Bible Treasury: Volume 14

Jacob showed that he was not profane like Esau. He made much of the divine promise and blessing; but, not resting on God for its accomplishment, he employed fleshly means to deceive Isaac.

God, when He takes the title of Father, does not lose His quality of righteousness. As God He acts righteously with regard to him in whom the flesh acts, not to condemn nor to cease loving. He cannot stop short of blessing, but He acts righteously, because He chastises every child that He owns. Because of this, we often bear the consequences of the action of the flesh.

Thus Jacob was obliged to quit his country and his family, to withdraw himself from the hatred of Esau. At his return the angels of God come before him; and when Jacob saw them, he called the place Mahanaim, that is, two hosts, or the hosts of God. Then he learns that Esau was coming to meet him with four hundred men, and he is afraid and greatly distressed. (Vers. 1-6.) Providences and visions do not take away terror, nor give confidence in God.

Jacob had not feared if he could have said with Elisha, “They that be with me are more than they that be with them.” What about Esau and his four hundred men? The flesh had still the upper hand in him, even when God had just furnished a support to his faith by sending His angels to him. Jacob arranges his plans, though not without prayer (vers. 7-12), and sends his presents (vers. 13-23) to appease his brother whom God had already appeased, since he was come in feelings of family love to meet Jacob. In his appeal to God he recalls His promises, for he had faith however feeble.

Whet Jacob was left alone (ver. 24), there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day; not Jacob with God, but God with Jacob. God wrestles with us: the flesh must be mortified. God can have no communion with the flesh. We have combats outward and inward in which we are conquerors by the faith that God gives us. (Hos. 12:4, 5.)

Every time that our heart truly rests on God, there is not wrestling, but victory. God, in undertaking to wrestle with us, strengthens us, without our being affrighted, to hold Him fast and not to let Him go. He would have us occupy ourselves with nothing less than Himself to bless us. (Vers. 25, 26.) Jacob is made to feel his weakness, he limps all his life. How many there are that remain thus halting all their days, preserving thus as it were a memorial that the flesh ought to have been humbled, even if there be also a memorial of the path of victory! For as a prince he is given to know that he has power with God and with men, and had prevailed. His name was to be no more Jacob, the supplanter, but Israel, a prince of God. But God did not reveal His name to Jacob, though he asked after it. (Ver. 27-29.) He was not allowed yet that communion in the revelation of El Shaddai that he afterward enjoyed. (Chap. 35) There was faith, but not fellowship; the blessing of God, but His name withheld. “Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after My name?”

What a difference between this scene in the checkered experience of Jacob, and the visit He paid to Abraham His friend in his peaceful tent of Mamre! (Gen. 18) No wrestling of God there, but Abraham pleaded; and if he pleaded with God, it was not for himself but for Sodom, or at least for the righteous in Sodom, and really too for the glory of God concerned in the judgment that was coming which he knew beforehand. “That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: shall not the Judge of air the earth do right?” “And the Lord went his way as soon as he had left communing with Abraham.” How beautifully simple! When He had done, He went His way.

Yet notwithstanding the great superiority of Abraham, notwithstanding all the miseries Jacob's unbelief brought on himself, we may remark, what has often had a notice and is worthy of it, that the weakest child of God is consciously greater than the greatest man of the world. When in presence of Pharaoh Jacob says, “Few and evil have the days of the years of my life been;” yet did he bless Pharaoh; and, as the apostle says, Without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. Be then encouraged ever to look to God, that you may find in Christ strength over the flesh in your nothingness. Never set flesh against flesh; but, distrusting self, confide simply and absolutely in Him.

The Declared Purpose and Present Moral Processes: 16. History of Faith

In glancing backward along the line which has marked the course of man from the, fall, it is evident how immense is the power of evil. Nothing surpasses it, save the patience of God that bears with it. From the expulsion of Adam from Eden to the cross of Christ, one word gives the character of each age of wickedness, as compared with the preceding—worse. Evil as nature is, does it account for all the perversity and rebellion which the Bible records? Nay, the flesh is not the sole reason. There is not one good thing in it, and therefore a most fitting means for Satan to show his enmity against God, which took the shape of hindering, if possible, the coming of the Seed of the woman, which was to bruise his head. This is the arch-foe, and man, haying become his captive, is a well-adapted instrument in Satan's hand to carry out his plans, Satan not more willing to tempt than man to be tempted—indeed, this antagonism of Satan against God is the key to the continued opposition of man to God. He was first the tempter, now the master, of man, and ever since he has tried to nullify the sentence pronounced upon him by God in the garden. When there were but two sons, he made one murder the other, as if he would destroy the race at the beginning. Who the Seed was, or when He might appear, Satan knew not; so he begins at once: Abel is killed—would God permit the murderer to live? Yea, though a special curse came upon him; men multiplied. His next great attempt was to contaminate the whole race, which of necessity caused the deluge. There was one righteous man found, and he became a fresh starting-point for the race. If the flood had cleansed the earth from the defilement of the antediluvian world, it did not change or purge the heart. The tide of iniquity still rushed onward. At Satan's suggestion, man, to exalt himself, began to build Babel. It was Satan's craft, that himself might be worshipped, and then, or soon after, the debasing slavery of Satan was seen in man making, and then worshipping, idols.

When God called out Abram, and separated him from his old associations, then Satan knew that the One who was to bruise his head would be in that line, for God had given Abraham the promise that in his seed the earth should be blessed. Hence the special effort of Satan was always against this race, and the nations outside are comparatively left alone, save that, as in Sodom, he took pleasure in stirring up the vilest abominations. Where God worked for the accomplishment of His purposes of grace, there Satan put forth his energy to hinder. No doubt he well knew the meaning of the promise made to Abraham. To corrupt the seed, he seduced Abraham to go down into Egypt, to tell a lie about his wife, and thus be brought Sarah into Pharaoh's house. He attempted this again, and for the third time tried it upon Isaac. God, in His watchful care, frustrated the aim of Satan. When he learns that Jacob is the chosen one, lie stirs up Esau with murderous resolve. It was his constant aim to make that people forfeit the promised blessing. This is seen in Dinah's case, first to mingle the chosen race with the idolatrous Gentile; then, that failing, to extirpate them by the Gentile's sword, through revenge for the treachery of Simeon and Levi. We know how God made them a means for greater blessing for Jacob, and Satan is again foiled in his purpose. When the family are in Egypt, he forms a master-plan to destroy them all. God overrules this, and makes it an immense step toward the accomplishment of His purpose. Satan attempts to crown all his previous efforts by causing the king to command all the male children to be cast into the river. “Let us deal wisely with them,” said the blinded king. It was very shortsighted wisdom on Pharaoh's part, to plan the destruction of a nation of laborers. How manifest that it was not even human policy! for by it he would impoverish his own nation. It was Satanic wisdom, his attempt to render abortive the declared purpose of God. It was a grand, consummately skilful device. If he could have succeeded then! There was only one reason why it did not, could not, succeed: Satan pitted himself against God, and, whatever the wisdom of Satan, or the folly of man, not one of the words of God can fail. God made Pharaoh's suicidal decree subservient to His will. His wise and controlling hand held both the motive and the action, and made the wickedness of man to praise Him. Satan blinded the king to his own interest, but Satan himself was blind, and, as always, his malice defeats his own end.

So, all through the subsequent history of the people, the hand of Satan is visible. When all was grace, they murmured; when under law, they were disobedient; when in the land, they worshipped the gods of the surrounding nations. They rejected God as their King, and they had one according to their desire. This is Matthew's second period, and is as marked by their perversity as the previous; for very soon ten tribes rebel, and refuse Rehoboam, and the kingdom, as such, is ruined. A remnant is preserved to the house of David, which exceed in iniquity those who had been carried away by the Assyrian, and they are carried to Babylon. Then begins Matthew's third period. At the appointed time a remnant returns, and a new aspect is given to their trial. This returned remnant sink deeper in iniquity, and thus prove that, after all the warning they have had, they have not learned righteousness. Tested in every way, under priest, under prophet, under king, as an independent nation, then as tributary to a Gentile, the only result is a deeper evil. No exhibition of patience, no expostulation of love, no difference of circumstances availed for them. As hypocrites, they were worse than idolaters; and we find them more and more guilty as we follow their course from the beginning—from the calf at Sinai to the cross on Calvary.

Was all this the outbursts of a rebellious nature merely? We know that there is no evil of which man is incapable, but there is more in this than the in subjection of man's will to God, or of his heart's enmity. It presents one consistent whole, from first to last, of Satan's opposition to God, and his effort to prevent the fulfillment of God's promise. Whatever differences are seen in the form of man's sin, the endeavor of Satan is uniform. Men, both ancient and modern, have ignorantly talked of the eternal battle between the principles of good and evil. In the East, their Ormuzd and Ahriman; in the West, the eternity of matter, which was so evil that the principle of good could not overcome it. A vain attempt to account for the evil they could not get rid of. That otherwise insoluble enigma to man is plainly resolved in the book of God. There we learn that there is not only a principle of evil; there is an evil one, the primary cause of every evil. And though he is allowed for a season to work his will, and apparently delay the purpose of God's mercy, it is but for a time, it is only apparently; for God uses Him and his enmity to fulfill His own word. In spite of the communication given to the Gentile that there was a God in heaven, notwithstanding the revelation to Israel that He was Governor of the earth, and, as such, blessing the righteous and judging the guilty, the whole world had sunk into the darkest ignorance. The true God was ignored, and, where outwardly owned as among the Jews, so much hypocrisy and sin were found, that their outward confession was worse than Gentile ignorance.

Such was man when the Lord Jesus came, the greatest and final test, which brings out in yet deeper shade man's incurable evil, and, more, his ineradicable hatred of God. This is the fourth epoch in Matthew's Gospel, and given in the first twelve chapters. It is the presentation of Messiah. Jesus, the King, is born in Bethlehem, and the kingdom announced. He came to His own, and they rejected Him—more guilty than the world that knew Him not. How awful the manner of His rejection! His holy Person scorned, His works of love and mercy, delivering from demoniacal possession, ascribed to Beelzebub! Their day closed, and the children of the kingdom were cast out. But there and then a new work commences, not a new form of trial—all trial is over. It would be an impeachment of God's righteousness if another trial took place after the slaying of His Son. There was no more sending to the husbandmen for the fruit of the vineyard when they had killed the Heir. Nothing now remained for these guilty men but the judgment forced from their own lips— “He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard to other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.” The effect of the Jews' rejection of their Lord was to open the door to admit strangers and foreigners. And this was the purpose of God, which is unassailable. If man will be evil, then God will use his evil for His own purpose. Redemption was God's purpose, but that man's evil should be used to be the cause of slaying Him, whose blood thus shed paid the ransom even for His murderers, is a display of divine wisdom which overwhelms the soul. The greatest crime that man committed provides the divine remedy for every crime for all sin, and opens the door for God's free grace to be preached to all men—not for the Jew only, but for the Gentile also, for the whole world. Hence the reason why Gentile and Jew are found united. Both are in arms against the Lord's Anointed. The nations rage, and the people imagine a vain thing. But there is more than the world becoming most guilty—the prince of it is also judged. He and the promised Seed had at last met; Satan is overcome, his prey taken from him, his well-barred house broken open by the stronger Man, and he is judged by and in that very act which he thought secured to him the eternal bondage of man.

If the difference between Jew and Gentile is lost in their common guilt, sovereign grace has provided a common salvation, where there is neither Jew nor Greek, but all are one in Christ Jesus. To Him all the past pointed, and now bears witness to Him. In Him every type meets, every shadow finds its substance. But in receiving Him, every believer receives more than the fullest type ever shadowed forth, for no type in the old economy ever intimated the fact that we should have the place of children. Now it is declared, To as many as received Him, to them gave He the right to become the children of God. On the unbelieving world sentence is pronounced, and the present time is but the interval between the sentence and the execution. God delays the execution, and His long-suffering is salvation. For now He is causing the dead to hear the quickening voice of the Son of God, and leading those that hear and live through this world on to a place of heavenly glory. Yet, not that those so quickened, and so led, are untested. Every branch is purged, every son is disciplined; then why, if possessed of life, are they tried? They are not tried to see whether they can obtain life, but to prove its reality, and that all found to be inconsistent with eternal life might be judged. And herein is manifest one of the great differences between law and grace—the process of law discovers the evil, that of grace is to put it away. So the gold is put into a crucible, not to see if it be gold, but to burn up the dross.

One great part of God's moral process with man is now ended; the result is, he is proved to be worthless, guilty, and therefore he is now condemned. Trial is over. There is an essential distinction between being under trial, and being condemned. Man's trial terminated in the cross; then sentence of condemnation was passed upon him; by the cross the condition of the natural man was fixed and determined. But it did more, for it cleared the arena for the full action of grace on God's part. So long as law was in force, and responsibility on that ground, grace was hindered. There were gracious dealings, there were tender mercies, but grace as the sole principle marking God's dealings could not be till law was set aside. It would have been unrighteous. Now God is righteous in setting law aside, in acting towards man solely on the principle of grace; and as law can in nowise answer to grace, it is set aside, and faith—divinely given—takes its place, as the only fitting response to the grace of God. That marvelous grace, which reaches down to the lowest and raises to the highest, and that faith which never sees but always believes, produces what the law never could—holiness. The law commanded it, and dealt death to the disobedient. The thunders of Sinai said, Do. The cross of Christ, in accents of infinite love, calls to all, Come, and to all coming gives life and power. In revealing Himself to man through the cross God proclaims Himself a Savior-God. After He has saved us, He makes us obedient. Where His grace unhinderedly acts, the result is the answer to His own heart. To display the riches of grace, to have an object of delight before Him, God called the church into being. No other creation can so declare the Savior-God as His church. It is creative power in a more wondrous way than Gen. 1 tells of: a body so united, that they are members one of another by the one Spirit, and each by the same Spirit a member of Christ; each one an heir of God, and joint-heir with Christ; and the whole is the habitation of God by the Spirit, who is both the bond of unity and the power of testimony. It was the purpose of God when our names were written in the book of life of the slain Lamb, that by the church the riches and the glory of His grace should be displayed to an admiring universe. When the new Jerusalem appears from heaven, what a sight will be presented to the eyes of the millennial nations! The most precious things that men value are the symbols used to describe its brightness and glory. There will be nothing like it in the whole universe, neither in heaven, nor on the earth.

Beside the calling and formation of the church of God, this present age has a dispensational aspect. The church itself is above and beyond all dispensation; but for man, the present time is the dispensation of faith in contrast with law. It was ushered in as the dispensation of the kingdom of heaven, heralded by the Baptist, proclaimed by the Lord; but when Christ was rejected, the dispensation of the kingdom of heaven changed its character, and became the dispensation of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven; that is, such a form as necessarily resulted from the rejection of Christ—no other aspect was possible. For when the Son of God humbled Himself to become a man, there was immediately a necessity that He should as risen Man have the kingdom. Even had there been no church formed, there must be space left for the gathering of true and obedient disciples, and therefore judgment is deferred until such are gathered; otherwise the purpose of God concerning Christ and the world would have been frustrated. God's decree had gone forth (Psa. 2), His King was set upon the holy hill of Zion, and not only Israel, but the heathen, were to be the King's inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth His possession. There will, of course, be judgment; but where would be the inheritance and the possession, if all were consumed, if there were no preserved remnant? And then, upon what principle are true disciples to be made, when the utter failure of law-works to make them such had been so clearly demonstrated The past failure, the present dominancy of iniquity, and the absence of the King, prove that only upon one principle could man be brought into the kingdom, and enjoy its blessings when manifested in power. That one principle is faith. Hence “the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven” suppose pre-eminently a dispensation of faith. The grace, the wisdom, and the power of God have so controlled the world in its sin and rebellion, as to provide both place and season where the energy and the endurance of faith may have free scope, and reap all the blessedness that God has indissolubly joined to it; and the Christian can now say, in face of every trial, and all suffering, “The lines have fallen to me in pleasant places, yea, I have a goodly heritage;” for now is the season of victory, and of such sort as is peculiar to the saints of the church; now is the special application of the promise, in its sevenfold character, to the overcomer. (Rev. 2; 3)

The inbringing of the present dispensation was a momentous change from the former, which demanded and sought for fruit. This present is marked by sowing seed. There is nothing in the ground, nothing can be had from it save the evidence of its own badness. Therefore the Lord Jesus sows good seed. He will put that in it which, if unhindered, will produce fruit unto God. But it is God giving, not man repaying. The parable of the sower is given in the three synoptical Gospels. It is the commencement of this age, so widely distinguished from the preceding. The dispensation of law was necessary to prove the hopeless condition of man, and to prepare the ground for the sowing of the good seed. It was as necessarily set aside when the gospel of grace was preached, and another—a dispensational necessity—resulted indirectly from grace, that man should be left seemingly to himself. Would he accept mercy, after having been proved hopelessly bad, and now under condemnation?

On Some Hindrances to the Interpretation of Scripture

The Bible is the only book that is not allowed to tell its own tale. No theories are too absurd, no doctrines too outrageous to plead the authority of its sacred pages. Given a pre-conceived notion, no matter how originated, perhaps through some unhappy warp of the mind, perhaps only the misunderstood tenet of another, and then to the Bible for authority and sanction, We need hardly say that the wrong consists not in regarding God's word as the sole and divine standard, but in perverting its words in order to build up false theories. If this were confined to fanatics and visionaries, it might be a waste of time to call attention to it. But it is peculiar to no ecclesiastical sect, to no class of persons. Some of the most lamentable illustrations of this deplorable evil might be found in people in other respects sober enough and not without reputation for piety. And on the other hand Christians less zealous, at least apparently, may be free from such vagaries in a general way through mistrust of themselves or merely common sense, which in the absence of spiritual discernment may perhaps exert a salutary negative influence.

Still it would be rash and unfounded in fact to pronounce any position or any one wholly free from this snare, even the most enlightened, as it would certainly be invidious to give instances of such a general danger. We have, in truth, each one's peculiar infirmities, and not the less because we may be able at the same time to see very clearly the failures of our neighbors. In sacred things, as in secular, men's minds tend to run in grooves, and the deeper their own rut, the less good they are fain to see in the tracks of other people. To use a less homely illustration, their infirm vision can see little else than that on which they are directly gazing. Thus it is that, when occupied with the interpretation of scripture, they leave out of consideration any special circumstances of time and place, people addressed, &c.; though one would think the rashness of such a procedure carried its own refutation. It is obvious that any book may be made to say anything when quoted with indifference to context. In natural things we would recommend the advantage of a cautious and reflective mind. But in divine matters, such as the right dividing of scripture, spiritual judgment is essential. It is the Spirit that searches the deep things of God. And the infallible securer of the Spirit's guidance is an eye single to Christ with self-judgment and humble prayer. But are we always sure that prayer precedes our conclusions? Does it not sometimes merely follow (if its aid be sought at all), and is not humility so ethereal that “it is gone if it but look upon itself,” as has been well said?

Sound intellectual habits, though (as we have hinted above) they may be salutary as a check, will not do us any positive good in the things of God—it is no question now of communicating to others, of which shortly—but they may at least lead us to pause, and will be good servants, if only servants. They may enable us to see the untenability, perhaps the grotesque untenability, of other people's opinions, and of our own too sometimes, though these indeed we sometimes cherish with unhappy fondness, just because our own rut is so deep. Of course it is natural and in one sense it is right that we should hold our religious convictions firmly, because in fact we do not hold them as mere opinions, but believe that, in very deed, we have the mind of Christ. If they are merely our opinions, the sooner we drop them, the better. But let us be very sure that we have the right interpretation, or at least a right interpretation, as scripture is many-sided. Nor with looking to God is this such a difficult matter. We have, true Christians have, the mind of Christ, and the wayfaring man though a fool may read. He may have no exquisitely keen perceptions, no delicately balanced judgment, and yet he may know God's mind about him if he only be simple enough. So may even a little child. Indeed the confiding nature of a child is the very attitude that becomes us in God's presence, and in searching His word. Thus shall we have the truth positively. We shall not halt in sad despairing skepticism, afraid to hold anything at all, because we see the woeful delusions of others before our eyes, delusions born of rash assumption, and due necessarily to insubjection of heart. For is it not a fact that views are hold arrived at by no spiritual discernment, but through some flaw of reasoning, some mental peculiarity, perhaps because some favorite teacher holds them, or simply because such is our pleasure? Then, of course, when the position is challenged, some text has to do duty.

It must nevertheless be borne in mind, that this handling of the Bible, to which we call attention, and to which, as we all know, no other book is subjected, is due to the fact that it is the Bible, and thus indirectly a homage. It is God's word, that word which He has “magnified above all his name.” The infidel who would subject it to his puny criticism, and the well-meaning Christian who tries to bolster up his delusive theories by sheltering them beneath its august sanction, alike pay it tribute, though that of the skeptic be involuntary. But even he feels its power. As one has said, “Men do not fight against straws, but against a sword whose edge is keen and felt.” The Christian man, who through insubjection to the Spirit of God theorizes on scripture, of course does not mean to fight against it. But he has not done with himself, he has still some confidence in his own powers, and if he be not kept back by natural modesty or natural skepticism, he will propound rare theories. We may acknowledge the paramount authority of God's word, but, we repeat, without humble dependence we may drift into any unknown sea of error. In the extreme case it is “wresting scripture to our own destruction.”

We have not been concerned so much with the exposition of the Bible for the edification of others. This is undoubtedly a different matter. The “several ability,” which is certainly not necessary to our having the “mind of Christ,” and feeding on the word for ourselves, still less in any devotion and meditation, is used by God in the function of ministry. To suppose it otherwise is to run in the teeth of facts, and savors of religious fanaticism. As radicalism is never so rampant as among the inexperienced who obey its promptings with characteristic fervor, it is also never so repulsive as in the things of God, on the principle of optimi corruptio pessima. Nay, ministry is a distinct gift, and the man who can enjoy the truth for himself is not necessarily able to expound it to others. Such are generally endowed with natural clearness of perception, as well as breadth of mind, and soundness of judgment. But such need, in even greater measure, that humility and prayerfulness, without which the most brilliant natural abilities are worse than useless.

In fine, men are apt to err in two antagonistic ways, the skeptical and the fanatical. For the latter this paper is specially intended. To the former the inadequacy of more human cleverness needs specially to be presented. But, unless we beware of both evils, pride of intellect and fanatical ignorance, we shall garner but little grain, in the whirl of barren chaff to which only we can liken the thoughts of men on the word of God.

The Enemy's Work: A Word in 1846, a Warning for 1882

This may be always remarked, that where there is a work of the enemy, even saints always fall into it if they do not treat it as such. It has power over the human heart, and where there is not in the soul the power of the Spirit to judge it as the positive mischief of the enemy (and so it will be judged where that power is), there the soul will fall into it, as if it were more perfect truth than what the Spirit teaches. See the early Judaizing of the church, traced and detected in the Epistles to the Galatians and Colossians, and elsewhere. And see in the Galatian churches how the saints fell into it. See the same thing in Popery.

And here I would explain a little further. It does not follow by any means that there are no truths held by those who fall into such a snare. Many important truths may be held by them. Nor is it to be thought for a moment that true saints of God are not liable to fall into these snares. On the contrary, what makes it important to consider them is that they affect the saints of God. Did they not, it might be sorrowful instruction, but no more: just as the awful darkness of heathenism, or the sorrowful condition of a poor unbelieving child of Israel. Nor does it follow (though it will generally have a legal tinge, because the flesh will in such case more or less resume its power) that many good works will not be done by those under it. They may abound. So that in saying that there has been a work of Satan, I am not saying there are not many very dear children of God; I am not saying that they do not hold many all-important fundamental truths as truths, nor that they may not be doing a great many good works. All this will be fully found in the system of Popery, for example, as it was in the Galatians, the earliest form perhaps of that amazing and deluding system.

But there is a further point which it is right to notice. Truly godly people may be the instruments of helping on a system which is truly Satan's. No one can doubt that Cyprian, who laid down his life for Christ's name, that Augustine, that Bernard, were godly men. Yet, though one opposed Rome episcopally, and the last declared Antichrist was risen there, no one can doubt that they helped on most eminently Satan's work in Popery. They did not perceive the bearing of certain points on the meaning and testimony of the Spirit of God.

Further, I do not call every evil I find a direct and positive work of Satan. Of course his hand is thorn. A saint I call a work of God, though Satan may mar it. Thus I believe there are serious defects and faults in the Establishment; but I believe it to have been a work of God, marred and spoiled by human considerations, which led those who framed it to adapt it to circumstances and to the then state of the population, and to introduce principles which lay it now open, perhaps to that work of Satan which is commonly called Puseyism. In that too itself, I dare say, several good men are laboring, because they do not by spiritual power discern Satan's craft, who has a lovely religion for the flesh, a religion fairer to men's judgment and loveliest natural feelings than God's, which acts entirely on the conscience, and gives all glory to Christ. So with Dissenters: I believe that was a work of God: with many defects, I judge, but still a work of God. And so of others. But Popery and Puseyism are the work of the enemy, though you may, and doubtless would, find many dear persons among them. Of course the degrees of evil or power may vary. I speak of its character and source merely.

Satan originates nothing. This is God's prerogative. The work of Satan is to mar and break down what God has wrought, when this is left, as an effect produced, to the responsibility of man. God created Adam. Satan spoiled the work through man's folly. There was but One whom he could not touch down here; in whom, having laid his defiling hand on all else as prince of this world, he could find nothing. He can originate nothing, but he can build up with vast sagacity an immense system, out of the corruption, suited to the evil which is in us; yea, and stamped with the character of the evil that is in us to which it is so suited. What would money be without avarice? or worldly power without ambition? or superstition without a natural principle of religiousness in the heart of man? Such a system may be a vast fact in the economy of divine government considered as a judgment, as Mohammedanism; or a subtler corruption, as Popery, pregnant with greater mischiefs, but where the enemy of souls has not been permitted to blot out in the same way the great facts of Christianity, as to the manner of the Divine existence and incarnation, nor the historical truths of the gospel; or it may be a marring where, in the main, truth abides; or it may be the ruin of some special testimony of God, as far as it goes.

A testimony of some special truth may decay, or be lost, or lose its power by becoming mere established orthodoxy; but I do not call this directly or properly a work of Satan. I call it a work of Satan when, blessing and testimony having been brought in by the blessed Spirit of God, a systematic effort is made, producing a regular system: an effort which takes up the truth whose power has decayed as to faith really carrying the soul out of the influence of present things, or some neglected truth generally, and, while it seems to adopt it as it stands in its basis as a fact, subverts and sets it aside: throwing the soul back on ground which is no longer a test of faith, though it be truth (for there Satan can adopt truth for a time), and bringing in apparent additional instruction, but really subversive of the power of what the Spirit taught, and making the authority of this teaching sectarian, or superstitious, or both, though they will not last together. I am not speaking here of Satan's work in open infidelity.

Now many may be quite unable to detect Satan working in this way. But there will be always enough, through the faithfulness of God, to guard souls really waiting on Him from falling in; or, if listened to, through grace to bring them out. But then it will be and must be judged as evil, not dealt with as a mere measure of better and worse.

There is a distinction which may yet be made.

There are two distinct characters of work which Satan does, which may nevertheless merge one in the other. Of those, however, one, if alone, will be ephemeral, the other lasting. First, where power is not the true power of the Spirit, so as to detect and judge Satan's imitation, there he can easily set up the imitation of power, and that even where there is a measure of true faith and owning of God; but subjection, intelligent subjection by the Spirit to the word as of the Spirit, is not found. Where this is connected with the establishment of arranged human authority, this latter may subsist, but the work itself is ephemeral. Such a work as this will probably be connected with some of the most right-feeling, if not right-judging, persons among Christiana, who have the strongest feelings of the decay which occasions it, but there will be generally shipwreck of the faith in some point or other. Yet it will afford exceeding difficulty to those who cannot discern the work of the enemy in the midst of this right feeling. I would instance as examples of this kind of evil work of the enemy, the Montanists, the Irvingites, and, in some respects, the Quakers, or Friends. As to these last, it is well known that what I now refer to has passed away, and that they remain among men a most quiet and, in many respects, most estimable body of persons. I speak of their early history. What remains is the authority that was settled among them, though with the old Friends very much defect in doctrine.

I have no doubt that this work began in a right feeling about the want of spiritual power. This may be easily seen in Dell's works. But no one who has read the remarkable history of George Fox, Naylor, and many of Penn's writings, or known much of the doctrines of Friends, can doubt the inroad of the enemy. I have added a few words on this, because it was a more mixed and ambiguous case; I would not pass it over, because it is one instructive to the church.

But there is another form of Satan's working.

In this, orthodox truth is in general maintained. Any pretension to the possession of spiritual power is based on church position, not on any particular manifestation of power, and thus seems to honor the institution of the church, and Christ in it. God is alleged to have set there, in that institution, the seat of blessing, and this also is an acknowledged truth, and the unity of the body of Christ is thereon connected with the institution. But the sovereign operation of the Spirit of God is set aside, and that which acts outside the actually formed institution is condemned as denying the authority of God's institution and schismatical sin. Thus the actual possessors of the power of the institution, in its then state, really take the place of God. His power is vested in them as far it acts on earth. Divine condemnation attaches to all who act independently of them. Direct dependence upon God is not allowable. And thus whatever puts individual faith to the test (for going with the crowd under authority does not) is condemned as self-will and presumption.

The system which so judges is alleged to maintain the unity of the church. This may exist in different degrees, and in different circumstances; but it always attaches divine authority, more or less, to official position, and thus puts man in the place of God by attaching His name to man. It is not spiritual energy in man putting souls through Christ in direct relation with God, with the Father. There spiritual affections are happy and blessed. It is man eclipsing God, getting between Him and the soul; not man revealing, nod, but the authority of God attached to man. Hence full love and grace will never be known. The Spirit of adoption and blessed assurance of salvation in the knowledge of Him will never be. It may survive such a system for a time, but it cannot be identified with such a system when matured. To be with God, while always rendering the soul submissive, must render it independent of man; that is, it asserts no rights, but when the need is, it says, “we ought to obey God rather than man.” The first of these works of Satan then is the pretense to the extraordinary operation of the Spirit. That is ephemeral. It is suited to the ill-directed but righteous cravings after that manifestation of spiritual power which was and is the only true source of living blessing on the earth, when that power has faded away. The other is the orderly establishment of men in the place of that power. This lasts. It is suited to unbelief, and in its full development always generates it. Montanism is passed. The spiritual pretensions of Irvingism are in fact passed; the system of men and ordinances set up by it abides. So practically among the Friends. This is common to both, as far as they go, that the manifestation of Christ in living power for the peace of souls, and the truth as to Him is weakened and set aside more or less. Orthodox truths may, as we have seen in one of the cases I have supposed, be maintained; but (as it is the work of the Holy Ghost alone to present Christ to the soul, so that it should be in the power of that living faith which sets the soul in blessed fellowship with the Father in true joy, leaving the impress of its own everlasting nature upon it, which the Holy Ghost can alone give, and the Holy Ghost alone maintain) the consequence is that such communion with Christ is lost, and the conscience ceases to be before God.

In the former of the cases I have supposed Christian truth is generally lost; that is, saving truths connected with the person of Christ, and error substituted on these points. The Spirit's alleged presence eclipses, instead of revealing, them. In the latter they are plausibly subverted in their effect on the soul rather than set aside; as justification by faith in the Popish system, where, while every orthodox truth is maintained, the love and work of God in Christ is, as to its efficacy, denied by it as a system as effectually as it could be by Socinianism itself. We are enabled in this case to speak of the full and awful maturity of this abiding corruption of the enemy. But those most conversant with history, and most spiritual, know how much spirituality it requires to detect its commencement and early growth; and that it sprang really from the best persons and most apparently godly principles that appear after the record of scripture; so that, though there were counteracting principles which Protestants can justly cite, yet full-grown Popery can quote the earliest fathers to establish in principle her claims, and support her pretensions. The blessed and perfect word of God reveals in one word this history: they began in the Spirit, and ended in the flesh. If you inquire who were the persons that laid the basis of this amazing evil, it will be found that it was those who insisted on good order and unity; yet it was not in the power of the Holy Ghost (God is not the author of confusion, but of order, in the churches), but in arrangements which attached to office the authority necessary to maintain it. There may have been fleshly workings which gave occasion to it; but the remedy was not spiritual acting on the conscience and affections of those astray, for this is what we see in the epistles, but the authoritative arrangement of order, because power was so much gone, and spiritual discernment to know it. Hence the effect produced by the power, the institution itself, the church as an ordered system (not the church as redeemed by Christ), became the object presented, and was made the guard as an institution, instead of being guarded by spiritual care. Hence, when the outward institution became the positive enemy of Christ and of His people, it retained its claims, and used its power as His.

Now, however subtly at first so that none scarce perceived it if any, we now know what a work of Satan this was. It has, so to speak, usurped the world.

I feel satisfied that, as to the principle of it, a similar work has been going on at Plymouth. It will be ever founded on practically setting aside the power of that truth which has been, in any given case, the gathering principle, and the testimony of God to the world.

I do not exactly expect that in itself every one could see through such a work; but, as I have already said, there are sufficient proofs always afforded of God to the single eye; there will not, and cannot be, to others.

I shall add here some of the points which seem to me to mark the presence and influence of the enemy in general.

The first sign of weakness is the gathering itself becoming the object of attention, instead of there being a people enjoying the blessedness of their position by the relationship and fellowship it gave them with Christ, who had become and was their abiding object, revealing withal God the Father. But I would speak with more detail, for this is rather the occasion of Satan's power than the fruit of it as a positive word. Where this last is, you will find holy spiritual affections broken and set aside to give place to the claim of the institution. And so are even natural affections; whilst the latter are given all their natural force and weight in practice to hold persons in the institution, and even largely used for this purpose. In the same manner people are won and brought under the influence that acts there by them. The activity and zeal will be for the system. It will be to make proselytes, and establish them in what will keep them there, not to save souls or lead them on in Christ. There will generally be a good deal of acting against or depreciation of others who even hold the faith of Christ.

Paramount importance will be attached to the views which distinguish that institution, not to what saves or to what brings faith to the test by the revelation of Christ.

Good works will be found generally much pressed, and that in a systematic way in which it works for and into the system. Truth, I mean truthfulness, will ever be wanting. This I have always found where the work of the enemy is.

Connected with this is the pressing much certain doctrines, when it is safe, which form the bond of the institution, and denying them in the alleged meaning, or explaining them away, when they are pressed on them by those who detect the evil. This any one conversant with the subject cannot but have noticed. The denial of the doctrine positively stated where the influence exists, as held in any such sense or its explanation, is the very thing that marks the power of evil. With this will be found the attributing to those who hold the truth every kind of doctrine they abhor, where there is influence enough to have their statements believed. Popery is the plain example of this.

Another mark, whatever the apparent devotedness, yea, and real devotedness sometimes, is that the spirit of the world is acquiesced in. The poor will be nursed as instruments, and the rich (and so the clever) flattered for, support. Another mark is the extreme difficulty of fixing them to any definite statement, save as they have power to enforce it; and then it is bound on others, and there is the sternest rejection of all who do not bow. Calumny of the saints, and of their doctrines, has been known from the testimony of the blessed Lord Himself onward. The influence of females and of money will be found also largely employed.

In cases of the second character of evil I have noticed, the combinations of a party will always be found.

There is another mark, often incomprehensible to one not under the influence, and that is an incapacity of conscience to discern right and wrong, an incapacity to see evil where even the mere natural conscience would discern and an upright conscience reject it at once. I speak of this incapacity in true saints. The truth is, the soul is not, where under this influence (for it may be upright in other things), at all in the presence of God, and sees everything in the light of the object which governs it; and, as to these things, the influence of the enemy has supplanted and taken the place of conscience. The moral marks will be found to attach to every case of evil power.

On Acts 1:1-11

As Luke’s narrative of our Lord Jesus was addressed to a Christian convert, so was its sequel which recounts the gift of the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, in His presence and operation, more especially in the leading apostles, first of the circumcision, then of the uncircumcision. But we have the ways and working of the Holy Spirit, not only with many others, but also in and with the assembly also: a truth of capital moment, though lost sight of practically to the deep dishonor of God, and the irreparable injury of the church itself.

It would seem that Theophilus had either ceased to hold a governorship (or whatever other public position—of a magisterial kind the inspired historian implies by the title “most excellent": cf. Acts 23:26; 24:3; 26:25, with Luke 1:3), or had become so matured in faith and so spiritual as to value title as little as position, though one could scarce conceive a faithful man abiding in it. Further, they are not to be heard of in old or modern times, who imagine the name to be a fictitious designation of those who love God. Not only does the comparison of the Gospel with the Acts point to a real Christian to whom the writer inscribes both, but the form of the word would in this case have been φιλόθεος, as in 2 Tim. 3:4, and not θεόφιλος.

“The first account I composed, O Theophilus, concerning all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which, having by the Holy Spirit charged the apostles whom he had chosen, he was taken up; to whom he also presented himself alive, after he had suffered, by many proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God. And being assembled with [them], he commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem but to await the promise of the Father, which [said he] ye heard of me. For John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit after not many days hence.” (Vers. 1-5.)

Such is the simple opening of this book, treating of the wonderful works of God in the new creation, which He would have to be testified in the old by a witness no less competent than His own Spirit. In the cross of the Son of man sin was judged by God, not yet on sinners, but in the one perfect Sacrifice, that God might righteously send forth good tidings of saving mercy to Jew and to Greek, alike ruined that they through faith might be alike saved. And now the Savior stood in resurrection life and power, first-fruits of them that are asleep, a life-giving Spirit to all that believe. As He had walked according to the Spirit of holiness in a world of sin during the days of His flesh, so now was He marked out Son of God in power according to that Spirit by resurrection, conqueror over Satan in death as in life, as He had also exhausted God's judgment in suffering for sin, that He might be the righteous Head of a new family who live of His life as He died for their sins. Thus does the Gospel of Luke lead into what is commonly though not correctly called “the Acts of the Apostles"; for it is rather the inspired narrative of the risen Lord working in the energy of the Holy Ghost sent down from on high and witnessing to Him there both in the assembly and in His servants, some of the apostles above all.

Even the Lord risen from the dead, though not yet “received up,” is seen here enjoining the apostles through the Holy Spirit. (Ver. 2.) It was not merely before He died; in the new estate of man beyond the grave we have the evidence of the same blessed power. The Holy Spirit acts in man risen. In Jesus we see this truth, as every other. It will be so with us when we are raised from the dead; we shall not lose that divine spring of power and joy when or because we enter the final state of man according to the counsels of God. It will be that which is perfect come, but the Holy Spirit will not therefore cease to act in us; rather will He form us for all the worship and service suitable for those glorified with Christ.

That Christ presented Himself alive after He had suffered was the great fact established “by many proofs” (ver. 3); and so it is the subject matter of testimony throughout the book, as it is the foundation truth of the gospel. The God of grace is the God of resurrection in Christ who suffered for sins once, Just for unjust. The apostles are false witnesses of God if He did not raise Him up; and He raised Him not up if no dead are raised; and if He has not been raised, our faith is vain; we are yet in our sins. But He has been raised from the dead, as surely as God is true, His word faithful; His grace and power are alike manifested not more in His chosen witnesses, than in the transforming effects of His testimony on others who believe, once children of disobedience and of wrath, His enemies. The charge was to the apostles from Him risen.

Nor was it only that He was seen by them, or appeared to them, by the space of forty days; He spoke also the things concerning the kingdom of God, as His servants preached afterward. This was no less true of the apostle to the Gentiles, as we may learn distinctly and to the end from chapters 20:25, 28, 31.

His command, when assembled with them, was not to depart from Jerusalem but to await the promise of the Father, the baptism in the Holy Spirit, not many days after that. (Vers. 4, 5.) It is of the deepest moment that this be understood: for many misapply the Spirit's baptism either to miraculous displays or to the new birth: and the more so, as without doubt He wrought largely in both these ways at Pentecost. But the reader has only to consider John 14-16 with care, to learn from God's word that it is not a question here of the great primary need of sinful man at all times to be born of the Spirit, still less of those gifts or “charisma” which were so abundantly distributed among those who confessed the Lord at that time, but of the immense and standing privilege of the church in the presence of the Holy Ghost sent down in person to abide with the saints and be in them. Him the rather gave to be with them forever; Him the Son sent to them from the Father. For this was contingent on the Son's going away: if He went not away, that other Advocate, the Spirit of truth, would not come. But, the work of reconciliation wrought, Jesus went on high and sent here below the Spirit. This would be the accomplishment of the Father's promise. The saints were then to be baptized in the Holy Spirit.

For the believer it is impossible to conceive anything of more commanding importance, whether in itself, for God's glory, for doctrinal truth or for practical value. Yet what was so soon or so generally forgotten? Without it Christ's place as Head of the church is unknown, and consequently the true relationship of the church as His body. Redemption is enfeebled, the new and heavenly place of the Christian is neither understood nor enjoyed, and the proper hope is leveled down to a Jewish expectation with its signs and dates, its troubles and fears. Still more directly does lack of faith as to the baptism of the Holy Ghost affect the walk and service of the individual, the joint worship and public action of the assembly. There is no surer sign, no more fatal means, of the ruin of the entire testimony to Christ than the blank ignorance, the utter exclusion, of this incomparable power and privilege for the Christian and the church, which now pervades Christendom, as it has done since apostolic times. Oh, what a mercy on God's part, what love on His own, what honor to Christ and His cross, that the Holy Spirit deigned to abide in all His truth to the church, if the church has been thus false to Him! The gift or baptism of the Holy Ghost was the promise of the Father, and the disciples heard it from the Son. John, the, greatest of mere men woman-born, baptized with water, the baptism of repentance; the Son of God but risen and ascended Man, the same is He that baptizeth in (or with) the Holy Spirit. None indeed could but a divine person; yet is it the One who became man to accomplish redemption and was received up in glory whence He sent the Spirit down.

“ They therefore being come together asked him, saying, Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not yours to know times or seasons which the Father set in his own authority. But ye shall receive power at the coming of the Holy Spirit upon you; and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth. And having said these things, as they looked, he was taken up, and a cloud withdrew him from their eyes. And while they were gazing into heaven as he went on, behold, two men stood by them in white garments, who also said, Men of Galilee, why stand ye looking into heaven? This Jesus that was taken up from you into heaven shall so come in the manner in which ye beheld him going into heaven.” (Vers. 6-11)

As in the Gospel (chap. 29:11, &c.) the Lord corrects the hasty expectations of the disciples: the kingdom was not immediately to appear. The passover was to be fulfilled in it when it would assume a different shape. (Chap. 22) The Christian form of the kingdom however is not here spoken of, because the question was about restoring it at that time to Israel. Now the Lord does not at all contradict such a restoration in its season, but the salvation of Israel and the restoration of the kingdom to the chosen people clearly belonged to the ways of God of which prophecy treats; and He lets them know that times and seasons the Father placed in His own authority. Another vista He opens out to them as that immediately before them. “But ye shall receive power at the coming of the Holy Spirit upon you; and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth.” These words explain the situation with divine precision and unspeakable grace. It was not yet to be the displayed kingdom which belongs to the age and world to come. Now it is a question of testimony in the power of the Holy Ghost, with whose mission and presence it is bound up. They were to be witnesses of Christ, not yet reigning with Him, but His witnesses, as rejected yet risen, despised of men, especially of the Jews and Jerusalem, but on the point of being exalted of God in heaven; and witnesses of Him—for all is of grace—both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth. Compare with this beginning of the Acts the end of Luke's Gospel, where the risen Savior commands that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. “And ye are witnesses of these things. And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be endued with power from on high.” It is not baptism here, but vital blessing, repentance unto life and remission of sins sealed with the Holy Ghost. All has its place, and propriety; but the better thing it was the lot of the beloved physician to indict under the inspiring energy of God, who was in honor of His Son's person and work giving life and liberty with the Spirit's seal to all that believe the gospel: its source the grace of God; its righteous foundation the cross of Christ; its character of life His resurrection; its formative object the heavenly glory; and its power the Holy Ghost sent down from above.

But the true outlook of hope is wanted to complete the circle of blessing. And this, at least as far as it is connected with the scope of this book (for there is a divinely perfect system in all scripture and in every distinct part), now follows, the hope of our Lord's return. “And having said these things, as they looked, he was taken up, and a cloud withdrew him from their eyes. And while they were gazing into heaven as he went on, behold, two men stood by them in white garments, who also said, Men of Galilee, why stand ye looking into heaven? This Jesus who was taken up from you into heaven shall so come in the manner in which ye beheld him going into heaven.” Doubtless it is His return for the kingdom to be established over all nations and tongues, for the times of the restitution of all things, and not specially to receive His own to Himself and present them in the Father's house. It is the more general aspect of His coming, and not the heavenly side. Still it is the personal object for the saints, the Lord coming again in person, as surely as the chosen witnesses saw Him taken up from them into heaven. This the disciples have let slip as a real living hope, not more to His dishonor and the grief of the Spirit than to their own immeasurable loss. For if faith be the more essential as men say, the true hope cannot be obscured, weakened, or destroyed, without proportionate injury, if we judge by the only true measure of God's glory in Christ. We fall into misleading hopes as soon as the truth ceases to be before the heart; and none is so false as to look for the gradual amelioration of that world or even of Christendom which must be judged in the day of the Lord, instead of waiting as pilgrims and strangers, the bride separate from the world, for Christ to come and fetch us to heaven for the marriage-supper of the Lamb. This is gracious and heavenly separateness to God, above the world's attractions and honors, outside its evils, and unmoved by its enmity. May it be more and more true of us in His grace!

On 1 Thessalonians 1

The coming of the Lord characterizes both these Epistles, which are the capital seat of that great truth. Of early date in the writings of the apostle, they bespeak simplicity, freshness and vigor in the saints addressed. They warmly, overflowingly, answer to their hearts in kindred tones, but so as to lead on and deepen them. Hence the informal manner, not didactic but practically interweaving that blessed hope with every topic, with every duty, with all sources or motives of joy and sorrow so as to imbue the inner man and outer ways of all the saints day by day.

Those of Thessalonica, it appears from Acts 17:6, 7, had from the first received strong impressions of the kingdom. But they needed instruction on that large and fruitful theme, which, like every other revealed truth, affords ample room not only for unintelligent mistake but also for baneful error. Both in time wrought among these saints; and as the first epistle supplied that which sprang from mere ignorance, the latter corrected what was unequivocally false and mischievous. In the two epistles the presence or coming of the Lord is carefully distinguished from the day of the Lord, their true characters set out distinctly, and their due relation to one another explained. The need for this is as urgent now as then; for though the error was then both recent and active, it is shown to be grounded in a certain preparedness of the heart for it, inasmuch as to this day there is the same propensity to stray similarly, and the same difficulty in appropriating the revelation of God. The commentators ancient and modern are dull in seizing the different sides of the truth as the Spirit has given them; and though it is only in our own day that the chief mistranslation (2 Thess. 2:2) has been set right, on all sides the truth which should have been cleared by the correction seems as little understood as ever. The course of things in Christendom, as in the old world before it assumed that new shape, indisposes the minds of those bound up with its interests to receive what is here taught. The coming of the Lord as a living and constant hope detaches the heart from everything as an object on earth: for He is coming, we know not how soon, but we do know, to receive us to Himself on high. As is the Heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly, and as this is the character in which Christ and the Christian stand correlatively, the hope exactly corresponds. It is independent of earthly events and is not a question of times or seasons. At a moment purposely unrevealed, that those who are His own might be truly and intelligently and always looking for Him, He will come for them that they may be with Him in His Father's house.

The day of the Lord, on the other hand, connects itself with earthly associations of a solemn kind, of which prophecy in the Old and the New Testaments alike speak; and this also has its Baited place in these epistles. It is indeed eminently adapted, as it is meant, to deal with the conscience; for that day will deal with the pride of man and the power of the world, with earthly religion and with lawlessness in every form. Further, it is a test in one sense for the affections, whether we do really love His appearing who will put down evil and establish all in order according to God.

But we turn to the apostle's words in their order and detail.

“Paul and Silvanus and Timotheus to the assembly of Thessalonians in God [the] Father and [the] Lord Jesus Christ: grace to you and peace.” (Ver. 1.)

Such is the inscription, with its own marked and beautifully suited peculiarities. On the one hand there is the marked absence of relative or indeed of any official place in the address of the apostle or the association of his companions, who are graciously introduced like himself without form. On the other hand the Thessalonian assembly is said, here and in the opening of the second epistle, to be “in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,” which is predicated of none other. What can harmonize so well with newborn saints, just delivered from the gods many and the lords many of heathenism, and brought into the conscious relationship of babes that know the Father? To us, Christians, there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him. But what an expression of tenderness and near relationship thus to speak of the assembly of Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ! How sweet for them to be thus addressed as even corporately set in the fellowship of such love and light! But such is the principle in the manifestation of the divine ways of grace. So even in the comforting strains of the Jewish prophet it is written, “He shall feed his flock like a shepherd, he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young.” Those who are most needy receive special care and consolation.

