2), "I have given to thee one portion above thy brethren." Deut. 21: 17 may also be compared, where a similar Hebrew phrase occurs, and the sense beyond question is a double portion in comparison with what might fall to other heirs. Hence, I think, that Mr. Manley's query must be answered in the negative, and that the expression refers to the Jewish idea of a first-born's inheritance. The Septuagint and the Latin version of Tremellius and Junius, Luther and De Wette, Martin and Osterwald, confirm the English Bible. So does even De Genonde, though the Vulgate gives "duplex spiritus tuus;" but this latter rendering seems to me groundless. On the distinctive ministries of Elijah and Elisha, the reader may find some valuable remarks in "Present Testimony," vol. 3 pp. 415- 439 (Groombridge and Sons.)

4_08_19 p. 228

Matthew 19: 24, pp. 122, 140. — The suggested explanation of a small side-gate of the city, termed "the needle's eye," does not appear to agree with the context. The Lord is describing something that is, humanly speaking, "impossible," which does not apply to the fact recorded by Lord Nugent. How much simpler to understand that the allusion is to a palpable impossibility, so far as man was concerned, conveyed, perhaps, in a familiar proverbial form? The comfort is, that with God all things are possible, as the Lord adds.

4_09_02 p. 237.

ON THE USE OF THE NAMES JEHOVAH AND ELOHIM IN JONAH.

The intercourse between Jonah and God is under the name Jehovah. When the seamen learn who his God is that he is running away from, they fear Jehovah, and call upon Jehovah. Where it is a general testimony of repentance to strangers (Ps. 3: 5, to the end), it is Elohim. And when we have the general supreme dealings of God with Jonah, to make him show what He was with man as God, it is again Elohim. Now, in Jonah, this has peculiar force, because the relationship of Israel with Gentiles, and of Gentiles with Jehovah, is in question. It is the last public direct testimony of God to Gentiles before Christ. And this goodness of God to Gentiles is really what Jonah dreaded, as discrediting his message of judgment, which Jewish pride might like to see executed. (See Jonah 4: 2.) Hence we have Gentiles brought, in the moment of judgment on the Israelite, to confess Jehovah; and God, as such, showing Himself good, the faithful Creator, who thought of those who could not distinguish between their right hand and their left, and even of the cattle. At the same time the proper relationship of Jehovah to his prophet, as such, is also fully maintained, and the word Jehovah, his God, more than once repeated. (Extracted from the "Irrationalism of Infidelity," pp. 190, 191; an admirable and profound reply to German neology and its English admirers. London: Groombridge and Sons. 1853.)

4_09_02 p. 238.

Ex. 6: 3.pp. 122, 150.  -  The meaning is, not that the name Jehovah was new to all before Moses, but that then, for the first time, God was pleased to adopt it as a name of positive and special relationship; just as the Almighty God had been His peculiar title as revealed to Abraham and the fathers (see Gen. 17, 35, and 48). To us, now, who believe in the Lord Jesus, the characteristic name is that of Father. "I will receive you, and will be a father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, said the Lord Almighty" (2 Cor. 6; and compare 1 Cor. 8). It is not, of course, that God abandons what was implied in Shaddai, or in Jehovah, but that he is, above all, now developing to His church the riches of grace contained, I may say, in the name of "Father." Nothing plainer, nor more beautiful. The wandering fathers needed an almighty friend. The nation, just about to enter on a more changeful history than that of any people, not to say of all peoples put together, were called to be the witnesses of an unchanging God — Him who is, and who was, and who is to come. Was there fresh and equally striking revelation of His love to the Church? Yes, we have it in the Father's name, declared by Him who said, "Go to my brethren and say unto them, I ascend unto my father and your father, and to my God and your God." Compare Eph. 4: 6, and indeed, all the New Testament.

4_09_02 p. 239.

Ex. 23:19. pp. 27, 96.  -  Among the efforts of Satan's power in idolatry, as another reminds me, one was to destroy the order, affections, and comeliness which God has established in nature. Christianity respects, though it raises above, all such proprieties, while Satan degrades them in every way by what is unnatural. This seething of a kid in its mother's milk was an example in respect of tender and kindly affections. Those who are even moderately acquainted with the horrors of idolatry, will remember how universal and systematic were such outrages. All this the law forbade.

4_09_02 p. 239.

Numbers 22: 20-22, pp. 155, 173. — If X. S. had duly considered ver. 12, 13, he would have seen that God had first of all forbidden Balaam to go, who evidently coveted Balak's reward, in spite of the high profession in ver. 18. It was wrong in Balaam to ask again; though, when he did, God employed his going for a witness of Divine grace to Israel, as well as of his own perverseness.

4_09_02 p. 243

Ephesians 2: 20, pp. 99, 123, 141. — The foundation of the Church was, I suppose, laid by the complete revelation of God's mind; and this by the Apostles and Prophets of the New Testament, as is clear from Eph. 3: 5. It may be added here that the Apostles had besides, what the Prophets had not, special authority from Christ to make rules, appoint certain rulers, and otherwise establish and order the Church of God.

4_09_16 p. 255.

1 Peter 3: 19. To be understood, this verse must be taken with what goes before. Christ was "put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit, by which also He went and preached unto the spirits in prison, which sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah," etc., just as we read, in 1 Peter 1: 10-12, of Christ's Spirit in the prophets testifying, so here we learn that His Spirit preached (i.e. in Noah). Those who heard were disobedient then, and their spirits are in prison now. Christ's Spirit, by Noah, went and preached to them when they were living men, before the Deluge came; but they rejected it, and now, consequently, their spirits are kept for judgment. The collocation of the Greek (τοῖς ἐν φυλακῃ πνεύμασιν) is decisive, that the true connection is not between the preaching, but the spirits and the prison. The preaching was by Christ's Spirit in Noah to men on earth, whose spirits are now imprisoned till the judgment of the dead.

4_09_30 p. 269.

PAROUSIA, p. 212. — Its precise use in the Epistles is to set forth the actual presence (and so by implication the coming, if previously absent) of a person or thing. It may or may not be a manifested presence; this must be decided by the context, or the nature of the case. Thus the παρουσία of Christ as Son of Man clearly is so manifest, that all tribes of the earth mourn as they see Him. (Matt. 24) On the other hand this is not said as to 1 Cor. 15: 23, 1 Thess. 4 etc. when the saints rise to meet Him in the air, though of course He appears to them. This is to me confirmed by the comparison of 2 Thess. 2: 1 and 8, the one being simply Christ's presence by which the saints are gathered to Him, the other being the manifestation or Epiphany of His presence, which destroys the Man of Sin.  Ἐπιφάνεια and ἀποκαλύψις imply shining forth or appearing, and revelation respectively; and, when applied to our Lord's second Advent, mean that stage or aspect of it which is publicly displayed.

4_10_14 p. 278.

Acts 2: 34. p. 247, 254.  -  If the context, and especially verse 29, be compared, it is plain that the question is of David's body, not of his soul.

4_10_14 p. 279.

Romans 9: 3, pp. 27, 32, 48, 90, 102, 133.  -  Though unwilling to add to your already numerous notes upon this text, I may be allowed to say that the Cambridge Annotations and the Bampton Lectures of Dr. Bandinel are in error if they deny the idiomatic use of the imperfect. No particle is requisite to give it a potential sense. Though the tense is past and in the indicative mood, it is perfectly proper, as far as grammar is concerned, to render ηὐχόμην "I could wish." Matthiae (Gr. Gr. § 509a) cites from AEsch. in Ctes. p. 333, ἐβουλόμην οὖν τὴν βουλὴν . . . όρθῶς διοικεῖσθαι; but an instance from the New Testament may be more satisfactory, as ἐβουλόμην καὶ αὐτὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀκοῦσαι. (Acts 25: 22.) The fact is, that the true rendering is a question of the context, and not merely of grammar. My opinion is that the Auth. Version, De Wette, Beza, Martin, and Ostervald are right, and that the Vulgate, Luther, the Lausanne Translation, etc. with Valpy and Haldane, are wrong. The meaning is, I think, that Paul loved his brethren in the flesh quite as much as Moses, and that he esteemed their privileges most highly, whatever the Jews might think or say to the contrary.

4_11_18 p. 312.

Isaiah 2: 2, p. 170. — The meaning seems to be the supremacy which God will attach, in the last days, to Mount Moriah, the mountain which is the seat and centre of the worship of Jehovah, as Zion was and will be the seat of royalty given in the grace of God after man's king had failed. When the mountain of Jehovah's house is thus exalted above all rivals, great or small, all nations shall flow unto it; for the city of the great king, the earthly Jerusalem under the Messiah and the New Covenant, is the destined metropolis of the world during the millennium. The New Jerusalem of St. John is another and a higher thing, not referred to here. The state of things predicted is a contrast with what is now going on. Now the house is left desolate, and Jerusalem is trodden down of the Gentiles, and nation rises against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. The hour is come also when Jerusalem itself has no special sanctity; it is no longer the "mountain" now, but the true worshippers worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship him. But in the age to come, all Israel shall be saved, and the Gentiles shall learn war no more, and Jehovah's house shall be called an house of prayer for all people, and the latter glory of it shall be greater than the former, saith the Lord of Hosts.

4_11_18 p. 313.

Matthew 5: 33, p, 246. — The question here (as in James) is not in the least a judicial oath. The Lord is dealing with the conduct of His disciples individually, and not with their relations to the powers that be. It is a matter of ordinary communication, not an oath before the magistrate. Heaven, earth, Jerusalem, and a man's own head, were modes of swearing in the familiar intercourse of Jews, not such as were used when God's authority was introduced in order to elicit truth as to matters of fact. Hence the Lord Himself, though silent before, answered when the high priest adjured Him by the living God. (Matt. 26: 62-64.)

4_11_18 p. 314.

Matt. 8: 24 etc. Here the kingdom of heaven appears to me to denote the rule of the heavens, not in power and manifestation, as predicted in Daniel, but in patience and mystery during the time of the Lord's session on the Father's throne, as the rejected King. Hence, in one aspect of it (presented to the multitude out of the house,) you have the wheat and tares, the great tree, and the leavening of three measures; in another aspect (presented to the disciples within the house,) you have treasure hid, the one precious pearl, and the gathering of the good fish into vessels while the bad are cast away. That is, it is the entire state of things here below, while Christ is above, — His work and the enemy's in the field (or world), with their results respectively.

4_11_18 p. 315.

Matthew 24: 28, p. 210. — The words mean that where the object of judgment is, there the executioners will do their work. The Scripture which our Lord probably had in view is Job 39: 30 The application of the prophecy is, I believe, to the apostate part of the Jewish nation, which will be as a lifeless carcase when divine vengeance falls upon it at the end of the age. It is scarcely needful to refute those who make the verse to mean the Roman standards, any more than the absurd and profane thought of such as apply the figure of the carcase to the Lord, and of the eagles to the Church.

4_11_18 p. 317.

Luke 16: 23, 24, pp. 171, 229. — Mr. Davies' difficulty is due to the system which denies an intermediate state of enjoyment and misery before judgment is formally passed in the resurrection state. The entire strain and object of the tale, and especially verse 22 no less than verses 27, 28, exclude the future. On the other hand, that more is conveyed than a figurative reference to the body ought not to be assumed. In fact, it is our only medium of feeling, and the Lord, of course, spoke so as to be understood. So it is said in Rev. 6 that the souls of them that were slain cried with a loud voice, and that white robes were given unto every one of them. Does this prove they were in the body? Yet evidently this, like Luke 16: 23, 24, represents the intermediate state.

4_11_18 p. 318.

John 16: 11, p. 284. — The presence in the Church of the Holy Ghost sent down by Christ, rejected and crucified on earth but exalted in heaven, is the proof of judgment. The Spirit given by a Christ cast out from the world, but glorified on high, shows that before God the prince of this world is judged. The execution may linger, but Satan is detected and doomed.

4_11_18 p. 318.

John 16: 23, pp. 146, 229. — If your Correspondent S. F. S. had read with attention the following verses, he must have seen, I think, that the passage has no reference to the eternal state, which will be characterised by worship, not by the expression of our wants. The verse really alludes to the time when Christ should have ascended and sent the Holy Ghost down, so enabling the saints to ask the Father in His name. Hitherto they had appealed to Him as their present Lord and master, but they had not yet tasted the sweetness of asking the Father in Christ's name.

4_11_18 p. 320.

Romans 9: 18, p. 247. — The mercy had been illustrated by God's dealing with Israel after they had made the golden calf; and the hardening by the case of Pharoah. Both facts are reasoned on by the Apostle in vindicating the sovereignty of God — a sovereignty which, while it lets in the Gentiles during Israel's rejection, is nevertheless the sole foundation even for Israel's hopes. It was in vain to talk of being Abraham's seed. The Ishmaelites and the Edomites could boast the same descent, and yet they were not called. History and prophecy alike showed that the blessing of Israel hangs upon God's sovereignty. Is there then unrighteousness with God? God forbid! The truth is, that Israel were ruined at the foot of the mountain where they had pledged themselves to obey all that God should command. And what did God say to Moses? "I will have mercy," etc. The very sovereignty which they disliked when shown in mercy to the Gentiles is thus proved to be everything to the Jew.

As to the hardening, it is equally clear and certain. God never made any man bad; but He may, and in certain cases does, give people up to the consequences of their own folly and evil: that is, He hardens in judgment those who slight and reject His grace. It was so with the Gentiles after the flood; it is so with Israel, as even their own prophets testified; and it is to be so with  professing Christendom. Pharoah was wicked, and this in proportion to the patience which God displayed; at last he was judicially blinded, and made an example of by Him whom he had despised. All are responsible. Sin destroys the capacity, not the responsibility of obeying God.

4_11_18 p. 321.

1 Corinthians 6: 11, p. 211. — We are justified by the blood and name of the Lord Jesus; and, as this is appropriated by the energy of faith, it is by the Spirit of God. (Compare Rom. 5: 1, 9) But it is not scriptural to affirm that we are justified by the Spirit, because baptised by Him into one body. Justification is an essentially individual thing, and, even though the two things may be often simultaneous, it is wholly distinct from the corporate operations of the Holy Ghost. The converse would be nearer the mark, though not absolutely true, viz. that we are now baptised into the one body because we are justified. It was this argument which St. Peter seems to have employed to silence the objectors of the circumcision. (Acts 11: 2, 15 - 18.) He showed how God had given to the Gentiles the like gift as to themselves, πιστεύσασιν, because they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ (not τοῖς π.  "who believed," as in our version.) If God baptised them with the Spirit, they could not but own that He must have given them repentance unto life. But what puts the matter beyond doubt is, that St. Peter and the other disciples were certainly justified before the day of Pentecost, and yet as clearly they were not till then baptised by the Holy Ghost. (See Acts 1, Acts 2, Acts 8: 12, 15-17.)

4_11_18 p. 324.

Revelation 5: 9, 10, p. 123. — The true reading of these verses is a most difficult question, as to which MSS. and versions, fathers and editors, are conflicting enough. There is no doubt that we ought to read αὐτούς (and not ἡμας) in verse 10, on the authority of the Alexandrian, Vatican, and forty other MSS. not to speak of many ancient versions. As to βασιλευσονται, it is a mistake of your Correspondent, no doubt, for βασιλεύσουσίν, which is supported by about twenty cursive manuscripts, etc. The two uncial MSS., with fifteen others, give βασιλεύουσιν. The valuable Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus affords no light on this passage, as there is a lacuna from Rev. 3: 19 to 5: 14. My opinion is, that the internal evidence is decidedly in favour of the former reading (i.e. shall reign), which only differs by a single letter, that is often and easily dropped by a copyist. Assuming this, we have as the most approved text of verse 10, ἐποίησας αὐτοὺς . . . β. κ. ἱ. καὶ βασιλεύσουσιν, "thou hast made them. . . and they shall reign." But this preferable reading of αὐτούς, in verse 10, sounds strangely with ἡμᾶς in the preceding verse, "redeemed us, and made them." In the two Leipsic editions of Tischendorf the difficulty disappears, for ἡμᾶς is omitted in verse 9, and the ellipse evidently refers to τῶυ ἁγίων in verse 8, while it is referred to in αὐτούς (verse 10). This omission is made on the authority of the famous Alexandrian MS. and another generally known as Codex Borgiae, as well as of the AEthiopic version. Lachmann follows them in his edition of 1850, though he had given ἡμᾶς in that of 1831. Adopting the same, the text would be ἠγόρασας τῳ Θεῳ ἐν τῳ αἵματί σου ἐκ πάσης φ. κ. γ. κ. λ. κ. ἔ. . . . καὶ ἐποίησας αὐτοὺς κ. τ. λ. "Thou hast redeemed to God by thy blood [a people] out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation, and hast made them," etc. This elliptical construction is frequent in St John. Thus, in his Gospel, John 16: 17, we have εἶπον οὖν ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν, and 2 John 4, εὕρηκα ἐκ τῶν τέκνων σου περιπατοῦντας. Examples are not wanting in the Apocalypse. Thus in Rev. 3: 9 you have δίδωμι ἐκ τῆς συναγωγῆς τ. σ. τώ λεγ.; and again, in Rev. 11: 9, βλέπουσιν ἐκ λαῶν. So far, therefore, from objection on the score of ellipse, it is plain that the text without ἡμᾶς, adopted by Tischendorf and Lachmann, and considered probable by Griesbach, runs quite Johannically as to style. The internal evidence pleads strongly, I think, in the same direction.

I see no reason to suppose that verse 9 is sung by the twenty-four elders, and verse 10 by the four living creatures or cherubim. The truth is, that both appear to join in celebrating the Lamb, but it is because of His  grace towards saints upon earth, in whose prayers the crowned elders are interested (verse 8). They too, it is sung, are made kings and priests, and are to reign over the earth, in spite of all they may suffer during the last fearful crisis.

4_11_25 p. 331.

Matthew 18: 25, 35, pp. 146, 265. — I think that the parable of the Merciless Servant, though teaching (as in verse 35) a very important moral principle for the individual believer, is particularly interesting and instructive on a large scale, as an historical likeness of the kingdom of heaven. The Jew, about to incur the guilt of rejecting the Messiah, is represented by him who owed 10,000 talents. But Jesus intercedes (Luke 23: 34), and the Holy Spirit, by Peter (Acts 3: 17 - 261), shows how God forgave them that debt. But they forbade the gospel of God's grace to be spoken to the Gentiles (represented by the other servant, who owed the former 100 pence), that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway. Therefore, the wrath fell on them to the uttermost (1 Thess. 2, compare also Acts 22: 21, 22), or, according to the figure in the parable, " his Lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors till he should pay all that was due unto him." Permit me here to add, that Rom. 11: 30, 31, rightly translated and understood, confirms the same truth, and adds another to show the triumph of mercy in behalf of the poor Jew in the latter day. "For as ye [Gentiles] in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: even so have these [Jews] also not believed your mercy, that they also may obtain mercy." Jewish opposition to God's mercy toward the Gentiles has filled up their guilt, and the natural branches are broken off. But when the fulness of the Gentiles is come, they too shall become objects of the same pure mercy, their ground of privilege being here regarded as a forfeited thing. I have reason to believe, from correspondence with Mr. GREEN, that he would now concur with this view, though the old mistake appeared in his learned Grammar of the New Test. Dialect, p. 247. The Syriac, the Vulgate, Luther, Tyndale, and the Lausanne Version seem to give a sense substantially similar.

4_11_25 p. 333.

1 Corinthians 12: 11, pp. 211, 230. — "Discerning of spirits" was, I think, a special gift, or χάρισμα, exercised in judging, not men individually, but doctrine. Was it not applied in the highest sense in the detection of the false teaching which entered the churches of Galatia, Corinth, Colosse, etc.? While some, like St. Paul, might possess the gift in an eminent degree, it must be borne in mind that all brethren are bound not to believe every spirit, but to try the spirits whether they be of God; because, adds St. John, many false prophets are gone out into the world.

4_11_25 p. 334/5.

2 Cor. 5: 16. The Apostle means, I believe, that the proper Christian relation to a knowledge of Christ has to do with Christ dead and risen. A Jew looked for and knew Christ after the flesh. Such is not our place: "Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more." It is no longer a Christ made of a woman, made under the law, seeking fruit in Israel, and testing man so as to prove that all here below was irreparably evil, — it is Christ in another and infinitely more glorious state, however true and blessed and important the Jewish and earthly condition was in its place. It is Christ seen in resurrection-glory, after having in death and for evermore set up the glory of God which had seemed to be hopelessly ruined. He was the true God, He was the perfect man; yet, sin having entered and ruined all, blessing was impossible according to God, had not the God man tasted death, ὑπὲρ παντός, and risen, the beginning, the first-born from the dead, to create all anew in righteousness, and by virtue of His redemption before God. Thereafter, if any man be in Christ, it is a new creation: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new, and all things are of God, etc. Not as if old things were not still within and around, but that faith is now entitled to see and speak according to the precious thoughts and counsels of God. The life which we have now got in our souls is the commencement and the assurance of that which can only be accomplished, as a matter of fact, by the coming of the Lord, and even in the new heavens and earth.

4_12_09 p. 337.

Psalms 59, 69, 79 (Vindictive Psalms), pp. 236, 310. — Though I dislike the title "Vindictive," and do not believe that any part of the Psalms inculcates or sanctions such a spirit, I adopt the phrase, in order to be understood by the querist and readers generally.

The grand source of the difficulty is from Christians reading the Psalms as the expression of their own proper experience and hopes, instead of seeing that we have therein, besides what is true of Christ personally, the Spirit of Christ breathing through the sufferings, trials, dangers, deliverances, and praises of His earthly people, Israel. They give us Christ's associations with the godly Jews. Hence deliverance for them is connected, not with going up to meet the Lord in the air, and their enemies being left behind on earth, but with the appearing of the Son of Man in power and glory, and the judgments which destroy their adversaries. Doubtless all saints, —  those who are called to heavenly blessing now, —  may find in the Psalms the sympathy of Christ's Spirit in the sweetest way. All Scripture is for us, though it does not necessarily follow that all should be about us. And the more this book is studied by a spiritual person, the more he will be satisfied that, while the Psalms contain the most precious comfort and instruction for all times, they do, nevertheless, as a whole, present a state of things when God is dealing in a very direct way with Israel and the Gentiles, and the exercises of heart thereby awakened by the Spirit rather than the proper calling of the Church of the heavenly places, wherein is neither Jew nor Gentile.

4_12_09 p. 338/9.

2 Corinthians 5: 10, pp. 247, 334. — For we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

I do not exactly understand your Correspondent, without supposing some misconception as to our text and John 5: 24. For while κρίσις repeatedly occurs in John 5 it is not once seen in 2 Cor. 5. In the Gospel κρίσις concerns the wicked, it is a judgment of criminals, of those who have done evil and evil only: whereas our text describes the βῆμα of Christ where He reviews the conduct even of His own servants. Alas! there is bad done as well as good, and there is the suffering of loss as well as the reception of reward. Still it is not the unmixed wickedness of the lost, as is seen in the resurrection of judgment or damnation.

4_12_09 p. 339/40.

Ephesians 1: 10, p. 234. — The expression, "dispensation of the fulness of time" (οἰκονομίαν τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν), means the administration, or delegated government, when the suited times are all complete. The special form of the administration is, that God will head up all things in Christ; and this will be doubtless during the millennial reign.

"The fulness of time" (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου) in Gal. 4: 4, is not parallel, as C. H. G. rightly supposes. It simply teaches us that, when the time was fully come, God sent forth his Son, etc. Gal. 4: 4, alludes to the past, Eph. 1: 10, to the future.

The Christian Annotator 1855.

(1854-58. Contributions by W. Kelly.)

The identifying code is the year, month, day, and page number of the contribution.

5_01_20 p.15.

Isaiah 18: 1. — Woe to the land, etc. Vol. I. p. 271.

It is scarcely to be doubted that the first word ought to be a call to attention, as "Ho," rather than a denunciation of sorrow, as in the English version. Zech. 2: 6, may be compared. "Woe" is its most frequent force.

5_01_20 p.20.

Rev. 13: 8 ". . . the book of life of the Lamb slain," Vol. I. p. 336.

M. S. M. is correct in thinking that the true link is between the names written (not the Lamb slain) from the foundation of the world. Christ was foreordained as a lamb before the foundation of the world, but not slain till the due time. But why say that the patriarchs walked by faith, we by sight, in the teeth of 2 Cor. 5: 72? Doubtless we have accomplishment in Christ, and not promise merely; but this is a very different statement.

5_02_03 p.27.

Ezekiel 38: 13. Vol. II. p. 16. — Without pretending to say why the LXX adopted the rendering ἔυποροι Καρχηδόνιοι, I suppose one may venture to call it an interpretation, i.e. their  judgment of the class intended rather than a translation, which our version gives faithfully. Ἔμποροι Θαρσίς, or ἔμπ. Κ. καὶ Θ. are given in some copies. The same thing is found in Ezek. 27: 12, where we have Καρχ. ἔμπ. Nor is this peculiarity restricted to the Septuagint version  of this prophet, for in Isa. 23: 1, we read, Ὀλολύξατε πλοῖα Καρχηδόνος. Compare, also, ver. 6, 10, 14. Three anonymous interpreters (οἰ Γ.) read θάρσεις in ver. 1 and 6. Elsewhere Isaiah uses θαρσίς, as in Isa. 60: 9; Isa. 66: 19, and such is the general practice of the Septuagint translators. Their reason for considering Carthage to be Tarshish is another question; its Tyrian origin and commercial fame may have inclined them to that view.

5_02_03 p.28/9

Hebrews 7: 8. Melchisedec. Vol. I. p. 222, (also Heb. 7: 1-3, pp. 235, 323). — There is really no solid ground for denying that Melchisedec was a man, as simply as Abram, Lot, or any other personage that figures in the description of Gen. 14. The mystery consists not in the person, but in the way in which the Spirit of God records his appearance and action in the scene, so as to make of him a suitable type of the Lord Jesus. Thus not a word is said of his birth, or of his death; there is total silence as to his ancestors; and no hint is given of the lapse of his office, or of any successor. The Holy Ghost, by Paul, argues from this silence (which is so much the more striking as contrasted with the well known pedigree and succession of Aaron), and thus illustrates Christ's priesthood, which had really those features that are here shown to be typically foreshadowed in Melchisedec. For instance, while verse 8 refers to Melchisedec, all that is meant of him is that the testimony Scripture renders is to his life, not his death; whereas it frequently speaks of the death of Aaron and his sons. The same principle applies to his "abiding a priest continually." The Bible does not speak of his institution, nor of his resignation. When first we hear of Melchisedec he is a priest, and as such we leave him: no son, no successor appears. The name, "King of Righteousness," the place, "King of Salem," his sacerdotal office, especially in connection with a peculiar title of God, "priest of the Most High God," (which, in its full import, implies the possession, de facto as well as de jure, of heaven and earth,) the circumstances, ("met Abram returning from the slaughter of the Kings,") the character of his actions, ("blessed him," and not merely sacrifice and intercession,) are all obviously and eminently typical. There is scarcely more difficulty as to Melchisedec than as to Jethro, priest and king of a later day; though of course the latter could not furnish so apt an illustration, in the circumstances of the case, as the former. Both were real, historical, and not mere mystical persons. Two remarks maybe made towards the better understanding of this chapter and epistle. The first is, that, if the order is that of Melchisedec, the exercise is that of Aaron, as is most plain in Heb. 9, 10. The second is, that in verses 18, 19 of our chapter, we must take "for the law made nothing perfect" parenthetically, and suppose an ellipse of γίνεται (not of ἐτελείωσεν) with ἐπεισαγωγὴ. In other words, "did" ought to be left out of the authorised version.

5_02_10 p.49/50

The Crowned Elders and the Cherubim. Vol. II. pp. 10, 11. — If we are to adopt the text of Rev. 5: 9, 10, as suggested in vol. I. p. 324, it is plain that the usual proof for identifying the living creatures, or cherubim, with the redeemed, is entirely gone. The persons whose redemption is in question, are the saints referred to in verse 8, and who are evidently on earth, while the elders, and the cherubim, are in heaven. The use of the cherubim, in the Old Testament, in no way supports the conclusion that the redeemed are intended, but rather, that they are the executors of the judicial power of God; at least, such seems to me their force from Genesis to Ezekiel, and clearly, the living creatures are connected with His providential judgments in the Apocalypse. On the other hand, the evidence that the elders represent the heavenly intelligent redeemed, does not depend on Rev. 5: 9, 10. Their thrones, their white raiment, and their crowns of gold, if we only look at Rev. 4: 4, are no mean indications of redemption; especially as thrones and crowns are never, that I recollect, in Scripture coupled with angels. Moreover, it ought to be borne in mind that they are seen as four-and-twenty elders, a symbol which, in my opinion, points to 1 Chron. 24, 25. In other words, they seem to set forth the heavenly redeemed, viewed in their priesthood, and with the service of harp and song before the Lord.

5_02_17 p.57.

Matthew 27: 52, 53. Vol. II. p. 17. — Permit me to observe that it is, in my judgment, an inadequate as well as unwarranted remark on this passage, that a shock of the earthquake tore asunder the veil of the temple. The bare reading of the passage ought to show the amazing importance attached to the rending of the veil, which was in truth the death-knell of the Jewish ritual priesthood and system. It is named distinct from and before the account of the earthquake and its effects; and perhaps it may bear upon this point to notice that it was rent not from below but from above, "from top to bottom."

5_03_03 p.66/7.

Synoptical Study of the Gospels. (Continued from Vol. II. Page 55.)

MATTHEW AND LEVI. Vol. II. p. 4.

May I be permitted to express the following objections to Mr. Alford's reasons, and above all to his conclusion, that Matthew and Levi are distinct persons? It is agreed (1), that "the three narratives relate to the same event;" and (2), that "the almost general consent of all ages has supposed the two persons to be the same." But, so far from allowing that his third fact is almost inexplicable, I can only admire, with Eusebius, the humility and candour of Matthew, who gives himself the same name at the receipt of custom by which he was afterwards known as an Apostle. The other two Evangelists call him Levi as a publican, and Matthew as an Apostle, which is surely a very intelligible thing, on the supposition that he bore both names. Thomas is called Didymus by John only; and Thaddeus (or Lebbeus — as in Matthew and Mark) is called Judas by Luke and John, not to speak of his own epistle, with scarcely a note of identification. As to the 4th point, or "early tradition," that which separates the two persons is as minute as it is suspicious. Clement of Alexandria quotes the heretic Heracleon, to the effect that Matthew, Philip, Thomas, Levi, and many others, had not suffered martyrdom. Is this most vague statement of a Gnostic — even if it were clear and certain, which it is not, that he means by this Levi the Levi of Mark and Luke — to weigh against the plain and strong presumptions of 1 and 2? As to (5) Origen's testimony (contra Cels. i.), it seems in this passage to distinguish between Matthew and, not Levi, but, Λεβης. It is notorious that, elsewhere, Origen identifies Matthew with Levi. So that I am wholly amazed at Mr A's No. (6): "It certainly would hence appear as if the preponderance of testimony were in favour of the distinctness of the two persons." His notions of evidence must be strange indeed, to set the assertion of Heracleon, even if precise instead of being loose, and the statement of Origen, if confirmatory instead of being adverse elsewhere, and, as I think, even here, above his own first two arguments; especially as he is compelled to own how inexplicable on this supposition it is, that Matthew should, in his account, omit all mention of Levi. In fact, such a theory, if true, would turn the seeming modesty of Matthew into scarcely honest concealment of him who really gave the great feast. I have no doubt, therefore, that the common view which identifies Matthew with Levi, as two names of the same individual, is perfectly sound, and the only tenable one.

5_03_31 p.94/5.

Romans 5: 7. Vol. II. pp. 35, 70. — I perfectly agree with the Editor's objection to conjectural emendation. In the present instance the conjecture is founded on a manifest blunder of the Peschito Syriac, which stands alone, not here only, but, as far as I know, in the hypothetical structure which it gives to the preceding verse 6. The ancient and modern MSS. are unusually consentient, and there is no proof that the reading of a single copy is indistinct, as the sense and reasoning are strong and unambiguous. Experience, as well as the history of mankind, testifies to the distinction which the spirit of God draws between δικαίου and τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ (the article in the latter, not in the former case, being strictly correct), both of which are in contrast with our condition when God commended His love to us. I am of opinion, therefore, that the conjecture of W. B. M. is not baseless only, but destructive of the real scope of the passage.

5_04_14 p. 106.

1 Timothy 4: 1. Vol. II. p. 66. — It must, I presume, have escaped the memory of Mr. Roberts, as well as of the Editor, that we have already had our attention drawn to this gloss of Epiphanius, which has so strangely been adopted into the text of Wechelius' Greek Testament (See CHRISTIAN ANNOTATOR, Vol. I. p. 94). It can scarcely be doubted that the addition is unauthorised. I am not aware of a single MS., ancient or modern, which contains the words, nor of any version which supposes them. Origen, Hilary, Lucifer, etc. who confirm the readings of the best MSS. as regards the context, are here, I believe, quite silent. In short, I have never heard of any apparent reason for their insertion, save the alleged testimony of Epiphanius, which ought, on such a question, and in the face of a counter evidence, to have no weight. The version of Beza, which contains Tremellius' Latin translation of the Syriac, edited by Francis Junius (folio, Hanoviae, 1623), omits all notice of such a clause.

Allow me to take this opportunity of correcting a common misapprehension of this and the following verse, the sense of which is inaccurately rendered in the authorised Bible. Many who read it might suppose the Spirit of God meant, that those who depart from the faith, are the same class that speak lies in hypocrisy, etc. This is not the case. The former are the victims of the latter, who are energised by the seducing spirits of which the passage speaks. Thus, the real force is, that in the latter times some depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of liars having their own consciences seared, etc.

5_04_21 p.119.

Matt. 13: 44 - 46. Vol. II. pp. 62, 91. — It is evident to me that, as there is a close link between the preceding parables of the tree and the leaven, so there is a still closer analogy between the hidden treasure and the pearl. Popular tradition has made sad havoc in the true bearing of them all; but, as an explanation is sought of the latter two only, I would ask now, in what just sense could any soul be said to buy the field (i.e. the world) in order to get Christ, if He be supposed to be the treasure? or what goodly pearls does the unconverted man seek before he finds Christ, supposing Him to be the "one pearl of great price?" For various reasons, I have little doubt that, while they who are Christ's have his mind, it is Christ himself who fully answers to the man who found the treasure and the pearl; and that the former forth the value, the latter the peerless beauty in his eyes, of the heavenly saints, the Church. Phil. 2 may in a measure illustrate our Lord's renunciation; but there are at least two important checks to be observed: 1st, our Lord does not, and cannot, cease to be "God over all blessed for ever;" and 2nd, the bowing of "things under the earth" does not refer to the saints, nor anything gathered under His headship (as in Eph. 1: 10), but rather to the beings which are compelled by power to own the lordship of Jesus.

5_04_21 p.126.

Revelation 20: 4, 5. Vol. II. p. 35. — Your Correspondent does not appear to have sufficiently considered the first part of ver. 4, "I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them;" a purposely vague and broad statement, so as to include the saints generally of both Old and New Testament times, martyred or not, risen or changed. Then follow two clauses which bring into relief the sufferers, earlier and later, of whom the Apocalypse specially treats. These sufferers compose two classes, one beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the Word of God, the other refusing the worship and the mark of the Beast. Now if this explanation be true, and I have no doubt of it, the rest of the dead are necessarily the dead who are left in their graves, etc. after all the righteous who had died up to this time had been raised for the first resurrection, and of course only the wicked are thus left. The righteous dead who were not martyrs are included among those who sat on thrones, and are in contrast with "the rest of the dead."

5_05_12 p.147.

Mark 16: 9, et seq. Vol. I. pp. II, 35, 355; Vol. II. p. 21, etc. — Having long since protested against those who treat this passage and the beginning of John 8 with suspicion, I proceed to state my reasons, passing over the disputed place in John, which has been already well defended in Vol. II. p. 83.

Even Mr. Alford, who certainly does not err on the side of credulity, admits that the authority of the close of Mark is hardly to be doubted. Eusebius and the Vatican MS. omit it, and several others note its absence in certain copies, but generally add that it appears in the oldest and best. All else of the Greek MSS. all the Evangelistaria, all the Versions (except the Roman Edition of the Arabic), and a large proportion of the earliest and most trustworthy Fathers, are allowed to be in its favour. Lachmann, in spite of his notorious tendency to follow the very slips of the most ancient copies, edits the entire section without hesitation.

In his notes Mr. A. urges that the passage is irreconcileable with the other Gospels, and is disconnected with what goes before; that no less than seventeen words and expressions occur in it (some of them repeatedly) which are never elsewhere used by Mark, whose adherence to his own phrases is remarkable, and that consequently the internal evidence is very weighty against his authorship; that is, he believes it to be an authentic addition by another hand.

Before examining these criticisms, I must object to a reasoning which affirms or allows that to be Scripture which is irreconcileable with other Scriptures. If its authority be clear, every believer will feel that, with or without difficulties, all must be really harmonious.

But, it is said, the diction and construction differ from the rest of the Gospel. Did Mr. A. or those who think with him adequately weigh the new and extraordinary circumstances which had to be recorded? In such a case strange words and phrases would be natural if Mark wrote (nor does he by any means want ἅπαξ λεγόμενα elsewhere); whereas "another hand," adding to Mark, would as probably have copied the language and manner of the Evangelist.

Πρώτῃ σαβ. (ver. 9) is alleged to be unusual. Doubtless; yet, of the two, it is less Hebraistic than τῆς μιᾶς σ. (ver. 2), and each might help the other to a Gentile or a Roman ear. And, so far from being stumbled by the way Mary Magdalene is mentioned here, there seems to me much force in Jesus appearing first to her, out of whom He had cast seven devils. Who so suitable first to see Him and hear from Himself the tidings of His resurrection, who through death annuls him who had the power of death, that is, the devil? As to the absolute use of the pronoun in 11, 12, is it not enough that the occasion here required what was needless elsewhere? If πορευ. is found only in 10, 12, and 15, it is because the simple word best expressed what the Holy Ghost designed to say, whereas elsewhere the Evangelist employed its compounds in order to convey the more graphically what was there wanted. Thus, he uses εἰσπορ. eight times, while Matthew, in his much larger account, has it but once. Is that the least ground for questioning Matt. 15: 17? So, again, Mark has παραπορ. in four different chapters, Matthew once only (Matt. 27: 9), Luke and John not at all. Leaving this trivial point, the phrase τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ is to me an argument for rather than against Mark's authorship. Compare with it Mark 1: 36; Mark 3: 14; and Mark 5: 40. As to ἐθεάθη ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς and its difference from τοῖς Θ. αὐτόν, the answer is, that the word is most appropriate here and uncalled for in other places, and if the difference prove anything it would show two hands instead of one supplementing Mark's narrative! Thus, for instance, the same verb occurs but once in all the Epistles of Paul; are we, therefore, to suspect Rom. 15? Matthew has θεωρέω only twice; are we for a score of such reasons as these to speculate that "another hand " added Matt. 27 and 28? As regards the reiterated mention of unbelief, and the Lord's upbraiding the Eleven with it, what more instructive, or in better keeping with the scope of the context and of the Gospel? It was wholesome for those who were about to preach to others to learn what their own hearts were, and the Lord, in His own ministry, sets them right before announcing their great commission. Even if we only look at the word ἀπιστία, it occurs in Mark 6: 6; Mark 9: 24. If the verb is found only in Mark 16: 11, 16, what more marvellous than Luke's having it only in his last chapter (ver. 11, 41), and never once using the substantive either in the Gospel or in the Acts of the Apostles? It is true that μετὰ τ. and ὕστερον are found in no other passage of Mark, but his customary precision may be one reason why the former is not more common; and the latter occurs once only in Luke and John. It is confessed that τὸ εὐαγ. π. τῃ κτίσει is in Mark's style. The fact is, neither of the later Gospels contains the noun εὐαγ. and Matthew always qualifies it as "the Gospel of the kingdom," or "this Gospel." whereas, whether or not Mark has the qualified phrases in Mark 1: 14 and Mark 14: 9 (for MSS. etc. differ), he repeatedly has "the Gospel" elsewhere, as Mark 1: 15; Mark 8: 35; Mark 10: 29; Mark 13: 10. This, then, affords no slight presumption that the passage is the genuine production of Mark, as well as authentic. Παρακολ. in 17, and ἐπακολ. in 20, occur nowhere else in Mark, and that for the best of reasons; the accuracy which the compounded forms impart was demanded here, and not before, where the simple form sufficed. And this is the less surprising, inasmuch as the former appears only in Luke's preface, the latter nowhere else as far as the four Evangelists are concerned. As to the singularity of καλῶς ἕξουσιν, what simpler, seeing that this promise (as well as that about the new tongues, serpents, etc.) is revealed here only, and was unquestionably verified in the subsequent history. It is the natural converse of a common Scriptural designation for the sick, οἱ κακῶς ἔχοντες, and if the occurrence of ἀῤῥωστος should be here objected to, the reader may find it twice already in Mark 6 while Matthew and Paul use it each only once.