For the infant assembly so characterized it was enough to say the brief but pregnant words, “Grace to you and peace.” To others a fuller form was becoming, here needless because of what went before.

“ We thank God always for you all, making mention at our prayers, remembering without ceasing your work of faith and labor of love and patience of hope of our Lord Jesus Christ before our God and Father, knowing, brethren beloved by God, your election; because our gospel came not unto you in word only but also in power and in [the] Holy Spirit and in much assurance; even as ye know what we were among you for your sake. And ye became imitators of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much tribulation with joy of [the] Holy Spirit; so that ye became a pattern to all that believe in Macedonia and in Achaia. For from you hath sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but in every place your faith that is toward God hath gone out, so that we have no need to say anything. For they themselves report concerning us what sort of entrance we had unto you; and how ye turned unto God from idols to serve a living and true God, and to await his Son from the heavens whom he raised from the dead, Jesus that delivered us from the coming wrath.” (Vers. 8-10.)

The joy of the laborers' heart bursts forth in constant thanksgiving to God for them all, and this not vaguely but with special mention on the occasion of prayer. It answered to their joy who had so lately been brought out of darkness into the marvelous light of God; but it had the deep character of rising to the Blesser from the blessing, as the blessing itself savored of communion with that source of blessing. So had Paul wrought with God in Thessalonica, not merely with some of the Jews who wore persuaded and who consorted with him and Silas (or Silvanus), but especially with a great multitude of the devout Greeks: mighty and permanent work in no long time. Do we know such thanksgiving to God? Do we make like personal mention on like occasion? Do we unceasingly remember the fruit of the Spirit's blessing in the saints? We know what it is to pray for saints in sorrow, shame, danger, need: are we drawn out in joy before God at the working of His grace in those He has saved and gathered to the name of Jesus? Have not our hearts been straitened by the low and shattered and isolated circumstances of the once united saints? We are quick in putting out, cutting off, withdrawing, avoiding, and every form of repulsion; slow and powerless in the grace that sees and enjoys grace in others, that wins, helps, welcomes, or restores. Not so the apostle and his companions. Doubtless great grace is needed to appreciate little grace. It is Christ-like.

Granted, that here among the Thessalonians, especially when the first epistle was written, there was as much power of life as there was simplicity with lack of knowledge. The three great spiritual elements, of which we often hear in the New Testament and notably in the apostle's writings, were manifest and in the fervent vigor of the Holy Spirit: not only faith, but the “work of faith;” not love only but “labor of love;” and hope of our Lord Jesus Christ in its patience or enduring constancy. And as Christ is the object of faith which exercises the heart and fixes it on things unseen, so does His grace call forth love, and the hope cheers along the way, and so much the more when all is in the light of God, “before our God and Father.” He is our Father, and if babes we know Him as such (1 John 2:13); but He is God, and in our life, in our ways, we are before Him, and would servo Him acceptably with reverence and godly fear. He, before whom the new life in Christ is thus exercised by motives which have their spring and power in Christ, is the God who chose the Thessalonians in His grace to be His children beloved by Him, as thus attested to the consciences and affections of those that serve Him, “Knowing, brethren beloved by God, your election.” What practical proof of our election can there be to others but in the manifested power of the life we have in Christ, maintained as it can only be by seeking to have in everything a conscience without offense toward God and men? To gather evidence for ourselves out of it is mere self-righteousness, as well as the unbelief that slights God's testimony to Christ and His work, the effete theology of Christendom hastening on to divine judgment.

But God has ever wrought blessing by the revelation of Himself. Hence it is of faith that it may be according to grace, as the law works wrath; for where no law is, neither is there transgression. But the glad tidings as preached by Paul and those with him, “our gospel,” is the full testimony of what is in Christ for the lost. This had been brought home to the Thessalonians in the energy of the Holy Ghost. “Because our gospel came not unto you in word only but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance; even as ye know what we were among you for your sake.” (Ver. 5.) This young but devoted, persecuted yet happy, assembly was the living testimony to God and His Christ. The gospel had come not in word only but in power, and as it was in the Holy Spirit not fleshly display, so was it in much assurance. The word was spoken with all boldness and certainty by men whose ways were its bright and genuine reflection in love. This produced corresponding effects in those who received it. For Paul and his companions were not like such as seem incapable of appreciating the glory of Christ in the gospel as in the church who are never weary of crying up one part of the truth to the disparagement of another, as if all did not center in our Lord: short-sighted and mischievous souls, who overlook the simplest elements of truth in self-admiration, and a broker-like pressure on others of the value of their own wares. If all were teachers, where were the evangelists? If there were none to awaken, souls, where the sheep to be fed and tended?

The Thessalonians too bore the impress of the power which wrought on their hearts and consciences. “And ye became imitators of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much tribulation with joy of the Holy Spirit; so that ye became a pattern to all that believe in Macedonia and in Achaia.” (Vers. 6, 7.) They suffered bitterly for the truth which filled their hearts with joy; so Paul dying daily while he lived; so the Lord who died as no other, yet lived the perfect ensample and fullness of joy in God His Father with utter rejection here below.

How different those in Thessalonica from their brethren in Corinth who soon followed, who slighted the weightier matters of practical grace as they gloried in the showier displays of sign-gifts and external power. And what a difference in the moral testimony! Never do we hear of the Corinthians as a pattern to any that believed in Macedonia or in Achaia. Yet did the apostle's heart yearn in love over his later children in the faith, untoward and unruly as they were, that God's unspeakable gift of grace might produce suited if late fruit in them also.

Nor was this all: the world was full of the strange tidings, and this beyond all Greece where the believers were impressed with the zeal and moral power of the Thessalonian assembly. “For from you hath sounded out the word of the Lord, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but in every place your faith that is toward God hath gone out; so that we have no need to say anything.” Men were talking everywhere of the singular change and fact in that important entrepôt of trade which lay in the direct line between the West and the East. That a body of people should have abandoned their false gods, and be filled with the knowledge of the one true God in a joy which no sufferings could chill (as distinct from the Jews as from the heathen, and yet more distinguished in an all-absorbing life of faith, love, hope, never so seen there before), could not but strike minds so acute, speculative, and communicative as the Greek. The sound of it rang out like a trumpet's in all directions, not about miracles or tongues, but their faith Godward: surely a fine, admirable, and gracious testimony had gone out in the midst of idolaters. For it was wholly in contrast with the hard, proud legalism of the Jews, as decidedly as with the dark and indecent follies of the Gentile world. Indeed the effect was such that the apostle declares “we have no need to say anything.” Why preach that which the very world in a certain way preached? Preaching has for its aim to make known the unknown God and His Son, to rouse the slumberers, to gain the ear of the careless for God's good news. Here men's lips were full of this truly new thing in Thessalonica; and from this active center of commerce the report went out everywhere of a Macedonian assembly that renounced Zeus, Hera, Artemis, Apollo, and all the rest, without adopting circumcision or the institutions of Moses.

Nor was there anything vague or pretentious, but the sobriety of grace and truth. “For they themselves report concerning us what sort of entrance we had unto you; and how ye turned unto God from idols to serve a living and true God and to await his Son from the heavens whom he raised from the dead, Jesus that delivered us from the coming wrath.” (Vera. 9, 10.) It is a grand object of Satan to combine the world with God, to allow the flesh while pretending to the Spirit, and thus really to fall under his own delusions while professing Christ. The reverse of all this Babylonish confusion is seen in the sort of entrance the apostle had among the Thessalonians, and the complete break made for their souls from all that is opposed to God known in light and love. They turned unto God from their idols instead of christening them and mocking Him; they served not forms or doctrines or institutions, but a living and true God; and they awaited His Son from the heavens, not as an awful and dreaded Judge, but as their Deliverer from the coming wrath, whom He raised from the dead, the pledge of their justification and the pattern of the new life of which they lived to God in the faith of Him.

Revised New Testament: Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians

Chapter 1:1, we have “Christ Jesus” rightly: verse 2, a proper omission of “and Lord Jesus Christ” and in verse 8 of “and” — “God the Father,” &c. But the Revisers are capricious in their treatment of οὶ οὐρ., giving sometimes “heaven,” sometimes “the heavens.” The inspired writers use the two phrases with distinctness of purpose. Thus it is always in Matthew “the kingdom of the heavens,” but in the Revised Version, as in the Authorized Version, “of heaven;” and so with” your,” “our,” or “My Father which is in heaven,” whereas really it is “in the heavens.” Yet the evangelist uses the singular form in chapter 5:18, 34; 6:10, 20, 26; 8:20; 11:23, 25; 13:32; 14:19; 16:1, 2, 3 (if 2, 3 be genuine); 18:18 twice (19:21 being doubtful perhaps); 21:25 twice; 22:30; 23:22; 24:29, 30 twice, 35; 26:64; 28:2, 18. On the other hand, the Revisers rightly say “the heavens” in chapter 3:16, 17, but not (in addition to the phrases already referred to) in chapter 5:12; 16:19 twice, while again they give “the heavens” in chapter 24:29, yet the singular form wrongly in verses 31, 36. Similar caprice might be shown in Mark and Luke where both forms occur (for John's Gospel has only the singular), save that the Revisers in the Acts give the plural correctly in its two occurrences. In Ephesians they give the plural twice rightly, and twice as singular wrongly, as also in Phil. 3:20, the only occurrence there. In our Epistle, chapter 1, they give the plural three times accurately in verses 5, 16, 20 (in chap. 4:1 they adopt the singular variant), but not in 1 Thess. 1:10. In Hebrews they are right save in chapter xii. 23, 25, in both like the Authorized Version. In 1 Peter 1:4 they are wrong, in 2 Peter 3:5, 7, 10, 12, 13 right, in both again following the Authorized Version. In the Revelation there is but one plural occurrence, and the Authorized Version and Revised Version agree in reflecting it rightly. In verse 6 the Revisers follow the good authorities in giving “and increasing,” or “growing” which the Text. Rec. omits, and in dropping the expletive “also” in verse 7, where they adopt the absurd reading of many ancient and modern authorities, ἡμῶν, “our,” instead of ὑμῶν, their marginal alternative. Here however Westcott and Hort had not only Alford, Lachmann, Tregelles, to keep them in countenance, but the Elzevirian Text. Rec. of 1633. This however may have been a mere printer's error, like that of the copyists; for the first (1624) and the latter editions of the Elzevirs adhere to the reading of Erasmus, of the Complutensian, of Colinaeus, of Stephens, and of Beza; as it holds its ground rightly to this day. The ancient versions are unanimous in rejecting ἡμῶν; and no wonder: for the sense which would result from this reading is untrue, as it would seem that Epaphras, valued and faithful as he may have been, was in no sense “vice apostoli,” as says a Latin commentator contrary to all others, Greek or Latin, who allude to it. In verse 10 “increasing in” seems a questionable rendering. Is not “growing by” better, as the margin suggests for the last word? There is no doubt that “through his blood” should vanish from verse 14. It stands rightly in Eph. 1:7, whence probably it was introduced here. The person is the point here, not yet the work, which comes afterward in verses 20-22.— “In him” in verse 16 appears a bald or mystic expression. It was in His power or in virtue of Him that all things were created. To be in Christ, to walk or dwell in Him, is for believers as intelligible as it is blessed; but for the universe to be created in Him, what is the meaning? It is assumption to say that we are shut up to any such rendering. No doubt iv is more than But (the expression of the means or instrument) and supposes intrinsic ability. The next matter of weight for consideration is in verse 19, where the old fault of the Authorized Version reappears. There the excellent Tyndale led the way in error, Wiclif before and the Rhemish since being nearer the truth. The doctrine is as bad as the version, and derogatory to the Son as well as the Spirit in our epistle, and the very part where the prime object is to assert the glory of Christ in every way. For in Him all the fullness was well pleased to dwell, and through Him to reconcile all things unto itself, having made peace through the blood of His cross. The margin offers a less offensive rendering than the Revised text; but chapter 2:9 goes far to commend a version which needs no words to be supplied and wonderfully falls in with the grand aim of exalting Christ's person. In verse 25 the context suggests “complete” rather than “fulfill.” There was a blank left in the revelations of God; and the apostle, as minister not only of the gospel but of the assembly, was given to complete the word of God, who would now manifest to His saints the mystery hidden from the ages and from the generations. Such was the dispensation or stewardship of God given him toward the Gentiles. Compare Eph. 3— “Perfect” in verse 28, as in Phil. 3:15, means “full-grown,” as the Revisers, following the Authorized Version “of full age,” give in Heb. 5:14.

Chapter 2:3 does not exhibit a satisfactory text, though there are added and indefensible words in the text which the Authorized Version followed. It is very doubtful whether “and of Christ” should stand any more than “and of the Father,” the importance of which omission would be that the version would run “in which.” That is, all these treasures are in the mystery. Nor is there need for “so” in verse 6.” Of the sins” is an error in the common Greek text which the Revisers, with the critics, properly omit in verse 11. But are they not adventurous in following the few uncials and cursives, though supported by Greek and Latin ecclesiastics, which drop ἐν and give the force “through” in verse 13? In verse 15, dropping the interpolated copulative, they adhere to the literal or ordinary force of ἀπεκδυσάμενος, “having put off from himself,” with Alford and Ellicott, which results in an apparently fanciful meaning, which it is hard to believe intended by the Spirit of God. Every scholar knows that later usage employed middle forms where a middle sense cannot be recognized, though there is a distinction from the active voice. Hence even Winer does not accept the strict middle sense here, any more than Meyer or others, inclining to some such force as in the Authorized Version. If God be the subject throughout, the Latin application to the Lord's divesting Himself of the flesh or body is out of the question; and certainly the word is rarely if ever used absolutely or with such an ellipsis. Theodoret and Chrysostom are vague, but regard Christ as the subject. In verse 18 they drop the negative with several of our bolder modern critics, which would thus express the pretension of the mystics whom the apostle is exposing. Their version of the last clause in verse 28 is no less bold, though no doubt it suits the context if it were tenable. But does the preposition πρς ever convey the idea of counteraction or adverse aim save from the context, as from any word of fighting or the like, of which there is no trace here? If “against” therefore be improper in this connection, the force would be a warning against ascetic treatment, without a certain honor due to the vessel of the Holy Spirit, which is really for satisfaction of the flesh.

In chapter 3 there is happily but little to remark. The stronger and more accurate force we saw in Gal. 3 reappears in verse 11. But it is very questionable whether “Christ” is not changed for the worse in verse 13 into “Lord” as in A B Dp.m. F G, &c., Vulgate, &c. The Sinaitic reads “God;” the ordinary reading has ancient and extensive support, especially in versions and citations. But the Revisers, with all critics, on the best authority have the peace “of Christ” in verse 15. In the end of verse 16 they rightly give to “God,” and omit “and” in verse 17, as well as “own” in verse 18. In verse 22 it is rightly “the Lord,” not “God” as in the Authorized Version following the Received Text; and the copulative is dropt at the beginning of verse 23, and the causal conjunction before the final clause of verse 24. Of course the first verse of chapter iv. is properly connected with chapter 3 as its true close.

In the last chapter there is yet less to notice. Verse 8 is a plain instance where the influence of most of the oldest copies has misled editors and the Revisers. The Paris rescript and the mass of uncials and cursives and versions are confirmed in their reading as right by the end of verse 9 as well as the beginning of verse 7. In verse 10 it is properly “cousin.” In verse 12 they rightly supply “Jesus” omitted in Text. Rec. In verse 13 it is as in the best copies “labor,” not “zeal,” the manuscripts, differing singularly. The main question of verse 15 lies between “their” (à A C P, eight cursives, &c.) and “his” (D E F G K L and the mass with some ancient versions, &c.), “her” (though adopted by Lachmann who reads Νύμφαν, after the Vatican and very little more) being given in the Revisers' margin, and not “his,” which seems strange.

Revised New Testament: Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians

In this Epistle the critical changes are few.

In chapter 1:1 “from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” Origen expressly noted the words as not read in his day, though they are supported by the Sinaitic, Alexandrian, and many other good MSS and versions, &c. B F G and the best versions reject the words. There are slight corrections in verses 8 and 10.

In chapter 2:2 an expletive καί is expunged, as also γάρ in verse 9. There is an omission of καί supplied at the beginning of verse 13, as of ἰδίους in verse 15 and of “Christ” in verse 19. As to translation, is not verse 13 awkwardly rendered? Translate rather, “When ye received God's word of message (or report)—God's word heard—from us, ye accepted not men's word, but as it is truly God's word,” &c.

Chapter 3:2 brings before us a text variously found in the MSS. But if συνεργὸν τοῦ θεοῦ be read, as in the margin, “fellow-worker with God” will not do, for reasons already stated in discussing 1 Cor. 3, &c. It is not the thought at all, however pleasing to man's nature. God employs laborers as work-fellows; but He is no work-fellow of theirs. It is irreverent. In the text they read διάκονον “minister,” as the Vatican copy omits τοῦ θεοῦ, and thus either way the difficulty is avoided. But there is really none when the word is rendered, not as by mere scholarship, but in the knowledge of God. A few lesser points might be spoken of, but the chief is the exclusion of “Christ” which Text. Rec. introduced on insufficient grounds.

In chapter 4:1 there is a short clause omitted in Text. Rec. and Authorized Version which is here rightly given, “even as ye do walk.” The Revisers, I think, aptly render verse 4 “to possess himself of,” as also of course verse 6. In verse 8 it is “you,” not “us.” In verse 13 it is “we,” not “I” as in Text Rec. In verse 14 the margin is right, “through Jesus.” The peculiarity of the “shout” is left out in verse 16.

In chapter v. 3 the particle “for” disappears properly, as it should appear in verse 5. There is little else to note but the omission of ἁγίοις. “holy” in verse 27, where if we take MSS, versions and citations into account, external authority is rather evenly balanced. If it were a solitary expression in the Pauline epistles, this would not really weigh against its occurrence in his earliest, and in so solemn a connection. I doubt the wisdom or certainty of casting it out here. It occurs also in Heb. 3:1.

2 Thessalonians

The rendering of chapter 1:8 is correct, not that of the Authorized Version which overlooks the two articles in the Greek, expressive of two distinct classes of men with whom the day of the Lord is to deal: those that know not God (the nations or heathen); and those that, if they know Him after a sort, obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus (unbelieving Jews). The addition of “Christ” here is questionable; B D E G K L P, some thirty cursives, half the ancient versions, and many ancients who cite, being adverse. In verse 10 it should be “believed.” In verse 12 the weight of authority omits “Christ” at the beginning.

In chapter 2:1 “touching” or “in behalf of” the coming or presence of our Lord Jesus Christ seems to be founded on a misapprehension of the contextual requirement. Nobody doubts that either is a good rendering of the preposition in itself. But the connected language may modify, as well as the subject-matter; and all this has to be weighed. Was it not assumed by the Revisers, as in Alford's Commentary, that the coming of our Lord was the theme which he was about to explain to the Thessalonians? “It is most unnatural,” says the Dean in objection to the rendering of the Vulgate, Authorized Version and many ancient commentators, “that the apostle should thus conjure them by that, concerning which he was about to teach them.” This however is exactly opposed to the fact; for he is beseeching them ὑπὲρτῆς π. τ. κ. ἡ. Ἰ. Χ. κ. ἡ. ἐ. ἐ, ἀ. not to be quickly shaken by a false impression about the day of the Lord. This, not His presence, is the real subject in hand. They are so distinct, that the apostle entreats ὑπὲρ the one not to be troubled about a wrong view of the other. It is the confusion of the two which led to the wrong rendering, as it also forbids the right understanding of the argument and of the truth in the context. It is impossible to read attentively the chapter before and the following verses without perceiving that the apostle is treating of that day, as the Authorized translators rightly saw in verse 3. And therefore it is that in verse 8 we have, not of the Lord's coming merely, but “of the manifestation of his coming,” which really for the sense coalesces with His day. The one is for the gathering to Him of His friends; the other, for the destruction of His foes. Hence it is most intelligible to beseech the brethren, for the sake or on account of that blessed hope, not to be soon agitated nor yet troubled by the error that the day of the Lord was there. He begs them by a motive of deepest comfort not to be upset by the delusion that the day was present. How could this be, as the Lord had not yet come and gathered His own to Himself on high? How could it be, seeing that the apostasy and the man of sin were not yet developed in all their matured and manifested lawlessness, as they must be for the Lord to execute His judgment on them when that day dawns? This may serve to convince serious readers that the actual misunderstanding was about the ἡμέρα or day, not the παρουσία or presence, as has been erroneously taken for granted. Accordingly too the rendering, with a verb of entreaty as here, is properly “for the sake of,” “by reason of,” or, more tersely, “by,” as in all the well-known English versions (Wield, Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, Rhemish, and Authorized Version). It is uncritical to confound ἐρςτᾷν περί with ἐρ. ὑπέρ, as the Revisers have done; and the New Testament abounds with proof that, when it was a question of beseeching for a person or asking about a thing, the former is the constant and correct phrase. We are therefore entitled to infer that ἐρ. ὑπέρ has its own distinctive force; and as “on behalf” or “instead of” is excluded by the nature of the case, so the bearing of the context most naturally points to some such rendering as is in the Authorized Version, and beyond just doubt disproves “touching” in the Revised Version or any other rendering of like import. The Revisers however have correctly expunged the “by” of the Authorized Version in the same clause; for the one article of course forms the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ into one closely connected object of thought with “our gathering together unto him,” instead of dissociating them as the unwarranted insertion of “by” does. In verse 2, in the endeavor to be literal have they not missed our own idiom? Dr. Angus ought to be able to say whether “shaken from your mind” is good English. The Authorized Version is at least idiomatic. But they have restored the true reading of “the Lord,” not of “Christ,” and they have given the correct version “is now present” or rather “is present,” instead of the misleading “is at hand,” which has darkened expositors, preachers, and readers without end. In verse 3 they rightly say “the falling away” or apostasy, and as rightly discard “as God,” though it is hard to tell why they did not render morn literally ὅτι ἐστὶν θεός at the end, instead of repeating the English phrase which represents the interpolated ὡς θεόν. In verses 7, 8 they are quite right in giving us “lawlessness,” and “the lawless one,” instead of the words in the Authorized Version which would answer to ἀδικία and πονηός. The latter half of verse 7 is also better rendered as a whole; and “Jesus” is added on excellent authority, of moment to set aside pseudo-spiritual applications of the verse, as “slay” or destroy is better than “consume,” which is popularly employed to aid false interpretation. In verse 11 “sendeth them a working of error” rightly displaces “shall send them strong delusion” in the Authorized Version. But could they not do better for the force of τῷ ψεύδει than perpetuate the old “a lie “? How strange that both Bishop Ellicott and the Into Dean Alford should so little comprehend the truth here set out as to fancy, because of verse 7 and the present tense, that God's sending this judicial delusion is now! What about the lawless one's presence in verse 9? It is the ethical, not the historical, present, an usage quite common in all philosophical and indeed other writings, as well as in holy scripture. The error in this case affects, not the translation, but the intelligence of scripture; but it does affect the version in “them that are perishing” as in verse 10 and often in other words elsewhere, where they convert a moral present into a direct or historical one under the illusion that this only is correct. — “Work and word” rightly take the place of “word and work” in the Text. Rec. and Authorized Version.

In chapter 3:4 the “you” of Text. Rec. disappears. There is a conflict of readings at the end of verse 6, whether it be “he” as in the Authorized Version, “they” as in the Revised Version, or “ye” as in the margin. The singular is ill-attested; “they” has the better claim. In verse 12 they rightly change from “by our” to “in the.” The form of verse 14 “that ye have no company with him” may be right; but in so doubtful a case, does it seem wise or fair to commit the Revision to it?

How God Delivers Sinners

The passing over of Jehovah, when He smote the firstborn of the Egyptians and delivered His people from the slavery of Pharaoh, is an image of our deliverance; for we were slaves of Satan, the prince of this world, and have now in Christ redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. Such is what the condition of the sons of Israel in Egypt represented, when God intervened at the passover.

In one sense Satan has right over us as sinners; and God as righteous is against us, for God had said to man, In the day that thou eatest thereof [that is, of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil] thou shalt surely die. Thus Satan can accuse men. But more: Satan says on the contrary, Ye shall not surely die. Your case is not so entirely ruined as Christians say. Satan is always the same liar. God, who is true and just, cannot say to the sinner as such, Thou shalt not die. But to deliver us it is necessary that He should maintain truth and righteousness, and take full account of sin. So too it is necessary that we should own our sins and bow to His judgment of all in the cross.

Pharaoh had power enough to keep the Israelites, because they were accustomed to slavery and to a hard slavery. Pharaoh had no true rights any more than Satan, who meanwhile deceives men. Such is the state of this world, that the higher one's position is in the world, the more is one its slave. A poor man can do many things in the street without being on his guard. The rich dare not wound social habits or usages. Our will contributes also to our slavery. If he told us that we are directed, controlled, fast bound by Satan, we should not agree to it. In fact he employs the things of the world to ensnare us into sin. Judas was drawn into his worst sin because he loved money. Satan entered into him to harden his conscience and to strengthen him to go on. in sin, taking away from him at last all hope of God's mercy. Thus there is first lust; then Satan furnishes the occasion and the means of satisfying it; then he enters the man. Again, he prompts to throw the blame of the sin on others; just as Adam said, The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat, making an excuse from his heart for the evil his hand had done.

In Egypt Israel becomes the object of controversy between God and Pharaoh who represents Satan. You have no right, says the enemy, to claim them: they are sinners. This is too true. For, “All have sinned.” Man then must own in the most complete and absolute manner the justice of God which condemns him. If one is convinced of being lost, impossible not to seek salvation—perhaps blindly; but one seeks it every time that conscience is aroused. Without this men say that God is good, that is, that God should take no account of sin. But ought God to turn heaven into what the world is? And is not this what would be if sin were to enter there? Could man give a measure to indicate to what length one might go, and how much one might safely sin? But our consciences also accuse us and tell us that we cannot get rid of sin. Now sin, when it is finished or full grown, brings forth death.

God has already been dishonored by sin; and in this world God is still from day to day thus dishonored. Here on earth is there a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men, of that which dishonors God. It is here they see Satan degrading the whole creation.

Jehovah said, Against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment. But He secured His people from judgment by the blood of the Lamb. For us Christ is the paschal lamb sacrificed for our sins. “And when I see the blood, I will pass over you.” Our faith rests on God's estimate of His precious blood as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. There is our passover. If the blood is on the door-post, can I see it? This is not the point. In faith I put it there; but God sees it. My affair is to keep within the shelter of the blood in whose virtue I believe.

Once the Red Sea was crossed, there was no more pursuit of Israel. They were set free. This was deliverance for the people—not blood only but resurrection by power according to the purposes of God's love, that His people might now sing for joy. The blood met God's eye as Judge; the Red Sea crossed was the death and resurrection of Jesus which annulled Satan's power and delivered those who had been in thralldom. “Thus Jehovah saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians; and Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea shore.”

Christ is presented to us under three aspects:

1. The blood of the lamb sprinkled on the doorposts staid the judgment of God by the destroyer. In His grace toward sinners God provided the Lamb; but His blood was shed for sins as a propitiation which met His holy nature and His righteous character who could not pass over sin with the least allowance. Faith looks to God's value for Christ's blood on our behalf He was glorified in all His moral being even as to sin in the cross of the Son of man. (John 13)

2. But there must be the eating of the lamb. “They shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it. Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire; his head with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof. And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire. And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the Lord's passover.” There is no question here of having an appetite for the lamb's flesh. Doubtless he who has an appetite enjoys more, and so much the worse for him who has little appetite. But this is not a condition for eating the lamb. The unleavened bread is the essential accompaniment, His person sinless and holy; and His life is ours as we are called thenceforward to walk as He walked. The Israelites were also to eat of the lamb “with bitter herbs,” as we cannot believe in Christ without repentance toward God. When the Spirit recalls to us what we are, there cannot but be bitter self-judgment as we feed on Christ. And while we are in the world, we cannot let our habits flow freely. The loins were to be girded, shoes on the feet, staff in the hand. Pharaoh would pursue. Israel was still in Egypt. It was rest neither for God nor for His people as yet. They were to be pilgrims and strangers, but no longer slaves for Pharaoh.

3. The Red Sea crossed, Christ is risen in figure before God. Sweet thought! The deliverance is complete in the eyes of God. We have Christ risen and before Him. The deepest expression of God's judgment of sin is in the cross of Christ; and now He is risen. The thunderbolt has fallen. For the unbeliever the divine judgment on sin is exhausted. Heaven is pure and calm; and we, having Christ as our life and united to Him by the Holy Spirit, are of heaven, not of the world.

Whenever God called a people, it was to be the “habitation of God.” It was not so in Paradise. God came to have intercourse with Adam, but not to dwell in Adam; for this he must have had the knowledge of good and evil. Thus in Ex. 29, when Israel were brought out of Egypt, they were to be the habitation of God. In Eph. 2 we have our place in Christ before God, and God has His place in us before men.

The Declared Purpose and Present Moral Processes: 17. History of Faith

Grace, and its correlative faith, are the characteristics of the present economy. But Matt. 13 gives the history. It began in sovereign grace; but because it was grace man despised it, and it ends in judgment. Faith was the substitute for law, and man has become firmer in unbelief than before, and increased his condemnation. True, Satan had first to bring within the sphere of the kingdom his own material, and unwatchful man soon gave the opportunity. Men slept and the devil sowed tares, which give character to the whole field, and the harvest as a whole is a harvest of tares. Thus judgment is the public end of the field where the good seed was sown. Terrible is the perversion of the good given, when He who in grace gave is forced to judge the place that received it. The authority of the word has been used to shelter the birds of the air, and the truth of the word leavened with corruption.

Satan was foiled in his attempt to turn the King aside from His divine path, but he succeeded with the servants; and so the highest and best gift of God has been the occasion for the development of the worst evil. For man under the responsibilities which flow from this dispensation of grace has done worse than during that of law. The wickedness of Israel caused the heathen to blaspheme the name of Jehovah. But now, within the sphere of Christian profession, a worse thing is found. The Jew always professed reverence for the law, though he practically disobeyed. What do we see now in so-called Christian lands? The word of God is esteemed by some no other than a myth, classed with the legends of paganism. By others the Lord is spoken of as a good, though mistaken man, esteemed as a hero who really wished to raise man morally, but who allowed His disciples to believe and propagate a lie to accomplish the end He had in view; as an enthusiast who suffered death rather than withdraw His pretensions. And the literature of the present day teems with writings containing this horrible doctrine, a blasphemy as absurd as horrible. Nor is this confined to such writers—as are professed infidels; for the truth of the word is undermined, if not openly denied, by those who take the place of being theological teachers. All such books, by traitorous teachers, are far more pernicious and dangerous than the vulgar infidelity of the last century. A distinguishing feature of the present day is that every shade of infidel thought has its representative and teacher. Atheism is made the groundwork of science and taught in its halls, and, being exalted to the rank of science, is applied as a corrector of God's Book; it stops not at material things, but enters boldly the moral domain, and dares to judge what God must be, and what He must not be; decides how much—rather how little—of the creation belongs to God; and how much to “evolution.” This is not confined to the “scientific” few, it is popularized; and the masses, inclined by nature to say “no God,” readily receive the dicta of Atheism and Materialism. God bears with all this, for the present day is salvation, not judgment, and His long-suffering is the proof. Human wickedness has made the patience of God a means of deeper condemnation. If “he that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses; of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith He was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?” (Heb. 10:28, 29.)

The kingdom of heaven is the rule of Christ over this world. But how does Christ reign when He is rejected? The principles of the kingdom were in grace made known to man, and after he had cast out the King, he used His name and the inherent subjugating authority belonging to it, to establish a system for Himself, where the name of the King is freely used, but His rights practically ignored; where, instead of righteousness reigning, all the worst corruption of nature is dominant, the name of Christ on the lips, the truth of Christ in its life-giving power mostly unknown. Hence the present time discloses the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. The kingdom as the scene of Christ's power and glory was no secret; it was abundantly and clearly foretold by the prophets. Godly Jews were waiting for it, rejoicing in the hope of it. Further, it was predicted, though perhaps imperfectly apprehended, that the coming King should be despised and rejected, wounded in the house of His friends, valued at thirty pieces of silver—price of a slave. But it was not revealed that the King should be more than eighteen centuries absent, and that during His absence men should arrogate to themselves His authority, and establish human power by its use; still less, that the Jews' rejection of their King should be, in the wisdom of God, the occasion for the calling out of a people for a heavenly portion, who, while here passing through a path of predestined suffering, would be of all men most miserable if in this life only they had hope in Christ (1 Cor. 15:19). It is these two things we see now—the absence of the Lord from the scene of His future glory, and the hidden working by which He secures to Himself a people who, spite of suffering, nay, using it rather as a means, are destined for a higher than kingdom glory (2 Cor. 4:17). These are some of the secrets—the hitherto unrevealed things of the kingdom of heaven.

The Lord Jesus in Matt. 13 reveals. All except the first parable are the mysteries—secrets—of the kingdom. The tare-field gives the fact that, where good seed was sown the devil sowed tares, that both grow to the end, and then comes judgment. The aspect or form of the evil, and its moral character, are given in the tree and the leaven. The first similitude is history given in symbol, but perfect and complete in its brevity as divine wisdom alone could give it. Satan no sooner saw a new sphere of blessing opened for lost man than he hastened to bring in ruin. Just as he did when creation blessing and happiness were put into man's hand, so now he seeks to turn away redemption blessings from man. He did spoil creation (yet only for a time), but redemption blessing rests upon a foundation which not all his power can touch. The floods of evil, the mighty billows of sin, may rage and swell far more under a dispensation of grace than when law threatened from Sinai; the cunning and power of Satan may have now a wider and more open field for display; but all this only proves how firm and impregnable is the Rock against which the mightiest waves of Satanic and human evil dash in vain. It is thus that the Lord reigns now, controlling the evil of Satan and of man by a secret power, which faith alone can recognize. Other secrets are brought to light by the tree and the leaven which show the tare evil in its double form—worldly power and doctrinal corruption.

Prophecy had announced the days when the God of heaven should set up a kingdom which is to subdue all other kingdoms and fill the whole earth, but it was never foretold that men would set up a power for their own glory, and say it was the kingdom that God had announced. It is also said that righteousness will characterize the kingdom, but it was a secret that previous to its establishment an unrighteous power would prevail, giving harborage to the emissaries of Satan as the branches of a great tree to the birds of the air; that such a scene of evil through perversion of the truth would be presented within the sphere called Christendom, that creedism would permeate the mass as leaven in three measures of meal. External grandeur, and internal corruption! Truly, mysteries of the kingdom of heaven.

Judgment is the only fitting termination. The Lord of the field is compelled to send the executors of His wrath upon the guilty and corrupt world, and the angels, like reapers in the harvest field, bind the tares in bundles for the fire. The angels “shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them that do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.”

The field was indeed overrun with tares, but good seed is yet found. They belong to the company of the righteous that shine in the Father's kingdom; and though now despised, and to the tare-world for the most part unknown—hid in a field—are to the Lord a treasure, and as such give a likeness of the kingdom of heaven. Both the “treasure” and the “pearl” refer to the good seed which the Lord sowed in the field. To the eye of man nothing was discernible but tares. His eye saw the treasure, and for its sake He bought the whole field. Thus the treasure hid in the field becomes an essential and prominent feature in the mysteries of the kingdom. Indeed, had there been no hid treasure, there would have been no mysteries. So also the pear; of great price is a likeness of the kingdom, or rather, not the pearl itself, but the merchant seeking, and having found one of great price, straightway parts with all he has and buys it, In the one, it is the treasure to which the kingdom is likened, in the other it is the merchant seeking. There is the joy of the finder, then the desire and energy of the merchant who is seeking for something not yet possessed. The prominent thought in the first is the treasure, not the man; in the second, not the pearl, but the seeking merchant. Both these parables are features of the present time, and of God's ways now. They are indeed “secrets” of the kingdom of heaven.

The prophet Malachi speaks of those who will be counted among the jewels of Jehovah, but not of saints so precious that a whole world would be bought to possess them. Much less was it known that divine power and grace would combine in love to form a Church welded together by the uniting energy of the Holy Spirit into one body, and be as one priceless pearl. The activities of divine love are the marks of this present age, not merely saving lost souls, but bestowing the highest blessings. For if the Merchant is seeking, that which He buys becomes a pearl in His hand. This is the moral process now going on.

How different, we may observe, from law process is the process of grace; yet that of grace and faith necessitated the law. But now the Triune God is engaged in the delight of His heart, in saving the lost. “But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship Him.” The Son, too, is seeking, the Shepherd who is gone into the wilderness to bring back the lost—the good Shepherd who gave His own life for His sheep; the Holy Spirit, also, who is the active agent in bringing home the truth and power of God's Salvation to the hearts of those whom it is God's purpose to save, and making them worshippers according to the Father's will. Is He not like the woman searching for the lost silver? He is seeking through the great house of profession for real worshippers, whose worship of the Father is in keeping with the character of the blessings given.

The great tree and the leaven are the development of that evil thing—the tares—brought in by the devil; they mark the progress and the universal extent of the evil. From an outside standpoint such is the aspect of the kingdom now. But however sad and real this view, it is not the reality essential to the fact that such things exist as are here called the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. The essential reality is God carrying out now the purpose of His sovereign grace, a purpose present to the heart of God before the worlds were made; a moral process going on with man upon a working platform of faith, which begins with the first conviction of sin, then becomes the moral means of life, of walk, of victory, and never passes away till it is swallowed up in sight. The merchant seeking, and the man rejoicing over the hid treasure, this going on side by side with the growing evil of the devil's tares, make the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. It is the worst of evils subsisting side by side with grace in its most magnificent form; nay, which would not be so bad, but that grace is so good.

The not evidently points to the closing scenes of this dispensation; not here the progress and judgment of evil, but the distinction between the “good” and the “bad,” their separation more visible. The net is undoubtedly a symbol of the preaching of the Gospel; it has been cast into the sea, it has gathered of every kind. All enclosed are those “who profess and call themselves Christians,” who by their profession have been taken out of the sea of heathenism, of non-profession and nature's indifference, gathered in by the preached word which by the Lord's command has been carried over the world. At the time of accomplishment the net is drawn to the shore. There is a difference between gathering fishes and sorting them. The end approaches for that activity indicated by the net being in the sea; or while God still converts souls, another action gives character at the close to the kingdom of heaven. Not that the message of mercy is withdrawn, for it will no doubt continue to the end. There are even now those who go about from place to place, at least preaching salvation through Christ, who are not represented by the fishermen in the parable. And though there may be mixed up with them a great deal with which no intelligent Christian would identify himself, extravagancies which excite the contempt of the world, and alas here and there the corruption of nature; yet we see God, in the sovereignty of grace, using even such abnormal means to bring the name of Jesus the Savior home to the heart and conscience of the lost and degraded, which perhaps could be reached in no other way; that is, going into the very dens of infamy and bringing out brands from the burning. Is not the use of such irregular instrumentality as now meets our eye and ear a rebuke to those who boast a better knowledge of the truth?

But when the net is drawn to the shore, the gathering in from the sea is not the work which occupies the fishermen. The putting the good into vessels is the closing act of the fishermen, who are endowed by the Holy Spirit to discern between the good and the bad. Not that this wisdom had not been bestowed before, for all through, from the beginning, the receiving of souls into the Church is putting the good into vessels; but the energy of the Holy Spirit in the fishermen makes the care for the “good” characteristic of the close. Such is the closing testimony, the special work of this day. Those who travel about simply proclaiming the name of Jesus, and leaving those who may have been converted to g, just where they will, may perhaps be doing only what they have power for; but they are not the fishermen who give character to the kingdom of heaven at the close. The Lord Jesus passes abruptly to the judgment upon the evil, and says nothing as to the ultimate destination of the good fishes. In His explanation to the disciple (ver. 42, 43) the curtain is lifted, the righteous shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father, the wicked are cast into the furnace of fire. But this is no part of the likeness of the kingdom of heaven which has its scene here, not in heaven nor in hell. There are two separations, not by the same agency, nor for the same object. The one is caring for the good, simply rejecting the bad; but there, as a feature of the kingdom, it ends. And the Lord, in ver. 49, turns to the separation spoken of in ver. 41. “So shall it be at the end of the world,” that is, the angels will seize the bundles of tares and cast them into the fire. The judgment and final doom of the wicked are given, the result of their disobedience to the gospel; and it is fittingly given here as showing that when the kingdom is established in power, they have no part in it. But the catching up of the saints, the Lord Himself coming for them, is no part of the mysteries of the kingdom; it is a church secret which Paul was privileged to make known; nor was it revealed till after the Lord had taken His place at the right hand of God, and the church was formed by the presence of the Holy Ghost. What is given in these two parables is that the Lord has hidden His treasure in the field; having found one, He hides it, and then at all cost buys the field to secure the treasure. This treasure is the good seed of ver. 24; and when spoken of as a “pearl of great price,” it is not its future setting in gold, not the glory which the “Merchant” destined for it, but as the object of His desire and His giving up all else to possess it. This is true of the church; but it is here a similitude of the kingdom, because it is a characteristic of this present time from the Pentecost to the Rapture. While the “Merchant” is seeking, judgment is delayed, and God patiently endures with the mystery of iniquity, and with the despising of the Son. When the Father's work of seeking spiritual worshippers is over, when His church like good wheat is garnered above, then will the Lord Jesus be revealed in flaming fire, taking vengeance upon them that know not God, and on those that obey not the gospel.

Neither caring for the good fish, nor binding the tares, is a momentary act. Both may soon be more apparent, but are going on now. At no previous period of church history since the days of the apostles has there been such insistence on the truth of the believer's standing in Christ, on the one Body, and on the evil of sectarianism. For how long a time men thought more of their own denominational position than of feeding the flock of God! how many have been, and how many now are, known by the name of a man!—an evil that broke out in the church at Corinth, but which has not disappeared by the apostle's rebuke. The dishonor this is to Christ is felt now; and gathering to His name is owned, at least by some, to be the only true ground where Christians can meet. Prayer and thanksgiving may be offered to God where this true ground is unknown, but it is only there, and nowhere else, that worship, spiritual worship such as the Father seeks, can be offered up. And more than this, there can be no true “waiting for the Son from heaven” if the saint is not there. The doctrine may be received—though even then not its fullness—but the true heart—waiting can scarce be where human system takes the place of the ground of God's church. Where this hope really exists, the saint purifies himself “even as He is pure.” And so it was that when the truth of being gathered to the name of Christ as the only ground of the church was revived, the waiting for the Son from heaven came in crush power. The long neglected hope of the Lord coming to take His own, and lead them into His rest and joy away from a doomed world, again cheered the heart, and gave strength against the evil of the world. It is midnight, and the cry “Behold the Bridegroom! Go forth” has awakened the sleepers. This cry—mere theory with some, but through grace a practical reality with others—has gone through the world. To bring believers on the true ground of the church, calling them to the true attitude of waiting for the Son from heaven, answers to the fishermen putting the good fish into vessels.

While the energy of the Holy Spirit is seen in thus reviving forgotten truth, at the same time the tares are being prepared for their binding. Men are combining under different leaders, and associations with various aims and characters are increasing. There are societies religious, political, infidel, for the furtherance of almost every conceivable object. And it may be alas! that in some are to be found true Christians, children of God mixed up with ungodly men for the promotion of objects other than of God. The power of grace will doubtless bring out all that are His, and bind them together in the bundle of life (1 Sam. 25:29), separating them from all evil; but then in all others will be manifested a more determined opposition against God and His truth, and all that He has established. Even human authority, as He ordained, will be set aside. This will be the common aspect of every tare-bundle, by whatever name now known. Nihilism, socialism, rationalism, and vulgar infidelity indicate the various forms and character the tares will assume—combinations against constituted government, and denial of the Bible as the revealed word of God. The present latitudinarianism (miscalled “liberality”) may change into persecution before the Lord comes, but it will make the separation between the good and the bad more distinct and visible.

Both Mark and Luke speak of the kingdom of God, where Matthew uses the phrase “the kingdom of the heavens;” but the two phrases are not interchangeable, even where the same parables are given in illustration. Matthew is dispensational, and under the expression “kingdom of heaven” gives the universal declension in Christendom. At Pentecost multitudes were converted, and the good news spread rapidly over the known world; the good seed seemed to be bearing its hundred-fold. Now, in our own day, can we see thirty-fold? In Mark the present is looked at from the point of testimony; hence he speaks of the kingdom of God, the tested condition of those who are within the sphere of the kingdom of heaven. Mark is individual, and lays emphasis upon responsibility. Nor are we left to our own inferences as to the qualities that mark the kingdom of God, which in its highest aspect is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost (Rom. 14:17). And even where these highest qualities are not found, inasmuch as service, and consequently responsibility, are the points in this Gospel, those who fail entirely as well as those who by grace are maintained in service, are a likeness of the kingdom of God.

In Mark 1 the Lord Jesus said the kingdom of God was nigh; still it was moral, not dispensational. The moral perfections of the kingdom of God were about to be displayed in Him. This was His first word, the beginning of His public ministry. The kingdom of God was nigh to the people, very nigh, for He was there and entering upon the path where the power of God's kingdom would be brought before their eyes. To us, with a deeper knowledge than was possible for those who then heard Him, the kingdom of God was nigh in view of His death and resurrection; then it took a new and higher aspect—looking at man—in accordance with the heavenly character and portion of those who belong to it, those who are born again. Later on in His ministry the Lord Jesus said the kingdom of God was come, and this in Matthew (12:28), where the dispensation of the kingdom of heaven is the theme. For in casting out demons He displayed the power which belongs to God alone. The Lord never said the kingdom of heaven was come, for it could not till He ascended to the throne above. But the kingdom of God in power of blessing, healing the body, freeing the soul from Satanic possession, was there present in the person of the Lord Jesus. Again in Matthew the Lord said, “Seek first the kingdom of God.” It is an object of attainment the “how attained” is another question). This the kingdom of heaven is not, nor could be any more than the giving of the law. That to which the soul may attain belongs to a moral domain; and this should be ever borne in mind when the Spirit speaks of the kingdom of God.

The Sower is given in three Gospels; four casts of the seed, of which three are the same in result, as recorded by each Evangelist; but there is a marked difference in the result of the fourth. And each is in harmony with the Spirit's teaching in each Gospel. In Matthew the return from the good ground is some a hundred-fold, some sixty-fold, some thirty-fold. In Mark, the order is reversed, some thirty-fold, some sixty-fold, some a hundred-fold. Is this difference of order a mere accident? Nay, it is designed, and there is a divine purpose in it. In both there is the diversity of fruit-bearing, which, doubtless, is to be seen among Christians at all times; but the order of the words in Matthew points to the declension of the corporate body of profession, yea, even in the fruit-bearing of the good seed. Not through defect in the good seed, which is the Word, but through some bad quality in the good ground. In the parable of the tare-field, the good seed is not the Word, but the children of the kingdom; the same as the “good ground” in the Sower, only viewed in a different light.

Fragment: "That Christ Might Fill All Things"

“ That Christ might fill all things.” Faith cannot look out on a place which Divine love and righteousness have not filled. He has come down in love, and gone up in righteousness. “Perfecting of the saints” refers to them individually, as “edifying of the body” collectively.

On Acts 1:12-26

Thus we have clearly set before us the position and expectation of the disciples in these early days. They knew, on the word of the Lord, that the promise of the Father was shortly to be fulfilled in the gift of the Holy Spirit. Instead of the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, they were to be witnesses of Christ everywhere to the uttermost part of the earth; and they were assured that the Lord Jesus, who had just ascended, should so come in the manner in which they beheld Him going to heaven.

“ Then they returned unto Jerusalem from the mown called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day) journey off. And when they came in, they went up to the upper room where they were abiding; both Peter and John, and James, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas Bartholomew and Matthew, James [son] of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas [brother] of James. These all with one accord continued steadfastly in prayer, with [certain] women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, am with his brethren” (ver. 12-14).

Thus did these saints spend their time in the exercise of continual dependence on God. They had been the chosen witnesses of the Word of Life, as He had manifested Himself here below and in Himself the Son has shown them the Father. And now they were waiting for that blessed Divine Person who was to be in as well as with them, as the Lord had prepared them for it “I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter.” So now they all give themselves up will one mind to persevering prayer.

Believing women were with them. How different their place, even now, from that which Jews or Mohammedans accorded them! from that of mediaeval flattery or superstition! There were others beside wives, and hence the general form of the phrase; and one was among them specifically named, to whom sinful folly was afterward to bow down in worship, professedly subordinate to, practically more absorbing than, that paid to the Son or the Father.

It is the first mention of Mary, in this the only sure and divinely inspired history, that follows our Lord's departure to heaven. Highly favored she had been blessed among women, all generations thenceforth calling her blessed; yet was she found in all lowliness of mind with other women, as the Apostles were with them at waiting on God for the gift of the Holy Ghost. From the cross she had been taken to the home of the beloved disciple. After the resurrection not a word implies at appearance to the mother of our Lord. Another Mary saw Him, she of Magdala, first of all, other women shortly afterward; of any special appearance to His mother, Scripture is profoundly silent. She may have seen Him risen, as five hundred did at one time, bus Scripture intimates not a word about it. So absolutely was Christ to be known no more after the flesh. He was dead and risen, and the glory of the Messiah born of the Virgin faded away in the brighter glory of the Beginning, the First-born from the dead.