Only one further objection remains worth noticing, the use of κύριος in 19, 20. In Mark 11: 3, I suppose it is equivalent to Jehovah, and at any rate I would not press this as in point. But the absence of such a title before seems to me a beauty, not a blemish, in Mark, whose business was to exhibit the service of Jesus. But now that God had vindicated His rejected servant by the resurrection, now that He had made Him both "Lord" and Christ, what more natural, or even necessary, than that the same Gospel which had hitherto traced Him as the Servant, Son of God, should make Him now known as "the Lord?" But this is not all. The Lord had uttered His charge to those who were, at His bidding, to replace Him as servants, and in a world-wide sphere; was received up to heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. Now it was Mark's place, and only Mark's, to add that, while they went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord was working with them. Jesus, even as the Lord, is, if I may so say, servant still. Glorious truth! And whose hand so suited to record it as his who proved by sad experience how hard it is to be a faithful servant, but who proved also that the grace of the Lord is sufficient to restore and strengthen the feeblest? (Compare Acts 13: 13; Acts 15: 38; Col. 4: 10; 2 Tim. 4: 11.)

5_05_26 p. 154/5.

Doctrine of a Future State in the Pentateuch. Vol. ii. pp. 64, 74, 115. — The Apostle Paul tells us, that life and immortality (i.e. incorruptibility, ἀφθαρσία), were brought to light by the Gospel. These truths were but dimly made known before, though there had ever been sufficient for faith to lay hold of. Thus, the very first book of the Bible shows us the care and solemnity which the wandering patriarchs attached to their burial (Gen. 23, 25, 35, 47, 49, 50); and the Apostle, in writing to the Hebrew Christians, affirms that it was by faith (not fasting, customs, or superstition) Joseph gave commandment concerning his bones. He believed in a God that raiseth the dead, in a God who will surely raise them by and by, and give them a glorious link with the promised land, as well as with the city which hath foundations — the better and heavenly country. Again, our Lord convicted the Sadducees of not knowing the Scriptures, or the power of God as to a future resurrection state, and a present living to God, of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and this from God's words to that Moses who is said by Gibbon to have omitted the doctrine, but who, on the contrary, records this revelation in the same book of Exodus which contains the law of Sinai. (Comp. Luke 20).

I fully admit that there was a considerable measure of obscurity on this, as on many other truths, till He came who was the brightness of the glory of God, and the express image of His substance. But this was in perfect harmony with the Levitical, or Jewish system, in which the veil was not yet rent, and God was governing a nation on earth as the vessel of His presence and testimony among the Gentiles. The faith of His elect, of course, penetrated much further, as may be seen in Job 19; Ps. 16, etc. But I am now explaining one simple and satisfactory reason why we should not expect a fuller statement of a future existence in the Pentateuch. It is because the main question there is of a people called to know the manifest exercise of righteous government on the part of a God who dwelt, and that even visibly, in their midst. Individual Saints saw much more all through; but God's government of Israel on the earth is the grand topic of the Old Testament, and the true solution of this seeming difficulty, which is really in perfect keeping with the times, place, people, and circumstances where it occurs.

5_06_09 p.173.

The word αἰώνιος. Vol. I. p. 56. — Before treating of the force and usage of this adjective, it is well to examine briefly into αἰών, from which it is formed. The earliest application of the substantive in Greek writers (as Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, the tragic poets, and Herodotus) is in the sense of a man's life, or lifetime. In the later history of the language (not to speak of its medical application to "the spinal marrow") it denoted a long period of time (Ãschin. Axioch. 17), while the philosophers employed it in contradistinction to χρόνος to express the duration, αἰών of eternal and unchangeable objects, χρόνος of such as are transient and corporeal. Hence αἰών was used in the ancient philosophy as = the infinite and immutable eternity of God, and by an obvious metonymy = God himself, and subordinate spiritual beings who were supposed to proceed from Him, the term of duration being also extended to those invisible agents or entities themselves. Thus Philo Judaeus says, ἐν αἰῶνι δὲ οὔτε παρελὴλυθεν οὐδὲν οὔτε μάλλει ἀλλὰ μόνον ὑφέστηκε. This is important, as showing that in Hellenistic Greek authors of the same age as those of the New Testament the word was used properly and specifically to set forth eternity. "In eternity nothing is past or future, but only subsists." Equally plain is its application to the invisible beings or aeons of Oriental philosophy, as may be seen from the following extract, cited by Mosheim, from Arrian: — οὐ γὰρ εἰμὶ Αἰὼν ἀλλ᾽ ἄνθρωπος, μέρος τῶν πάντων ὡς ὥρα ἡμέρας, ἐνστῆναι μεδεῖ ὡς τὴν ὥραν καὶ παρελθεῖν ὡς ὥραν. Excluding the imaginary personal force, nothing can be clearer than its use in the time and language of the New Testament inspired writers to represent what is immutable and eternal. Aristotle, I may add, derives it from αἰὲν ὤς (De Coelo, i. 11).

Besides, when qualified by words which modify its sense, it is used in Scripture for the continuous course of a given system ruled by certain principles, as in Matt. 12: 32; Matt. 13: 39, 40; Matt. 24: 3; Matt. 28: 20; or, again, in a moral rather than in a dispensational sense, as in Gal. 1: 4; Eph. 2: 2.

I conclude, then, that while αἰών may be so used as to express the continuous existence of a thing which from its nature does not last for ever (as human life, an unbroken age or dispensation, or the general course of this world), its proper sense, taken by itself; is to express eternity. And the same thing is true of αἰώνιος. It is used in certain special connections, as in Rom. 16: 25; 2 Tim. 1: 9; and Titus 1: 2, where χρόνοι modifies its force, and gives a relative rather than an absolute sense; but its natural meaning, unless positively restricted, is eternal in contrast with temporary. It occurs seventy-one times in the received text of the New Testament, the examination of which need leave no doubt on the believer's mind. Donnegan gives. Philemon 15 as exceptional; but he is, in my opinion, mistaken.

5_06_16p. 180.

Isaiah 40: 3-11. Vol. I. p. 234. — It is true that there is to be a special preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom before the end comes; a preaching not to those in Judea only, as in the days of John Baptist, and of our Lord's earthly ministry, but to all the Gentiles in the entire habitable earth, who will be subsequently dealt with according to their conduct in respect of its messengers (compare Matt. 24: 14; Matt. 25: 31-46). Still it appears to me that this passage of the Prophet does not touch the question, and that the cry "all flesh is grass," etc. (ver. 6) was fulfilled at the first advent, quite as much as any part of the proclamation in verses 3-5. Nay, it is even plain that this proclamation had only an inchoate accomplishment in the past, being arrested by the unbelief of Israel.

5_06_16 p.186.

1 John 5: 8. Vol. II. pp. 23, 49. — It is plain that "the Spirit" (τὸ πνεῦμα) means the Holy Ghost. He only is truth (ver. 6). Allow me to take this opportunity of expressing my regret that Prof. Gaussen (Plenary Inspiration, pp. 192, 193) should venture to defend the text. rec. of the two preceding verses, and in doing so to mis-state, of course through inadvertence, the evidence. He ought to have known that the alleged testimonies of some early Latin fathers are very questionable, and that the most ancient MSS. of the Latin Vulgate are against the insertion of the disputed clause, not to dwell on the fact that the three Greek MSS. containing it, against near 150 which omit it, are not older than the fifteenth or sixteenth century; at least, if the Cod. Neapol. belong to the eleventh century, the reading here is a correction made 500 years later. As to the two grammatical considerations which he borrows from Bishop Middleton, I would briefly reply:

1. That the words τρεῖς οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, and οἱ τρεῖς (verses 7, 8), are no insuperable difficulty. They are masculine, it is true, while the words to which they relate are neuter; but the difficulty is nearly if not altogether the same, if the passage remained entire, as in the common text. If in that case the principle of attraction is used to justify this irregularity, the principle of rational concord applies to the correct text; and the more especially as τὸ πνεῦμα, that well-known personal object whose power wrought in the saints, is the first of the three witnesses who are specified immediately after. They are, as it were, personified as witnesses, and the gender is accommodated to the sense rather than in strict grammatical form.

2. The next objection is founded on the article being coupled with ἕν, as if it necessarily supposed a previous mention, which only occurs in the retrenched clause. But this is so far from being necessary that, even if ἕν, were rightly read in verse 7, the object and force of τὸ ἕν in verse 8 is wholly different. In other words, supposing the passage in question to be spurious, the anarthrous form would be an error, and the article is required (i.e. τὸ ἕν) in verse 8; for the idea intended is not the numerical unity, but the uniform testimony of the Spirit, the water and the blood.

It may be added, that all three, I believe, of these MSS. which contain the passage, omit the article before πατήρ, λόγος, and πν. ἅγ. which I venture to say is not even correct Greek, but just such phraseology as might come from an unlearned forger translating from the Latin. It was Erasmus who supplied the article to each of these words, with no other warrant than his own erudition.

5_06_16 p.187.

Clement's Epistle. Vol. II p. 63. — If "Mr. Davis" had taken due notice that chap. 55 refers to Gentile examples outside Scripture, he would have seen that Clement's use of Judith proves nothing as to the estimation in which the book was held in his day. No doubt he cites the faith of Esther, and possibly he alludes to such Christian instances as Rom. 16: 4; but his allusion to ὑποδείγματα ἐθνῶν shows that he is enforcing devotedness on the Corinthian Church by appeals even to heathen testimonies, without raising the question of the value of the writings which contained them.

I agree with Mr. D. that Clem. 27 refers to Dan. 4: 35, quite as probably as to Wisdom xi. 22, 12: 12. Polycarp x. may refer to Prov. 10: 2, Prov. 11: 4; but the analogy to Tobit is closer. There is no ground, that I see, for supposing that Clem. 46 quotes either Wisdom or Ecclesiasticus; but there is a remarkable instance at the beginning of the chapter, where the writer quotes (evidently as Scripture) that which is found neither in the Bible nor Apocryphal Books: — Γέγραπται γὰρ κολλᾶσθε τοῖς ἁγίοις, ὅτι οἱ κολλωμένοι αὐτοῖς ἁγιασθήσονται. In fact, it is quite contrary to the legal requirements of the Old Testament, either as to persons or things (cf. Ezra 9: 10; Neh. 13; Haggai 2: 12). There may have been some confused thought in the mind of the writer suggested by 1 Cor. 7: 14; if so, the application is as irrelevant as can well be conceived. Whatever may be the references to the Apocryphal writings in early writers, or even the reading of them by the early Church, it is certain that Jerome himself, the author of that version which Rome accepts as authentic, declares repeatedly that there are twenty-two books of Old Testament Scripture; clearly and absolutely excluding the Apocrypha, however useful he considered it might be: so Athanasius also.

5_06_23 p.200/1

Two Resurrections. Vol. II. pp. 11, 31, 50, 60, 98, 188. — I think that the just inference from a comparison of the various texts cited from the Peshito-Syriac is, that this venerable version is lax in representing the true force of different phrases in the Greek New Testament on the subject of the resurrection; not only confounding things which are distinct, but adding, in most or all cases, an idea not suggested by the original.

As to the Greek, there are the strongest reasons for doubting that ἐξανάστασις τῶν νεκρῶν is an inspired expression — I scarcely think that it is a correct one. But it is certain that A B (C is here defective) D E read, in Phil. 3: 11, τὴν ἐξανάστασιν τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν (F and G giving τῶν ἐκ, which seems to be a slip for τὴν ἐκ), while only two uncial MSS. of the ninth century, viz. J K, read τῶν without ἐκ. Accordingly, critics, with wholly different systems of recension, like Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, reject the received text in spite of Griesbach's adoption of it, though he marked the right reading as probable.

It is not surprising that J. H. has failed to seize the exact point of ἐξαναστάσεως νεκρῶν. The phrase is purely characteristic, and hence is anarthrous. The preposition is not omitted before νεκρῶν for the sake of euphony, as Mr. Birks supposes in a recent volume; but ἐξἀναστάσεως in Acts 26: 23, and Rom. 1: 4, indicates the mode or condition in which Jesus should show light to Jew and Gentile, and be defined as Son of God in power; while νεκρῶν was added, it seems to me, as a complement to denote that it was a resurrection in a proper, strict sense (not figuratively, as in Luke 2 and elsewhere).

It is a mistake to suppose the presence or absence of the preposition immaterial. The truth is that, while the resurrection of Christ, or of the just (i.e. those who are Christ's), like that of all others, is or may be styled ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν, never is the resurrection of the unjust designated ἀνάστασις ἐκ νεκρῶν — a phrase restricted to those who rise before the wicked. In other words, " the resurrection from the dead" (which it ought to be in Phil. 3: 11, as it is in Luke 20: 35, where the expression in Greek is rather the weaker of the two) is, Ã  fortiori, "of the dead" — but the converse does not hold; and this suffices to prove their distinctness. I believe that the reader who is familiar with the Scriptures will the most readily acquiesce in this statement.

5_07_07 p. 207.

Synoptical Study of the Gospels. (Continued from Vol. II. page 66.)

THEIR GENERAL DESIGN.

It admits of the clearest possible internal proof — of course, of all accumulative kind — that the Spirit of God employed Matthew to present the Lord Jesus as "the Son of David, the Son of Abraham," i.e. in descent from the two leading points of Jewish glory and promise. Mark is occupied with "the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God," and thus naturally details the ministry, in all its varied circumstances, of one who was the ready, patient, and withal powerful servant of all the need that surrounded Him — of one whose dignity as the Son of God "could not be hid" in His least work here below. Next, the genealogy of Luke traces Jesus up to Adam, that is, as connected with the whole race, Gentiles no less than Jews, as Son of Man and not merely the Messiah. These observations help to explain the comparatively large use of the Jewish prophets by the first of the Evangelists; while Luke, with equal propriety, depicts "that Holy thing," born of the Virgin, who increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man; and Mark, just as admirably, omits all notice of his parentage, his birth, his childhood, etc. and commences at once with the ministry of His forerunner and of Himself. Last of all, John gives a portrait of the Lord, in a point of view higher than the others, as the Word made flesh, who in the beginning was with God, and was God, the true light, full of grace and truth. For this reason, as well as because the Jews are here regarded as merged in the universal darkness and death, no genealogy is given: His person and divine relationship, not His human one, is the subject. It is not that the same truths are not recognised everywhere; for Jesus is owned as Son of God in Matthew, and as Son of David in John. Enough is afforded by every Evangelist to show an unbiassed soul that He, whom they all described, was God manifested in the flesh. Nevertheless, it remains true that each has his own proper and peculiar line; that what has been already stated is the grand characteristic testimony of those inspired writers; and that in this lies the real key, not only to the differences of language in what are called parallel passages, but also, as I believe, to whatever is inserted or omitted in the several Gospels. The Holy Ghost may allude to other glories of the Lord, in a biography which is specially devoted to trace Him in one very prominent character; and with perfect wisdom He has thereby cut off the objection that the writers differed in their comparative estimate of the Lord. Not one of the Gospels, for instance, fails to notice His inflexible obedience, whatever the office sustained, whatever the light in which He was regarded. He could not but shine in this moral perfectness; yet even here, the attentive reader may perceive that it is pre-eminently Luke whose business it was to illustrate His real and untainted humanity, as the obedient "second man," the Lord from heaven, in contrast with the first man, rebellious Adam; in a word, as the woman's seed, rather than, as in Matthew, the true Messiah and rejected Emmanuel.

It is familiarly known that Matthew and Luke furnish two distinct pedigrees from David, the latter Nathan's line, the former Solomon's, which was the elder and of course, Jewishly, the more important branch. As was usual in legal genealogies, the line of the husband is given by Matthew, who for the same reason records the supernatural dreams of Joseph; whereas in Luke, Mary is everywhere the more prominent personage of the two, and accordingly, as showing the source of His human nature, the genealogy here given is that of His mother. (NOTE) — Hence, it is said by Luke, ὢν υἱός, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, τοῦ  Ἰωσήφ, κ. τ. λ. that is, reputedly, or in the eye of the law, son of Joseph, but in fact, Mary's, as had been carefully shown in the preceding chapters. Thus, it is plain that there is nothing contradictory in these various accounts: nay, that each is as and where it ought to be, and is found in that Gospel whose character demands it, and there only. The Messianic descent of Matthew would be out of place in Luke, as the last Adam genealogy of Luke would not suit the historian who speaks emphatically of the Messiah, His relation to the Jews, His rejection, and consequently the transition to a new dispensation, which was to go on in mystery and patience, before the Son of Man returns to establish it in manifestation and power; of which last phase the prophets had treated. Luke, on the other hand, was inspired to develop the great principles of God's grace towards man, and the broader moral grounds which they assume; and this is so true that in the body of his Gospel events are grouped in their moral connections, not in their chronological sequence, save where this is require for the truth of the narrative.

5_7_21 p. 219.

Romans 2: 15. — The work of the law written.

Not the law, but law's work written, etc. The common misconception predicates of the unconverted Gentile a distinctive blessing of the new covenant. The Apostle merely speaks of some particular right, act, or work, from whatsoever source learnt, which bound the conscience thenceforth.

5_07_21 p. 223.

1 Corinthians 15: 29. Vol. II. p. 175. — I presume that Mr. Myers must have failed in accurately punctuating this text. I see no reason for doubting that an old and common interpretation is the best, as it certainly flows from the obvious construction, and a very ordinary meaning of the words employed. After the positive revelation in verses 20-28, the Apostle resumes his argument with εἰ ὅλως νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγ. which he had pressed in verse 16, with its consequences as to Christ, themselves, and the dead. Here the Apostle repeats the phrase of that verse, in view, first, of those who take the place of those who were fallen asleep in Christ; and secondly, of a lot in this life most miserable, if hope be there only. Compare 29 with 18, and 30 with 19. To enter the company of such if the dead rise not, would be folly indeed. Every proper lexicon or grammar will show to those who may not be aware already, that ὑπέρ has regularly and not infrequently the sense, "in the place or stead of," which here, in my opinion, accords best with the previous context, the general reasoning, and the actual phraseology of this particular verse. Αὐτῶν is of course to be read at the end rather than τῶν νεκρῶν, as having the largest support of the best authorities, MSS. versions, and fathers. A question might arise, as it has arisen, whether the first note of interrogation ought to follow βαπτ. or ἐγ.; but the substantial sense remains the same.

5_08_04 p.231.

TEXTS MISAPPLIED OR MISQUOTED.

Romans 3: 22. — Unto all and upon all them that believe.

Not as if the two clauses comprised the same persons exactly, as is sometimes thought, but "unto all," the general direction, and "upon all them that believe," the actual effect. Compare Rom. 5: 18, where the true force is clearly not "upon" but unto all men (bis), because there it is a question of the simple universal tendency, and not of the result.

Romans 3: 25, 26. — The passing over (or pretermission) of sins that are past, not our past sins, much less sins before baptism, as some have vainly taught, but the sins of God's people in past times in contradistinction to His ways at this time.

5_08_11 p.247.

If Mr. HAWARD bears in mind that, previous to the Lord's restoration of Israel, as described in Jer. 30, 31, etc., there is to be a partial return of Jews to Jerusalem, and that this partial return is to furnish the occasion for a fearful siege, at the close of which the Lord will appear to the discomfiture of their foes, all is plain. The great ingathering of Israel is a subsequent event.

5_08_11 p.247.

Matthew 5: 48; 1 John 3: 9. Vol. II. p. 227. — The first of these texts has no bearing whatever on the question of perfection in the flesh. It is the revelation of the name of our Father which is in heaven, and the character practically which suits the kingdom of heaven. The mere Jew was responsible to render testimony to the righteousness of Jehovah: the believer now is responsible to show forth the grace of "our Father." Vengeance on the Canaanites was then a righteous thing; now "if, when ye do well and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God." The children are bound to sustain the family character, "that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven; for he maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. . . . Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Other Scriptures prove, if proof were needed, that sin still abides in the saint here below, however bound he is to disallow and mortify it. This text simply exhorts us to imitate our Father's grace, even to those who deserve His judgment.

The other Scripture (1 John 3: 9) regards the child of God in that point which distinguishes him from the world, in the possession of a life from God which is absolutely sinless. No intelligent Christian will therefore forget that the flesh is still in us, though we are no longer in the flesh, but in the Spirit.

5_08_18 p. 256.

Two Resurrections. — Rev. 20. Vol. II. p. 98. — I am glad to perceive by the editorial note to F. L. W. that a too common misapplication of 1 Thess. 4: 16, is disclaimed. The truth of two distinct resurrections does not require such pressure of texts into its service. The question of the length of the interval was of minor importance comparatively, but it is answered in that book which admirably and appropriately treats of it — the Apocalypse. May I be allowed to add that 1 Cor. 15: 23 has just as little to say to the resurrection of the wicked as the passage in 1 Thess. 4. Nor had Mr. D. BROWN the slightest authority from Scripture to connect what he calls "the trumpet blast" with any save the righteous. None else are considered in either scripture. "The end," in 1 Cor. 15 does not mean the wicked who are supposed to rise then, but the close of all God's dispensational dealings, even of "the kingdom," viewed from that point, which his been given up; and that clearly supposes all judgment of quick and dead to be over. In other words, "the end" is after the wicked dead have been raised and judged.

As to J. H.'s nice distinction between ὥρα ὅτε and ἐν ῃ, I do not think he has applied it aright in setting it against the plain statement in Rev. 20 of the period that transpires between the resurrection of the blessed, and that of the rest of the dead. It was as uncalled for in the Gospel as it was in harmony with the Revelation of John, to enter into chronological times and seasons. Yet the Lord carefully guards against our inferring a common or general resurrection. All are to hear His voice and to rise; but we have as distinctly as possible a resurrection of life and a resurrection of judgment, as in Rev. 20. They were not to marvel if He quickened souls; for, at another epoch, He would be in such manifestation of power that he would raise bodies; but the Gospel decides nothing as to the particular points in the ὥρα when good and bad should rise, the Apocalypse does. It seems to me not unlikely that the true reason why not ὅτε, but ἐν ῃ is used in John 5: 28, is to distinguish an epoch where the action is immediate (as in John 4: 52, 53, also) from one wherein it is continuous or sustained (as in John 4: 21, 23, and 16: 25). This, however, in no way clashes with the fact of there being two distinct and contrasted resurrections, nor forbids our believing that one act is at the beginning, the other at the end, of this ὥρα, while both are immediate, not prolonged.

5_08_18 p.259/60.

TEXTS MISAPPLIED OR MISQUOTED.

Romans 4: 12. — The real meaning is, father of circumcision, i.e., of true separation unto God, not only to the persons characterized by circumcision, but also to those who walk in the steps, etc.

Romans 5: 5. — The love of God to us, not ours to Him, which last is so feeble and unworthy as to cause shame to every renewed soul; whereas His love is so full and rich that the hope even of His glory does not make ashamed: if the Holy Ghost, given unto us, has shed it abroad in our hearts, such a hope is but suitable to, and the natural complement of, the love which has already done so great things for us.

Romans 8: 19-22. — Clearly it is the creation distinguished from us of the new creation. We are already delivered, and are exhorted to stand fast in the liberty of grace: creation itself also shall be delivered into the liberty of glory, i.e., when we, the children of God are manifested in glory. Till then we groan, and creation also.

Romans 8: 29. — The conformity here treated of is not a present moral likeness to Christ, however true that may be, and certainly taught in other Scriptures, but a future and complete assimilation in a state of resurrection-glory. The context is decisive as to this.

Romans 16: 26. — Not "by the Scriptures of the prophets," but by prophetic scriptures, or writings, i.e. of the New Testament.

5_09_01 p.270.

TEXTS MISQUOTED OR MISAPPLIED.

1 Corinthians 2: 2. — The Apostle is in no way limiting the Church or the believer to "Jesus Christ and Him crucified:" on the contrary, in this very Epistle, he furnishes ample light upon many other topics of great practical and doctrinal importance, as the unity of the body, the teaching of the Spirit, the mutual relations of those ministering and ministered to, discipline within, lawsuits without, earthly relationships, connection with idolatry, the Lord's Supper, spiritual gifts, their exercise in the Christian assembly, the resurrection, etc.; all of which he wished the saints to know, and not merely that foundation-truth on which the soul reposes for its salvation. The Apostle is really speaking of what had been his all-absorbing theme when he first came and preached in the voluptuous and refined city of Corinth. The Corinthians would have liked mazy speculations in which mind and fancy could revel. St. Paul urged on them God's solemn testimony about the Cross of His Son — a truth which, while it blights man's pride and pleasures, is the best proof of God's holy interest in saving lost sinners. But the moment men are established in the Gospel, this same chapter shows that the Apostle desired to lead them into others, and all truth: "We speak wisdom among them that are perfect," etc. It is a good thing, and in certain cases the best and only right thing, to testify repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ; but this is no reason why, when persons have received the Gospel, we should shun to declare unto them all the counsel of God. (Cf. Acts 20: 21, 27, 32.)

1 Corinthians 2: 9. — Eye hath not seen, etc. How often one hears this verse dislocated from what follows, and used is a plea for continuing in ignorance of that which God has now revealed to us: where the prophet stopped, the Apostle could go on, and our wisdom is to follow.

1 Corinthians 2: 13. — ". . . .comparing spiritual things with spiritual." Much is often built on the last clause, which is, I think, foreign to the intention of the Spirit, though fairly deduced from the authorised version. The word understood as πνευματικοῖς, I believe to be λόγοις: so that the sense is rather, "communicating spiritual things by spiritual words." The same Spirit of God is the power of revelation, of communication, and of intelligent reception.

5_09_01 p.273.

1 John 2: 1, 2. Vol. II. p. 227. — I see no reason for giving up the common view of Christians, that Jesus is called Paraclete, as taking up the cause of believers with the Father; as for a similar reason the Holy Spirit is so styled by John, as to His place in and with them on earth, though of course carried on in a different way (John 14: 16). It is not correct to say that the propitiation of Jesus is here stated to be for the sins of the whole world. The English version says so, I know, but it is by inserting words which are better left out. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world. There is provision for it to the uttermost; but Scripture never speaks of the sins being borne away, save of believers. And it is to me as plain as possible that this very passage discriminates between "us" and "the world," even as to expiation; while advocacy with the Father is in no way connected with the world, but with the family of God.

I have looked at Marycy's edition of Philo Judaeus without discovering the passages referred to. The word παράκλητος may be said of an atoning priest, in so far as he acts or pleads for another; but that would never prove the word to have the sense of atoning priest there, much less in Scripture.

5_09_15 p. 284.

TEXTS MISAPPLIED OR MISQUOTED.

1 Corinthians 12: 7. — ". . . . . the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal." It is painful to be obliged to deny the notion of some, so opposed to the grace of God, that this verse treats of the work of the Spirit in a man for his own salvation (as in Barclay's Apology, etc.) The question here is of the Spirit's manifestations in the church, of which common profit was the design.

1 Corinthians 13: 2. — ". . . . . though I have all faith . . . ." Of course "all faith" in this verse has no reference to believing in the Son of God (for he that believeth hath everlasting life), but solely to faith as a miraculous power, which might be in an unregenerate man (Matt. 7: 22, 23).

5_09_15 p. 284/5.

Genesis 1: 1, 2. — It may interest some of your readers to know that it is no mere modern exposition, adopted to square the Bible with geological research, to take the first verse of Genesis, as an account of the original creation of the heaven and the earth, and the second verse, as a sketch of the chaotic condition which immediately preceded the state of things which God ordered during the subsequent six days, with a view to the creation of man, and His own moral dealings here below. If I am not mistaken, several of the so-called fathers, in spite of their lack of spiritual intelligence, had light enough to see this; and Luther, in some editions of his German Bible, separated the first two verses from what follows, making the first day's work commence, and that justly, with the third verse, and not with the first. How many years, or thousands of years, may have elapsed, is not said, because the Spirit hastens to God's moral history of man; and it is very clear that man did not exist before Adam. Hence the mere physical arrangements, and their catastrophes, which may have intervened between the first formation of the universe, and the Adamic earth, are passed by; for, however interesting to the natural philosopher, they are nothing in a moral book, and that a revelation from God to man is and must be. Still it was of great value to know that the heaven and the earth had a beginning. Almost all the ancient sages were in the dark about it; whereas every Jew, even the most ignorant, knew it with certainty. Next, it was interesting to learn that, after some interval, less or more, and from whatsoever disturbing causes, all was in ruin just before God formed all afresh, in order to the trial of man upon the earth, and the display of His own ways.

Allow me, however, to ask what your Correspondent means in p. 241, when he says, "I believe that the earliest notices of the universe are to be sought and found in the records of the angelic kingdoms which owned Messiah's sway before the world was?" Where are those records? If the are in the Bible, let them be produced; if they are not, it is but intruding into things which he has not seen. I did not feel increased confidence about this mystical reverie when I read, immediately after, an attack upon all the English translations, in the Hexapla, and Luther, who are said to have "unaccountably followed the gross error of the Vulgate in their rendering of. Col. 1: 17." This I totally deny: the error is in your Correspondent, not in these versions. The special force of συνέστηκεν is exactly what the authorised Bible gives, viz.: the present continuous efficacy of a past action. It does not deny such a consistency as a present thing. This is the well-known distinction between the Greek perfect and the aorist, which last is the regular historical past tense; an instance of which may be seen in the verse preceding, where you have ἐκτίσθη in reference to the past fact simply, and ἔκτισται in reference to the subsisting consequences of that action. Every Greek scholar, critically acquainted with the language, will admit that our translators, etc. are quite right, and Mr. Greaves singularly wrong. Nor should I write thus strongly, if I did not believe it to be a duty to guard Christians against assaults, such as these, on our Bible, which are due, like so many other quasi-emendations, to a want of knowledge, alike of the Scriptures, and of the original. I deny not the breach spoken of in Gen. 1. 2; but Col. 1: 17 reveals another truth, which is fairly presented in the English Bible.

5_09_15 p.286

Mark 16: 16, 17. Vol. II. p. 227. — I am not aware to what commentators H S. alludes, but I hope he is mistaken in thinking that all give a future sense to the aorist participle. It is difficult to convey the force of the Greek better than is done in the authorised version without a paraphrase, though I admit the English wants the precision of the original, and hence is open, perhaps, to such a misconception as is here alleged. But I do not see how the meaning of these participles, however fully given, excludes Mormon pretensions, nor how the supposed misconstruction supports their delusion. Whether those signs follow believers or not is a question of fact which ought not to be long debated if they be real. I deny that one word is here said about their permanence.

5_09_15 p.287

Revelation 17: 8. Vol. II. p. 228. — I suppose that the meaning of the verse in its correct form is, that the beast, or Roman empire, is viewed in three ways: 1st, in its original imperial form; 2nd, in its fall, or non-existent state as an empire; and 3rd, in its resuscitated condition, by diabolic power, when it goes to perdition. It is this revival of the empire which draws out the wonder of all who dwell on the earth, when they behold the beast, for he was, and is not, and shall be present. The ten horns are ten kings, who receive power as kings for one and the same time (μίαν ὥραν) with the beast.

5_09_15 p. 288.

Ὑπάγω and πορεύομαι. Vol. II. p. 23. — The difference, so far as there is any, between these words in the texts cited, seems to me, that while both may be rendered "go" or "depart," the former chiefly regards the terminus Ã  quo, and the latter the terminus ad quem. In the New Testament there are not less than sixteen different Greek forms of expressing this idea, including those modified by prepositions, and about seven or eight which are independent of a composite force. The distinction is often so minute as to defy transfusion into a translation, without an awkward paraphrase; but these shades of expression may claim, in their place, the consideration of such as confide in the unerring certainty of inspiration.

5_09_29 p. 295.

TEXTS MISAPPLIED OR MISQUOTED.

1 Corinthians 15: 28. —  ". . . . . that God may be all in all." The last member of this passage is often confounded with the close of Col. 3: 11. The latter applies now, the former not till the end of the millennium: it is the grand characteristic of the eternal state (see Rev. 21: 1-8). Even now Christ is all and in all; his death and resurrection have blotted out before God and to the eye of faith all mere human and earthly features in those who are one with Him. "There is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free; but Christ is all, and in all." The one thing which the Apostle would have us to see in the saints is Christ, and Christ in every one of them. Such is the standing of all as united to Christ in heaven, and there only: for there are other points of view in which the same persons are regarded in Scripture, and differences of position which have their just place assigned by God. The condition of things in which God (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) shall be all in all is in contrast with the Son's administration of, and exaltation in, "the kingdom." If the kingdom be delivered up to God by the exalted Lord, it is that the human holding of it should cease its mediatorial character. God, as such, makes all things new. Christ reigns and subdues all things — work which God the Father has committed to Him in His creation. Christ as man, having held this special kingdom for purposes of subjection, and having put down all other authority, gives it up, that the power may be God's exclusively.

5_09_29 p.296/7.

Exodus 20: 10. Vol. II. p. 266. — There are, at least, two fatal objections to the statement that the Fourth Commandment enjoins, simply, one day in seven, or a seventh day. The first is, that the Hebrew is precise, the definite article, or demonstrative, being used uniformly, not in different parts of the Commandment only, but in the very numerous allusions to the Sabbath elsewhere. And so all translations, ancient or modern which I have examined, understood the phrase; the Vulgate can scarcely be regarded as an exception, as the Latin language does not thus define. But every unbiassed scholar will admit that the Hebrew is as to this no less explicit and unambiguous than our own version, which is perfectly accurate in representing its force. But, secondly, besides the verbal pseudo-criticism involved, there is a false principle: for the first, or Lord's day, stands on another and far higher basis then the seventh day, the latter being as plainly connected with creation ended and the law, as the former is with the full grace of God displayed in the resurrection of Christ. Hence the seventh day, or Sabbath, was a sign between Jehovah and Israel, and it was buried in the grave of Christ, who rose on the first day, the head of the new creation. On that day the risen Lord met His own, and on that day after he ascended the Church continued to assemble and break bread in His name. Scripture never confounds the two days, the seventh being as characteristic of mere creation and the law, as the first is of accomplished redemption, and life in resurrection. To distinguish them is absolutely necessary to maintaining the importance of each in its place.

P.S. — For Gen. 20: 10, in T. G.'s communication, read Ex. 20: 10.

5_09_29 p.299.

Matthew 25: 40. Vol. II. p. 267. — I think that it is clear and certain that those whom "the King" designates as His brethren here, are a distinct class from the sheep. It is not denied that all God's saints are, or may be, viewed as "sheep." All that is now contended for is, that in this scene we have certain godly Gentiles blessed and inheriting the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world, but at the same time distinguished from others styled the King's brethren, who had previously put these sheep to the test, and been the occasion of showing their difference from the goats, or the unbelieving Gentiles, who had dishonoured the King in His messengers. I add that the scene is a millennial one; not the gathering of the saints risen or changed before the millennium; not the judgment of the dead after it, but a scene on earth of living nations dealt with according to their reception or rejection of the King's brethren just before this judgment (Matt. 24: 14).

5_09_29 p. 301.

Berleburg Bible. Vol. II. p. 76. — Though I am unable to speak from personal knowledge, yet in the absence of better answers, I may say that this is a German version in six ponderous folios filled with notes. The version is said to be the most literal of German translations, accompanied by notes of universalist tendency. It was made about a century and a half ago, I understand, and derives its name from a Westphalian Count, under whose auspices the work was carried on. I am not aware that there has been any reprint of the work, nor any edition of the version separate from the Commentary.

5_10_13 p. 314/5.

Watching for the Lord's appearance. Vol. ii. p. 291. — A good deal of the difficulty of INDIANUS, as of many others, arises from using the terms, "Lord's people," in a loose sense. Thus, the only persons who are now so recognisable are Christians, the Church. But by and by the Jewish remnant will be so called also. Now, there can be no question in your Correspondent's mind, I presume, that Ezekiel 36 - 39 and Zech. 12 - 14 refer to Israel, and not the Church; so that it would not follow that, because the former are to see many wonders, and to pass through extraordinary trials before they see their king, the same path is reserved for the latter. To me it is perfectly plain that not the Church, but a converted Jewish remnant, whose hopes as well as experience are bound up with their land, is contemplated in Matt. 24: 29-31, and Luke 21: 25-27. The proofs of this the reader may see in "Plain Papers on Prophetic Subjects" (Partridge and Oakey). St. Paul always supposes the Church to be waiting for Christ, apart from all question of dates, signs, or revealed events, as necessarily antecedent. 2 Thess. 2: 1, 2, which is often quoted to show that there must be the apostacy and the revelation of the man of sin first, proves rather the contrary: for the Apostle exhorts them, by the coming of Christ, not to be frightened, as if His day were come. Doubtless, the day of the Lord presupposes many important changes which are not yet arrived. But His coming, or presence, is another and previous thing, and with it the gathering of the Church is associated; and then the Jewish remnant will begin to be formed in view of the day of the Lord, and must pass through the terrific storms which precede it.

5_10_27 p. 320.