It is the last mention of Mary. Chrysostom may well suppose Joseph to have died; the truth is that he had long disappeared. Of both we heard for the last time in the beauteous scene of the Lord at twelve years of age (Luke 2:42-51). He, too, was not yet anointed by the Holy Ghost; yet was He perfect man and true God, the child of Mary, and subject not to her only, but to her husband—legally His father. But the incident brings out clearly His perfection as a child feeding on the Word of God; but no less clearly His consciousness of being the Son of God (far beyond the thoughts of Joseph or Mary), and withal His subjection to them, “His parents,” in that human place to which He had come down from divine glory in a love no less divine. When in due time, anointed by the Holy Spirit, He enters on His service and His presentation al the Messiah, Joseph is gone. This was as it should be. It was through Joseph He had direct claim as the royal Son of David; for Joseph came down from Solomon, and there lay the true line of promise to the throne Mary, too, sprang from David; but through Nathan, who could give no such title. Legally and naturally, He was descended from the King beloved of God, as He had a title in His own person above David as surely as above Joseph and Mary; He was God, Jehovah, the Lord God of Israel. Still the Word of God mast be honored and verified in every human particular which Divine grace had given and made known, for the exercise and the reward, the trial and the joy of faith.

Now Mary, according to Scripture, appears for the last time in the holy band of prayer with others, men and women, not prayed to but praying. That the upper room was in the Temple is the dream of Dr. Hammond. How strange, that grave theologians should conceive such erudities, and that they seem so destitute of kind and faithful friends to efface them, lest they might turn to shame or hurt! The last place where the disciples could have had such a chamber was the Temple. It was no doubt in a private house where they then sojourned; whether it was that large upper room furnished where the Lord and His disciples sat down to eat the last Passover, we know not, nor is it of divine moment either, else it had been told us. But such rooms were common among the Jews, and, we may be assured, in Jerusalem especially, where God had His plans for blessing through His Son and to His honor.

“And in these days Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren, and said (and there was a crowd of names [or persons] together, about a hundred and twenty), Brethren, it was needful that the Scripture should be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the month of David concerning Judas, who was guide to those that took Jesus. For he had been numbered among us, and received the allotment of this service. (This man then obtained a field from wages of his iniquity; and, falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the dwellers at Jerusalem, so that in their language that field was called Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) For it is written in the Book of Psalms, Let his homestead be made desolate, And let there be no dweller in it, and, His overseership let another take. Of the men therefore who went with us at every time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us, beginning with the baptism of John until the day in which He was taken up, must one of these become a witness with us of His resurrection. And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, Thou, Lord, knower of the hearts of all, show of these two one whom Thou hast chosen, to take the place of this service and apostleship from which Judas fell away to go to his own place. And they gave lots for them; and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles” (ver. 15-26).

The hundred and twenty did not comprehend all the faithful in the land, but all in Jerusalem probably. To these Peter speaks with decision, but in the light and authority of Scripture. Power from on high had not yet come on him; but there was evidently an intelligence never experienced by him before the Lord died and rose. These two things may co-exist now; or spiritual intelligence may be found where special power may not be given, though the Holy Ghost is, and this to abide forever. But here we learn the important fact of their distinctness, and so much the more plainly, because the Holy Ghost had not yet been poured out. But Peter applies Scripture with clearness. It shone in the light of the Lord's death and resurrection. It must needs be fulfilled, not in Christ only, but in antichrist; and such was Judas, who became guide to those that took Jesus. The Holy Spirit had deigned to speak of evil as well as good; and all must be fulfilled, though spoken by human lips. The unbelief of man may ruin him, but cannot make the written word of none effect; any more than the lot Judas received in the ministry of Christ exempted him from his awful sin and punishment. And the field got from wages of iniquity bore witness in characters of blood, after Judas passed away from his forfeited place in service and apostleship to go to his own place of torment. No wonder then that, as God so solemnly marked His resentment now before all the dwellers of Jerusalem, He should speak before by the mouth of David of such a sinner against His own Son, as well as against his own soul Psa. 109 pronounced his curse, but called for a successor to his vacated office; and Peter lays down, for such as had gone with the apostles from the baptism of John till the Ascension, the essential condition of becoming with them a witness of His resurrection.

Here once more we see what an immensely important place the resurrection was to hold in the testimony of Christ and the gospel, and how it is interwoven with this Book of the Acts in particular. Nor can there be strength or clearness in preaching and teaching without it. In presence of it vain man is annulled; by it Christ is vindicated, God is glorified, and the believer is justified. But even in this book we may learn more of its power and value in the hands of the Holy Spirit, if we return to the practical use Peter made of the Psalms he had cited.

Two then were put forward, Joseph Barsabbas Justus, and Matthias, Who, as far as man could see, possessed equal qualification. Hence appeal was made to the Lord in prayer. It was His work that was in question, and it is His to choose the workman. So, in Matt. 9, He told His disciples to supplicate the Lord of the harvest to send forth laborers into His harvest; and then, in chap. 10, He called unto Him His twelve disciples, and gave them authority, and sent them forth. It is the same principle here. Elsewhere, in what concerns the assembly of God, His God and Father may be sought most appropriately; but the Lord none the less, in what concerns His service and the instruments He may choose for it.

But there is a peculiarity to be noticed, the using of lots. It was in no way the will of man choosing whom he would, as some learned men have erroneously supposed, not without bias from their peculiar habits, nor unwilling to justify them from Scripture. Nor does the last term, translated “numbered” (ver. 26), warrant here the notion of popular election, which is in principle foreign to Scripture, for the choice of servants in the word. The lot was, as it will be in the latter day, a distinctly Jewish mode of seeking divine direction; and so, in the choice of the twelfth apostle (Matt. 19:28), it was fittingly resorted to here. For the Spirit's presence, the new power. which makes the assembly to be God's assembly, in which Jews and Gentiles are alike unknown, was not yet enjoyed. The Lord therefore was looked to thus; but lots were never cast after the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Nor is there just ground for Stier, as cited by Alford, to question the step of choosing a twelfth apostle, which seems to be thoroughly in keeping with the waiting posture of the disciples. Besides, Acts 2:14; 6:2, would to most minds imply the contrary, and show that Luke does afterward speak of the Twelve. To Suppose that Paul was the intended twelfth is rather to lower his true position and extraordinary call.

Christian Liberty

The Christian is called to liberty, the holy liberty of the new nature, but yet liberty. It is no longer a law which constrains, or rather vainly seeks to constrain, a nature whose will is contrary to it, to satisfy the obligations which accompany the relationships in which by the will of God we find ourselves—a law imposed, forbidding evil to a nature that loves evil, and commanding the love of God and of one's neighbor to a nature whose spring is selfishness.

Had it been possible to take away Christ's moral liberty—which was not possible—it would have been by preventing Him from obeying the will of the Father. This was the food He ate (John 4). As a perfect Man, He lived by every word which came forth out of the mouth of God. He chose to die, to drink the bitter cup which the Father had given Him, rather than not obey Him, and glorify Him in drinking it. Christianity is the liberty of a new nature that loves to obey, and to do the will of God. It is true that the flesh, if not kept in subjection, can use this liberty to satisfy its own desires; just as it used the law, which had been given to convict of sin, to work out righteousness. But the true liberty of the new man—Christ our life—is the liberty of a holy will, acquired through the deliverance of the heart from the power of sin, liberty to serve others in love. All the law is fulfilled in one word— “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” The Christian can do still more, he can give himself for others; or, at the least, following the direction of the Spirit, he fulfills the law in love. But if they devoured one another in selfishness, contending about circumcision and the law, “take heed,” says the apostle, “that ye be not consumed one of another.”

The apostle here establishes the principles of holiness, of the Christian walk, and brings in the Holy Ghost in place of the law. In the preceding part of the Epistle he had set forth Christian justification by faith, in contrast with works of law. He here shows that God produces holiness, instead of exacting it, as did the law with regard to human righteousness, from the nature which loves sin. He produces it in the human heart, as wrought by the Spirit. When Christ had ascended up on high, and was set down on the right hand of God, having accomplished a perfect redemption for those who should believe on Him, He sent down the Holy Spirit to dwell in all such. They were already children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, and, because they were such, God gave them the Spirit of His Son. Born of God, cleansed by the blood of Christ, accepted in the Beloved, God seals them as His own by the gift of the Spirit until the day of redemption, that is, of glory. Having the new life, Christ as their life, they are bound to walk as Christ walked, and to manifest the life of Christ down here in their mortal flesh.

This life, produced in us by the operation of the Holy Ghost through the word, is led by the Spirit which is given to believers; its rule is also in the word. Its fruits are the fruits of the Spirit. The Christian walk is the manifestation of this new life, of Christ our life, in the midst of the world. If we follow this path—Christ Himself—if we walk in His steps, we shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. It is thus sin is avoided, not by taking the law to compel man to do what he does not like: the law has no power to compel the flesh to obey, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. The new life loves to obey, loves holiness; and Christ is its strength and wisdom by the Holy Ghost. The flesh is indeed there; it lasts against the Spirit, and the Spirit lusts against the flesh, to prevent man from walking as he would. But if we walk in the Spirit, we are not under the law; we are not as the man in Rom. 7, where, impelled by the new nature, the will desires to do good, but, a captive to sin, he finds no way of doing what he desires; for the law gives neither strength nor life. Under law, even if life is there, there is no strength: man is the captive of sin.

But sealed by the Holy Spirit, the believer is free, he can perform the good he loves. If Christ is thus in him, the body is dead, the old man is crucified with Christ. The Spirit is life, and that Spirit, as a divine and mighty person, works in him to bring forth good fruits. The flesh and the Spirit are in their nature opposed the one to the other; but if we are faithful in seeking grace, the power of the Spirit, Christ by His Spirit in us, enables us to hold the flesh for dead, and to walk in the footsteps of Christ, bringing forth the fruits that suit Him.

There is not really any difficulty in distinguishing the fruits of the Spirit and the fruits of the flesh: the apostle names them, those, at least, which are characteristic of their respective actions. Of the sad fruits of the flesh, he positively declares that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God; but the fruits of the Spirit are love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, &c. Against such there is no law: God cannot condemn the fruit of His own Spirit. Remark, that the first of these fruits are love, joy, peace. The Spirit will surely produce those practical fruits which manifest the life of Christ in the sight of men; but the inward fruits, the fruits Godward, come first, the condition of soul needful for producing the others. Many converted persons seek for the practical fruits in order to assure themselves that they are born of the Spirit and accepted of God. But peace, love, joy are the first fruits of the presence of the Spirit; the others follow. In order to know what is in the heart of God, we need to see the fruit of His heart, the gift of Jesus.

If I believe in Him, and through Him in the love of God, sealed of God by the Spirit, I have the sense of His love: love shown in the death of Jesus is shed abroad in my heart by the Holy Spirit, which is given to those who are washed from their sins through faith in His blood. By that Spirit we have the consciousness of our position before God, and love, joy, peace are in the soul. The fruits which follow are, moreover, the proof to others that my certainty and assurance are not false, that I am not deceived. But for myself, it is what God has done which is the proof of what is in the heart of God; and through faith I set to my seal that God is true. Then, sealed by the gift of the Spirit, I rejoice in His goodness, and the fruits of the new life manifest to others that this life is there.

Moreover, “they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its affections and lusts.” They have not got to die: Christ died for us, and, He who died being our life, we hold ourselves for dead, crucified with Him, as though we ourselves had died upon the cross, since it was for us He suffered. Possessing another life, I do not own the flesh as “I,” but as sin which dwelleth in me, which I hold to be crucified. The faithful Christian realizes this continually. God declares us to be dead with Christ; He looks upon us thus (Col. 3:8). The believer, accepting God's declaration with thankfulness, holds the flesh, the old man, to be dead (Rom. 7); and through the Spirit, if he is faithful, he applies the cross in a practical way to the flesh, so that it may not act (2 Cor. 4); besides this, God in His government sends that which is needful to test the Christian, and to effect this.

The apostle adds the exhortation, “If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.” The law nourishes rather than destroys vain glory, for the law makes us think of self. When rightly employed, it is most useful for convincing of sin, not for producing righteousness.

Thus the operation of the law with regard to justification and holiness has been fully examined, and set in a clear light. It does not produce, but exacts, righteousness. It cannot be linked with Christ as a means of justification: “if righteousness is by the law, Christ is dead in vain.” Man ought surely to have kept the commandments of God; but that is not the real question. He has not kept them; therefore upon that ground he is lost. Christ, on the other hand, brings salvation because we are guilty.

Then, as to holiness, it is not God's way to seek to produce holiness in the flesh through the law; for the flesh is not subject to the law, neither indeed can be. God gives a new life in Christ, and the Holy Spirit, to produce fruits which are acceptable to him; and against these fruits there is certainly no divine law. God cannot condemn the fruits of His own Spirit. It is the new creature, the new life with its fruits by the Spirit, which are acceptable to God; it is this new creature which seeks to please Him.

Strengthened by the Spirit, and instructed by Him, according to the wisdom of God set forth in the word, let us seek to walk in the footsteps of Christ, that perfect example of the life of God in a Man which has been given to us.

Brief Thoughts on Ephesians 5

The character of the Epistle to the Ephesians is peculiar in this remarkable respect, that it sets the church already so entirely in Christ the Head, that it does not speak of the coming of the Lord. The reason is evident. It supposes the saint to be one with Christ, already sitting in heavenly places in Christ Jesus (Chr. 2:6), ever knowing the body to be united to the Head. As to blessing, it is “blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ.” So as to testimony,—it is “that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known, by the church, the manifold wisdom of God.”

As to where we are put, we are not only “quickened together with Christ,” but “raised up together,” &e. Lastly, as to conflict, we are called to wrestle against spiritual wickedness in heavenly places.

If we look at the Lord as coming for His saints, we see them distinct from Him; and individually we are so, of course, and waiting for Him. If I am here and He is there, we are two and not one. But the truth in this Epistle rises higher, never looking at the saints as apart from, but as in, Christ. The whole body is seen so connected with the Head, by the power of the Spirit, that they cannot be separated— “members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.” “No man hateth his own flesh.” Thus, then, in Ephesians, whether it is blessing, testimony, conflict, or where we are, all is heavenly, and the measure and standard of our conduct to be the heavenly man, “as the truth is in Jesus.”

In chap. 1 the counsels of God are considered. Chap. 2 is His power to usward who believe. Chap. 3 is the character of His blessing as to the Gentiles. Chap. 4 is the character of the saints as the body of Christ in heaven, and as the habitation of the Spirit down here; also the practice becoming such. In chapter 5 we have the exercise of Christ's love toward those so suited to Him. It is not only what is the plan of God that we need to know; but also what is the exercise of Christ's affections towards us in that plan. So here it is not the plans and thoughts of grace, but the exercise of grace. It shows us the way Christ feels in His relationship, whatever we are.

Divine teaching ever connects the commonest details of ordinary life with the highest privileges. That which loosens the bonds of common life is not the testimony of God, but strange doctrine which none should heed or spare. Whatever are the privileges of the saints, they are brought to the light; and it is by the light everything is tested. Those who have Christ can afford to have it so. Truth always justifies the conscience in a man in his commonplace duties (of course I mean a just conscience: there may be a morbid conscience). The truth ever would lead to the fulfillment of those common duties which all own to be duties; and this is the grace of Christ.

Again, whenever the grace and love of God act on a saint, it always goes back to God. Thus the incense in the Holy place ever ascended, but the fragrance was not for the priests but for God. It was done entirely for God, and the sweet savor was diffused all around. Whatever Christ did, He did to God, and it was a sweet savor. If it is not so with us, it is nothing but selfishness.

Christ loved us, and gave Himself for us. “Here is the greatest act of love to us,” but it was a sacrifice to God (verse 2) of a “sweet smelling savor.” Love cannot come down and act in this perfect—this heavenly—man, without its perfection being God-ward. Love, having God ever before it, can go on ever according to the mind of God, amidst all opposition. In its perfectness this could be found only in Christ. We have it, but mingled with much failure. Love comes down from God, and must return to God. We know how self-applause and many mixed motives creep in with us afterward, even if not at the time; but oh, beloved brethren, we should earnestly seek that our motives may be single and God-ward. It is a dreadful thing for the grace which God has given to be used for self. Never did Christ seek His own glory. It was His Father's glory. It is indispensable for internal (I speak not of external) holiness to have the heart exercised about this. This broad truth is laid down (verse 5), but rests not here. “Because of these things (verse 6) the wrath of God cometh, &c.” Mark, unbelief is the root of all sins; it is not the only sin, and all sins deny the character of God. All our privileges bring us to God. God has a certain character, and He cannot allow anything unsuitable to that. Ye were darkness, but now are ye light. It is not we have got light, but we are light: the very nature is light. Darkness and light can never be together.

Verse 8: “Ye were darkness,” &c. This principle having been laid down, we have the measure and standard of this light (verse 14), even Christ Himself. “Awake thou that sleepest, &c.” Christ is the standard. You are asleep a little, not dead actually, but practically as dead. Let me awake, and enjoy all I can in Christ. What do I get in Christ? Everything. This “awaking does not mean the conscience merely avoiding certain things; but it is the having Christ Himself, as” formed in us.” While I have the nature, I have also Christ the object before me, and He is Light. Light is before my soul, as well as within. Christ is my life, and I get in Christ divine perfectness as well as life. “Christ shall give thee light.” Let us take one instance. People think it a great matter if a man has what they call a “fine fortune” left him. But Christ says, “How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God. A man's life consisteth not in the abundance,” &c. “We to them that are rich:” riches may be the ruin of a mat is that light?

Verse 15: “See that ye walk circumspectly, &c., not as fools, but as wise.” This is not only to avoid certain things, but there is something to be gained: divine wisdom to live Christ. We have to walk with all the wisdom God. Satan is seeking to trip us up, to dim our testimony, to cause that to be seen in us which is not Christ.

“Redeeming the time” (verse 16): we are called, in a world that is against us, to be awaiting every opportunity to seize for Christ. To live Christ before the world, that is wisdom; “redeeming the time” is not merely not wasting it. The devil seeks to pre-occupy men's thoughts and affections: we want to redeem time from this, by seeking every opportunity of introducing Christ

Verse 18: “Be filled with the Spirit” —nothing but the Spirit. It is a vessel filled with one thing—the Holy Ghost, the spring and source in the soul of all you do and Christ will be the object. The Spirit may give understanding, and the mind still be working, but when “filled with the Spirit” the whole man becomes the instrument in His hands, so that he thinks, feels, utter only what the Spirit gives. The word of God will govern for, mark, I speak here of power, not of revelation Thus “filled with the Spirit,” the flesh would not meddle with the things of God. But too often we mi up our own thoughts, and we introduce things at the wrong time. We want to be as clay molded by Him. What a deliverance is this from self! what a consciousness of the power of God in us when thus filled with the Spirit! All must acknowledge how little of this there is in us. All is so mingled. There is so little of the complete setting aside of all that is of man. If we fail, the conscience has to be dealt with; but our normal condition is to be walking with God, “filled with the Spirit;” our proper joy is in God. So, verse 19, “Singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.” While looking up, looking down, “giving thanks to God and the Father.” What, for tribulation? Yes! because the Spirit gives me to see God in the tribulation. “Filled with the Spirit,” I am ever giving thanks to God. See how Christ rejoiced in spirit, saying “I thank Thee, Father” (Matt. 11), when still, as to circumstances of sorrow around, His heart was breaking. The secret of this was, that while grieved at Israel's rejection of Him, He was in perfect communion with His Father, and with the glorious thoughts of God about His Son.

Very often the flesh is not broken down enough to make a man take the place, and walk in the truth, which God Himself has revealed to the soul. Thus it was with Peter (Matt. 16:17, 21-23). Though he had just made the blessed confession of Christ which the Father had revealed to him, as the Christ, the Son of the living God, when the Lord spoke of His path of humiliation, as Son of man, Peter could not bear it, and beseeches Him not to speak thus. Peter's flesh was not broken down enough to walk in the power of the truth he had received and rejoiced in. So it is with us.

In verse 25, &c., God is bringing out what Christ is in His relationship to His body the church. As in Rom. 8, it is in the first part of the chapter God IN us, and in the latter part God FOR us (and thus we are said to be predestinated, justified, glorified, and sanctification is not spoken of); so here God speaks of what Christ is for the church. The spring of all is Christ's love. “He loved the church.” God showed Him that pearl of great price, and Christ must have it, though He give Himself for it! All that Christ is in the perfection of His holiness, wisdom, and grace, all that is Himself, all He gave for the church (the shedding of His blood is not spoken of here): not only what He had, not only His life, but Himself. A man cannot give more than himself. Thus wholly is Christ ours by Divine gift, and according to the perfectness with which God gives. Christ loved the church, but having a bride, He must have her according to His own mind. He does not sanctify her first and then make her His own, but He makes her His own in order to sanctify her (see verses 25, 26.) Hence the “washing of water by the word.” The written word is the mind of God. Thus Christ gives the expression of His own heart and mind to the church in the word, in order to make it like Himself. “Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy word is truth.” This testimony to all that God is in Christ is applied to the Church to conform her to Himself. God must have the Lamb's wife like Himself (partakers of the Divine nature). Even nature teaches this, and thus Christ applies the word which is the revelation of God in Christ, in order to bring us into this likeness to Himself, and to cause God's thoughts to be ours. See verses 2, 3 of chap. 1, “Holy and without blame before Him in love.” This is what God is, and this is what the love of Christ is doing for the church. “That He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.” The word cleanses a man's affections, and not only cleanses, but the end is to make glorious. Even now the glory shines in on us, and we are changed from glory to glory, &c. Thus the apostle; he saw the light—the light of Christ at the end, and each step as he approached he got more of that light. The power of the glory is applied by Christ through the word. Christ must have the church for himself. We get this principle in Song of Solomon (not that I think we have the church in Song of Solomon but the Jewish remnant; still, we get the principles of Christ's love there). The first thought is having got Christ; but then follows, “I am my Beloved's, and His desire is towards me.” I belong to Christ. It is a remarkable and beautiful expression in Gen. 2:22 (with reference to Eve as a type of the church) “the Lord God builded” (see margin) “a woman.”

The Lord God presents this woman to Adam. The second Adam, being the Lord God, “presents” His glorious church without “spot” to “Himself.”

All the perfection of God became man in order that He might be satisfied as to His church. Ah! here the heart gets happy and humble. It is when I am dependent on the affection of another that my heart gets humbled, and learns to rest in a sanctified way upon the object of affection. Our hearts no longer thirst (see John 4:14). We get our life out of Christ, Gal. 2:20: “The life that I live, I live by the faith of the Son of God.” All through this time of our weakness we have the unceasing love of one who nourishes and cherishes us as His own flesh; and there is a kind of blessed necessity for this. “No man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as Christ the church: for we are members of His body, &c.

Verse 28. It is most sweet to take the motive of our duties from the pattern we have in Christ. There is not one relationship owned by God for which we fail to find a pattern in the things of God. In this passage it is the devotedness of love. It is not the blood, but all the perfect, the precious, tender, unceasing care of love (of His Son who gave Himself for us), until He shall present us to Himself a glorious church, holy and without blemish.

Beloved brethren, how our hearts need to be learning more of this love of Christ which passeth knowledge.

On 1 Thessalonians 2:1-12

Such was the vivid and powerful effect of the Apostle's visit to Thessalonica. There was an unmistakable and deep impression produced by the conversion and walk of the saints there on those outside, around and everywhere. Their faith went forth as a living proclamation of the truth;” so that we need not to speak anything.” How happy, when the work is in such power and freshness as to leave the workman free for other fields white already unto harvest! What glory to the Lord, when the very heathen aroused and amazed by the result in power before them cannot but talk of the true God and His Son!

Now, the Apostle draws a good sketch of his “entering in,” as to its character and bearing on the saints themselves, an internal picture, as before we were told of its external effect.

“For yourselves know, brethren, our entrance unto you, that it hath not been vain. But having suffered before, and been outraged, as ye know, at Philippi, we were bold in our God to speak unto you the gospel of God in much conflict. For our exhortation [is, or was] not of error, nor of uncleanness, nor in guile; but even as we have been approved of God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God that proveth our hearts. For neither at any time were we with speech of flattery, as ye know, nor with a cloak of covetousness, God [is] witness; nor seeking glory of men, neither from you nor from others, when we might have been burdensome as apostles of Christ. But we were gentle in the midst of you, as when a nurse cherisheth her own children; so yearning over you, we were well pleased to impart unto you, not the gospel of God only, but also our own souls, because ye became beloved by us. For ye remember, brethren, our labor and our toil; working night and day that we might not burden any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God. Ye [are] witnesses, and God, how holily and righteously and blamelessly we behaved ourselves to you that believe; just as ye know how each one of you as a father his own children, we [were] exhorting you, and comforting, and testifying that ye should walk worthily of God that calleth you unto His own kingdom and glory” (ver. 1-12).

The apostle could confidently appeal to the inner consciousness of the brethren. The entering in of Paul and Silas, which they had to the Thessalonian saints, had not been empty. A divine purpose of grace, reality in pressing the truth on consciences, and energy of the Holy Spirit, had characterized their service, and produced corresponding results. And no wonder; for it was the love of Christ constraining to the love of perishing souls, which knew not God nor the power of His resurrection who had tasted death even for them. Assuredly too, it was neither an ostentatious show nor a holiday visit, but an errand so serious in the eyes of their visitors, that no object by the way or on the spot detained; “but having suffered before and been outraged, even as ye know, in Philippi, we were bold in our God to speak unto you the gospel of God in much conflict” (ver. 2).

Their injurious treatment at the hands of the Gentiles in Philippi no more daunted their unconquerable faith and love than the subsequent persecution by Jewish spite and jealousy at Thessalonica. No experience of suffering can turn aside those whose mind is to endure all things both for Christ and for the elect's sake, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. Hence their confidence “we were bold in our God to speak unto you the gospel of God in much conflict.” If there was the assurance that the glad tidings were God's, they were emboldened in God to speak out, whatever the opposition or violence that environed them. So, if the apostle had now to exhort the saints in Thessalonica that no one might be moved by their affliction, it was not, as a dilettante divine, laying on the shoulders of others a burden which he would not move with his own finger. From the first he was called to suffer for Christ's name, as distinctly as to bear that name before both Gentiles and kings and sons of Israel, to open their eyes that they might turn from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they might receive remission of sins, and an inheritance among those that are sanctified by faith in Christ. And in this he wrought with burning earnestness, to which “much conflict” refers, rather than to mere external trouble on the one hand, or that wrestling for the saints against the wiles of the devil, of which we hear in Col. 2:1, on the other hand. He walked and served in the truth he taught.

“ For our exhortation [is, or was] not of error, nor of uncleanness, nor in guile; but even as we have been approved of God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not as pleasing men, but God that proveth our hearts” (ver. 3-4). There was as good a conscience as boldness and endurance. There was integrity of heart, the very reverse of playing a part, instead of becoming the victim of delusion and so misleading others. Error was as far from the exhortation as impurity, nor was there the least intent to deceive, which “guile” expresses; but the truth was pressed holily and sincerely; and so spoke these blessed laborers, as became those who knew they had been approved of God to have the gospel entrusted to them. Grace forms responsibility, as grace enjoyed in the soul maintains its force livingly. They had God before them, God that proveth the hearts, not men to please whose breath is in their nostrils: wherein is man to be accounted of?

This is a grave and abiding principle, as true and important now as when Paul thus spoke of himself and his companion in the service of Christ. One cannot serve two masters. Patrons and congregations are not the only snares. Desire of influence, dread of disfavor, party, ecclesiasticism, may interfere with allegiance to the Lord, and righteousness in that case will surely suffer, perhaps truth itself. So Satan works in Christendom to the dishonor of Christ. The attempt to serve more than one is fatal; for a man will either hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. If a laborer in faith regards himself as approved of God to be entrusted with the gospel, he will only the more take heed to himself that the ministration be not blamed, but in everything commend himself as God's minister. Only he will seek to hold fast liberty as much as responsibility in the Spirit, with the written word as his sole rule. An apostle had the same direct responsibility to the Lord as the least laborer in the gospel, and, as we see here, owned it for himself as he urged it on others. It is no question of right but on Christ's part; it is solely of responsibility on ours. This maintains His glory and our obedience. To us there is, and there is but, one Lord, Jesus Christ, to whom are all things, and we through Him; as there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto Him. May we be imitators of the apostle, as he was of Christ.

But there is the snare of mammon as well of a master rival to Christ; and we cannot servo God and mammon. Here, too, the apostle could appeal to the experience of the Thessalonian saints. “For neither at any time were we with speech of flattery, as ye know, nor with a cloak of covetousness, God [is] witness; nor seeking glory of men, neither from you nor from others, when we might have been burdensome [or, stood on dignity] as apostles of Christ” (ver. 5, 6). Those with whom Paul and the others were conversant could bear witness whether his speech was that of flattery or words of truth and soberness. God was his witness whether covetousness was concealed under any pretext. But there are other ways in which the corruption of our nature is apt to indulge: and betray itself. Hence many a man who would not stoop to flattery and may not be covetous is vain or ambitious. How in these respects had Paul and his companions carried themselves? “Not seeking glory of men, neither from you nor from others, when we might have been burdensome as apostles of Christ.” He sought their blessing in the testimony, of Christ, not theirs but them for God's glory; and, instead of claiming just consideration in carnal things as sent of the Lord on spiritual service, there was thorough self-denial in devotedness to Christ.

Now he turns to the positive side of their walk and work. “But we were gentle in the midst of you, as when a nurse cherisheth her own children” (ver. 7). The figure of a parent, even a mother, fails to convey the tender care of a love which has its spring in God Himself. Babes need a nurse, which all mothers are not; but a nurse cherishing her own children is the just figure here employed, not a hireling for another's offspring. “So yearning over you, we were well pleased to impart unto you, not the gospel of God only, but also our own souls, because ye became beloved by us” (ver. 8). Where else is there anything to compare with this in unselfish love, unless it be in the persevering faithfulness of grace which watches over the same objects in their growth and difficulties and dangers afterward? “For ye remember, brethren, our labor and our toil: working night and day that we might not burden any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God” (ver. 9).

Paul wrought with his own hands in Thessalonica as in Corinth, whence he wrote to them, that he might be chargeable to none. Yet if anyone was entitled to say, like Nehemiah, “I am doing a great work, so that I cannot come down,” it was the apostle, who truly did in another sense come down, and so much the better did his great work, though never was there a greater mind than his who thus labored manually night and day during his brief stay among the Thessalonians. “Ye [are] witnesses, and God, how holily and righteously and blamelessly we behaved ourselves to you that believe.” He sums up his appeal to the believers and to God Himself, as only one could do who exercised himself to have a conscience void of offense toward God and men alway. “Just as ye know how each one of you as a father his own children, we [were] exhorting you, and comforting, and testifying that ye should walk worthily of God that calleth you unto His own kingdom and glory” (ver. 11, 12).

Love adapts itself to the wants of those loved. So did the apostle when the saints needed more than the food of babes. And what earthly father over made good his relation to his own children as Paul to his beloved Thessalonians? Each one and all were objects of unremitting and considerate vigilance. Exhortation, comfort, testimony never failed to stimulate, cheer, and direct in the ways that befit the God that calls unto His own kingdom and glory. There He will have His own with Christ soon and forever; in that hope, and worthily of it, He would have them now to walk. Such is the aim of a true workman of Christ; and no lovelier picture can anywhere be found than appears in the simple sketch here drawn by the apostle.

Revised New Testament: 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon

In 1:1 the omission of the italics supplied in the Authorized Version brings out better the force: “Christ Jesus our hope;” and “true” or “genuine” is better than “own” in 2. The misreading of the Text. Rec. in 4 is the source of the wrong thought in 4, where the real point is God's dispensation or administration, not “godly edifying,” which ought to be an effect of it. In 5 they have well given “charge,” as in 3 and 18, where “commandment” misleads, as many ignorantly think of the law, especially as this follows, not seeing the contrast. It seems surprising that the Revisers in 9 should consign “smiters” “twice to the margin, and give “murderers” in their text. The simple verb certainly means to thresh, or beat, rather than to kill; and the compound in well-known pieces of classic Greek is distinguished, as here, from man-slayers or murderers. (See Lysias, 116; Plat. Phaed. 114; Aristoph. Nub. repeatedly. They rightly present the “gospel of the glory,” instead of the unmeaning or wrong-meaning “glorious gospel.” The glory of God into which Christ has entered is the true and full standard of judgment by which the apostle, who had beyond any other beheld it, measures that which is unsuitable for God and His own. How little those who desire to be law-teachers enter into this! “King of the ages,” in the margin, seems preferable to “King eternal” in the text of 17. Law had been just contrasted with the gospel: God was the sovereign disposer of the ages for His own glory. But here He is the only God; not “only wise,” as in Rom. 16, where the mystery is not revealed, but His righteousness in the gospel of indiscriminate grace, and the law is vindicated yet set aside in Christ deal and risen, and all is conciliated with the fulfillment of His special promises to Israel; none but the “only wise God” could. Here He is the “only God;” He may act in creation or in judgment, in promise, law, or gospel, but He is the only God, whatever be the difference of dealing or dispensation.

In 2:3 why should the Revisers give “desiring” (θέλ.) in 1:7, and “willeth” (θ.) here, but “desire” (βούλοηαι) in 8? In 2 Peter 3:9 they render β. “wishing.” Why this looseness and caprice? Buttmann's distinction 1:26), that θ. [ἐθέλω] is not only the more general expression for willing, which is true, but that kind especially where a purpose is included, as compared with β., which implies a mere acquiescence in the will of others, seems to be quite untenable even in Homer. It is β. which is used especially to express mind or purpose if required. Mr. Green is also faulty in giving just the same force to the two different words in 1 Tim. 2:3 and 2 Peter 3:9; so indeed are the old well-known English versions. Is not the rendering of 5 clumsy, though close? In 8, 11, the twofold mistake of the Authorized Version is rectified. Read “the men” and “a woman.” In 9 it is rather “deportment” than “dress,” which follows in 10. In 12 a woman is forbidden to exercise (not merely to usurp) authority. Such full power over man is not hers. In 14 the emphasis is not expressed in English, “quite deceived.” It is a mistake to refer 15 to salvation through the birth of Christ. Bishop Ellicott has said what he can in detail as well as contextually for that application, as Dean Alford for “the higher meaning” of σωθήσεται as in the Revision, but I think in vain. To compare it with 1 Cor. 3:15 shows a strange cast of mind.

In 3:8 the Revisers rightly omit “not greedy of filthy lucre,” which was introduced from Titus 1 The caution here follows in “no lover of money.” But is there no intended reference to disorder through excess of wine in πάροινον, which they give simply as “brawler,” especially as “striker” follows? Is “condemnation” of the devil correct in 6? κρίηα was either a suit, the matter for it, or the sentence. Mr. Green takes it as “strong impeachment from the devil;” but it seems rather his charge or fault. In 16 there is little doubt that the true reading is ὅς, He who, rather than θεός, though this be implied. B is wanting, but à A C F G, with some cursives and very ancient versions, support ὅς, as D and the Latins read ὅ, K L P and most cursives giving θεός.

The Revisers render aright the beginning of 4:2 so strangely misunderstood in the Authorized Version and elsewhere. Demons might speak lies, of course; but how can we fairly speak of their “hypocrisy,” or “of their own conscience?” It is instructive to see that beside the demons there are the misleaders and the misled. Translate, therefore, “in (or through) hypocrisy of men that speak lies, cauterized in their own conscience,” &c.— “Savior” goes too far in 10, which should rather be “preserver;” but “both” is rightly dropped in an earlier clause of the verse, as “in spirit” is in 12.

In v. 4 they have with good reason omitted “good and.” To say “acceptable” is just the truth. The old error, “having condemnation,” instead of at most “guilt,” recurs in 12. Why should they not have said “an” ox when treading out corn? The Authorized Version is doubly in fault, “the ox that,” &c. In 23 they rightly give “Be no longer a drinker of water.” The Authorized Version, “Drink no longer water,” goes too far. But in 25 ought they not to have rendered it “the good works also [are] manifest” (or, evident beforehand, &c.)?

Chap. 6 has not a few misreadings in the Text. Rec. and the Authorized Version. “The” teaching or doctrine is right in 1; and the close of 2 should be, “they that partake in (or profit by) the good service are believing and beloved.” The Authorized Version of 5 is opposed to all intelligence of the usage of the article. It should be that godliness is gain, or a way of gain, as, in the Revised Version, where “from such withdraw thyself” is rightly omitted. In 7 the Revisers are probably right in excluding “it is manifest” (δῆλον) or the equivalent, in the various MSS. So also in 10 the Revisers properly say “a root of all kinds of evil,” or of all evils. “The root,” as in the Authorized Version, is good neither in doctrine nor in fact nor in grammar. In 12 “also” only encumbers the sense. It is surprising that the Revisers should in their text confound the sense of ζωογονοῦντος (A D F G, P, &c.) with that of the Text. Rec. ζωοποι. (à K L, the cursives in general, &c.) “Preserving alive” is admirably in keeping with the Epistle: of. Ex. 1:17, 18, 22, Judg. 8:19, Luke 17:33, Acts 7:19. To suppose a reference, as Alford, to “eternal life” above is outrageous, any more than to resurrection with Chrysostom or others. In 17 they are justified in omitting “living.” In 19 it is “that which is really life,” rather than “eternal life” after the Text. Rec.

2 Timothy

There are no remarkable changes which occur to my mind in the early verses of chap. 1 “Beloved child” in 2 displaces “dearly beloved son,” and “supplications” stands in lieu of “prayers” in 3.— “Stir up” still appears in 6, instead of “stir into flame” (or “rekindle") in the margin. It is hard to see why “discipline” should supplant “a sound mind,” in 7. In 8 the truer force appears, “suffer hardship with the gospel,” &c. What is the meaning of “before time eternal,” in 9? In 10 “incorruption” is right, the body being in question, not the soul, life for the soul and incorruption for the body brought to light by the gospel.—The omission of ἐθνῶ Gentiles or nations in 12 rests on the meager testimony of à A 17, contrary to all other authority; but no doubt the Cambridge professors favored the omission, though Lachmann read the word in his later edition, while Tischendorf in his eighth edition joined Tregelles, swayed overmuch as usual by the Sinaitic, as well as by the idea that it may have been borrowed from 1 Tim. 2:7. But the context would incline me to its acceptance. In the former Epistle it falls in with the testimony of grace: the glad tidings of a ransom for all could not but go forth to the nations. So here, the power of Christ in death and resurrection gives occasion to the manifestation of eternal counsel, wholly above the coarse of dispensation to Israel; and accordingly the gospel meets men universally in the grace and power of God, and hence in a life superior to death, and a love which no sufferings could daunt or quench. Why should the Revisers repeat the inaccuracy of the Authorized Version in 13? Timothy had heard the truth from the apostle in words taught of the Holy Spirit, and is exhorted to have an outline or pattern of sound words which he had thus heard, an inspired expression of what God has revealed, and this in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. For this power is needed, and Timothy is told to guard the good deposit by the Holy Spirit that dwells in us (i.e., Christians)—both the more urgently wanted because it is a time of departure, as Paul experienced before his decease. Hold “the pattern” misleads, as if Timothy had some well-known formula distinct from apostolic teaching.

In 2:8 the Revisers rightly adopt the ancient reading συλκακοπάθσιν, but their margin gives a sense preferable to their text. The apostle is not here speaking of his own sufferings. The Text. Rec. σὺ οὖν (as in the Authorized Version, “Thou therefore,” &c.) crept in early, as it is found in a few uncials, most cursives, and some ancient versions; but it is a mere clerical blunder.—7 it is correctly “shall give thee.” In 13 “for” is rightly added. In the first clause of 19 they give, quite properly, “the firm foundation standeth,” and “the Lord,” instead of” Christ” in the last clause. But the last verse affords an extraordinary sample of boldness in the Committee, which can hardly have been satisfactory to the Bishop of Gloucester and others. It is the sense preferred by Wetstein and G. Wakefield, and, singular to say, Bengel. It seems to me distinctly ungrammatical on the face of it, that a past act in contrast with present state should be represented by ἐζωγρημένοι, which really implies the present result of what has been done. To bear the sense given, the former ought to have been ξωγρηθέντες, as another has justly remarked. Doubtless the pronouns are distinguished, but it seems harsh indeed to refer αὐτοῦ; to the Lord's servant with so much intervening. Beza's proposal seems best— “that out of the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him, they may awake for [or, unto] His will,” that is, to do God's will. In the margin they do give substantially this alternative; but does it not seem extraordinary that the Committee was found pliant enough to endorse the actual text?

In 3 there is little to notice for general readers till we come to 10, where the Revisers appear to me rightly to read the aorist with à A C E G 17 rather than the perfect of the Text. Rec. with the mass of inferior authority (which probably slipt in through 1 Tim. 4:6): “But thou didst follow up my teaching,” &c. In 14 they decide for the plural, as the margin explains, and so the most ancient MSS., though the ancient versions lean with slight dissent to the singular “whom,” as in the Text. Rec. The version of 16 is questionable. As it stands it might imply that some scriptures are not divinely inspired, which is certainly opposed to the scope. “Every scripture, being divinely inspired, [is] also profitable,” &c., differs from the more usual rendering in the margin only in assuming, instead of asserting, divine inspiration. In any ease it is “every” scripture, which would apply in due time to what was yet to be written as well as to what had been already. It is purposely thrown into axiomatic form. If assumed to be God-inspired, it seems needless to say that it is useful or profitable. I therefore prefer in this the construing of the Authorized Version.

In 4:1 the Revisers reject οὖν ἐγώ, and τοῦ Κυρίου of the Text. Rec. as well as κατά, followed by the Authorized Version, though sustained by the later uncials, almost all the cursives, and all the old versions, even the Latin and Coptic. The testimony of Chrysostom is perplexing, for he seems to support καί (א A D F G., &c.) as well as κατά. But assuming the critical reading, ought we not to render “I charge both by His appearing and His Kingdom?” And why say “the” living and “the” dead? In the end of 4, have they reflected justly or fully ἐκτραπήσονται? Of course they correct “a” into “the” crown, &c. in 8, and that “love” into “have loved.” In 15 they adopt the reading “withstood” for “hath withstood.” In 18 they drop the initiatory copulative, and read only “the Lord” in 22.

Epistle to Titus.

In 1:4 the Revisers on first-rate authority read “grace and peace” instead of “grace, mercy, peace,” as in Text. Rec. and Authorized Version. “Lord” is also omitted. The first copulative is left out on high authority in 10.

In 2:5 “workers at home,” not merely “keepers” there, as the Authorized Version following Text. Rec.: a letter easily omitted makes the difference. In 7 the true text is “uncorruptness, gravity,” ἁφθορίαν, σεμνότητα, not ἁδίαφθορίαν, σ., ἁφθαρσίαν, which last even the Elzevirs and Griesbach, with all modern critics, reject, though Stephanus received it in his edd. of 1546, 1549, and 1550, misled by the Complutensian editors, not Erasmus. In 13 the Revisers translate rightly “the appearing of our great God,” &c.

3:1 is right, “to be obedient,” not “to obey magistrates,” which is already implied. In 5 they rightly follow the Authorized Version, and give “washing.” “Laver” ought not to be even in the margin. (See Eph. 5:26.)

Epistle to Philemon

In 2 ἀγαπητῇ, “beloved,” of the Text. Rec., followed by the Authorized Version, is properly excluded, and ἀδελφῇ, “sister,” takes its place on ancient and ample authority. The internal superiority of the critical reading is obvious. But the rendering of 6 seems very dubious in every English version save Tyndale's, the worst perhaps being the Rhemish and the Authorized Version, followed by the Revisers for the sense, though with the change of “fellowship” for “communication.” I believe it ought to be “thy fellowship (or participation) in the faith.” They appear to me no less unhappy in the perpetuating of the Text. Rec. ὐμῖν “you,” in the same verse, though supported by א F G P, many cursives, &c.; but ἡμῖν, “us,” has the excellent authority of A C D E K L, about fifty cursives, and other authorities. This would involve the alternative rendering of “acknowledgment” rather than “knowledge.” “Jesus” should probably be omitted. In 7 the true reading seems to be, as they prefer, χαρὰν γὰρ π. ἔσχον, “for I had great joy.” Even the Elz. (1624) has χαρἄν, instead of the Stephanic χάριν, though both gave ἔχομεν, “we have.” The peculiar emphasis of αὐτόν instead of the vulgar σὺ δέ is well given. προσλαβοῦ in the Text. Rec. was borrowed from verse 17, though many good authorities supply it here. “Lord” should disappear from the end of 20.

Scripture Queries and Answers

Q. Will you do me the great favor to direct me as to the reconciliation of your views of the parenthetical nature of the Christian Dispensation with the passages in the New Testament which seem to teach that Abraham and Christians are one in relation to all the benefits that flow from the mercy of God through the Redeemer? If the Scriptures alluded to did not seem so plainly to contradict your distinction of heavenly and earthly, I could adopt your view, But with only the light I have now, there is nothing for me but painful uncertainty.

Lexington, Va., Dec. 30, 1881. F. P. M.

A. The passages of the New Testament to which our correspondent refers are doubtless such texts as Rom. 4:11, Gal. 3, and Heb. 11 The reason why they are supposed inconsistent with the special privileges of the believer now, is that the distinctive place of the Christian, and yet more of the Church, is not apprehended. People assume that to be born of God, and to be justified by faith, are the sum and substance of present blessing. But it is not so. All saints are necessarily born of the Spirit. The baptism of the Spirit was never enjoyed till Pentecost; and on this depends the body of Christ. Compare Acts 1:2 with 1 Cor. 12:13. And the gift of the Spirit, as thus over and above the new birth, as it could not be before redemption, was to be the permanent privilege of the Christian. The Comforter or Paraclete was to abide with the disciples forever. Even as to justification by faith, Rom. 4 makes this difference between Abraham and us: he believed that God was able to perform His promise; we believe on Him that raised up from the dead Jesus our Lord, after accomplishing. His work in death for our offense. The Old Testament had promise; we rest on accomplishment; so that there is a grave difference at the threshold. Then Gal. 4 shows that even the true saints of old were in servitude; but that now it is a question of the adoption of sons, the Spirit of the Son being sent forth into the hearts of the sons, crying Abba, Father. The inheritance of promise is common ground; but this quite consists with fresh and inferior blessing consequent on redemption. If we think not of the individual, but of our corporate relationship, the difference is at least as marked. The olive tree of testimony according to promise is not at all the same as the house of God, or the body of Christ. There is continuity in the olive tree, even if some of the natural branches were broken off for unbelief to let in the Gentile wild olive graft; and the Gentile, if not continuing in goodness, is to be cut off, that God may ingraft again the natural branches no longer abiding in unbelief. “And so all Israel shall be saved” in the depth of God's wisdom and mercy. But this is quite distinct from Eph. 2, where the two are formed into one man, in which is neither Jew nor Gentile; and we are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the chief corner stone. During the Old Testament the middle wall was not broken down, nor were both made one. Even in the Lord's ministry here below, “Go not,” said He, “into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:” dead and risen, He sends them to any or all. How could the house be even begun before the foundation, not of prophets and then apostles, but “of the apostles and prophets” whom the ascended Head gave as gifts? And the body is formed in union with Him by the Spirit sent down from heaven.

Thus, if there are benefits which all saints enjoy from God's mercy through Christ, which is thankfully owned, there are fresh and unspeakably great privileges which flow from redemption, and the presence of the Holy Ghost, who associates us in unity with Christ on high. In these last lies the peculiar blessings of the Christian and the Church. When Christ comes, the worthies of faith will, no doubt, receive the promise; but God has none the less provided some better thing for us, though we and they shall together enter on glory in that day.

Q. 1 Peter 3:18-20 What is the meaning? Did Christ preach after death to the Old Testament saints?

A. To be understood, this verse must be taken with what goes before. Christ was put to death in flesh, but made alive in the Spirit, in which also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, disobedient as they at one time were when the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved through water; which figure also doth now save you, &c. 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 (i.e. in Noah) preached. 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 the Word, and now consequently their spirits await the judgment at the resurrection of the unjust. The collocation of the Greek (τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασιν) is decisive, that the true connection is not with the preaching, but between the spirits and prison. They were sinners disobedient to the message, not saints comforted. The preaching was on earth, where the unbelieving rejection was; and because of it their spirits are now imprisoned (the very opposite of paradise) till judgment come.

Burnt-offering

The Book of Leviticus opens with Jehovah calling to Moses out of the Tabernacle. It is a question of approach to Himself the offerings being the means of typifying the work of Christ by which we are brought to God.

There is a definite distinction between the first two sacrifices we have here (to which the third is an appendix), and those for sin. The burnt-offering and the meat-offering stand alone, and dependent on them the peace (or communion) offering; and then follow those of another character, the sin and trespass offerings. Such are the two classes.

Wherever we meet the actual use and application of the offerings, it is in a different order from the revelation of them here. In the revelation we get them as God presents them, looking at Christ: but in the use of them man's need comes first. Here it is God's Fide, and the burnt-offering, like the meat and peace offerings, is a sacrifice by fire of a sweet savor to the Lord: an expression never used of the sin-offering, except in one single verse.

It gives a very definite character to these two first, that it is their aspect towards God, His character and nature. When we come as sinners, it is in respect of what our sins are; but our apprehension of the meaning and value of Christ's death is greatly enhanced by seeing God's part in it. I must confess my sins—it is the only true way of coming, but there is propitiation through faith in His blood; and then I find all that is essential in these sacrifices as regards God in their proper nature and value.

There is no particular sin here: it, was for sin of course, but it was not an individual confessing some particular sin. It is striking enough that until the institution of the law, you never get sin offerings; except in the case of Cain, of which I do not doubt myself (though I know it is a question of interpretation) that it is, “a sin-offering lieth at the door,” sin and sin-offering being the same word. But the word is never used again in that way, till the law. We have burnt-offerings and peace-offerings often.

The burnt-offering is the great basis, because it is God's glory in what has been done for sin. We must come, as has been said, by the sin-offering. “He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.” But it is another thing when I look at Christ's offering and sacrifice as glorifying God perfectly in all that He is, and that in respect of sin. He said, “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life;” a very remarkable word, for none could give a “therefore” to God for His love but Christ. The difference between divine love and human love is, that God commendeth His love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us: whereas scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet peradventure for the good man some one would even dare to die. If man gets sufficient motive, he will sacrifice his life; but without any motive Christ gave Himself, God gave His Son: it characterizes the love. In John 10:11 He lays down His life “for the sheep;” but in verse 17 He does not say it is for the sheep. He has glorified God in death, in the place of sin; and He is glorified as man at the right hand of God. He goes up into that place where we get morally what the sacrifice was in God's sight.

Nothing is said about sins in this chapter, though sin was there, bloodshedding, death, showing sin was the thing in question; and yet the sacrifice was absolutely a sweet savor, that blessed character of the sacrifice of Christ which settles every question of good and evil in God's sight. The terrible fact was that in the creature of God's predilection sin had come in. People say that Adam learned to know evil, whereas he had only known good before; but that is not at all the point. “The man is become as one of us, knowing good and evil.” It is knowing the difference between right and wrong.

Man was the one in whom God was going to be perfectly glorified; His delights were with the sons of men. He did not take up angels, but the seed of Abraham. We are to be eternally conformed to the image of God's Son. In the mean time, Satan had prevailed over the first man; after lust came transgression, and all was over as regards his responsibility. His state was made to depend on one single thing that required obedience. He might have eaten of all the trees in the garden, if God had not forbidden one; it was not a question of any positive sin, but the claim of obedience. It was a thing to put angels to confusion, God's beautiful creature ruined! Lust and violence came in, till God had to destroy it all. Everybody knows what the evil is: you cannot go into a great city like this, without knowing that the evil is such that none but God Himself could have patience with it. It has been truly said, if trusted to one of us, we should destroy it in an hour. Man, in the hand of Satan, degraded himself end turned everything to confusion.

Another thing is to be observed: God tried man in every way. The question was raised, Was there any remedy for this? In the first place He destroyed them with a judgment; then He called Abraham; then came the test of the law. All the things required by the law were duties already. The law did not make them duties; but it was God's statement of the obligation of those duties and God's claim upon man to fulfill them. The sacrifices were introduced consequent upon that. As to the state of man's heart, nothing could have been more decided than when he cast God off for the one thing he was told not to do. Then came a totally distinct thing. Man being not only a sinner but a transgressor, God was here in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing trespasses. He came in perfect goodness close to man; He touched man, so to speak—holiness in all His walk, but divine love in everything He did. Made flesh He dwelt among us; not visiting merely as with Abraham, but He was down here as a man, manifesting what He is towards men. This was the last trial to which God put man, to see whether there was anything He could awaken in man towards God, come in goodness from His Father, walking amongst men in grace, so that there was no sorrow He did not meet. But we know how it ended for the time: He was totally rejected; and this closed man's history, his moral history. Not only had he sinned, so that he must be turned out of an innocent paradise because he was not innocent, but he had rejected God's Son come in love.

But now came the accomplishment of the divine work of redemption; There was a sacrifice. I get the blessed Son of God giving Himself, made sin in God's sight, totally alone, and, as to the suffering of His soul, forsaken of God. The sin is dealt with: I must come by my guilt; but this presents it from God's side and view. Absolute evil is in man; and God met man with the perfect revelation of good. But it drew out hatred—such was the effect: the carnal mind, enmity against God, hatred against Him manifested in goodness. Satan's power is complete over man, Christ's own disciples forsaking Him, the rest wagging their heads at Him, glad to get rid of God and good. He had gone so low for our guilt and God's glory, that even the thief hung with Him could insult Him!

With the blessed Lord Himself is just the opposite: man in perfect goodness, love to the Father, and obedience at all cost. “That the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do.” Perfect in the place of sin, where this question had been brought to an issue, made pin in God's sight in perfect love to His Father and perfect obedience. But further, in the cross I see God in absolute righteousness against sin, yet in perfect love to the sinner; man in absolute badness, and Satan's power complete, but in Christ man in absolute obedience.

This laid the basis of it all; it brought angels desiring to look into it, to see the Just suffering for the unjust It was not weak mercy giving up holiness and righteousness, but the absolute expression of majesty and righteousness. “It became Him,” that if God's Son were made sin, He must be dealt with as such. There was no escape! He gave Himself for it; “a body hast thou prepared me.” Totally alone there, with none to comfort Him, and strong bulls of Bashan around, He says, “Be not thou far from me, O Lord,” and He had to be forsaken of God.

Such was the condition man was in that it was his delight to get rid of God—and God too, not come to judge man, but to reconcile him to Himself!

But God's eternal counsels were in it, and Christ gave Himself. All that God is was brought out and made good there, when man under Satan's power had succeeded in getting rid of Christ. He giving up Himself, God was glorified in Him. There was the secret work of God, who used it to accomplish the very thing by which Satan sought to frustrate it. Satan's power seemed to have its way when he got rid of Christ from the world; but all was then brought to an issue before God. And this gives the immutability of the blessing. All was finished on which everlasting righteousness is founded. It was not a state of innocence whose preservation hung on yet unsatisfied responsibility: the unchanging blessing of the new heavens and the new earth depends on that whose worth cannot change.

Morally speaking, the cross maintains it all. The question of good and evil, raised in the garden of Eden, was settled in the cross. We see the blessed Son of God never using His divine power to screen Himself from suffering, not using it to hinder the suffering but to sustain Him in it, enabling Him to bear what none could have gone through without it. When I come to God in this way, I apprehend what sin is, not merely my actual sins, but that in me dwelleth no good thing.

There is One hanging upon the cross, made sin before God at the very moment when the fall character of sin was manifested in the rejection of Christ. And there, where man was wholly a sinner and Christ stood in that place for him, all that God is was brought out: Where could you find full righteousness against sin? In no place but the cross, which gives perfect righteousness against sin and love to the sinner in that same blessed work, and this in a man, and when sin was brought out in its worst character.

Look at Him at the grave of Lazarus, a wonderful scene! The Lord was there in perfect obedience, for when they sent the tenderest message to Him (“Lord, he whom thou loveth is sick”), He abode still, two days where He was. Death was weighing upon their spirits: what made Him weep? He was not weeping for Lazarus. Death was there, and it seemed all over; but no, “I am the resurrection and the life” —I am come into this scene where death is lying on your hearts; I am the resurrection and the life in the midst of it. And when this was shown, which even Thomas saw was on His path, He goes out Himself to die! There did not remain a slur or stain upon what God is. Not only was His righteous judgment against sin shown, as it could be nowhere else, but His love in that He spared not His own Son. That work and act of Christ went up as a sweet savor to God. He gives Himself in perfect devoted love to His Father. Perfect love was manifested, and all that God is. “Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.” Outward dishonor, but moral glory; what was in the nature of God, and what was in man as hatred against God, was all brought out, Christ giving Himself up wholly and totally, that God should be perfectly glorified; so that in that sense of the word God was a debtor to man for the infinite glory brought to Him, and this where sin and death had come in! He hung there as made sin, and God is more glorified than if sin had never come in. It is a wonderful thing. There is nothing like it! He does bear our sins, blessed be His Name; but when we see the blessed Son of God made sin, is there anything like that? None of us can speak of it properly, but I trust your hearts will look at it and feed upon it.

But what I have not yet referred to is, that the offerer was to do it (not exactly “of his own voluntary will,” but) for his acceptance. I leave the offering now for the man who comes by it. “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts.” Coming by that sacrifice—it is important our hearts should get hold of it—I am accepted in the Beloved; I go to God in the sweet savor of all that Christ is. It is not simply that my sins are put away—there I can stand in righteousness as to my sins before God—but, coming by that in which God delights, He delights in me as in it, and I am loved as Christ is loved. It brings into fellowship with God as to the value of Christ's place. I know He takes perfect delight in me. I am a worthless creature in myself, and the more I know it the better; but there is no condemnation for them that are in Christ Jesus. I go to God in faith, in the perfect sweet savor of Christ. It is not a question of any particular sin, but I go to God with the consciousness of being received and delighted in; I go as the fruit of the travail of His soul. God sees in me the perfection of Christ's work, and it is forever and ever; but it rests upon our hearts now.

We must come by the sin-offering, but we have in the burnt-offering a great deal more. No actual sin is spoken of, but the sense of what His glory requires accomplished in Christ, where sin was; that there is nothing also in the character of God not perfectly glorified, and this in love to us. It is not merely that my sins are put away, but I go offering Christ, so to speak. I present Christ, and God testifies of the gift. What is the measure of my righteousness? Christ; and therefore we are received to the glory of God. And now, in weakness and infirmity here, speaking of our standing before God, it is in all the delight He had, not merely in Christ as a living Man, but in all the perfection of His work in the place of sin, where all that He is was glorified—obedient unto death.

One may not like saying, Where are your hearts about it? but—what I do desire for us all—Does my soul go to God, owning that righteousness of God, that love of God, the gift of God in it, and that He testifies of the gifts?

May He give us to see, though we never can fathom it, what it was to that Holy One, who was the delight of His Father's bosom, to be made sin; that our souls may feed on Him, eating His flesh and drinking His blood, and not only know that we are washed from our sins.

The Declared Purpose and Present Moral Processes: 18. History of Faith

In Mark it is service and responsibility, and the order of the words points to the reward of faithfulness in service. Not only the more prominent, but each one, however humble, has a “candle” from the Lord, and is responsible not to hide it under a bushel. This is the service of all, and where is fidelity there is increase. “To him that hath shall be given.” If the first fruit-bearing be only thirty-fold, the faithful servant will be led on by the Spirit to bear a hundred-fold. In Luke it is neither dispensation nor responsibility in service, but sovereign grace, and in the parable of the Sower the natural result of grace is given. For when it is unhindered it always produces a hundred-fold. If all were constantly true to the grace of God, not one would fail of a full result. There is sufficiency of grace for it. The God of grace delights to look on the brightest side, and looks here at the full effect of what He has bestowed. No mention in Luke of failure, either in a greater or less degree; there is a hundred-fold. Not that responsibility is ignored; God's free giving does not set that aside. And therefore the symbol of a candle is added here. But in Mark it is the challenge to responsibility: “Is a candle brought to be hidden?” “Take heed what ye hear; with what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you.” In Luke it is the assertion in view of grace, that no man when he hath lighted a candle covereth it with a vessel. That is, the grace of God unhindered in its action upon the soul meets the saint in his responsibility, supplies all his need, and produces a hundred-fold. Grace makes him take heed “how” he hears; in Mark, “what” he hears; it is God's word, he must own its full authority. But “how” refers to the manner of hearing; in self-abasement recognizing God's grace, in the consciousness of absolute unworthiness, yet in faith.

But Mark speaks of the “mystery of the kingdom of God.” The mysteries of the kingdom of heaven show the various outward forms of evil which, taking occasion through a dispensation of grace, men manifest. The “mystery of the kingdom of God” is, if possible, a more solemn thing, as showing the moral condition of souls. It looks at the effects of God's truth upon the inner man; the truth believed as a doctrine but not received in the heart, holding the truth in unrighteousness, acknowledging after a sort its authority but not obedient to it, loving the world and the things of the world. The love of money (i.e., the world in a portable form) is a root of all evil. And this evil, which has its seat in the heart, is looked at in its unity, as is the good which is put as the Lord's work. It is the mystery—not mysteries—of the kingdom of God. The outward wickedness which the “mysteries” reveal is the result of that root, evil pointed to by the “mystery of the kingdom of God.”

For this reason, I cannot but judge, the tare-field is not given in Mark. The tare-field is history—the source, introduction, progress, and final doom of a special evil, though, as to extent, universal evil that could only be found where good seed had been sown. The tree is found in the three Gospels. In Matthew, it is simply the fact that such a thing exists, giving shelter to Satan's agents. In Mark, it is not the bare fact of existence, but that grace and truth have been so perverted, so practically denied, that not holiness but wickedness can be upheld by and find a home in it. Matthew says, “The birds of the air came:” he is stating a fact. Mark says, “The birds came and devoured:” he is describing the character (it became such in the hands of man). That the truth in the kingdom of God should, while retaining the name, become so changed through Satanic agency and human evil, is a “mystery.” But this is what the Gentile world did with the truth of the glory of God as displayed in creation— “changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things” (Rom. 1:28). Is this a horrible thing? That which Christendom has done and is now doing is far more horrible.

Matt. 11:12 seems to be an exception to the statement that the kingdom of heaven is never presented as an object of attainment. But it is only apparent. So also Matt. 18:4. The former declares that the violent take it by force, the latter that none can enter unless he become like a child. Becoming like a little child is one of the marks of true conversion, and is seen, more or less, at all times. But it may have special reference to the time when the Lord Jesus was here and rejected, both verses referring to that time, “from the days of John the Baptist until now,” i.e., the time of the Lord's sojourn here. When He was here He was none the less King because the Jew refused Him. Nathaniel's faith owned Him such at once. Where He was, was the kingdom, and to follow Him was to enter the kingdom; though as a dispensation it did not begin till Christ ascended, and even then not in its final form, but for a period during which the power and the glory are in abeyance, and a heavenly people formed. When that purpose is fulfilled, the kingdom in power is near.

There are three distinct phases of the kingdom of heaven. First, while the Lord Jesus, the King, was here; second, from the time of His ascension on to His revelation or appearing for judgment; third, the Millennium, which is the future dispensation of glory.

Daring the first, two things would characterize those who entered the kingdom. They would be as strong men and also like little children: two most opposite qualities, yet here perfectly harmonious, necessary and complementary to each other. As strong men, using force, they would break away from old associations, from all they had hitherto held sacred and dear, but which in presence of the rejected King lost all their value. This was a wrench so great that the Lord calls them violent; it was by force they took the kingdom. On the other hand, they were to exhibit the traits of a little child.

Coming to Him was not to be with intellectual reasoning like Nicodemus, “How can these things be?” not proposing questions, “What good thing shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” not with a lawyer's evasive skill, “Who is my neighbor?” not even with the sincerity of the rich young man; but with the confiding simplicity of a little child, receiving unquestioningly all His teaching, and sharing His reproach. This was specially exemplified in Peter and Andrew, James and John. The Lord said “Follow me;” and at once they left all and followed Him. No reasoning about their nets, nor even about their father. The same word called Matthew, and he left custom and office to follow the Lord Jesus. This is child-like. How foolish! says the world; but wisdom is justified of her children, and they were the children of the kingdom. But inasmuch as the King Himself is rejected, the children, though free as to title, must share the reproach of the Master; and this was seen in the Lord submitting to pay the tribute for Himself and for Peter. Another fact that marks off this period from the succeeding one is that the dispensation of law, as well as the claim of the Temple, was not yet formally set aside; the veil was not yet rent. Such an aspect of the kingdom could only be while the Lord was here, and rejected by the people.

The second phase is the dispensation of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven—this present time hastening to its close. There is no question now of entering the kingdom by force; what we see now is, life from the dead. There is something analogous when anyone—already converted—gives up position, friends, or even relatives for the Lord's sake; but as a dispensation men are born in the kingdom, which comprehends at least every place where His name is proclaimed. Conversion is not the single idea either in taking the kingdom by force, or in becoming a child to enter it. The dead hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live. The dead cannot use force. The position of being in the kingdom as sons is now merged in the higher place of being brought into the church of God, which now gives a likeness of the kingdom of heaven; but when the third period comes, the church, which is now the hid treasure, will shine as the sun in the kingdom of the Father.

Mark does not give the parable of the leaven, which is never employed as the symbol of a good thing. The tree is so used; the first mention of a tree is in connection with creation good. There was a tree of life in Eden; there will be another in the new earth. And when the tree is need as a figure of blessedness (Psa. 1 Jer. 17) or for the power of Messiah (Dan. 2:44), all is absolute perfection. But when applied to man, or to anything committed to him, then comes failure and decay. Such a display of God's power in goodness as when Christ came, such a manifestation as had never been known before, was worthy to be called the kingdom of God. It is the revelation of Himself. “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them.” Not His authority and power in judgment, but His character in grace. The kingdom of heaven now is specially the rule of Christ while He is at the right hand of God; the kingdom of God is specially His gracious power made known in wondrous ways to a lost world.

The tree is connected with man's responsibility, and is given in Mark, and the same illustration which in Matthew gives the dispensational character, in Mark points to the moral and spiritual blindness, the degradation of man, his insensibility to God's grace. A tree may fail in fruit-bearing, may wither, or its fruit become bad. Leaven never becomes bad; it cannot be corrupted, because it is itself corruption and corrupting; and, I apprehend, for this reason it is not suited to Mark's Gospel. Both the tree and the leaven are given in Luke 13 but in connection with the hypocritical ruler, who in false zeal for the sanctity of the Sabbath dared to rebuke the Lord for healing the infirm woman on that day. Hypocrisy is the pervading and prominent evil which falsifies, and is specially opposed to, guilelessness and the grace revealed in the kingdom of God and in the person of Christ, the theme of Luke's Gospel. It is found in high places, among the ecclesiastical rulers of a world-church, as set forth in the tree; its pernicious and insinuating character is in the leaven.

One who seemed to catch the import of the Lord's words, said, “Lord, are those that be saved few?” The Lord Jesus points to the strait gate as the only way to escape the prevailing evil. Hypocrites would make a wide gate, but not into the kingdom of God. Their gate would not lead to the enjoyment of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, which constitute the kingdom of God now. Flesh and blood cannot inherit that kingdom. That God now bears with the assumption of hypocrites is part of the “mystery of the kingdom of God.”

The hid treasure and the pearl only appear in Matthew. Both tell of the place God in His love gives to His saints. Not responsibility in service, nor the grace which seeks and saves the lost, but the estimation which God puts upon those who are saved, the love of Him who within the sphere of the kingdom of heaven hid a treasure and found a pearl.

The net, too, has a place only in Matthew. It is the latest public act characteristic of the kingdom of heaven, save judgment, but this is equally introductory to the Millennium. The “good” are in question here, and for them it, is the winding up of the present age. It has its right plane, surely, where the Lord put it in His parabolic history of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven.

Each Gospel has its distinctive character, and parables peculiar to each. Not one shows this more than Mark 4:26-29. “So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground; and should sleep, and rise night and day, and the seed should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how. For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear. But when the fruit is brought forth, immediately he putteth in the sickle, because the harvest is come.” The not knowing how the seed grew is simply the appearance of the world which knows nothing of the secret sustaining power of God. It is the contrast with what had been when Jehovah interfered openly for His people; it might be by judgment, or by deliverance from their enemies, but it was manifest. This was now about to be changed; and the absence of God's interposition on behalf of His saints would be to the world as if He knew not how the seed grew. Just as the earth brought forth fruit of herself, the blade, the ear, the ripe fruit, so God's saints would appear to the world as if all their strength was derived from human sources. The harvest would undeceive them, but not till then would they know. It is then that He who sowed the seed appears. To appear before that time would interfere with, and curtail, the action of faith. Faith had not such opportunity before, nor will there be in the coming dispensation. Manifested glory and power is not the place where the, victories and endurance of faith is best seen. There is a necessity, in the Wisdom of God, that faith should apparently be left to itself; so that it might increase and strengthen—that He should seem to act towards His people as a man who sleeps and rises night and day, and knows not how the seed germinates and produces the ripened fruit. But God has given to faith the power of increasing by opposition; and so growing from the first blade to the full corn in the ear is a divine reality, and is as natural to true faith as that coin seed should grow out of the earth. Faith bears most fruit when appearances are most against. If scoffers say, “Where is the promise of his coming?” faith boldly answers, “He is not slack concerning His promise;” but He is long-suffering.

The wicked being allowed to persecute, without the power of God being presently exercised against the persecutors, led Paul to say by the Holy Ghost, “If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.” But does not God really watch over and protect His saints? Yea, truly, and the church's pathway through the world is both for the glory of God and for the brighter shining of His saints when the glory comes. Saints are conscious of God's care and love, and know that during this present dispensation it is not so much by delivering them from the sorrows and trials of life, as by maintaining their faith and bringing them triumphantly through all. “My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations [not temptations to sin], knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience” (see James 1:8, 4 & 13, 14). This is not mere resting upon God during the trial, but joy because the trial is sent. This is one of faith's victories, whose eye is fixed not on present suffering but on God's glory in it. “That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honor and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 1:7). Many instances of God's special interposition might be adduced, but the general and normal aspect of this dispensation is that the saints of God have to suffer, whatever a Christ-rejecting world may do. So it appears that the seed groweth up “he knoweth not how.” But faith goes beyond the appearance, trusting and confiding in God.

The world sees not God; and saints, to the men who have not faith, are but people with peculiar notions, and visionaries, that lack wisdom. But what is the wisdom of this world? What are the wise and prudent mostly striving for? They are searching into every possible thing, rising to the created heavens, diving into the bowels of the earth, “evolving” the whole animal creation, man himself not excepted, from one primordial, and almost inanimate lump of matter, running to and fro the earth seeking for proof (!) that God is not God. Congresses and lectures are over the land to spread infidelity. Nay (incredible audacity), they search God's own Book to deny His truth, to deny Christ the Sent of God. The world accepts this wisdom, makes legislators of its teachers, to guide the destinies of nations, and to banish the very idea of “God” from the earth. This is the wisdom, the boasted light of the nineteenth century! From the least touch of this horrible, hellish wisdom may God keep His saints. Yet, as if in evidence that the world does not quite believe its own teachings, why do not these wise ones let Christians alone? If they are foolish believers in cunningly devised fables, why not let them alone in their folly? Why speak and write against them and the Book God has given them? Why so much labor to prove that what must be a fable (as they say) is a fable? No one writes now to prove that the gods of the heathen are no gods, or that Mahomet was a deceiver.

Satan laughs at the wisdom of the world but as the Arch enemy of Christ uses it to the ruin of man. He knows that faith in God is a reality, and he has often been put to flight by it. Therefore he would drive it from the earth. He persecutes and kills the saints of God. This failing to accomplish his purpose—faith grows and spreads by it—he seeks to seduce the believer from the paths of faith. But he began with persecution and blood, killing Stephen and James, attempting to kill Peter at the same time; he made Saul of Tarsus breathe out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord; and when this persecutor became Paul the Apostle, he stirred up with increased rage the Jews to kill him. The enmity of the Jews was his choice means against the church, and when that people were broken and scattered by Gentile power, he used the Roman emperor to stamp out if possible the faith of Christ from among men.

But Satanic wisdom perceived that the more the, disciples were scattered, the more were believers brought to bow to the name of Christ. Satanic cunning then employed the world's seductive charms, and here he alas! succeeded with the mass of professors. A faithful few were kept by the power of God's grace, who resisted all the blandishments of the world. Being but a remnant the world deemed it easy to crash them, and the old means of persecution were again used, and not by Pagans but by evil men who called themselves the church of God. The professing church received gifts from the world, grasped its power, and then turned its sword against the faithful. These were in comparatively recent times shot down by hundreds, multitudes cast into rivers. Pagans had thrown Christians to the wild beasts in a Roman amphitheater; it was reserved for Christendom to witness a more terrible slaughter. Not the gratification of a cruel pleasure in which the Romans delighted, not the maddened rage of a heathen mob, but a mob with the cross as its banner, with ecclesiastics as its leaders, in pleasure still more cruel, a rage still more mad shed the blood of God's saints. Nor is this the limit of their hatred. Satan established an engine of persecution more terrorizing and soul-crushing than any previous to it—the power of the secret inquisition, whose emissaries, in the dead of night, would snap the ties of husband and wife, of parent and child; and the victims of its power, with but few exceptions, would never be seen again.

(To be continued)

On Acts 2:1-11

The death of Christ, as the paschal lamb, took place punctually to the day; so did the resurrection as the wave sheaf; yet no saint knew the significance of either till they were accomplished facts. Nor have we proof, notwithstanding the marked intelligence displayed in the use of scripture since the resurrection (Acts 1; cf. Luke 24:47), that any entered into the meaning of the feast of weeks, with its wave loaves, till it was being fulfilled. They were together, however, in their true place of dependence and expectation. “And when the day of Pentecost was in course of fulfillment, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a sound as of a mighty blast rushing, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them tongues parting asunder as of fire, and it sat upon each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them to utter” (ver. 1-4).

This was the baptism of the Spirit, though neither the mighty cause is here unfolded, nor are the effects as yet traced out. But the promise of the Father was now fulfilled. The Holy Spirit was sent down from heaven according to the word of the Lord to abide with His own forever, that other Advocate who answers on earth to Christ in heaven, the Divine manager of all our affairs according to the will of God. As being a wholly new thing there were accompanying signs, and these of a twofold character; not only the violent blowing which filled all the house, but the disparted tongues as of fire which sat upon each. Thus was manifested the presence of the Spirit in a general way for all the house, in a special way as power of testimony for each, a distinction of importance found in other forms elsewhere also.

But testimony is the predominant point here; for if they were all filled with the Spirit, they began also to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. Hence the aptness of the form in which the Spirit manifested His action: not a dove as with the Lord when sealed on earth, emblem of One holy, harmless, undefiled, but tongues wherewith now to make known the wonderful works of God, in the new creation every way far beyond the wonders of the old. But the tongues were not one, but parting asunder. The Gentile must hear, no less than the once favored Jew. Now the mission of grace was to go forth indiscriminately as became a dead and risen Savior, whom God exalted on high after man, especially Israel, had rejected Him as their own Messiah on earth. Further, the tongues were as of fire, that set forth Divine judgment intolerant of evil, as just now demonstrated in grace to man in the cross of Christ.

But the languages were as real as they were different from their mother tongue or any naturally acquired one. The fact is as clearly stated, as the gift itself was eminently significant and seasonable. What could be so clear a testimony that if God gave His law to Israel, though in itself the expression of man's moral duty, He was now about to make known His grace in the gospel to every race and tongue? His grace not only forgives all offenses, but quickens together with Christ, so as to be a new and everlasting ground for the energy of the Spirit to produce in a new life the fruit of righteousness which is by Jesus Christ to God's glory and praise. This witness of divine love, efficacious through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, in direction toward all, in effect upon all those that believe. It was not the extirpation of difference in language, not yet the power which will make once more the whole earth of one lip and the same speech, but grace lifting its objects and instruments above the effects of that judgment at Babel, which by diversity of language confounded the pride of the race, when it sought to combine and exalt itself in a union of human will which forgot God altogether. But God remembered guilty and miserable man, and in His wisdom and mercy availed Himself of the chosen people's hatred of Himself and of His Son, (John 15) to go out in the power of the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; and to mark this in a way most touching to every nation under heaven.

“Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, pious men, from every nation under heaven, and when this report [or, sound] was made, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because they each one heard them speaking in his own dialect. And they were all amazed and wondering, saying, Behold, are not all these that speak Galileans? And how hear we, each in our own dialect in which we were born? Parthians and Modes and Elamites, and those that dwell in Mesopotamia, in Judea and Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia, in Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and the Roman sojourners, Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians, we hear them speaking in our tongues the mighty things of God” (ver. 5-11).

If any words were needed to make the nature of the wonder plain and precise, it might have been supposed that these could not fail. But men of this world's science and learning, though bearing the name of Christian, manifest no less incredulity now than the Jews did of old, who foolishly sought to treat it as mere excitement. Some have tried to find in the account the same sort of senseless jargon, or (as Meyer) an entirely new language as its favorers allege, which was revived a half century ago among the Irvingites; others (as Bleek, &c.) contend for a highly excited or ecstatic style of speech suitable to the communication of the marvels of grace, or (Olshausen) for so low a thought as a magnetic relation between speakers and hearers, or (Wieseler, &c.) for mere inarticulate ejaculations of praise! The older rationalists, as Paulus, &c., supposed no other than their native tongue; others, from Gregory of Nyssa and Cyprian to Erasmus and men of our own day, had grafted on this the strange idea that the multitude of foreigners were caused by the Spirit to hear each his own tongue! But Gregory of Nazianzus rejects the notion as making the marvel lie with the hearers rather than the speakers, contrary to the cleart statement of scripture, as indeed are all these vain hypotheses.

The truth is that all these ideas, though maintained not only by preachers, but by theologians of the highest rank, are swept away at the first touch of the written word, ever the standard of truth, and never more needed than in this day of active and daring intellect. The disciples were enabled in the power of the Spirit to speak the various languages of the earth; and it would seem that there were different measures in this gift as in others. The Apostle thanks God that he speaks with tongues more than all the Corinthians, so ostentatious of these sign-gifts; but he also insists on the subordination of them all to prophecy, as a gift characteristically for edification, encouragement, and consolation. The great end in the assembly is building up, to which a tongue without interpretation contributed nothing; as their frequency, if not simultaneous also, was an evident offense against order, both of which he corrects as the commandment of the Lord.

Tongues therefore played a very inferior part in the assembly. That they were conferred for the dissemination of the gospel is the supposition of many in ancient as in modern times. They were certainly used to arrest the Jews from foreign countries, who flocked to Jerusalem for this feast, or were otherwise staying there. What confounded these strangers from so many lands was, that they each one heard the disciples speaking in their own language, and, whatever may have been the prevalence of Aramaic, Greek, and Latin over the then known world, it is idle to tell one who believes this careful and varied enumeration from the N. E. to the W. and S. (which seems to be the reason why Judaea comes between Mesopotamia and Cappadocia), that the inspired writer does not mean to convey more than a few distinct tongues. Not so judged the residents and the sojourners in Jerusalem, whose piety gave them weight, yet least of all disposed to religious innovation. To them the evidence was irresistible, an impossibility if the variety of languages had not been a plain and sure reality of which they were competent judges. “Behold, are not all these that speak Galileans? And how hear we, each in our own dialect in which we were born? Parthians, and Medes and Elamites, &c.... we hear them speaking in our tongues the mighty things of God.”

Still those who heard and believed the gospel that day were Jews and proselytes only. But the wondrous form of testimony prepared the way for those who glean the mind of God from the mighty workings of His gracious power, as well as from the words of the Lord, in His varied commissions to the disciples, the wide-reaching activity in witnessing His love to which they were called. His hands which had been stretched out in vain to a disobedient and contradictory people were already pointing to all the nations, who also would hear. But the Lord had to use, as we shall see in due time, fresh means to reach the ears and quicken the hesitating feet of His own, in that grace that tarrieth not for man, and waiteth not for the sons of men.

(To be continued)

Deliverance From the Law of Sin: Part 1

It is very evident that deliverance from the law of sin and death ought not to, indeed cannot, remain in theory. Yet we find those who avow they are sealed, and have the consciousness of the effect of the Spirit's dwelling in them, that are not delivered from the law of evil which works in the flesh. That conflict will remain to the end, though perhaps in a more subtle form, is certain. “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, awl the truth is not in us.” We deceive ourselves; the truth, in the inward effect of its presence on our conscious state, has not produced its effect. Where the truth of Christ is in the heart, there is the consciousness that there is that which is not Christ. Where this is not so, the conscience has not been so wrought on as to give in the new man begotten by the word the sense of that which is contrary to Christ, who is the life of the new man, the spring of its sensibilities and moral feelings. Where that has been wrought in us, it gives its own consciousness of anything and everything that is contrary to it. There is no need of yielding to it, for Christ's grace is sufficient for us, and His strength is made perfect in weakness; but the being out of its power supposes the power of Christ, and diligence in looking to Him, that we may have that power to use; “always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus may be manifested in our bodies.”

But let us weigh the effect of the sealing with the Spirit. Scripture is plain that it is consequent on faith in redemption, as His coming is the consequence of the accomplishment of redemption. Acts 2:38 gives us the plain declaration that it is in having part in the forgiveness of sins that the Holy Ghost is given. (So Eph. 1:13.) Hence liberty is there at once for the forgiven soul. It has remission of its sins, is conscious of it, and is before God, with a purged conscience, in peace. Rom. 5 is the expression of this—the general normal state of a redeemed soul. It enjoys that favor which is better than life.

But there are two things consequent on this, connected more immediately with deliverance—our new relationships, and power over sin in the flesh. The presence of the Holy Ghost is the power of the new relationship and liberty with God; but there was a work done by Christ to bring us into it—His dying unto sin once, and our having died with Him, that we may be free, and wholly, for faith, in this new relationship. Now there may be faith in the efficacy of that work of Christ—that He has set us in the place where redemption brings us, and in favor and under grace, and delivered us from the responsibility of making out righteousness to meet God—without that experimental acquaintance with what we are delivered from, which results, through grace, in deliverance, in practical reality, in the conscious state of the soul. This is not mere forgiveness and justification from guilt. That applies to the old standing in the flesh, and to its works. That is needed for the possession of the Spirit and deliverance, but is not its fruit and consequence; it is the clearing away the guilt of the old man, not the position of the new. But there is a more general aspect of redemption, in which it exists in the minds of many, in which it mixes itself up with the new.

We read, “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace.” Now this, where there is no definite apprehension of truth as to the sealing of the Spirit, leads the mind into the feelings and peace which the sealing of the Spirit gives the definite consciousness of, in our relationship with the Father and the Son. I do not doubt that many sealed ones remain in this true but indefinite sense of grace, and count on divine love; for you have more than forgiveness, you have the riches of His grace, and you have redemption through His blood—not merely forgiveness or a rescue from a state you were in, and introduction into eternal blessings. But it is not, after all, conscious sonship, and being consciously in Christ, and Christ in us.

Having noticed and guarded these collateral questions, I turn to the direct point which is connected with the failure in practical deliverance from the law of sin which is in our members—namely, the state of a soul which enjoys the liberty of its new position in grace, but does not find power against evil as it would wish. Now, we have already noticed that there are the two things: the presence of the Holy Ghost, by which we know we are under grace, and enjoy the relationships into which we are brought—the Spirit of adoption, and that work by which the deliverance has been wrought; not forgiveness, or the blessed Lord's dying for our sins, but His dying to sin, and rising again. This last was closing all association with the first Adam place, and law, its rule from God, which could bind no longer than a man lived, and the entering into a new place and standing with God, based on redemption and divine righteousness. The place is now according to the riches of God's grace, and past all that separated us from God, accomplished for us on the cross, and according to this place in son-ship through redemption— “My Father and your Father, my God and your God;” the Holy Ghost gives us the consciousness, shedding withal abroad in our hearts the love of God. Blessed be His name, we are in Christ before God, and we know it.

But then Christ is in us. But it is not difficult to understand that the soul who, through grace, has believed in redemption and the grace that gave it, should know and have the consciousness of this acceptance. This depends on our being in Christ, and this known by the Spirit; it is objective, our standing in faith, and the new man acquainted with redemption cannot but know its place in Christ, though it may be little realized. But when I speak of Christ in me, it applies to my actual state—is subjective. “If Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin.” Now I fully admit that we are brought into this place by Christ's work. Still, the state of the soul is connected with it, not simply relationship.

With whom doth death put us in relationship? It puts us out of relationship with all a living man is connected with—sin, the world, and all in it; and that is a very great thing indeed, but it is what has happened to us if Christ is in us. Of this more in a moment. But if, knowing that I am in Christ and Christ in me, I look up, is there any flaw, or something wanting to my position? Why Christ (and I am in Him) is the very object and perfection of God's delight; I lack nothing; acceptable according to God Himself, I have nothing unacceptable to what He is. I may realize it more or less, but what I realize is perfection itself. But Christ is in me—I look down. Is all perfect, nothing wanting here? Not in Him abstractedly; but if I am true, earnest, loving holiness, loving Christ, I find what displeases me, how much more God! No excuse, for Christ is power as well as life; but all is not what I would have it to be, even according to the light I have.

The Christian's responsibility is here to walk as Christ walked, to manifest the life of Jesus in his mortal flesh. Without Christ he can do nothing; and diligence, a heart exercised in dependence, prayer, the word, watchfulness—all have their place; exercising oneself day and night to have a conscience void of offense towards God and towards man, not grieving the Holy Spirit of promise by whom we are sealed, so that He be not a rebuker, but the spring of joy in that which is heavenly. It is not now a question of righteousness or imputation. As to that, Christ has borne our sins, and we are in Him, according to His acceptance before God. The question is now brought into one of holiness, of acceptableness, not acceptance; and with a true heart this is of the utmost moment. For though God's sovereign grace has found a way in the unspeakable gift of Jesus on the cross, of meeting our sins according to His glory, so that grace should reign through righteousness, and guilt be no longer in question, yet what is really acceptable to Him is the basis of this very judicial estimate, and as partakers of the divine nature, His judgment is ours.

But this leads us to the very point in question. We hate the evil, yet the flesh is in fact there, and the practical question of deliverance is, how far we are free from it, or how far it has still power in us. I may writhe under cards which bind me, and yet not be able to break them and be free; and we have to learn our own weakness and want of power as well as our guilt. But, being renewed, born of God, I hate the evil, I groan under its power. I earnestly seek and strive to live free from it. I do not succeed. I learn that there is no good in me; I learn that it is not I, for I hate it, but I learn it is too strong for me when I do.

Into the detail of this I do not enter, it has been treated of elsewhere; it is in principle always law, the thought of God's judgment of us depending on oar state: this not in its grosser form—guilt, for this is through sins committed; but being lost through what we are, perhaps a terrible question of self-deception, if we have made profession. We may writhe under the cords that bind us, and rub ourselves sore, but the cords are not broken; yet a most useful lesson has been learned—what we are, and that we have no strength. And now comes deliverance, through the working and power of the Holy Ghost, but in the faith of what the blessed Lord has wrought. He has not only borne our sins, redeemed us, and cleared us from guilt, but He died unto sin. The fall result will be the new heavens and the new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness, but the work itself is done. He appeared once in the end of the world to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. See Heb. 9:26, and what follows as to our sins: and John 1:29.

Now thus as a sacrifice to pat away sin, we find its practical application in Rom. 8:8. When Christ was for sin, that is, a sacrifice for sin, God condemned sin in the flesh, not that Christ surely had any, but that He who knew no sin was made sin for us, and died to it on the cross. I have part in the efficacy of His cross, and this hateful sin in the flesh, condemnable in me and everywhere, has been condemned there, condemned in Christ's death; He died unto sin once, and while the condemnation is accomplished, and most solemnly and fully for me, in that blessed One, who was made sin for me in grace, it was so in death so that, as done effectually for me, there is no condemnation. But I reckon myself dead. I have been crucified with Christ, my old man is crucified with Him; we are not actually dead, of course, but faith, according to the word, appropriates this truth.

(To be continued)

On 1 Thessalonians 2:13-20

Thus far for the ministry of Paul and his companions, Now he turns to the means God had used for the blessing of the saints by that ministry.

“ And for this cause we also thank God unceasingly that, when ye received [the] word of [the] report from us of God, ye accepted not men's word, but as it is truly God's word, which also worketh in you that believe. For ye, brethren, became imitators of the assemblies of God that are in Judaea in Christ Jesus; for ye also suffered the same things of your own countrymen, even as they also of the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and please not God, and [are] contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved; to fill up their sins alway; but the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost” (Ver. 18-16).

Man as he is naturally lives without God, acted on by the things he sees around him, a prey to the desires of the flesh and of the mind. In order to a spiritual link with God he needs a revelation from Him; and God is now sending this in the glad tidings concerning His Son, that men may believe and be saved. Thus does the soul know God, and Jesus Christ whom He did send, and this is life eternal. By faith he begins to feel and think according to God; and faith is the reception of a divine testimony. Thereby he sets to his seal that God is true. The word of God mixed with faith puts into immediate association with God.

In apostolic days Paul, as here, was an instrument to convey God's word in his preaching; and this, by divine power, without admixture of error. So it is in the Scriptures, which as being inspired of God exclude mistake. Hence, while they are of the richest value as a medium of communicating the truth, they have their special and indeed unique function as being the divinely given standard to try every word and work.

Not only, then, had the Apostle labored in the power of the Holy Ghost and in a way suitable to the beginning and growth of those who were the objects of his ministry, but it was not in vain. There were sweet and manifest fruits in God's grace. “And for this cause we also thank God unceasingly, that, when ye received the word of the report from us of God, ye accepted not men's word, but as it is truly God's word, which also worketh in you that believe.” It is always a true effect of God's gracious power when souls in a hostile world receive His testimony, however perfectly His word meets the cravings of the heart and presents the blood of Christ to purify the conscience from dead works to serve the living God. There is a constant network for men to hold them fast in Satan's hand; and the truth, as being God's word, judges the thoughts and intents of the heart. It was yet more trying when the truth was as novel as it must ever be opposed to human will and reasoning. When many profess it, the reproach to a great extent disappears, though God does not fail to counteract Satan's wiles, who would thus destroy the power by making the form cheap and common. To the Thessalonians, as indeed to every Gentile then, the word reported was a new thing. But it was “of God,” and so they proved it. “Ye accepted not men's word, but as it is truly God's word.” The heart bowed to God, and the word also wrought by the Spirit of God its own divine effects in those subject to it by faith.

The Jewish matron was true to the instincts of humanity and the traditions of her race, when she saw the Messiah casting out demons and heard Him warning of a worse power of the enemy those who still sought a sign from heaven: out of the crowd she cried, “Blessed is the womb that bare Thee, and the breasts that Thou didst suck.” The gospel renders it plain and certain that it is no question of a relationship after the flesh, but of the authority and blessing of the divine word, and thus as open to the Gentile as to the Jew. To believe it is the obedience of faith. It is to be in living association with God.

The word wielded by the Spirit and received as of God thus separates to Him, and is indeed exactly what is called “sanctification of the Spirit” in 1 Peter 1:2: not in the practical sense (which follows in ver. 15, 16 as well as elsewhere), but in principle and absolutely, that setting apart to God from the beginning which constitutes a saint (see 1 Cor. 6:11). Hence it precedes the knowledge of forgiveness or the possession of peace with God; as Peter says, in (or by) sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. Here nothing but prejudice would have hindered believers seeing that obedience is not merely faith-obedience, but practical. Now sanctification in the ordinary sense cannot be said to be for or “unto obedience,” seeing that it very largely consists of obedience, and cannot exist without it; but sanctification of the Spirit as here spoken of is for (εἰς) obedience, and such as Christ's in contrast with a mere Israelite's. It is also for “sprinkling with His blood,” for the new life or divine nature in the saint wishes to obey God even before it knows the efficacy of His blood in a purged conscience; and hence the perfect order of the words in the phrase.

The want of seeing this has greatly embarrassed the commentators, and has even led to positive falsification, as in Ben's Latin Version and the Geneva English Version, which render the clause unto (ἐν) sanctification of the Spirit through (εἰς) obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ! This is to sacrifice, not grammar merely, but God's word to a defective system of theology, which only acknowledges the sanctification that is consequent on justification, and ignores that primary setting of the person apart to God by the Spirit, which is true of every saint from his conversion, when he may not yet rest by faith in Christ's blood. Erasmus, though perplexed, is nearer the truth than the Vulgate followed by the Rhemish, which yields no just sense whatever. Archbishop Leighton is one of the few who saw that sanctification here does not mean inherent, gradual, or practical holiness, but that work of the Spirit which from first to last separates from nature and the world to God (compare 2 Thess. 2:13).

The same spiritual cause produced kindred effects. All are not Israelites, neither are they Cretans; and the flesh in all, if unjudged, affords a ready occasion to the enemy who presents snares suited to beguile each. But the Holy Spirit forms by the image of Christ, presented in God's word, which is effectual not only to beget souls to God, but to clear, correct, instruct, reprove, and in every way discipline, as well as cheer on, the believer. Of this the Apostle reminds the Thessalonians. “For ye, brethren, became imitators of the assemblies of God that are in Judaea in Christ Jesus.” Difference of race, contrast as to previous habits of religion, cannot hinder the power of grace and truth. The Thessalonians followed in the same path of suffering and endurance as the Jewish assemblies in Christ Jesus. There the flame of persecution burnt fiercely against the companies that bore the name of Him whom they had crucified. It was not otherwise for the Thessalonian saints from their own countrymen.

There is no such hatred as that embittered by difference in religion, and especially where the claim is exclusive and divine. The gospel gave occasion to this in its most concentrated form; for it first bad to make its way where God had really given peculiar privileges, which it was quite right to maintain in all their value as long as He owned the people to whom He had given them. But the Jewish people slighted and abandoned them, killing the prophets who pressed their infidelity and apostasy on their consciences, as they crowned their guilt when outward forms seemed orderly, but real unbelief and enmity to God were laid bare, by the ignominious rejection and death of their own Messiah. But evil is insatiable; and even the cross only whetted their rancor against the witnesses of divine grace. They “drove us out.”

For the possessors of law are provoked to madness by the preaching of grace, which makes little of any earthly privileges whatever, and insists on the ruin of the Jew as much as of the Gentile. Hence the Jew's undying hatred of the gospel. It were bad enough to hear a testimony as much above and deeper than the law as Christ is greater than Moses, and the difference is really immeasurable. But to proclaim its incomparable blessings in Christ so as to obliterate all distinction, and to bring the believer, Jew or Gentile alike, into a new place of heavenly relationship and of everlasting favor, is intolerable. This, then, was necessarily the final dealing of God, as far as Israel's responsibility was concerned. All hope for the nation on the earth was buried in the grave of Christ. They had a last appeal from the Holy Ghost in the gospel witnessing of Christ exalted to heaven; but they refused the message as much or more than the Person, above all when they saw others, yea, Gentiles, entering into the good which they had spurned for themselves.

Thus they “please not God, and [are] contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, to fill up their sins always; but the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.” It might not yet be executed, but it impended, and no small part became their portion after the apostle passed away. Still it rests on the Jew, but it is not yet expended; and were the Jew to return to his land, to rebuild the city and the sanctuary, and to take possession as far as possible of his ancient heritage, it would be but a deadly delusion and a satanic snare, bringing on them first Antichrist, then the trouble from the Assyrian, and finally the Lord Himself in unsparing vengeance, however mercy may in the end rejoice against judgment. As, however, the Apostle does not lift the veil of the future, as in Rom. 11, from their prospects, but returns to the new relations of grace, the common joy of himself and the Thessalonian saints, we too follow the line of the Holy Spirit.

“ But we, brethren, being bereaved of you for a little season [lit. of an hour], in person, not in heart, made more exceeding diligence to see your face with much desire. Wherefore we desired to come unto you, I, Paul, both once and twice, and Satan hindered us. For what [is] our hope, or joy, or crown of glorying 2 [Are] not even ye before our Lord Jesus at His coming? For ye are our glory and joy” (ver. 17-19).

Doubtless, if Christianity gives the deepest importance to the individual with God, the assembly affords the largest scope to the affections of the members of Christ as His one body. And Satan hinders in all possible ways the happy interchange of what is so sweet and holy, the mind and love of heaven enjoyed among saints on earth. The presence of each other, above all of such an one as Paul, what a difference it makes! Still the Apostle had been introducing that which ought to correct any undue moment given to bodily presence. Had he not been showing the all-importance of God's word, and how effective it is in the hand of grace? Absence, therefore, is in no way fatal to the saints' joy and blessing. Waiting but exercises faith, and should increase the longing desire, which after all was stronger in Paul than in his Thessalonian children; how much in Him whose patient, waiting is perfect as His love to us! Thus does he bind their hearts with his own (and may it be true of us also!) in the joy of Christ's presence at His coming. Then will be the true rest from labor, then the enjoyment of the fruits without alloy or danger. May we find ourselves habitually thus looking onward from present hindrances to that blessed and everlasting scene!