Zechariah 14: 5. Vol. II. p. 227. — It is evident, I think, that Azal is the name of a place, joined, as its origin indicates, or near, to the Mount of Olives. As it never occurs elsewhere in the Bible as a proper name, save of a person, it is not surprising that commentators have differed as to its exact locality, some placing it at the eastern, others, as Henderson, at the western extremity, very close to one of the gates on the east side of Jerusalem. The meaning I believe to be that Jehovah, standing in that day on the mount (which is most precisely described, as if to cut off the idea of mere "beautiful poetical imagery") shall cleave it in twain from west to east, half receding towards the north, and half towards the south; and that, if He fights with the nations which shall be then gathered against Jerusalem to battle, the Jews are to flee to the valley of His mountains (so called because thus wonderfully cloven), for the valley reaches to Azal, whether it be considered as the terminus Ã  quo or ad quem. The earthquake referred to is the same signal one from which Amos dates his prophecy. The Vulgate, it may be observed, takes lx'a; as an appellative, and gives us "usque ad proximum;" the Septuagint agrees with the authorised and most other versions as to this, but apparently follows the erroneous reading ÂµT;Âµ]nIw“ (which is actually that of four of De Rossi's MSS, not to speak of other authorities), instead of ÂµT,Âµ]nIw“ , i.e. the Septuagint gives φραχθήσεται ἡ φάραγξ, κ. τ. λ. (the valley shall be stopped up, etc.) in verse 5, which is evidently contrary to the best readings, and to the plain force of the context. It is scarcely needful to say that this prophecy has never been fulfilled. Even supposing that the Roman army under Titus could be meant, as Dr. Henderson affirms, by "all the nations," it seems extraordinary indeed that so sensible a person could see the rest of verse 2 accomplished there. I should have supposed that the impression left on the mind by the accounts of Josephus or any one else was rather that the city was taken, and that if half the people went into captivity, the rest were cut off from the city. But if there could be reasonable doubt as to that verse, can it be pretended that at that time (and it is all closely linked in the prophecy) Jehovah fought with those nations, and that His feet stood in that day on Olivet, and that the mount was split in the midst? It is a weak and impotent conclusion that the flight to Pella, long before the city was taken by the Romans, is what is here so sublimely but withal most graphically predicted. When we take the latter part of the chapter into the account, the hypothesis is beyond measure harsh and contrary to facts. I would only add that the sense seems to require us to close one paragraph with "the days of Uzziah, King of Judah," and to begin a new one with "And Jehovah my God shall come, [and] all the holy ones with thee." The prophet suddenly addresses the Lord, and then proceeds with that day from a point of view which differs altogether from the preceding section, because it introduces His relationship permanently established with the whole earth, consequent on His vengeance upon the nations.

5_10_27 p. 321/2.

Matthew 11: 2, 3. Vol. II. p. 267. — I apprehend that one reason which has hindered many from seeing the failure of John Baptist is, that we are all slow in learning and owning our own weakness. The heart that has proved its own faltering in devotedness and testimony for Christ, will readily understand how John, as well as his disciples, may have been cast down, when the herald of Messiah was himself bound and gone to prison in sorrow, instead of the ransomed of the Lord coming to Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads. But if the Lord notices indirectly, in verse 6, the stumbling of His tried servant (or certainly the blessedness of him who is not stumbled), He turns round to the multitude and graciously indicates the more than prophet place of John. I do not believe that verse 11 contains the least reflection on the Baptist, any more than verse 13 does on all the prophets. On the contrary, the former verse asserts for him the most distinguished place possible in the old economy; while it discloses at the same time the surpassing glory which attaches to the least in the kingdom of heaven (i.e. the new dispensation, which was then preached, but only set up when the Lord, rejected by the earth, took his seat in heaven). I am aware that some shrink from what appears such strange and undue exaltation of the New Testament saints; but our wisdom is to accept whatever God gives in sovereign love. It is His to order all for the glory of His Son, while Satan would cheat us of His blessings through a spurious humility, which is really unbelief; especially as the privileges given are the measure of responsibility. If we lose sight of what God intends, we shall proportionately fail in our walk and worship.

5_10_27 p. 322.

John 2 and 3 Division of Chapters. Vol. II. p. 215. — I agree with the suggestion that John 2: 23-25, forms the proper and natural introduction to the chapter which follows. But it is a mistake to regard τοῦ ἀνθρώπου as the individual. It is true, of course, that the words are capable of such an application, if any one had been previously named or referred to; but it is clear that in this passage such is not the fact. The simple meaning, therefore, is that Jesus knew all, and had no need of testimony about man; for He Himself knew what was in man. It is the great, general truth, which the special case of Nicodemus so aptly exemplifies. Man at his best estate was unfit for the kingdom of God, and, therefore, needed to be born afresh, or from the very beginning.

5_10_27 p. 322/3.

2 Thessalonians 2: 6-8. Vol. II. pp. 163, 211, 310. — It appears to me that the Spirit here treats of the restraining influence and person with a certain studied obscurity, and that, if wise, we should not too hastily form conclusions. It must be borne in mind that the epistle was an early one, written to young converts who had enjoyed the Apostle's oral teaching on the subject of the kingdom of the Lord Jesus (cf. Acts 17: 7, with 2 Thess. 1), as well as on the matter in question (ver. 5). Further, if we attach any value to the idea, so prevalent in the early Church, that the Roman empire was "the letter," or "what withheld," it is natural that the intimation should be but dim, especially if previously taught by the Apostle. If the hindrance consisted in the presence and power of the Holy Ghost, whether personally in the Church or governmentally in the world, one can understand how nothing more is here given than the assurance of a restraint up to a certain point. Thus, while the powers that be (whatever the form) are ordained of God, there is a time coming, as we know from Rev. 11 - 13 when this shall cease, and the beast shall rise out of the bottomless pit (i.e. be resuscitated by diabolic agency in an exceptional and frightful way), when the dragon (i.e. Satan) gives him his power and his throne and great authority. The withholder will have then disappeared, or at least cease to act as such. The apostacy will have come, and the man of sin be revealed in the fullest way: for I do not deny a partial application of the prophecy to the papacy, while looking for a far more complete development of the evil. The revelation of the lawless one, who is clearly, I think, "the king" of Daniel 11: 36-40, will be characterised by an unprecedented energy of Satan "with all power, and signs, and lying wonders," similar language as St. Peter uses of Jesus, "a man approved of God" by miracles, and wonders, and signs which God did by him. Mr. STREANE is mistaken in supposing that verse 6 will bear "and ye know what is now restraining;" for νῦν is here a particle of transition, and fairly enough given in the English version. No more is implied than their general knowledge that there was a some one or thing which restrained; but ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι in verse 7 does mean that he restrains now. Next, ἐκ μέσου is correctly rendered "out of the way." It is its regular known force in sacred and profane authors, whether connected or not with verbs implying separation, as any good lexicon may satisfy Mr. S. Thus, in ἐκ τοῦ μέσου καθέζεσθαι (Herod. iii. 83) the verb has nothing to do with that sense, which the phrase does carry. See also Dem. 323, 327 (Reiske). Accordingly the authorised version rightly connects eὥς ἐκ μ. γ. with ὁ κατέχον, while the beginning of verse 8 answers to the beginning of the 7th. If the phrase ἔως ἐκ μ. γ. applied to "the wicked one," and meant "till he appears," the force of καὶ τότε ἀποκ· would be weakened and useless.

5_10_27 p. 325/6.

Full Assurance. Vol. II. p. 272. — Allow me to suggest that the extract from Mr. Fawcett's sermon referred to is incorrect. It is not true that "full assurance of understanding" is the first of the three mentioned by St. Paul, but the last and highest. "Full assurance of faith" is the first: it rests upon the blessed work and sacrifice of Christ as a finished and accepted thing (Heb. 10) The next is "full assurance of hope," which looks for and anticipates with joy the time of glory and the inheritance of the promises (Heb. 6) "Full assurance of understanding" supposes intelligence of God's ways in their height and depth, as developed in the mystery of Christ's heavenly glory, or, as it is said, "to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God." How many there are who are perfectly clear as to their acceptance, and who enjoy the hope of Christ's return and reign, and yet are most indistinct and uninstructed in "the mystery," as taught in Ephesians and Colossians. So utterly false is it that "the full assurance of understanding," spoken of in Col. 2 gives birth to the other two.

5_11_03 p. 330.

Joshua 20: 6. Vol. II. p. 137. — The true application of the type is, I believe, not to departed spirits, but to the Jews, who are providentially kept of God, but kept withal out of their inheritance, until the close of the High-priesthood which Christ is now exercising in heaven. He will then come out and bless the people of Israel, to whom the glory of the Lord shall appear. They knew not what they did when they smote and killed the Prince of Life. In the city of refuge they remain till the close of Christ's (heavenly) priesthood, after which they return to the land of their possession.

5_11_03 p.331.

Ezekiel 28: 13-15. Vol. II. p. 215. — Strong as are the expressions used of the Prince of Tyrus in the preceding portion of this chapter (verses 1-10), I think it will be felt generally that, in the intermediate paragraph (11-19), we have language which, though it alludes, particularly at the close, to the history which gave rise to the whole strain, yet goes far beyond, and not obscurely links with it the fall of Satan, the prince of the world imaged in this King of Tyrus. Ezek. 31 may show how kings are spoken of as trees in Eden, the garden of God: this allusion naturally associates with it the ways of Satan before and in the literal Eden. In him was found the perfection of creature beauty: "every precious stone was thy covering;" representing, I suppose, the various lights in which God's glory was reflected in creation. "Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth" shows that he was charged with the execution of God's judgments, and that intelligently — the anointed cherub. "Thou wast upon the holy mountain of God," the seat or symbol of His holy authority. He had walked "in the midst of stones of fire," representing, it would seem, how conversant he had been with the display of God's moral glory, before which evil is consumed and disappears. And yet, perfect as he had been, his heart became lifted up because of his beauty, and iniquity was found in him. Such, alas! is the creature — such fully was Satan.

5_11_03 p. 334.

Matthew 26: 52 ( Ἐν μαχαίρᾳ ἀπολοῦνται). Vol. II. p. 267. — There need be no hesitation in accepting the common version, and in rejecting Mr. READ's quasi-emendation, for which there is absolutely no reason. Thus, if we try a somewhat similar Scripture (Rev. 13: 10), by Mr. R.'s mode of translation, the result would be "he that killeth with the laying down of the sword, must be killed when the sword shall be taken from them:" which is evidently absurd. The true sense both here and in Matt. is "by or with the sword.'"' It is a common and correct translation of such phrases, as may be seen in Rev. 2: 16, 23, 27; Rev. 6: 8; Rev. 9: 19, 20; Rev. 12: 5; Rev. 14: 10; Rev. 16: 8; Rev. 17: 16; Rev. 19: 15, 21; to quote from but one book of the New Testament.

5_11_03 p.335.

John 3: 16. Vol. II. p. 267. — I believe that their interpretation is sound who take οὕτως as equivalent to "so much." And so far is this from being unusual, that it is the regular force when, as here, οὕτως is followed by ὥστε, ὡς, or the relative, which tends to define the quantity more strictly. Sometimes in Greek, as in English, there is an ellipsis, and οὕτω, or οὕτως, has this force by itself, as e. g. Herodot. iii. 12, etc. But there is another and more serious defect in Dr. Baylee's comment, as cited by Mr. C. H. DAVIS, and that is, that the grand point of the statement is lost, viz. the measure of divine love, — if measure can be said of that which is measureless — God's giving His only begotten Son: for that is what answers to "God so loved the world," while the rest of the verse brings out the intention and consequence as regards him who believes. In other words, the exposition proposed is not merely defective on grammatical grounds, but it leaves out the idea, which is above all precious in the verse, and absolutely essential to be taken into the account by him who would understand this Scripture as a whole. "In this manner" might do well enough (cf. verses 14, 15), if we had not the clause ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν αὑτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν; but that clause being inseparably linked with and answering to οὕτω γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, the sense is modified accordingly, and rightly given in our authorised Bible and other good versions. Verse 14 lays down the absolute moral necessity for the cross of the Son of man, if the believer was to have everlasting life. Still, blessed as this is in meeting need ("even so must the Son of man be lifted up"), it is far from the whole gospel of God's grace; "for God so loved the world that He gave His Only begotten Son (one who was not merely Son of man, but God's only begotten Son), that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." It is no longer a question of need, but of a boundless love, which goes out to the uttermost, and makes its object forget his own poverty in riches of grace beyond all reckoning.

5_11_03 p.338.

1 Thessalonians 1: 10. Vol. I. p. 211.

There need be little doubt that the Thessalonians were taught by St. Paul, and encouraged by the Holy Ghost, to look for Christ as their constant, proximate hope. Nothing was revealed, as necessarily putting off His coming for them, though undoubtedly certain events must precede His day upon the world.

5_11_03 p. 338.

1 Timothy 3: 16. Vol. I. p. 248. — "Justified in the Spirit" means, I suppose, that Christ was justified in the power of the Spirit, and so characterised. It was true morally in His life, and in power in His resurrection. See Rom. 1: 4, and 1 Peter 3: 18.

5_11_03 p. 338.

1 Timothy 4: 10. Vol. I. p. 248. — The Apostle had been showing how little profit there is in bodily exercise, whereas godliness is valuable for all things, having the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. This he pronounces a faithful word, and worthy of all acceptation: the reason appears in our verse. For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach (painful as it may be for the present), because our settled hope is in the living God, who is the preserver of all men, specially of the faithful. The question here is of His preserving care, and not of salvation only; and this the Apostle shows to be most true of those who are most tried by reason of their faithfulness.

5_11_03 p. 338/9.

2 Timothy 1: 10. Vol. II. p. 202. — In answer to T. B., I beg to say that in this Scripture our Saviour is represented as having abolished death (here personified, as is sin in Rom. 7). Of course this does not mean that men no longer die as a fact, but that He has annulled the title of death as regards His own; as in Heb. 2 it is declared He took part of flesh and blood, "that, through death, He might destroy (καταργήσῃ, the same word as here) him that had the power of death, that is, the devil." But He has done more: He has brought to light life and incorruption (the body being in question, and not the soul only) through the Gospel. It is not said nor meant that either was absolutely hidden, for enough was suggested for the faith of God's elect to show that resurrection and heaven were in His mind, and not earthly blessing only, as Matt. 22: 23-33, and Heb. 11 abundantly prove. Nevertheless, under the law, these were obscure subjects, because the ordinary and normal application of the law was found in present visible rewards or punishments from a God who dwelt between the cherubim on earth. The Gospel does not speak of life and incorruptibility as utterly unknown before: on the contrary, it supposes them to have been partially seen gleaming here and there through the darkness; whereas now they stand out in bold relief, the grand theme of evangelic testimony, as viewed in the person of the Lord Jesus. "Which thing," as St. John says, "is true in Him and in you, because the darkness is past and the true light now shineth."

5_11_03 p. 339.

Titus 3. 1 -8. Vol. I. p. 158. — It is evident that there is a connection between the third and fourth verses, the ποτε of the former being answered by the ὅτε of the latter. "When" is, of course, the literal rendering of ὅτε; but our translators gave "after that" here, as in Matt. 27: 31, to make the sense clearer. It is impossible to take verses 3-5 as parenthetical, nor 3-7 either, though that might be less difficult. Πιστὸς ὁ λ. refers to what immediately precedes, at least as much as to verses 1 and 2; as to which I would just observe, that πειθαρχειν = obey, in general, and not the particular case supplied by the authorised version, which is rather the bearing of the preceding clause.

5_11_03 p. 339.

Clearly the high priest's offering for the sins of himself as well as of the people is in contrast with Christ. It is the case of priesthood among men, however Aaron might be called to it, contrasted with the Son of God.

5_11_03 p. 339.

Hebrews 11 (not 2) 35. Vol. I. p. 158. — The allusion is to ἐξ ἀναστάσεως, "raised to life again," and cases recorded one sees in 1 Kings 17, 2 Kings 4. The others who were tortured, refusing the deliverance which men offered, await a better resurrection by and by, and are better known in heaven than on earth.

5_11_03 p. 339.

2 Peter 2: 1. Vol. I. p. 248. — The truth that Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it, is one thing, and quite another His title over all men, a title which He has not by creation only, but by purchase, which is the idea here, where he is viewed as Δεσποτης (cf. Jude 4). The reader may compare John 17: 2, where you have the twofold thing; first, the large grant of power over all flesh; and second, the narrower gift of eternal life "to as many as thou hast given Him."

5_11_03 p. 340.

2 Peter 3: 10. Vol. II. p. 216. — I think it will be found that, while all three Scriptures are equally inspired, and therefore certainly and unmixedly true, our text takes a middle place, as to measure of light given, between the prophecy of Isaiah (65, 66, to which the reference is clear) and the Apocalypse. And this exactly accords with its season historically. The Apostle of the Circumcision adds to the light we might have gathered from the Jewish prophet; for he discloses new heavens and new earth, not merely in a moral and incipient way, which finds its centre, if not its scope, in the millennial condition of Jerusalem and her people, but in a full, physical sense, consequent upon the day of the Lord wherein the heavens pass away and the earth is burned up. But it was not the business of Peter but of John to lay down the positive landmarks of time, though he does give us certain elements with more precision than the Old Testament promise he refers to. Accordingly, it is in the Apocalypse that we meet the unambiguous statement that the reign of Christ and the glorified saints for 1000 years, besides a brief space after that, takes place after the partial accomplishment of Isa. 65 and before the fulfilment of Rev. 21: 1. It appears to me that 2 Peter 3 embraces both these thoughts within the compass of "the day of the Lord," which is used in the largest application of the term, so as to include the acorn of Isaiah and the full-grown oak of St. John, who alone was given to see, or at least to make known, the exact times and seasons and years connected with the entire scheme. If Mr. BROWNE bear in mind that the millennium is styled "the regeneration" in Matt. 19, it may help him to see that his difficulty is not insuperable. "If any man be in Christ he is a new creature," or there is a new creation. That work done in the soul, one can take up the language of faith and say, "Old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new:" while yet it is evident that, as to fact, the full change does not pass over the man until the coming of the Lord. Just so is it with the earth: — the millenium is "the regeneration," and so, even then, Isaiah can speak those rapturous words which, nevertheless, will not have their actual physical completion till that dispensation is closed. Besides, if the latter is to be insisted on, Mr. B. has no right to include the millennial Palestine, or what he calls "the earthly paradise," among "all these things" that shall be dissolved: for Peter is speaking solely of present things, or things of a like nature, whereas the hypothesis Mr. B. combats supposes a vast and essential difference, at least as to Palestine, commenced at the beginning and complete at the end of the day of the Lord; not as regards that land only, but the earth and the heavens as a whole. Now it is of the last or perfect change that Rev. 21: 1, speaks, as it is there that we let the fullest light which revelation affords on this subject. And I must remind him of Bengel's wholesome words, "Antiqui et ea autem et involutiora dicta ex novissimis quibusque et distinctissimis interpretari, non illis ad haec enervanda et eludenda abuti debemus." Isaiah 65 and 2 Peter 3 give no countenance to, while Rev. 20, 21, positively excludes, the wild fancy which has been revived, after a long slumber, that the nations, Gog and Magog, are the wicked dead resuscitated. And this is only one of the many absurdities into which a departure from the plain drift of these chapters reduces the wanderer.

5_11_03 p. 340/1.

2 Peter 3: 12. Vol. I. p. 211. —

1. The Millennium does not precede, nor is it subsequent to, but rather included in, "the day of God," as used here by St. Peter. That day means, as I suppose, the entire course of divine intervention, from the appearing of Christ in glory till the new heavens and earth. The millennial reign is a part of that grand scheme. Nor is there any serious difficulty in accounting for the existence of Gog and Magog (Rev. 20), and of sin and death, up to the close of that reign; because, even supposing none left alive in their natural bodies on earth at its beginning, save the righteous, it does not follow that their children must be. So that one can readily see how, during so long a period of unbroken peace and blessing, there might be hosts of unconverted Gentiles, on whom Satan, when loosed, immediately acts in deceit, mustering them for the last rebellion against God. I must be excused if I think the solution which Dr. Cumming endorses contrary to Scripture. I see no ingenuity, but painful confusion, in viewing these nations, which are in the four quarters of the earth, as similar to the dead in their graves. Not the devil, but God, raises them, after all rebellion is over.

2. I think Mr. B. will find that the main root of his next difficulty lies in confounding the coming with the day of the Lord. Thus, as he says, the early Church was taught to expect the coming of Christ as that which might be at any moment; while, on the other hand, events were revealed as antecedent to the day of the Lord (not the παρουσία merely, but the ἐπιφανεία τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ), which must necessarily occupy some years at least.

5_11_03 p. 341.

1 John 4: 2. Vol. I. p. 212. — The true force of the Greek is, I believe, "every spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ come in the flesh is of God," not the fact merely, but the person.

5_11_03 p. 341.

Revelation 1: 1. Vol. II. p. 202. — I see no ground for supposing that the mystical character of the Revelation is alluded to in the word ἐσήμανεν, any more than in the five other occurrences of the verb in the New Testament. I remember that Mr. Birks put forth such a thought in his Elements of Prophecy, but neither he, nor any one else, as far as I know, has ever produced a single undoubted case of such a sense from any author, sacred or profane. It is not that I question that the book abounds in figures, symbolical visions, etc. but the proof of this must be sought in something more solid and certain than such a sense of the word σημαίνω. I am not aware that σῆμα means a mystical sign or symbol. It is often used for a mark or token whereby to know a person or thing. At any rate more ought not to be assumed, whether as to the verb or noun, without evidence.

5_11_03 p.341.

Revelation 1: 4. Vol. I. pp. 53, 248. — C. H. D. is mistaken in imputing to the Papists, if he mean them only, the idea that "the seven spirits" refer to seven presence-angels; for so also thought Clement of Alexandria and Andreas of Caesarea in ancient, and Beza, Hammond, Stuart, etc. in modern times. But evidently to wish grace and peace from at least two persons of the Godhead, adding a third source in mere creatures, however exalted, is an unworthy thought, and the more, as these supposed angels are put between persons unquestionably divine. The truth is, that, if the Holy Ghost be here spoken of in a peculiar way, it is because the scope of the Revelation so requires. Therefore is it not the Father, but "He who is, and who was, and who is to come," Jehovah the Governor, the Eternal; and in exact accordance the Spirit is regarded not in His unity, but in his various perfections as acting governmentally ("before the throne"). Compare Isa. 11: 2, where we have a sevenfold variety of attributes as to the Spirit in connection with the Lord Jesus: also Rev. 3: 1; Rev. 4: 5; and Rev. 5: 6: Zech. 3: 9; Zech. 4: 10. Next, as to Mr. H. Noel's question, I think it will be found that, though in principle the Holy Ghost be invoked in addressing God, for He is God, in fact the general doctrine and practice of the New Testament, after Pentecost, are founded on His actual, personal presence in the Church, as well as in each Christian here below; and therefore what we find in the Epistles is rather praying in than to the Holy Spirit.

5_11_03 p. 342.

Revelation 3: 10. Vol. I. p. 336.

1. The "hour of temptation" is not yet past. There may have been, as in all the circumstances of the other churches, so in this, a partial accomplishment; but the full thing is future.

2. I am of opinion that τῆς οἰκουμένης ὅλης is larger than the Roman world, though there is no doubt that, by a species of imperial pride, they might be and were identified, as in Luke 2: 1, perhaps elsewhere. But it seems to me plain, though Wahl and others differ, that the word is in general used in Scripture for the habitable, known world, or its inhabitants.

3. The only question to my mind, in identifying such descriptions as 2 Thess. 2: 9-12, and Rev. 13 with this "temptation," is, that I apprehend it will be of still vaster extent, including the range of the two beasts within its ample and unsparing circle.

5_11_03 p. 342.

Revelation 13: 1, and Revelation 17: 3. Vol. I. p. 235. — May I remind your Correspondent that the last of these chapters is one of explanations, not of history, properly so called; and accordingly it speaks of conditions utterly remote in point of time, as e.g. the harlot riding the beast, as well as the beast and the kings leading her, and even the Lord's subsequent judgment of themselves. In the next place, nothing is said about crowns, or no crowns, in Rev. 17: 3. I suspect that the passage is Rev. 12: 3, where crowns are seen on the seven heads, not on the ten horns; but none, I suppose, would contend that this verse describes the present state of Western Europe.

5_11_03 p. 342.

Conscience. Vol. II. p. 228. — Scripture shows, I think, that conscience has a twofold character, which is rarely distinguished: 1. Sense of responsibility to God; and 2. Knowledge of things as good or evil in themselves. It is evident that Adam had the first character of conscience in Eden as well as out of it; but the second he had not till the fall gave him a bad conscience. Previously he was innocent, — not holy, but ignorant of evil, as an unfallen creature in the midst of what was very good. Before the fall he did not know what lust was, nor anything else of what we call moral evil. For the eating of the apple was evil, not in itself, but by God's command to abstain.

5_11_03 p. 342.

Jews — Questions connected with their restoration. Vol. II. p. 279. — The difficulty of SIMPLEX is not surprising, though it be far from correct to affirm that the reunion of Judah and Israel, as to their restoration to the land, are always spoken of in immediate connection with Babylon's fall. Sometimes it is not so even in Isaiah (11, 27, 30, 60 - 66) and Jeremiah (3, 23, 30, 31, etc.), and it is never true of Ezekiel, who dwells most fully on their reunion as well as restoration; and the same remark applies to several of the minor prophets. Still the language of Isa. 13, 14, and Jer. 50, 51, is such that some have looked for a rebuilding of a Chaldean Babylon in the latter day. The true solution, however, I believe to lie in the germinant character of divine prophecy. In other words, the Spirit of God, in predicting the judgment of the power which led Judah captive, launches out into the magnificent scenes which precede and accompany "the day of the Lord" in the full sense, a type of which was afforded in the part fall of Babylon and the consequent return of the Jews, when Cyrus said to Jerusalem, "Thou shalt be built, and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid."

5_11_03 p. 343.

The Gift of Tongues. Vol. I. p. 248. — It is clear from 1 Cor. 14 that the gift of tongues was not only miraculous, but a sign to unbelievers, as distinguished from prophesying, which was expressly for edification. Hence it was forbidden to speak "in a tongue" in the Christian assembly, unless some one present could interpret the unknown language for the profit of the saints. It is the sign-gifts, which the Holy Ghost has seen good to withdraw, though still vouchsafing all others which are needful for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edification of the body of Christ. Such a gift as that of tongues was beautifully suited to this dispensation, and especially at its beginning, both for its practical value to the Evangelist, and, above all, as the witness of that race which now published God's wonderful works in the very languages which originally sprang out of a divine judgment (Gen. 10, 11) The infidel inference that this gift never existed, because it does not now, though deeply wanted for unbelievers, deserves no reply.

5_11_10 p. 351/2.

John 15: 2, 6. Vol. I pp. 246, 247. — Permit me to remark that there is no greater difficulty in understanding the fruitless branch, than the unfaithful servant, or the foolish virgin (Matt. 24 and 25) It is not exactly a question of life but of fruit-bearing in John 15 though it is clear that no fruit unto God can be where no life is. But responsibility is another thing, and that is independent of life, while it is immensely increased by the profession of being a branch of the true vine.

5_11_10 p. 352.

Acts 2: 8, 11. Vol. I. 307. — The two words διάλεκτος and γλὼσσαι are by no means synonymous. When the Spirit desired to express the language of each, the former was appropriate: when the point was the aggregate of various and many languages, the latter was the suited expression. Γλ. might of course be used in the singular or plural, as the case might require; but δ. is always used in the singular by St. Luke, who is the only inspired who uses the word. The idea of γλ. meaning here, or anywhere else, "varieties of musical tones," cannot be maintained.

5_11_10 p. 352.

Acts 13: 25. Vol. II. pp. 35, 300. — Y. E. N. E. will perhaps be gratified to hear that Dr. Tischendorf has edited this verse as he suggests, Τίνα με ὑπονοεῖτε εἶναι, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐγώ. Luther had evidently so taken the clause, "Ich bin nicht der, dafÃ¼r ihr mich haltet," following the Latin, probably. Raphelius and Wolf contended, one for, and the other against, this construction: so that I think your Querist may be assured that the Greek will bear it, though it is somewhat unusual. There can be no doubt that in profane authors τίς is sometimes used for ὅστις in oratio obliqua after verbs expressive of a doubt, question, or the like, and this not merely with the optative, but where the verb of the indirect question passes into the indicative. Compare Xen. An. iii. 3-18, ed. Schneider. Tischendorf also gives τίς σοφός, αὐτῳ προσκολλήθητι (Sap. Sir. vi. 34), while Valpy has τίς σοφός, κ. τ. λ. from the edition of Holmes and Bos. Without pretending what is happily an insignificant question, for the sense either way is substantially alike, I do not go too far in concluding that the interrogative force is not so universal but that a relative sense is possible.

5_11_10 p. 352.

Hebrews 1: 9. Vol. I. p. 272. — It is evident, from his punctuation, that Tischendorf must have taken the clause as C. H. W. proposes; for he has ἔχρισέν σε, ὁ Θεός, ὁ Θ. σου, κ. τ. λ., as also Kunivel, Rosenmuller, and Stuart, not to speak of translators such as Beza, Osterveld, etc. It is, however, too strong to say that the Greek will not bear "God, (even) thy God," etc. The fact is, that either construction is allowable grammatically: the question is really one of the sense best suiting the context.

5_11_10 p. 354.

Christ's Intercession. Vol. I. p. 222. — Perhaps it may be deemed a sufficient reply to the question to say that Christ's deprecation of immediate judgment on Israel (evidently symbolised by the fig tree), which was heard, and delayed longer than He asked, strengthens, rather than weakens, our confidence in our Lord's intercession. Hence there is nothing to reconcile with John 11: 4: they are manifestly harmonious. At the same time Christ's advocacy, as in 1 John 2 or intercession, as in Heb. 7 is a closer thing, and in every case infallibly efficacious. Compare Rom. 5: 10.

5_11_24 p. 365.

Ephesians 2: 2. Vol. II. p. 267. — Scripture explicitly proves the existence of Satan's power in a special and positive way over the minds and bodies of men, and nowhere intimates its cessation when Christianity began or prevailed. There is generally no little imposture along with it, so that the sceptic may find an appearance of reason in attributing all to human craft and superstition. But facts there are, and have always been, which attest a spiritual foe working still among men, and especially the heathen. See Crantz, Brainerd, etc. Our text, however, speaks not of such demoniacal powers or possessions, but of that universal influence which Satan exercises over all unconverted persons.

5_11_24 p. 365.

Ephesians 3: 15. Vol. I. p. 295, I humbly think that it is wrong to speak of what we lose by giving up a wrong translation for a right one; and it is confessed that "every family" is here required. Sure I am that the true rendering suggests not merely views equally valuable, but much more so than the false one, which has really confused and prejudiced the minds of Christians against that which otherwise might have been apprehended and enjoyed. I do not doubt that the phrase embraces the sum of God's intelligent creation, at least what is blessed, whether in the heavens or on earth, angelic or human.

5_12_08 p. 375.

Ecclesiastes 3: 21, Vol. II. p. 290. — While preferring the English Bible, I think it would be going too far to deny that the words are susceptible of the suggested version. Certainly they appear to have been so understood by the Septuagint and Vulgate translators, not to speak of excellent modern versions. The difficulty here, like so many elsewhere, seems to spring from a misapprehension of God's object in a book. "What is under the sun" (not the revelation of what is above and beyond it) is being discussed. Hence, in this place, it is the mere result of human experience, which is utterly ignorant of all after death. The solution of all moral perplexities is found only in the unseen — in the Word of God, not in the world that now is.

As to the other text cited in the same page (Luke 23: 43) the authorised version gives the true sense. The rendering which connects "today" with "I say" is absurd. It was utterly needless to mention when the Lord was speaking, which could only be at that moment. The precious truth which He thus solemnly reveals was that the poor thief should be that very day with Himself in paradise, and not merely be remembered when He comes in His kingdom by and by.

5_12_08 p. 375.

Isaiah 2: 22, and 2 Chronicles 35: 21. Vol. I. p. 335. — Mr. CAINE seems surprised that ld't: should be translated "cease ye," and in 2 Chron. 35: 25, "forbear." The fact is the word is rendered by eight or nine other English equivalents, for all of which it might be difficult to account, if one did not remember the fondness of our translators for variety. At the same time, a difference seems to me in this instance natural, seeing that man is in question in the prophecy, God in the history, which modifies the version. So the Vulgate has quiescite in one case, and desine in the other. De Wette also distinguishes, and the Septuagint, if we read the last verse of Isa. 2 with the Aldine and Complutensian editions, for it is wanting in the others.

5_12_08 p. 376.

Ezekiel 38: 17.

Those who identify the Assyrian with Gog need find no difficulty: for the earlier prophets, in particular, such as Joel, Micah, Nahum, and Isaiah, had dwelt much in that enemy of Israel. The difficulty is greater, in appearance, for those who discriminate and consider Gog to be a later enemy. Probably Isa. 33 refers to him; but it is evident that Ezekiel may also include prophets who predicted without committing their prophecies to writing.

5_12_08 p. 378.

Daniel 12: 2. Vol. II p. 318. — Many Christians, whose judgment is to be respected, apply this passage to a literal resurrection. But they are involved in difficulties, from which ingenuity essays in vain, as I think, to extricate them. Instead of commenting on what appears to me mistakes, let me state my firm conviction that a national resuscitation of Daniel's people, i.e. Israel, is in question here, as in Isa. 26 and Ezekiel 37. This being understood the entire context is plain. It is at the time of their deepest distress that Michael stands up, and not merely are all those elect Jews delivered who have been glanced at in the previous parts of this prophecy, but, many who are dispersed, as it were buried, or at least slumbering, among the Gentiles, awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. (Compare Isa. 66 sub finem). Then follows the peculiar blessedness of the "Maschilim," i.e. the understanding ones, that instruct the mass in righteousness, who, instead of going out like the moon, though it may appear again, shine as the stars for ever and ever. This figurative application of a resurrection to Israel's circumstances at the close of the age, is of course perfectly consistent with a real bodily resurrection of saints before, and of the wicked after, the millennium, as in Rev. 20: 4-12.

I am aware of the assertion that the phrase hL,aew“ — hL,ae is never used elsewhere in Hebrew as distributive of a general class previously mentioned. But I believe it to be unfounded. The reader has only to examine Joshua 8: 22, and he will see that the pronoun is used in a similar way, Israel being the general class, and the same expression as here taking it up distributively. Accordingly, our English Bible in both cases, and in my judgment rightly, translates "some . . . and some." Of course, it is not denied that in certain circumstances "these" and "those" would well represent the meaning. My opinion is that the other is an equally legitimate rendering wherever required by the context, as I conceive it to be in both the texts cited. And such, I find is the view of the Vulgate and Luther as to Daniel 12: 2.

Again, I have no sympathy with those who apply this verse to mere temporal deliverance. But it is not a necessary inference, on the other hand, that the words "everlasting life" imply a resurrection-state. People forget that the saved Israelites in question are supposed to possess eternal life, which certainly may be before any change as to the body. It may help some readers to notice a somewhat parallel case, both in good and evil, as respects the Gentiles in Matt. 25: 46. Plainly, they are the nations at the beginning of the millennium discriminated as sheep and goats, and dealt with by the king without delay. "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal." So, when Israel reappears in that day, sad examples are to be there, whose "worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched, and they shall be an abhorring to all flesh;" while others are to be brought an offering to the Lord, who shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them. These awake to everlasting life; the others are abandoned to shame and everlasting contempt, apart from the question of resurrection. It will be a time, not of national deliverance merely, but of signal mercy and judgment from God; and this for Israel after their long sleep among the Gentiles, as well as for such Jews as will have figured more in the previous crisis in the land. The Maschilim seem to be a special class still more distinguished (ver. 3).

5_12_08 p. 382.

Romans 16: 7. Vol. I. p. 51. — Your querist is aware, doubtless, that we have very scanty data whereby to decide the epoch of St. Paul's conversion, and that the mass of learned divines and chronologists reject Dr. Burton's reasoning, and interpose several years between the crucifixion and that event. This, however, would only afford more ample space for such as Andronicus and Junia to hear the Gospel, while it weakens the evidence (if such it is to be called) for their being the fruit of St. Peter's preaching on the day of Pentecost. Bengel seems to think that they were themselves Apostles, in virtue of having seen the Lord, and testifying thereto (cf. 1 Cor. 15: 6); that is, of course, Apostles in a subordinate sense. This, if true, would scarcely harmonise, I think, with Acts 2: 10, as applied by Mr. DAVIS.

5_12_08 p. 382.

1 Corinthians 4: 4. Vol. II. p. 355. — The true force is, "For I am conscious to myself of nothing "or" I have nothing on my conscience;" but the whole passage is rendered loosely in our version, which confounds ἀνακρίνω, in verses 3, 4, with the simple verb in verse 5.

5_12_08 p. 382.

2 Cor. 5: 20. Vol. I. p. 247. — It is clear that the true connection of ὑπὲρ Χ. is with δεόμεθα, and not with the last clause. In other words, the question here is not the means of the reconciliation, which we have in the following verse, but the character of the embassy, and the prayer or entreaty.

5_12_08 p. 384.

1 Peter 1: 18. Vol. I. p. 110. — I doubt that J. S. A. has caught the exact point, of the verse. At least,  my opinion is that there is a contrast between the Father on whom these converted Jews (for such  they were) called, and all the vain round of traditional ways transmitted by their fathers. We are  redeemed from "the fair show in the flesh," as well as from what is immoral and depraved. Compare (verses 15, 17, with 18). The father who had called them was holy: therefore were they to be holy in all manner of conversation. They were now calling on a Father who deals impartially; therefore should their conversation, during this their time of walking through the world as aliens be with fear, not because they did not know their redemption, but because they did, and it was not with corruptible things as silver and gold, which were in keeping with their old walk, which, empty in other respects, was most glaringly so in its traditional religions. From all they knew themselves redeemed by the precious blood of Christ.

5_12_22 p. 391.

Genesis 3: 22. Vol. II. p. 367. — I believe that there is no ground for the interpretation to which R. D. F. alludes. The rendering of the English Bible agrees with the best translations that I know, and seems to be simple and exact. The proposed one puts an evidently false sense upon "one of us," for that clearly answers to the serpent's temptation in ver. 5 ("ye shall be as gods"), and not to Gen. 1: 26, 27. Next, it appears to assume the cessation of that image by the fall, contrary to James 4: 9. Again, it dislocates the knowledge of good and evil from the being as Elohim, with which it is inseparably connected in verses 5 and 22.

5_12_22 p. 392.

Judges 15: 4. Vol. II. pp. 367, 373. — It is the notion of Kennicott and Donne, who convert the animals in question into wheaten sheaves, which deserves derision. For the same word occurs in about half-a-dozen other passages of the Bible, and is always translated "foxes." It will hardly be argued that wheaten sheaves, great or little, spoil the vines, or that those who seek my soul to destroy it shall be a portion for wheaten sheaves. But I must forbear exposing anything so baseless. I do not pretend to say that jackals may not be meant, as some have thought, partly, I suppose, because their gregarious nature seemed better to chime with the 300, than the solitary ways of the fox. Such reasons appear to me of little weight. Both animals however were common in that neighbourhood, and, after all, the question between is of small moment. The LXX, Josephus, the Vulgate, Fr. Junius, the German of De Wette and the Dutch, the Italian, and the French support the English version. Indeed, common sense demands it; for, while one can understand the wide-spread conflagration, which must have followed such a number of fleet creatures rushing hither and thither with a flaming firebrand between each pair, what sense would there be in so tying a couple of wheaten sheaves? Roman antiquaries mention a sacrifice to Ceres of a fox, which not a little resembles and to some may confirm the common view.

5_12_22 p. 395.

Mark 9: 43-49. Vol. II. p. 367. — It is plain that a physical act is employed as a mere vehicle for forcibly describing a spiritual cutting-off and casting-out. Nothing is to be spared that is a snare, if it seemed as near and needful as the hand, foot, or eye; for eternity is in question, and a judgment which none can evade, and which spares nothing contrary to God. The meaning is not, I suppose, that in the time of glory those who have mortified the flesh will bear marks to their shame, but rather that such shall be there; and how infinitely better thus than, unmortified and allowing the desires of the flesh and the mind, to be cast into hell-fire!

5_12_22 p. 395/6.

Acts 26: 28, 29. Vol. II. p. 142. — May I be permitted to examine the criticism which has been rather confidently applied to this passage? It will be seen that the usual view, with a slight modification, his little to fear from its rivals. Far from being "philologically" or "exegetically" impossible, it seems to be a legitimate and even a necessary construction.

1. It is a mistake if it be supposed that we are restricted to ὀλίγου for the meaning "almost." The Dean of Christ Church and Dr. Scott are no mean witnesses as to such a point; and they give ὀλίγου, or ὀλίγῳ, as so far equivalent, though doubtless the former is the more common, while παρ᾽ ὀλίγον is not infrequent in the Septuagint, and Aquila (in Ps. 71: 2) has ὡς ὀλίγον in the same sense. Whatever may be thought of the spirituality of "most of the ancient commentators," it would be strange if Greek fathers, able and eloquent, like Chrysostom for instance, perpetrated the alleged blunder as to their own mother tongue. Who, again, can doubt Theodoret's idea, after reading the following allusion to our text, παρ᾽ ολίγον με πείθεις ὁμοουσιαστὴν γενέσθαι (v. 930, ed. Schulz.) I infer from such circumstances that the phrase was capable of the meaning "almost," in the judgment of those who ought to be eminently competent to treat of the question.

2. It is agreed that χρόνῳ, though often supplying the sense where ἐν ὀλιγῳ occurs in ordinary Greek, is inadmissible here from contextual reasons. What Dr. Davidson says (Introd. N. T. vol. ii. p. 95) after Hemsen and De Wette, is quite unsatisfactory; but I need not dwell on it, as Mr. Alford also rejects it.

3. If any word is to be supplied to the phrase, μέτρῳ, μέρει, or some such noun, would make good sense, but it is better left general. The old English word "lightly" (i.e. with little pains) is as unsuitable to Eph. 3: 3, as to our text, and these are the only occurrences in the New Testament. For, in the Epistle, the Apostle does not want to imply that he had written before with little pains; which I must be forgiven for pronouncing an absurd interpretation. He alludes to the previous scanty or brief notice, as compared with the fuller development the subject was now receiving at his hands. The idea of little pains, or ease, is out of the question, and it is wrong to slur it over as equivalent to "few words." On the other hand, the sense in a little [measure]" is clear in itself, and evidently consistent with the purport of the verse and the context. It is equally in keeping with Acts 26: 28, 29, "In a little measure," said Agrippa, "thou art persuading me to be a Christian;" and Paul rejoins, taking up his words in a similar sense, "I would to God that, both in a little and in a great measure, not only thou but also all that hear me this day were such as I am, except these bonds." Paul's use of the Prophets, who showed long before that the Messiah should suffer and be the first to rise from the dead, was the more striking and seasonable, as their testimony tallied exactly with the facts most objected to in his preaching. The King knew the facts, and believed the Prophets. Accordingly the Apostle appealed to his conscience, and Agrippa confesses that he was in a measure convinced, in spite of the odium associated with the name of "Christian." Thus the present tense is no difficulty whatever, nor the appellation; for his mind might easily allow the propriety of that which contrasted strangely with his worldly position, and the verb expresses the actual effect on the King, not his intentions. Whether one looks at verse 27, or at verses 31, 32, it is an incongruous notion that Agrippa was so insensible to the solemn appeal as to answer ironically. Besides, as I have already pointed out, to make ἑν ὀλίγῳ mean "lightly," "with little pains," or "with ease," is to put an intolerable sense on Eph. 3: 3; and it is not pretended that it has a different meaning there and in Acts. What is more, that construction, no less than De Wette's, compels us to take the copulative in a disjunctive sense, which, I am bold to say, is unjustifiable, especially where two occur, as here, together. It is manifest that Matt. 7: 10, James 4: 13, are not parallel, even if the readings were indisputable. I have no hesitation, therefore, in stating my conviction that Mr. Alford's rendering (i.e. "rightly," in verse 28, and "whether with ease or with difficulty," in verse 29, which, I presume, would require εἴτε or the like) upsets the grammar of the last verse, affords a jejune meaning which coheres with the context neither before nor after, and reduces Eph. 3: 3, to nonsense, if the same phrase be supposed to carry the same force, which is intimated. The Syriac, Vulgate, Diodati, Martin, Ostervald, De Genoude, the Lausanne version, etc. maintain in substance the old and truer view. Guernsey, Nov. 1855.

The Christian Annotator 1856.

(1854-58. Contributions by W. Kelly.)

The identifying code is the year, month, day, and page number of the contribution.

'Marginal Readings' from the Christian Annotator are included in the NT_19c_2 directory. They occur on pages 93, 156, 220, 267, 300, of Vol. III.

6_01_05 p. 9.

1 Tim. 5: 17. Vol. II. p. 367. — It is evident that the verse affords no ground for referring the officials in question to those of cities or districts, i.e. the bishops of a later date. Plurality is everywhere assumed. It is clear also that labouring in the word and doctrine was not necessary to these elders. No elders are spoken of in Rom. 12: 21, Cor. 12: for it must be remembered that, while elders were to rule or preside, there were others besides who ruled, and even in a higher way and larger sphere.

6_01_19 p. 28.

TEXTS MISAPPLIED OR MISQUOTED.

Galatians 5: 4. — Fallen from grace.

Often quoted to prove that Christians may, by falling into sin, jeopard the life which they have got in Christ. But the text speaks of those who had appeared to receive the Gospel letting slip the grand foundation of God's grace for ordinances, or, in other words, abandoning the ground of faith for religiousness.

Galatians 5: 5. — We through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

Not the hope of being justified; for by Christ all that believe are justified from all things. We are not waiting for righteousness, for we are made the righteousness of God in Christ; but we wait for the hope which is suited to such a righteousness, for a glorious resurrection or change, which is the only adequate complement of what we have already in Christ.

6_01_19 p. 29/30.

Synoptical Study of the Gospels.

(Continued from Vol. II. page 207.)

THE SUITABILITY OF THE EVANGELISTS.

As preliminary to any detailed observations on the Gospels, allow me briefly to notice the wisdom of the Spirit in the choice of each workman for his work.

"Matthew, the publican," was not one whom man would have selected as the Apostle and biographer of the Messiah. At first sight he might seem the least eligible for presenting the Lord to the Jews, for, as a class, none were in such disrepute as those Jews who consented to gather the taxes which the Romans imposed on their nation. But, regarded more closely, nothing could have been in more admirable keeping with the line of things which the Holy Ghost traces in his Gospel, for Jesus there is not the Messiah only, but the rejected Messiah. His rejection, with its grave and fruitful results, is just as much the theme as His intrinsic claims, with all God's external attestations. And who so fit a witness of the grace which would seek the least worthy, if those "that were bidden" would not come, as he who was called from the odious receipt of customs?

In the second Gospel the Spirit is evidently developing the perfectness of the Lord's ministry in word and deed. Now "John, whose surname was Mark," was just the right person for such a task, always bearing in mind that none was fit unless immediately inspired to write. But, among those who were inspired to write. But, those who were so empowered of God, John Mark was precisely the one fitted by personal experience to appreciate, when the Spirit gave him to indite that Divine account of the gospel service of Jesus; for he had bitterly known what it was to put his hand to the plough and look back, with its painful consequences on all sides (Acts 13, 15). But he had also learned, to his joy, and the blessing of others, that the Lord can restore and strengthen, giving us, through His grace, to overcome wherein we have most broken down. This very Mark subsequently became a fellow-worker of St. Paul, and a comfort to him, as much as earlier he had been a sorrow (Col. 4). "Take Mark," says he, in his last letter to Timothy, "and bring him with thee; for he is profitable to me for the ministry."

For the writing of the third Gospel, again, Luke was manifestly the most appropriate instrument. From Col. 4 it would seem that he was a Gentile, and by profession a physician, both which particulars, as well as its dedication to Theophilus, wonderfully harmonize with the way in which our Lord is there depicted — not so much the Messiah, nor the servant, but "the man Christ Jesus," the Son of God born of the Virgin, in His largest human relations, in His obedience and prayerfulness, in His social sympathies, in miracles of healing and cleansing, in parables of special tenderness towards the lost. It is this prominence of our Lord's manhood, as brought out in Luke, which to me accounts for the emphatic statements of grace to Gentiles, as it falls in with the special form of his preface, which has been so frightfully abused by rationalists in general, English or Foreign. He lets us know his motives, and seeks to draw Theophilus by the cords of a man; but if there be thus a human side of the picture, there is another as Divine as in the other Gospels, where the thoughts and feelings of the heart are not so laid bare. The notion that such an opening, touchingly suited as it is to the way in which our Lord is throughout presented in this Gospel, should induce us to regard the writer as a mere faithful and honest compiler, without supernatural guidance in the arrangement of his subject matter, etc. is worthy only of an infidel. And it is only to cheat oneself or others with vain words to affirm that the occurrence of demonstrable mistakes in the Gospels does not in any way affect the inspiration of the Evangelists. The profanity of these statements scarcely exceeds their folly, nor should I have taken this opportunity; to denounce them if they were not at this moment finding extensive acceptance, especially among young students, not, alas! without the sanction of those who ought to know better.

Lastly, that St. John was eminently the right instrument for his task is most apparent. Who could so fitly, if so it pleased the Holy Ghost, set before us "the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father," as he who leaned on Jesus' bosom, the disciple whom Jesus loved?

CHOICE or SCENE.

It is the difference of design which, to me, solves the difficulty stated in Vol. II. pp. 3, 4. Matthew and Mark, in the body of their Gospels, are occupied with the Lord's sojourn and ministry in Galilee; Luke with not that only, but His gradual journey to Jerusalem (Luke 9: 51; Luke 13: 22; Luke 17: 11; Luke 18: 31; Luke 19: 28); and John with His ways and words in or near Jerusalem itself yet more than elsewhere, though Galilee and Samaria were assuredly not left out. What Matthew describes is the accomplishment of Jewish prophecy and the witness of Jerusalem's unbelief; while Mark's dwelling on the same arose, I think, from the fact that Galilee was the actual scene of our Lord's service, to which theme his Gospel is emphatically devoted. Luke, on the other hand, brings out the lingering of our Lord's love and pity: His face is steadfastly set on the place where He should accomplish His decease, but His slow steps attest the reluctance and the sorrow with which He visits Jerusalem for the last time, and affords the crowning proof of man's total ruin in His blood and cross. John, finally, regards every place, and being in the light of His personal Divine glory. Jerusalem, therefore, is no longer, as in Matthew, styled "the holy city." He was the light, the true light; all outside, and everywhere else, was but darkness, and Jerusalem needed the Son of God as much as Galilee, and was no more to Him, in that point of view, than any other spot. He could, so far as Himself was concerned, freely speak and work there or anywhere. What was "this mountain," nay, what Jerusalem, to the Son of the Father? If there was nothing to attract, there was nothing, in one sense, which could repel. He, who was full of grace and truth, accepted His entire humiliation, and found objects on which to expend His love wherever He might move  -  in the boastful city of holiness no less than in the barren wilderness. It is the design impressed by God upon the several Gospels which thus simply explains a fact which is seen by, but useless to, him who denies that design.

Guernsey, Nov. 1855.

6_01_19 p. 31.

Job 9: 9, and 38: 31, 32. Astronomical Terms. Vol. 11. 214. — I think there can be little doubt that Pleiades, Orion, the Zodiac, and the Bear, are meant by the Hebrew terms in question. In Gesenius' Manual before me, twOrZ:m' is considered as probably the same as twOlZ:m' "the constellations of the Zodiac" (2 Kings 23: 5), and not at all confounded with µyriz:m] "northerly winds." Such words, however, being peculiar, and rarely used, leave room naturally for a good deal of difference of opinion among translators and commentators. The LXX, like the English Bible, do not translate, but give μαζουρώθ, which Theodoret conjectures may be the name of the morning star; while Chrysostom shows that some held for the signs of the Zodiac, others for the dog-star (=σείριος). It is clear that the LXX are inconsistent in their version of Job 9: 9, and 38: 31, 32, in the former giving Πλειάδα καὶ Ἕσπερον καὶ Ἀρκτοῦρον κ. τ. λ., and in the latter, Πλειάδος . . . Ωρίωνος . . . Μαζουρὼθ . . . Ἕσπερον. The Vulgate is almost as conflicting with itself, reading in the earlier passage "Arcturum, et Oriona, et Hyadas," and in the latter, "Pleiadas aut gyrum Arcturi . . . Luciferum . . . et Vesperum." If I do not mistake, Tremellius and Junius regard the chambers of the south" (penetralium Austri sidera) in the text as answering to Mazzaroth (remotiora signa) in the other, and such is certainly the view of Ostervald, and perhaps of Martin. Of the Germans, Luther is confused and unsatisfactory; De Wette is exact. The Dutch agrees with the authorised version, as does Diodati, save that for Mazzaroth we have "i segni Settentrionali."

As to Mr. Margoliouth's introduction of Aquarius and Libra into Isa. 40: 15, I can conceive no rendering more harsh and intolerable. Instead of comparing the nations with exalted objects in the heavens, the scope is evidently to find the most trivial resemblances for them upon the earth. 22 Dec. 1855.

6_01_19 p. 33.

Luke 13: 24. — Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. Vol. III. 17.

The true solution I believe to lie not in the difference of striving and seeking, on which some have rested unduly, and others so mistakenly as in effect to make men their own saviours, but rather in this, that, while many will seek to enter in, it is not at the strait gate, but by some method of human device. The natural heart dislikes God, and God's way, and easily deceives itself into a vague reliance on mercy without righteousness, which is an infidel thought, or into a vain confidence in religious ordinances, which is a superstitious one: in either way, man is lost. People might like to enter the kingdom, but not by regeneration through faith in Christ.

6_01_19 p. 33.

Luke 16: 9. Vol. III. 17.  -  Mr. ALFORD's note is most objectionable in point of doctrine, as betraying fundamental ignorance of the true grace of God, and it displays lamentable lack of acquaintance with the style of St. Luke. If F. F. M. B. examine Luke 6: 38, 44; Luke 12: 20; Luke 14: 35, etc. he will perceive that Mr. A.'s oversight of the usus loquendi has opened the door for the wild notion that poor and needy friends, who have been helped here, are to receive us into the, or their, everlasting tabernacles with joy. It is clear that the difficulty is no greater as to "they shall receive," in Luke 16: 9, than in "they require" (ἀπαιτοῦσιν), in chap. 12: 20. The meaning is simply "you shall be received," "thy soul is required:" if more be meant, it is God, not man, who receives and requires. The grand point is the sacrifice of the present, in view of what is future and eternal. The question is not the means or title to enter the everlasting habitations, but the character of those who shall be received there.

6_01_19 p. 35.

2 Peter 1: 20. Vol. 11. 346. — Permit me briefly to show why I consider R. I.'s view to be erroneous. In the first place, he gives no reason for taking προφητεία as equivalent to an inspired declaration, predictive or not. Indeed, I am not aware that the word in the New Testament ever has this loose meaning, and I am quite clear that the verb from which it is derived countenances nothing of the sort in 1 Cor. 14: 3, but simply contrasts prophesying with speaking in a tongue. In other words, that verse in no way defines prophesying, but compares its character with the gift of tongues. But, even if it were ever so used beyond a doubt in the New Testament, I am of opinion that the context here decidedly restricts προφητεία to the revelation of future events.

It is agreed that ἐπίλυσις means interpretation, or the act of interpreting, though some, as Calvin and Grotius, have been rash enough to venture on the conjecture ἐπηλύσεως, and many more have given the force of "movement" to ἐπίλυσις, while it would really require ἐπήλυσις (= approach), or some such word.

The main question remains as to the force and reference of ἴδιος. R. I. reasons from its frequent opposition to κοινός. But this is too narrow a foundation, because each of these words possesses significations not thus opposed. The fact is that, beside the elliptical κατ᾽ ἰδίαν, ἴδιος occurs near a hundred times in the New Testament, and always means "own" (his, her, its, etc. according to the case). I have little doubt, both from general usage and from the verses before and after the passage under debate, that ἰδίας here refers to the subject of the sentence, προφητεία, and that the meaning is, "no prophecy of Scripture is (or is made) of its own interpretation." Taken by itself, it is not its own interpreter, but must be viewed as part of a grand whole, whereof Christ's glory is the centre. I must be excused, therefore, if I believe R. I.'s idea to be as thorough a perversion of the text as the Romish one. He contends for the general right of man, they for the exclusive prerogative of the Church so-called  -  both, in my judgment dangerous errors, however concealed or explained. The Holy Ghost leads us to connect facts with God's purposes in Christ, and thus to understand and expound prophecy, which taken by itself is never rightly known. Horsley, Rosenmuller, Wahl, etc. agree with the view here contended for.

6_02_02 p. 44.

Matthew 2: 23. Vol. II. 315, 331, 378. — The second of Mr. A.'s hypotheses is, I believe, the truth. Even the Galilean Nathaniel, guileless Israelite as he was, despised Nazareth. (Cf. John 1: 46, 47.) David, Isaiah, Zechariah, etc. abundantly showed the contempt in which Messiah should live and die. His residence at Nazareth was a part of this. Nazariteship had nothing to do with Nazareth, and is out of the question.

6_02_02 p. 47/8.

Luke 5: 17. [Mr W. Kelly also takes this view, that the "sick" are intended. For the usage of αὐτός he refers to Matt. 4: 23, Matt. 8: 4, Matt. 9: 35, Matt. 13: 54 ; Luke 4: 15, Luke 5: 14; Acts 4: 5, where the reference is understood rather than expressed: he adds, "Perhaps such cases as Matt. 12: 15, Matt. 19: 2, may yet more illustrate the expression in question, for it is plain that the logical connection is not with the multitudes, but with those among them who needed healing." — Ed.]

6_02_02 p. 50.

James 4: 5. Vol. III. 19, 35. — It appears to me more natural to suppose that the Spirit of God is in question, not the spirit of man, which would of course modify the translation. Indeed, it would seem that our translators, assuming that the unregenerate will, or what is elsewhere called the flesh, was meant, adapted their version of πρὸς φθόνον ἐπιποθεῖ to that idea. For certain it is, that everywhere else ἐπιποθέω means "longing," or "earnestly desiring," and always in a good sense; which, if applicable here, would require us to take πρὸς φθόνον as "against envy," which beyond doubt is legitimate. This is to my mind confirmed by the description of the spirit, ὃ κατῳκησεν ἐν ἡμῖν, which could scarcely be predicated of what pertains to man necessarily in his present fallen state, but is very suitable to the Holy Ghost, who has taken up his abode in us who believe. However taken, the Scripture referred to is, I think, Gal. 5: 17, which ought surely to be rendered (not "so that ye cannot," but) "in order that ye may not do the things that ye would." For the point here, is not merely the irremediable badness of the flesh, as in the latter part of Rom. 7, but the possession of the Spirit, as a new power in which the Christian is called to walk (Cf. Gal. 5: 16-25), which is not introduced in that part of Romans.

6_02_02 p. 51.

Revelation 14: 19.  -  ". . . . . The vine of the earth" Vol. III. 20. is the symbol of earthly religion in its last apostate state. Christ, the Lord from heaven, is the true vine; this is the false vine, the scene of whose judgment appears to be Jerusalem (cf. verse 20). Where Christ suffered, where the Church of God first saw the light, it would seem that Satan will at the close completely triumph. It is important to note that it is a distinct and subsequent scene to the fall of Babylon, given already in the same chapter. If Rome be, as I believe, the centre of one picture, Jerusalem is, I think, of the other, the metropolis respectively of Gentilism and Judaism in their antagonism to God at the end of the age.

6_02_02 p. 51.

Revelation 22: 17. Vol. III. 20. — I do not wonder that Mr. HASKINS finds difficulties in accepting the interpretation of those who apply this verse exclusively to the Lord, or to sinners. The truth is, that the former portion refers to the one, and the latter to the other. Nothing can be sweeter nor clearer when seen. Jesus had just announced Himself as not merely the root and the offspring of David, but the bright and morning star. Immediately the Church, with the bridal affections, says, Come. It is the Bridegroom that thus awakens her desires that He should come. He is the first object of the heart, and lest it should be thought to be a mere human, unsanctioned longing, it is added, "the spirit and the bride say, Come." But there are many who have heard His voice and been washed in His blood who yet feebly know their privileges in Him; they little if at all appreciate what He is as the Bridegroom, what they are as His bride. Are these to be silent? Nay, "let him that heareth say, Come." They may know His love but imperfectly: still let them not fear to say, Come. But does not such a hope, such a waiting of the heart, hinder one's yearning after poor souls? Enemies have said so; mistaken friends may have thought so; but God links the two most blessedly together. If the bride, if the individual saint, owe the first love of the heart to Him who is coming to meet us in the air, so much the more can we turn round to the needy world and invite him that is athirst to come (not to say, Come, which to him, indeed, were but judgment). Nay, even if I meet a soul who perhaps has not yet known deep soul-thirst, yet is willing, I can bid him freely welcome, "whosoever will let him take the water of life freely." It is a perfectly beautiful scene, which the Lord grant us better to know and enjoy by the Holy Ghost!

6_02_16 p. 60/1.

Jeremiah 17: 9. Vol. III. 25. — I was surprised at some of the remarks in Mr. S.'s paper. The word vn'a; , here translated "desperately wicked," is, in the authorised version of Isa. 17: 11 rendered "desperate," and in Jer. 17: 16, "woeful." Elsewhere it is uniformly translated "incurable," as Job 34: 6; Jer. 15: 18; Jer. 30: 12, 15; Micah 1: 9; save in Sam. 12: 15, where the Niphal form occurs, and our Bible gives "and it was very sick." It is evident that "desperately wicked" well represents the Hebrew participle vnUa; when applied to moral and not physical evil. "Incurable" might suit the text in question, but it certainly would not do in other passages, where the English translators have departed from this, their most frequent, rendering of the word. I consider them, therefore, to be amply justified. The Vulgate is very inferior, giving in Jer. 15: 18, desperabilis; in 17: 9, inscrutabile; in 16, hominis; in 30: 12, 15, insanabilis; whence it is plain that for the most part it agrees with the English Bible, save in Jer. 17: 9, where it gives an incomparably feebler, if not a false, version  -  and in verse 16, where there is an unequivocal blunder, perhaps from adherence to the Septuagint, which commits the same in both verses. I suppose that the LXX (Symmachus also, though differing from the Septuagint, fell into similar error, for he has ἀνεξερεύνητος ἡ καρδία πάντων, καὶ τίς ἀνηρ ὃς εὑρήσει αὐτήν) confounded the word with v/na,“ (man). Luther was certainly not entitled to censure the Vulgate version of this passage, for his own is rather weaker than the Latin, and far below the English. "Es ist das Hertz ein trotziges und verzagtes Ding, wer kann es ergründen? (i.e. The heart is a perverse and desperate thing; who can fathom it?) I could scarcely believe that "ergründen" had been taken as intended to represent the debated word until I examined the Hammersmith discussion, where I find that Dr. Cumming had been guilty of the same mistake, without a comment from friend or foe. It is a pity for persons to quote, or repeat quotations, thus at random. Nor is it trite that the Italian, Spanish, and French versions all accord more or less with the English. For the Spanish, like De Genoude, follows the Vulgate, quite as much as Ostervald or Martin adhere to our version. De Wette gives the sense with "verderbt," that is, "ruined," "corrupt." In ancient times a singular view was taken of the verse, which may possibly have been floating through the mind of Mr. S.'s "brother clergyman," if the latter were a person of erudition. The Western Fathers, such as Cyprian (Test. adv. Judaeos, lib. ii. c. 10), and Lactantius (lib. iv. c. 13), actually applied this verse to Christ, as if it treated of His inscrutable nature, the mystery of His person! Jerome alludes to this fancy in his Commentaries on Jeremiah (lib. iii. c. 17; vol. iv. p. 789). It evidently grew out of a confusion similar to that of the LXX, according to whom the sense is, Βαθεῖα ἡ καρδία παρὰ πάντα, καὶ ἄνθρωπός ἐστι, καὶ τίς γνώσεται αὐτόν; (Deep is the heart beyond all things, and it is the man, and who can know him?) In opposition to this, Jerome justly observes, Melius autem est, ut simpliciter accipiamus, quod nullus cogitationum secreta cognoscat nisi solus Deus: dixerat enim supra: Maledictus homo qui spem habet in homine. Et e contrario: Benedictus vir qui confidit in Domino. Unde ne hominum putaremus certum esse judicium, intulit, omnium propemodum corda esse perversa, dicente Psalmista. Ab occultis meis munda me, et ab alienis parce servo tuo (Ps. 18: 13): haud dubium quin cogitationibus. Et in Genesi: Videns autem Deus quod multa malitia hominum esset in terra, et cuncta cogitatio cordis intenta esset ad malum omni tempore (Gen. 6: 5), etc.

In the same chapter Jerome gives the force of the Hebrew as "inscrutabile, sive desperabile;" which latter I have no doubt is nearer the mark than the former; and it differs little from our version. Jan. 22, 1856.

6_02_16 p. 61.

Daniel 7: 25. Vol. III. 37. — It may be satisfactory to Mr. PLUMMER to know that the Chaldee r[' is frequently translated "for" as well as "until," and that in some places where our translators have adopted "until," "for" would have served equally well. Thus, in Dan. 6: 7, it is rendered "for thirty days," and in verse 12 "within." Again, in Dan. 7: 12, "for a season," and in 18 "for ever, even for ever." So that I think he will perceive that the commentators are not far wrong who teach "until" as equivalent to "for a time," etc., in this passage.

6_02_16 p. 62/3.

Mark 9: 43-48. Vol. III. 38. — The reason of the change from "life" in 43, 45, to "the kingdom of God" in 47, is owing, perhaps, to the eye being in question. Compare also the first verse of this chapter and John 3: 3, 5. "Life" would have been equally true, and is actually used, in Matt. 18: 9; but Mark 9: 47 adds another graphic and characteristic touch.

6_02_16 p. 67/8.

Revelation 17: 11. Vol. III. 20. — I think that the suggested punctuation must be rejected. For —

(1.) The next clause positively contradicts the express aim of Mr. G. For he wishes to make out that (not the beast that was and is not, but) ὁ ἄλλος is meant by καὶ αὐτός. Whereas we know from verse 10 that "the other" is the seventh king, and from verse 11 that the personage there intended is an extraordinary one, the eighth, while he is of the seven and goeth into perdition in a special way.

(2.) I am not aware what points of coincidence are supposed to exist between this passage and verses 12 and 16. The truth is that the seven kings may be identified with the seven heads, but they are quite distinct from the ten horns. But this evidently leaves the question open as to the beast, whether, or not, he is the eighth.

(3.) Does not Mr. G. exceed the measure of symbolical congruity? Scripture does not in its types or prophetic emblems present us anywhere with pictorial consistency. Various images are combined which convey a perfect meaning, but it is to the mind, not to the eye. And what simpler than that "the strange eighth king should absorb all the power of the ten kings, his vassals, and thus become, to all intents and purposes, the beast," all receiving authority for one and the same time?

(4.) According to the usual punctuation the contrast is striking and beautiful. The Lamb is King of kings, and the beast is king in an unprecedented fashion; the ten horns are the subordinates of the beast, the called, and chosen, and faithful, the companions of the Lamb. They shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them. I am of opinion, therefore, that the very reasons alleged for the change tell fatally against it.

6_03_01 p. 76.

Zechariah 12. Vol. 111. 37. — T. F. F. asks:

1. What will determine, even approximately, the date of this prophecy? It is evident that the date assigned in some Bibles (B.C. 587) is a mistake; probably B.C. 517 was meant, which would better accord with the previous dates 520-518 B.C. The Edinburgh Bible of Blair and Bruce, like that of the London Tract Society, gives the date according to your Correspondent. On the other hand, the Oxford Bible (4to. 1845) gives a century nearer Christ, i.e. 487, both of which seem to me highly improbable; while Bagster's Bible, after dating several of the preceding chapters B.C. 518, suddenly fixes Zech. 14 at B.C. 587; and Collins's Bible (1855) is equally strange, putting B.C. 587 to the preceding chapters, and B.C. 517 to chap. 14! For myself, I see no reason to doubt that Zech. 9  -  14 form a part of the great prophecy which commences with chap. 7; and I conceive that they may have been given in or not long after the fourth year of Darius Hystaspes (Compare Ezra 5). To put this prophecy as far back as the reign of Nebuchadnezzar is, in my opinion, of all hypotheses the least reasonable.

2. The "idol shepherd" is Antichrist, whom retributive judgment is to raise up in the land of Judea in the last times. "If another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive." He shall in the end suffer the sternest vengeance of God. This is no modern opinion.

Pastor stultus, et imperitus (says Jerome, Comment. in Zech. lib. iii. cap. xi.), haud dubium quia Antichristus sit, qui in consummatione mundi dicitur esse venturus et qualis venturus sit, indicatur . . . . . . Iste pastor ideo resurgat in Israel, quia verus pastor dixerat: Jam non pascam vos. Qui alio nomine et in Daniele propheta (cap. ix.) et in Evangelio (Marc. xiii.) et in epistola Pauli ad Thessalonienses (2 Thes. ii.), abominatio desolationis, sessurus in templo Domini, et se facturus ut Deum, qui et per Isaaiam magnus sensus dicitur (Isai, xxxii.) . . . . . Tam sceleratus est pastor, ut non idolorum cultor, sed ipse idolum nominetur, dum se appellat Deum, et vult ab omnibus adorari.

3. There is no reason that I see for identifying the stone in Zech. 12: 3, with that in Matt. 21: 44. The former evidently means Jerusalem itself, the latter the Lord Himself in two positions, answering to the two advents. First, in His humiliation, He is a stone as it were in the ground, and "whosoever shall fall on it shall be broken," verified in all unbelievers, but especially in the Jews; next, He is exalted to heaven, and coming again in power and great glory, He will execute destructive judgment  -  "on whomsoever it shall fall it will grind him to powder." (Cf. Dan. 2, 7; Rev. 19) "A burdensome stone" is another idea, and will be true of Jerusalem in the latter day, when the Assyrian heads a grand Gentile confederacy after the Antichrist is disposed of, which is the subject of Zech. 12: 2-6, Zech. 14: 1-3: also Isaiah, Micah, Daniel, and other prophets, treat of this closing king of the North.

4. There is no intermingling of the Church or Christian body with the subjects of this prophecy. There may have been some partial application in the past, as there will assuredly be a complete fulfilment in the future; but it is Judah and Jerusalem that are in question, whatever profit the Church or Christian may and ought to draw from this as from all Scripture.

5. The double reference of John 19: 36, and Rev. 1: 7, is simply to link both advents into the prophecy, which mainly bears on the second, but presupposes the first. "They shall look upon me whom they have pierced." But Rev. 1: 7, is so far from intimating a general conversion of mankind previous to the return of the Lord, that it plainly enough insinuates their then unbelief, for "all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him." He will be unwelcome to them.

6. The mourning of godly awakened consciences, when Jehovah-Jesus is seen, to the final deliverance of Jerusalem, and the total overthrow of all their Gentile foes, is most strikingly described in verses 10-14, but it is in terms which exclude the revival in Ezra's time, have as being a feeble earnest. Each felt alone with the Lord; and those families are specially named who represent prominent classes in Israel from the beginning, and throughout their history.

6_03_15 p. 98/9.

Resurrection of the Body.  Vol. 111. 21, 69.

It has been already shown in THE CHRISTIAN ANNOTATOR that the doctrine of the future state was taught in the Pentateuch, as well as in later parts of the Old Testament. It is absurd to pretend that Ps. 16: 9, 10; Ps. 17: 14, 15 ; Ps. 49: 14, 15, were written after the Captivity; or to deny that they reveal or imply the resurrection. There is no sort of difficulty in supposing that Zoroaster borrowed what he knew of this truth from Holy Writ, which was certainly more or less known to him. I am not at all disposed to give up Job 19: 26, 27; for I think it a decisive testimony to this precious truth, and the more striking as proving it to be held by saints outside the fathers, or the children of Israel: so that this again would readily account for traces of its traditional existence in the East long before the Captivity. In spite of all the assaults of critics, I am satisfied that, in all that is needed for bringing out a true bodily revival wherein the patriarch expected to see the Redeemer stand on the earth, the English Bible gives the substantial truth. So does the Septuagint, in spite of inaccuracies  -  οἶδα γὰρ ὅτι ἀένναός ἐστιν ὁ ἐκλύειν με μέλλων ἐπὶ γῆς ἀναστῆσαι τὸ δέρμα μου τὸ ἀναντλοῦν ταῦτα. So Jerome, in his interlinear exposition of the book, gives a version which is identical with his Vulgate save in the addition of one word, though I allow that his Latin is far more distant from the sense of the Hebrew than our authorised English. His comment is plain enough: —

Ego, inquam, jam corruptus ulceribus, in hac carne mortali incorruptus, per resurrectionem futuram glorificatus videbo Deum. Certus atque incommutabilis in hoc fundamento fideo ista loquebatur.

De Wette, it is true, gives a very different turn, adopting a sense of the last clause of ver. 26, suggested in our margin; but I unequivocally prefer the authorised text, for though ˆmi often occurs in the sense "out of," "without," "from," the meaning is not that he should see God apart from the flesh, or having no body, but that from out of the flesh he should see Him, or substantially "in his flesh." This is confirmed by the next verse, "Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another:" a real resurrection of the body, and nothing else.

I believe that Isa. 26: 19, like Dan. 12: 2, refers to the national resuscitation of Israel, converted and restored by the power of God. The terms are of course borrowed from, and presuppose the known truth of, a bodily resurrection. See also Ezek. 37 and Hosea 6: 3, Hosea 13: 4, which, in my opinion, entirely relieve this interpretation from the charge of halting. The omission of the words inserted by our translators may help to make the meaning of Isaiah plainer. Guernsey, 22 Jan. 1856.

6_03_22 p.110.

Jeremiah 24. Vol. III. 37. I do not admit that this prophecy was fulfilled in the past return from the Babylonish captivity. There was a partial accomplishment of this, as of other predictions, at that time, which is the utmost that is fairly deducible from verses 5, 6. On the other hand, Israel's permanent establishment in their own land, and their knowledge of God, returning to Him with their whole heart, are decidedly opposed to the teaching of those who suppose the prophecy to have been then exhausted as regards Israel. Who can say that it is not yet to be fulfilled? This is my answer to him who objects: —  Whatever has not been, must be fulfilled; the promised restoration and regeneration of Israel has never yet taken place: it must, therefore, be realised in the future. In fact this prophecy stands on similar ground with Jer. 3, 23, 30  -  33, as well as Zech. 14. Apply them as you please meanwhile, much remains to be verified, and in Israel, in the latter day.

6_03_22 p.111.

Matthew 14: 5. Vol. III. 55.  -  Mr. CAINE may rest assured that the Authorised Version of the last clause is incomparably better than Mr. Alford's. The verb ἔχω occurs very frequently in senses widely extended beyond "possession." It was used, especially with adverbs or nouns preceded by prepositions, when a state of mind or feeling was meant to be expressed, as ἔχειν τίνα ἐν ὀργῃ. The transition hence to the sense of "regard," which is required here, and in Mark 11: 32, is most natural. In fact, there is the analogous case of "hold" in our own tongue, which means idiomatically to "account," as well as literally to "keep," or "possess." The best translations agree with the English Bible. Thus the most recent German version has "sie ihn für einen Propheten hielten;" and De Wette, "als einen Propheten achteten." Luther's translation coincides with the Elberfeld Testament. The Vulgate has not "possederunt," but "sicut prophetam eum habebunt". The Dutch, Lausanne, and Italian of Diodati support the Authorised Version.

6_03_22 p.112.

Luke 23: 34. Vol. III. 17, 48.  -  I am persuaded that it is perfectly true that Christ is here presented as interceding for the guilty people who took, and by wicked hands crucified and slew Him. The grand design in this part of Luke is to bring out the iniquity of Israel and the grace of Christ in spite of all. I say nothing of "Pontius Pilate," who, indeed, would have released Him but for fearing the Jews and Caesar but it is evident to me that the Holy Ghost by Peter expressly refers, in Acts 3: 17, to this intercession of Jesus, and proves that the people of the Jews and their rulers were intended. Further, the intercession did prevail partially as to sphere then, as it will by and by triumph, when "all Israel shall be saved." Mr. MAUDE'S reasoning upon the reference of the pronoun is a mistake, even if it had been repeated, which it is not, in the Greek of the last clause. Moreover, his remark that, just after, "the people" and "the rulers" are spoken of quite distinctly, is liable to the fatal objection that "the soldiers" are also immediately after them. To lower the Lord's intercession to the mere pattern of various eminent persons forgiving their executioner, ought to be, in my opinion, repulsive to a spiritual mind. It needs little argument to refute the notion.

6_03_22 p.112.

John 6: 39, 40. Vol. III. 55, 78. It may help some of your readers to bear in mind that "the Last Day" has a broad moral force, like "the Day of the Lord" in 2 Peter 3, save that it applies yet more extensively, taking in the resurrection of the saints, which "the Day of the Lord" is nowhere said to embrace. Between John 6: 39, 40, and John 12: 48, the Millennium (Rev. 20: 4, 5) intervenes, "the Last Day" beginning a little before, and ending a little after it. It is a vague, or general expression of the entire closing scene, when man's day is over and God acts in power, whether in blessing or judgment.

6_03_22 p.117.

Galatians 3: 16, 18. — The point here is, that where Gentile blessing is promised (as in Gen. 12: 3; and 22: 18), it is always connected with the seed in an individual sense, not with the seed meaning the Jews, who were to be as the sand or stars for multitude. The Jewish blessing is in Gen. 22: 17 (and elsewhere), where a numerous seed is spoken of; but this is carefully excluded in verse 18, where Christ is meant, the true seed represented by Isaac raised up in a figure, and on the latter sole seed the Gentile blessing depends. "The inheritance" means, I suppose, what was involved in the promises, and was probably equivalent to Rom. 4: 13, 16. The connection with the preceding context seems to be a pursuing of the argument, 1st, that the law brings not blessing but curse upon those who are upon that condition; and 2nd, that it is by promise, not the law, we inherit the blessing  -  promise which Christ takes as the risen seed, the Second Adam, and therefore open to the Gentile, no less than the Jew, who believes. For death and resurrection close all fleshly distinction and privileges. And this is so much the more secure, as the law did not come in till long after the promise to Abraham, which it can therefore in no way annul. Even a man's covenant is obligatory, after it is signed, much more God's, which rests upon Him alone, instead of supposing two parties, as the legal mediation does, and thus coming to nothing through the weakness and sin of man.

6_03_22 p.117.

2 Peter 1: 5. Vol. III. 39, 67.

The first question is as to the right readings. B. C., G. J., and the mass of cursives, have καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο δὲ, followed by the Text. Rec. Griesbach, Knappe, Scholz, and Hahn. Tischendorf had edited, in his first Leipsic edition, κ. ἀ. δὲ τ.; but in the second he restores the common reading. Lachmann gives κ. αὐτοὶ δέ on the authority of A. (vulg. vos autem), the sense of which is plain. Griesbach commended αὐτῳ δὲ τουτῳ, which has the support of two MSS. and also αὐτοὶ δὲ τουτῳ, which is a mere conjecture of his own. I do not doubt that the ordinary text is the true one. If so, it would seem that there is an ellipse of διά, or κατά, and the sense is, "but also for, or in respect to, this very thing" "(i.e. referring to the verse before). Such is the grammatical construction, confirmed by the best versions save that of Jerome. Thus, in the most recent German we have "und eben deshalb fügt aber auch," etc. Such an adverbial accusative is not unusual in the pronouns, as any one can see in good lexicons and grammars. The Lausanne ministers appear to connect the pronouns, as well as σπ. π. with παρεισιν, but the sense is not materially altered.