(To be continued)

Revised New Testament: Hebrews 1-12

The opening of this Epistle seems to me unworthily represented in the Revised Version. In ver. 1 “Divers twice is to make bad worse, though not so incorrect as the “diversely” of Tyndale, the one being obsolete for more than one, the other really meaning differently. They have, of course, substituted ἐσχάτου for the Text. Rec., ἐσχάτου, which has not the support of a single uncial; and they have avoided the error of “times” instead of parts or portions. “God having of old spoken in many measures and in many modes to the fathers in the prophets, at the end of these days spake to us in [the] Son.” The last expression is evidently the truth of especial weight; and here the Revisers conspicuously fail. Indeed, the anarthrous construction is their habitual stumbling-block, as is the abstract usage of the Greek article, which requires the absence of the definite article in English. Their text is wrong in bringing in “his,” which is not all the idea here, though, of course, true in itself; whilst their margin, “a Son,” is yet worse in every way, as being liable to grave misconstruction anywhere, and peculiarly at issue with a context which has for its aim to set forth His sole, intrinsic, and unapproachable glory as Son of God. The true idea is as Son, or in the person of Him who is Son, contrasted with His servants the prophets. Our tongue, however, does not admit of this characterizing style of speech, like the Greek, after a preposition, but only in the nominative; and hence we must insert our article or even paraphrase it. But can there be any doubt that here, as too often in such cases elsewhere, the Revisers have missed the mark in a very essential point of truth? In 8 they give rightly the very image, or impress, “of His substance.” “Person” is quite wrong, not only in translation, but in doctrine. For a wonder they are right about purification “of sins,” perhaps to avoid the appearance of reading as in Text. Rec. contrary to àp.m. A B Dp.m. all and many other witnesses. They ought to have translated similarly in Eph. 1:7, Col. 1:14, where they have ruined the sense by treating the article as a possessive four times in error. Nor is the omission of δἰ ἑαυτοῦ ["by himself] by any means so sure as to justify not even a notice in the margin. E K L M are no doubt inferior to à A B P, Dp.m. giving δἰ αὐτοῦ, but both the Syriac, the ΑEthiopic and the Coptic are at least equal to the Vulgate and the Armenian. Indeed, Theodoret in his comment expressly says that δἰ αὑτοῦ; should be read with an aspirate for δἰ ἑαυτοῦ (δασέως ἀναγιγνώσκειν προσήκει, ἀντὶ τοῦ, δἰ ἑαυτοῦ, B. Theod. Opp. ed. Sirmond. v. 549). Nor is there the least hint of the middle voice in the aorist participle, the more striking as the purification made was of the sins of others—assuredly not His own. The favorite Vulgate (factus) is here out of the way false, as it is in the next word, and often to the subversion of the truth in this epistle. In 4 the Revisers have improved on “being made” of the Authorized Version, which is very objectionable, but “having become” is not much better. The doubtful point of 6 is the Revisers' adoption of the margin of the Authorized Version, and consigning its text to their margin; the improvement is “first-born” for “first-begotten.” In 7 and 8 and 13 it is better to assimilate if not render the same (for the first πρός is indirect, the second direct), instead of giving “of” and “unto,” as in the Authorized Version. Whether “of” in both cases is better than “as to” seems doubtful. But there is as little doubt that καί is wrongly dropt in the Text. Rec. and Authorized Version of 8 as that the Authorized Version is more correct than the Revised Version in not making a reciprocal sentence of the clause that follows, where the predicate by poetical inversion precedes the subject—a matter of no moment where the latter is defined by the article. In 8 they have not adhered to the preterit rendering of the aorists, though there seems no reason why they might not have said, “Thou didst love righteousness and hate iniquity (or lawlessness). Therefore God, thy God, anointed,” &c. And so in 10 “didst say,” &c. But it does seem strange that the advocates of the Vatican and a few others (MSS. à A Dp.m. &c. should have induced the Company to adopt ὡς ἱμάτιον, which reads so unmeaningly in the second clause of 12. Even Tregelles' bracketed, and Lachmann alone adopted the gloss. It is a wonder they did not heed Tischendorf's reading ἀλλάξεις for ἐλἴξεις, which adheres to the Hebrew, though resting only on àp.m. Dp.m., Latin auxiliaries, &c., “as a vesture wilt thou change them, and they shall be changed,” but the Vatican does not favor this. In 18 why not “a” rather than “the” footstool?

In 2:1 “lest haply we drift away” is a better rendering than in either the text or the margin of the Authorized Version, both of which are ungrammatical. But is “recompense of reward” well here, because it snits, though cumbrously 10: 35, 11:26? Would not requital or retribution in our text, and recompense elsewhere be better English? The Authorized Version misled the Revisers' Version in this unusual excess of sameness. In 4 it is hard to see why the Authorized Version should be followed in the text and the margin. In 5 the “habitable” world as it really is would dispel some vague impressions which “the world” is apt to leave on ill-taught minds. The version of Psa. 8:4 is kept in 6, not quite in unison with 13:3; but the preterit which prevails in 7 was forgotten in 6. And why should we have “the” angels in 9 as in 7, where it is no question of the whole class but of beings thus characterized Our language allows corresponding precision. And is it certain that ὑπὲρ παντος means “for every man?” Why not for every [thing]? We have just heard of πάντα, τὰ πάντα, and τὴν οἰκ., and afterward in ver. 10, but these of men also, not as πάντας but as πολλοὺς υἱοὑς. It is not that there is the least dogmatic difficulty as to all mankind, at least for one who applies Christ's death for all in 2 Cor. 5:14, as His death through and for sin, rather than to it, which last is exclusively true of believers. It is a question only of what best suits the context. In 12 “the congregation” is decidedly better than “the church,” as in the Authorized Version. In 13 they desert their preterit, perhaps owing to the Authorized Version of Isa. 8:18. In 14 is it not strange to consign the true order “blood and flesh” to the margin, and to adopt the other and commoner order in the text? In 16 there is a well-known correction of the Authorized Version adopted; for it is a question not at all of having taken the nature of man, but of interest and succor for Abraham's seed, not angels. In 17 “reconciliation” gives place very properly to “propitiation.”

In 3:1 “Christ” of the Authorized Version, following Text. Rec., disappears rightly. But why in 2 “who was” or “who is”? “As being” is more correct. It is hardly to be supposed that Mr. Green meant to omit ὅλῳ with the Vatican, especially as he gives “all” in his version. In 6 surely it is Christ as “Son over His house,” not “a Son.” Nor is there ground to say “our,” but “the” boldness and the boast, rather than boasting or glorying, which would be rather καύχησις. In 9 “wherewith,” not “when,” or “where,” also “by proving,” ἐν δοκιμασία, rather than ἐδοκ. as in the LXX. and Text. Rec., which adds, με twice. In 10, “this,” not ἐλείνη, “that.” Is not the connection of διό with βλέπετε (12)? If so, it is neglected in the Revised as much as in the Authorized Version. In 14 as “partakers of Christ” has quite a different meaning, would it not have been better to have adopted throughout, as in 1:9, a more suitable rendering? “Fellows” from Psa. 45 is scarcely desirable. Partners or companions might be used. In 16, for τινές of the Text. Rec., they read with most critics rival. For who when they heard, or in hearing, did provoke? In the end of 18 the disobedient means those who did not listen to the word. Hence in 19 it is “unbelief.” See 4:6, 11.

4:2 presents a notable instance of temerity. I do not speak of the clumsy literality of the word “of hearing,” but of what follows, “because they were [in the margin it was according to some] not united by faith with them that beard.” No doubt Alford, Tregelles and Lachmann were blinded by their fidelity to the more ancient MSS. Tischendorf, strengthened by the Sinaitic which rejects the pl. ace. form, corrected his early change from the Text. Rec. because of the paucity of witnesses in its favor, save the Syriac and some of the Latin. But a more monstrous result than the sense flowing from that which pleased the ancient copyists and the modern critics, as well as the Revisers, it is hard to conceive. Besides, even the marginal alternative fares hardly at their hands. What is the sense from “it was?” “Because the word was not united by faith with them that heard.” How greatly inferior to the Authorized Version! If the ordinary reading, or its form in א, had a place in the margin, the Revisers ought to have given it a decent rendering, not one which sounds almost ridiculous. Nothing can be more confused and incoherent with the argument than the sense attached to the favorite reading; and even most modern commentators who adopt it on diplomatic grounds give it up, save the late intrepid Dean of Canterbury, who will have no special reference to Caleb and Joshua, yet fairly owns that his own interpretation does not satisfy himself. Without dwelling on minor points, 10 appears to be only in part corrected. The Authorized Version was misled by Tyndale and that of Geneva, and the rendering falls in with the evangelical misapplication of the chapter to a present rest for the soul by faith, instead of the rest of God, which we are to enter at Christ's coming, a stimulus to present labor and to fear of taking our rest now. It ought to be “ceased from his works as God from His own.” It is clear that it can be no question here of Christ giving rest to all those that labor and are heavy-laden, but to those who already believed in, or at least professed, His name; else they would have been called to believe, not to fear, still less to diligence in every good work. One need say nothing of Owen's wild idea adopted by Ebrard and Alford that so describes Christ. Not so; it is the general statement that he who has entered into God's rest has himself to rest from his works—a truth which applies even to God, who rested after His works in creating. It is no question of bad works: God's own were certainly good. It is a mistake that this view converts the aorist into a perfect or present. For if any tense but the aorist were used in Greek, it might, nay must, have misled. Believers now are viewed as εἰσερχ and in no way as εἰσελθόντες, and the finite verb is properly in the same tense. It is the case supposed when the rest is entered, not at all the present result of a past act in the perfect. If the present had been used, as often expressive of a general principle, it was obviously liable to mislead the reader, for the entrance is unquestionably future. In 14 is not “the” better than “our” confession? But the close of 15 is more serious. To say “yet” as in the Authorized Version, following others since Tyndale, leaves the door open to misconstruction of the true meaning and even to heterodoxy. Indeed, not a few have drawn, what they scarcely could have done from χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας, that it means the Lord, however tempted, never sinned; whereas the true sense is that He has been in all things to tempted in like sort, sin excepted. He never had our sinful temptations from a fallen nature such as James (1:13-15) speaks of. For this He suffered on the cross, and now sympathizes with us in our dangers, difficulties, and weakness. He knew these trials incomparably more than we; but there was no sin in Him, no evil proclivities in His nature as in ours. In 16, why not “for seasonable help?” “Time of need” limits the succor too much to the moment of trespass; the former is the larger and more worthy sense, as it is the most faithful version.

In 5 the first thing we would note is the right omission of ὁ in 4, which would make it not hypothetic, but actual, which really is in the clause following. It is not therefore “he that is,” as in the Authorized Version, following the Text. Rec., but, “as” or “when” called. In 8 “though He were Son,” or “Son as He was,” is better than “a” Son, but there is no need of “the” before “author.". In 7, as in 11:17, προσφέρω is confounded with ἀναφέρω, which does mean offer up as well as bear. In 12 “the rudiments” do not go well with “the first principles” as may be made plainer by 6:1, where our Revisers give us “let us cease to speak of the first principles of Christ.” There is nothing better than “the beginning.” First principles are never to be left; but the word of the beginning of Christ might safely be left to go on to the knowledge of His redemption and glorification, which are the true power for acting by the Holy Ghost on the new man. Without this is no “full growth” to which one is pressed on in 6:1. Solid food is for “full-grown men,” as in 14.

In 6:6, “If they shall fall” in the Authorized Version is brought back to the true and literal force, “and have fallen.” It was a fact described. In 7 it is ground, or land, not “the” land.—In 10 they omit “the labor” on high and ample authority. Is not “desire” defective unless more strongly qualified in 11? There is no need of “a” forerunner in 20.

In 7 there is extremely little to criticize: a particle struck out in 4, the article in 5, 10, change of form in 11, 16, 18, and priests instead of priesthood in 14, a quotation curtailed a little in 21, and a particle added in 22, are almost all. Of course, the mistranslation in the Authorized Version of ver. 19 is avoided by the Revisers. The Old English Versions in general treat it wretchedly, from Wield down, Rhemish and all. Not one seems to have heeded the plain fact that 19 is the correlative to 18, marked carefully by the regular μὲν,... δέ, with the first parenthetic clause at the beginning of 19, which explains why the foregoing commandment was annulled. Think of Tyndale making 18 a period, so as to predicate of the law, that it not only made nothing perfect, which is true, but was the introduction of a better hope, which is not only untrue but utterly false. Cranmer follows him in this; but even Wield had avoided it, as the Geneva Version more. The Rhemish is, as often, ambiguous, and suggestive of wrong more than of right, probably the fruit of sheer blank ignorance of the truth. If the Authorized Version kept clear of positive error in the text, they brought it into their margin. The parenthesis of which they did not think would have proved a safeguard, as well as seeing the contrast between the foregoing commandment and the better hope, the one abrogated and the other brought in. Of the ancient version, the Peschito Syriac is perhaps the nearest, save the Philoxenian, which is closer still. Lachmann, in his early and later editions, punctuates the Greek correctly, but not the Vulgate, which may, if rightly divided, intend the true thought. Theophylact is more distinct than Theodoret or Chrysostom.

In 8:1 there is no need to say more than “a” chief point or summary. In 2 why “sanctuary” in text or “holy things” in margin? Surely it should be uniformly the holy [place] or holies here, ix. 8, 12, 24, and x. 19. A needless “and” is rightly excluded. In 4 the γάρ, “for,” of the Text. Rec. and Authorized Version yields to the οὖν of the Revisers, or rather of the best ancient witnesses. “If then he were on earth, he would not even be a priest, since there are those that offer the gifts according to law “; for here again the article is no more desirable in English than in Greek, though it might have been used in both. It is not that it is optional for the same shade of sense; on the contrary, it is due to exactness in expressing character rather than mere fact. But the Revisers seem not at all alive to this refinement in either language. It will be noticed that τῶν ἰέρεων of the Text. Rec. with its counterpart in the Authorized Version disappears as the mere gloss of inferior and later copies. Why “Testament” should be given in the margin of 8, 9, 10 is inconceivable, since the context, as well as the Hebrew, point only to “covenant.” It is quite a different case in ix. 16, 17; but even there neither before nor after, “testament” there too being quite wrong in the margin of 15 and 20. In 11 citizen or “fellow-citizen” is right on the best authority. There is no attempt at distinguishing the call to objective knowledge from the promise of inward knowledge or consciousness, though it has been often pointed out. The omission of “and their iniquities” or lawlessness is supported by but two great uncials (אp.m. B.) and two cursives (17, 23), but by almost all the ancient versions.

In 9:1 the Authorized Version did not follow the Text. Rec. in acknowledging σκηνή, Tabernacle. Like the Revisers it supplies “covenant.” No doubt the former was mistaken from 2. The rendering at the close in the Authorized Version is untenable; it should be, “the sanctuary a worldly one,” rather than the Revisers' form, “its sanctuary, a sanctuary of this world.” Mr. Green takes it as “the holy garniture,” which is at least grammatical. In 6-9 the present form is rightly given by the Revisers, “go in,” “offereth,” “hath not yet,” &c., “is yet,” “which (or, “the which") is,” “are offered,” “that cannot.” Again, is it correct to confound λατρεύειν with προσκνεῖν? No doubt λ. is not δουλεύειν, but divine service is the idea, and this whether of the Jew as here or of the Christian as in 14, 10:2. In the margin of 11 they give that strange reading of some old witnesses,” that are come,” the spiritual sense of most, no doubt, controlling the hard drivers of diplomatic authority. At the end of this verse they give properly “creation,” instead of “building,” as in the Authorized Version. But have they seized the true force of διά in 12? No one denies that the preposition from a local and temporal rises to a causal force, and so to accompaniments, mode, or manner, &c. In 15 it seems very questionable to say “a", death. The famous passage in 16, 17, is fairly rendered, though not so close as might be, and with an interrogation at the end which had better not have been. “Doth it ever avail,” &c., is poor. The validity or force is more suitable here. That the alternative of “covenant” in the margin should not enter this parenthetic digression is to my mind plain from the fact that death of the covenanter is needless to a covenant's validity, whereas it is essential to the operation of a will that the testator die; as is here expressly argued by the inspired writer. Before and after these two verses it is a question only of “covenant.” In 21 the Revisers rightly say with “the” blood, whereas in a general statement, as in 22, it is in English as in Greek anarthrous. In 24 “before the face of God” is more energetic. In 26 it is the consummation “of the ages,” not the equivocal and misleading end “of the world” as in Authorized Version. It was when the past dealings of God in all ways of moral trial conveyed that Christ died as a sacrifice for putting away of sin. The new heavens and earth throughout eternity will display this. 27 is feebler in the Revised than in the Authorized Version, “cometh” being quite uncalled for; judgment is as much the portion of men as once to die. Then comes in 28 what grace gives to faith in Christ once offered and to appear a second time. At His first coming He bore sins of many (not of all: else all would be saved, but of all believers); He will appear again to those that look for Him, as far as regards them apart from sin, unto salvation, i.e., of their bodies, then to be changed into the likeness of the body of His glory.

In 10:1 several obvious blunders of the Authorized Version are corrected: “the” coming good thing, “the same” sacrifices, they “offer.” But how rash to endorse in such a work “they can “! It is known that this plural form is supported by א A C Dcorr. P, and probably thirty or more cursives, &c., whereas the singular as in the Text. Rec. and with most critics has the suffrages of Dp.m., E H K L, and a fair number of cursives, some of the most ancient versions, &c. Of coarse in 2 our is read with an interrogation on the best and fullest authority: so Erasmus, Stephens, and all the modern critics, contrary to the Complutensian editors, Beza, and Elzevirs, who omit it with Hp.m., some cursives, some Latin copies (not the oldest), the Syriac, he., which Wiclif and the Rhemieh follow. “In them” would be quite enough in 3, and better than “in those sacrifices,” as in the Authorized and Revised Versions. In 4 “blood,” not “the” blood. In 5 rightly “didst thou prepare.” But why in 6 “sacrifices for sins?” Why not adhere to the Old Testament familiar “sin-offerings?” So of course in 8. In both the Peschito shows how soon the knowledge of scripture evaporated after the Apostles, for that venerable version actually confounds the burnt-offering with that for sin. I purposely quote from Etheridge, “entire burnt-offerings for sin Thou hast not required.... entire burnt-offerings for sins Thou hast not willed.” No offerings stood in more complete contrast than the holocaust and that for sin; and by this confusion also one loses the four classes here distinguished—burnt-offering, the minchah or unbloody corn oblation, the sacrifice of peace-offering, and the sin-offering. In 9, as in 7, it is “I am come,” not “I come” as in Authorized Version, and “O God” from the Text. Rec. is rightly dropt on the best authority. In 10 they correct the blunder of the Authorized Version, and read “once 'for all'“ without italics. In 12 it is rightly “he” (though it be οὗτος not αύτὸς), not “this man” as in the Authorized Version. But the connection of “forever” with the offering one sacrifice for sins, instead of with “sat down,” is an error of the first magnitude, common to Wiclif, the Rhemish, the Authorized Version, and the Revised Version, but not Tyndale, Cranmer, or Geneva. The sense of the phrase εὶς τὸ διηνεκές being continually or in perpetuity, rather than “forever,” is in its own nature incapable of being combined with the aorist, and can only go with such tenses as the present and perfect, which suppose continuance. To make the present construction orthodox, one must conceive some such ellipse “as [the efficacy of which lasts] forever,” which would be intolerable. The only party which the misrendering can serve is the sacerdotal one, which pretends to offer a continual sacrifice for the living and the dead; but in order to have the least real weight the Greek should have been προσφέρων, and we should have been landed back into the Judaism of verse 11, with which the Apostle is contrasting Christianity, which mainly depends on the completed act taught by προσενέγκας as in our verse. It is hardly possible to conceive a blunder in more direct issue with the entire teaching of this Epistle. It is evident that the Authorized Version is not justified in giving the same force “are sanctified” to ἡγιασμένοι ἐσμέν in 10 and to τοὺς ἀγισζομένους in 14. The Revisers rightly say in the one case “we have been sanctified,” and in the other “them that are sanctified,” not these that are (or were) being sanctified as in the analogous case of Acts 2:47, 1 Cor. 1:18, which we saw they happily forgot in 1 Cor. 15:2. There is a moral present, and not merely an historical one of actual time. O si sic omnia. The late Dean Alford, was consistently wrong in saying even here, in the face of 10, “them who are being sanctified.” Is there any need for marking the apodosis, formally at the end of 16, “then saith he?” “Before” is certainly wrong in 15. And why in 20 “by” the way? Why not. “the new and living way which he dedicated for us,” &o.? In 21 a great “priest” is right. But why “fullness” here and in vi. 11, when they gave in their text of Col. 2:2 “full assurance?” It is of course “hope” in 23. Would not 28 open more correctly thus, “When one set at naught Moses' law,” &c.? “A man that hath set,” he, offends against more than one point of importance. In 34 it is not as in Text. Rec. “of me in my bonds,” but on good authority “on those in bonds;” also ἰν of the Text Rec. disappears, and the true force is either “that ye yourselves,” &c., or “that ye have for yourselves,” according to the reading preferred. In 38 it is correctly “any righteous (or just) one.” It may not be needful to interpolate “one” or “any man:” but there is no real ground for inferring that the same man is meant. The Hebrew and the Septuagint exclude such a thought, and certainly the Apostle did not intend. differently. But the form differs according to Divine wisdom, to warn the Jewish professor who professed faith but might not live by it.

It is a nice question as to 9:1 whether ὑπόστασις here means grounded assurance as in 3:14, or substantiating which more approaches the older view. The Peschito's “realization” might express it best in this, as “demonstration” in εέγχος. In 2 ἐν τ. means “in virtue of this,” or “by it” briefly. In 3 the perfect is twice misrendered, by the Authorized Version. It should be “have been framed,” and “What is seen hath not come into being;” for the true reading is τὸ βλ. with the best authorities, not τὰ βλ. an accommodation to φ. which is in the plural. In 5 “he hath had testimony"... “that he had,” —not “he had"... “that he,” as in Authorized Version. It is also before “the” translation, not “his” as in Text Rec. In 6 it should be “draweth near” (προσερχ.), as usually, not “cometh” as in Revised Version, following Authorized Version. So also at the end of 10:1, where the Revisers have draw “nigh,” a rendering they give to ἐγγίζειν. Prepared “for” seems in our day better English than “to” in 7. In 8 “was going” is preferable to went, especially after ἐξπηλθεν just before. “Even” in 11 seems out of place; is it not “Sarah herself also?” Is not this a common mistake of the Revisers? “Even” is used properly where one means to express anything strange, as in 19; is this the idea here? They are right in excluding “and been persuaded of them,” an addition of Text. Rec. in 13—on the slenderest testimony. In 14 the Revisers render ἐπιζητοπυσιν, “seek after,” which is all well; but would it not have been better to have given “seek out,” not “after,” to ἐκζ. in 6? Here again in 17 we have twice over the confusion of προσφ. with ἀναφ. offering, and not offering “up.” In 26 it is “of,” not “in” Egypt; Lachmann with the Alexandrian copy reading Αὶγύτρου as the Text. Rec. has ἐν ψwas not needful to alter “for” into “concerning” in 40, as the Revisers render περί in 13:18.

In xii. 2 “faith,” or the faith, seems to be the thought, not our faith as in the Authorized and Revised Versions. The Revisers say “hath sat down” for κεκ., having given “sat down” for the ἐκαθ. in 1:2, 8:1, 10:12. The Authorized Version had said “is set” in 8:1 as well as in the passage before us, so that they do not seem to have distinguished on principle. But how was the Company persuaded into deserting ἑαυτόν or αὐτόν, accepted even by Alford, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles, on ample authority? Was it not by the strong pressure of Cambridge admirers of paradox if it be only ancient? No doubt they can cite א D E, all p.m. with the same old Latin copies, the Pesch., &c. The resulting sense in this connection is not only inferior beyond comparison, but intolerable. 7 affords a remarkable departure from the Text. Rec. εἰ “if” for εἰς in the sense of “for.” “For chastening endure (or, better, ye are enduring); as with sons God is dealing with you.” The ancient MSS, and Versions remarkably consent against the text adopted by Erasmus, the Complutensian editors, Colinasus, Stephens, Beza, Elzevirs. Bengel, whose critical insight was great, here failed, thinking the true reading to be the slip of a Greek pen, though he was well aware that the widespread testimony of the old version told a different tale. Even Matthaei, who loved to fight Griesbach, was here compelled to reject the few minuscules and accept the united voice of antiquity; and of course Alford, Lachmann, Scholz, Tischendorf, and Tregelles follow. Is it sound to say that—if ye endure chastening God dealeth with you as with sons? Does His fatherly course depend on our patience? On the other hand, it is important to feel that we endure as chastening, not as punishment: οὐκ εἰς κόλασιν, οὐδὲ εἰς τιμωρίαν, as Chrysostom pertinently observes. It is as certain as such a thing can be that the text of his comment (Epp. Paulin. vii. 330, ed. Field, Oxon.) has been tampered with to make it accord with εἰ. The version of 10 is properly cleared of obsolete speech, save that “us” and “our” rather enfeeble the form. Ought not 11 to be “No chastening,” &c.?” — “The” many in 15 is a doubtful reading sustained by two great uncials and as many cursives, &c., against all the other authorities. Cf. Mark 9:26. In 17 the Revisers have by the parenthesis set out duly the true meaning. It was not repentance, but the inheritance of blessing which Esau sought out with tears. In 18 the Revisers omit ὄρει on fuller evidence than their insertion in 15; but they supply it from 20 in the general sense instead of adopting Mr. Green's singular turn, “to a fire to be touched and glowing.” If the true meaning of παρητήσαντο in 19 had been borne in mind,” deprecated,” “declined,” “excused” (see 25), it would perhaps make the absence of μή more probable as in א P, 10, 73, &c. Of course the last clause of 20 in the Text. Rec. is dropt. In 22, 23 the Revisers have failed to give the true connection, καί really indicating each new object, and consequently misrepresented the sense of this weighty passage. The myriads of angels are the general assembly, and “church of firstborn ones” are a new and wholly distinct group, here confounded with παρηγύρει, which really goes with ἀγγέλων. How absurd to connect, as the margin does, a Mediator with a testament! With a covenant it is all right. And why “than that of Abel?” According to 11:4 it is Abel, as it were, speaking in his blood or death; παρὰ τό in L. and others, but it seems a mere gloss for facility. In 26 it should be “I will shake” instead of the present in the Text. Rec. In 28 there is strong and abundant testimony for “we serve,” where the Revisers rightly cleave to the common text.

(To be continued)

Christians Should Bring the Lord Into Everything

A Christian is put in the most responsible relation. The highest privilege for the Christian is to have the Lord brought into everything, because thus his affection to Christ is tested in all. So the precept which forbids my purloining in a house brings God and His grace in saving to remembrance. (Titus 2:10.)

ERRATA IN No. 809, p. 32-Col. 1, for “inferior” read superior; col. 2, for “blessings” read blessing.

The Meat Offering

Leviticus 2

In the burnt-offering we had the way in which Christ, sin being in the world, offered Himself without spot to God. Here we have more His perfectness in detail brought down to us. The priests ate part of the meat offering, they ate nothing of the burnt-offering. We have what Christ was in His perfectness down here, all the characters and traits of that perfectness, but brought to us. The burnt-offering was not brought to us, but was burned entirely before God. Sin was there, atonement made—not sins, but sin—and it was a perfect sweet savor to God. Here it is more the detail of what He was as a man, but burned with fire—the test of His perfectness.

Verse 1. Here I have the general character of the Lord: fine flour, perfect humanity— “this man hath done nothing amiss,” as the poor thief said on the cross; then the oil (the Spirit) and frankincense put upon it. Perfect in Himself, without sin, in every sense, He was given the Holy Ghost, sent in bodily shape like a dove, and abiding on Him. He could not join Himself with Israel, for they were sinners and unbelieving; but there was a remnant called out of God by the ministry of John the Baptist, and He goes with them in their first right step. When He thus came out publicly, the Holy Ghost came upon Him. He takes His place, in a public way, among this remnant who were going right, under the testimony of John the Baptist; and so, blessed be His Name, He does with us in our first right step. We need redemption to bring us into the place where He stood by reason of His own perfectness. He was sealed with the Holy Ghost; we are sealed because of the blood. The leper was first washed, then sprinkled with blood and then anointed with oil. Christ made the place into which we are brought by redemption. Heaven opened on the Man on earth, upon whom the Holy Ghost descends and abides; and the Father's voice came, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased;” but He must die to bring us into it. The gift of the Holy Ghost was confined to Him until redemption was accomplished. He had to finish the work and take His place on high for us to receive the Holy Spirit.

Here we see the fine flour, and the oil, and the frankincense upon it, the perfect sweet savor of His life to God; the sweet savor, not of the sacrifice, but of all His life, His words and works: a sinless Man, passing through this world, all He said and did was by the Holy Ghost. He was the Anointed Man, which is what the name Messiah or Christ means. “He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God, for God giveth not the Spirit by measure.”

Verse 2. Here we have what was very sweet as to the path of Christ, in which we have to seek to follow Him. The handful was all burned to God, Christ, looked at as Man, was offered to God; “the flour thereof, the oil thereof, and all the frankincense thereof.” Here I find the perfectness of Christ in His path—that He never did anything to be seen of men; it all went entirely up to God. The savor of it was sweet to the priests; but it all was addressed to God. Serving man, the Holy Ghost was in all His ways; but all the effect of the groom that was in Him was in its own mind always toward God; even if for man, it was to God. And so with us; nothing should come in, no motive, except what is to God. We see in Ephesians (iv. 82; v. 1, 2) the grace towards man, and the perfectness of man towards God as the, object, “Be ye imitators of God as dear children.” In all our service as following Christ here we get these two principles: our affections towards God and our Father, and the operation of His love in our hearts towards those in need. The more wretched the object of, service in the latter case, the truer the love and the more simply the motive is to God. We may love down and love up; and the more wretched and unworthy the persons are, for whom I lay myself out for blessing, the more grace there is in it. “God commendeth His love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” But while this is true, yet as to the state of my heart, the higher the object the more elevated the affection. With Christ it was perfect. How can a poor creature like me be an imitator of God? Was not Christ an example, God seen in a man? And we are to “walk in love, as Christ also loved us, and gave Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God,” He gave Himself for us, but to God; it was God's grace towards poor wretched sinners.

If we look at ourselves, we shall soon see how motives get mixed up, and things come in, even where there is right true-hearted purpose; and that is where we have to watch. In Christ all was perfect; all, every bit of it, as to spring and motive, was for God's glory in this world. No thought of men, as to pleasing them, but that singleness of eye which looked to God alone, though full of kindness to man—loving down, in that sense, but over looking up, with His God and Father before His eye, which made Him perfect in everything. He was perfect of course, He could not be anything else.

Now, it is not that the priests could not smell the sweet savor of the sacrifice; but it was not offered to them, it was all burned to God. As regards His own path, not a feeling that was not entirely to God for us, but to God. It was that which was perfectly acceptable to God.

Verse 3. Here is where we are brought, looked at as priests, our eye opened. It was the food of the offering of Jehovah, but it is our food too. We must be priests to have it: it is most holy to the Lord. I may see external beauties in Christ, I might write a book on the beautiful traits in His character, but that is not Christ's life. It is an entirely different thing when the priest gets it as God's food. (I am bold to use the word, for scripture does so.) The priests ate it, while as to the frankincense everything was burned wholly to God. In the burnt-offering the priest did not eat anything; it was the absolute offering of Himself to God. There was a sustaining power, a perfectly holy power, and all perfectly acceptable to God; but then at the same time, it is what we feed upon as priests. We get our souls formed into delighting in Christ, by realizing in our spirits what God Himself, the Father, takes such delight in: It is a blessed place we need and have to seek spiritual apprehension to find what it is that makes Christ the delight of the Father—what was the expression of that grace, always well pleasing to Him.

We follow His path in the Gospels, and we see always perfect love to us poor things, but everything perfectly and absolutely done to the Father. Turn to Matt. 17 where we have a bright example of the condescending grace with which He associates us with Himself, while showing Himself to be the Son of the Father, in divine knowledge and power. It was just after the transfiguration, where the heavenly glory of the kingdom was revealed: His ministry as come into the midst of Israel, according to promise, closed, so that He strictly forbad them to say that He was the Christ. But what does He give them instead, if not yet in the glory revealed on the mount? This tribute was not to the heathen emperors, but what had been ordained in Ezra's time for the expenses of the temple services. They come and ask Peter, Does not his Master pay it?—in fact, was He a good Jew? Peter says, Yes, he does not look farther. But when he comes into the house, the Lord anticipates him. He shows who He is, He knows all divinely, the Son of the great King, Jehovah, and He joins Peter with Himself; children of the great King of the temple. Then He shows His divine power over creation, and makes the fish bring Him the money, even the exact sum, and again puts Peter with Himself; “that take and give them for thee and Me.” We find the place He took in lowliness down here, but, while taking the low place, bringing us into the high place with Himself. We are changed from glory to glory as we gaze upon Him; but it is the humiliation side, as in Phil. 2, which wins our affections.

Satan sought to take Him out of that absolute singleness of eye, in which He was perfect “command that these stones be made bread;” but He had no orders to do it, no word out of the mouth of God: that was His manna, and He came as a servant. In Phil. 3 you see the other side Christ glorified, and Paul running after to win Christ; the energy which hinders other things getting possession of the heart. But it is the humiliation side we have here—Christ humbling Himself, making Himself of no reputation, that I may run in the same path and spirit, for the glory of the Father. Was He ever impatient? Did He ever do a single thing for Himself? It was always God His Father, in one sense, His disciples and the poor world, in another. And where the affections are drawn out, it is always on this humbled side. It is touching to go through the Gospels, and to become sufficiently intimate with Christ, to see His motives in everything; yet this is much to say, and requires to life much with Him; but this is blessing. When I hear “thee and Me,” what a strange putting together that is! And He does it with no too. Knowing who He is, the Son of the Father down here, He says, “thee and Me.” If you get to trace Him through all the path, you never get anything but perfectness.

When I think of the death of Christ, His love to the Father, taking the cup the Father gave Him to drink, I find my delight, my soul bowed down at the thought of all the love and obedience that was in it. And He says, “Therefore doth my Father love Me.” It is God's food too! We shall soon see how far He is beyond our thoughts.

Now (ver. 4) we get some details to bring out Christ more perfectly— “Unleavened cakes.” The general truth was there before, but here we find no trace or form of sin in Him, nor indeed employment of mere amiability of nature, or what refreshes nature (neither can be in a sacrifice), unleavened cakes with no honey in them. Leaven is not found in an offering except on the day of Pentecost, when we come in; there consequently there is. Those cakes were offered to God, but not burnt on the altar for a sweet savor, and a sin-offering was offered with them. There are two characters here: Christ, looked at as man, was born of the Holy Ghost, no sin in Him; we are born in sin, and get anew nature. But He was personally perfect, no leaven in Him at all. Instead of leaven, it was fine flour mingled with oil—as to His flesh, He was born of the Spirit. Then it is added, “unleavened wafers anointed with oil:” Christ received the Spirit as man, down here, to walk as man, in the power of the Holy Ghost, in obedience; and then, having gone up on high to the Father, He sends the Spirit down upon us. The Father (John 14) sends Him, that we may cry Abba; and on the other hand, Christ sends Him from the Father, as the testimony to what He is at the right hand of God. We cannot get the anointing and the sealing, that is, the Holy Ghost, till we are washed with water and have faith in the efficacy of Christ's blood.

Verse 6. “Thou shalt part it in pieces;” every bit of Christ (in figure), every word He said, everything He did, all was perfect, the expression of what was divine in a man down here. Not only did His general life express the fruits of the Spirit, but every word, every work, was all absolutely perfect. Now we may in a general way walk in the Spirit, but we often fail. But I can follow Him any day, and every day, and find “nothing amiss.” It is a wonderful thing to look round this world of sin and wretchedness, and be able to trace one Person everywhere and every when, and find nothing but what was perfect. No matter what it was—obedience, love, grace, firmness—all that came out was the expression of what was perfect in and for the place where He was. Beloved friends, I am sure I trust you do, but I would exhort you, in that way, to feed on Christ; “he that eateth Me, even he shall live by Me.” In studying Him down here, the soul gets intimate with Him; we feed on that on which God our Father feeds.

Verses 7-9. Here I get another element. When the fire of God's judgment tested Christ, there was only a sweet savor. Now, if we get tested, alas! often the flesh comes out—I do not say always. He got tested by the evil of man, the terribleness of death, the power of Satan, and finally by the judgment of God (the proper meaning of fire as a figure), and nothing came out but what was absolutely a sweet savor. God says He is the elect and precious stone, and to the believer He is precious too!

Verse 11. “Brought to the Lord,” that is the point. I must have a Christ, wholly and entirely giving Himself up to God. “Nor any honey.” Mere sweetness of nature cannot come in. There are sweet things which God Himself has established; but Christ was entirely outside all these things, not as condemning them; for when His work was over, He could commit His mother to John. There are things which God graciously gives us here, but you cannot offer them as a sacrifice. They are of God in themselves; only sin has come in and spoiled the whole thing. The honey itself was not wrong. The coming of Titus comforted Paul; he got in the conflict, like Jonathan, a little honey on the top of his rod, so to speak. And the comfort was of God, who comforts them that are cast down. The poor woman at the well, the thief on the cross, were Christ's comforters. Honey cannot come into the sacrifice: neither the sin of nature, nor mere natural joy, can come into the sacrifice of Christ. The condemning it is all a mistake: Christ carefully maintained what God had originally established. But now we get a drunken husband beating his wife, children who are a torture to their parents, &c; for sin has come in, though the relationships are of God. But when you come to what is for God, there can be no more honey than leaven.

Verse 13 shows another principle here. I get” salt,” which is not sweetness, but complete separation of heart to God—the salt of the covenant of our God. God in sovereign grace has taken me up, and separated me to Himself. It is the positive side, which preserves me for God and with God; and that, beloved friends, is what we are to desire. It is not merely no leaven and no honey; which is the negative side. There is no separation by ourselves in us; we cannot make holiness. It is holiness to the Lord, the heart separated to God in everything; a separation of heart and spirit with no pretension in it; “for ye were bought with a price, therefore glorify God in your body.” Through the work of the Lord Jesus Christ, the everlasting covenant, we are brought to God. Do I go and leave God to go to some vanity?—I do not say sin; nor do I care what it is:—the savor of Christ, of God, is gone But in Christ, and walking with Him in the heart, I see a man always separated in heart to God: it stamped everything.

It is not that we are to be heroes every day. I may see a person energetic in His service, but it may not come directly from God; it is a totally different thing, as regards our service, when it does. Look at 1 Thess. 1:3; Rev. 2:1, &c. You get here the three things spoken of in 1 Cor. 13, faith, hope, love. In 1 Thess. 1 there is the principle of direct association with God, in each operation of grace, which gives it its power and character. It is work, patience, and labor; work of faith, patience of hope, labor of love. I may go and serve the poor—very right and sweet; but is God's love in it? Patience is a very good thing; but am I waiting for Christ to come? In Rev. 2 there was work and labor and patience; but they had left their first love. The freshness and spring was not as it had been, not coming forth from and in immediate intercourse with God, so as to carry it in the power of God to the person's soul. There should be the salt of the covenant of our God; it is obligatory to have our service right through sovereign grace; always serving in immediate intercourse with God. It is not merely that there is no sin, leaven, or honey, but positive spiritual energy that associates my heart with God in all that I do. Only remember, that with us there is no holiness without an object, “changed into the same image from glory to glory.” We cannot have holiness in ourselves; that is God's prerogative. We cannot do without that which is perfectly blessed before us. Only God has so bound us up with Christ, that while He is the power of the life in which we walk in it, He is the expression of that divine life in a man down here; and, beholding Him in glory, we are delivered from the motives which would have hindered our walking thus, and furnished with those which form us into His likeness.

Verse 14. Here we see Christ as the first-fruits to God. But there is another thing: He has been in the fire. All this blessed grace in His life has been fully and perfectly tried, even to death and judgment—not looking at Christ's death as atonement, but looking at Him in His trials to see whether nothing but a sweet savor would come out. The only time when He asked that the cup might pass from Him, it was piety. When it was the terrible cup of God's wrath, He could not go through it without feeling what it was; it was piety which shrank from the forsaking of God, it was the thing that tested His obedience absolutely. He had been tried by man's hatred, by Satan's power in death and the terror of judgment; but it was a very different thing, when He had to drink that cup, the Holy One of God to be made sin and be before God as such—the One eternally in the bosom of the Father having to say, “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” But here was His perfectness “The cup that my Father hath given me shall I not drink it?” He was tested, and was always perfect. Supposing it had been possible He had not gone on, it would have shown all His obedience to be imperfect, that, when perfectly tested, it would not stand. But there was not a single thing but His own absolute divine perfectness that stood! His disciples forsook Him; all else were against Him; and when He turned to God, it was, “Why hast Thou forsaken Me?” There was absolute testing, and He went through the fire as a sweet savor. “Therefore doth My Father love Me.” Sin, death had come in, Satan's power; and He goes through it all in the power of absolute obedience and love to His Father—the testing to the end. There is the perfection of the thing which we have seen; perfect in its origin, perfect as sealed by the Holy Ghost, and now perfect when tested to the utmost, obedient unto death. Therefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a Name which is above every name. He has gone back there as Man in virtue of what He was down here.

And here, beloved brethren, is what we have got to think of: all Christ's perfectness in His life, and on the other side, perfectness according to the covenant of salt in His death. Not then saying, “I know that Thou hearest me always, “but, though doing that which perfectly pleased the Father, of which He could say, “Therefore doth my Father love me,” yet as to relief and comfort at the time, none from man, could be none from Satan—none from God! The basis of eternal blessing was laid then according to the glory of God.

I have got Him, in all His life through as the meat-offering, to feed upon, study, get acquainted with—to feed upon that which was perfectly offered to God.

The Lord only give us to do it, and then, when we meet Him, it will be joy.

Unsuitable for God and the Christian

Whatever does not suit the presence of God does not suit a Christian. The first effect of the presence of God is to annihilate a man in his own eyes. Hence in Eph. 4:2, in connection with walking worthy of the “high vocation,” it is to be with all lowliness, &c. Then another thing follows: there must be no hurry with our brethren, but “long-suffering and forbearance.”

In Eph. 4 up to verse 6 we have all alike addressed. Afterward it is according to the sovereign will of God given to individuals.

The Declared Purpose and Present Moral Processes: 19. History of Faith

Now, not by the world's enlightenment (as it would make us believe), but by the order of God, this engine of Satan's malice does not exist, or if it does, is hidden in dark corners. Additional, and more dangerous means are now used; the world is putting forth all its energy against the faith of Christ and against the faithful. It is as if the world was marshalling all its armies in battle array against the church of God. The world's power, the world's wisdom, its science, its commerce, its politics, its pleasures, yea its own religion, are led on by its prince—unseen as yet—against the faith of God, the rule of Christ, and against all that bear His name. Perhaps there never was a more testing time for the strength of faith than the present. Does not the history of the Church—its public history which the world's undiscerning eye may read—repeat to us the words of the parable: “He sleeps and rises night and day and knows not how it grows “? But faith is a defense against all; it is a breast-plate (1 Thess. 5:8), it covers the region of the heart, it gives all its love and affection to God, turns with unswerving allegiance to the Lord Jesus, and repels every dart hurled by the foe.

The Lord spoke in parables. There was a truth, a new truth contained in this parable, very different from what Israel had known before. To be left to suffer from their enemies was the result of departure from God, it was a chastisement for their rebellion. But that they who looked for the kingdom of God should be apparently left without the care and protection of God was a condition for which the disciples were wholly unprepared. They knew that the Lord's pathway had been all sorrow, rejection, they had shared a little in it: still the Lord was with them, and they had seen His power put forth, and expected to see the kingdom established in power during their lifetime. But to have intimated to them in parable that the Lord was as One who knew not how the seed was growing, that He would only appear at the harvest, was a strange sound. But there was another truth connected with it, though not contained in the parable. Whatever the appearance might be, the Lord would be with His saints. This reassuring fact Mark gives in the scene of the storm, which relates to the same period as the parable. So if fear cries out, “The Master sleeps,” faith may reply, “The Lord is with us.” The Lord spoke in parables, but “when they were alone, He expounded all things to His disciples.”

Soon the Lord not merely expounds, but gives a practical illustration of His power to save and deliver. They are alone in the ship, and the storm comes down upon them, the waves rise and fill the ship. Destruction seems imminent. No circumstances could more powerfully depict the position of saints of the kingdom of God. Danger is visible and pressing. Safety is certain. The connection between the storm and the parable is most precious. The man sows seed, and sleeps and rises, and knows not how it grows. The Lord Jesus sleeps, and is unmoved. The roaring wind and seething water cannot disturb the calm peace of His soul: To the disciples the only thing seen is that they are in danger, and the Master is asleep. But He is with them, a truth which the parable did not disclose. Faith grasps the fact now; and finds both strength and joy; and though He be (or now to saints' fears seems to be) asleep, it is only that faith may be awaked: But the faith of the disciples did fail. How faint the impression upon their minds of His previous proofs of power and care for them! How slow to learn who He was! Or did they think that there was danger because He slept? Their cry does imply that if He were awake—up and visibly active—they could trust His power. But what would become of them if He slept? Their faith did not rise to the assurance that whether He visibly interposed on their behalf, or whether the storm took its natural course, they were as safe in the one case as in the other. The Lord is awakened—by their cry, and first He rebukes the wind and the sea. Creation hears the voice of its Lord, and there is a great cater. Then He turns to His amazed disciples, and His words are a loving reproach for their want of faith. They ought to have known how impossible it was for the ship to sink when the Lord Jesus was in it. What matter whether He were asleep or not? He was there, and that was enough.

So now the storms of wind and sea may appear to be about to engulf the saints, and He, abuse single word “Peace” would reduce the storm in a moment to, a calm, may appear as one asleep. Is this a reason, for doubting? nay, it is for the trial of faith more precious than gold, though tried with fire. We know His parting word's when He went up on high, “I am with you even to the end.” This ought to fill our hearts with confidence. We have the express word as well as the truth mirrored in the ship tossed by angry waves. But how often do our doubting hearts when sore pressed cry out “Master, carest thou not that we perish?” And as often, does the Master's answer, written and preserved for us, come in the power of His love to still our fears, “Peace, be still.” Then the danger past, His loving remonstrance, “Why are ye so fearful? how is it that you have no faith?” makes us ashamed of ourselves. The point both in the parable and in the storm is, that during this present time there is no active display of God's power on behalf of His church so as to be evident to the world. On the other hand, the reality of His presence and power is assured to faith. Thus the Lord Jesus was expounding the parable, and in a most impressive scene teaching us to be calm and restful, no matter how the storms of life may rage, or the waters swell; faith is to triumph over all circumstances. The storm is illuminated by the presence of the Lord, and throws its clear light over the parable.

Thus in the Gospels is the inbringing of the present dispensation: in Matthew its history as a dispensation, in Mark and Luke its moral characteristics as touching the responsibility and service of those who are the kingdom of God; or the sovereignty of grace, more particularly brought out in Luke. Indeed it is infinite grace all through, for the dispensation, is founded on grace. The future is grace, Messiah sitting upon the throne of, David; the Son of Man reigning over the ransomed world are the results of free grace. But this is not all. When the work of the cross was finished, its glorious result could not be limited by Israel's restoration or by Gentile blessing. It was a righteous result that He who endured the cross and glorified God by it, should be highly exalted, every knee bowing, every tongue confessing Him to be King of kings and Lord of lords. But universal dominion is not the full reward of the MAN who so glorified God. Grace has a greater result than even to be king in a dispensation of glory we may surely say, a result sweeter, and more prized by God who delights to manifest His riches of grace. For now while there is no special dealing with Israel, no maintaining the Gentile in universal dominion and the power of the world controlled by. God's providence, He is calling out a people, separating them from the world, guiding them by the Spirit, to the place prepared for them by the Lord Jesus in the glory, that where He is they may also be.

The field was bought for the purpose of exhibiting this grace. A period of mere dispensational mercy would not have met the purpose—may we not, even say, the desire?—of God. There would have been a seeming failure in the effect of the cross, if, there were no church; and so, on the other hand, the call of the church necessitated a dispensation of grace. And grace, when works are impossible as a ground of acceptance, implies faith. No such call could have been under law. That dispensation was necessary that man might be known. The, dispensation of grace was equally necessary that God might be known. The church, as the highest display of His sovereign grace, is now formed “that in the ages to come He [God] might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness towards us through Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:7).

But even when grace is seen in its highest aspect, there also in special combination is the most solemn responsibility; and thus a moral process is carried on both with the church corporate and the individual believer which magnifies the grace of God and tests the faith of all. Grace meets the responsibility of both church and saint. There is in this, respect an immense difference between the natural man and the believer. The natural man is without power, but his responsibility does not cease because he has no strength. Though failure is inevitable, his obligation to his Creator remains. But the believer—a new creation, while his obligations as a creature remain—is assured that all his previous failure is blotted out, and he begins a new life. And although as a man his obligations to God—i.e., his duties is the relationships of this life—rest upon him as before, yet as a new creation, he receives power through grace to walk in them acceptably before God a power which he had not before. All his past debts, or failures, are canceled; but his creature responsibilities, enhanced, intensified by his new position, are met by sovereign race. There are, as a new creation, new responsibilities, but God in grace has provided for every need. For grace is enthroned, and to that throne we are invited to draw near with boldness that we may obtain help in every time of need. And there it is the blessed function of faith to realize not only the power of grace in time of need, but also the presence of God more intimately than when the worshipper of old drew nigh to the tabernacle upon which the cloud rested, or when the newly consecrated temple was filled with the pavilion of His glory (2 Chron. 4:14). The splendor and the gorgeous service of Solomon's temple did not reveal God. He was inside the veil, and there it was dark then. Jesus, the Lord, has rent the veil, and now tikes us through the opened way; and we as worshippers enter within the veil and are at home in the light of the bright shining of wisdom and power and love.

It is both the duty and privilege of the church to manifest the excellency of the place God has given us. In this the church has grievously failed. Yet even this failure gives a wider scope for the action of faith, enlarging the sphere. Only that when corporate failure is stamped upon the professing body, the faith that overcomes is rather individual. And what severer test can there be for faith than when not the mere professor but the real church fails and loses her first love? It may not make us doubt our personal salvation, but faith is proved as to whether Christ alone is the one Object of our desire. But faith now is tried in every possible way, that it may overcome and that grace may give to it every possible reward.

(To be continued)

What Is Truth?

Little did Pilate realize the momentousness of the question he so lightly put to our Lord. As little did he know the import of the previous words of Christ, “every one that is of the truth heareth My voice,” Solemn, too, is it to think that the truth may be known to a certain extent intellectually, and professed vaguely to a still greater extent, yet be unknown in the heart and to the conscience. To profess the truth is not necessarily to be of the truth in order to this we must be begotten of God by the word of truth (James 1:18) it is an effectual and abiding work of the Spirit. Ordinances have their place, but have nothing to do with the communication of life. As “he is not a Jew which is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew which is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men but of God; “so with true Christianity, and with baptism. Outward rites have nothing whatever to do with the communication or with the sustenance of life; to think so is to mistake their object and use. Life is exclusively by the word of God, in the power of the Spirit; “thy word hath quickened me.” The process is not an external and mechanical one, it is a moral one dealing with the heart and conscience. It is the voice of Christ within, a still small voice, it may be, speaking within and to the conscience, but with a power and effect peculiar to itself; “even so the Son quickeneth whom He will.” It is Christ who quickens the soul, by the word instrumentally, and by the Spirit mediately.

But in order to this the conscience must be aroused, the heart attracted. To ask the question “What is truth?” and forthwith to turn away, is to evince the fatal unconcern and indifference of spiritual death. If the lie of Satan by which he deceived Eve has brought about all the misery which it has, surely this should teach us not only how terrible a thing it is to disobey God, but it should impress us also with the deepest conviction of the value of Divine truth when brought near to us in grace; for “the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” “The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lasts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world, looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” Saved by divine grace, good works should be the fruit. But is the precious truth of God our object? Then, “buy the truth and sell it not.” It may cost us something to purchase end to hold it, but it is worth more than its weight in gold: “the law of Thy mouth is better unto me than thousands of gold and silver.” This is the truth as it is in Jesus, for He is the truth personally and absolutely, its dispenser to the individual heart in the measure proportionate to the faith of the believer, and to his fidelity to what he has already received; for “to him that hath shall more be given.” Unless mixed with faith in the heart it is powerless. Do we desire to be set free as to our conscience before God, and as to deliverance from self, the world, and the enemies' power? It is by the truth, for, as our Lord says (John 8:32), “the truth shall make you free;” yet it is His doing, if effective, for “if the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.”

By no power or resources of our own can we emancipate ourselves from sin and Satan. Nor can the Church do this. The Church indeed should be “the pillar and ground of the truth,” the place where the truth can be found; but the ordinary idea and phrase of “the Church teaches” is one alike foreign and opposed to Scripture. In the figurative language of Scripture the Church is the woman, and the woman must not teach nor usurp authority. Christ teaches by His servants, He gives them the understanding and the power (the written word, however, being ever the test), and this constitutes their authority; but when the “Church” teaches or rules, she usurps the authority of her living Lord and Head, and this never can be the case without injury to those who accept her authority. That many good, holy, and devoted men have held the common notion is most true; that many truly gifted members of the body of Christ have also held it, is true; nevertheless it is from the Lord, and that directly and immediately, that their gift and their spiritual power have come. The Church receives, holds fast, and professes the truth; teachers whether public or private (such as parents) are put in that position by the Lord; at the same time it is most important never to confound such channels of communication with a standard of authority. The written word alone is that.

The Son of God has ever been the quickener of souls, and that by the Word and Spirit. Never have souls been convicted without the expressed word of God. To say that Christ being personally the Word, if He quickens there is thus the application of the word to the soul, is a fallacious argument He never does so quicken (see Rom. 10:13-15). Even when in the world He says, “the words that I speak unto you they are spirit, and they are life.” God's word has ever been the Divine seed, in virtue of which souls have been born again. In the parable of the sower our Lord explains, “the seed is the word of God” (Luke 8:11, 15); “that on the good ground are they which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.” The honest and good heart is as it were the good ground in which the seed of the word of God is sown, germinating in the power of the Spirit, and bringing forth the fruit of good works. But it will be said, “how reconcile this with the Sacramental theory of a germ imparted at baptism?” The fact is, we all have so much to unlearn before we can learn. If conventional notions, ecclesiastical traditions, and the prejudices thus engendered, are more precious to us than Divine truth, great indeed is our loss. The two are irreconcilable. The former, however, is the teaching of Scripture; the latter is what the Church teaches, but teaches erroneously.

Reverting to Pilate's question, let us, as deeply interested in the reply, ask with him “What is Truth?” Truth is the expression of what a person or thing is. Even in ordinary matters it is difficult, if not impossible, adequately to define or describe anything, and hence the subtleties and perplexities of metaphysics. If this is true when we attempt to express the relations of things to ourselves, how much more so when the relations of things to God are in question. It is evident that He only could express or manifest them. But as the Infinite and the Absolute, how could He do so suitably to the limited apprehension and capacity of the creature, the finite? To a certain extent God might be known to the creature by His attributes. That God is holy, good, wise, and mighty beyond all comparison or conception was, and is, clear to angels. That He was good, wise, and powerful beyond all conception, our first parents in a state of innocency must have perceived and experienced. That He was the Supreme Being, was perfectly seen and understood by all created intelligences; and if the pride of Satan so blinded him in this respect as to tempt him to put the matter to the test, he was quickly undeceived, and that to his everlasting ruin.

Pride and ambition were vastly more the spring of action in the revolt of Satan, than they were the cause of Adam's disobedience. Moreover, Satan was the first and arch-rebel, but our first parents fell, tempted by him; or at least, such was the case with Eve. To know of God, however, by His attributes or qualities, is not to know God Himself,—God as to His very nature. Nor was it possible that God, as to His nature, could be revealed to the creature otherwise than in the person of a Mediator,—One who, “found, in fashion as a man” (“made in the likeness of flesh of sin”), was yet truly, and in the most absolute sense, the eternal God. Combining in Himself Deity and manhood, and as the God-man possessing fully the holiness of God, so that it could be equally said of Him as of the Father or of the Spirit, and that whether in Incarnation or in Resurrection, “Holy! Holy! Holy! Lord God Almighty;” He, this wondrous Mediator, revealed God to men, He was the truth, and the Light of the world, whether the world would receive Him or not, and He revealed God to men (to their conscious yet limited knowledge); by making those who believed in Him and received Him partakers of the Divine nature, so that there was that in them, above and beyond mere human nature, which had its fullness in Him, the community of a nature in itself altogether beyond the bounds of creature existence, though as to attribute finite in us, and always dependent on Him. Truth is thus both absolute and relative, inasmuch as the absolute implies the relative. is God's expression of Himself, and of the relation—of everything to Himself. Christ is the eternal Word: in Incarnation He became the expression to men as to angels (1 Tim. 3:16) of what God is. In what He was, in what He said, and in what He did, He was in every respect the manifestation of God; and everything has its character in relation to Him, and as He sees it to be. He is the truth, as to its totality and objective reality, and the truth as to any particular subject is what it is in relation to Him. The written word, given by Divine revelation and by means of Divine inspiration, is the recorded expression of His mind, but in a manner and form adapted to the human understanding; not, however, without the agency of the Holy Spirit to make it spiritually understood. For the attempt to deal with God's word without the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit makes a man a rationalist, whilst the pretense—to be taught or led by the Spirit apart from the written word makes a man a visionary or mere enthusiast Hence the Spirit also is called “the truth” (1 John 5:6), being the living power of the written word.

Whilst, then, it is true that the Scriptures are the written word of God, it is also true that the written word would be inoperative in us without the living agency of the Holy Spirit. But the written word is the standard of truth—the rule, and the only rule, of faith. The human mind may revel in fantastic conceits and vagaries, false analogies, or bold attacks,—in mysticism, sacerdotalism, or rationalism; but the truth received into the heart dissipates these errors as the sun dissipates the humid vapors of night. The natural man, however, understandeth not the things of God. If there is any moral elevation to be found in the world, if the tide of evil is in any measure stemmed, if society is able in any degree to hold together, and human life has any security or enjoyment, what is it owing to? It is owing to the measure in which truth is respected, and practical truth and righteousness practiced. Imagine what the world would become, if truth and honesty disappeared, and falsehood and deceit reigned everywhere; morality gone, wickedness triumphant, family and social bonds dissolved. And the world owes it to God's grace, and to God's providence that it is not so. Were the government of God for a brief season to cease, it would quickly be apparent what Satan would make of the world. It would indeed be a hell upon earth. Let us then extend this principle to the whole universe. Imagine that evil was supreme, truth banished, righteousness annihilated. What a fearful state of things! And who is the judge, what is the standard, what power maintains truth, righteousness, and order? God is the judge, truth, is the standard, and it is the power of God, and that alone, which ensures the maintenance of everything that is good and excellent, and which will ensure the judgment of all evil in due time, and its disappearance from the scene of ordered government. But not till the game is played out, not till the conflict between the powers of good and evil ceases, in its full, final, and everlasting issues. The history of corruption and violence—on the face of this earth, commencing with the lie by which Satan deceived Eve, and sin followed by the crime of fratricide (truly did our Lord characterize Satan as a liar and as a murderer), will, when iniquity is full, God's purposes accomplished, and the game played out, come to an end: the result to the moral agent, whether of blessing, or of judgment, being henceforth in the strictest sense everlasting. Once before, the wickedness of mankind was so great and so universal, that God cleared the earth by the deluge. Some may be “willingly ignorant of this,” or may willfully deny it; but to the Christian it is the most solemn confirmation of those statements of Scripture which assures us of the overwhelming judgment which is coming upon all, who are not found in the true ark, that is Christ. Meanwhile the gospel, God's grand ordinance for the salvation of men, is being proclaimed, and happy are those who fear and accept God's proffered terms of mercy. “Godliness hath the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.”

As the acorn contains in itself the germ of what will in due time develop into the oak tree, so the few but pregnant words of Gen. 3:15 contain the announcement of God's future purposes of grace overcoming the power of evil God had said unto Adam; “Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” No doubt the instant Adam disobeyed he became mortal, i.e. liable to death, through physical necessity, and at the same moment he fell into a state of spiritual death, i.e., the severance of the soul from God, alienation from Him, and enmity to Him in consequence of a nature now in subject to Him. In no, sense does death to a human being mean annihilation;—even though the body returns to the dust, out of which Adam was originally and immediately created, it will he raised again. The breath which God breathed into Adam's nostrils endowed him with a rational and imperishable soul. Nevertheless life and incorruption, as well as the second death and eternal judgment, were brought to light by the gospel, and the expressions in the Old Testament, “Thou shalt surely die,” and “the soul that sinneth it shall die,” seem to speak solely of the death of the body, and with reference to God's government in this world.

As to the temptation, Adam was not deceived, but choosing to follow Eve, gave up God. Nor, as we see from Eve's reply to the serpent, was she deceived as regards ignorance of the divine prohibition, but as to the true character of the tempter, and by the falsity of the serpent's words. The lie by which he deceived Eve was a lie of the worst sort,—that kind of lie which has enough of truth in it, the more effectually to deceive. They did not die physically, on the literal day of twenty-four hours, in which they disobeyed; yet in every other sense they did die, even though they became “as gods, knowing good and evil,” where before they had been simply innocent. This function of conscience they acquired in and by the fall. But what a fearful thing it is to know good and evil as a fallen being! In this respect then Adam and Eve became “as gods, knowing good and evil? It is no attention now of our being restored to what Adam was as innocent, it is now a question of being “renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created him,” i.e. that created the old man, the first Adam. We are therefore called to holiness, not to innocence.

In His sentence on the serpent God said, “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” A double reference seems to run throughout this verse, a literal and a mystical one. The enmity between the serpent and the human race it is well known surpasses that existing between any of the lower creation and mankind, and the sentence is thus perfectly literal. In the mystical sense, the seed of the woman is Christ, and the clause, “between thy seed and her seed” would thus include all that are Christ's on the one hand, and the children of the devil on the other, whether wicked spirits or wicked men. The enmity would not be on the part of the children of God towards their fellow creatures, but it would be on the part of the wicked towards the righteous, as quickly illustrated by Cain's murder of Abel. “It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” The pronoun It, if taken by itself, might no doubt be so pointed in the Hebrew as to be feminine, but the verb being masculine shows that the pronoun is so too, and not, as the Roman Catholics try to make out, feminine in allusion to the Virgin Mary. It is masculine in allusion to Christ, whose sacrifice on the cross accomplished this prediction finally as regards the latter clause, and potentially as regards the former.

The process as regards Satan is more protracted, his actual defeat and degradation being by successive steps and blows, till, his time being up and his work done, he will be cast into hell,—the most miserable being there,—the arch-enemy of God, the opposer of Christ, and the author of evil, of all the evil which has ever existed, even though he found willing accomplices. Never, however, has success more attended his boastful efforts than now, and in fact from the time he succeeded in inducing the Jewish priests to insist on the death of Christ. Whilst that sacrifice is the salvation of believers, it is the judgment of the world, “now is the judgment of this world,” i.e. morally—actual and final judgment is of course outside this world, as it is eternal in its result. But terrible is his success now, as of old, in the perversion of God's words, in the mixture of falsehood with troth. Corrupted religion is the most deceptive and destructive of his arts. The ecclesiastical power when corrupt has ever been his only too successful instrument. Following in the wake of God's dealings with men, he insinuates himself, corrupts, and ruins. Aaron, God's high priest, at the very time when he is setting up idolatry, proclaims “a feast to Jehovah.” The ecclesiastical authorities in Jerusalem, when our Lord was upon earth, were his most subtle and bitter foes, and drove Pilate against his better judgment to desire the death of Christ.

And does it fare better with the Truth at the present day? In no wise. Destroyed if possible, or at least corrupted, he thus effects his deadly purpose, nor will his powers of deception cease till he has set up a man as antichrist, and quickly meets his doom for his daring and impious opposition to Christ. And for this the “religious” world is rapidly ripening, or at least the apostate part of it. Christ was and is “the way, the truth, and the life;” but people will not thus submit to the righteousness of God by faith. They like, as ever, their own way, and in this Satan is always ready to help us. “For the mystery of lawlessness doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that wicked one be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming: even him whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the troth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie; that they all might lie damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (2 Thess. 2:7-11). God is light, and God is love. These terms express what God is in His nature,—intolerant of evil, yet love. The cross of Christ has vindicated God in both these respects. If we were to be saved, and righteously saved, the judgment of sin must be borne; and He bore our sins in His own body on the tree. At the same time God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoso believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. But we never read that God is truth. God is trace, but Christ is the Truth, the expression and manifestation of the true God. Much may be true in human knowledge: this knowledge however is but partial, and not that of God Himself. Christ is the truth, objectively, absolutely, and in its totality, nor can the creature reach God or apprehend Him, but by Christ, the one Mediator. Truth and Light therefore are not equivalent terms. Light is God's nature, Truth is the expression or manifestation of that nature in its entirety, i.e. whatever may be its attributes; the Psalmist could speak of God as “the living God,” and as “the God of my life.” I see this in Christ that, says John, which we have seen and heard of the Word of Life, for the Life was manifested, and Christ is the Life. In brief He is the expression or manifestation of God, and therefore is “the Truth.”

Most of the Ante-Nicene Fathers held that Christ, though eternal as the word-mind (ἐνδιάθετος) in God, only became a person (προφορικός) when God was about to create the world, a notion utterly refuted by John 1:2. “He was in the beginning with God,” i.e. distinct personality, and that from eternity. We often hear the earlier period of the Church spoken of as its purer period. No mistake could be more gross; never was heresy and puerile nonsense more rife, or so rife.

John 1:1-5 tell us what the Word was essentially (ἦν), He was Life, and He was Light; i. 14 tells us what He became—(ἐγένετο). Nevertheless though ever Light in Himself, He was not the light of men till He came amongst men, i.e. in incarnation; “that was the true light, which coming into the world lighteth every man” (John 1:9, and compare 12:46). Not that every man sees this Light, more than in nature every man sees the sun. In either ease men may be blind—in fact spiritually, and as towards God, men are dead in trespasses and sins, and as spiritually dead, they have no spiritual perception. The notion that all men have divine light is a denial of man's true state and condition, and evinces a perversion of Scripture on the one side, as complete as on the other that which would make the sacramental elements vehicles of life; we might call the former the idealistic error, the latter the materialistic error. Life is by the Word in the power of the Spirit, the process being a moral one i.e. one acting on the conscience and the heart.

It may be said, if Christ was the light of men only in incarnation, what light had men before the incarnation, and what light have they now? In both cases the world as such “lieth in the wicked one,” in general total darkness covers men's minds. It is the condition into which men have got themselves. But in each case a testimony from God has existed in the world. In due time that testimony will overspread the world, at present and hitherto it has been more or less localized. The gospel is indeed addressed to all, its natural scope is universal; but in the first place the church, like Israel in its responsibility, has failed to work deliverance in the earth, and in the next, even where the gospel is preached and known, men will not always bow to it. Even in Christendom, how many have really been converted by the gospel? God knows.

In a certain sense the church, or at least true Christians, in this respect take the place of Christ, for “Ye were once darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord.” “Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.” As to the divine nature, true Christians, as partakers of it, necessarily possess its properties, viz., light and love, “Among whom ye shine as lights in the world, holding forth the word of life.” But how sad and how solemn is it to see now, as when Jesus was in the world, that “the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness apprehended it not.” It is in contact with spiritual death. In nature light banishes darkness, not so necessarily in moral things, and in the spiritual world; men love darkness rather than light. Their heart is darkened, their mind reprobate (Rom. 1:21-28). Even Christ, who is the Truth and the Light, has been in the world, and when in it was rejected. Equally is the divine record of this, and the light of testimony in His members, rejected. The acme of intellectual conceit is now to boast in knowing nothing—Agnosticism. If that does not please, you have Positivism; science is everything—everything is to be a matter of mathematical demonstration—what cannot thus be proved is to be rejected. Alas for Divine revelation! Man's reason sits in judgment on God's word, declares it no revelation at all, and denies the possibility of revelation altogether. “This then is the positive philosophy; the extension to all investigations of those methods which have been found successful in the physical sciences, the transformation of all knowledge into a homogeneous body of doctrine capable of supplying a Faith, and consequently a polity” (Lewes's History of Philosophy).

Well may the Christian say with Scripture, “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness, but unto us who are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” There are many who call themselves truth-seekers, and who profess to be lovers of the truth, yet scarcely seem in earnest in their appreciation of it, or in the pursuit of it. Some there are who are “ever learning, but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Even in the case of those to whose hearts the Spirit has disclosed hidden treasures under the letter of the inspired Word, how limited is their knowledge! Such would be the first to say, “We know in part, and we prophesy in part.” As compared with Truth in its entirety, with Christ as its personal embodiment, how partial and how limited is the knowledge to which we have attained! And how happy would it have been for the church if Christians had acted according to the apostolic injunction, “Nevertheless whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing,” — “if in anything ye be differently minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.” Like-mindedness would thus have been produced, not in consequence of the so-called teaching of the church (which indeed needs to be taught itself), nor by the infallible dictum of the Pope, but because “they shall all be taught of God,” because in each one born of God there is the spiritual faculty (the anointing), in virtue of which they “know all things.” A divinely qualified teacher—a teacher of the truth—knows very well that he can but hold up the truth as an object: the light, the eye, the understanding are no less the gift of God to the one taught of God. In spiritual things so it ever has been, so it ever will be. The carnal mind ignorant of this may deny and oppose it, but “the secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him, and He will show them His covenant.”

On Acts 2:12-21

The tongues were, as the Apostle explains elsewhere, a sign to unbelievers. They were intended to arrest and produce inquiry. The presence of the promised Holy Spirit was an incomparably deeper and more fruitful fact. He was sent down from heaven to form the assembly, the new dwelling-place of God, the body of Christ. He was to be the power of testimony, of God's good news for the world. He was to be in the believers and with them forever, that Paraclete whom Christ after going on high was to send, not only to bring demonstration to the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment, but to guide the saints into all the truth, announcing what is coming, and glorifying Christ as He had the Father. Whatever might be the marvel and the gracious suitability of the tongues, the gift of the Spirit Himself immensely transcends them; but His presence and the all-important results of it are beyond the ken of the world which neither sees nor knows Him. The strange thing occupies men.

“And they were all amazed and perplexed, crying one to another, What meaneth this? But others mocking said, They are filled with sweet wine. But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice and spoke forth unto them, Men of Judaea and all ye that dwell in Jerusalem, be this known to you, and give ear to my words. For these are not drunken as ye suppose, for it is [the] third hour of the day; but this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel: And it shall be in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young [men] shall see visions, and your elder [men] shall dream with dreams; yea and on my bondmen and on my bond-women will I pour out of my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. And I will give wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth below, blood and fire and vapor of smoke. The sun shall be changed into darkness and the moon into blood before the great and manifest day of [the] Lord come. And it shall be, whosoever shall call on the name of [the] Lord shall be saved” (ver. 12-21).

As usual, men arrange themselves in more than one class, some astonished, others hostile and scornful. Peter takes the lead in explaining with gravity and distinctness. He explicitly denies the unworthy thought of intoxication, which the early hoar itself should have silenced as against God-fearing souls. It was really what Joel spoke of: not of course the fulfillment as it is to be in the last days, but an installment of that nature. Indeed the words of the prophet went in this beyond what that day saw accomplished; for “all flesh” cannot fairly be limited to Israel, and God, who was soon about to bring in Gentiles to the name of Christ, will bless the nations in the future kingdom, when all the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord, and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before Him. The gospel now makes good the indiscriminate grace of God even more profoundly than will be under His government, when He will show that the kingdom is Jehovah's, and that He is the governor among the nations.

In the latter day when Joel's words will be fulfilled as a whole, the Spirit will be poured out, and if Israel enjoy the blessing richly, it will flow far beyond their narrow limits. God's way shall then be known upon earth, His saving health among all nations. Temporal blessing is then to be vouchsafed to Israel (2:19-27), and their great northern enemy to be forever disposed of; for Jehovah will do great things for His people and land, whatever the enemy may have prepared to do. “My people,” He says emphatically, “shall never be ashamed.” Then as a distinct intimation the prophet presents two announcements: the first, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (28, 29); the second, external signs of judgment ushering in the day of Jehovah, the circumstances of which are detailed in chapter 3 till we come down to the closing account or their blessings once more. As the wonders above and below precede that day, so does the repentance of Israel prepare for their deliverance, and blessing, and especially the gift of the Spirit. We see the same principle here also.

For God, in pouring out of His Spirit now, does thereby associate believers with Christ exalted on high. Given in virtue of redemption the Holy Spirit sheds the love of God in their hearts, seals them for the day of redemption, and is the earnest of their inheritance. He dwells in them now, and will quicken their mortal bodies then at Christ's coming. Besides He is the blessed and divine bond, constituting them Christ's body and God's house. And here it may be of interest to not a few if I set before them the judgment formed by the celebrated ecclesiastical historian, Neander, who had no bias toward the truth of the church from his Lutheran views. It is not cited as invariably sound or as in any respect authoritative, but as a grave testimony from an able and well-informed Christian in direct opposition to the present state of the church, whether Protestant or Romanist, Oriental or Greek. It is, therefore, as far as it goes, a strong involuntary homage to the revealed truth on this subject.

“What Moses expressed as a wish (Num. xi. 29), that the Spirit of God might rest upon all, and all might be prophets, seems to me a prediction of that which was to be realized through Christ. By Him was to be instituted a fellowship of Divine life, which, proceeding from the equal and equally immediate relation of all to the One God, as the divine source of life to all, should remove these boundaries, within which, at the Old Testament position, the development of the higher life was still confined; and hence the fellowship thus derived would essentially distinguish itself from the constitution of all previously existing religions societies. There could, in such a society, be no longer a priestly or prophetic office, constituted to serve as a medium for the propagation and development of the kingdom of God, on which office the religious consciousness of the community was to be dependent. Such a guild of priests as existed in the previous systems of religion, empowered to guide other men, who remained, as it were, in a state of religions pupilage; having the exclusive care of providing for their religious wants, and serving as mediators by whom all other men must first be placed in connection with God and divine things,—such a priestly caste could find no place within Christianity. In removing that which separated men from God, in communicating to all the same fellowship with God, Christ also removed the barrier which had hitherto divided men from one another. Christ, the Prophet and High Priest for entire humanity, was the end of the prophetic office and of the priesthood. There was now the same High Priest and Mediator for all, through whom all men, being once reconciled and united with God, are themselves made a priestly and spiritual race; one heavenly King, Guide and Teacher, through whom all are taught of God; one faith, one hope, one Spirit which should quicken all; one oracle in the hearts of all, the voice of the Spirit proceeding from the Father; all were to be citizens of one heavenly kingdom, with whose heavenly powers, even while strangers in the world, they should be already furnished. When the Apostles applied the Old Testament idea of the priesthood to Christianity, this seems to me to have been done invariably for the simple purpose of showing that no such visible particular priesthood could find place in the new community; that since free access to God and to heaven had by the one High Priest, even Christ, been opened once for all to believers, they had, by virtue of their union to Him, become themselves a spiritual people, consecrated to God; their calling being none other than to dedicate their entire life to God as a thank-offering for the grace of redemption, to publish abroad the power and grace of Him who had called them out of the kingdom of darkness into His marvelous light, to make their life one continual priesthood, one spiritual worship springing from the temper of faith working by love; one continuous testimony for their Savior. (Compare 1 Peter 2:9; Rom. 12:1; and the spirit and whole train of thought running through the Epistle to the Hebrews.) So, too, the advancement of God's kingdom in general and in particular, the diffusion of Christianity among the heathens and the good of each particular community, was now to be the duty not of one select class of Christians alone, but the immediate concern of each individual.” (Meander's General History of the Christian Religion and Church, i. § 2, 248-250, Bohn's edition.) We need not do more than notice the vague inaccuracy of “entire humanity” on the one hand and of the “King” on the other; for we must never expect a Lutheran to know the total ruin of man or the new relations of Christ. That He tasted death for every man is true; but He is King of Israel and of nations, Head of the church, not of humanity as such. He has authority over all flesh to give eternal life to as many as the Father hath given Him. But this and other passages show that, notwithstanding grave drawbacks, this modern historian understood better than most the peculiar character of that new thing which God formed for His glory on the day of Pentecost; a character in no wise accidental or temporary, but essentially distinguishing it from first to last, and as distinct from that which God had set up in Israel as from the inventions of Satan among the Gentiles. It was God's habitation in the Spirit.

(To be continued)

On 1 Thessalonians 3

Grace works by joints and bands in the body, which is so constituted by our Lord Jesus to this end. If Paul could not visit the Thessalonians, he sent Timothy. Love seeks not its own things, and can find resources according to Christ, whatever the hindrances which Satan puts in the way.

“Wherefore when we could no longer forbear, we thought good to be left behind at Athens alone, and sent Timothy our brother and workfellow under God in the gospel of Christ, to establish you and encourage concerning your faith, that no one might be moved by [lit. in] these afflictions. For yourselves know that for this we are set. For even when we were with you, we told you beforehand that we are to suffer affliction, even as it came to pass, and ye know. On this account I also, when I could no longer forbear, sent that I might know your faith, lest perhaps the tempter had tempted you and our labor should be in vain. But when Timothy came just now unto us from you and brought us glad tidings of your faith and love, and that ye have good remembrance of us always, longing to see us even as we also [to see] you; on this account we were comforted by you, brethren, in all our distress and tribulation through your faith; because now we live if ye stand fast in [the] Lord. For what thanksgiving can we render again to God for you for all the joy wherewith we rejoice on your account before our God, night and day beseeching exceedingly that we may see your face, and perfect what is lacking in your faith? Now our God and Father Himself, and our Lord Jesus direct our way unto you; and the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another and toward all, even as we also toward you; in order to establish your hearts unblameable in holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all His saints” (verses 1-13).

To the apostle visiting Athens it was no small trial to forego the companionship of his true and beloved child in faith. But his affectionate concern for the Thessalonians could not otherwise be satisfied. He knew that they were but babes spiritually, and that they were exposed to enemies, Jewish and Gentile, as subtle as determined and unscrupulous. He was himself about to brave Satan in a stronghold of his religious influence and of philosophic speculation where the name of Jesus had never yet been proclaimed, still less had he himself the fellowship of brethren in Christ with whom to pray and take counsel. A storm of popular fury, stirred up by Jewish instigation among the Gentile rabble, had burst out against Jason (Paul's host) and other brethren in Thessalonica, which led to the hurried leave of Paul and Silas that night after a sojourn of but few weeks. The same Jewish influence had stirred up the crowds at Berea, whither they had repaired, and where they found a yet readier reception of the word, and withal remarkable care in bringing what was preached to the test of the scriptures. There Silas and Timothy staid, while Paul was once more hurried off to Athens. But the heart of the apostle could not rest as to the Thessalonians, young as they were, and exposed to danger, suffering, and snares. “And we sent Timothy our brother and workfellow under God in the gospel of Christ, to establish you and encourage concerning your faith, that no one be moved by these afflictions. For yourselves know that for this we are set. For even when we were with you, we told you beforehand that we are to suffer afflictions even as it came to pass, and ye know.” The Holy Spirit by the apostle, as the Lord Jest's previously had given full warning of the special and constant troubles that await the saint in passing through the world—peace within beyond thought of man, peace in Christ, but tribulation in the world. Faith alone can enjoy the one and endure the other. Such is meant to be the experience, none other the expectation, of Christians while waiting for Christ. Even the youngest must thus learn, for the real enmity of the world and of its prince spares none; and so the apostle prepared the converts in Thessalonica to look for distress. Nor was this at all too soon. They had already the gravest reason to know the truth and wisdom of his warnings, but they had the witness of love in the visit of Timothy for their establishment and encouragement concerning their faith. Grace only could call into such a path; grace alone can sustain in it; but grace does not fail, Still the Lord works by means, as by Paul's sending, by Timothy's going and comforting the saints, and by their joy in the consolation, whatever might be the pressure of affliction. Flesh would weary, murmur, recant, and turn aside from the truth which entailed such sorrow. Faith sees Christ, gives God thanks, perseveres at all cost, and grows by the exercise, while the links of love are strengthened on all sides.

“On this account I also, when I could no longer forbear, sent that I might know your faith, lest perhaps the tempter had tempted you, and our labor should be in vain. But when Timothy came just now unto us from you, and brought us glad tidings of your faith and love, and that ye have good remembrance of us always, longing to see us even as we [to see] you; on this account we were comforted in you, brethren, in all our distress and tribulation through your faith; because now we live if ye stand fast in [the] Lord.” The Second Epistle will afford ample evidence that the apostle might well dread that the tempter would avail himself of the circumstances to dishonor the Lord in those who bore His name at Thessalonica. For the present, however, the work stood in the vigor and freshness in which it began, and Timothy had such good news to bring back as cheered the fervent and affectionate heart of him that sent him, and changed his anxieties into thanksgiving that rose above all his own distress and affliction. Their faith shone, their love burned, they had always good remembrance of the stranger to whom they were indebted for hearing of the living and true God, and of His Son the Deliverer risen from the dead who is coming from the heavens. They longed to see again the messenger whom they recognized as bringing them unequivocally God's word, whatever the varied storms of trial it had brought on them from man, the very trials proving their sincerity and truth, for had they not been told before that so it was to be? It was strength as well as joy to the laborer, as he most energetically expresses it, “now we live if ye stand fast in [the] Lord.”

The joy of the apostle as it was of divine love, so was it holy; no vain proselyting zeal, but delight in the presence of God over that which was the fruit of His grace to the praise of Jesus; delight over that faith and love kept bright and firm, in young confessors of Christ left alone, notwithstanding the fierce hostility of Jews and Greeks. “For what thanksgiving can we render again to God for you for all the joy wherewith we rejoice on your account before our God, night and day beseeching exceedingly that we may see your face and perfect what is lacking in your faith?” If theirs was the love of Jonathan, his was certainly more than the love of David. It is the love of the divine nature in the power of that Spirit, which finds its ever-growing joy in the blessing of others, and especially of those already blessed, that what is wanting may be perfected in personal ministry. “Now our God and Father Himself, and our Lord Jesus, direct our way unto you; and the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another and toward all, even as we also toward you; in order to establish your hearts unblameable in holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints.”

Such was the prayer dictated by the apostle's affection as the Holy Spirit brought their need before him in God's presence. And the way of the apostle was directed to the Thessalonians, but not before another epistle to them followed, and years of labor elsewhere intervened. What he meanwhile seeks for them is no loss important for ourselves and all saints—the increase and abounding of love in us one toward another, and toward all, in order to the establishing our hearts unblameable in holiness. This is God's way as surely as it is not man's; for be insists on holiness in order to love, whereas in truth love must work in order to holiness. It is a true principle from the gospel all the way through; for God's love it was that met and blessed us in sovereign grace when we were enemies, powerless and ungodly, in Christ's death for us; and this was the most powerful motive which wrought in us to holiness. So is it here among the saints, who are exhorted to love mutually as well as toward all, in order that their hearts should be confirmed in holiness without blame; even as Christ, in love to the church, first gave Himself, and then washes with the word, that He may present it to Himself glorious, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing.

But there is another consideration of great weight and interest in this brief prayer. Not only does He join in a most striking unity our God and Father Himself with our Lord Jesus in His earnest prayer for the blessing of the saints by a renewed visit, but he desires that the Lord may confirm their hearts blameless in holiness “before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all His saints” —not merely now before God, so that it should be real, but at the coming of the Lord with all that are His, without a break in thought till that day when the failure or faithfulness of each shall appear beyond controversy. For as it is a question of responsibility, it is not simply His coming that is here spoken of, but His coming with all His saints, that is, His day when they shall appear with Him in glory, and He shall come to be glorified in His saints and to be admired in all them that believed. How this brings the light of that day on the present hour I Even if one may not for the Lord's sake walk with all the saints now, it is not that the heart is alienated, but it anticipates that glorious scene in which they shall come forth with Him, the objects of our love because they are all of His.

(To be continued)

Revised New Testament: Hebrews 13 and James

Heb. 13

In 13:8 the Revisers correctly in general render a verse probably mistranslated through anti-Romanist zeal. But ἐν π. may, and probably does, mean “in all things,” or every way, as in verse 18, and often elsewhere; whereas the masculine sense, though popular among Protestants, is here harsh in construction and can hardly be laid down absolutely if we bear in mind 1 Cor. 7. The imperative is right, and “undefiled” a predicate as “in honor.” The beginning of 6 is loosely translated. Surely ὁ τρόπος is the way of dealing without going further to make a smooth construction with the following clause. But the energy of the quotation is far better represented in this and the succeeding verse 6. It is not “may” but do say; and the interrogative is not only correct, but gives real point. In 7 they have correctly treated the words as referring to their guides, not “who” but “the which” or such as spoke to them the word of God, whose faith they were to imitate, contemplating the issue of their career or behavior. It was terminated, and they were to be recalled to mind, no longer to be obeyed like their living leaders (17). “Jesus Christ” is the subject of the distinct proposition that follows. Indeed verse 8 might fittingly open a new parenthesis which would close with 16, though it is no bad transition from the teaching of the deceased leaders to the abiding sameness of the Lord Jesus. But the apposition insinuated in the punctuation of ordinary English Bibles is false. The unchangeableness of Christ is the guard against being carried away. In 9 the received reading followed by the Authorized Version πεπιφ. rightly gives place to παραφ. as in the Revised Version. It is not carried about as in Eph. 4:14, but carried away out of the straight course. Here, however, as in 1:1, the Authorized Version has misled the Revisers into “divers,” not now for “many” but for various, ποικίλαις. “Diverse” would at least approximate, and perhaps the Revisers meant this, for their spelling is peculiar. As they interpolate an “e” into judg[e]ment, they may cut off an “e” from “divers.” But the word really means motley or various. “Teachings” is unusual as a plural in our tongue, though in the singular it is all right. Probably Dr. Angus found it hard to resist the innovators. In 14 we have no abiding city here, but are seeking after the coming one, for there is but one heavenly Jerusalem. “One” to come as in the Authorized Version is too vague, End incorrect. Why should the Revised Version of 15 be more remote from the Greek than the Authorized Version in the last clause? Does the punctuation of 17 help the sense? “That they may do this” refers to the watching. The chiefs or leaders are to give account of their own duty, not of others' souls. In 20 they give “in the” instead of “through” for ἐν. It expresses the power or virtue in that blood in which God brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus:—In 21 the omission of ἔργω is precarious, even Alford, Lachmann, and Tregelles accepting it. On the authority of A C Dcorr K M P, the cursives, Syriac, AEthiopic, Armenian, &c., sustain it against à Dp.m., the Vulgate, which none follow but Tischendorf abroad, and Westcott and Hort at home: The difference, however, seems slight as to sense. There is rather better evidence in favor of ἡμῖν instead of ὑμῖν as in the Text. Rec., though none but the same editors adopt the change. Lachmann had in his early edition added αὐτός, and in his later αὐτῶ before ποιῶν, the latter of which has א A C to support it, though manifest glosses. In 24 it is “from,” not “of,” Italy.

Epistle of James

Why should the Revisers perpetuate the traditional blunder of “The General Epistle of James"? The best critics drop καθολική, following B K, A C being defective, but A also dropping it at the end: so many Latin copies, and the Pesch. Syr. It is not “general,” but specially addressed to the twelve tribes.

1:1 has neither the closeness of a literal rendering, nor the freedom of the Authorized Version. If we are to adhere to the letter, it is in, not “of,” the dispersion. The faith of James rises above all the present circumstances of God's ancient people, and addresses the nation as a whole, though distinguishing such of Israel as have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ. He thus maintains and expresses God's right over the entire people, wherever and whatever they may be. In 8 “proof” or proving is better than “trying” in the Authorized Version. In 4 “her” has properly given way to “its.” In 6 “doubting,” “doubteth” are better than “waver,” though κλύδων seems rather “a wave” or billow, than “the surge.” The punctuation, as expressive of the connection of 7, 8, is questionable, though the Authorized Version is hardly correct either in its representation of 8. It is rather a description of him that doubts. Verses 9, 10 are given somewhat loosely, and with uncalled for neglect of the anarthrous construction. Why not as “flower of grass “? In 11 the Revisers depart from the simple “scorching heat,” not “wind,” given to the word in Matt. 20:12, and Luke 12:55; but “goings” is better than “ways.” In 12 it should be not “tried,” but the result “proved,” or as the Revisers say “approved.” “He” would have sufficed instead of “the Lord.” The later uncials and almost all the cursives, &c., read “the Lord.” Why not in 18 “by evils” or evil things, rather than “with evil” as in the Authorized and Revised Versions? In 15 the Revisers overlook the abstract force of the article in Greek, where we leave it out in English. The Authorized Version is right. They follow nearly the Authorized Version in separating ἄνωθέν ἐστι from καταβαῖνον, but the Authorized Versions in 3:15 seems just as correct, which they do not follow. It is known that in the oldest uncials, supported by the Latins, the reading is ἴστε, “ye know,” not ὤστε, “so that.” Then we would proceed, “But let,” &c. The anarthrous form of 20 is ill reflected in the Revised Version, as in the Authorized Version. In 21 “implanted” is correct. In 28 and 24 it is to “consider” or contemplate, rather than “behold.” In 24 does not ὁ π. mean more than “he that looketh"? In 26 θρ. “among you” (ἐν ὐμῖν) is rightly rejected. But as distinct from εὐσεβεία, piety, it means the outward service of God, which “religion” inadequately expresses, though it is hard to find a better. In 27 it is well to note this, lest ignorance should treat the verse as a definition of true “religion,” as men speak. The meaning is, that this is a pure and unsullied service before Him who is God and Father: to visit orphans and widows, &c. But the article is omitted before θ. καὶ π. in אp.m Ccorr. K L, very many cursives, &c.; it is read in other MSS. of the highest authority, as also in Text. Rec.

2:2 of the Revised Version has rightly “synagogue,” according to the peculiar bearing of the Epistle. In 4 “partial” in yourselves of the Authorized Version goes too far; but “divided in your own minds” in the Revision scarcely hits the mark. The true force seems that they became divided, or made a difference “among themselves.” For judges “of” evil thoughts, which is the literal rendering of the Authorized Version, the Revisers give “with.” Of course the meaning is that they had evil thoughts, according to an idiom found sometimes in English. In 5 the true reading on the beet authority is τῶ κ. (“as to the world"), not τοῦ κ., still less τ. κ. τούτου, as in Text. Rec. followed in the Authorized Version “of this world.” In 7 is not the literal force preferable “that was called upon you"? In 11 the Revisers rightly follow ancient authority in “dost” not and “killest,” contrary to Text. Rec. In 12 recurs the old inability to set forth the anarthrous construction: “a” law of liberty is not the sense but erroneous, though seemingly more accurate than “the” in the Authorized Version. The copulative of the Text. Rec. rightly vanishes. In 14 it is a nice question whether the true thought be “faith” as in the Authorized Version, or “the faith": the Greek admits of either, and it becomes a question of contextual propriety. But “that faith” of the Revised Version is strong beyond warrant. It is the more strange, as in the same connection (17, 20, 22) they give “faith” as an abstraction or personification, and quite rightly. In 18 σου of R. Steph. ("thy,” Authorized Version) is well omitted: why then should the Revisers interpolate “thy “? It was this feeling, no doubt, which led the scribes of C K L, and most of the cursives to insert the word. The real question is as to a final μου which א B C and a few cursives omit. In 20 ἀργή, “barren,” as against ν., “dead” of the Text. Rec. and Authorized Version, is supported by B Cp.m. 27, 29, the best Latin copies, the Sah., and Arm. of Zohrab: slender in number, but grave, especially as assimilation easily accounts for the more popular reading. In 21 would it not be less cumbrous to take as on, or in, offering up? Compare 25 also. In 22 they are right in preferring the margin to the text of Authorized Version. In 23 there is no reason to say more than that A. was called “friend of God.” “The” is needless before spirit in 25, and of course its omission more exact.

In 3:1 “teachers” is correct, and “judgment.” In 8 they rightly read εἰ δέ “now if,” probably changed into ἰδού through 4. In 4 the Authorized Version needlessly adds “which,” corrected by the Revisers, and “steersman” displacing “governor.” In 5, 6, the confusion of the copies and the editors is great; so that one may judge the more moderately of the Revisers' text and margin. “A” world, &c. of the Authorized Version is clearly wrong, and here set right. In 8 they reject “unruly” of the Authorized Version for “restless.” In 9 they accept “Lord” for God of the Authorized Version. It is “the” fountain in 11, and “from” the same “opening,” not place merely. In 12 it is “a” fig tree, and the last clause does not speak of a fountain, like Text. Rec. and Authorized Version, but says, with the Revisers, neither can salt water yield sweet. The Authorized Version of 15 appears to me quite as exact as the change here. Compare i. 17. There is much difficulty in deciding the true force of ἀδ., whether it be without doubt, variance, or hypocrisy; as the verb of which it is compounded admits of a great variety of meaning. The question in 18 is whether “in peace” should not, as in the Greek, precede “is sown.”

4:1 has in the Revised Version the more vigorous, critical text, but hardly in as terse English as is desirable. “Whence [are] wars, and whence fighting among you? [Are they] not hence, from your pleasures that war in your members?” For the margin of the Authorized Version is right in giving “pleasures.” In 2 ζ. when used in a bad sense, is “ye envy,” or “are jealous.” The first word means “ye lust,” or “covet.” In 3 it is difficult to distinguish in our tongue the active and the middle of αίτ. Dean Alford went too far in calling it “an unaccountable interchange;” whereas it is really an intended, though delicate, and, of course, intelligible difference. The middle as often has an intensive force. In 2 they did not ask with earnestness; in 8 they asked with indifference, and received not; or, if there was any earnestness, it was of an evil kind, to spend in their pleasures. 4 is an instance of valuable correction. The weighty authorities, both MSS. and Versions, reject μοιχοί καί. The one designation, though in the feminine, embraces all men or women who sought the world in unfaithfulness to God and their own relationship of privilege. But both the Authorized and the Revised Versions failed to give the full force; for it is really friendship with the world as distinctly as enmity with God, which they rightly say. None of our English versions is right, I though none is here so wrong as the Rhemish, which, following the Vulgate, confounds ἔχθρα with ἐχθρά. But is there sufficient energy in the Revision, any more than the Authorized Version of βουληθῆ? It is “shall have chosen,” or be minded. 5 seems in the Revised Version rightly divided, as had been long suggested. There are two grave objections to the more ordinary division: (1) Who can tell the Scripture alleged to be in view? (2) Where else is φθ. used in a good sense? I think, however, that the margin of the Authorized Version gives the best sense of π. φθ., “enviously.” And why bring in “the scripture” into 6? Have the Revisers done well in adhering to “Be afflicted” in 9?” Surely “Be miserable” would be more in keeping with their own version of Rom. 3:16, and our next chapter, v. 1, as well as with the deeper expression of wretchedness in the word. In 11 is the correction “on” judgeth his brother; for an evil feeling might work in this rather than in speaking against him: either was to judge the law. In 12 also the Revisers rightly say, One is the lawgiver, &c.; but why “only” or “even?” They rightly give “but” in the last clause on authority ample as well as ancient, and “thy neighbor” instead of “another,” as in Text. Rec. In 13, it is not “such a” but “this” city, this city here, and “trade” or “traffic “is better than “buy and sell.” In 14, “ye are” a vapor seems the best attested by far, if the copies be allowed to have misspelt; and, Bengel and Griesbach notwithstanding, ἔσται seems simply intolerable. It was probably meant for ἐστε, a much more emphatic phrase than ἐστιν, as in L, some cursives, and the Latin copies. Does not the text of 15 begin with obsolete English? The margin is not according to the Greek only, but intelligible according to our present speech. In this verse the reading strangely differs. The Revised Version bows to the general judgment of the critics, who follow à A B P, &c. in adopting ζήσομεν instead of ζήσωμεν with K L, the mass of cursives, the Latins, &c. There is no doubt among unbiased minds that the interchange of the long and short vowels is very common in the oldest MSS., which are, therefore, to be trusted in such a question less than in any other. 4,—therefore, incline to “If the Lord will, and we live, we shall also do this or that.” R. Stephens even read π. in the subjunctive, but this appears to yield no sense, though read by many authorities.

v. Have not the Revisers, by too close adherence to the Authorized Version, lost some of the graphic. force of verse 1? “Weep, howling over your miseries that are coming on.” In 6, “as” of the Text. Rec. is rightly excluded, though not a few authorities favor its insertion. In 9, it is rather “groan” or “complain” than “judge;” and certainly it is “judged,” not “condemned.” In 11, it is “endured,” not “endure.” In 12, it is not “into condemnation,” but “under judgment.” In 18, is it not praise, pot psalms, that the cheerful soul was to sing? Godly order had been secured in 14; and the “saving” of the sick man (15), in answer to the prayer of faith, is “healing,” which is, perhaps, in this case and the like the less equivocal word. “Confess,” therefore (omitted in Text. Rec.), your sine one to another is the remarkable conclusion; it is confidence in mutual love, and in no way official requirement or sacramental efficacy for the soul at departure. The saints are to pray one for another, that they might be healed (16). The question as to the last word is whether it means fervent or in its working. The Authorized Version seems to have conveyed both, the Revised Version the latter. In 39, the Revisers properly add “My,” and say “a,” not “the,” sinner in 20.

(To be continued)

I can use my members as servants; but the moment I make them anything else but servants, it is sin. When man fell, he was under the evil: now we are to be over the evil. We have put on the new man, which is renewed after the image of Him that created him.