6_03_22 p.118.

Revelation 8: 3.  -  ἵνα δώσῃ (or δώσει, according to A. C. and ten cursive MSS.) ταῖς προσευχαῖς. Vol. III. 19.

There can be no doubt that the Rhemish version ("of the Prayers"), which agrees with the common editions of the Vulgate, is in flagrant error. But it may be fairly questioned whether the, Hieronymian text be chargeable with that mistake in verse 3. At least, the best MS. commonly known as the Amiatine or Laurentian, omits the preposition de, and translates here as in Rev. 11: 3, with a dative following the verb. Such also is the text adopted by Lachmann. Possibly we may account for the insertion of de here from some transcribers' assimilating the phrase with "de orationibus," in the following verse, though even there it is a faulty rendering. But while the Authorised Version is quite exact in verse 4, and incomparably better than the Rhemish in verse 3, I may be permitted to suggest to Mr. Stuart that δίδωμι in the active voice, followed only by the indirect complement, seems to have a peculiar force. Two occurrences are found in the Revelation (chap. 8: 3 and 11: 3), in both of which I conceive it means to give power, or efficacy. This indeed is allowed in the Authorised Version as to the latter passage, but it is equally true of the former, the construction being the same and the sense thereby perfect in each. Translators have contended for a dative of concomitance, of circumstance, or of advantage, and thus have leaned to "with," "to," or "for." But that which I believe to be the true one was published by a deeply taught servant of Christ more than twenty years ago. I adopted it in a version of Revelation which appeared in 1849, and I find it again in a very recent and exact German version of the New Testament (Elberfeld, 1855). Of course, the emendation, if well-founded, negatives the Romish idea of intrinsically meritorious prayers yet, more than the ordinary renderings.

6_03_29 p.126.

Psalm 16: 2, 3. Vol. II 303, 374, 393.  -  I am of opinion that the main idea of the Psalm is the perfectness of Messiah's dependence on Jehovah, shown in His humiliation here below (Heb. 2), and vindicated in His Resurrection. (Acts 2) Hence it is that, while a divine person, yet taking the place of servant, His soul (for it is feminine) said to Jehovah, "Thou art my Lord; my goodness is not to Thee." It is the expression of his self-renunciation as man, which was in truth His moral glory. (Compare Mark 10: 17-27; Luke 18: 18, etc.) On the other hand, He said, "To the saints who are in the earth, and the excellent — all my delight is in them." This latter was acted out in His baptism, when He thus fulfilled all righteousness and identified Himself in grace with the godly in Israel. As man, He did not exalt himself, but gave the entire glory to God; and this not in austere distance from the despised remnant who bowed to the testimony of John the Baptist, but graciously entering into and sympathising with their true place before God. "He that sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified, are all of one." As to the versions, the Authorised and Diodati seem to me to afford a sense nearest to the Hebrew: Martin is rather better than Ostervald, and De Genoude a little inferior to both. The Prayer-Book Version cannot here be said to resemble the Septuagint or the Vulgate, save in the word "goods." The Spanish follows the Latin. Luther's rendering (ich muss um deinet willen leiden) is the most unnatural perhaps of all. De Wette gives, "Du bist der Herr, all mein Wohl geht nicht über dich. Die Heiligen, welche im Lande, sind die Herrlichen, an denen ich all mein Lust habe." Aquila is nearer than the LXX. as to the early part, ἀγαθωσύνη μου οὐ μὴ ἐπί σε. I have only to add that Gesenius appears to take verse 3 by itself, and accordingly understands the first words as a case absolute with L“ (in respect to) before it, but, I prefer the sense already stated. Guernsey, Oct. 1855.

6_03_29 p.130.

Galatians 3: 22. Vol. III. 55, 80, 116. — "Faith" is not here put for its object, I think, but is contrasted with the law when fully declared to be the sole means of justification, as it was after the cross of Jesus, when all pretension to stand before God on the law was manifestly at an end. Faith was always that whereby saints were justified really, even while the Levitical system had its place, and, if I may so say, obscured the faith which was within: then all that was outward fell, and the faith stood revealed.

6_03_29 p.131.

Septuagint. Vol. 1. 223; III. 21. — There can be no doubt of the fact that the Septuagint was generally used by our Lord and the inspired writers of the New Testament. But this fact ought not to be abused to the denial of what is equally certain — that it contains numerous mistranslations throughout, and is in no way to be compared for accuracy with the authorised version. Nevertheless the Holy Ghost condescended to use it freely, adopting its language, where true, even if it differed from the meaning of the Hebrew: just as occasionally He gives a paraphrase which differs from both. It was a most important witness already extant among the Gentiles, and God employed it in grace without in any way guaranteeing the inspiration of the LXX, or of their work. What would be thought of the argument that the works of Menander or Epimenides were inspired because the Holy Ghost cited them in the Epistles of St. Paul? It was not an unnatural thing that the early fathers, Greek and Latin, should attach an exaggerated value to the version chiefly in us among them. Not even Augustine knew the Hebrew original, and of the Latine scarce any, save Jerome. It is much to be regretted that the idea should be revived by a respectable scholar of our own day.

6_03_29 p.131.

Adam Clarke's Commentary. Vol. II. 388. III. 35.  - Though my acquaintance with this commentary has ceased for fifteen years or more, I think I remember its character with precision enough to say, that it has small claims upon a serious Christian who desires to know the Scriptures. That Dr. C. was a man acquainted with the elements of many languages, and of much discursive information, is well known; but his large book is extremely lacking in sound doctrine (e.g. the eternal sonship of Christ, the ruin of man, the sovereignty and faithfulness of God, the eternal life of the believer), in sobriety of judgment generally, and in critical acumen, especially as regards the New Testament. For the latter, Bengel's Gnomon is far superior. But if your readers desire a real help to the understanding of God's Word as a whole, I venture to recommend with all my heart the "Books of the Bible in Present Testimony" (Groombridge), a reprint of which, in a separate form, is announced as shortly to appear. French readers may have it under the title, "Etudes sur la Parole" (published by Cherbuliez, or Grassart, of Paris). Those who prefer German can have it, entitled "Betrachtungen über das Wort Gottes" (published at Dusseldorf, Barmen, and Elberfeld). I would add that this work will only help spiritual men who desire to search deeply into the Scriptures: it is the last thing in the world for a careless reader.

6_04_12 p.140.

MISAPPLICATIONS OF SCRIPTURE.

Romans 12: 11. — Not slothful in business, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord.

Often quoted as "diligent in business," which is not said, though man's selfishness likes so to think. The "business," I suppose, means whatever might claim a believer's just attention,  -  "whatsoever thy hand findeth to do." The wisdom of exhorting simply "not slothful," as to such matters, is most apparent. On the other hand, the word is "fervent in spirit," not in business. The one refers to the outward, the other to the inner life. The construction throughout is the dative of relation, as the grammarians say. I would just add, that the weight of evidence, externally and internally, is in favour of τῳ κυρίῳ δ., and not τῳ καιρῳ, which Griesbach adopts. We are to redeem the time or opportunity, but to serve the Lord.

6_04_12 p.140.

Romans 14: 1.  -  By "him that is weak in the faith," is not meant one who would trifle with sin (such as drunkenness, etc. as it is often applied), but a believer who, from legal prejudices, was scrupulous as to days, meats, etc. The question is of things ritual, not moral.

6_04_26 p.159.

Daniel 2: 44. Vol. III 133. — Who are "these kings?"

The meaning is not the four kingdoms in reference to the fourfold succession in the metallic image, but rather, as it seems to me, an incidental allusion to the peculiar and complex constitution of the fourth, last empire of man. "The kingdom shall be divided," speaking of the feet and toes (ver 41), and to this we must refer, as I consider, "the days of these kings" (ver. 44). The consequence is important; for thereby is excluded Mede's scheme of the regnum lapidis, first; and the regnum montis, by and by. I can understand this in a certain sense; but it is not the teaching, in my opinion, of this chapter. God's kingdom, here described and symbolised by the stone, is raised up not in the days of Augustus or Tiberius, much less in those of Constantine, but in the days of the decem-regal division of the Roman Empire. (Compare Dan. 8: 7-14, 23-26; Rev. 17: 7-14.) The first exercise of its power is to break in pieces and consume all existing empire; all, at least, included in the prefigurations of the statue. There is no such idea as the gradual action of the stone upon the statue; but a sudden and decisive judgment, which crumbles the statue into dust; after which, the stone which smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth. Evidently this is not the gospel which wins souls to Christ, and saves them; it is not a revolution, moral or material, which man brings about. It is nothing less than the power of God administered by the Lord Jesus; the stone cut without hands, dealing with the powers of the world, and judging their final Antichristianism, in order to make way for His own manifest and immediate dominion. "And the Lord shall be King over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one." I would add my opinion, that "these kings," symbolically set forth, by the toes here, and by the ten horns in Dan. 7, pertain exclusively to the West or European part of the Roman Empire. For we must leave room for the destruction of what is represented by the gold, silver, and brass, no less than for the portion of iron and clay.

6_04_26 p.159.

Daniel 7 and 8. Vol. III. 133. — Are the little horns" the same or different?

I apprehend that "the little horn" of Dan. 7 is plainly the chief of the western Roman Empire; whereas that of chap. 8 springs out of one, the broken fragments of the third or Greek Empire. It is a Syrian ruler, who shall stand up in the last end of the indignation against Israel. He is an appointed scourge, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people, when the transgressors are come to the full. (Compare Isa. 10; Isa. 28) There is no reason that I see for supposing that this eastern king has the extensive dominion of the western "little horn," whose mouth speaks very great things, and whose look is more stout than his fellows. But it is clear that the eastern horn acquires immense influence over the Jews, by his "understanding dark sentences." He appears to be sustained by some foreign resources: "His power shall be mighty, but not by his own power." The grand thing which makes him of interest to the Spirit of God is his meddling with Israel in the last days. "He shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand." A comparison of Dan. 7 and 8 will show the unbiassed reader that, while there are points of contact between these two sovereigns of the West and the East in their course and doom, there are far more respects in which each has got his own special path of pride, and hostility to God  - and his people.

6_04_26 p.160/1.

Daniel 11: 17. Vol. III. 16.  -  I see no ground for applying "the daughter of women" to the Jewish nation, being satisfied that the ordinary interpretation is quite sound which understands the expression to be said of Cleopatra, the youthful daughter of Antiochus the Great, offered by her father to Ptolemy Epiphanes, and accepted at Raphia, "Filiam autem feminarum (says Jerome, Comm. in Dan. chap. xi.) per πλεονασμον vocat, ut est illud poeticum:

. . . . . . .Sic ore locuta est.

. . . . vocemque hic auribus hausi."

The figurative connection of the term with a city or state, as in Isa. 23: 12, etc.; Isa. 47: 1, etc., is well-known, but is too distinct from the phrase before us to require discussion. Gen. 6: 2, 4, may perhaps be compared: "daughters of men" being used in contrast with "the sons of God," while here "daughter of women" is used of the Syrian princess, κατ εξοχην, in allusion to her youth or beauty, or rank. The greatest difficulty in the verse lies in the true force of  /M[I µyriv;ywI , which our version translates "and upright ones with him," and the margin, "much uprightness, or equal conditions." The LXX and Vulg. agree pretty nearly with the latter (και ευθεια παντα μετ᾽ αυτου ποιησει, and et recta faciet cum eo). De Wette supposes that a peace is meant (compare µyrIv;yme in ver. 6); while Gesenius, under rv;y; , explains the word in Dan. 11: 17, of the Jews, and under the derivation he compares the two verses and Mal. 2: 6. Diodati applies it to conditions of peace, Martin and Ostervald to success, Luther to reconciliation, Tremellius and Junius understand it of sham equity, used to circumvent the king of Egypt, as does De Saci; while the Dutch version gives a similar sense to the kindred words in ver. 6 and 17. De Genoude and the Rhemish follow the Vulgate.

The Querist is quite right in looking for the accomplishment of the latter part of this prophecy in the Jews during the last days, but he should not assume that Antichrist is described in Dan. 11: 20 et seq. For my own part, I am convinced that in ver. 20, etc. we have the history of Antiochus Epiphanes, though no doubt his history is typical of the Antichrist. In ver. 36 begins the proper account of the Antichrist in his political relations with the land of Judea. This is evidently at "the time of the end." Compare ver. 40 with 35, where in my judgment the break occurs. Almost all admit that an interruption occurs somewhere. For, on the one hand, we have certainly, at the beginning of chap. 11 the succession of Medo-Persian monarchs, the establishment of the Greek empire, and its division, so as to bring out the conflicts and intrigues of the kings of the North and South (i.e. Syria and Egypt); on the other hand, we have, as clearly, the grand closing scene, when "the king " in Palestine becomes the object of attack from both, clearly showing that, though Antiochus Epiphanes might have been in some respects a type of the Antichrist in his profanation of the temple, prohibition of Jewish worship, persecution of the Jews, etc., yet, in fact, the true Antichrist will in the end be opposed by the king of the North of that day as well as by Egypt. The reason why, I conceive, the break really occurs in ver. 33-35 is because the main features of the desolation in the days of Antiochus re-appear under "the king;" and, the anticipative picture being given, the Holy Spirit, as it seems to me, here passes over all the intervening history, in order to prevent, in that further detail, the dismal doings of the crisis which precedes the deliverance of Israel. 26 March, 1856.

6_04_26 p.162.

Daniel 12: 11, 12. Vol. III. 133.  -  I do not think that this passage has the slightest reference to Antiochus Epiphanes; but I am of opinion that Dan. 11: 31 was accomplished then, and of this the first and second books of Maccabees treat. Of course there is a strong analogy between the two texts and the evil described, as there will be between that which Antiochus did and "the king" who is to perpetrate even greater abominations in the latter day. It is of this last only that Dan. 12: 11, and to this text, not to the former, our Lord referred, in Matt. 24: 15. For, clearly, a future scene of iniquity is predicted in the gospel; and this, necessarily, sets aside reference to a monarch who died more than a century and a half before the Lord was born. May I add to Mr. E. B. ELLIOTT's remark about the absence of the article in Dan. 12: 11, while it occurs in 11: 31, that there is this difference also: the text in chap. 11 strictly means, "the abomination of the desolator" (polel. part.), whereas, in 12 it is simply, desolate, making desolate, or, of desolation (kal. part.) Both forms occur in Dan. 9: 27, which strictly runs, I suppose, "and for the wing (i.e. the protection or overspreading) of abominations (idols), there shall be a desolator, even until the consummation, and the decreed sentence be poured upon the desolate." It is quite impossible to maintain that this was accomplished in the siege of Jerusalem by Titus; for in no sense were the 1290 days (taken either as days or years) followed by the final and eternal blessing of Israel, which the prophecy imports. It is to a future crisis, then, that the prediction applies; and even Mr. Elliott, keenly opposed as he ordinarily is to futurism, allows that these dates may be, as I am entirely persuaded they will be, literal days. The symbolical adjuncts of Dan. 7, 8, are wanting: all here is conveyed in plain and unfigurative terms. Compare with this Matt. 24: 22, and indeed the context before and after, which, though partially accomplished, awaits the same times for its fulfilment. The 30 and 45 days, in addition to the 1260, may refer to the gradual ingathering of the Jews and Israel, or to other changes, after the power of evil is overthrown, preparatory to complete blessing.

6_04_26 p.165/6.

"The Mystical History of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius." Vol. III. 103. — Your Cor respondent, I suppose, assumed that, besides the true facts related of these kings in Dan. 3  -  6,there are typical lessons conveyed also, which fill up the Divine sketch of "the times of the Gentiles." This, at any rate, is the conviction of myself, and of many other Christians who have studied Daniel's prophecy with some care. Dan. 3 shows us, that the first use the Gentile makes of the imperial power, intrusted providentially into his hands in Dan. 2, is to establish idolatry, and to compel universal submission to the golden image, under pain of death. Against this the faithful make no resistance; but, resigning themselves absolutely to suffer the consequences of their obeying God rather than man, are delivered by his manifest and immediate intervention. Dan. 4 gives us, first, the self-exaltation of the Gentile power in the earth; and then, the execution of the Divine sentence, the bestial change outwardly and inwardly, the loss of reason and conscience towards God till the complete periods pass over, and they know "that the heavens do rule." Dan. 5 details the frightful impiety which characterises the Gentile power, or at least its Babylonish form, immediately before its destruction. Dan. 6 reveals how an amiable man, the subsequent holder of the power, was betrayed by others into the terribly false position of virtually setting himself up us God. "Make a firm decree, that whosoever shall ask a petition of any god or man for thirty days, save of thee, O king, he shall be east into the den of lions." "Wherefore, king Darius signed the writing and the decree." It is the sad type, most clearly, not of Babylon, but of the beast; of man worshipped as God in the highest sense, to the exclusion of the only true God; and it will be realised only in the Antichrist of the last days, whatever precursors there have been, and there are many. The rest of the book is occupied with the most interesting details, which were given to Daniel, instead of being, like the external picture of Dan. 2, a dream seen by the Gentile power.

6_05_10 p. 173.

Ezekiel 20: 35, 36. Vol. III. 148. —  It is most plain, in the first place, that this chapter contemplates the final and glorious restoration of Israel; and this we know from other Scripture, as Isaiah 66, is subsequent to the Lord's appearing. In the second place, it is the house of Israel as distinguished from Judah. There is this notable difference in the Lord's ways with them: in the case of Judah, as such, as their grand wickedness, whether of idolatry or of rejecting Christ, was perpetrated in the land, it is there that their judgment will take place. In the last days the unclean spirit of Idolatry will return with the seven-fold power of Satan, and the last state of that generation is worse than the first. They (not Israel) refused the Christ; they shall receive the Anti-Christ; and it is of their judicial troubles Zech. 13 speaks: "In all the land, saith the Lord, two parts therein shall be cut off," etc. Israel, on the other hand, whose earlier failure and different judgment had spared them from this terrible sin, must again, as it were, renew their history, in order that the Lord may plead with them in the wilderness once more, and there cut off the rebels (verse 38) before they again reach the land, never more to be removed, but to be planted there for ever. Compare also Hosea 2. In their past history it has been certainly true that they desired to be as the heathen, not only in having a king instead of God their King, but in serving wood and stone instead of Jehovah their God. This may be more or less applicable in "the time of the end;" but it is not so revealed in verse 32, which does not necessarily extend to the future. Next, we may safely affirm that "the rebels" were not "written in the book," which is only true of the godly delivered remnant, —  "all Israel" that are saved in the last days (Rom. 11) Lastly, there is, I think, this distinction in the wildernesses of verses 35, 36, that the future scene of dealing with the rebellious may be more various than the past — not merely "the wilderness of the land of Egypt," but "of the people," whether the road be from the north or south, etc.; for the Lord shall set His hand again the second time to recover the remnant of His people which shall be left from Assyria, and from Egypt, etc. (Isa. 11, especially verses 15, 16) Guernsey, April 22, 1856.

6_05_10 p. 173.

Matthew 1: 19. Vol. III. 148.  -  I think that δειγματισαι (or παραδειγματισαι) was the exposure which must have resulted from Joseph's acting on Deut. 22. To which appearances, humanly, would have led, if God had not arrested this just man by the intervention of Gabriel, and enabled him, through the angels blessed message, to judge righteous judgment. I doubt that his intention "to put her away privily" could be said to come under Deut. 24, which supposes the man to have already taken and owned his wife before he found some scandalous thing in her.

6_05_10 p. 174.

Matthew 16: 18. Vol. III 148. — T. H. is right, I think, in applying πυλαι ἁδου to the gates of death, or rather Hades, the invisible world, not to Satan's wiles. In one sense, it is true, the two applications may be said to coalesce; for the devil is the possessor of the power of death, and Christ's death has annulled his power, as the resurrection manifestly proved. The promise here supposes this triumph of Christ, who had been just revealed to Peter as the son of the living God. If the first man, Adam, was not deceived, but yet transgressed, no less than his deceived wife, the last Adam is a quickening Spirit to His Church, and builds it on the rock of eternal life, which the grave cannot touch. For the sins of the Church He died; but He is alive again for evermore, and has the keys of death and Hades, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. If the resurrection from the dead marked Him out as the Son of God in power (Rom. 1: 4), it confirms to the ear of faith the triumph of the Church in Him and through Him.

6_05_10 p. 174.

Parable of the Virgins. Matthew 25: 1-13. Vol. III. 139. — Mr. WEEKES's interpretation appears to me not merely to rest on insufficient and misapplied evidence, but to contradict the general teaching of God's Word. Whether the lamps had gone, or were only going out, makes no real difference as to the grand teaching of the parable; and, as far as this goes, either the one or the other is quite compatible with the absence of oil. Mr. WEEKES's statement that the foolish "have some oil" is most objectionable: not a word implies it; nay, what is said both by the wise virgins and the Lord would imply the reverse, even if we had not the plain and positive declaration that the foolish "took their lamps and took no oil with them." Why might not wicks be lit, and relit, without oil? I agree with Mr. W. that "are going out" is a more correct rendering than the ordinary version; but it in no way shows that the virgins had oil, or that they were more than professors without the Holy Ghost, though responsible for and designated according to the position they assumed. As to the unconverted being called "virgins," there is no more difficulty there than in the "servant" of the preceding parable. In either case they took that place, and were judged accordingly. There are Christians who love Christ's appearing in the midst of much ignorance as to its details. There are professors who talk much of the Second Advent, and hold it to be premillennial. But I assuredly believe that the former, if they are alive and remain till the coming of the Lord, will be caught up to meet Him, and that the latter, if they abide unregenerate, must have their portion outside, where shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

As unfounded is the idea that ταγματι in 1 Cor. 15: 23, means "company," "band," "regiment," while fully admitting of course that such is a frequent signification in profane authors. But here the context is decidedly adverse, whether το τελος be applied, as by Mr. T. R. BIRKS, to the wicked dead, or, as by Mr. W., to Christians uninstructed in the Lord's second coming and kingdom. All or most of the versions at all known and accurate (as the. Syriac, Vulgate, Beza, Luther, De Wette, Diodati, Martin, Ostervald, the Lausanne, etc.) seem to agree with the authorised version in giving "order." Indeed, the way in which our Lord's resurrection is introduced appears to me of itself to exclude such a translation; for His resurrection is the first step, which perfectly agrees with "order," but not with "company." Again, such a view necessitates the harshest possible construction of "the end" (το τελος), which, by a figure, must be tortured to mean the good (or bad) who are raised then; whereas, in truth, it is most plain that "the end" is really after the kingdom is given up, and, à fortiori, subsequent to all judgment. The white-throne judgment, of the dead is one of the closing acts of the kingdom, after which cometh "the end." Lastly, it would be incongruous to suppose with Mr. W. that after "they that are Christ's" rise, another regiment of Christ's should remain to rise. Not a class, but an epoch, is meant by "the end;" an epoch subsequent to the resurrection of the wicked and their judgment."

6_05_10 p. 176/7.

Romans 9: 5. Vol. III. 149, 164.  -  It is easy to say that the proposed rendering ("he who is over all, God be blessed for ever. Amen.") is at least as good as that in the Authorised Version; but I am persuaded that the statement is rash and groundless. It is true that, through ignorance or heterodoxy, the copies vary not a little; some making the new sentence commence with ὁ ων, others with Θεος, and a third class with ευλογητος; but the most ancient versions of the East and West, as the Syriac, Itala, Vulgate, etc., and the early Greek and Latin Fathers, as Irenaeus, Victorinus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary, etc., leave no doubt as to the way in which the words were then understood and applied. One is therefore pained to see the prejudice which warped the judgment of Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, in severing the last clause from Christ, to whom it really belongs; at least, their punctuation leads me to suppose that their editors mean this, though Lachmann gives the usual sense in the Latin version of Jerome at the foot of his page.

But there are stronger reasons than any human testimonies. The context, and the bearing of the sentence itself, resist all such efforts or mistakes, and prove that the common version gives the intended and only right sense; for the Apostle is declaring that he intensely loved his Israelitish brethren, and that he estimated their privileges more highly than themselves. This leads him to enumerate them, and their highest mercy (alas! despised) naturally forms the climax — the Messiah, descended after the flesh from their fathers, but in reality Emmanuel, God over all, blessed for ever. His being God over all is the antithesis to His springing according to the flesh from the fathers, and is quite in harmony with the strain of the epistle (Rom. 1: 3, 4), as it was clearly foreshown in their own Scriptures. (Ps. 45 and Ps. 102 compared with Heb. 2; Ps. 110 compared with Matt. 22, Isa. 6, 7, Zech. 12, 14) 2 Cor. 9: 31, which might by a superficial reader be thought to favour the contrary view, does in truth confirm the ordinary construction of Rom. 9: 5; for there, as here, it is the before-named subject of the proposition, with which ὁ ων κ. τ. λ. is in apposition; and clearly as this is "the God and Father of the Lord Jesus" in the one case, it is with equal certainty "Christ" in the other.

Moreover, if the sense for which Dr. Beard contends had been meant, I think that in accordance with such formulas elsewhere in the New Testament the clause would have begun with ευλογητος. Of the copies which thus begin some concede the point which Dr. Beard seeks to escape; for they read ὁ ων επι παντων Θεος, in connection with ὁ Χριστος το κατα σαρκα. The remaining expedient adopted by others is to read ὁ ων επι παντων, Θεος· ευλογητος εις τ. αι. Of this last Dr. Beard perhaps thinks as cheaply as I do; for while ευλ. is brought into its normal place, there is an anomalous absence of the subject in the doxology, besides making the preceding clause disconnected, if not meaningless. He was therefore obliged to fall back on a rendering which, far from being able to compete with that given in the English Bible, supposes a collocation in the Greek contrary to precedent, and is inconsistent with the Apostle's argument, instead of crowning it triumphantly as the true connection does.

Why all this labour and ingenuity against the plain force of the sentence? Because men refuse, till grace wins or judgment compels them, to honour the Son even as the Father.

6_05_10 p. 178.

Ephesians 4: 7. — There is one body. Vol. III. 149.

If Mr. BICKERSTAFF will dispassionately inquire into the testimony of God's Word, I am persuaded that he will distinguish, as Scripture does, between the saints of the old Testament and those who are now being baptised by the Holy Ghost into one body. The question of the one body really turns on that baptism. For those only who are baptised of the Spirit constitute that body (1 Cor. 12: 13); and it is certain that this baptism did not exist before the day of Pentecost. (Compare Acts 1 and 2) No one denies that the Old Testament saints were born of the Spirit, that they were justified by faith, or that we are to sit with them in the kingdom of heaven. But the New Testament shows that a corporate unity, over and beyond their common privileges, was formed by the descent of the Holy Ghost consequent on the accomplishment of redemption by the Lord Jesus Christ; and this solely is called the "one body." Ephesians 2, 3, 4, are most explicit as to this. None are contemplated as members of this one new man, save those in whom the Holy Ghost dwells, and so unites to a glorified Head in heaven. For the union here spoken of is an actual subsisting fact, and therefore incapable of being predicated, as it never is in Scripture, of saints previously. They had righteousness imputed to them, as it is to us; but the Holy Ghost was not then sent down, is he is now, to baptize Jews and Gentiles that believe into one body. Further, I am of opinion that Heb. 12 distinguishes in the most positive way between "the spirits of just men made perfect" (i.e. the Old Testament saints) and the "Church of the first born, which are written in heaven." So that this text, with 1 Cor. 12 and Eph. 2 - 4 contradicts the ordinary confusion on the subject.

6_05_10 p. 178.

Hebrews 10: 26. Vol. III 150. —  It is evident that "no more sacrifice," and "no longer a sacrifice," are rather differences of expression than of idea. Either of them fairly represents the phrase. "No other," seems to be a needless change, though probably intended to convey substantially the same thought. It is the sin of apostasy from Christ and His sacrifice which is here warned against.

6_05_10 p. 178.

1 Peter 3: 19, 20. Vol. III. 150.  -  I think that the Spirit of God would have connected εν φυλακῃ with πορευθεις, or with εκηρυξεν (or with both), if His object had been to reveal a preaching of Christ in the unseen world, or Hades. But this is not the force of the passage, which emphatically connects the spirits, not Christ's preaching, with the prison or safe-keeping. Besides, there would remain the insuperable objection that the spirits here spoken of were not the Old Testament saints, but the disobedient in Noah's time who had died in mortal sin, and consequently who could not be in purgatory according to Romish doctrine. The fact is that this passage is carefully guarded against such a misapplication, not only by what I have just pointed out, but by the introductory εν ῳ (sc. πνευματι). It was not a personal going and preaching of Christ, but His Spirit had preached by Noah, as in the prophets (1 Peter 1: 11) it had testified beforehand, etc. It is really less difficult than Eph. 2: 17, where the words are more capable of applying to His personal preaching, which nevertheless, we know, would be a mistake.

6_05_17 p. 191.

John 21. Is St. John its Author? Vol. II. 367.  -  I think it is to be regretted that Mr. GARROD did not state the reasons for questioning the authorship of this chapter, unless his real desire be to prove for the good of others that there are no substantial grounds for a doubt. The external evidence is unexceptionable. A, B, C, D, E, G, H, K, L, M, P, S, U, X, Δ, are witnesses of the highest class, not to speak of cursive MSS. and a crowd of versions and fathers. Internally, I admit, the chapter has a special place and character; it is obviously of the nature of an appendix to the Gospel; but then it is St. John's Appendix to his own Gospel. For who, save himself, would have included James and John as Zebedee's sons after Thomas and Nathaniel? Further, John's discerning eye of Love in verse 7 is in beautiful harmony with John 20: 8, as Peter's casting himself into the sea is in keeping with his going into the sepulchre before John, though the latter had arrived there first. So, it seems to me, there are striking links of analogy between the converse after supper in John 13 and in the scene here after they had dined, in the thorough restoration and the apostolic reinstatement of Peter, answering to his threefold denial, of which the Lord had warned him in John 13: 38; all perfectly in the tone and line of an Apostle. Again, what more like the enigmatic intimations elsewhere in John (John 2 the temple; John 3 new birth; John 4 the well of water; John 6 the bread, body, and blood, etc.) than the gracious reassuring of Peter (ver. 18) that his recent failure, after his too confident boast, would not deprive him of confessing Christ in the most glorious but naturally painful way, and this when his natural energy should be gone? Also the scene that follows, which has John himself for its subject, shrouded too under a similar veil, bespeaks his hand, and appears to me to link him with the Revelation which so fitly closes the Book of God. The two last verses admirably wind up the whole — the true conclusion of a heart surpassed by none in love and reverence for Him of whom the Holy Ghost privileged him to testify, whose works, if every one were written, would more than fill the world itself.

Permit me to add that it would be well, on so serious a subject as God's Word, to withhold the publication of a doubt, till we have examined the matter on all sides. For the natural mind is sceptical enough without help or incentives; and a mere question might raise doubts which might trouble many a soul in spite of the clearest light in answer to it, for the heart loves darkness. The first step of scepticism often is to unsettle people as to the particular human hand which God employed, and, this done, the way is more easy to deny that God employed any hand at all.

6_05_17 p. 192.

1 Corinthians 6: 11. Vol. III. 102. — As I have not Mr. ALFORD's book before me, but only Ω.Ω.Ω's extract, I can only conjecture that Mr. A. imputes a Calvinistic bias, or low views of baptismal grace, to the authorised translators. Now, I do not at all deny that they differed widely from that gentleman's doctrines; but it is utterly unfounded to attribute their version of απελουσασθε to any such bias. Cyprian cannot be charged with attenuating the supposed effects of the rite. Yet he has repeatedly cited "abluti estis," the reading of the old Itala. Jerome has the same, and this is the more important as being the authentic version of Rome. Such, too, is the force of the Peschito. Luther, Beza, Ostervald, Diodati, the Dutch, the Lausanne, and the Elberfeld (including, with those which follow the Vulgate, all shades of Protestantism and Romanism), give the same sense as the authorised English. For my own part, I attach no sort of doctrinal importance to this particular translation, and would be quite willing to read, "ye have washed." The momentous question is not a question of "are" or "have;" but how is that washing effected, what its nature, its effects, its end? The outward rite may be and is an apt sign, but is that the great and weighty privilege of which St. Paul reminds the Corinthian saints?

But when Mr. A. makes such a charge against the English translators, in the face of the fact that their version is that of Papists and Protestants, Fathers and Moderns, Nationalists and Dissenters, Arminians and Calvinists, he betrays his own prejudices. For, while the mode "ye have, or ye are washed" was immaterial to King James's translators, as I judge, Mr. A. shows his own desire to bring in "ye washed them off (viz. at your baptism)." But this is unwarrantable. There is no "them" in the Greek, nor anything to warrant such an interpolation. The Authorised Version may be somewhat free, but this is false. There is an object in Acts 22: 16; there is none here, which was, I presume, the just reason for the difference in the English version of the two passages. And, in fact, I only know of one version which leans to Mr. ALFORD, viz. de Wette's; the only difference being that the rationalist German is more exact. He gives "washed yourselves" (not them off).

6_05_17 p. 193.

Hebrews 10: 12. Vol. III. 133.

I am of opinion that εις το διηνεκες. "for ever," ought to be construed in this verse, not with προσενεγκας θυσιαν, but with εκαθισεν κ. τ. λ. (i.e. with "sat down"). It is not exactly a question of the general sense, for there is good sense either way, and still less does it turn upon Greek construction, for the words might be taken before or after the verb or participle, is it seems to me. The real point is the special contrasts of vers. 11, 12. Instead of offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, Christ has offered one: instead of standing daily ministering for man, He has for ever sat down at the right of God. Of course, this expression "for ever" is not absolute, but relative to the work of atonement. He is seated in perpetuity before God, because His sacrificial work is done perfectly for man. As to the abuse, justly objected to by Mr. J. LYNCH, the aorist cuts off the force which Papists, and those who think with them, might give it, for where continuous offering is intended the present tense is employed, as in verse 1.

6_05_17 p. 194.

New Testament Synonyms. αποστελλω and πεμπω. Vol. III. 151.  -  I suppose that the difference between these words consists chiefly in this: that πεμπω is the more general of the two, embracing things and persons, evil and good; αποστελλω, save when applied figuratively, regularly denotes "to dispatch," or "send off," on a mission, except where used to express banishment. Bengel thinks that the latter. (απ.) looks at the will of the sender and the sent, the former (π.) only the sender's will; but I question this.

6_05_17 p. 198.

The Spanish Bible. Vol. III. 166. — Under this heading occurs a strange misunderstanding. As to both the passages referred to (Ps. 16: 2, 3 Vol. II. 303 ; and Jer. 17: 9, Vol. III. 25), "the Spanish" (Vol. III. 60, 126) meant simply and evidently the particular Spanish version cited by the two Correspondents. This was the less ambiguous, one might have thought, inasmuch as the former of the two distinctly describes it as that of "Scio de S. Miguel." Your last Correspondent can scarcely have read the query as well as the reply: to read both is usually a wise, not to say a necessary, precaution before criticising. In the reply no reference was made to a Protestant version, because the query was limited to the Romish one; and the remark about its following the Vulgate was the mere statement of a fact generally known among scholars, without a word to imply any peculiarity in it.

6_05_24 p. 209/10.

2 Peter 3: 3, etc. Vol. III. 170.  -  The conclusion that "the Millennium cannot be the Day of the Lord" is so clearly and certainly a mistake, that the wonder is how it could be received for a moment. Mr. P. GELL's system makes him contradict Scripture, if not himself. Thus, in two distinct paragraphs, he applies Zech. 14 to "Millennial privileges and glories" (p. 171), and, I believe, correctly. But the chapter itself declares it to be "the Day of the Lord," whereas Mr. G. sums up that this cannot be. Again, he predicates Isa. 65: 17; 66: 22, of the Millennium, which I conceive to be true, though not the whole truth. But, singularly enough, he does not perceive that such a view decides the question as to 2 Peter 3; because the latter inseparably connects the promise of Isaiah with "the Day of the Lord," and it is a Millennial promise according to Mr. GELL's admission.

The reader who examines the Scriptures which speak of "the Day of the Lord" may soon satisfy himself that it embraces the Millennial reign, without being absolutely identical. This being so, and necessarily flowing from Mr. G.'s statements, the argument founded on "all," in 2 Peter 3: 9, comes to nothing. The Apostle is speaking of those whom God summons to repent, before "that day." Doubtless, it surprises and destroys all the impenitent on whom it falls; but this decides nothing as to the new and Millennial dispensation which follows the opening judgments of "the Day of the Lord." So that the argument is really a petitio principii, besides contradicting Scripture and itself.

6_05_24 p. 211/2.

Elberfeld New Testament.  -  Vol. III. 179.  -  As one of those who ventured to commend this new German version, I may be permitted to remind L. H. J. T. that it is published anonymously, so as to rest its claims solely on the intrinsic merits of the work, if it have any. I should think that no scholar can be ignorant of the defects of Luther's translation, more especially if one takes into the account the additional light which MSS. discovered or collated more perfectly during the last 300 years cast upon the original text. Even the Roman Catholic version of Van Ess is in some respects superior to Luther's, and there is no comparison between it and Dr. De Wette's Bible. Nevertheless rationalism is always more or less irreverent and superficial; and it is no wonder that grave godly ministers of Christ found a lack in any of these versions. To meet this need in a cheap form was the object of the work; and, as far as I can pretend to judge, it is a great advance upon any of its predecessors known to me. It resembles the authorised English version more than perhaps any of the modern continental translations  -  with this difference, however, that it makes use of many critical helps which were unknown to King James's translators. It may interest some of your readers to hear that the chief hand in the work is "the Irish clergyman," (though really an Englishman), whom a leader of modern infidelity, Prof. F. W. Newman, has put forward as the remarkable representative, in our day, of faith in the Word of God. I know not how L. H. J. T. may appreciate the "standing and authority" of one whose aim is to sink the servant in the praise of the Master; but my opinion is that, if a profound and spirit-taught familiarity with the truth, and a varied, yet exact, knowledge of the letter of Scripture ought to be combined, with lesser qualifications, in order to guarantee a translation, the Elberfeld New Testament has just and large claims on serious Christian men.

6_05_24 p. 212/3.

Was St. Peter ever at Rome? Vol. III. 183.  -  While cordially agreeing with Mr. W. H. JOHNSTONE'S preliminary remarks, I object to the closing paragraph as being not only without Scripture proof but inconsistent, as it seems to me, with what is there disclosed. I must, therefore, ask for his grounds for asserting that there were two Churches at Rome; that St. Paul was owned as chief by the Gentile one, and rejected by the Jewish; that St. Peter went there to heal the dissension; and that each Apostle left a successor, etc.

It is well known that the utmost obscurity hangs over the extra-scriptural history of all Churches, and not least over the Church in Rome for a considerable period after the death of both Apostles. The earliest witnesses we possess, after the canon of Scripture, prove at least how little they can be relied on. Even Irenaeus contradicts the Word of God in matters of fact; and there are few so respectable as that excellent bishop. What Mr. J. describes as the state of things in Rome, more or less sanctioned by those two great Apostles, is so obviously contrary to the fundamental principles of the Church of God, that I have no hesitation in pronouncing such traditions fabulous. But it would be well to hear his witnesses and to cross-examine them.