Open Brethrenism

Dear Brother, I received your note this morning, it being sent after me during absence from home. I am sorry to be obliged to return the stamps you enclosed, having to decline the paper you require me to send you. For however those whom you call “exclusives” may have failed, and however this may be for us, their failure does not in the slightest degree amend the sad position of those with whom you have associated yourself, and whom you justly call “open brethren.” If I had to choose between the two, “exclusiveness as it is” and “openness” or “inclusiveness” as you understand it, I by far prefer the former. Satan wants God's people to walk either with a narrow heart in a narrow path, which is sectarianism, or with a broad (that is, a large) heart in a broad way, which is latitudinarianism. Now if I had to choose between these two evils, I should prefer the former; for bad as sectarianism is, it is at least based upon some portion of divine truth. But latitudinarianism is indifference to all divine truth, whilst owning it outwardly; and this is the worst of all.

No man on earth ever walked in such a narrow path as the Lord Jesus Christ; and none had such a large heart as He. May He give us grace to walk with a large heart in a narrow path.

If we truly love His all-glorious and all-beauteous person, we cannot be indifferent to His glory and honor. There is no such thing as neutrality in divine things. It is true that the Lord says, “He that is not against us is for us” —this against sectarianism. But you and those with you appear to have forgotten that the Lord said also, “He that is not with Me is against Me,” to guard against latitudinarianism.

Those who formerly were called “Bethesda” or neutrals, who now call themselves by the self-commending but in fact self-condemning name, “Open Brethren,” are exactly in the position of a son whose brother has written an impiously dishonoring paper against their common parent. But instead of remonstrance with his wicked brother and refusing him fellowship after admonition had proved fruitless, he goes on shaking hands as if all were right under pretense of the duty of brotherly love. I should think that such an one would justly be looked at as taking part with the disgraceful child and sharing the sin of dishonor done to their parent (2 John 11).

Put Christ in the first place, and the nice Christians in the second, and you will be all right. But you and those with you do the opposite, and therefore are all wrong. Diotrephes is bad enough, but Open Brethrenism immensely worse.

Pardon my frankness. I wish not to write unkindly to you; but neither — nor — was crucified for me, but Christ Jesus: to Him alone is my allegiance due. Whilst desiring to speak the truth in love, I am equally desirous of loving my dear brethren for the truth's sake. Faithfully yours in Him. J. v. P.

To —

Errata

Page 54, col. 2, line 90, read “enemy's “; 55, 1, 13, “converted"; 56, 1, 30, “soon,” 41, “assure,” 45, “hear"; 57, 1, 8, “baneful,” 26, “decree,” 31, “who.”

The Peace Offering

This portion is different in character from what we had before, and closes this particular class of offerings.

The burnt-offering was not for particular sins, but it was atonement—Christ made sin for us (the difference may be clearly seen in Heb. 9 Compare John 1), but offering Himself entirely to God, so that, in the fact of being made sin, the highest perfection of love and obedience were found: all the perfectness of Christ Himself towards God, and surely of love to us; but more—all that God is—perfectly glorified.

Chapter ii. takes up Christ as a man upon the earth, the character of Christ as thus come; burned in the fire, that is, tested by the perfectness of divine judgment, and nothing but a sweet savor: all the frankincense went up to God. It is a wonderful description in detail of what Christ was in all His path, no leaven, no honey, no earthly affection, or comfort in His sacrifice (He was a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief), but salt and a sweet savor to the Lord. In one case the cake was broken to bits, and every piece was anointed, to show that everything He did or word He spoke was by the power of the Spirit.

Chapter iii. gives us not only the offering, but the fellowship of the saints in the offering. While in the previous ones Christ Himself was presented, He is here presented along with our partaking of it; they ate it: the blood and the fat were offered to the Lord, and then the offerer partaking in what was offered. Other elements were connected with it; but in all this there was nothing to say to sin—an immensely important principle as to what is properly worship.

In the burnt-offering there was nothing of positive acts of sin, but rather the notion of sin being in the world, and approach to God referring to its presence there, and Christ glorifying God as a victim for it, doing such a service that He could say, “therefore doth my Father love me;” but the work in itself was a perfect glorifying of God, as He could not have been glorified otherwise: “That the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father hath given me commandment, even so I do.” There was perfect love to the Father, besides the question of our sins, and perfect obedience; perfect love when He was forsaken, and the obedience was perfected when it cost Him that forsaking. His motives too were perfect—love to us surely, but love to His Father, obedient when God was forsaking Him. The more terrible the suffering, the more dreadful the cup, the greater the sacrifice. It is such a comfort for us that the question of sin before God has been perfectly gone into and settled. That solemn question Christ takes up and puts Himself forward in grace to glorify God in it and by it, where man was against Him, the devil against Him, all the world against Him, the disciples ran away, comfort He had none, and in death God Himself forsook Him. When everything outward, human and devilish, was against Him, and He cried to God, then He was forsaken of God: it was the righteous judgment of God against Him, because He was made sin for us. Then He goes up as man to sit down on the right hand of God. Thus is all settled, and I can look at Christ as the sweet savor, in the absolute perfectness in which He offered Himself to God and was tested in His obedience.

Then in chapter 2 all the blessed perfectness of Christ in His life (tested, tried, broken to pieces) comes out.

In chapter 3 we get worship they fed upon what God fed on. In our association with God, our intercourse with God (in worship), there is nothing about sin—it is treated as all gone, through Christ's offering Himself for us; and then I come to God with Christ in my hand, so to speak, and present Him to God and feed upon Him. I come with that which is perfectly acceptable to God. It is not that there are not faults and failings in us; but here I dwell on the offering itself; it was a perfect burnt-offering made by fire unto the Lord. All that was in the inwards, everything that is in Christ, was absolutely offered to God. There is the blood which was the life, the fat, the sign of the energy of nature, all given to God—no thought nor act with Christ, no object, but His Father: it was for us, thank God! but still absolutely to God. There was no infirmity, no listlessness of heart; but all given to God entirely, all the inward fat burned to God. Mark, it was not bearing our sins—that is never called a sweet savor except in one particular case. He was made sin, and this was not a sweet savor, though He was never so holy and perfect as then.

When we come worshipping, it is not even about Christ as the One who put away our sins; I can approach to worship because of that, my conscience being purged; but worship is in the sense that the thing I am feeding upon is a sweet savor to God, what my soul feeds on and nourishes itself by. The worshipper is connected with the sacrifice, and the question of sin is not touched in it, though blood always supposes it to have been there; it is the food of God become my food. It is a blessed thing to see Christ's perfectness;—that every thought, feeling, motive, everything He was, every movement of His heart was absolutely to God. “In that he liveth, he liveth unto God” (I take the principle merely). In everything in which there was energy, there was no energy of self-will; it was a perfect giving of Himself to God—the only One in whom it ever was in that perfectness. “Hereby know we love, because he laid down his life for us.” (1 John 3:16.) We ought to walk like Him, to love the brethren, to lay down our lives for them; but then it should be to God.

I bless God, that in His sovereign grace His blessed Son took my sins and bore them upon the cross; but when I go to God to worship, it is as occupied with that One who is perfectly acceptable to God. Abel came with the fat of his lambs, and God gave testimony to his gifts. Here the worshipper comes and feeds upon it, and the Lord had His food of the offering; it was what characterized it. And see how close it brings us to God. Why, so to speak; I am sitting at the same table with God, feeding on the same thing He is feeding on (only all was offered to Him, and so I eat it)—the Lord's food of the offering! I sit down and eat: there is no question of my sins, but of the sweetness of Christ. I am talking to God about it: our true intercourse with God is that. “He that eateth me,” &c. Here I find that the very thing my soul is feeding on and delighting in is the food and the delight of God; we have this nearness to God, the soul enjoying what God Himself is delighting in; the offerer comes to God by it, and has intercourse with God about it. It is not prayer; the peace-offering was never prayer. When I pray, I go to God about my wants, and prayer will occur even in the highest place; for when I think of the blessedness of Christ, I say, Would to God I were like Him and it turns to prayer. But still this is a different thing from worship, though it may and will accompany it. I pray as regards my need; I worship in the sense of what I have got. God delights in what Christ is—inexpressibly of course; my soul draws near with Him in my hand, and I find I am going on with God. It was put upon the burnt-offering to show that I was identified with it. Now there is communion; and I eat.

But all this worship of God supposes no more conscience of sins “Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.” It is no question whether I can be accepted or not; but coming with Christ in my hand I come by Him, as having offered Himself, in the consciousness that my soul is occupied with that which is God's highest delight. A wonderful thought! It shown what we ought to be and what our worship ought to be; and what we eat turns to be part of ourselves.

The character of the peace-offering was participation in Christ presented to the Lord. It is not as bearing our sins; for all true worship of God supposes the question of sin to be totally settled forever. Chastening we may get in passing through the wilderness but the question of imputation, of having sins on us before God, is done with forever. Sin is a dreadful thing; but it was all settled between God and Christ, when He was made sin for us.

But the heart is apt to stay there in thinking of sin-bearing. Now without it we could not get into heaven; but the proper worship of heaven consists in delighting in what God is, what Christ is, when He offered Himself a sweet savor to God. We cannot come at all except by that sacrifice; we turn to God and we find Christ bore our sins. But what I press now is, that as regards our sins the whole question is settled: “Where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.” “When He had by Himself purged our sins, He sat down.” We are not like the poor Jews, we enter into the holiest; but is there not more than that? Have I nothing to bring? has my heart no offering to bring to God? Yes, in Christ there is that in which God delights, and I come to God presenting Him.

In chapter 7:13, we see that, besides the unleavened cakes, leavened bread was offered; here we have ourselves. I come with the offering that has been slain, with Christ in my hand, and I find too all the blessed perfectness of the meat-offering, His perfection as man, the fine flour, no leaven at all: God delighted in Him as a living Man. I get it anointed with oil, mingled with oil, the perfectness of His manhood; and, besides, there is now leavened bread, there am I, the worshipper. If I come to God, I own the sin, the leaven, in me; but this cannot be burned as a sweet savor. I come with the leaven, I cannot say I am sinless as Christ; I cannot be “that Holy thing,” but I come with Christ in my hand. I come with the knowledge of my imperfection, but with that in which I am most perfectly accepted. God takes knowledge of that by which I come; all my sins are blotted out and forgiven. But I cannot say I have no sin—that is all a mistake; it is leavened bread, the leaven within, and we cannot escape or deny its being there, though not allowing it to act. The point is, I go with the sense in my soul that I have leaven; if I say I have no sin (as a present thing), I deceive myself, and the truth is not in me.

There is no forgiveness for sin—for sins there is; but “what the law could not do,” &c., God condemned sin in the flesh, I get deliverance from any thought of this leaven hindering me, for I find God condemned it when Christ died. I do not talk of His forgiving it; it was all gone when Christ died. I cannot say I have none in me, but I can say I died with Christ, and I am not in it.

“I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake.” (1 John 2:12.) There is no such thing as an unforgiven Christian. It is very interesting to see the work of God in a soul on the road towards peace; all has its place. But that is before I have got the knowledge of the blood which cleanses it all, of the blessed truth that the blow, which rent the veil and opened the holiness of God upon me, presented me there without a veil, but fit to stand in it. A Christian is a forgiven person, but I cannot say sin is not there. When I see the sin, I say, why God must condemn me for it! and in one sense it is quite true: He must; but why condemn you, when He has condemned it in Christ already?

I do not come denying that I am leavened; I own it. But what I present to God is not myself—it could not be burnt for a sweet savor; and I have a title, in that sense, to forget it, because God has dealt with it in Christ, and then I come with unleavened bread to keep the feast.

When the offering was a vow, they could eat it for two days; when a thanksgiving, for one day only. If my heart is fall of Christ in the power of the Spirit of God, it connects all my worship with the value of Christ's offering to God, it is associated with that before God, I have fellowship with God as to it. But supposing I go on, and sing (say) a hymn, and, instead of thinking of the blessedness of Christ and of the Father's love, I get enjoying the singing; I disconnect the worship from Christ. Take our common worship: is it connected with Christ's acceptableness to God? If not, it has lost its savor; apart from that sacrifice, what is it worth? There may be enjoyment of the ideas, it may go as far as that; but it has lost its savor; and this is a thing that creeps in very easily. I cannot be with God to know the blessedness of what I have, unless it is connected with the sacrifice to God. And what a thought, beloved friends! that when I do go, it is with the acceptableness of Christ, with what God finds His delight in! If I go to pray—all perfectly right—I am a poor needy creature, who wants everything from God. But worship is another thing; I go with that in my hand which I know to be God's delight. I go, Christ having died for me, my soul having the consciousness of God's positive delight in the sacrifice of Christ; and if my worship in any part gets separated from that, it has lost its sweet savor.

One other thing. The priest who offered it ate part of it. It was a joy to all, but Christ takes His part, His joy is in it too. God has His food in it, I have my food; but the priest has his part too. It is the fullest association of God with Christ and the worshipper. It was for all who were invited too, love to all saints; the heart takes in love to all. It shows what true worship is, when I get there: it is not merely my sins are borne, but I have my delight in what I know is God's delight, and must be. It is what the whole community of the saints must delight in; and He says, “In the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.”

It connects all with the glory in blessedness. Being such in ourselves, we anticipate (in the weakness we are in now) the worship of the saints in eternal ages.

I desire that the two great principles and substance of the blessing may rest upon our hearts—that I am there with God, the heart giving itself up to God in thanksgiving. I go to God with this offering of Christ, and I know He does not impute anything to me; when I look up to God, I know He cannot.

Here God has found in Christ what His soul feeds on—what He delights in—we may say it reverently. I delight in it, a poor weak creature, and I know God delights in it. He receives me in worship according to His judgment of Christ.

How far do our souls so enter into God's thoughts that, when we come to God in worship (all our lives ought to be in the spirit of worship), it is in the spirit of our minds, as connected with God's value for the offering of Christ? In our every-day walk, never to lose sight of what the sweet savor of that offering was to God?

The Lord only give us that it may be thus associated in our hearts with what Christ was towards His Father!

The Declared Purpose and Present Moral Processes: 20. History of Faith

When the church was first established, how jealous the Lord was for its purity and holiness! The first breach was avenged by instant death. Yet the all-seeing eye of God detected not only lying covetousness, but the future inroads of grievous wolves not sparing the flock, and what is equally if not more solemn that “of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things to draw away the disciples after them” (Acts xx. 30). This was the warning uttered by Paul to the elders of Ephesus. Uttered to them, and for us, that we might remember that the word of His grace foretold us that the most ruinous evil would spring from among ourselves. And the history of the church abundantly proves it.

If Matthew gives failure from a dispensational point, chaps. 2 and 3 of Revelation give that of the professing church. How steep the incline from the loss of first love in Ephesus to the lukewarmness of Laodicea, from the threat to remove the candlestick to the being spued out of His mouth! In the breaking up of what may be the last corporate testimony on earth, each saint is cast more upon Him who alone is the Faithful and True Witness, And if all outward sign of unity vanish, still the truth of God cannot fail, “For by one Spirit are We all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free; and have been made to drink into one Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:13). The having failed to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace is the cause of the many names and divisions among true believers, who ought to be visibly one as they are by the baptism of the Spirit really one before God, Yet if on board and broken pieces, all who belong to the ship will be brought safe to land. Then the unity beyond all possibility of apparent breach will be manifested to the world (John 17:23).

One of the fundamental characteristics of the church is to wait for the Son from heaven. It is the true attitude towards Christ, specially noted as characterizing the newly converted at Thessalonica. And it is expressed as “going forth to meet the Bridegroom in Matt. 25,” where it equally points to the original position of the virgins, and after their awakening to the resumption of it, and thus is a special feature of the time of the end. It ought to have been the constant attitude of the church from the beginning. The church is called the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15), and in no way could the truth be practically shown without the habitual waiting for the Son from heaven. In forgetting and alas! denying this hope, the church ceased to be the pillar and base of the truth. From the church point of view this is the special feature of the leaven which leavened the meal. Not a truth communicated to the church but has suffered in purity and power from this fatal departure from the true position of waiting for the Son from heaven. The sleep of the virgins opened a door for the entrance of every evil found in Christendom. Nor did Satan neglect his opportunity. The vigor and power of a holy life, of Christianity, is paralyzed by the forgetting of this truth. The main life of the saint, the proper aspect and character of the church; is comprised in the “going forth.” All our hope is in meeting Him, our true strength is bound up in it. It severs from every earthly object, it centers every affection in Him, it energizes every spiritual faculty, it purifies according to His purity; in the midst of the world's hatred and persecution it strengthens to endure and overcome with the patience of faith its malignity. All these were the marks the church should have borne. But to bear them truthfully before God was dependent upon her faithfulness. Impossible for sleeping virgins to be faithful.

Here the grace of our Savior God appears. He is the Savior of the body (Eph. 5:13). In His grace He awakens the sleepers: the midnight cry recalls them to their true and original attitude. God's purpose in redemption cannot be set aside. Christ's glory and victory over Satan is of too high moment to permit the consequences of the church's failure to tarnish it. Nay, the failure becomes an occasion to exalt His grace yet more so, that the superabundance of its riches may be more manifest. There is a necessity for the actings of grace, for the Lord Jesus must have His reward. How marvelous the grace that makes our blessing to be His guerdon! He shall see of the travail of His soul and be satisfied. This was bound up in God's eternal purpose; and Jesus is exalted, and God in Him.

From the Kingdom stand-point the failure of Christendom is in denying the rights of the King, His coming to take possession of the purchased inheritance, relegating His throne to heaven, but not to reign over the earth; in current phraseology calling the Lord Jesus a “spiritual King” and His Kingdom a “spiritual Kingdom.” But from the church point where all our affections should be displayed, the failure began in the loss of first love; and, this not repented of, Ephesus inevitably leads to Laodicea. Why was such evil permitted in a church destined to be so holy and so glorious? Why was it not kept in perfect purity and faithfulness from the beginning? Was it necessary that the church should so fail in order that the exceeding riches of His grace might be more abundantly seen? Nay. This would be to make God the author of the evil. If it had been a question solely of His power apart from the church's responsibility, assuredly He could have kept it pure and bright as at the first, without spot or stain. But the church as standing by faith, and without excuse for failure, magnifies the grace that is still given, not with standing her declension.

For if the church, or, those who are now the saints of God, had been in a position where failure was impossible, while there would still have been that aspect of grace which justifies us from all things, from which we could not be by law, where would be the grace that keeps and restores the saint after failure? Where the conflict, the victory, the triumphant song? For we not only celebrate Christ's victory over sin and death, but also rejoice in that He hath made us conquerors through His blood. If we may compare, where all is infinite, one aspect and action of grace with another, is not the grace daily shown to a responsible and failing saint of a higher character than that which quickens a dead sinner? Even as sin in a saint is more heinous than in an unbeliever; more guilty in one who is endowed with power to overcome, than in one who is dead in trespasses and in sins. Does this make failure necessary? Far be the thought; but it magnifies grace and exalts God.

All creation is waiting to praise Him, the inanimate creation as well as the animate (see Psa. 148). The highest kind of praise comes from an intelligent and responsible creature, and the church being the highest grade of worshippers must necessarily have these two qualities. This is the kind of praise which now is rendered to God the Father and Christ. Endowed with every needed faculty and privilege, being the habitation of God by the Spirit, and having access within the veil, the church had not to wait for glory to render acceptable worship. In presence of such conferred power and privilege how great the sin of failure in fidelity and true love to God! Alas! church or world, saint or sinner, it is the same old, old story—goodness on the part of God, not continuing in it on the part of man. We have as a constant fact from the creation that responsibility in man produces or rather results in inevitable failure; nor otherwise in the church, only that here God provides for the failure, and meets it in every possible circumstance, and He is glorified by it. In every way He is the Savior God.

How plainly this is seen in the seven churches (Rev. 2; 3)! How marked the patience of Him who stood in the midst of the golden candlesticks! What means He used to bring the church back to her first love; repeating the warning at every phase of her decline, “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear!” But the corporate ear of the church was deaf to the call. How quick His eye to see and His heart to feel the first downward step! In Ephesus all that was outward seemed perfect, not a word of reproach as to that. The germ of evil was not seen by the world; He saw whose eyes are as a flame of fire. That which the. church's Lord prized most was gone. First love means personal love. It is not mere faith in the work of Christ, or consciousness of standing in the favor of God, or a righteous walk before Him; though the soul lacks power in all where “first love” is wanting. What the Lord values most is the heart's longings to see and to be with Him, a desire—which rises paramount to all ass, which gives tone and color to the whole life. This is the true waiting for Him, not the dry and unfruitful assent of the understanding to the doctrine, but the power of the truth filling the soul. This Ephesus had lost.

And Christ, so jealous of all our affections, says that all else is worthless without it. “Repent and do the first works.” Orthodoxy, intelligence, zeal, cannot take the place of personal affection to. Christ. Even if there could be holiness without “first love” as a spring in the soul, it would need to be repented of; but there can be no first works apart from first love. “Else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.” This warning is not repeated to the remaining churches. Why? Because the candlestick was removed in consequence of the Ephesus-state. The church never regained her pristine condition and aspect. The loss of “first love” extinguished her brightest light. She abandoned the posture of “waiting for the Son from heaven.” And having put her candle under a bushel the candlestick was removed; it was no longer needed. So it was that the church ceased to be the reflex of the True Light; and she could have no light of her own apart from Him.

The Lord may expostulate and chasten and call out a feeble remnant; but the position of light-bearer in testimony as it ought to be was gone from that moment. The few who were kept faithful through grace no doubt bore a little light which would appear all the brighter by the increasing darkness around; but as a professing body the fine gold was become dim; and in the remaining churches the Spirit of God is recording the farther decline of faith, the result of the loss of first love. Faith works by love. If love fails, faith necessarily declines. There is a moral process keeping pace with the decline of faith, each step of which is adapted to each phase of the falling church, the promises, the threatenings specially suited to the condition of the particular church addressed, all used to impress upon the corporate church both its responsibility and failure until—a remnant being saved—the corrupt mass is spewed out of His mouth.

But if the church be dealt with as responsible, there is also grace to deal with it., And the first dealing is to send persecution. The effect is generally to make the soul cleave closer to Christ, and this is the end that God intends. Will it bring the church back to her previous state? Alas! nothing stayed her rapid decline. While the tribulation lasted, there was nothing but love and comfort in the address to the saints at Smyrna; not one word of “somewhat against thee.” The Lord saw the works, the tribulation, the poverty, He saw the devil's power against His, suffering saints, and it brings out His tenderness and grace. He bids them not to fear all that Satan could do, neither imprisonment nor death. He had been dead and was alive again: why then fear? They were only following in a like path, only drinking a little from His cup, a little sprinkling of His baptism. A crown of life was in store for them, and they could afford to despise death, and, conscious of the sustaining power of Christ, remain unmoved by the blasphemies of those who, while of the synagogue of Satan, assumed to be Jews, i.e., to be the people of God. The Lord knew them and gave their true character. But He does more than give comfort, He commends them; “but thou art rich” —rich in spite of their poverty, rich in having a special expression of the Lord's faithful love. And it is not unimportant to remember the attitude of Him who commends them. See ch. 1:10-18. One like the Son of man stood in the midst of the candlesticks, in the place of authority, and having all the attributes required for the government and discipline of the church. Not here as the Head of the body from whom all sustenance and energy is derived, but as Son of man judging among the churches; a character and position He did not take till Ephesus lost her first love. It is He who commends despised and suffering Smyrna. “But thou art rich.” Were they astonished to be told they were rich? But the joy and the strength it gave exceeded whatever of wonder might arise. It also prepared them for the ten days of tribulation, and then the crown of life, the gracious reward of faithfulness unto death.

Here was an open door, the path by which the church could retrace her steps back to “first love,” the lose of which created a void soon to be filled with the love of the world. The persecution of Smyrna was the means used by grace that the church might, if possible, regain what she had lost. It is the moral process by which the Lord would recall saints from their folly. What greater folly than to have the world as an object of desire, instead of the Lord—the world, which can only give back hatred? But what love to us, what desire on the part of Christ to have our unworthy love, which He condescends to seek! If He called the north wind to blow upon His garden, it was that the spices might give out. It was a bright gleam in the early days of the church: how soon it faded

Ephesus hated the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, but Pergamos had those who held the doctrine of Balaam, teachers of idolatry; also those who held the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, their hateful deeds now openly defended by teachers! Their impure notions taught as “doctrine"! How greatly is Pergamos fallen lower than Ephesus. But what an incongruous mass the professing church had already become; there were those who, held fast Christ's name, had not denied His faith [= doctrine] mixed up with Balaamites and Nicolaitanes, the whole dwelling where the throne of Satan is. The godly among them Were unable to stem the inflowing tide of corruption, and one faithful witness (Antipas) was slain. Alas! it is the Balaamites and the Nicolaitanes which impress their character upon the whole. Yet the Son of Man, whose eyes are as a flame of fire and His words as a sharp two-edged sword, knows how to distinguish between them. As a whole they are called to repent, or rather the call to repentance is direct to those who, while holding fast the name of Christ and not denying His faith, yet failed in allowing evil and the teachers of evil to remain among them. Where was the power to judge the evil? How could that power subsist where Satan had his throne? And that was the place where Pergamos dwelt. If the dealing with Smyrna was all grace, here there is judgment. Grace is surely underlying, but in words the call to repentance is enforced only by a threat: “Repent therefore; but if not, I come to thee quickly,” this is direct to conscience. “And I will make war with them with the sword of my month.” Judgment is threatened to “them,” and a solemn warning to “thee.” What can tell more the sad condition of the church than when He who loved it so much as to give up all that He had to possess it, is compelled to speak thus? Yet there is worse to come.

But here is the first distinction made between those who brought in the evil and those they corrupted. In Ephesus all had left their first love, in Smyrna all are comforted, in Pergamos the Son of Man distinguishes between “thee” and “them.” The two parties are not separated here, and so all are called to repentance; for, by allowing the evil to remain among them, all were more or less identified with it. Hence, the word is “Repent, or I will come to thee quickly.” The church never really recovered her first slip. As a whole every downward step was never retraced; there was never true corporate repentance. Individuals no doubt felt and mourned over the increasing evil, but they are known only to the Lord who never left Himself without a witness. Evil unrepented of and unjudged always increases and assumes a deeper dye. So in the next phase of decline a Jezebel feature is added. This is the condition of Thyatira, and here the distinction which appeared in Pergamos is more marked, and results in separation. For Thyatira as such goes on to the end, and the warnings are addressed to the “rest” as well as the promises. The nominal church as a living testimony for God is given up. On Jezebel and her children judgment is pronounced, which would overtake those who sinned with her unless they repent of her works. There is no direct call to Jezebel and her children. If in Pergamos all may be included in the call to repent, certainly not in Thyatira. Repentance would avert the threatening surely, but space had been given for repentance, and they did not; therefore they would be left to receive each according to his works. Here there is no calling back to the original position, which was lost irrecoverably.

How compassionate the word to the feeble remnant! No other burden but to hold fast what they had. What had they? It is significant that we are told what they had not— “have not this doctrine, have not known the depths of Satan.” It is faithfulness under a negative aspect. The Lord prizes even this, and in loving pity says, “I will put upon you no other burden.” Useless to attempt to regain what is lost, but hold fast what you have till I come. As if the Lord said, Only remember Me. And this is the word of special moment for us in these days when ruin is more visibly stamped upon the professing church than it was when the evil of Thyatira first appeared. “Till I come” is the grand stay for our souls, and nothing more clearly expresses the Lord's love to us (see John 14:1-8). What hearts are oars to forget His love, so patient, so faithful! His coming is now the only remedy; the depths of Satan are such an evil as the Lord alone can meet by taking His saints out of all. Not that we are quietly to rest without bearing testimony, however feeble, against it; but there is no complete deliverance till He comes.

(To be continued)

Deliverance From the Law of Sin: Part 2

Up to this point I had been as a quickened soul in the position of a child of Adam, and practically under the law, laboring to have done with the old man, with sin in the flesh, but without success. Now I have died with Christ, and so do not belong to the old position of a child of Adam. Death clearly closes all relationship and bond with it. I cannot speak of a man who is lying dead as having evil lasts and a perverse will. The law might show me the evil, but could not remedy it. But I have died with Christ, and am delivered from the law; the condemnation is passed, being accomplished on the cross; but that was in death, so that I reckon myself dead, and no condemnation there. Up to that it was effort to overcome what remained untouched there in its vital strength. But God has dealt for us with this in Christ, Himself sinless. And we have not overcome but been delivered, having died un that wherein we were held, for Christ has for us. Hence, in Col. 3, God pronounces on our position, “Ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.” With God the question is settled. I am not in the flesh, not in the standing of a child of Adam. I have died in that when Christ died. This judgment of God, declared in Col. 3, is deliverance; for that which I was hopelessly struggling under is dead and gone—the old “I” of my corrupt and sinful nature; not only that I have received divine life in power in Christ (Rom. 8:2), but that the sin of the old man has been condemned in the cross, and I, as such, died there. My standing is in Christ, not in Adam or flesh at all. It is not that the flesh is not in me, but it is not my standing and place before God. I am in Christ, or in the Spirit: in Christ, consequent on His having died and risen, and gone up beyond sin and death and judgment; or in the Spirit, which is the power of it down here.

Faith, in Rom. 6, takes up the judgment of God in Col. 3, and I reckon myself dead to sin, and alive to God; not in Adam, but in Jesus Christ our Lord. Hence, while” where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty,” this liberty has a double aspect: conscious liberty in the light before God as in Christ, and a son; and liberty from the law of sin in the flesh. I have got into the new place in Christ, in that I have died to the old thing—Adam—and am alive in Christ. Had I to die, or to get free, by my own victory, I should not succeed; but I have found the need of a Deliverer, as unable myself to set aside flesh, and have by grace found one in, by faith, having died and risen with Christ. I have not to die, I reckon myself dead, because by the Holy Ghost Christ who died is in me as my life. The Holy Ghost gives me adoption, and the consciousness of being in Christ a son. It does give me faith as to having died in Christ; but it cannot give me the consciousness that the flesh is not there, but that I am not a debtor to it, nor that I am living after the Spirit when I am not. I know the conflict exists, that the flesh lusts against the Spirit, but that, the Spirit being there, I am not under the law. There I was captive to the law of sin. In the Spirit I am not; on the contrary, Christ's grace is sufficient for me, His strength made perfect in weakness. I am at liberty, because the sin I have discovered in my flesh has been condemned in the cross of Chris, tend that was in death; so that for faith I am crucified with Him, and got into the new place of man before God, after the cross, and in resurrection, past sin, Satan's power, death and judgment. That place is liberty—liberty before God and from the law of sin. I am dead to it, having died with Christ. Romans does not go farther than death in this doctrine, and Christ being our life. In Colossians resurrection with Him is introduced, and we are dead also to the world.

As to our life, the old things are passed, and Christ is our life, we having with Him died to sin, and now alive to God with Him, my whole spiritual condition in connection with sin in the flesh having closed by death; and this is so perfect, that we could, if God's time were come go, and be, as the thief, Christ's companion in paradise. But generally we are left here, and have to do with the old man—the flesh—free, redeemed out of the state and standing I was in, but having to do with the existence of flesh in me, with Satan and the world around. It is with the first I have now to do. Now in this state of things, that is, in a believer sealed with the Spirit, the conscious relationship with God as sons, and true liberty is there. But there is more; when we have learned what it is to have died with Christ, the soul is set “free from the law of sin and death.” He that is dead is justified from sin—not sins. You cannot accuse a dead man of a perverse will or evil lusts. But the flesh is in me. Now, captive to the law of sin in my members is not the place of conflict nor of victory, any more than Israel had to fight in Egypt. There may be carelessness as regards our communion with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord; but this is only deadness of soul, and the power of present things, the want of spiritual feeling. But if we do not mortify the deeds of the body, there is a positive evil power at work, positive evil rises up; if there be conscience, the sense of a bad state is there, and a worse one if there be not—the spiritual judgment is deteriorated. The flesh has a power which does not answer to deliverance, and we see persons who have not lost the sense of their standing with God, and are in that sense at liberty, in whom the flesh works as if spiritual power in Christ were not there.

Now, in such cases, the remedy is not to deny the deliverance; “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty,” “the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free.” Entangling the soul again in the yoke of bondage is not what gives power. Slaves are not combatants, the yoke has to be broken. Where there is liberty and spiritual power, there is conflict. “The flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.” Hence it is so beautifully put in the end of Rom. 6, Now you are free, dead to sin, and alive in Christ to God, to whom are you going to give yourselves? to sin, or to righteousness and God, with fruit to holiness and the end everlasting life? Such is God's way, by freeing us from the law of sin, and putting us in the liberty of adoption with Himself, to set us in the conflict, to realize fruit unto holiness here. Our standing is perfect, our state in no way; meet in Christ to be with Him, but exercised in daily spiritual life, if left here, how far we live up to the life which is ours in Christ through Christ in us. God's view of our position, as noticed, is in Col. 2; 3 Faith takes this up (Rom. 6), and the believer reckons himself dead to sin, and alive to God in Christ. In 2 Cor. 4:10 we have the practical carrying it out, and God's dealing with us in view of it: “Always bearing about in the body the dying (not the death) of the Lord Jesus, that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our bodies.”

Theoretically there ought to be no movement of the flesh in us, it being suppressed by this application of the dying of Jesus. This supposes the activity of the new man to keep our thoughts and ways up to the level of the blessing into which we have been introduced, practically the life of Jesus manifested in us. It supposes a lusting flesh, but always absolutely kept down. “If Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin” (if it lives of its own life and will, it will produce only that), “and the Spirit is life because of righteousness.” But, alas! this normal condition is not always maintained, as we know, if we know ourselves; and God disciplines us. “We are delivered to death"; well for us if it be “for Jesus' sake.” If we fail, we have an Advocate with the Father, or we may have a thorn in the flesh, that we may not fail. Our normal condition is to be beholding with open face the glory of the Lord, and being changed into the same image, and feeding by faith on Him in His humiliation as the bread come down from heaven, and so living by Him, abiding in Him, and growing up unto Him, who is the Head, in all things. When walking thus, the flesh has no power; it is there, but the heart in elsewhere. Still, down here, we are passing through temptations and snares, and watching and praying constantly is needed not to enter into them, because the disposition of nature, if not will, is there. Power is there in Christ for us. We are not under the law of sin, but spiritually free, and there is no excuse for failure, but we do all fail. Where there is not diligence in watching and praying, we do not lose the sense of our position, but we act inconsistently with it. A son may never for a moment have such a question rise in his mind, but he may be a naughty rebellious son. So sin has power over the unwatchful unpraying believer, who yet never doubts of his place in Christ hen he has been set free. He is not a slave, but a son, but more faulty than if he were a slave. He is not under the law of sin, but he is practically governed by it in his ways, because he is not profiting by the grace and power of Christ, his conscience and heart keeping far away from Him. The standard of his Christianity becomes frightfully lowered, and he sees “no harm” in things from which, in times past, he would have shrunk—not because they were prohibited, but because the life and Spirit of Christ in him found no food or attraction in them, but the contrary. Yet he may not have lost the sense of his place before God; in that sense he has deliverance, as a child goes on in the sense that he is a child, though heedless of his father's will and of his father's pleasure. But this is a sad state. The remedy is not making him doubt of his adoption, but pressing with the claim of Christ's love his walking worthy of the calling wherewith he is called. But it is of all moment to see that deliverance, in the sense of known relationship with God, our place in Christ, not in Adam or in flesh, is a distinct thing from deliverance in the sense of the realization of death and resurrection with Christ. This is the basis of that, known by the presence and power of the Holy Ghost. But one is the place we are in, the other the experimental power of walking according to that place, and, as the flesh is in us, requiring diligence of heart in seeking grace and strength (for without Christ we can do nothing), seeking Him, and the things which are above, where He is seated, and bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus. But it is of all moment that we recognize deliverance from the law of sin as the Christian state. Here only is power, the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, the power of the Spirit of God working in the life of Christ. There is true liberty, and that based on Christ's dying to sin once, and for sin. (Rom. 6; 8) There is, for such, a grace sufficient for us, and strength made perfect in weakness; so that there is no excuse for the commission of sin, though the flesh be in us. And here spiritual exercises have their place, to the acquisition of heavenly things in spirit, and a heavenly character down here. It is evident that the grace and strength of Christ only can enable us to walk in the path in which He walked, but that grace is sufficient for us. But His strength—it is its nature and character—is made perfect in weakness, and there must be known weakness in us to find this strength. Hence those exercises of heart before deliverance in which we learn our weakness, that we cannot get the victory even when we desire it, which lead to the felt need of deliverance. This we find in the death of Christ, and are thus free— “free from the law of sin and death.” Consequent on this there is victory, and if kept in the sense that we have no strength in ourselves, the peaceful though watchful consciousness that He is with us, as well as that without Him we can do nothing. Deliverance is His dying to sin once, and we in Him, and, while thus free, having the strength in Him which is made perfect in weakness in us. Till we have learned that we cannot free ourselves, we do not get freedom. Freedom is the portion of every Christian so taught of God; strength, of him who abides in the sense that he has none, and looks to Christ: only these are the Lord's gracious dealings with us to keep us in this position.

Perilous Times: Part 1

Never, perhaps, in this world's history was the human mind so engrossed as it now is with the things of the world. The very struggle for existence, or at least for life's maintenance, seems to be constantly on the increase. What keen competition there is in every department, and often for the bare necessaries of life! And again, where this is not the question, how keen the pursuit of gain, as gain, or as a source of power how keen, too, the pursuit of pleasure, whether in its higher or in its lower forms! If we glance for a moment at politics, how urgent and absorbing is the public state of things to minds engaged in public affairs! Never was there such a state of things. Even with the best intentions how preoccupied often is the mind with care, how distracted the attention, and this necessarily to the detriment of the soul! Education is pressed on under the fatal delusion that knowledge is the true remedy, the grand panacea for every evil. Yes! but not the knowledge which is of this world. You may inflate the human mind with knowledge, or with fancied knowledge; but what can this do without the knowledge of God, except to develop infidelity? What, under such circumstances, must be the result but increasing ungodliness, with political and social disorder? And so it is and will be increasingly. Morality,—private, social, or public,—forms little or no part of modern instruction; liberty, equality, and fraternity is the prevailing and influential idea of the age. Whether in the church or in the world, popularity is the great power: pander to this and you may succeed; refuse to do so and you become more or less marked. People dream that the world is getting wiser as it is getting older, that things are getting better, and that in due time education, the arts and sciences, commerce, &a., will ameliorate matters, the evils which afflict society will be rectified; corruption and crime will disappear, wars will cease, and the world will at last enjoy a sort of Millennium of its own production,—all will end well. A few of the more sensible are unconvinced of this: to them things seem tending in a very different direction. The Christian should be in no danger of being deceived. He knows it will end in bringing God's judgments on a scene of ripened iniquity and of revolt against God. Believing as he does in Divine revelation, he is not left in darkness; God in His word and by His Spirit has given him a knowledge and a wisdom which is not of this world, and which prevents him from prophesying smooth things, when he knows that to do so would be to deceive. This is a knowledge that never inflates the intellect. Remembering as the Christian does his own weakness, and that he was once of the world, conscious of his own unceasing need of Divine grace, it is in this spirit he contemplates the sad condition of the world in which he yet dwells, and beholds in sorrow the misery and sin of his fellow-creatures, whilst abhorrent of wickedness in itself.

Well then do we understand how little time for serious reflection generally is left amidst the pressing duties and cares of daily life. Yet it is to this we would endeavor with our readers to draw aside for a brief interval. Would that all would seize such opportunities as Divine providence may from time to time give, to turn their thoughts from the things of this world, and to consider their eternal interests! How often has that opportunity occurred which has proved to have been the last, and the state of the soul for eternity become unalterably fixed! If we contemplate our own being, and the circumstances which attend and affect it, how mysterious it appears! We find ourselves in existence quite irrespective of any will of our own in the matter. We soon find it (all of us more or less, but some, perhaps, more than others) one of much trouble. Death constantly stares us in the face. What becomes of us then? We look around, and find the world in which we are for the most part a mass of selfishness, wretchedness, and vice. What a subject of reflection for thoughtful minds! And the more we reflect, the more we must be convinced that the mind, the rational soul, cannot die,—the body alone is perishable. What will be our future destiny? Such have in fact been the reflections of the best and noblest of human minds in all ages. Strange were it not so. The almost brutish indifference of lower natures was not theirs. Yet a satisfactory answer to these higher mental cravings they found not.

Theories indeed, one after another, were propounded by the so-called philosophers, but the entire history of human philosophy will be found to be little else than a repetition of the same process, viz., construction, destruction, and eclecticism; nor was there any power in their philosophy to raise them morally. True, in these days men think they have at last reached terra firma in the positive philosophy. And perhaps finality it is, for infidelity can scarcely go farther. But they will accept and confide in it to their ruin, for what could be more ruinous than a “religion of humanity,” in which Divine revelation is unceremoniously cast to the winds, and almost mathematical demonstration insisted on even with regard to spiritual things? We say “even in regard to spiritual things,” almost forgetting that these are virtually denied, and that the supernatural is too often derided. But a fallen creation is in an abnormal state, and it might justly be thought is a sphere in which a God of grace would act at times, exceptionally, to demonstrate to His fallen and alienated creatures, tint He is acting either for their good, or to reveal Himself in some way. Why should the reasonableness, or the possibility of this, be denied? Truly the days are evil, as well as sad. What is the true and deep cause? what will be its issue? are solemn questions for each one of us. And Divine revelation alone adequately answers them, whilst at the same time it vindicates Divine grace and Divine righteousness.

Disobedience to God, i.e. sin, has brought sorrow into the world, and sin perpetuates it. “Sin is lawlessness” (ἀνομία), the principle of self-will and independence in the creature, insubjection to God; and this too often is carried to such an extent as to lead even to the rejection of all religion, whether natural or revealed.

Being, the great French naturalist, in a most graphic and ingenious way, makes Adam narrate his first sensations and actions on being created. Enraptured with all which was around him, and contemplating his own being, it was but gradually, and by considering in detail one thing after another, that he could realize where and what he was. It is a most interesting sketch, and may be found in his Natural History. But it is vitiated by one fatal defect: Adam is occupied with himself, and with nature around him, God is nowhere in the scene. And how exactly is this what man is doing to this day! Occupied with anything and everything but God? Is it conceivable that God, having created, omitted to reveal Himself to him as his Creator? Impossible! On the contrary, with his first consciousness Adam found himself in the presence of his Creator. The first impression Adam received was the presence of his Creator and Benefactor. God was his companion, his guide, and his instructor in the first hours of his existence, and before he had any other companion. He was left to no surmises or reflections of his own, still less to the approach of the enemy, till he was acquainted with his Creator, with his destiny as innocent; forewarned and forearmed against any possible enemy to God and to himself. He was then furnished with a companion similar to himself, the gift of God designed for his happiness and advantage. But how solemn these words, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness,” —would that they might sink deeply into the heart of every human being who has heard or read them, for assuredly every human being they immeasurably and everlastingly concern.

“Thou madest him a little lower than the angels, thou crownedst him with glory and honor, and didst set him over the works of thy hands.” Though the complete fulfillment of this will be in the person of the last Adam, the Lord Jesus Christ, of whom Adam was, as it were, the representative (as Eve of the Church), yet it had a very real accomplishment in Adam. How noble his origin, how wonderfully constituted, body, soul, and spirit, what a realm, was even this terrestrial one, to be set over! Creation in each part was indeed “very good.” Whilst our first parents were in a state of innocence, all was harmonious. Liberty, in the true and proper sense there was, because liberty meant, not license, not the exercise or Adam's part of a will antagonistic to God, but freedom and power to act at the same time in accordance with the suggestions of an unfallen nature, and in harmony with the Divine will. Under such circumstances constraint was unknown. Constraint is requisite to fallen beings; to those who are self-willed, and can pat no proper limits to their passions. To act agreeably to his nature was to Adam unfallen, entire freedom in conformity with God's will. It was necessary, however, that the principle of obedience to his Creator should be before Adam. No obedience was then possible which implied privation. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil marked the principle, but involved no privation, inasmuch as it was the sole restriction, unnecessary to his happiness, and on the other hand destructive of it if he disobeyed; without it Adam must almost have thought himself the God of this lower world. The existence of the moral agent must be conditioned, however a higher power may act in relation to that agent, and with a view to his preservation. Innocence was an absolute safeguard to Adam and Eve, unless on the one point of the forbidden fruit. Here only could they be tempted, or put to the test, and even here the temptation ought not to have been seductive, i.e. temptation in their case could have had only the meaning of “put to the test.” There was external suggestion, but no internal proclivity towards, or tendency to, evil, at least until Eve chose to listen to the voice of the stranger. From that instant she was no doubt in danger. Opportunity to the enemy was therefore reduced to a minimum, and could thus far serve only as the simplest test of obedience, scarcely to be called a moral test to a person in a state of innocence.

Nor could Satan appear to Eve or to Adam in propriâ personâ. He therefore avails himself of that one of the lower creation, which, through its subtlety, appeared best adapted to his purpose. How he could so take possession of the serpent is no doubt to us mysterious, but we read later of the man Judas that “Satan entered into him.” A willingness to be so possessed might, if God permit, make the way easy; for a spiritual being may in this be able to do what one possessing a natural body could not do, and may find it difficult to understand, as for instance to take innerpossession of another. We see the fact, however, in the case of demoniacal possession, during the time our Lord was upon earth, and so with the herd of swine. Though such possession may at present, in any very palpable way, be little known, still the possibility of it, if tied permit, has been demonstrated, and might occur again. The modern “spiritualism” is, without doubt, allied to the same power, the so-called “medium” being the human agent very directly acted on. Men and devils are seeking for illicit power and intercourse, and for their punishment God may yet again allow it to some extent to take place (in the Antichrist very completely). This is one of the greatest snares of the day, and Christians should be most careful not to be deluded by it. There is probably far more in it than mere jugglery, though jugglery and jobbery may make use of it.

Satan is the “prince of the power of the air,” and it is with wicked spirits in heavenly places that Christians have to contend, as their enemies. If true to the Lord themselves, they cannot be deceived. The account of the fall as given in Gen. 3 is in fact the only rational explanation of man's condition. God certainly did not create the world in the state in which we see it. A disturbing cause has entered since Adam was created, and the account given in Genesis simply and satisfactorily explains it. The creature lives by dependence on God, the moral agent consciously so. The Fall and its consequences teach us what disobedience is, in principle, i.e. even in the taking of the forbidden fruit, the result how terrible! and the more so that in itself it is irrevocable and irremediable. Yet how little we realize this! Satan in the light, and untempted, fell: for him therefore there is no salvation. For man God has found a ransom,” for verily he (i.e. Christ) taketh not up the cause of angels, but he taketh up the cause of the seed of Abraham “(Heb. 2:16).

But here, again, man is a moral agent,—we do not say exactly a free agent, for he is trammeled by a sinful nature; still, as we see in the seventh of Romans, the will may be right, and the law of sin in our members only then becomes the more apparent, and the more odious. Hence while on the one hand the Lord says, “No one can come unto Me unless the Father, which hath sent me, draw him;” so on the other hand, and to those whose wills are opposed, He says, “Ye will not come unto Me that ye might have life.” God has provided a way, and but one way of salvation. Mach as men may differ in the degree to which they practice sin, and in the extent to which they may stifle the voice of conscience (and in those respects they do differ very greatly), yet we are all born in sin, we all inherit a sinful nature, and in the case even of the best of men, when tested in the light of God's presence, or tested by the law when spiritually understood, how perfectly plain and palpable is the defect, either from a perfect state of innocence, or from a perfect state of renewal in Christ!

But imperfection can never satisfy God, and, besides, it really means sin. Hence justification by faith is equally needed by all, the righteousness of God by faith. Blessed be God, in virtue of the work of Christ, God can be just, and the justifier of him who believes in Jesus. The respective offerings of Cain and Abel were typical of the forms which religion ever has assumed or ever could assume, for these forms resolve themselves simply into two kinds: viz. man's endeavor to propitiate God, and to render himself acceptable to Him; and the owning that our rain is too complete for this, and that our acceptance by God mast be in virtue of the work and merits of another. Doubtless Cain's offering cost him more personal effort than Abel's, for the latter had but by the sacrifice of a victim to recognize the grand gospel truth of substitution. Nevertheless Cain's offering WAS without conscience, and indeed insulting to God,—virtually saying, that the fruit of the ground, which for Adam's sake God had cursed, was a fit offering for God,—that the efforts, the religious efforts, of our fallen human nature, are suitable offerings to God. And indeed what else could we do had there been no testimony to the precious truth that “God would provide"? But testimony to this was given as soon as our first parents fell, not only in the figurative words that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head, but in the typical act of the death of the victim, which furnished a cover to their nakedness. And we shall find that this double testimony of God's word, and of typical or symbolic acts, runs through all the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. But God having given this testimony, men are inexcusable for still choosing their religious delusions, and the religion of Cain, the religion of “good works” for our acceptance by God, is one of the great sins and dangers of the day. No doubt when God has saved us in a way which vindicates both His own glory, and His grace, He looks for good works from us, and other fruit of the Divine life in us, that is, as is often and truly said, the Christian works from life, and not for life.