6_06_07 p. 219.

TEXTS MISAPPLIED OR MISQUOTED.

Ephesians 1: 10.  -  The "dispensation of the fulness of times" is often applied to God's present work in gathering the church, and connected with Gal. 4: 4. But the bearing of the two texts is totally different. Gal. 4: 4, refers to Christ sent here below; Eph. 1: 10, to the administration which will be in His hands during the Millennium; the one a past fact, the other future, and both entirely distinct from the gathering of Jews and Gentiles, who believe in one body, which is now going on between these two points.

Ephesians 1: 23.  -  "The fulness of Him which filleth all in all;" not of God the Father, which the Church is not nor can be, but the fulness or complement of Christ, viewed as the glorified heavenly man, whose body we are.

Ephesians 2: 20.  -  Not Old Testament "Prophets" and New Testament "apostles," but "apostles and prophets" of the New Testament, as is put beyond all doubt in Eph. 3: 5, "as it is now revealed unto His holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit." It is a new work built on a new foundation, Jew and Gentile being now builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit, which was not the case in Old Testament times.

Ephesians 3: 15.  -  Not "the whole family," as in the English Bible, but every family in heaven and earth, πασα πατρια, κ. τ. λ., including, I suppose, all the varieties of intelligent creation in heaven and earth.

Ephesians 4: 3.  -  "The unity of the Spirit," meaning of the Holy Ghost, and not merely of our spirit.

Ephesians 5: 14.  -  The Scriptures alluded to seem to be Isa. 52 and 60, but the application here is clearly to believers, slumbering among dead men or things, from which they are called to arise, that Christ may give them light, not life, which would be their first need as unbelievers. Let me add, that in the parenthetical ver. 9, the true idea and word is "the fruit of light is in all goodness," etc.

Ephesians 6: 2, 3.  -  St. Paul is not of course neutralising the grand truth that we are not under law, but under grace. He is simply showing how specially God owned obedience of parents among those commandments which were addressed to the Jews, and which held forth earthly blessing as their reward.

6_06_07 p. 225.

1 Corinthians 11: 5. Vol. III. 149, 178.  -  There is no inconsistency between this text and 1 Cor. 14: 34, because the first applies to a woman's prophesying under any circumstances, the last is confined to the exercise of the gift in the Christian assembly or church, which is peremptorily forbidden to the woman. Thus we are told in Acts 21: 9, that Philip the Evangelist had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy. If God imparts spiritual power, He means it to be employed. Nevertheless he has been pleased to regulate its exercise; for the Christians had made the mistake into which many have fallen since, of supposing that, because a spiritual gift is possessed, there is an unrestricted licence at all times and in all places. Thus, those who spoke in a tongue displayed their gift in the Christian assemblies, when no interpreter was present, and women who had gifts used them there also. The Holy Ghost, in 1. Cor. 14 puts a stop to both these mistakes, forbids speaking save for direct edification of the Church (which a tongue was not, unless interpreted), and silences women in the churches (not elsewhere), let them be never so gifted. Not only were they not to prophesy there, but not even to ask questions; "and if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to speak in the Church."

LAMED is, I think, mistaken in supposing that 1 Cor. 14: 3, explains prophesying. It is rather a contrast drawn between the exercise of that gift and of a tongue. The man who spoke in a tongue spoke to God, not to men, not being understood; whereas he who prophesied spoke unto men to edification, etc. Not that all speaking to edification, etc. is prophesying, but that prophesying, as contra-distinguished to speaking in a tongue, edifies the Church, which of course is the ordinary and proper object of a Church meeting.

6_06_07 p. 226/7.

The work of the Spirit. Vol. I. 172; III. 36.  -  The injunctions in Eph. 4: 30, and Thess. 5: 19, do not apply to all men, but are addressed to believers only. The former warns those who are sealed by the Holy Ghost unto the day of redemption not to grieve Him: the latter exhorts the brethren to "quench not the Spirit;" to "despise not prophesyings." It is clear, that the one regards the saint individually as to his own walk with God; the other guards him against hindering the action of the Holy Ghost in those whom He makes His mouth-piece. The striving of God's Spirit in Gen. 6 evidently refers to the testimony given to the antediluvians, and especially Noah's preaching for 120 years. Resisting the Holy Ghost is said of the Jews: "as your fathers did, so do ye." It was shown in their persecution and slaughter of the prophets, and crowned by their treachery against and murder of the Just One. With all their boast about the law, the land, and the temple, they had rejected in every age God's testimony: "Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost." What man had done before the deluge, was the dreary history of Israel, till they stumbled upon their own Messiah, refused Stephen's declaration of His heavenly glory as peremptorily as they had scorned His own personal humiliation, and thus turned that which ought to have been a foundation into a stone of stumbling and rock of offence. But it was not the Jew only who was guilty. "He was in the world, and the world knew him not." "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out." The personal coming of the Holy Ghost testifies of this. His very presence in the Church on earth convicts the world of sin, etc. For he came down, as sent by Him whom the world had rejected, instead of believing in. Of other sins no doubt the world was guilty, but this was the great sin in God's sight. He had sent His Son, and the world hated His Son. They had now no cloke for their sin. Christ, rejected by man, glorified by God, sends down the Comforter to be in His own, and thus convicts all outside of sin; because if they believed in Him, they too would have the Holy Ghost. The passage does not speak of what the Spirit produces in the heart of every one who comes to a saving knowledge of God and his Son. It is rather the truth, that the presence of the Holy Ghost in the Church proves all without to be under sin and judgment, because of the rejection of Jesus, whom God proclaims to be the Righteous One, by receiving Him to His own right hand.

May I recommend to O. N. V. "a well-digested and full reply on this subject," in a little book entitled "Operations of the Spirit of God," sold by Broom, Gregg, and perhaps others in London. The first part he may find in the "Select Series of Christian Tracts," etc., published by Nisbet.

6_06_21 p. 237.

Exodus 34: 7.  -  Vol. III. 213.  -  I believe that the authorised version is right, and not the suggestion in the Treasury Bible. Dr. Benisch gives a sense substantially similar: "holding guiltless by no means the wicked." The Septuagint is ου καθαριει τον ενοχον; nor is there any various reading known to me which exhibits a different meaning. L. W.'s difficulty is owing to the fact, that he looks for the Gospel plan of salvation in the text, whereas it is really the proclamation of the name of Jehovah in His government of Israel. Indeed, it is rather a part of that which is contrasted, in 2 Cor. 3 with the ministration of the Spirit now. There was a precious manifestation of God's goodness and long suffering, no doubt; but it was in connection with His people still under the law. Hence, in spite of all the mercy displayed, it could only be in result a ministration of condemnation and death. Whereas the essence of the Gospel is, that it comes to the sinner on the very ground that he is lost, and most expressly justifies the ungodly: it is a ministration of righteousness already accomplished on earth and accepted on high. So that, if the Holy Ghost reveal to any soul Christ in glory, that soul is entitled to look up to say, "There is my life and my righteousness." He is accepted in the Beloved. "If that which was done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious." The two things are so distinct, that to harmonise is to spoil them both.

6_06_21 p. 238.

Daniel 9: 27. Vol. III. 213.  -  Mr. Wintle, in his book on Daniel, translates this verse, "Yet one week shall make a firm covenant with many, and the midst of the week shall cause," etc. as to the former part following the Greek and Arabic versions. He gives no reasons for departing from the natural order of the Hebrew, which refers for a nominative case to the recently-named "prince that should come," as given in the Authorised Version, the Dutch, the German of Luther, and De Wette, the French of Martin and Ostervald, the Italian of Diodati, etc. In fact, there is no just sense in treating "covenant" as the subject of the verb. I have no doubt, therefore, that the true thought is that ver. 27 opens with an account of his doings who had been alluded to in the preceding verse. The people of that prince, the Roman people, came and destroyed the city and the sanctuary, followed by an unmeasured train of desolation. Then in ver. 27, the prince himself, no longer coming but come, confirms a covenant with the mass (of the Jews) for one week, which he breaks when half the time is expired, putting an end to their worship. Idolatry is protected (an idol being even set in the holy place, as we know from elsewhere), and a desolator follows, till the decreed consummation shall be poured upon the desolate (i.e. Jerusalem). If this be correct, it is evident that the English Bible is nearer the mark than the usual Greek, which, I may observe, is not the veritable Septuagint, but rather Theodotion's version. However, the Septuagint does not differ in sense from the latter as to this (και δυναστευσει ἡ διαθηκη εις πολλους), if I may trust Daniel, sec. lxx. etc. Romae, 1772.

6_06_21 p. 241.

Romans 8: 1. Vol. III. 214.  -  It may help Mr. BROWNE to bear in mind the observation of another, that the Apostle, in the beginning of this chapter, is alluding to and summing up his previous reasoning. Thus, verse 1 answers to Rom. 5; verse 2 to Rom. 6; and verse 3 to Rom. 7; as a moderate degree of attention and spirituality may easily discern. "Justification of life" is what the first verse supposes, the possession of a new and risen life in Christ, to which sin is not and cannot be imputed. When God sent forth His Son, He was made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem, etc. But now that redemption is accomplished and Christ raised from the dead, it is not merely the holy life which it always was, but it is life in resurrection after all the question of sin is settled. It is not merely justification in view of a foreseen work, nor a standing on the ground of promise  -  the promise of One who could not lie. The work is done, the promise accomplished  -  all the promises of God, yea, and amen in Christ: according to this is our standing as individual saints in Christ Jesus, and of this Rom. 8 treats. Corporate union is not discussed save in Rom. 12. But many of our individual privileges, as well as our corporate ones, could not have been predicated of believers till Christ had finished his work on earth and sent down the Holy Ghost from heaven. I suppose (in spite of A D2 and some good versions, that μη κατα σ. π. or of D3 E I K, etc. for αλλα κ. πν.) that the last clause was added to guard the full grace from verse 4, where the same words rightly occur.

6_06_21 p. 242.

Ephesians 5: 26. Vol. III. 214.  -  To understand this verse it must be taken in connection with what precedes and follows.

1. Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it. His blessed work of redemption, already accomplished.

2. That He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word. His present work, which the Holy Ghost makes good in the Church. Εν σηματι guards and explains τῳ λουτρῳ, showing that it is the power of the word, and not a mere rite. Compare John 15, "Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken to you."

3. The result, yet future, when He shall present to Himself the glorious Church, not having spot, etc.

6_06_21 p. 243.

Hebrews 12: 23. Vol. III. 215.  -  The phrase "general assembly" (πανηγυρει) is clearly, in my judgment, epexegetic of the preceding words, "the innumerable company of angels," just as, in the clause before, "the heavenly Jerusalem" is a further explanation of "the city of the living God." The conjunction και introduces each new clause, which arrangement is destroyed in this particular instance, but observed in all the other parts of the sentence in the English Bible. The same confusion appears in Beza, Diodati, the Dutch, Martin, Ostervald, the Lausanne, etc. Bengel rightly objects to this construction. "Nam et polysyndeton retinendum est; et aliorum sine dubio est panegyris: aliorum, ecclesia. quis enim conjungeret synonyma, panegyris et ecclesia? Ecclesia, primogenitorum est; panegyris igitur, angelorum." But then he falls into the mistake of making not only the angels, but the church of the first-born ones refer to the myriads, which is equally, as it seems to me, contrary to the linking of each separate term by the conjunction, not to speak of other objections. The Syriac and Vulgate, with those that follow them, Luther and the Elberfeld, avoid either error, and give the true sense with more or less clearness.

The Apostle ascends from the lowest point of millennial glory which unites heaven and earth, the seat of royalty raised up in pure grace (after Ichabod was written on Israel, and the king of their choice was slain), in contrast with Sinai, which was the place and expression of the nation's responsibility. He then gives, not the earthly city, which was under judgment, but the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. Next is opened out the whole assembly (πανηγυρις), myriads of angels. Then follows, as a specific object, the Church of heavenly heirs, in contrast with God's earthly first-born Israel, which fully displays grace in its heavenly character. After this the Holy Ghost directs our eye to God in his judicial capacity  -  the Judge of all. With this is beautifully connected "the spirits of just men made perfect" (i.e. the Old Testament saints). Next, we turn to the means of establishing the New Covenant with the two houses of Israel, "Jesus, the Mediator of the New Covenant;" and lastly, we hear of "the blood of sprinkling," which cries for grace towards the earth, not vengeance, as in Abel's case. To this whole order of things, which will only be manifested in the Millennium, the Hebrew Christians (and of course the same thing is true of all saints since) are said to have come, i.e. by faith. Not to Sinai and its associations of death and terror, but to these blessed and eternal objects of glory they stood related, through the known efficacy of what was accomplished to bring all in.

As to Mr. BROWNE's query, I suppose that the perfecting of just men here spoken of will take place at their resurrection from the dead. They are now in the condition of spirits  -  a condition which never will be true of the New Testament saints as a class (for "we shall not all sleep"), but, of course, most applicable to those before Christ. (Compare Luke 13: 32.) Guernsey.

6_06_21 p. 243/4.

2 Peter 3: 18. Vol. III. 215.  -  I apprehend that εις ἡμεραν αιωνος is in allusion to, and in contrast with, "the day of judgment," (verse 7,) "the day of the Lord" or "of God," (verses 10, 12,) in the chapter which the phrase closes, and that the idea is the eternal day, which succeeds all previous days of sin and judgment. The words in John 6: 51 (εις τον αιωνα) are the commonest possible expression of eternity, or "for ever," whether absolute or relative, which of course depends on the context and nature of the case. See Matt. 21: 19; Mark 3: 29, Mark 11: 14; Luke 1: 55; John 4: 14, John 6: 58, John 8: 35, 51, 52, John 10: 28, John 11: 26, John 12: 34, John 13: 8, John 14: 16; 1 Cor. 8: 13; 2 Cor. 9: 9; Heb. 6: 20; Heb. 7: 17, 21, 24, 28; 1 Peter 1: 23, 25; 1 John 2: 17; 2 John 2; which are, I think, all the occurrences in the New Testament. Εις αιωνα (in 2 Peter 2: 17) has been dropped by some editors, though even they admit the same phrase in Jude 13. The omission of the article implies, that the phrase is characteristic, i.e. adjectival of the sense; and" everlasting," as "for ever," pertains to του σκοτους, rather than to the verb. The plural form often occurs, as in Rom. 1: 25, Rom. 9: 6, Rom. 11: 36, Rom. 16: 27; 2 Cor. 11: 31, etc.; or with παντας, as in Jude 25; or yet more emphatically εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων, as in Gal. 1: 5, and often elsewhere. The idea here is, not so much one unbroken eternity, (expressed by the singular, simple or complex, as in Heb. 1: 9,) as the constant succession of age upon age, which is pretty well given in the English "for ever and ever." Eph. 3: 21, is the most peculiar of all; for γενεας expresses ordinarily human generations, του αιωνος of itself would convey the thought of an undivided everlasting; and των αιωνων closes the series with successive ages sweeping on. The whole phrase intimates, I suppose, a future beyond the bounds of every measure of time. The anarthrous form εις αιωνας αιωνων occurs in Rev. 14: 11, (where, however, C. has αιωνα αιωνος) which, as we have seen, modifies the sense so far as to present no positive object before the mind, as in Rev. 19: 3, and simply in this cases characterises the action of the verb. Guernsey.

6_06_21 p. 246.

The Scientific Accuracy of Scripture. Vol. III. 203.  -  Without pretending to estimate Mr. Hugh Miller's place in the geological scale, I think I am not at all presumptuous in affirming that his notice of Gen. 1 is weak and unsound. No interpretation is tenable which eludes the plain fact, that the chapter speaks of literal nights and days in relation to the Adamic earth. Then, again, to maintain that, from the creation to the present time is the last or Sabbath day, and that the work of redemption is that day's work  -  to maintain that these propositions are meant by Gen. 1, 2, or by any other part of Scripture, is to outdo Origen himself, and to render the modern proofs of scientific accuracy as ridiculous as the medieval metaphysics of the schoolmen. The truth is, that space is left for the various transformations or catastrophes of our globe (taking these for granted, now that the results of geological research are well founded) between the original creation of the heavens and earth in Gen. 1: 1, and the reconstitution of the universe, with a view to man's trial, which begins with the days in verses 3 et seq.

6_06_28 p. 251.

Genesis 15, Genesis 1: 4, and John 1: 1. Vol. III. 229.  -  If CLAYDONENSIS reflects that ῥημα and φωνη are merely the Septuagintal reflection of one and the same Hebrew word (which is also capable where required of. being represented by λογος,) he will feel, I think, that, though there is of course a difference between the force of these Greek words, we ought not to look for it in Gen. 15: 1 and 4. The inspired original presents the same idea: it is only the human translation which changes the phraseology. The transition is arbitrary.

Apart from our texts, φωνη is the more general of the three, meaning not only any articulate sound of man, but sound in general; while ῥημα and λογος way be distinguished as meaning a word and speech respectively; the latter also often meaning the reason which guides the speech, or the subject matter which speech is concerned about. Of course, ὁ λογος in John is peculiar, not only an impersonation, but a person  -  that blessed One who in the beginning was with God and was God, the only true and adequate expression of God, whether in grace (John 1) or in judgment, (Rev. 19)

6_06_28 p. 252/3.

Daniel 9.  -  The Seventy Weeks of. Vol. III. 222, Note.  -  I do not think that there need be difficulty in supplying the scripture authority, which has been sought in vain, for the break between the last week and its predecessors. In fact, the prophecy itself distinctly furnishes the proof. For after the details relative to the periods of seven and of sixty-two weeks, in verses 25, 26, and the plain statement, that after these times were completed the Messiah should be cut off and have nothing (i.e. of His proper kingdom and rights, as far as the nations were concerned), the prophet goes on to describe the retributive days of vengeance which fell upon the city and the sanctuary through the Roman people (or "the people of the prince that shall come"). Now, it is clear, that here we have events which took place about forty years after the crucifixion, and yet entirely apart from the seventy weeks, save that they necessarily occurred after sixty-nine had run their course. But if they form no part of the previous chain, as shown by the prophecy, with equal certainty are they outside from and before the last or seventieth week, which presupposes the Jewish polity re-established in some sort, and the sanctuary not only rebuilt but in actual use once more, though doomed again to see greater abominations than before. I am confident, therefore, that the scripture authority of Dan. 9 is, beyond reasonable doubt, against those who make the seventieth week to be in immediate sequence with the preceding sixty-nine, and that the passage itself, without going further, requires us to leave room for (not merely the past Roman destruction of Jerusalem, but) a prolonged series of wars and desolations of indefinite duration, which has been thus far too truly accomplished; subsequently to this, in verse 27, we have the brief but vivid picture of the last week ushered in by a compact or covenant made between the last Roman prince ("the prince that shall come") and the mass of the Jews; then, in the midst of the week, a stop put to their sacrificial worship, idols protected, and a desolator inflicted upon them, and this till the consummation and the decreed sentence be poured upon the desolate. Thenceforward should the tide turn, through the presence and power of their Deliverer, once rejected but now returning in glory, not only to destroy this antagonist Roman sovereign with all his instruments and followers, Jewish or Gentile, but to apply to Israel, as such, all the predicted blessings of the new covenant. For such was the intimation of verse 24: "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy (Daniel's) people and upon thy holy city (the question being about the Jews, and not the Church), to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins," etc. Accordingly, I think it demonstrable, that all which God has been doing for and in His heavenly people since the cross is here entirely and advisedly passed by; and this is, no doubt, what Φ means by "the parenthetical dispensation of the Church." It may be added, that this view of a detached seventieth week, reserved for the horrors of the future Antichristian crisis, can in no way be objected to on the score of novelty, save by the ignorant: it is really the oldest interpretation that I know on record among the early Christian writers. Thus writes St. Hippolytus in the third century: "Των γαρ ἑξηκοντα δυο ἑβδομαδων πληρωθεισων και Χριστου παραγενομενου, και του ευαγγελιου εν παντι τοπῳ κηρυχθεντος, εκκενωθεντων των καιρων, μια ἑβδομας περιλειφθησεται ἡ εσχατη εν ῃ παρεσται Ηλιας, και Ενωχ, και εν τῳ ἡμισει αυτης αναφανησεται το βδελυγμα της ερημωσεως, ἕως ὁ Αντιχριστος ερημωσιν τῳ κοσμῳ καταγγιλλων, κ. τ. λ." For when the sixty-two weeks have been fulfilled, and Christ has come, and the gospel has been everywhere preached, the times having been consummated, there shall be left one week  -  the last  -  in which Elias shall be present, and Enoch; and in the half of it shall appear the abomination of desolation, etc.

6_06_28 p. 254.

Matthew 4: 12, 17. Vol. III. 229.  -  INQUIRER is right. Scripture does not represent that Christ's ministry began after John's imprisonment, but that after that He began preaching the kingdom of heaven in Galilee.

6_06_28 p. 259.

1 John 1: 7. Vol. III. 167.  -  Permit me, while maintaining with the querist, that the question is of the believer's walk, and not a mere retrospective view of his justification, to give two reasons which to me seem decisive, that the verse speaks of the mutual fellowship of the saints, and not between God and His people. 1st. Because it, to my mind, savours of irreverence to suppose μετ  ἀλληλων (one with another) said of God and us. I remember no other place where the Holy Ghost speaks, if I may so say, with the familiarity here alleged; for, however near he may bring us, it is ever to God. 2nd. The last clause, which is coupled with the former, ought to have guarded against such a thought  -  "We have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin," the subject of the one being the evident object of the other clause.

6_06_28 p. 261.

The Personal Reign and Human Kingdom. Vol. III. 21, 221.  -  Without pretending to say what H. N. P. means by the expression "human kingdom," most readers of THE CHRISTIAN ANNOTATOR will agree that, besides the sense in which Christ shall reign for ever, there is a definite kingdom over all people, nations, and languages, a kingdom heavenly in its source, earthly in its sphere (though not earthly only), which is yet future, and to last for 1000 years. It is this which, I presume, the Querist meant by Christ's "human kingdom," to be ushered in by His personal advent. It has a mediatorial character, and will cease after the judgment of the wicked dead is over. When the eternal state begins (or the new heavens and earth in the fullest and final sense), the human holding of this kingdom is to cease (1 Cor. 15), that God (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) may be all in all. Christ, as man, having held this special kingdom for purposes of subjection, and having put down all other authority, gives it up, that the power may be God's, as such, exclusively. Our reigning in life, reigning for ever and ever, is not to be limited to the millennial kingdom. As possessors of eternal life and rejoicing in hope of the glory of God, we shall reign in everlasting blessedness, when the millennial display before this world is past.

Perhaps the Editor will allow me to state my conviction, that we shall reign over the earth (rather than on it), which I am persuaded is the true force of Rev. 5: 10, without going into other questions of that verse.

6_07_05 p. 269.

Leviticus 14. Vol. III. 217.  -  While unfeignedly believing that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable, I may suggest to W. B. C. the need of a careful comparison of the fresh light of the New Testament in lifting the veil of the Old. Thus it seems to me that due consideration of Eph. 2 and Heb. 3 would suggest the idea that "the house" finds its antitype in the corporate aspect or assembly of believers now, rather than in the millennial condition of the earth. "Ye are builded together," etc.; "whose house are we," etc. Hence all is plain. A plague-spot may now show itself in the Christian assembly. There is diligent, painstaking, but patient inquiry. The diseased stones are removed, the application of which is obvious. If the plague still overspread, after all means are used in vain, the house must be given up; for the deliberate sanction and maintenance of evil deprives an assembly of its public Christian character. The mention of Canaan is no difficulty, because, in virtue of union with Christ by the Holy Ghost, we who believe are, even now, seated in heavenly places in Christ. Our πολιτευμα is in heaven.

6_07_05 p. 270.

Psalm 40: 6; and Hebrews 10: 5. Vol. III. 229.  -  I believe that T. H. is so far justified in supposing that the digging, or opening, of ears, and the preparation of a body, are only various expressions of taking the form of a servant. This was one great thought in the incarnation of the Son of God (see Phil. 2), and of it St. Paul avails himself in citing the LXX. But I see no reason for excluding Ex. 21: 5, 6, though the latter was fully carried out in Christ's death and resurrection, rather than in the bare incarnation. Isa. 50: 5, (though a different word) gives the kindred idea of the habit or spirit of obedience.

6_07_05 p. 271.

Psalm 102. Vol. III. 37.  -  It is certain from Heb. 1: 10, that there is a change of speakers at ver. 25. For while the beginning of the Psalm, in its full meaning, can only be the utterance of Christ suffering for His people, the Apostle by his reasoning on and application of Ps. 45: 5, 6, and of Ps. 102: 25, etc. shows that we have, in these last, God's answer to the divine sufferer. Can anything be more touchingly beautiful? Christ mournfully pleads, "O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days." Jehovah replies  -  "Of old hast Thou laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the work of Thy hands. They shall perish, but Thou shall endure," etc. The crucified one was Himself also the Eternal  -  blessed mystery, the foundation of all God's counsels of grace and glory! So far I consider that L. C. H. is borne out by the interpretation of the New Testament. The only questionable thing in his division is that he assigns to the Father verses 12, 22, though I am far from affirming that this is not so: but as to verses 25, 28, there ought to be no doubt.

6_07_05 p. 272.

Daniel. Vol. III. 229.  -

1. "The king," in Dan. 11: 36, is, without doubt to my mind, the Political side of the same person whom St. John designates religiously or irreligiously as "the Antichrist." It is clear from Daniel that his seat of power is "the Holy Land," the object of attacks at the close from the powers of the South and of the North (i.e. Egypt, and Syria or Turkey of our days). However, his destruction is reserved for the Lord Himself, appearing from heaven (2 Thess. 2: 8, Rev. 19: 20). It is of the Syrian power (whoever then may hold it,) that the last verses of Dan 11 speak. He also falls by Divine judgment (see, Dan. 8: 25, 11: 45.

2: The relation of Daniel to the Revelation is a wide subject; but this I may briefly say, that, as Daniel reveals the results of the failure of the earthly people Israel, so Revelation presents the consequences of the failure of the heavenly testimony throughout Christendom and the world at large. This remark may help to show the analogy and the difference between the two prophecies. What the former was to the Jew, the latter is to the Church.

6_07_05 p. 273.

John 15: 4.  -  Vol. III. 230.

I do not think that living union with Christ is here spoken of, because verse 2 speaks of branches in Him not bearing fruit, which cannot be where Christ is the life. Compare also verse 6, which, if living union were in question, would contradict the everlasting life which the believer has. There is some analogy thus far with Rom. 11, the olive-tree of testimony on earth, as the vine is of profession. Of course, in both cases, the saints are living branches; but there are other branches which are broken off. Oneness with Christ, as members of His body, depends on the baptism of the Spirit, which was unknown before Pentecost.

6_07_05 p. 275.

Revelation 13: 5. Vol. III. 200, 244.  -  I do not think that there is so much inconsistency as might seem at first sight in taking the 1260 days mystically and the 1000 years literally; and for this reason, among others, that the book of Revelation, like many previous prophecies, admits of a two-fold application. One is the protracted Protestant scheme, when the long period may have its place; the other is the grand future crisis after the Church or heavenly saints are translated to the Father's presence, and God begins to resume His dealings with Israel and the nations in the way of testimony and judgment before the Millennium commences, when the days will be literal days. Obviously, this double accomplishment concerns the early and middle part of the book and not at all Rev. 20.

6_07_19 p. 284.

Genesis 38: 15. Vol. III. 213, 236.  -  I presume that few serious readers will agree with Dr. S. R. Maitland's notion that hV;req] means a holy woman or seer. Far more probable is the ordinary view which supposes a "consecration" to the corrupt Astarte, or Venus, of early and later idolatry. Ingenious as the late Librarian of Lambeth is, he would find it difficult to make room for "a holy woman" in Deut. 23: 17 and Hosea 4: 14. Besides, he does not, as far as the extract intimates, attempt to account for the masculine form vreq;, which occurs in Dent. 23: 17; 1 Kings 14: 24, 1 Kings 15: 12, 1 Kings 22: 46; 2 Kings 23: 7; Job 36: 14. Can it be argued that holy men, or seers, are intended here? If it be plain, on the contrary, that, in the latter case, a class is meant of exceeding moral turpitude, the argument as to the former falls to the ground: for they are forms of the same word, and the idea of holiness, or consecration, of course equally pervades both. Terrible to say, prostitution was an almost universal element of heathen sanctity!

6_07_19 p. 285.

Joshua 5: 9. Vol. III. 132, 205.  -  Mr. RYLEY is evidently far from confident as to his application of the scene at Gilgal which preceded the conflicts of Israel with the Canaanites. He speaks with hesitation of circumcision whether it had any typical force. Assuming it to be a type, he seems to think it might in this case mean baptism (which is itself a sort of type).

Now, with the Epistles to the Colossians and the Ephesians before us, I am of opinion that the wars of Israel have their answer in our wrestling with the powers of darkness; that the gradual acquisition of their land corresponds with our setting our affections on the things above, where Christ sitteth; and that we too have our circumcision, first in Christ, in whom the flesh has met its doom; and secondly, in the practical way of mortifying our members which are upon the earth, etc. To neglect these cross-lights of the Old and New Testaments, is to despise, unwittingly, the means of heavenly wisdom.

6_07_19 p. 286.

Isaiah 18: 7. Vol. III. 246.  -  The three first Queries might have been united, and must receive the same answer. Israel is (1) the people scattered and peeled, (2) terrible from their beginning hitherto, (3) meted out and trodden under foot, whose land the rivers have spoiled. Comp. ver. 2. It is the Jewish nation, specially owned of God, actually the object of divine judgment as well as of Gentile oppression, but eventually to be delivered, after human efforts to effect the blessing have come to nought. The English version is, I think, sufficiently accurate.

6_07_19 p. 289.

Acts 17: 30.  -  Vol. III. 214, 241.

It is evident that the point of which St. Paul avails himself in order to reach the conscience of the Athenians is their own confessed ignorance of God (verse 23). "The times of this ignorance God winked at." But now St. Paul was declaring to them the God whom they knew not. The true God shines out in the death and resurrection of Christ. Not to receive what is proclaimed therein is to reject the counsel of God against oneself. Heathenism was essentially wrong; at the best it represented God as an hard master, as one (if one) who needed all that man could muster, instead of allowing Him the blessed place of the Giver, which even creation and providence proved Him to be, and much more redemption. Accordingly as the full light of God is shining the world over like the sun, and the sound of the Gospel is published to all the earth (in principle I mean), man is without excuse. For his case is not merely, like Israel's, failure under legal requirement, but the despisal of the full and free grace of God, who is now commanding all men everywhere to repent, to turn from their idols and their self-righteousness, from themselves in short, to Him and what He has demonstrated Himself to be in Christ towards the worst of sinners. To refuse is not merely to lose His everlasting mercy, it is also to brave His righteous judgment of this habitable world, for Christ is by Him ordained to judge it, (and not only the dead raised before the great white throne,) of which His resurrection is the proof. The world slew Him and God raised Him up, the sure proof that it is morally judged already, as it actually will be when Christ comes in the clouds of heaven. Up to Christ's first advent, and especially His resurrection, the Gentiles lay hid as it were as to public relations with God. Salvation was of the Jews. Christ's resurrection is a ground-work for faith unto all, Gentile as well as Jew, for death cuts all specialties in the flesh. Hence the special call to repent ever since; always obligatory, repentance is now urgent. So as to the day for judging the habitable world: the preached resurrection of Christ, who is about to judge it, puts men under fresh responsibility.

6_07_19 p. 290.

Galatians 3: 16. Vol. III. 201, 225, 255.  -  In spite of the Rev. D. NIHILL's clear and modest statement of his view of this text, and of the confirmatory words of others who have followed, I must decidedly adhere to the conviction that "Christ" is here to be understood personally, and not mystically. I am aware that the difficulty of catching the point of the Apostle's argument has driven not a few (from Beza down to our friends) into the mystical hypothesis; but, in my judgment, without good reason. For the doctrine of the Church's unity, the head and members being together viewed as constituting one body, naturally accounts for the exceptional use of "Christ" in this way in 1 Cor. 12: 12, whereas no such thing applies here. Again, there is the grave objection that, according to the hypothesis itself, Abraham is one of his seed (that is, Christ mystical, the body of true believers), whereas the text itself distinguishes him from his seed. I am satisfied accordingly that there is no reason for taking Christ here mystically, as in 1 Cor. 12 and that it even involves self-contradiction.

What is wanted then is more light, taking the word "Christ" in its usual historical application. The Apostle, I think, alludes to Gen. 12: 3, "in thee (Abram) shall all families of the earth be blessed," and to Gen. 22: 18, "in thy seed (Isaac) shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." The order of the Greek ought to have been better observed in English: "Now to Abraham were the promises made, and to his seed," would be more exact. He is speaking not of the mere Jewish promises, but of those which insured Gentile blessing. Now these were made to Abram in Gen. 12 and to his seed in Gen. 22 after he had been typically offered up, and received from the dead in a figure. The Jewish blessing, as to the land, power ever enemies, etc. is to in expressly numerous seed, as the stars and the sand; whereas not a word of a multiplied seed appears where all the nations of the earth are to be blessed. On this absence of reference to others than Isaac, the one seed of Abraham and type of the Lord sacrificed and risen, does the Apostle argue here, as in Heb. 7 upon the absence of genealogy or succession in Melchizedek. In other words, the Spirit, in recording the promises of Gentile blessing, carefully restricted them to Abraham and to his seed alone, though as expressly he connected the Jewish blessing with seed as many as the stars and the sand; in the former, his eye was really on Christ, the true and sole seed of promise, save as afterwards by grace associating others, and even Gentiles, with Him.

6_08_02 p. 303.

Deuteronomy 32: 8. Vol. III. 181, 205.  -  Possibly Mr. CAINE and Mr. BUCKTON may not be aware of the way in which Sir L. C. L. Brenton (Septuagint Version in English, margin in loco) accounts for the variation, viz. by supposing the three intermediate letters of lae [ r;ç]yI ] ynEB] to be left out of the LXX; at least, such an oversight seems to me easily made; and, if made, sons of God might not unreasonably be translated αγγελων Θεου, as conversely the angels of God are called µyhOila,“h; ynEB] in Job 1, 2. I cannot, however, agree with my excellent friend in his further remark, that the Greek is more intelligible than the Hebrew, and that the Jews, not the LXX, corrupted the passage. The truth taught is plainly confirmed by the rest of the Old Testament, that Israel is God's earthly centre, around whom the nations are yet to revolve, when the Messiah takes his kingdom here below; for the Jews (not the Church, which has higher hopes) are the objects of God's counsels, as regards the earth and the nations.

6_08_16 p. 317/8.

Isaiah 18: 7. Vol. III. 285.  -  In compliance with the expressed desire of the Editor, I venture to add a little to my brief reply in p. 286.

1. "The land shadowing with wings, which (is) beyond the rivers of Cush," means, I think, a country outside the limits of those nations which up to the prophet's time had menaced Israel; a country beyond Assyria and Babylon, which were contiguous to one of these rivers and beyond Egypt, which lay along the other. For Scripture connects Cush with these two districts, if not with more: an Asiatic as well as an African Ethiopia. The meaning is, then, a land which should essay to protect the long-oppressed Jew, and that land beyond those rivers which characterised the great powers which hitherto were best known to and had most interfered with Israel.

2. It was not only a distant but a maritime power ("sending ambassadors by the sea"). "Vessels of bulrushes" looks more like Egypt than anything else in the chapter, but it cannot outweigh the other evidence. Perhaps others may throw light on the phrase. The burden of Egypt follows, and is expressly named in the succeeding chapter. Here the name is withheld.

3. It is distinguished in the plainest way from the nation in whose behalf it employs its vessels and swift messengers. I cannot therefore but think those commentators far astray who interpret the land in verse 1, and the people to whom the message is sent in verse 2, of Egypt and the Egyptians. Happily here the question depends not on mere verbal criticisms, but on the general bearing of the context, which the English reader is quite capable of judging.

4. There is no doubt on either side that the same people to whom the messengers are sent are described in the latter part of verse 2, as well as in verse 7. The words which characterise them are certainly open, in their force and translation, to a good deal of dispute. Few, however, will be disposed to accept the notion that Ëv;mum] = "harnessed in leather," which has not the least support from elsewhere. It is used in Prov. 13: 12, of hope prolonged or deferred. Other forms of the same word occur frequently in the Bible, and mean to draw (literally or figuratively), stretch out, continue. Gesenius gives it here the sense of duraturus, robustus, which seems to me not to harmonise with the conjoined word. The English translators may have given the force of "scattered" from the fact that the kal participle (poel) means "him that soweth" (marg. draweth forth) seed in Amos 9: 13. I rather think the term alludes to the long trials and painful suspense of the Jews, and this seems confirmed by fr;wmW , "and peeled" or made bare, rather than "shaven;" for, in such an application, the word is used only of cases where the hair was fallen off (Lev. 13: 40, 41), or forcibly plucked off (Ezra 9: 3; Neh. 13: 25; Isaiah 50: 6). The sense of "peeling" the shoulder occurs in Ezek. 29: 19, which would yield the same figurative sense, the latter being taken from the skin as the former from the hair. "Furbished" or polished is the general sense when spoken of the sword, metals, etc " and Gesenius thence derives the tropical meaning which he assigns to the word here, "populus acer h. e. celer, vehemens;" a highly improbable turn in my opinion. The general bearing of the next clause remains undisturbed. What follows is literally "a nation of a line, a line," which Dathe connected, I presume, with Isaiah 28: 10, and our translators with ch. 28: 17; 34: 11, 17. and Lam. 2: 8. Either of these, and the last particularly, I consider preferable to the far-fetched allusion to land-measuring, which, it will be observed, causes Mr. B. to change "nation" into the "country 'meted out;'" which is the more surprising and inconsistent, because in the sentence before he had justly remarked that it was the people, not the country. The same term y/N is used in both cases. I have no doubt whatever that hµ;Wbm]W wq;Awq' describes not their vast strength, trampling down all before it, (as Gesenius will have it,) but rather their obnoxiousness to every form of hostile appropriation and indignity. (Compare Isaiah 22: 5; Isaiah 28: 4.) This is confirmed and determined by the last words of the verse, whether we adopt the textual rendering or the margin of the English Bible, or even Gesenius's theory of "cleaving," which he finds, though to my mind with slight show of evidence, in the word. Still any of these seem to me incomparably better than Mr. B.'s allusion to "inundation," which has really nothing to favour it, any more than the fancy that the previous words refer to the practice of sending pigs or goats to tread down the seed under their feet. I hope to be pardoned for considering them both an unlawful importation into this text. All these mistakes flow out of the first great error of treating the people under debate as the Egyptians. To this I may add that rb,[eme ("beyond") is made to mean "on this side," quite untenably, though at first sight there might seem more reason for it, especially in the English Bible. However, there is no space here to trace in what circumstances the word is susceptible of that force. I can only say that "beyond," as it is the natural, so here seems to me the true meaning. It is only in very special cases that we can give the other rendering, and the reason must be shown before it can be assumed.

5. As regards the intervening verses, 3-6, all are summoned so see and hear what befalls the people of the Lord, Israel. He, as it were, retires, and watches. Man is active. The Jews, brought back by human intervention, seem to flourish; but suddenly, "afore the harvest," all is arrested, and disappointment comes. The nations turn once more against the Jews. "They shall be left together unto the fowls of the mountains, and to the beasts of the earth." Compare the chapter before, especially verses 9-14.

6. "In that time shall the present be brought unto the Lord of Hosts of a people scattered and peeled, and from a people terrible from their beginning hitherto; a nation meted out and trodden under foot, whose land the rivers have spoiled, to the place of the name of the Lord of hosts, the Mount Zion."  -  Here, waiving the question of the terms repeated from verse 2, and already discussed, I think the English version is more accurate than most others. For there are in verse 7 not two peoples, but two things taught about Israel; that a present should be made (1) of them, and (2) from them, to Jehovah of Hosts. The Jewish nation should be brought a present, and they should also bring one to the Lord in Mount Zion, after their signal deliverance from the fury of the Gentiles. Guernsey, 26 July, 1856.

6_08_16 p. 325.

Verbal Inspiration Vol. III. 295.  -  I am of opinion that the Holy Ghost, citing in the New Testament the language of the Old Testament, while always and only communicating perfect truth, is not limited to the mere literal primary sense which the sentence conveyed. He could even make use of an imperfect version like that of the LXX, not, of course, as if he vouched for its representations as a whole, but adopting any particular phrases and thoughts, even where they differed from the original Hebrew, if they expressed additional truth which bore upon the object he had in view.

In the comparison, however, of Psalm 53 and Rom. 3 the querist overlooks perhaps the point of the apostolic reasoning; for the Gentiles had been already, and, alas, most amply and painfully, shown to be utterly depraved (Rom. 1). The only question is, Were the Jews righteous? Their own law, the Psalms, confessed that even among them, the favoured and chosen nation, God's witnesses, "there was none righteous, no, not one." Most legitimately, therefore, does the Apostle infer thence universal and hopeless ruin as far as man was concerned; for, if the Jews were under sin, à fortiori the Gentiles were  -  all were. There is not a particle of hyperbole; there is, no doubt, figurative language to express, tersely and pictorially as it were, the moral features which God descried in His own earthly people. "Now we know," says he, "that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law." The Jews could not therefore pretend that God had in these strong expressions Gentile iniquity in view; on the contrary, flowing from that acknowledged axiom, it was emphatically Jewish evil. But the Gentiles were already proved to be, if proof were needed to show them, palpably, irretrievably corrupt. Every mouth therefore was stopped, and all the world guilty before God; that part which had the best right and the greatest pretensions being expressly proved to be steeped in sin, and this by their own boasted oracles of God. The reasoning is simple, sound, and conclusive; the truth most certain.

6_08_30 p. 332/3.

TEXTS MISAPPLIED OR MISQUOTED.

1 Corinthians 9: 27.  -  Often used to show that no believer ought to be or can be sure of ultimate salvation: hence, as is alleged, St. Paul was not. But it is clear that the question here is not of life, righteousness, or salvation, but of services in the Gospel and its rewards. Paul did not make himself servant unto all, under law to the Jew, without law to the Gentile, to save himself, but to save them. It was for the Gospel's sake, not for his own; and to this end serve the figures of a prize and a crown. The word αδοκιμος, here translated "a castaway," and elsewhere "reprobate," "rejected," is I think limited by the subject-matter. A servant might by carelessness lose a reward, who nevertheless as a believer had everlasting life. See 1 Cor. 3: 10-15.

1 Cor. 11: 28; 2 Cor. 13: 5. These texts are sometimes quoted to show that a Christian ought not to be sure, or, as men say, too sure of his acceptance with God. But it is evident that the first was intended to lead the Corinthians to probe their hearts, when disposed to deal lightly with the supper of the Lord. No such thought occurs as an exhortation to doubt God's grace, or their own security thereby. To eat the bread or drink the cup lightly without consideration of what that solemn feast sets forth was to deal unworthily: if one discerned not the body, it was to eat and drink judgment to oneself, as was shown in many cases of judicial sickness and death among them. For if Christians discerned themselves, i.e. the hidden springs of their hearts and ways, they should not be thus judged; yet even where they were, it was the Lord's chastening, that they should not be condemned, with the world. Even where thus negligent and chastened, neither does the Lord confound the Christian, nor ought the Christian to confound himself, with the world. If he does, the true power of self-judgment is gone. Still more explicit is 2 Cor. 13: 5, however familiarly used in the school of doubt. For let the context be read, and it will be plain that Paul is proving his apostolate to the Corinthians, who were seeking a proof of Christ speaking in him. Why, says he, examine yourselves: your own selves are the best proof. If you are in the faith, I must be an apostle  -  at least to you. (Cf. 1 Cor. 9: 2, 3.) The very last thing which these high-mind questioners meant to do was to distrust their own Christianity. Well but, argues St. Paul, if you want a proof about me, know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? Paul had no wish to prove them reprobates; but his argument leaves them no escape. If they were in the faith, which neither they nor he doubted, they proved his apostleship: if they were not, who were they to examine him? If verse 4 be taken parenthetically, the sense is clearer.

2 Cor. 6: 14. Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers  -  often applied to marriage with unbelievers. But this is an error, though it is true that marriage ought to be "only in the Lord," as is exhorted in 1 Cor. 7. The subject is the ministry or service of Christ. In service and worship, fellowship is forbidden with unbelievers, or unfaithful men. If I, a servant of Christ, am among such, I am to come out. What confirms it is  -  1st. That a yoke is a Scriptural badge of service, not of marriage. 2nd. That the believing wife is not to be separate from her unbelieving husband (1 Cor. 7: 10-16). On the other hand, the true inference from 2 Cor. 6 is that all communion between the Christian and the world, in the service and worship of God, is interdicted in every form and measure.

6_08_30 p. 335.

The little horn of Daniel 7. Vol. III. 160.  -  I should be sorry to give pain to Mr. MYERS or to Mr. SAVILE, but they will, I trust, bear with the expression of my judgment that some of their statements as to this horn cannot be sustained.

1. Thus Mr. M. says, "Let it be plainly understood that the wilful kings of Dan. 7 and Dan. 8 have a personal reference to some heathen power previously to the first advent of Messiah." Allowing this as to chap. 8 (in an incipient way at least), to what heathen power before Christ had the wilful king of chap. 7 a personal reference? I agree with him that the fourth beast is the Roman empire; but it is untenable to maintain with Calvin that "the little horn" there means the Caesars. For indubitably, when that horn appears and gains power, the Roman empire exists in a state of tenfold division, which was in no sense true at that time. A host of objections will occur to the thoughtful reader of the chapter, but I am content with this decision.

2. Mr. S. considers "the little horn" of chap. 7 as probably "the woman" whom "the Beast," after supporting for a while, destroyed at the end. But it is clear from this chapter itself (verses 11, 21, 22, 25, 26) that the destruction of the little horn is at the close, and that it is because of his great words that the beast is destroyed, not because of some new evil that only comes out after that horn is gone. I admit that there is a distinction between this horn and "the beast," inasmuch as the former is the active executive ruler, the latter is the empire itself; but then it seems to me plain that the Revelation (Rev. 13: 5-7, etc.) attributes to the beast what Daniel (chap. 7) applies to the little horn. The reason is obvious; he wields the power of the Roman empire, and is therefore viewed morally as that empire, which is quite in keeping with St. John's manner elsewhere, while the horn is his strict historical description, and therefore most appropriate to Daniel. In a word, then, so far is it from being correct that Scripture has first the little horn and ten kings in the past and present, and then the beast and his ten kings in the future, that Dan. 7 plainly presents the little horn just at the closing scene, bringing swift destruction upon that empire, a beast, of which he is the prominent chief.

It is only in a loose modified sense that Dan. 7 can refer to the papacy. For (1) it is a mistake to suppose with Bp. Newton that the possession of "eyes, like the eyes of a man," denotes episcopal supervision. The lamb has seven eyes, as well as seven horns, which are the seven spirits of God sent forth into all the earth, (i.e. the perfection of intelligence and power, by the Holy Ghost, with a view to judging and governing the earth). This is in no way as shepherd and bishop of our souls. So here there is marked human intelligence in this horn or king, but the episcopacy of Rome is foreign to the passage. (2) The subduing of three kings seems to me a very different affair from the petty Italian principalities of the Pope. And a great mistake is made by such as assume that this horn remains "little" after the reduction of his three fellows: a mistake gendered by the ordinary papal application of the symbol. (3) "Changing times and laws" was just the sin, or part of the sin, of Jeroboam, who was a king, not a priest; and so it will be with the future "little horn." (3) I believe that Dan. 7: 25, means that these "times and laws" (which terms seem to describe the Jewish ritual) shall be given into the hand of the little horn, and this not merely till the beginning but the end of "a time, and times, and dividing of time." It is quite true (see verse 21) that the same horn ravages the saints; but it is nowhere said in Scripture that God gives the saints up to the enemy, as has often been supposed to be here intimated. As to duration, dominion, and blasphemies, there is the strongest resemblance between the little horn of Dan. 7 and the beast of Rev. 13 with the difference already indicated. Babylon, or "the woman," in Rev. 17 is a wholly different evil. Finally, let Mr. S. weigh the Scripture that the little horn prevailed against the saints until the Ancient of Days came and judgment was given to the saints of the most high,  -  surely this is future, and not past or present; and the denial of the little horn's being the chief of the empire up to its judgment from God falls to the ground.

6_08_30 p. 337.

Matthew 16: 28. Vol. III. 294.  -  I am of opinion that the application of these words to the destruction of Jerusalem is entirely unfounded, and that their true connection is with the scene of the transfiguration. They are consecutive in all three of the first evangelists; and 2 Peter 1 treats that scene, it appears to me, as a manifestation of Christ's power and coming,  -  a sample of His future glory. James and Peter did taste of death, the one long and the other shortly before Jerusalem was destroyed.

Mr. ALFORD is not correct in making ἡ γενεα αυτη = "this race," because the race of Israel is not to pass away when all these things are fulfilled; but on the contrary Israel is then to reach its full blessing and glory as a people here below. The true force is, "this (Christ-rejecting, unbelieving) generation of Israel," not the mere existing generation, but such as bore the same moral fruits as those who then refused the Messiah. So they have continued, and will till after the last delusions and judgment of Anti-Christ, when "there shall come out of Sion the deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob." "So all Israel shall be saved," when every threat of God has been accomplished, and grace has converted a new generation  -  "the generation to come." The moral bearing of the phrase, permit me to add, simply and satisfactorily accounts for God's righteous judgment, in consequence of the blood shed from Abel downwards. Mr. A.'s remark is sound against the application of it to the mere existing generation; but it almost equally disproves his own sense. Those who stood in the place of witness for God, as did Israel, not only suffered the consequences of despising His last testimony to them in Christ, but had required of them all the righteous blood shed from the beginning downwards. The same principle applies to Babylon in the Revelation: "In her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth." In consequence of the position assumed, God will hold her responsible even for evil done before her existence. It is the principle of God's corporate judgments: individually, each bears his own judgment.

6_08_30 p. 342/3.

1 John 2: 29; 1 John 3: 9; 1 John 5: 1, 4, 18. Begotten and Born. III. 294.  -  It is the same word γεγεννημενος which is indifferently translated "born," and in ver. 1 "begotten," save in ver. 18, where γεννηθεις occurs. The old lexicographers think that the only difference is that the perfect is μεγα, the aorist μικρον, and strange to say Bengel attaches some importance to this small remark, "Praeteritum grandius quiddam sonat, quam aoristus." The true distinction, I apprehend, is that the aorist is purely the historical fact, the perfect adds the idea of a certain condition or state resulting from that fact. In this instance, it seems to me, that both could be and are said of the same persons.

6_09_13 p. 349/50.

Daniel 2: 44. Vol. III. 133, 159, 206.  -  As the editor deprecates the discussion of a point whereon almost every other Correspondent to THE CHRISTIAN ANNOTATOR differs decidedly from Mr. HOOPER, I would only refer him to a work issued by his publisher (Groombridge), and entitled "The Irrationalism of Infidelity," which, among other interesting and important topics, briefly and summarily despatches the prophetic scheme that denies the usually received order of "the times of the Gentiles." I may be allowed to add, that he has singularly misapprehended my note on this text; for I differ from Mr. MYERS in referring "these kings" (not to the four kingdoms, but) to the toes of the great image, i.e. to the ten contemporaneous rulers of the revived Roman empire in the latter day, whose judgment makes way for the universal prevalence of God's kingdom, which Christ in person shall administer.

6_09_13 p. 350.

Daniel 8: 22, 23. Vol. III. 309,  -  The application to Mahomet or his system is untenable. I do not doubt that Antiochus Epiphanes was primarily, or historically, the king here described; but, in view of the last holder of the power when the end of the indignation (i.e. God's indignation against Israel) arrives in the latter day, it would appear that, as the last holder of the Roman empire (the little horn of Dan. 7) is to be a personage of surprising influence and audacity, so too the representative of the Syrian kingdom (the king of the North) at the close is to possess extraordinary power, mainly through foreign support, and a craft that will deceive and destroy the Jews in days yet future.

6_09_13 p. 351.

John 21: 15-17. Vol. III. 101, 268.  -  I do not think that the student will get much satisfaction by reading the remarks of the Rev. H. Alford on this affecting scene. There is more perhaps in what the Rev. R. C. Trench has observed in his New Testament Synonyms. But the true difference seems to me much more simple than either of these gentlemen apprehend. Αγαπαω is the broad, generic term for loving. It is susceptible of all applications, of superiors, inferiors, and equals. It is predicated of God towards man, and of man towards God. It describes God's feeling towards the world in giving His only begotten Son: it describes Christ's tender and full affection towards the Church. On the other hand, φιλεω is a narrower word: it is distinctively the love of feeling, of endearment; and hence frequently it is used of the outward sign of fondness, and also in a vague way of that fondness which produces the habit of this or that action, though this is true of αγαπαω too. Both are said of God's love to His Son. Mr. A., if I remember rightly, considers that the Lord drops the word of reverential love (αγαπαω) which He had twice used, comes down to the word of human affection, Peter's own word (φιλεω), and this third time questions, not merely his loyal love for his Master, but the very human regard of his heart. On the contrary, it appears to me, that while the Lord thoroughly judges Peter's confidence in his own love to Him, in its so exceeding that of others, that He could stand where they fled, He not only hears Peter's repeated declaration of his true and near affection for Him, but Himself takes it up the third time, and that this, flashing on Peter's three-fold denial, went to his inmost heart. The Greek concordance utterly dissolves the idea that reverential love is the dominant thought in αγαπαω. We are not called so to love our enemies, nor even our neighbours (Matt. 5: 43, 44; Matt. 6: 24). Nor was it so that Christ loved the rich young man; and certainly none can pretend that God reverentially loved the world (John 3: 16), and this is not a tithe, perhaps, of the absurdity that follows Mr. A.'s distinction, if I understand him. As little can φιλεω be reduced to the mere human regard of the heart. It is not thus that the Father loves the Son (John 5: 20), or even us (John 16: 27); nor can anything be more opposed, as it appears to me, to the true scope of 1 Cor. 16: 22; Titus 3: 15; Rev. 3: 19, where φιλεω occurs. Let the reader judge.

6_09_13 p. 354/5.

1 Timothy 1: 19, 20. III. 294.  -  There does not appear to be any real difficulty in understanding how a believer might concerning faith make shipwreck, more than in practical holiness. Surely this was exactly what befell the late Mr. Irving, not to speak of Tractarian or Popish perverts. There is no doubt but that godly discipline may take its course, even to the extreme act of putting away, in the case of real Christians if they have got under the enemy's power in conduct or doctrine. The proper sphere of discipline is within (i.e. in the circle of those who bear Christ's name.) Them that are without God judgeth.

6_09_13 p. 356.

Revelation 14: 13. Vol. III. 306.  -  Mr. DELL appears to me to overlook the important instruction in Rev. 20: 4, 5, viz., that those saints, who are converted and suffer unto death in the interval of the beast's reign (after the Church's rapture, and before Christ and the Church come out of heaven to reign), are nevertheless to be raised and to reign during the thousand years, no less than the previously-raised saints. All these holy sufferers form part of the first resurrection, as well as "the spirits of just men made perfect" and "the Church of the first-born ones." There is no intimation that they have to wait for the judgment at the end of the kingdom, which judgment, I am persuaded, concerns the wicked only, as far as Rev. 20: 12, et seq. speaks.

6_09_13 p. 358/9.

The Judicial acquittal of the Righteous. Vol. III. 297.  -  There would be no point gained in supposing a universal judgment of all at the close, but, on the contrary, great loss in force of truth. In fact, the idea and expression, "general resurrection," is itself fallacious: for resurrection is of all things the most separative. Even John 5 makes out two resurrections, irreconcilably differing in character and issues, as Rev. 20 shows them to be in time. The resurrection of life is in contrast with the resurrection of judgment (κρισεως),and evidently, if involved in a common judgment, there would be no room for such a contrast. Matt. 25: 34, etc. is essentially a millennial scene, not before nor after that epoch. Nor does it appear that any righteous die during the millennium, Isa. 65 speaking only of those judicially accursed. The Son of Man's coming as a thief is nowhere connected with the rapture of the Church; but I say no more now, as this latter would involve discussion.

6_09_20 p. 362/3.

MR. MYERS will excuse me if I remind him that the greatest difficulty among commentators, as among all other men, is to hold the mind in subjection to God's word. Thus I am of opinion that there is no substantial ground for doubting "quails" to be meant here, as in Ex. 16. "Feathered fowls," or "fowl of wing" (Ps. 78), is equally true of smaller as of larger birds, and thoroughly puts to the rout Ludolfs notion about "locusts," and Rudbeck's about flying-fish. It seems to me of small consequence whether, with Colonel Sykes, we consider it to have been the common quail, or, with Hasselquist, the Tetrao Israelitarum. According to Bochart, the Arabs have a kindred word for quail, and the Vulgate, with Josephus, if not the LXX, so understood here, not to speak of Luther, De Wette, the Dutch, Diodati, Martin, Ostervald, Tremellius and Junius, and the modern Jewish version of Dr. Benisch, who exclude the idea of the "two cubits" describing the height of each bird, and apply it to that of the congregated mass. What may be true is, that God made use of a swarm in migration; but this, if the fact, would be to me too trivial a circumstance to dignify with the title of "elucidating Scripture." For Messrs. Stanley and Forster's "red geese" there seems to be absolutely no scriptural proof, or even probability.

6_09_20 p. 367.

Matthew 10: 23.  -  It is plain that the Lord, in this chapter, sends the twelve upon a mission specifically Jewish. "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Afterwards, in apprising them of the persecutions and treachery they were to expect, be bids them flee from one city to another: "For verily I say unto you, ye shall not have gone over (or finished) the cities of Israel till the Son of man be come." That is, their mission should be broken off, before it was complete, by the coming of their Master. Doubtless, another commission, expressly to the Gentiles, appears at the close of this Gospel, and the development of God's counsels, the mystery of Christ and the Church, came out still later, chiefly through the ministry and writings of the Apostle Paul. Thus the original Jewish mission was interrupted, and what has been aptly styled "the Gentile parenthesis" came in: that over, the Lord will, I doubt not, raise up, at a yet future day, servants destined to take up the word and work now left in abeyance, and, ere they will have finished their proclamation of the approaching kingdom throughout all the cities of Israel, the Son of Man will come. That work (wherever else the Gospel has been carried) was not finished in the Apostolic era, nor will it be, when once more resumed in the latter day, before the Lord's return to establish the kingdom over the earth in power and glory.

6_09_20 p. 376.

"Horn" and "King." Vol. I. 67.  -  If persons are allowed to alter the plain meaning, and even the translation, of an adverse text, there is no truth which might not be gainsayed. Thus F. H. feels that Dan. 8: 22, taken as it stands in every good version known to me, refutes the notion that a horn is invariably personal, and shows that it may sometimes have an official application, so as to take in the idea of "a kingdom." Therefore a new turn must be thought of; and he proposes, "in consequence of four kings standing up, four kingdoms shall arise:" but not the slightest proof or reason is advanced. Now I do not hesitate to say that the English Bible gives the clear and certain sense of the Hebrew, which is confirmed by a comparison with verses 8 and 9. It is the great horn which is said to be broken, and in its stead arose four (horns): this is explained to mean four kingdoms which shall be raised, or stand up, out of the nation. So, again, as to "king," Dan. 7: 17, and Dan. 8: 20, are explicit in contradicting the mere limited force which F. H. would give it, though I allow that Protestants have often systematised to an excess which might well provoke reaction. The truth is larger than either Praeterists or Historicalists are wont to admit. There has been a past application, which is but the earnest of the grand and future fulfilment.

6_09_27 p. 380.

Isaiah 2: 22. Vol. III. 309.

The sense seems to me simple, though overlooked by most of the translators and commentators referred to by Mr. CAINE. Not Christ, nor man in Christ, is meant, but man in nature, man self-exalting and yet idol-loving. "Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils (easily extinguished therefore, as far life here is concerned): for wherein is he to be accounted of?" He whose pride and idolatry are to meet so striking a doom in the day of the Lord, can never be a stay to rest on. On the other hand, the difference of the subject in 2 Chron. 35: 21, not only justifies our translators in making a corresponding change in the rendering, but, as I judge, requires it; for the sense there, is not at all, "cease from leaning on God," but, as our English rightly has it, "forbear thee from [meddling with] God." It is a question of context rather than of Hebrew. The inconsistency is but apparent there, whereas Jerome's notion is scarcely sense.

6_09_27 p. 383.

Luke 7: 28. Vol. III. 327.

I do not think Luke 16: 16 and Mark 1: 1-4, intimate that John Baptist was "under the Gospel dispensation." The kingdom of God might be said to be present in the person and power of Christ (compare Matt. 12: 28 and Luke 17: 21); but, as far as others were concerned, all that the Lord says on this head, and after John was put in prison, is, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand." It was not come for others to enter in till the work of redemption was accomplished, and then it was opened both to Jew and Gentile that believed. "Every man presseth into it," does not imply that any were yet within. It was being preached as nigh both by John and afterwards by the disciples; but, whatever the saving mercy of God might have been in past times, and of course then also, it was still an object of search and desire till the cross and resurrection of the Lord. Then it was come, and every believer entered, and the accession of spiritual blessing and privilege was such, that the least in the kingdom was greater than the greatest before, even than John himself, near as he was to it as just at hand. We must bear in mind that as to John's testimony in John 1: 29-34; John 3: 29, et seq., it may have exceeded more or less his own intelligence, as was often the case in the utterances of the Old Testament prophets. John Baptist did not know more than they, what it is to be purged worshippers having no more conscience of sins. But this is only one of the many blessings that attach to all within the kingdom now. I am aware that some, shrinking from the simple meaning because it traverses their preconceived thoughts, have sought to make ὁ μικροτερος the least prophet, others (proh pudor!) Christ himself; but such notions are unwarranted and untenable.

6_09_27 p. 384.

Romans 1: 4. Vol. III. 331.  -  The exact phrase in question occurs not eleven times, but twice, in the New Testament. In my opinion our translators have rendered it as well perhaps as the language admits. Acts 26: 23, is somewhat free owing to the form of the sentence ει πρωτος εξ αναστασεως νεκρων, "that he should be the first that should rise from the dead." The exact meaning is, that Christ was to be the first strictly and properly risen from the dead, νεκρων simply qualifying εξ αν., and declaring it to be resurrection in the, fullest sense. It is a characteristic description, and therefore without the article. The same remark applies to Rom. 1: 4. It is quite a mistake to suppose that the singular is meant either there or in Acts 17: 32. If a definite class were intended, the article would be necessary; where the character of the thing is in question it is excluded, whether or not a preposition is employed. If the English idiom admitted of the phrase "by dead resurrection," as the German "durch Todten-auferstehung," it would convey the sense of the Greek; but this would be to revolutionise the language, and to Hellenise, not to translate.

Further Χ. Σ. will allow me to observe that Acts 13: 33, does not refer to Christ's resurrection from the dead, but to God's raising him up as Messiah in the flesh. See a similar statement in Acts 3: 22, 26, neither of which verses, where the same word occurs, refers to resurrection, whereas in Acts 13: 34, where the resurrection is meant, the Apostle adds εκ νεκρων.

I have no doubt accordingly that your Correspondent has overlooked the peculiarity of the phrase εξ αν. ν., and the impossibility of rendering it literally into English; that he has confounded it with the different phrases where there is no preposition εξ before αν. ν.; and that, in the two places where it really occurs, Christ's own resurrection from the dead is intended, not the resurrection of many saints as in Matt. 27: 52, nor our being raised up with him, as in Eph. 2. Clifton.

6_09_27 p. 387.

1 Peter 4: 11.  -  If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God. Vol. III. 343.

ENS is quite right in thinking that the Apostle's word goes far beyond speaking according to the Scriptures; for a man might say nothing but what was scriptural, and not speak ὡς λογια Θεου. The passage implies that, one should only speak when one has the certainty of uttering what we believe to be the mind of God. If there is not this confidence, one ought to be silent. It may be an artless message, possibly like that of Peter and John, displaying the speaker to be humanly ignorant and unlearned, and yet just the mind of God, suitable to the present need. This is to speak as oracles of God. Another might speak a word true in itself but applicable to wholly different  circumstances, warning where comfort was needed, instruction where the Spirit was rather calling out communion, or vice versa. To speak thus is not to speak as oracles of God. Of course, there is the other and equally imperative obligation, on the part of those who hear, of examining all by the Word of God. Clifton.

6_10_11 p. 401.

Romans 7: 4. Vol. III. 327, 367, 384.  -  It may be allowed to the Editor that, in the previous verses which speak of the matrimonial obligation, ceremonial and social laws are alluded to; but in illustration of what? Clearly the Christian's relation to the law as a whole. Death severs the marriage tie: after that, there is liberty to belong to another. Just so, Christians are dead to the law by the body of Christ, who has in life accomplished it, and in death silenced all its claims for such as had failed under it. Our position now is, that we belong to another, even to Christ risen from the dead. The fifth verse is clear and positive that the moral law is meant, for it was that especially which provoked the passions or motions of sins in our natural state. "But now we are delivered from the law, being dead to that wherein we were held," etc.

I do not deny that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in the Christian, that he walks in the love of God and of his neighbour, which is the fulfilling of the law; but then it is because he is under grace, and not under law. He is not as a servant under this and that stipulation for so much wages; he is set free in Christ's death and lives in Christ's life as risen from the dead  -  a condition of life which the law cannot touch, however it may fulfil the righteousness of the law, and far more: for we are called to be followers of God in a way which the law never demanded. The Lord grant all his own to understand better their own blessings in His grace, that so their communion may be deeper and more heavenly, and their walk in the same proportion.

6_10_11 p. 401/2.

2 Corinthians 5: 21.  -  The relation of Christ to saved sinners. Vol. III. 368.

Thoroughly acquiescing in the necessity for the editorial note at p. 306, I am of opinion that the sentiments of CENTURION (in No. 82) involve the gravest possible offence against sound doctrine, and that in reference to the foundation truth of Christ's person.

Some perhaps who are little used to the sleights of controversy, might be thrown off their guard by the writer's prefatory words, in which he describes himself as "stedfastly holding the most precious and most indispensable truth of the speckless purity of the Redeemer in his own essential person." But this is no more than the late Mr. Irving was in the habit of doing, when he gave utterance to his revolting blasphemy against our Lord. The same misuse of the Psalms appears in this article as Newman Street was, and I presume is, wont to hear. All hold that Christ became identified with the iniquities of his people, that He was made sin for us. The question is, in what way? Was it a common fallen nature, or a common relation of distance from God that He had with them by birth? Or was it that He the Holy One was not only without sins but without sin, and had all charged on Him on the cross? CENTURION speaks of such perversions as "a sober starting-point for a higher flight on 'wings as eagles;'" whereas, to my soul, they reduce the incarnate Word to a carcase whither these birds of prey gather together. There may be the shadow and semblance of higher truth; but, far from being the light of the sanctuary, it is rather the phosphorescence that plays around a corpse. Thus in his statement, as also in Irvingism, the atonement is openly, flagrantly denied. "Strictly speaking," says CENTURION, "it is not possible that there should be such a thing as vicarious atonement." Thus, "Christ suffered for sins," the just for the unjust "was delivered for our offences," etc. and all the ways in which God sets forth the substitution of Christ, go for nothing. "No being whatever, divine or human, can be the vicar to cancel by suffering the guilt of another being distinct from himself." Bold contradiction of the essence and substance of the cross! cloaked under the sophism of oneness. On what pretence of Scripture? "The soul that sinneth, 'it and no other must die.'" The very citation of such a text, with such an aim, is as bad a misapplication as can be; for this is a true principle of the law, and the real question is about the gospel. The death of the God-man for lost men was infinitely above the claims and direction of the law. It was the grace of God that bringeth salvation. Then follows the poor and untruthful pun of atonement  -  at-one-ment  -  which shows how far these views lead from God to the utter dishonour of the Son, not to speak of the darkness visible about the operations of the Spirit. For the writer speaks of the saints who lived before redemption as "retrospectively baptized!" i.e. by the Spirit. It is evident that the teaching of Scripture is not known. The disciples were quickened of the Spirit before Christ's ascension, and this is all that could be said of any previous Old Testament saints; some might be inspired by Him; none were baptized by Him. They were forgiven before God, no doubt, in virtue of a redemption which had to be accomplished; they had divine life by the effectual operation of the Holy Ghost. But no saints were or could be baptized of the Holy Ghost till He came down in virtue of the glorification of Jesus. It was an actual thing, when the Jewish distinctions were broken down, and could not be, in any sense, till the Cross.

Nor can there be more painful confusion than the latter part contains, as to the nature of union with Christ. Undoubtedly, the incarnation of Christ was absolutely needed in order to the full glorifying of God in His life and death. But oneness with Christ, or membership of His body, does not mean His taking our nature (though that is most true), but rather our being made one with Him as risen from the dead and glorified above. It is granted that Scripture treats our bodies as members of Christ; but how? Not that they are "one flesh" with Him in Heaven,  -  nay, in contrast with such carnal union, "he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit." Thus, Ephesians 5: 30, is utterly misunderstood, even if the last clause were certain. Next, John 17 is turned to an equally sad account. If Christ is lowered, we are exalted to God. This is from making "one in us" equivalent to one with us or, as CENTURION says, "with triune Deity." Hence the blessed and holy mystery of Christ and the Church, the head and the body, is made an engine for depreciating the Son to the level of sinners, for elevating the creature to the throne of the creator. "The throne of God, and nothing short of the throne of God, is the hope of his calling." The very reverse of this is taught in Scripture, the thrones being carefully distinguished. (See Rev. 3: 21)

6_10_11 p. 402.

2 Thessalonians, 2: 2. Vol. III. 360.  -  ΕΤΑ is quite right in distinguishing between the coming and the day of the Lord. They are not the same thing, though of course closely connected. Again, it is certain that ἐνεστηκεν means "is actually come," or "is present," and not "is at hand." But it is a mistake to assume that the Thessalonian  saints then knew the relative order of these two things; and this ignorance on all sides gave occasion for the false teachers to trouble them with the cry that, "the day of the Lord was there," which would have been trying enough, even with the thought of being caught up during or after it. This the Spirit meets by intimating that the coming precedes the day, which besides awaits a fuller development of evil.

6_10_11 p. 404.

Hebrews 6: 1, 2. Vol. III. 360.  -  The margin, I apprehend, gives the true as well as literal force, for first principles are of the highest value, and never to be abandoned. By "the word of the beginning of Christ" is meant such things as were known to the disciples during our Lord's earthly ministry, previous to the accomplishment of redemption, and the Lord's entrance on His heavenly priesthood; the doctrine of which last seems to be what is here designated "perfection."

6_10_25 p. 416.

There can be no legitimate doubt, I think, that την διασποραν των  Ἑλληνων means (abstract for concrete) the Jews dispersed among the Gentiles (lit. Greeks, as their most striking representative). The Greek genitive is capable of expressing many relations besides that of possession. Compare μετοικεσια βαβυλωνος (Matt. 1), etc. James 1: 1. means the twelve tribes scattered abroad, i.e. living in that condition. 1 Peter 1: 1, characterises the believing Jews in a similar way, and furnishes further example of the comprehensiveness of the genitive in Greek. The teaching of the Greeks, or Gentiles, is another step in John 7: 35.

6_10_25 p. 419.

Hebrews 4: 12. Vol. III. 310.  -  I think that, where distinguished as here, "soul" and" spirit" refer respectively to the seat or source of the feelings, and of the intelligence. Every man has both soul and spirit, and they are so linked and close that the Word of God alone can rightly divide between their sometimes conflicting emotions and judgments. It judges all, searches into the thoughts and intents of the heart." But then we have Christ as our high priest interceding for us, and maintaining us in spite of the sifting process, according to the value of His work.

6_11_08 p. 432.

Luke 22: 44. Vol. III. 309, 399.  -  I agree with Mr. STUART that ὡσει does not mean a mere appearance without reality. Perhaps F. L. W. will be convinced of this if he weigh ὡσει λεπιδες in St. Luke's account of Saul's conversion and baptism (Acts 9) He means that something of the appearance of scales fell from Saul's eyes, without raising a question of their reality, for indeed they were really there. So here. Further, as Bengel remarked, the force of the particle ὡσει falls upon the θρομβοι (clots) rather than on αἱματος, so that there is the less reason for disturbing the common belief.

6_11_22 p. 443.

Jeremiah 49: 39. Vol. III. 421.  -  I believe that the judgment of Elam, as of the other nations spoken of in this context, took place when Nebuchadnezzar succeeded, in the sovereignty of God, to the grant of universal empire. The return of her captivity, as of the others (save those formally and for special reasons excepted), will take place when the imperial system (symbolised by the image of Dan. 2) comes to a close under God's judgment. The fall of the last beast whom the Son of Man, coming in His everlasting kingdom, will publicly set aside, makes way for the re-appearance of the ten tribes of Israel as well as of most of those nations who anciently had to do with Israel.

6_11_22 p. 443.

Daniel 2: 35. Vol. III. 421.  -  I entirely agree with Mr.GIRDLESTONE that the ordinary way of accounting for the prophetic delineation in this verse is an evasion rather than an explanation. "The reason," says Dr. Fairbairn, in his recent volume on Prophecy, p. 300, "of admitting such an anomaly, and of conceiving of the other powers as still existing, was merely to bring out more distinctly the moral truth involved in this part of the delineation . . . . . It is throughout an ideal representation, formed so as to exhibit, in the most effective manner, the real tendencies and final issues of things; and, as a natural consequence, matters are compressed into a single act, which might be the product of ages, and events appear in close juxtaposition, which, in actual history, might stand ever so far apart." Now (1), while I admit this principle as applied to the figurative strains of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and other prophets, it has as yet to be shown that it is ever true in the case of symbolical visions, such as those of Daniel and the Apocalypse. (2). The explanation, in verse 45, states in substance the same thing as the dream. (3). Something equivalent appears in a totally distinct but analogous vision (Daniel 7: 12). I have no doubt, therefore, that Sir I. Newton's thought is the more correct of the two, and that the various peoples or countries which enjoyed the imperial power, before the fourth or Roman beast, will have their representatives when the final vengeance falls in its most aggravated form upon the closing apostacy of the Roman empire revived, but Antichristian. There is no need, however, that I see, for supposing that the remains which represent Babylon, Persia, and Greece in that day, will form one body corporate or empire. The statue does not prove that for the end, any more than for the beginning, in the days of Nebuchadnezzar; and the vision of the four separate beasts disproves it, as I think.

6_11_22 p. 445.

Matthew 27: 16, 17. Vol. III. 422.

Olshausen's statement, as quoted by J. H., is seriously incorrect; for, though it be true that not three only but five cursive manuscripts add the name of Ιησους to that of Barabbas, it is not the fact that Origen endorses this blunder, much less does he intimate that the greater number of MSS. had it. The ordinary text rests on the fullest and most satisfactory authority (A B D E F G H K L M S U Υ Δ, and the great mass of cursives, the Itala, Vulgate, Coptic, Sahidic, the Syriac, save that of Jerusalem, and in fact all other ancient versions except the Armenian). In the face of all this, Tischendorf in 1849 was hardy enough to follow the reading mentioned, not by Origen, but by his Latin interpreter in the words of Pilate, whereas Origen himself quotes the words, omitting the addition. It is well to say that Tischendorf no longer justifies, but excludes it from his new (7th) edition, and endeavours to account for its importation through a work of Jerome. It is possible that Olshausen may have confounded with Origen a scholium generally attributed to Anastasius, Bishop of Antioch, to the following effect: Παλαιοις πανυ αντιγραφοις εντυχων εὑρον και αυτον τον βαραββαν ιησουν λεγομενον. The addition is discarded as spurious by the editors in general, including Lachmann, who refers to some of his German friends, and affirms of this very statement, "Origenem agnoscere, mendacium est." Your Correspondent therefore may be assured that he has now before him almost all the evidence which is extant, and that the opinion in question has no solid grounds. Guernsey

6_11_22 p. 453.

The Weeping Willow. Vol. III. 407.

There is no doubt that this species of willow derives its technical name from the Babylon of the Euphrates, its native seat. It is common not there only but over a large part of China and northern Africa, besides Europe. Various stories are current as to its first introduction into England. Thus, it is said that Alexander Pope took a green with, which came round a parcel received from Spain by one of his friends, and that this grew into his far-famed willow at Twickenham. The "English Cyclopaedia" (Nat. Hist. vol. iv. 1856), treats it as probable that the botanist Tournefort introduced it into Europe.

6_12_06 p. 459.

1 Samuel 17: 55. Vol. III. 393, 429.  -  Leaving to others the task of refuting Dr. Kennicott's fallacious reasoning on this passage, which in my opinion has no solid basis whatever, I may be allowed to point out the positive spiritual value of that which he sought to get rid of. David, we are told, stood before Saul, and he (Saul) loved him greatly. (1 Sam. 16) And no wonder; for David's playing on the harp soothed the king when troubled by the spirit which God sent on him judicially. He loved him for the good and refreshment he received. This seems to have been of short duration; for in the next chapter (1 Sam. 17: 15) David is returned from Saul to feed his father's sheep at Bethlehem; and "out of sight out of mind," had to be proved as true in David's case as in many another who has stood in the court of a king, especially of one so disordered in mind and heart as King Saul. But this is not all. David now appears the forlorn hope of Israel in the immediate and public service of the Lord, not of the king; and that makes a man a stranger even to his brethren, and an alien to his mother's house, as the Lord knew pre-eminently. Such certainly David was to Saul and his courtiers. "Abner," says he, "whose son is this youth?" And Abner said, "As thy soul liveth, O King, I cannot tell." The chosen of God may have extorted the world's esteem, nay love, for what it cannot but admire and feel the need of; but they are soon forgotten, and their reappearance in the work of the Lord becomes the occasion of showing how little they were ever known. "Therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew Him not."

6_12_06 p. 467.

Greek Testaments. Vol. III 439.  -  In reply to Mr. COOMBE's inquiries I may be allowed to say that, in my opinion, the new (7th) edition of Tischendorfs "Novum Testamentum Graece" is, as a critical performance, decidedly preferable to any of its predecessors. I have not yet received more than the two first parts, which do not extend beyond the beginning of Mark 10: 21; but thus far the information is concisely, clearly, and withal fully given. The paper and typography are unexceptionable. One singular erratum I have noticed in Matt. 23: 39, where the text runs Εὐλογημένος ἐν ονόματι κυρίου. Of course the learned editor could not have intended to leave out the words ὁ ἐρχόμενος, as to which there is not the least doubt or discrepancy in the authorities; so that the omission can only be the slip of the author, or, more probable, the printer. The footnotes are drawn up with greater perspicuity and exactness. It is hard to see how they could be improved in either respect without swelling the book needlessly, which when complete will not cost a pound. Those who are best acquainted with the editions of Mill, Griesbach, Scholz, and Lachmann (not to speak of the Textus Rec., Knapp, Tittmann, Hahn, or the mere text-books of Oxford and Cambridge), will most appreciate the work now proceeding under the careful and experienced eye of the Leipsic Professor. I do not mean that people should commit themselves to this edition without using discrimination; for unhappily Dr. Tischendorf has suffered from the laxity as to inspiration which pervades almost all Lutheran divines. I do trust that he may be led to reconsider his previous judgment as to the end of Mark 16 and the beginning of John 8; for I have been struck with the fact, as far as I have observed, that he is becoming more cautious, and that the last edition recurs often to the common readings, which he had too rashly abandoned in his former issues.

I do not speak of editions of the Greek Testament which aim at exposition, such as Dr. Bloomfield's, Mr. Alford's, or the yet later work of Webster and Wilkinson. As to a just settlement of the text (which is the main object of a critical edition) I should be disposed to think their claims extremely small: as to soundness of comment, I should suppose that Mr. Alford's was the most suspicious, Messrs. Webster's and Wilkinson's the most trustworthy of the three works; although Dr. Bloomfield's book is conscientious. Guernsey, 1856.

6_12_06 p. 467/8.

Addresses In the Epistles. Vol. III. 391.  -  The reason for the introduction of "mercy" to Timothy and Titus, while St. Paul simply wishes grace and peace, in addressing Churches (Philemon, because of the Church in his house, coming under the last head), is plain. The Church, or corporate thing, is viewed in its full privileges; the individual, however favoured recalls the thought of need day by day: "mercy" therefore is appropriate in the latter case rather than in the former.

6_12_20 p. 485.

Colossians 1: 18. Vol. III. 310, 372.  -  I am persuaded that the more deeply Scripture is studied, the more important will be found to be the truth to which ΔΔΔ alludes; viz. that Christ only took the place of head of the Church, after redemption was effected, and in heavenly glory as its result, and that the formation of what the Bible calls His body demanded this as a basis, and the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven as the power of its unity. It must be borne in mind that, when Scripture speaks of the "one body," it is in reference to the earth. It is now, and on earth, that the saints are baptised by the Holy Ghost into one body, though I am far from believing that such a relationship will cease by and by in heaven. It is as first-born from the dead that Christ is the beginning, even though He was from everlasting the only-begotten Son, and the Eternal Life with the Father. Hence said He to Peter who had confessed Him to be the Son of  the living God, "upon this rock I will build my Church." It had not yet been built, nor begun  to be built. The foundation was not laid afterwards: it was laid in His death and resurrection. Then ascending to heaven, He became the head, and the Holy Ghost came down in person to gather into union with Him as so risen and ascended. This and this only is what the New Testament designates His body; for, according to the figure, there could not be a body without and before the head. The exceedingly precious mercies of God to all saints are unquestionable; and to some it may seem presumptuous to predicate peculiar privileges of those called since Pentecost. But, evidently, the question is one not of man's reasoning, nor of preconceived notions, but of God's Word and will. And it is plain that Ephesians and Colossians, not to speak of other Epistles, dwell much on certain blessings now conferred on the saints which never were enjoyed by nor promised to the Old Testament saints. They are the Church's blessings, brought out of God's treasury in this present dispensation, for the glory of Christ, and to show the riches of His own grace. The arguments of those who have assailed the point do not even touch the question, which they do not seem even to understand.

6_12_20 p. 485.

2 Timothy 1: 6. Vol. III. 423.  -  I apprehend that the common division of "gifts" (χαρισματα) into ordinary and extraordinary is unscriptural, and calculated to mislead; for in one sense, and that a very real one, all the gifts are the effects of χαρις, "freely given of God," and not attained by man's labour. Scripture recognises these things as quite distinct: first, the natural ability, with its providential training, as the vessel; secondly, the gift of grace, which is received in due time by the chosen vessel; and thirdly, the use of means (as prayer, the Word, meditation, hearing, etc.), that the gift be stirred up, and profiting appear. No doubt, the gifts which were signs have disappeared; but all needed for perpetuating, nourishing, and ruling the Church abide "till we all come," etc.

I do not think that there is any difficulty in the apostolic communication of a χαρισμα, when the Lord was so pleased. There was an express prophecy so directing it in Timothy's case. In general the New Testament shows that such a channel was not necessary, nor often employed, though it was sometimes, in the wisdom of God. The same remark applies not merely to the χαρισματα, but to the δωρεα of the Holy Ghost (i.e. the Holy Ghost himself given to believers in general). Occasionally this was associated with the imposition of apostolic hands, as in the case of Peter and John (Acts 8), and in Paul's case (Acts 19) But Acts 2, 10, etc. are decisive that it would be all error to suppose anything of the sort to be the invariable rule. Hence, while God by times attached either the one or the other to the apostles, He maintained His own sovereignty all the while; and certainly He has not failed either in giving the Holy Ghost, or in distributing such gifts as He sees fit to continue, and this directly, now that apostles are no longer found on earth. Rom. 1: 11, does not necessarily mean a ministerial gift. Guernsey.

6_12_31 p. 489.

GENESIS.  -  This first book of the Bible is the remarkable preface, as the Apocalypse is the equally striking conclusion, of the revelations of God. It presents the germ, in one form or another, of nearly all the ways of God and man, which we find separately developed in the succeeding books of Scripture, just as the Apocalypse is the natural close, presenting the ripened fruits even for eternity of all that had been sown from the first, the ultimate results of every intervening interference of God and of His enemy. Thus, we have in Genesis the creation of which man is chief (Gen. 1); the principles of moral relationship with God and His creatures (Gen. 2); the temptation of Satan and his judgment by the seed of the woman; sin against God and man (and especially against Christ in type), sacrifice and worship, the world, and the household of faith (Gen. 3, Gen. 4); the heavenly and the earthly testimonies to Christ's coming (Gen. 5); the apostacy of man (Gen. 6); God's warning by His spirit and judgment in the deluge, with the salvation of a spared remnant in the ark, and mercy to the creature (Gen. 7); reconciliation in its relation to the earth and not to man only (Gen. 8); God's covenant with creation (Gen. 9); government and the history of the present world in its early rise and progress (Gen. 10, Gen. 11); the call and promises of God, and the history of the called (12); the heavenly and earthly callings, (Gen. 13); the Melchizedec priesthood (Gen. 14); the Jewish portion unfolded and confirmed, with the disclosure of long oppression previously from those who are to be specially judged (Gen. 15); the typical introduction of the law or Hagar covenant (Gen. 16); and the intervention of God's grace sealed by circumcision, and displayed in the heir of promise (Gen. 17); whose further announcement is linked with the divine judgment about to fall once more, and with intercession as the due place of those who, outside the evil, enjoy communion with God (Gen. 18); salvation so as by fire out of the tribulation and judgment which swallow up the ungodly (Gen. 19); failure of the faithful in maintaining their real relationship before the world (Gen. 20); the son of promise is born, and the child of the law, according to the flesh, is cast out, followed by the world's submission instead of reproof (Gen. 21). Then follows the grand shadow of Christ's death, as the provision of the Father's love, and His resurrection (Gen. 22); the covenant form of blessing disappears (Gen. 23); and the calling of the bride for the risen bridegroom ensues (Gen. 24). Finally is seen the sovereign call of him, afterwards named Israel, who is identified with the sorrows, wanderings, and ultimate blessing of that people (Gen. 25  -  50); with the striking episode of his son Joseph, who is first rejected by his brethren after the flesh, and suffers yet more at the hands of the Gentiles; next is exalted (as yet unknown to his natural kindred) to the right-hand of the throne; and lastly is owned in glory by the very brethren who had rejected him, but now owe all to his wisdom and majesty and love. Genesis is at once a book of matchless simplicity to him who glides over its surface, and of infinite depth to him who searches into the deep things of God.

6_12_31 p. 497.

Hebrews 6: 19. Vol. III. 310, 386.  -  "The hope set before us" is the expectation of heavenly glory as secured and displayed in Christ exalted on high. Of course, the "hope" implies something yet to be done or manifested; though, being of God in Christ, it has not the smallest shade of uncertainty about it like what men call hope. This hope has present effects too, "by the which we draw nigh to God." (Compare Heb. 10: 23, which ought to be "hope" rather than "faith," as in the Authorised Version), as it ought to fill us with joy (Heb. 3: 6). It is clearly in the future alone that all will be realised, and therefore it is justly called "hope:" still the work being finished, and Christ having entered within the veil, our hope is said to penetrate there too. That is, besides being sure for us and stedfast in itself, it is heavenly as entering into the immediate presence of God on the basis of the precious blood of Christ. It counts upon God fulfilling all He has promised, according to the faithfulness which has raised up Christ from the dead (like Isaac in the type), and set Him in the atmosphere of unchangeable blessing inside the veil. As Abraham had his son given back as it were, and the promise confirmed by an oath, so have we our hopes confirmed in a yet more precious way in Christ glorified above, though still having "need of patience."

The Christian Annotator 1857.

(1854-58. Contributions by W. Kelly.)

The identifying code is the year, month, day, and page number of the contribution.

7_01_17 p. 8.

2 Corinthians 5: 9. Vol. III. 359, 401. — The discrepancy which appears in the English version of this text and Eph. 1: 6, does not exist in the Greek: for the latter speaks of the acceptance, in full grace, of the person  -  the former, of the desire that our service should be acceptable to Christ. "We may be well-pleasing (or acceptable) to Him" would be, I apprehend, more correct in point of doctrine, as well as in point of rendering.

7_01_17 p. 11.

Revelation 5: 9, 10. Vol. I. 324; III. 356. —  It is one of the special objects of the Revelation, as I judge, to disclose the position and intelligent worship of the heavenly saints, after they have been gathered to the Lord in the air, and previous to His epiphany, and this in connection with the intervening judgments set forth under the seals, trumpets, and vials. Another design is to show that even in those terrible days, "the end of the age," after the Church has been caught up to meet the Lord, God will not leave himself without witness, but will, by His Word and Spirit, commence a new work, suited to the times of special antichristian delusion. Daniel also (Dan. 7  -  12) makes known to us saints involved in these same trials, but they are, I think, Jewish saints exclusively. St. John was the appropriate instrument to reveal a larger company of holy sufferers, and that from the Gentiles, "out of every kindred," etc. The countless multitude seen in Rev. 7: 9 et seq. is out of all nations, but, as to time, restricted to "the great tribulation." This transition period, after the rapture of the Church, and before the millennium, is one of great moment, and very little understood.

[from] Bath.

7_01_17 p. 11/12.

Atonement. — Vol. III. 401, 467.

Dr. Charles Richardson, in his new Dictionary of the English Language (2 vols. 4to. Pickering, 1844), according to his usual principle of accepting the derivation as the basis of all deducible senses, explains the verb "ATONE, to be or cause to be at one. To be in unity or concord, in friendship or amity; to agree; to return or restore to favour; to reconcile, to satisfy, to propitiate. See ONE and ONEMENT." This is followed up by citations from old English authors, which prove beyond question that the usage of the word once corresponded with its etymology. Webster seems dubious; but the evidence is, to my mind, convincing.

It is clear, however, that the proper current value of a term must not be confounded with its probable ancient origin. The lineal descent of a word is one thing, its present form and use a totally different. Thus, Dr. R. (himself a rigid stickler for, a parent groundform, and this too often after the unhappy model of Mr. Horne Tooke) informs the uninitiated that amerce and merce are used by the older writers indifferently; that to be subject to the king's "grievous mercy" was to be subject to a heavy fine payable to the king; that the remission of this is now called his "mercy;" and that, consequently, the modern word is no contraction of the Latin misericordia, but a transfer from the line paid to the pardon granted, and the feeling which thus commutes or forgives. Now what confusion would it not be if people, in discussing Divine mercy in Eph. 2 or in Rom. 12, were to allow themselves to be carried away with antiquarian questions about the force of the word in an old statute of Henry VI. or in Piers Ploughman? To me such disquisitions seem not only foreign to the real question of a fundamental doctrine in the Bible, but are in principle no better than serious jesting, if the expression may be allowed. They are a similar fallacia equivocationis to that which is found in the common pun — an ambiguous riddle, as logicians say. Exactly so; it is unsound to draw from the mere root of the English word atonement "another Gospel which is not another;" for the question in THE CHRISTIAN ANNOTATOR is Atonement as a theological question, or rather as a truth of the Bible.

Now I deny that the Hebrew or Greek words, properly so translated, ever mean "to be at one-ment," to be or bring into concord. The true force is expiation, as rightly given even in the modern Jewish version of Dr. Benisch. And such is the actual (if not the old) meaning of the expression "atone for" in our language. How it came to acquire a force so remote from its alleged original composition, is an interesting inquiry for such as study the sources and changes of language; but it is outside a question of orthodoxy. It does not touch the point disputed, that is, whether atonement, in scripture doctrine, means at-onement? It ought to have been seen that, if the derivation of words could decide such a matter, we must look into the Hebrew and Greek originals. Now neither of these means to be at one: the Hebrew idea being, as I suppose, that of covering (i.e. sins); the Greek, that of appeasing or propitiating (i.e. God), or expiating sins. Loose statements may be found in old and modern writers on divinity: but the question is, What saith the Scripture?

In the Authorised Version, "atonement" occurs but once, and there mistakenly; for the Greek is καταλλαγη, and means there, as everywhere, "reconciliation" (so given in the margin). The proper word for "atonement" is ἰλασμος, with its kindred forms and compounds: it is translated "propitiation" in 1 John 2: 2; 1 John 4: 10. The interchange of these two expressions in our version of the Old and New Testament has given a convenient handle to Socinians, with whom it is a favourite statement, as I cite from one, that "Atonement always means, in the Bible, making two or more persons at one or agreed." My answer is, that, though the term is occasionally applied as a metaphor to human things, "atonement" never means there what Socinians say it always means. It is very often, for example, used of iniquities, where obviously such a term is no sense at all. The truth is that reconciliation is properly toward man, propitiation or atonement is toward God; and both are found by faith in the person and the work of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I solemnly denounce and object to the denial of the substitution of Jesus for us as a sacrifice for sin on the cross. This is what is now called the atonement, as it is the basis of the believer's reconciliation with God. I abhor the notion, which some would insinuate through the sophism of "at-one-ment," that Christ became one with us in fallen human nature. The union of the Christian and of the Church is with Christ in risen life, grounded on the putting away of our sins. Vitally united by the Holy Ghost, we can then say as true of ourselves what is said of Him who died for us and rose again. His incarnation, though indispensable as a means and step toward the grand end, is a wholly distinct truth from our union with Him.

7_01_31 p. 28/9.

Greek Testaments. Vol. IV. 15. — As Mr. COOMBE desires further information on a matter of such great moment to the Christian student, allow me to contribute a further mite. Much depends on the condition of, those for whose use the work is intended. For instance, "the head master" spoken of has found Webster and Wilkinson's book "suitable to the higher classes of a school and the ordinary run of undergraduates." Now every person of fair acquirements knows that this, however well adapted for the mass of youths at a university, is saying very little for the wants of such as desire to search more deeply. Indeed the same individual owns the absence of what is of interest and value to "the more advanced student." Again, as to exposition, I may observe that, though Messrs. Webster and Wilkinson may rarely say as to fundamental orthodoxy what is wrong or injurious, there is a total blank, if not worse, as regards the proper hope of the Christian and the Church, and consequently the views are erroneous on almost every question of prophetic and dispensational truth, i.e. on a very considerable part of the New Testament, not to speak of its connections with the Old Testament. Moreover, even as to the gospel of God's grace, (i.e. essential saving truth,) there is that meagreness which falls in with common popular Arminianism — the reverse of that "boldness" which the Holy Ghost loves and blesses. Nevertheless, though the text is merely a reprint of the Text. Rec. with few allusions to various readings in the notes, it is at least a comfort to find a new book of the kind free from the poisonous German influences which pervade most of the critical Greek Testaments that are issuing from the press. Mr. ALFORD'S, for instance, is a far more clever and brilliant performance, in spite of Professor TISCHENDORF'S too depreciatory criticism (in 1850) that it was hardly fit for schoolboys. I do agree with this remark, if applied morally; because, in my opinion, Mr. ALFORD'S system, laid down in his Prolegomena and carried out in many of his notes, undermines the proper claim of the New Testament to inspiration. He distinctly teaches that the occurrence of demonstrable historical mistakes "does not in any way affect the inspiration or the veracity of the evangelists!" (Vol. i. p. 17, London, 1849.) Now, to talk thus is simply to deceive oneself if not the reader. Evidently he cannot believe that inspiration means God speaking or writing by man, so as to convey His mind perfectly, though in human language and in the style of the individual employed. For, according to Mr. ALFORD, inspiration is quite compatible with human mistake, whether of Matthew, or Luke, or whomsoever. What misleads the unwary, is, that Mr. ALFORD sets forth much truth as well as error in his book, and persists in using the word "inspiration" when he has really forsaken the true and sound idea conveyed by it: just as a still bolder and far more misguided man, Mr. F. D. MAURICE, continues to speak of the atonement, resurrection, eternal punishment, etc. though in fact he has long abandoned their proper meaning. I have read Mr. ALFORD'S letter to the "Christian Examiner" for this month (Jan. 1857), but it has in no way relieved my mind, while his Prolegomena and notes remain unretracted.

I have also examined the recent publication of Dr. Christopher Wordsworth containing the four Gospels in Greek, with notes. His text is on the whole creditably drawn up, but he has not given such an apparatus criticus as to satisfy a careful scholar. The notes are derived chiefly from the early Fathers and from the theological literature of the Church of England — of course so far as the latter chimes in with the Editor's strong ecclesiastical views and his decided sacramentalism. A sample of the last will show how far Dr. Wordsworth's exposition can be trusted. On Matt. 22 he treats Augustine's view of the wedding garment as inadequate, contending that the parable represents the visible Church, and that therefore this garment must mean outward profession of the Christian faith, particularly in the sacrament of baptism as the germ. Hence he argues, (with a gravity which would be ludicrous, if it were not distressing, considering the subject,) that the question "Friend, how camest thou in hither, not having a wedding garment?" may be understood as specially addressed to those who, bearing the Christian name, etc. yet reject the sacraments! "And considering the title the Quakers have taken for themselves, that of 'Friends,' may we not be allowed to say that this question has a solemn and awful sense in reference to them?" May I not be allowed, in my turn, to regret that Dr. Wordsworth should have undertaken the task of scriptural interpretation, for which he is clearly incompetent?

[from] Guernsey.

P.S. Why does not Dr. Wordsworth proceed a little further, and press Matt. 11: 16, and above all Matt. 26: 50, into his service? What a crushing blow to the "Society" to find themselves identified with the traitor Judas? "Friend wherefore art thou come?" The same word εταιρος occurs in all three passages, a mere inspection of which is enough to expose this absurd misapplication. It is perhaps needless to add that I have  as little sympathy as Dr. Wordsworth with the Quakers as such, and with their sad and ignorant neglect of baptism and the Lord's Supper.

7_02_14 p. 37/8.

Romans 5:12-21. Though I cannot but dissent from those who consider this a difficult passage, it is plain that it is often misunderstood, as it is certainly momentous in its bearings.

First, I am of opinion that the parenthesis is rightly marked so as to help the sense, 13-17 inclusively being one of those full and instructive digressions so characteristic of St. Paul.

Next, be it observed, that the Apostle traces sin up to its source, beyond the Jew or the law. "By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." Sin was theirs through one; besides, all had sinned. It was not the law of which the Jews boasted which brought in sin; for it existed anterior to the Sinai covenant. And, though sin was not put to account, or imputed to man, in God's government of the world before the law, still death reigned, the proof and wages of sin, even over those who had not transgressed a known commandment like Adam (or like the Jews after the law was given). That is, while in the nature of things there might not be transgression between the two points of Adam and Moses, there was sin,* and God marked His sense of it, for death reigned. Now, if Adam were confessedly typical of the Messiah who was to come, should not the free gift be as the offence? For if by the offence of the one the many (the mass connected with him, who in this case were all mankind,) have died, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man Jesus Christ, has abounded unto the many. And shall not, as by one that sinned, be the gift? For the judgment was of one [thing] to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences to justification. For if by the offence of the one, death reigned by the one, much more shall those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness, reign in life by the one, Jesus Christ. This closes the parenthesis, nor could reasoning be more compressed in itself, or more conclusive to a few. For he, of all men, could not deny the sorrowful facts of Genesis, or the universal ruin entailed by Adam's sin. The principle then is conceded. From the beginning God had recognised something more than mere individualism. If the first and earthy man had sent down to all his family sin and death, why should not the second man, the Lord from heaven, transmit to His family righteousness and life? Verse 15 compares the persons or heads; verse 16 contrasts the things, or the judgment grounded on a single act with the state of accomplished righteousness (δικαιωμα) in spite of many offences; and verse 17 presents the crowning result, the evident propriety that, if by the offence of one death reigned, how much rather should the fist Adam's family reign in life through their glorious head.

{*In 1 John, 3: 4, the true force beyond a doubt is, "sin is lawlessness," and not merely "transgression of the law," which is a different phrase and idea. Man was corrupt and violent before the law. Under the law he despised and rebelled against the authority of God. Transgression is always sin, but sin is much more than transgression.}

Then, we have the general thread resumed with light and force derived from the parenthesis, and this in the most abstract way possible. "Therefore, then (in allusion to the intervening verses, but in direct reference to verse 12), as [it was] by one offence unto all men to condemnation; so also [is it] by one accomplished righteousness unto all to justification of life. For as by the disobedience of the one man the many have been constituted sinners, so also by the obedience of the one shall the many be constituted righteous." That is, verse 18 gives us the pure and simple tendency of Adam's offence on the one hand, and of Christ's righteousness on the other. The direction of the one, as of the other, was towards all men. But verse 19 adds the very important information that, whatever might be the scope of action in either case, the actual and definitive effect was a different matter. All men were not left in their ruin, nor were all, in result, delivered through Christ. Hence the change from παντες to οἱ πολλοι, for it is mere ignorance to take them as equipollent. In certain circumstances they may mean the same persons, but the terms are invariably distinct in themselves. Thus, in verse 18, where "all" occurs, we have the universal aspect of the act, whether of Adam or of Christ; but in verse 19, where the positive application is treated of we get "the many" who are in fact affected thereby.

But law did come: why it entered, and as it were, by the way, the apostle answers in verse 20. It was that (not sin, but,) "the offence might abound." God forbid that anything God gave should be said to create evil! Sin being already there, the law came to bring out its real character as directly violating God's command when he gives one. "But where sin abounded, grace has super-abounded, in order that, as sin has reigned in death, so also might grace reign, through righteousness, to eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord."

May I just say in closing, that the Authorised Version is clearly wrong in twice rendering εις παντας ανθρωπους "upon all men." In such a sentence it ought to be, "unto or towards all men." The distinction of εις and επι strikingly appears in Rom. 3: 22; where we have, first, the universal tendency of God's righteousness, by faith, of Jesus Christ, and then, the actual application of it to all those who believe. This is accurately given in our Bible, "unto all," the first and general presentation, putting all under responsibility; and then, "upon all them that believe," the special portion of all such as believe. To any who desire to understand the Epistle to the Romans, I would strongly recommend a version published by Gregg, and the admirable exposition of it, which is the opening article of the Present Testimony," part 35, just issued by Groombridge. Guernsey.

7_02_28 p. 59.

The Church. Vol. IV. 15. — The Holy Ghost, in the Old Testament, brings before us either individual saints or a nation as the objects of God's favour and counsels. It is of that nation (Israel) that the Spirit uses the term "congregation" in the Old Testament, which our translators have given as the "church in the wilderness," in Acts 7: 38. But Bishop Pearson admits, as indeed every fair man must, that this is a quite distinct thing from what is called "the Church of God," etc. in the New Testament. For the Epistle to the Ephesians, with great fulness, shows that the body of Christ, God's Church, is founded on the abolition of the distinction between Jew and Gentile, and therefore could not be till the cross broke down the middle wall of partition. Nor could believing Jew and Gentile be builded together for an habitation of God, till the Spirit came down in a fuller way than before, as the fruit of Christ's victory and ascension on high, where He took the new place of Head of the Church (not merely of King in Zion). Does not F. L. W. understand that this was an entirely novel work of God, and that Scripture gives to this new assembly of believing Jews and Gentiles (bonded together by the Holy Ghost, sent down from heaven in the name of Jesus) the name of "the Church of God?" It is not merely that the term "Church of God" is never, in the sense now spoken of, applied to the Old Testament saints; but the state of things could not be before Christ's death and resurrection as the basis, and the Holy Spirit's personal presence (not influence, gifts, etc. merely) as the power of this unity. It is founded on Christ exalted in heaven, after having accomplished redemption; and it is formed by that operation of the Spirit which not only quickens but unites Jewish and Gentile saints now to Christ in heaven and to each other on earth as one body.

Now, indubitably such was not the case in the wilderness, nor in the promised land: Jew and Gentile, whether believing or not, were rigorously severed by Divine command, and the saints were sustained by a promised Messiah, instead of resting on the accomplished work of the Saviour. Life of course, Divine life, they had through faith, else they would not have been saints. But there was no such thing as union with a glorified head in heaven. Nay, it did not exist even when our Lord was upon earth. The disciples had faith and life, but they were forbidden to go to the Gentiles, instead of being united to them, till Christ rose from the dead. But the moment the Spirit came down, consequent on Christ's exaltation above, the various tongues proclaimed God's grace to the Gentiles as well as Jews; and for the first time we read of "the Church," in the full and proper sense, as now subsisting on earth. (See Acts 2) Christ had now begun to fulfil His promise, "Upon this rock I will build my Church." How could this mean the old assembly which fell in the wilderness? It was a new and future building, as I hope F. L. W. will feel. I am surprised that he should say the quotations made (Vol. III. p. 149) on Eph. 4: 4, have never been answered, seeing that they were answered carefully, though briefly, in p. 178. I am not aware of a single point evaded, as indeed there was no temptation; for the truth on this subject is to me clear and certain, though I do not expect to convince every one. What I have remarked in this paper spares me the need of replying to what is urged now, which is altogether beside the mark. The only thing of the least shadow of weight is Acts 7: 38, which has been fully explained (1 Cor. 10), and proves that Israel was typical of us. How does that show that they and we form "one body?" Christ was the Lamb foreordained before the foundation of the world (not slain from it). How does that prove that believing Jew and Gentile formed one body of old, as unquestionably they do now?

7_03_14 p. 71.

Daniel 9: 27. Vol. IV. 13. — I believe that it is impossible legitimately to connect the death of the Messiah with the covenant confirmed with the mass, or many, for one week (i.e. 7 years) in this passage; and that for several reasons. First, the Messiah was already regarded as "cut off" at the close of a previous division of the weeks, viz. after the first 7 + 62 = 69 weeks = 483 years. Secondly, the disastrous end of the city and the sanctuary is supposed to have come before the seventieth week begins. (Compare the conclusion of verse 26.) After the Messiah was cut off and before the last week, it will be noticed by the careful reader that there is an interval of indefinite length, filled up by the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and a course of war and desolation which is not yet terminated. Thirdly, after all this, comes the last or seventieth week, which has to do with Antichrist as clearly as the first 69 weeks bring us down to Christ's death, the interruption of the chain being left room for, and supplied in the latter part of verse 26. Fourthly, it is clear that when the Messiah has been cut off, another personage is spoken of as "the prince that shall come," whom it is absurd to confound with the Messiah, because it is His people who ravage the Jewish city and sanctuary: that is, it is a Roman prince, and not the promised Head of Israel. Fifthly, as this future prince of the Romans is the last person spoken of, it is most natural, unless adequate reasons appear to the contrary, to consider that verse 27 refers to him, and not to the slain Messiah: "and he shall confirm covenant" (not "the" covenant, as the margin shows). Sixthly, this is remarkably strengthened by the time for which the covenant is made, namely, for seven years, which has, in my opinion, no sense if applied to anything founded on the Lord's death, but exactly coincides with the two periods of 1,260 days (Rev. 11) and 42 months (Rev. 13), during which the Roman beast acts variously in the Apocalypse. Seventhly, it is yet more fortified by the additional fact that, when half the time of this covenant expires, "He shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease," just as might be gathered from Rev. 11 and other Scriptures.

7_03_14 p. 71/2.

Matthew 13. Vol. IV. 14. — The connection between these several parables is asked. It will be observed that they are in all seven, the number of spiritual completeness in good or evil. (See Leviticus and the Revelation passim.) Next, it is manifest that the first differs from the rest, inasmuch as it is not a likeness of the kingdom of heaven, which the following six are. Further, of these six, three were said (besides the "sower") to the multitude outside, as well as the disciples; the last three to the disciples alone within the house. All this bears upon the true interpretation, not as deciding, but as confirming it. For the first parable is evidently general, if it do not particularly refer to our Lord's personal ministry on earth, before the kingdom of heaven was introduced by His ascension. It is not here the heir sent to receive the fruit of the vineyard; Jesus is "a sower;" and his sowing is hindered and opposed by the world, the flesh, and the devil, is we find in the explanation (verses 19-22), though a portion of the seed takes root in good ground.

The three public comparisons of the kingdom of heaven follow — the wheat and tare field, the mustard seed, and the leaven. The sower here is still the Son of Man, but it is His work from heaven (just as in Mark 16: 20; Eph. 2: 17). It is the kingdom of Christ when rejected by the Jews — of Christ absent, not present in visible power and glory. It is the kingdom of heaven on earth, entrusted to servants who, alas! are soon asleep, and the devil sows his wicked children in the midst of the true children of the kingdom. The general teaching then, is, that the new dispensation, as far as man's responsibility was concerned, would see ruin introduced by the enemy, which nothing could remedy but the judgment executed at the end of the age. But this is not all. Christendom would grow from a diminutive beginning into "a tree," emblematic of a towering earthly power, which would even shelter the instruments of Satan. (Compare verses 4 and 19 with 32.) Nor this only: for a system of doctrine, nominally at least Christian, should spread over a certain defined mass, till the whole was leavened. Whether this mixture, this worldly aggrandizement, this propagation of, not life or truth, but profession, such as it was, was of the Lord or His enemy, must be gathered not merely from hints here, but from Scripture generally.

Then, upon the dismission of the multitude, the Lord explains the chief of the first three similitudes of the kingdom, and adds three more, which develop not its external appearances, but its internal aspects to the spiritual man. Treasure hid in the field, the pearl, and the drag-net comprehend their further instructions. Christ buys the field for the sake of the treasure, His own that He loved in the world. This, nevertheless, did not fully tell out either His love or their beauty in His eyes. Therefore, as it seems to me, the parable of the pearl follows — "one pearl of great price," the unity and the peerless charms of the Church in the Lord's eyes, for which he gave up "all that He had," as Messiah here below — yea, life itself. The net evidently presents the closing circumstances of the kingdom, as to which I would briefly call attention to two facts often confounded, that the fishermen gather the good into vessels, casting the bad away, while the angels at the consummation sever the wicked from among the just. Our part is to take forth the precious from the vile; theirs to separate the vile from the precious.

[from] Guernsey.

7_03_28 p. 87.

THE HEAVENLY CALLING. — Hebrews 3.

It is of no small moment to bear in mind that, while the "heavenly calling," as a developed

system, depends on the ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ into heaven, the faith of Old Testament believers was far in advance of their calling and circumstances. Thus, the Lord called Abram from his country and kindred and father's house to a land that He would show him; and it was certainly by faith that be obeyed and went out, not knowing whither he went. But Heb. 11: 9, shows us the further action of faith; for when he got to the land he sojourned in it as in a strange country, because a ray of the distant heavenly glory had dawned on his soul. "He looked for a city which hath foundations," etc. Thus he and the other patriarchs died, as they lived, in faith, not in actual possession. Nevertheless, such strangership as this neither amounts to nor implies the "heavenly calling." Doubtless, the "heavenly calling" now produces and enjoins strangership also; but this in no way proves that itself was published and enjoyed of old.

For the "heavenly calling," brought before us in Hebrews, grew out of the position of the Lord as having appeared, and when He had by himself purged our sins, as having sat down on the right-hand of the Majesty on high. Hence the earthly tabernacle and the rest in the land, and the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices entirely disappear, for the partakers of the heavenly calling who are addressed in the epistle. This state of things was not true either of the fathers or the children of Israel. Their hope was intimately bound up with the land (no doubt, under the Messiah and a glorified condition, but still their land and people as the medium of blessing for all others); but the "heavenly calling" was not revealed, nor could be till He came whose rejection led to it and whose redemption and consequent glorification in heaven became its basis. Hence Abram had his earthly altar. Hence he sacrificed, as did his descendants, in due season, of the flock, or the herd, or the appointed clean birds. Then comes the worldly sanctuary and its most instructive furniture and rites, that spoke of better things looming in the future. Nobody that I know disputes that individual saints saw beyond these shadows, dimly perhaps but really, to a coming Saviour and a heavenly country. Still the land to which the patriarchs were called was an earthly land, and the entire polity of Israel was that of a nation governed under the eye of a God who displayed himself on earth in their midst — in contrast with "the heavenly calling," of which not the less it furnished striking types, mutatis mutandis. Accordingly, in Heb. 11, after having traced the precious individual traits of the Spirit in the Old Testament saints, not only from Abraham but from Abel downwards, we are guarded against the error that would merge all in one lump, by the incidental statement of the last verse (See also Heb. 12: 23). The elders have not received the promise; they are waiting till the resurrection for that. Meanwhile God has provided unforeseen some better thing for us. He has given us not promise only but accomplishment in Christ. He has made us worshippers once purged, having no more conscience of sins. He calls us boldly to enter into the holiest by a new and living way consecrated for us. None of these things could be so predicated of them, and yet these things are but a part of the heavenly calling. Truly, then, has God provided some better thing, for us, even if we only look at what is now made known through the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. It is also true that they without us shall not be made perfect. They and we shall enter on our respective portion in resurrection glory at the coming of Christ. Meanwhile we have no earthly calling, nothing but an heavenly one.

So far is it from being true that the early ecclesiastical writers erred by distinguishing too sharply between the dispensations, that their main characteristic is Judaising the Church by denying the real differences. Jerome did this no less than others, even to the confounding of Christ's ministry with Jewish priesthood.

7_04_11 p. 101.

VERACITY OF SCRIPTURE — THE POOL OF BETHESDA.

Permit me to join with VIGILANS (Vol. IV. 53) in putting the unsuspecting reader on his guard. I had just closed the "Later Biblical Researches" of Dr. Robinson, recently published by Mr. Murray, when my eye fell on the warning note touching the earlier volumes of the same author. What will grave Christian men say, when I tell them that this American scholar and divine is bold enough to affirm that, in certain particulars in John 5 (the angelic troubling of the waters, and the cure of the first comer, whatever his disease,) "we have the unerring marks of a current popular belief; which the evangelist has chosen to make the basis of his representation"? And what follows is, if possible, worse. "The same was sometimes done by an authority higher than John." A footnote is subjoined to this effect: "See especially our Lord's parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, founded on the Jewish popular belief as to Hades and the state of the dead; Luke 16: 19, sq. Comp. Luke 23: 39, sq." Need I prove how fallacious it is to draw an argument as to an historical fact — so at least St. John states it — from the pictorial imagery of a parable? In the Lord's language to the converted thief I utterly deny that there is the smallest semblance of a popular legend. It is evident that Dr. Robinson denies any thing supernatural in the troubling of, and healing by, the pool. But, not content therewith, he appeals to our Lord's authority on two separate occasions, as if He sanctioned the principle and the practice of "pious frauds" no less than the Apostle John! If Dr. Robinson does not mean this, language and logic have lost their customary force: if he does, his imputation upon the Lord, and the Holy Ghost who inspired John, is hardly short of blasphemy. This is strong language, I know; but is there not the gravest cause? It is not charity but latitudinarianism to palliate such unworthy dealing with Christ and His Word, were it in an angel from heaven.

7_04_11 p. 108/9.

Greek Testaments. Vol. IV. 15, 57. — Professor TISCHENDORF's letter is so moderate as to call for few remarks. Textual critics have to beware of confounding their own private judgment about readings with God's authority in His Word. For instance, Professor TISCHENDORF'S seventh edition acknowledges much to be Scripture which his previous editions had hesitated about or discarded. Of course I am rejoiced at a change for the better; but, where such changing is habitual and extensive, it is impossible to reconcile it with the respect which is due to God's Word. It is not true that we have to choose only between the authority of Rome and the vacillations or the systems of particular critics. The Roman, Greek, and other churches have handed down certain writings as divinely inspired; they have not been as faithful keepers of' holy writ as became them; they have admitted, accredited, and perpetuated mutilations, additions, and blemishes. The critics have undertaken to separate the wheat from the chaff, and they as a body have failed as egregiously, and more daringly, than the churches of the West and East as to the sacred deposit. I do not therefore allow the force of the Professor's dilemma, because I believe not merely in Providence (not at, all in critical infallibility), but in the guidance of the Holy Ghost, who is not unfrequently forgotten, and especially, I must say, by editors. Few have followed in the path of that godly pioneer, Bengelius.

As to Mr. WILKINSON, I regret that he should have put so exaggerated a construction upon my opinion of his book. I in no way supposed, or meant to convey, that his confidence is not in the Lord Jesus Christ. But his "University Sermons," kindly forwarded to remove my impression, leaves no doubt on my mind that he does not understand the hope of the Christian and the Church as set forth in the New Testament. The very text (Phil. 1: 23) on which his discourse on hope founded shows this, and it is proved throughout by all that follows. I deny that our hope is to depart and to be with Christ. It is a blessed truth and comfort doubtless, but our hope is the exact converse: it is Christ's coming for us, that we, body, soul, and spirit, may be ever with Him. Scripture lays the utmost stress on the return and presence of the Lord as the proper hope of the Church. If we are unclothed and absent from the body, to join the Lord, it is far better; but till Christ comes, and whether here or in heaven, we have not our hope in possession, but wait for it. The "millennial earthly reign" is not the Church's hope any more than the disembodied state. Both views, I am persuaded, impair and obscure the truth; both are substitutions for the proper hope of the heavenly saints. Of course no Christian denies the Lord personally to be our hope; but the question at issue recurs — Does not God's Word uniformly present as the hope Christ's coming, and not our going individually in the separate state? If Mr. WILKINSON persists in regarding this as a mere "accident," or temporary mode and circumstance, my conviction is that such a reply justifies my accusation. The true and apostolic hope is not found, but another which is not another — a blessed spring of joy to the departing or anticipating spirit beyond question, but as truly an usurper, if it supersede the scriptural hope, as are the sacraments when Rome puts them in lieu of simple living faith for justifying a sinner. When we reject sacramentalism as false, they charge us with calumny, and maintain that they too hold justification by faith. But not more surely does the Romanist darken and virtually deny the justification of the ungodly by faith, than does Mr. WILKINSON'S system set aside our true and proper hope, by putting in its room the intermediate presence of departed saints with the Lord. I do not forget that it is an error which began early enough, and which is held alas! by the mass of professing and by many real Christians. But God's Word is so express that we owe it to Him to state boldly what we know is the truth, and what we know is not, especially if we are looking for the Saviour from heaven, as the scripturally proximate no less than proper hope of the Church.