Nor is there in reality the least conflict or obscurity of Scripture as to this. There is a co-ordination of truth in Scripture, but no contradiction. Those who would take any one truth of Scripture out of its place and order, and insert it elsewhere, necessarily produce the greatest confusion and apparent contradiction. Scripture is, so to speak, an organic whole, the truths and doctrines it contains are co-related; but to Fee the bearing and proportion of the several parts, or in fact to understand the things of God at all, we must be taught by the Holy Spirit. The number and diversity of religious sects and denominations is too often quoted as a reason for submission to a central human authority, such as the Pope. It proves indeed the insubjection of the human mind to Divine teaching, and the true remedy is, subjection of our own spirits to the Lord by the Spirit of God; but undoubtedly those who advocate as the remedy the setting up a man in the church, with claims to an infallibility which no apostle over assumed or pretended to, show how far they are impressed with a sense of what is due to the Lord, and to Him alone. That our justification is in Scripture regarded from different points of view is most true: for instance, we are justified meritoriously, by Christ's blood (Rom. v. 9; 3:24); we are justified judicially, by God (Rom. 3:26; 8:33); we are justified mediately, by faith (Rom. 3:28; 5:1), and we are justified evidentially by works (James 2:24). Deny this, and you set Scripture hopelessly at variance with itself, and destroy the integrity of the texts quoted, as well as the general and concurrent teachings of Scripture. “For by grace are ye saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God: not of works lest any man should boast.”

(To be continued.)

On Acts 2:22-36

Such was the preface of the Apostle's discourse: a denial of the carnal, not to say immoral, excitement imputed, and an affirmation of the power of the Spirit, then manifested in the gift of tongues, and prophesying, according to the prophet Joel.

Now he enters on the foundation of their hopes as God's chosen people, and sets forth the facts just accomplished in the light of His word, mainly as we shall see Psa. xvi. cx. and cxxxii.

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man shown forth from God to you by mighty works, and wonders and signs which God wrought by Him in your midst, as yourselves know—Him given up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by hand of lawless men did crucify and slay; whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death, inasmuch as it was not possible that he should be held fast by it. For David saith as to Him, I kept the Lord in view always before me, because He is on my right hand that I may not be shaken. On this account my heart was cheered and my tongue was exceeding glad; yea more my flesh also shall dwell in hope [that, or] because thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades nor give thy Holy (or Gracious) One to see corruption. Thou didst make known to me ways of life; thou wilt make me full of joy with Thy countenance. Brethren, one may speak with freedom unto you about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is amongst us unto this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God swore with an oath to him of the fruit of his loins to seat upon his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was He left in Hades nor did His flesh see corruption. This Jesus did God raise up whereof all we are witnesses. Having therefore been exalted by the right hand of God and received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured forth this which ye see and hear. For David ascended not into the heavens, but saith himself, “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on My right hand till I make Thine enemies [the] footstool of Thy feet. Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom ye crucified.” (Verses 22-36.)

The Apostle addresses them according to their due national title as the chosen theocracy; and, while he in no way hides the name of humiliation, he claims for his Master the indubitably proved character of Messiah. It was God, he affirms, who had shown him forth to them by mighty works and wonders and signs; it was God who by Him thus wrought in their midst. They could deny neither the actual display of divine power in every form of goodness and mercy, nor that Israel had so expected the Anointed of God according to the living oracles. The eyes of the blind were opened, the ears of the deaf were unstopped, the lame leaped as a hart, and the tongue of the dumb sang. Had all this come without the person to whom Scripture attaches it all? If not yet with vengeance, surely in mercy unequivocally divine? Granted that the parched ground has not become a pool, nor the thirsty lands springs of water, and that the way of holiness is invisible save to faith; granted that the unclean abound and are bold, as the lion and the ravenous beasts are still objects of terror, because the people are apostate from their King when He came, as they once gave up Jehovah for every vain idol of the nations. But God had failed in no attestation that could commend His servant whom He upheld, His elect in whom His soul delighted; and they themselves knew it, though tempted by Satan to impute it to the enemy, in order to escape the submission of their conscience to the truth. To the enemy! when Christ's every word and every work directly tended to destroy Satan's evil power and wiles. But what will not the deluded mind of man think or at least say to avoid the grace that pities and would save Him if he bowed to God and His Christ?

Did any Israelite stumble at the cross as invalidating His claims? Yet: on the cross, man—the Jew—being what he is, God had ordered it all marvelously to His own glory. Unbelief and rebellion and blasphemy on the one hand were allowed to work their unimpeded way, when the fit moment arrived; and Jesus was rejected ignominiously by His own people, and the Gentiles were urged by them to crucify Him; that He on the other hand might become a propitiation for the sins of His own that believed, yea, for the whole world. If that was man's inexcusable iniquity, this was God's sovereign grace. If they were the instruments of their own spite, He gave One that has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. Thus in that cross met creature will of man and of Satan in deadly enmity to God, divine love turning the otherwise hopeless sin to the shedding of that precious blood which cleanseth from all sin, impossible without the glorious person who is God no less than man, impossible save by His once in atonement suffering for our sins, Just for unjust. “Him given up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by hand of lawless men did crucify and slay.” The cross therefore, dreadful as it is as the proof of man's blind guilt and of Satan's power, now that it is seen to be not only necessary that Scripture be fulfilled, but the indispensable and only possible door of deliverance for the sinner in God's grace, is owned as an essential and morally the deepest part of God's ways, as it is the highest moral glory of the Lord Jesus. As Himself said on the eve of it, “Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in Him. If God be glorified in Him, God shall also glorify Him in Himself, and shall straightway glorify Him.”

But the resurrection! what did God say therein? In vain the lie that the disciples came by night and stole Jesus away, while the soldiers slept. Peter does not even notice such an unworthy subterfuge, but simply asserts the grand truth on which the gospel rests: “whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death, inasmuch as it was not possible that He should be held fast by it. For David saith as to him, I foresaw the Lord,” &c. The word of God by David pointed to the resurrection of the Messiah; and God showed Him openly when risen to witnesses chosen of Him beforehand. But indeed it was not possible that He should be held fast by death, to which He, the Holy One, had submitted for sin to God's glory. Nor was it possible that the Scripture could be broken which said, “Thou wilt not leave My soul in Hades, nor give [i.e. suffer] Thy Holy One to see corruption.” Even according to the ancient Jewish interpretation these words of Psa. 16 can only apply to the Messiah (Schöttgen, 664-8). Here Peter, and in chap. 13 Paul, declare that it was fulfilled in God's raising Jesus from the dead, not in David, still less in any other. Thus was He shown the path of life through death with fullness of joy in the presence of God His Father.

The Apostle in his reasoning on this next cites Psa. 132, the great psalm of the Kingdom settled forever in the son of David. “Brethren, one may speak freely unto you about the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is amongst us unto this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God swore with an oath to him of the fruit of his loins to seat upon his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ that neither was He left in Hades nor did His flesh see corruption. This Jesus did God raise up whereof all we are witnesses.” This, and this only, explains the peculiarly glorious character of the Kingdom even in its earthly relations. Even now the King is risen from the dead. This stamps perpetuity as nothing else could: yet is it the kingdom of a man. Only it is man risen from the dead: though here it is Christ only, first-born from the dead, for in all things He must have the pre-eminence.

But in fact resurrection was the immediate steppingstone, not to the If which still awaits His appearing in glory, but to His going up into the presence of God on high; and this for reasons most nearly affecting God's glory now as well as those who enjoy His favor, as we shall hear presently. “Having therefore been exalted by the right hand of God and received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured forth this which ye see and hear. For David ascended not into the heavens, but saith himself, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on My right hand till I make Thine enemies the footstool of Thy feet. Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom ye crucified.” Again, from that most fruitful treasury of God's words is a sentence drawn to prove that the facts of Christ's life, including His resurrection and ascension, were not only facts of the deepest import, the ground of truths needed for every day and for eternity, but parts of God's infinite scheme for manifesting His own glory and giving effect to His goodness towards us. If Psa. 132 secures the risen son of David for the everlasting King on His throne in Zion, with the abundant and suited privileges peculiar to His Kingdom on earth and in Israel, the citation from Psa. 110 testifies to His present exaltation in heaven. Of this there was the most conclusive proof in the now accomplished promise of the Father, the gift of the Holy Spirit, of whose outpouring there was indubitable evidence to their eyes and ears. That gift Christ had received for the second time. Once again on earth He was sealed, the holy and acceptable One of God's delight: now a man in heaven a second time did He receive that same Spirit, as the One who, having finished the work of redemption, had gone on high, the guarantee and glorious witness of the acceptance of all who, believing in His name, are justified and delivered, that they might be united in one, the body of the ascended Head. And on this rests the perpetuity of that gift, the presence of the Holy Ghost, so essential to the Church of God. Not only is the outpoured Spirit the fruit of His accepted work in all its unchanging and everlasting value, but He is therefore given again to Christ, though for us. Christ received of the Father the promised Spirit and poured forth what was seen and heard at Pentecost: how could the Holy Spirit but abide in honor of Him and of His work? No wonder, whatever be the humiliating and deplorable provocations on our part, whatever the deep griefs on His part as feeling for Christ's injured name, that He abides in us and with us forever. He is come to testify to God's exalting Jesus, made both Lord and Christ, whom men, yea Jews, crucified.

On 1 Thessalonians 4:1-12

The knowledge of Christ is inseparable from faith; yet is it pre-eminently a life of holiness and love, and not a mere creed, as the human mind tends to make it. We have seen how it wrought in the practical ways of those who first preached the gospel to the Thessalonians, in unselfish goodness and exposure to suffering (chaps. 1-2), as well as in deep feeling afterward for the young converts, so soon called to bear the brunt of affliction. For their abounding in love in order to holiness the apostle prayed the Lord (chap. 3). Now he proceeds to appeal to themselves:—

“Further, then, brethren, we beseech and exhort you in the Lord Jesus that, as ye received from us how ye ought to walk and please God, even as also ye do walk, ye abound still more. For ye know what charges we gave you through the Lord Jesus. For this is [the] will of God, your sanctification, that ye abstain from fornication; that each of you know how to possess himself of his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in passion of lust, even as also the Gentiles that know not God; that he should not over-reach and wrong his brother in the matter; because the Lord is an avenger in respect of all these things, even as we told you before and fully testified. For God called us not for uncleanness but in sanctification. Wherefore then he that disregardeth disregardeth not man but God that [also] gave His Holy Spirit unto you” (4:1-8).

It is an immense thing for those who were once mere men on earth, severed from God and in spirit from each other by sin, only united when united for objects of human will or glory, now as His children with one purpose of heart to walk so as to please God. Yet such is Christianity practically viewed; and it is worthless if not practical. It is true that there is in the light and truth which Christ has revealed by the Holy Ghost the richest material and the fullest scope for the renewed mind and heart. But there is in “the mystery” no breadth nor length, no height nor depth which does not bear on the state of the affections or the character of the walk and work; and no error more dishonors God or damages man than the divorce of theory from practice. Scripture binds them together indissolubly, warning us solemnly against those who would part them as evil, the sure enemies of God and man. No! truth is not merely to inform but to sanctify; and what we received from those divinely given to communicate it is “how we ought to walk and please God.” In that path the youngest believer walks from the first, slave or free, Greek or Scythian, learned or unlearned; from that path none can slip save into sin and shame. It is not, however, a mere defined direction, as in a law or ordinance. As a life is in question, the life of Christ, there is exercise and growth by the knowledge of God. On the state of the soul depends the discernment of God's will in His word, which is overlooked where levity marks the inner condition, or the will is active and unjudged. “If thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.” Then only is there surefootedness spiritually; and a deepening sense of the word in the intelligence issues in a fuller obedience. One knows God's mind better, and the heart is earnest in pleasing Him. We abound more and more.

This was no new solicitude of the apostle. They knew what charges he gave them through the Lord Jesus. Is not His will, His honor, concerned in a walk pleasing to God? He on earth could say, “I do always those things that please Him;” in heaven He is now occupied with those who are following in the same path here below. We may fail; but is this our aim? He does not fail to help us by His word, as He would also by His grace if we looked to Him and leaned on Him. Do we hear His voice?

On one thing especially was the apostle urgent, the personal purity of those who bore the name of Jesus; and the more so as the Greeks utterly failed in it. Their habits and their literature, their statesmen and their philosophers, all helped on the evil; their very religion conduced to aggravate the defilement by consecrating that to which depraved nature is itself prone. Few can have any adequate notion of the moral horrors of the heathen world, or of the insensibility of men generally to pollutions so shameless. Christ changed all for those who believe in Him, leaving an example that they should follow His steps. “For this is God's will, your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication; that each of you know how to possess himself of his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in passion of lust, even as also the Gentiles that know not God; that no man over-reach and wrong his brother in the matter; because the Lord is an avenger of all these things, even as we told you before and fully testified.” Holiness, of course, goes far beyond freedom from sensuality. Still to stand clear of that which was everywhere sanctioned in ordinary life was no small thing. Nor is the apostle satisfied with the negative duty of abstinence, but calls on “each of them to know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor,” instead of letting it drift loosely into sin and shame, not in passion of lust, even as the Gentiles also that know not God.” Acts 15 is proof positive on scripture testimony of that day, painfully confirmed by the disclosures of Pompeii and Herculaneum, to the moral degradation that pervaded even the most civilized portion of the heathen world. When God is dishonored, man is reprobate; and God, in forgiving and rescuing from the wrath to come through Christ's death and resurrection, gives also a new life in Christ on which the Holy Spirit acts by the word so as to produce fruits of righteousness by Him to God's glory.

Hence the exhortation further, “that he should not over-reach and wrong his brother in the matter, because the Lord is an avenger in respect of all these things, even as we told you before and fully testified.” There is no real ground to introduce a new topic here, confounding with Calvin and others τῷ πρ. with τοῖς πρ., still less to suppose with Koppe τῳ, enclitic = τινι, “any,” like our own Authorized Version (compare 2 Cor. 7:11). It is the apostle's delicate way of referring to the same uncleanness, especially in married circumstances where the rights of a brother were infringed. This demanded and receives special notice. For as the brotherhood of Christians casts them into free and happy and intimate intercourse, there would be peculiar danger in these very circumstances lest Satan should tempt where flesh was not kept by faith in the place of death, that love only should act in holy ways with Christ before their eyes. There is perhaps no danger more gravely pressed. They are the ways which bring wrath on the sons of disobedience, and all words which make light of the evil are vain; the Lord avenges all these things, and God will judge the guilty. It is not the true grace of God which spares the strongest and repeated warnings; for God called us not for uncleanness, but in sanctification. It is plain that there is no branching off to commercial dealings, or to dishonesty in the affairs of every-day life. Impurity in the social relations of the saints is the evil still in view; and the conclusion is, “Wherefore then he that disregardeth disregardeth not man but God, that also gave His Holy Spirit unto you.” Thus does grace, in calling to a moral duty, rise entirely above the mere weighing of such motives as act on men. It is not that delicate consideration of man is omitted: the apostle begins with the slighting of man in the matter, but he forthwith brings in also the immense yet solemn privilege of the Christian, God's gift of the Holy Spirit. How would impurity affect Him who dwells in the saints, and makes the body God's temple?

Next follows a call to abound in brotherly love, in which the apostle does glide into the connected proprieties of daily labor animated by care for others. “Now concerning brotherly love ye have no need that we write to you; for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another; for, indeed, ye do it toward all the brethren that are in the whole of Macedonia. But we exhort you, brethren, that ye abound still more, and that ye make it your aim to be quiet and mind your own affairs and work with your own hands, even as we charged you, that ye may walk honorably toward those without, and may have need of nothing” (ver. 9-12). The possession of Christ does wonderfully bind hearts together; and as affection one toward another is a spiritual instinct, so all that is learned of Christ deepens it intelligently. Intercourse may test its reality sometimes, but as a whole develops it actively, and the more as sharing the same hostility from the world. Here, too, the apostle looks that it should abound more and more, and along with it the studious aim to be quiet and to mind their own affairs, which brotherly love would surely promote, the very reverse of that meddling disposition which flows from the assumption of superiority in knowledge or spirituality or faithfulness. Farther, he calls on them to work with their own hands, even as we charged you (and who could do it with so good a grace?), that they may walk honorably toward those without, and may have need of nothing [or none]. There is not such a thought as encouraging the needy to draw on the generosity of others. Let it be the ambition of those who love, and would keep the love of others, to spare themselves in nothing and avoid encroaching on the help of any, so as to cut off all suspicion from those without. Brotherly love would be questioned if heed were not paid to propriety; it flourishes and abounds where there is also self-denial.

Revised New Testament: 1 Peter

Chapter 1:1. Our language is not so lacking in power to characterize that it should be necessary to introduce “a” or “the” where Greek does not. Thus Peter, “apostle of Jesus Christ” is really more expressive and correct than “an” apostle. Of course a similar remark applies to 2 Cor. 1:1, Gal. 1:1, Eph. 1:1, Col. 1:1, 1 and 2 Tim. 1:1, Titus 1:1, Phil. 1:1, James 1:1, if not to Rom. 1:1, and 1 Cor. 1:1, where the context modifies. 2 Peter 1:1 and Jude 1 have nothing to render the indefinite article needful. Again “to the elect who are sojourners” is surely to go beyond the text which speaks only of “elect sojourners” dispersed in Pontes, &c. In 2 we come to an important matter. What is the meaning of “in” sanctification of the Spirit? The Revisers have misrepresented the truth in several instances of dogmatic moment through a fancied accuracy, but mere literality, condemned by their own practice elsewhere. We have seen this in Col. 1:16 and Heb. 1:8, where “in” gives a false sense or nonsense, opening the door to grave error, which, where positive truth is lost, enters in often under cover of the vague or obscure. Now the Revised Version of Matt. 3:11, 5:13, 6:34, 35, 36, 6:7, 7:2, 6, 9:34, suffices to show that the Revisers knew they were in no way limited to “in,” for they admit freely “with” “by,” &c. But they too often overlook this, where their rendering yields no just sense or opposes other Scriptures. It was the more desirable to be right here, because some early Protestant translators had grievously failed as to it. Take Beza, who, swayed evidently by his theological views, gives us “ad sanctificationem Sp. per obedientiam,” &c., which is doubly a falsification of God's word. Him followed our Geneva Version of 1555, “unto sanctification of the Spirit through obedience,” &c. The Rhemish says, “unto sanctification of the Spirit, unto the obedience,” &c. This would be inexplicable, as being destitute of just meaning, if we did not know that the Vulgate has “in sanctificationem Sp. in obedientiam,” &c. The Version of Rheims of course follows it dutifully. The late Dean Alford seems to have been the most influential offender in this assumption of accuracy, adhering to “in” for ἐν, when the Authorized Version had idiomatically and correctly “by” or “with” To talk of the conditional element as environing, or the like, is mere jargon to excuse a translation which conveys no sound meaning. It is cloud and not light. Here the apostle lets the dispersed believers of the circumcision know that, instead of being externally separated in the flesh by rites as the chosen people of Jehovah, they were elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. The contrast is with Ex. 24:7, 8, when Israel stood to obey the law under the blood which threatened death as the penalty, instead of cleansing from every sin those whose one desire was to obey as Christ obeyed. Compare 1 Cor. 6:11, where “sanctified” is before “justified,” as here sanctification is before obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus. It is the absolute setting apart of the soul to God from the first. Practical holiness is relative, and is pressed lower down in this very chapter, ver. 15, 16. In 3 it is “living,” not lively, hope; not in this world, but above it by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. In 7 “of” gold is rightly dropt. But in 10 it should be “prophets,” not “the” prophets, as in the Authorized and Revised Versions, not the class viewed in their totality, but persons coming ender that category. In 11 they rightly say “glories.” In 12 “you” displaces “us” with reason as being more homogeneous: one way or another a common confusion in the MSS. In 17 they correct the Authorized Version, “the” Father for “him as Father,” and “every,” for “each,” man's work, “here” being quite an expletive. In 22 the omission of “pure” rests on A B and the Vulgate, a feeble basis as against àp.m. C K L P, all the cursives, and the mass of ancient versions and ecclesiastical writers, one perhaps excepted. But earlier in the verse “by the Spirit” is an addition without due warrant, as is “forever” at the end of 23, and “of man” for “its” in 24.

2:2 affords some difficulty for translation in the word λογικόν, unless we take it with the Authorized Version as “of the word.” “Reasonable” as in the Authorized Version of Rom. 12:1 falls too low, but is not the Revisers' “spiritual” too high? At least, it is not inherent in the word nor necessitated by its usage. “Unto salvation” at the end is sure on ample authority; for salvation, in Peter's writings—save in one exception that proves the rule, by the modification of the phrase to ensure a difference of meaning—looks onward to the final victory at Christ's revelation. In 5 εἰς, “for,” is read by high and ample authority, and adopted by the Revisers in their phrase “to be.” Verse 6 begins with “Because” on almost universal suffrage, “wherefore also” as in Text. Rec. has scarce a shadow of authority. But what is more important, the beautiful force of the first clause of 7 was lost in the Authorized Version, and even the marginal alteration was a mistranslation. Tyndale unhappily misled, and all the public English versions followed. Faith sees according to God. Christ is in God's eyes a chief corner stone, elect, precious. “To you therefore that believe [is] the preciousness.” Was it needful to define the general phrase εἰς π.. in 9 by interpolating “God's own?” In the same verse “excellencies” is right. In 12 “which they behold” is not much in advance of the lax Authorized Version, “which they shall behold,” as a reflexion of ἐποπτεύοντες. “Being spectators” would seem more correct—If “your freedom” be the necessary force of τὴν έλ., why not “your” wickedness, or malice, of τὴς κ. in 16? They are really common cases of abstracted usage. Dean Alford is more consistent in claiming the same possessive or quasi-possessive force for the articles with both words. And here it may not be uninstructive to note the weak and unsound attempt of that same dignitary to account for τῶν άφρ. άνθρ. in 15, as limited to such as reviled Christ as evil doers. For the apostle really speaks of men as a whole, and declares the race as such senseless. The phrase imports nothing less. In 21 it is “you” twice, not “us” as in Authorized Version following Steph. (not Elz). The last clause supports the reading of the ancient MSS. The margin of 24 ignorantly repeats the unfounded alternative of the Authorized Version, for both word and tense forbid the idea of a carrying up of our sins in Christ's body to the tree. Usage in the Septuagint, as in the New Testament, limits άνή... έπὶ to the single great act of bearing them on the tree.

3. In 1 and 2 “behavior is no doubt more intelligible English for our day than the obsolete “conversation” for manner of life in the Authorized Version. But is it correct to soften the force of the past participle in 2 in this case? In 8 “jewels of gold,” not gold merely. The last word of 8 should be not “courteous,” but “humbleminded,” on ample authority, an evident link of connection with the gracious endurance which knows how to bless in presence of injury. In 13 ζ. is more than “followers” or “imitators” (as in the Text. Rec. μ.) meaning neither, but zealous or emulous of good. In 15 it is “the Christ,” not God as such who is to be sanctified as Lord in their hearts. In 18 to print “spirit” without a capital initial is matter for regret, if there be no real ground to doubt that the Spirit of God is meant. Had the phrase been as in the Text. Rec., τῷ πν., there might so far have been a better ground for supposing the spirit of. Christ as man, though it would not have been decisive against the Holy Spirit. But the anarthrous phrase distinctly points to that Divine Person, though presented in character rather than objectively; and what is added conclusively proves this— “in which (or in the power of which Spirit) also he went and preached to the spirits in prison,” &c. As the Spirit of Christ in the prophets (1:11) testified beforehand of Christ's sufferings and the glories that should follow, so did His Spirit in Noah (Gen. 6:3) strive with the antediluvians on the sure coming of the flood that was to take them all away from the earth. But this was not all; for disobedient as they were, they were to be, as they are, reserved in prison (certainly not paradise) for a judgment far more solemn. So the unbelieving Jews now might taunt those who believed, with a Christ rejected on earth and absent in heaven, as well as with their fewness; but the apostle reminds them that there were still fewer saved when the flood came, and rebellions unbelief entails a judgment graver far than anything which befalls the body, as illustrated by a time of waiting and testimony which the Lord also compares with that which precedes His return in power and glory. Is it accurate to render the beginning of 20, ἀπ. π. “which aforetime were disobedient “? Would not this require τοῖς ἀπ.? Is not the force rather “disobedient as they once proved when,” &c.? Their being in prison was in consequence of their previous disobedience to God's patient warning. At the close of the verse “through water” is right, not “by” it. Water was the destructive element, through which grace saved Noah and those with him in the ark: cf. Cor. iii. 15. In 21 the Authorized Version followed Beza (as did Elz.) in rejecting Stephens' reading, which is the ancient one, the Sinaitic cutting the knot by rejecting both. “You” is probably right; but ἐπερώτημα is rather “demand,” anything interrogated, than the interrogation which suggests a dubious or misleading sense.

4:5: why more than “living and dead?” Why “the “? Is it not equally good in English as in Greek? It is not the same sense. “The” makes judgment universal; whereas Scripture contrasts it with eternal life. and salvation. See John 5 and Heb. 9—Why “even” to dead? Why not “also “? As in 3:19, 20, the apostle spoke of wicked dead, so does be here of righteous dead, as is implied in living according to God in the Spirit? Here also we have good news brought, not preaching only. Ver. 11 is given fairly well. The meaning is that when one gifted of God speaks, it should be as oracles of God; not according to the oracles of God, the Scriptures (which is not in question, though in itself of course most right), but as expressing God's mind on that before us, as His mouthpiece: serious, but not too serious; consideration; for has He not also given us His Spirit? And wherefore? Truly it supposes dependence on and confidence in God. Ministry also, it is well to remark, is distinguished from speaking, which is apt to become everything among idle people or the active-minded, and knowledge taking practically the place of faith as well as of love.

5: 2. “Tend” is better, as being more comprehensive, than “feed,” cf. John 21—never to be forgotten by Peter—any more than by John. But is the rendering of 8 exact? It is incomparably better than what the Authorized Version here gives, but “over the charge allotted to you” might be construed into one's church or chapel, one's congregation or parish or diocese. Now τῶν κλ. very simply means the (i.e. your) possessions; and the point is that the elders should not lord it over the saints as their belongings, but ever tend them as the flock of God. Thus were they to be models for them. In 4 it is of course “the” unfading crown of glory. In 5 the needless addition of ὑποτ. “be subject and” in the Authorized Version, following the Text. Rec., is with reason excluded to the unimpeded and energetic flow of the exhortation. In 8 the added ὅτι of the Text. Rec. clogs the vigor of words clear and ringing as a trumpet call. In 9 the difficulty of the article reappears, with the unhappy result of the old rendering put in the margin, and a worse adopted in the text. The real question seems to be between “in” or “with” faith. Take Rom. 14:1: have not the Revisers rightly said “weak in faith"? It is the counterpart of the phrase before us. Here, not content with “the,” they descend to “your.” These things ought not so to be—They rightly give “you” for “us” in 10, as the context ought to have shown, in confirmation of the best external authority. Further, it is “shall,” not the opt. as in Text Rec., with a few copies of slight account. In 12 “as I suppose” or “account” is no slight or doubt of Savanna, but the contrary. “Stand” is the reading of high authority, uncial and cursive, instead of the more popular “ye stand.” It is singular that the Sinaitic is not without a slight support in the margin if two cursives, and some of the oldest Latin copies say expressly what the Authorized Version gives in italics. But the Revisers seem justified in holding it to be some well-known sister, perhaps Peter's wife: the salutation of Marcus that follows confirms this. Dogmatically too it is difficult to suppose elect, or co-elect, said after Christ came otherwise than of individuals. In the Old Testament we have it said corporately or nationally; in the New Testament individually.

The Declared Purpose and Present Moral Processes: 21. History of Faith

The “rest” in Thyatira are directed to the characteristic hope of the church, and to resume, as far as possible, that aspect which is the true evidence of first love. Why, when all else gone, is this one lost hope brought prominently forward? Because, if it is a going back to a precious hope, well-nigh forgotten by all, it is really a looking forward, so that the seeing Christ may be the divine preservative in a scene of wide-spread declension. This hope is the divinely given motive for personal holiness (1 John 3:3).

So even the failure of the church is used as an occasion to declare the unfailing love of Christ as well as to lead His saints to long for His coming. When all is ruined as to corporate testimony, what riches of grace thus to present Himself. If sin be measured not so much per se as by the grace against which it is committed, is there any sin greater than the church's forgetfulness of the love and grace of Christ? But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.

The evil of the Thyatira state goes on to the end of the age, it is the last phase of a part of Christendom. We have not far to look to find the special evils denounced in Thyatira. The judgment is that of the end; broken to shivers can only be when the Lord appears and this is the doom of the unrepentant Nicolaitanes, the followers of Balaam, and the children of Jezebel. The reward of the faithful also points to the Lord's coming, which from other scriptures we know will precede the judgment upon the wicked. The Morning Star is the portion of the faithful before the evildoers are judged. But there is more, beside the sweet enjoyment of the Morning Star—and this the loving-hearted prize most—there is the public display in glory, power over the nations; a more than compensation for present weakness and oppression.

It is the remnant, the rest in Thyatira, that appear in Sardis. And a new feature of evil appears in them. Not the corruption of Thyatira, nor the presence of the teachers of evil doctrine, but they were dead, a more hopeless case. So that in reality the Sardis condition, though to human eyes more respectable, is worse than that of Thyatira. Not even the promise of the Morning Star kept them holding fast till He came. The things that remain were ready to die. What were these things, what remained to them amid the corruption of Thyatira? “Have not this doctrine,” “have not known the depths of Satan,” together with the added word of the Lord, “Hold fast till I come.” These were all but gone. “Remember how thou hast received and heard.” Patient love and pity said “I will lay upon you no other burden.” Even this is forgotten, and cold indifference to the Lord's love set in upon those who had escaped the idolatry of Thyatira. Unwatchfulness characterized them. Therefore the Son of man would come upon them as a thief. All save a few names were dead. These few had not defiled their garments, and their reward is to walk with Him in white.

Both Ephesus and Sardis are told to “remember,” not Pergamos, nor Thyatira, nor Laodicea. The first step downward was made by Ephesus, and the Lord calls them back to remember whence they had fallen. The remnant (Sardis) from the new beginning infinite grace provided made another first downward step in forgetting the things they had received and heard, and they also are called back to remember them. This unwatchfulness is but the reappearing of the fatal cause of evil at the beginning; for it was while men slept that the enemy sowed tares. A fresh start—so to speak—was given to the faithful in Thyatira, now represented by Sardis. “I will put upon you no other burden.” Nor is this the first time that failure in those who bear the name of being the people of God, has been met by granting a new point of departure. The law made no provision by which the law-breaker could escape punishment. The soul that sinneth shall die, was the irrevocable sentence. The law could not, and ought not in strict righteousness to abate one jot of its penalty, even though the sinner's repentance was most heartfelt and true. Much less could it offer abundance of pardon to any, who might repent. Yet this is the very announcement that Jehovah commissioned Isaiah to give to rebellious and sinful Israel. “Let the wicked forsake his way and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return unto Jehovah, and He will have mercy upon him, and to our God for He will abundantly pardon” (Isa. 55:7), Israel's (i.e. Judah's) responsibility is tried with a new test. Formerly, having accepted law, it was to abide in obedience. They did not continue in all things written in the book of the law to do them, and came under its curse. As to the righteousness which is by the law they were ruined and lost. But now the word by the prophet is to return to righteousness. If they could, all their wickedness would be forgiven. “God will abundantly pardon.” This tells how truly God waited to be gracious. It is equally true that it was given by the prophet that man might be his own proof that he could neither continue in righteousness, nor return to it when once he had left its paths. It was a Savior-God's way of shutting up men to Christ. Mara was no less a new starting point for Israel, and all the calls to repentance in the prophets are founded upon the super-abundant mercy as given in the words of the prophet. So here for the church; all is on the ground of “no other burden.” Alas! no sooner separated and, as it were, put upon fresh ground, than the same dreadful evil of departing from the path of living faith is seen. At the first step they are arrested—here, as in Ephesus, called to remember—to retrace if possible their way back to the position of “holding fast.” Not to regain the pristine condition of Ephesus, but to remember that when in the midst of Thyatira evil they were kept from it, to remember the grace that bade them not give up their little faithfulness, but to look forward to their Lord's coming as the Morning Star which would soon dispel for them the thick darkness around. They had received and heard; alas how soon they forgot. How soon the Lord is compelled to say that they had a name indeed of living, but in truth were dead. Grace waits upon them, but neither Ephesus nor Sardis, repents. The former lost her candlestick, this sinks into the careless condition of the world, and upon Sardis judgment comes as a thief, as it will upon the world.

The things that marked these two churches are visible now in Christendom. There are those who are separate from Jezebel idolatry, but are living in the world and dead to God. Among them the piercing eye of the Son of man only discerns a few names. “Thou hast a few names [? even] in Sardis which have not defiled their garments.” Defilement does not result only from the corruption of Thyatira, it follows equally from the outside world. A professor living only for the world is dead to God, he has no living faith. And if a believer is not in holy separation from all such, he becomes defiled, like the Israelite who touched a dead body. There may be outward orthodoxy in all, and a measure of truth known, but this alone does not keep the garments undefiled. So while ecclesiastical corruption brings judgment upon Thyatira, worldliness no less hateful to the Lord stamps ruin on Sardis, and exposes them to the same judgment as that of the world.

With all the external decorum of Sardis, only a few names were owned by the Lord. These might not be owned by the others, not enrolled in the Sardis register, but they are written in the book of life, and the Lord Jesus will confess them before His Father and the angels. There is a word of commendation from the Lord here which ranks higher than even that given to the suffering saints in Smyrna who were pronounced “rich.” For the few in Sardis are called worthy to walk with Him in white. It is a wonderful word for even the most faithful to hear. But the Lord Jesus said it, and we adore and rejoice, for it is the reckoning of sovereign grace. That which follows applies to every believer. We are still here to fight and to keep our garments undefiled. “He that overcometh.” But the promise is absolute, for grace ensures the victory.

The Son of man is presented to Sardis as to Ephesus, but here with the addition of having the seven Spirits of God: an attribute not mentioned in the description of Him whom John saw in the midst of the golden candlesticks (Rev. 1:13-18). It is the expression of absolute and perfect power and authority as exercised over the whole creation, and also therefore over the church. Not as the Holy Spirit dwelling in and with the church, revealing the Son, and guiding into all truth, but the expression of rule and of judgment of evil found in the professing church. Why brought in here? To tell the assembly in Sardis that all authority and power was vested in the Son of man who was in the midst of the candlesticks and marking their ways and condition, that He was the Man appointed to judge the world (Acts 17:31) upon whom He would come as a thief, and upon them as being dead like the world. And moreover as a stay for the few undefiled in Sardis that they need not fear the opposition and scorn of the worldly which the faithful always meet with from them.

In the history of the church Sardis begins a new chapter, and a further attribute is brought out, possessed by the Lord, in connection with church responsibility. It was suited to the new character of failure. The church had become a world-church, and as such the Lord in relation to it is the Son of man who has the seven Spirits of God.

The few in Sardis who are undefiled, and the many who are dead, are developed in the two following churches: the former in Philadelphia, but those who had a name to live, and were really dead, eventuate in Laodicea. The boasting of Laodicea is the natural fruit of a mere name without the power of life in the soul, which is the character of the Sardis state. As there had been separation from the corruption of Thyatira, so there is further separation from the deadness of Sardis. Sardis was itself a remnant separated from the evil of Jezebel and the depths of Satan found in Thyatira; now the remnant must itself be sifted. The separation here is not so externally visible as when the “rest” were taken out of Thyatira, which is an historical fact as to its application to the Reformation. But the reality of the distinction between the few names who had not defiled their garments, and the lifeless mass, is more fully seen in comparing Philadelphia with Laodicea. And the impression left on the mind is, that while profession and nominal Christianity widen, how the real dwindle in number. Only a few names in Sardis: what a change from the first days in Jerusalem! The church that then began in such power, that thousands were converted at one preaching; then in such holiness, that the pair who attempted the first defilement died under the rebuke of God; in the Sardis era only a few names are found. And if we look around now, the beauty of the early days is gone, and in its place defilement, weakness, and deadness meet our eyes, all the result of lack of faithfulness.

Weakness is the result mostly of previous unfaithfulness; but if there be only a little strength, yet if Christ's word be kept, the word of His patience, He will keep us from the hour of temptation which is coming upon the world to try them that dwell upon the earth. Little strength, and patience, mark Philadelphia; but the prominent points in this epistle are the great grace and love of the Lord Jesus, the full power of His love rests upon them. He will make the self-styled Jew do homage to them, and “to know that I have loved thee.” None so exposed to the hatred of dead Sardis as the feeble Philadelphians. But the word “I have loved thee” more than compensates for all contempt and suffering. Moreover, the time of patient endurance is short. “Behold I come quickly,” and the Lord adds, if we may so say, His word of loving solicitude, “hold fast that which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.” We have constant need to remember the word “hold fast,” because the danger of relaxing our hold is constant. But the crown is now in view, and is presented as an incentive to diligent perseverance. Now so near, let no man take it. Here also in the weakest, yet perhaps most blessed, phase of the church of God, responsibility comes in. Though weak they must continue to hold fast. Grace meets their weakness and will keep them holding fast, so they shall not lose their crown. The word of patience is maintained in them. Saints now know and rejoice in the knowledge of this sovereign grace. Some now may stumble and fail, but they that are Christ's are kept bolding fast. The assurance of this for all His own is implied in the words of the Lord to Peter before he denied his Master, “I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not.” However heavy the rod for a failing child, the staff is always present. Not that the failing one has the happy consciousness of faith, indeed, it would not be a good sign of life if be said, “I know I have sinned, but I still believe,” it would savor rather of levity than of deep self-judgment. But those who are kept by the grace of God know that the link of faith can never be broken.

We have not here the splendid victories of faith achieved by those “who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens,” nor of that surpassing endurance of faith which brings up, the rear of that noble army of martyrs of whom the Spirit says the world is not worthy. Yet the faith of Philadelphia is as real if not so brilliant, and as prized by the Lord. Here, as in the previous epistles, the promised reward takes its form from the peculiar circumstances of each church; that is, the reward to the overcomer in each stage of the church's decline is suited to the character of the conflict he had to endure, for it is worthy of notice that all the rewards to the overcomers are presented as to individuals and not to the church corporately. But there are two, and only two, which have a reward promised to them as a church. In Ephesus, Pergamos, and Thyatira the Lord has some things against them. In Sardis all are dead except a few names, in Laodicea all are lukewarm with no exception. None of all these as a church has a reward promised, but judgment threatened. In Smyrna there is surely the word to him “that overcometh,” and also in Philadelphia, for there is no condition down here where saints are not responsible. But Smyrna as a church was faithful in her tribulation, in her poverty, in the presence of death. The crown of life is the reward. And Philadelphia—weak and despised, yet because they had kept His word, and not denied His name, He would keep them from the hour of temptation which was coming upon the world. Their faithfulness brings out respectively the Lord's approbation of them corporately before the perseverance of each is encouraged by reward.

The Lord as One like the Son of man judging in the midst of the churches could not in that character speak of the corporate blessings of grace, sovereign over failure, in presence of such sin as was found in the other assemblies; but in the two where no failure is recorded, He speaks of the reward of faithfulness. Sardis, where there is great failure, confirms this, for the promise there which comes before the word to the overcomer is in reality not to the church, but to the few names which had not defiled their garments. These, outwardly mixed up with the dead ones “in Sardis,” proved their faithfulness in most trying circumstances. They did not defile their profession, and the Lord from amid the golden candlesticks says, they are worthy to walk with Him in white. Not even the beloved Philadelphians have such commendation, “They are worthy.”

Still the Philadelphians may have that which betokens more intimate communion; for if the overcomer in Sardis is rewarded with a place of honor and made prominent before the Father and the angels,— “I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels,” the overcomer in Philadelphia has all the intimacies and communion of having written upon him “the name of my God, the name of the city of my God, new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God, and my new name.” And beside this closest intimacy and communion, they have a place in the temple of God, of strength, power to sustain, to be a pillar. There was little strength here, but there grace gives great strength.

Many now claim the name of Philadelphia. Those who thus boast are in danger of assuming the name without bearing its characteristics. None so liable to follow in the wake of those who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and despised others as those who in spiritual pride pretend to greater faithfulness, of higher spirituality, of being represented by Gideon's select band. It is much more like the boast of Laodicea— “I am rich, and increased in goods.” Not so Philadelphia, whose great care was to keep Christ's word and not deny His name, who, perhaps, were unconscious that they had any strength at all, till the Lord told them they had little: The boasting of Laodicea is the same in character as that of Great Babylon— “sit as a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.” This arrogance was the immediate precursor of judgment.

It may be quite true that there are saints now bearing testimony of a Philadelphian character; but they are not known by the assumption of superior intelligence and holiness. Their distinctive mark is, “Because thou hast kept the word of my patience.” This implies suffering, and equally points to the hope of the Lord's quick return; the hope which cheers and invigorates the patient saint in every trial. Patience is much more needed when fellow-saints speak unkindly than when the world persecutes. This, I apprehend, is the special point here, and the Lord gives special encouragement. “Behold, I come quickly;” when He comes, there will be no more need of patience; till then, “hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.”

Laodicea gives the last aspect of the nominal church, and He who stands in the midst of the candlesticks sends a last message. He knocks at the door. Laodicea is not in the deathly cold condition of Sardis, but in what is even more offensive to the Lord. “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot; I would thou wart cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” The deadness of Sardis was worse than the corruptness of Thyatira, and the lukewarmness of Laodicea worse than the deadness of Sardis. Protestants may boast in being free from Romish idolatry, but lukewarm orthodoxy is more hateful than corrupt doctrine. All the previous evils in the churches call for judgment, but nowhere such abhorrence and disgust as here. It is Sardis death pretending to Philadelphia life; it is the five foolish virgins with the lamp of profession, but no oil. There is nothing good found in them. In the former steps of the declining church some were found who in a little way met the mind of the Lord. To Laodicea the Lord says, “Thou art miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.” They are counseled to buy gold and white raiment of the Lord. To buy! It seems to point to the impossibility of obtaining what they needed, save indeed by parting with their pretended riches, and confessing their real condition. For with what else could they buy? Nevertheless they were responsible to obtain the gold tried by fire and the white raiment. So the foolish virgins were told to go and buy oil for themselves. Terrible moment: when having refused and now, as it were, denied the gift of grace, they are bidden to get their need supplied as best they can. Over Laodicea the Lord lingers in mercy. He says, “buy of me.” We know how He sells, and He alone in the darkest, guiltiest condition of the professing church can supply the need. And He was ready and waiting to do so. He would not turn away, and makes a last appeal in declaring both His love and righteous dealing. “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten, be zealous therefore and repent.” To all who would repent, there was the assurance of His love. The solemn fact appears here, that although one like the Son of man is in the midst of the churches judging their condition, the Lord Jesus, as the One present in the midst of the two or three gathered to His Name, is not in Laodicea. He is without knocking. Nor is He now knocking at the door of the church, but at the door of each heart. It is individual: “If any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sap with him, and he with me.” Can we gather from this that one or more souls in Laodicea will hear His voice and open the door? Grace is sufficient even for this. But the church as a corporate body is not owned, and the rain is complete and final. Compare this end with the bright beginning at Pentecost. The deep failure of the nominal church is only exceeded by the grace which has kept the real children of God—spite of their failure—through the constantly deepening darkness from Ephesus to Laodicea. The root of all the evil was found in Ephesus; is the ripe fruit now visible? There is high pretension, and mixed with a walk defiled and defiling, and the word to each one, “To him that overcometh,” comes with increased force as the end approaches.

In this pictorial history of the church, the actual rapture of the saints is not given. Is it not at the same moment as the spueing out of His mouth of Laodicea? That is, when the true but imperfect witness is caught up to the Lord in the air, is not the utterly false witness rejected? But the hope was given as the only stay—when all else was gone. Evil was so inveterate that the only remedy is the Lord coming to take His own out of the defiled place. Church history as given by “the testimony of Jesus Christ” is but the slide from the position of witness of the grace of God down to a place of infamy and disgust, and at the same time sovereign grace interposing and gathering out a remnant, and bestowing blessings which if not more than at the first are surely intensified and made all the more prominent through corporate failure. A testimony truly of unfaithfulness, yea, of the worst evil that ever rose up against the love and authority of the Lord, but also of the sovereign power of grace preserving some to know and enjoy the fullness of the love of Christ. What can be sweeter to the heart that in any feeble measure responds to His love, than the last words of promise to Philadelphia, “I will write upon him my new name “? We must have the writing to know its joy.

King Saul: Part 1

There is not in Scripture a character that furnishes more solemn warning than that of King Saul. As we pass on from stage to stage through his history, it fills the soul with very awful thoughts of the treachery and corruption of the heart of man; and as we are sure that it has been written for our learning (Rom. 15:4), we may well be thankful to our God for the counsel that it gives us, and seek His grace that we may read the holy lesson to profit.

But this we should know, that, though the Spirit of God may have thus graciously recorded these acts of the wicked for our learning, they were all executed by the hand and according to the heart of the man himself. God is to be known here, and in similar histories, only in that holy sovereignty which draws good out of evil, and in that, care for His saints which records that evil or their admonition.

The first Book of Samuel has a very distinct character. It strikingly exhibits the removal of man and the bringing in of God. It accordingly opens with the barren woman receiving a child from the Lord; this being, in scripture, the constant symbol of grace, and the pledge of divine power acting on the incompetency of the creature. It then shows us the priesthood (which had been set in formal order and succession) corrupting itself and removed by judgment, and upon that God's Priest (who was to do according to his heart, and for whom he was to build a sure house) brought in. (2:35.) And then, in like manner, it shows us the kingdom (at first set according to man's desire) corrupting itself, and removed by judgment, and upon that God's King (who was also after His heart, and for whom He would also build a sure house) brought in. Thus, this Book exhibits everything, whether in the sanctuary or on the throne, while in man's hand coming to ruin, and the final committal of everything to the hand of God's anointed. And this anointed of God, we know, in the dispensation of the fullness of times, is to be none less than the Son of God Himself, God's King to hold the immoveable kingdom, and God's Priest to hold the untransferrable priesthood.

The history of King Saul properly begins with the eighth chapter of this book. There we find the revolted heart of Israel, which had been departing from the Lord, as He there tells Samuel, ever since He had brought them out of Egypt, seeking still greater distance from Him, and desiring a king in the stead of Him. The ill government of Samuel's sons at this time was their pretense, but it was only a pretense. There is no doubt that they did act corruptly, and Samuel may have been at fault in making them judges, consulting perhaps too much with flesh and blood, and too little with Israel's welfare and the Lord's honor. But the Lord discloses the real source of this desire for a king, saying to Samuel, “They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.” Like Moses in such a case (Ex. 16:7), Samuel was nothing that the people should murmur against him or his sons; their murmurings were not against him, but against the Lord.

“Israel would none of me,” says the Lord, “so I gave them up unto their own hearts' lust, and they walked in their own counsels.” (Psa. 81:12.) They shall have what their soul was now lusting after, but they shall find it to be their plague. Their own king shall be their sorrow and ruin, as all our own things are, if we will follow them and have them. “He feedeth on ashes, a deceived heart turned him aside.” What but ashes (sorrow and death) does the labor of our own hands gather for us? So is it always, try it in what way we may, and so was Israel now to find it in their own king. (8:11-17.)

But in wonted grace, the Lord here gives His people space to repent of this their evil choice before they reaped the bitter fruit of it. And this was just what He had done before at Mount Sinai. When they were there bent on accepting the fiery law, as though they could keep it and live by it, Moses is made to pass and repass between them and the Lord, in order, as it seems, to give them space to turn and still trust in that grace which had redeemed them from Egypt, and not cast themselves on the terms of Mount Sinai. (See Ex. 19) And so here, I believe, with the same intent Samuel passes again and again between the Lord and the people, But as they there listened to their own heart in its confidence and self-sufficiency, so here they will have a king in spite of all God's gracious warning. They take their own way again.

And I ask, dear brethren, is not this His way, and alas! too often our way still? Is He not often checking us by His Spirit, that we go not in the way of our own heart, and yet are we not like Israel, too often heedless of His Spirit? And what do we ever find the end of our own way to be, but grief and confusion? For the Lord has only to leave us to ourselves, if He would fain leave us for destruction. Legion is the fearful witness of this. (Mark 5) He presents man in his proper native condition, choosing the captivity of Satan, and, as such, being one whom nothing could relieve but that sovereign grace which does not atop to take counsel with man's own desire (for then it would never act), but which goes right onward with its own purpose to rescue and to bless.

But such was Israel now, knowing only their own will in this matter of the king. And this at once prepares us for the manner of person that we are to find in their forthcoming king. For the willful people must have a willful king. Of none other could it be said that all the desire of Israel was on him. Of none other could Samuel have said, “Behold the king whom ye have chosen, and whom ye have desired.” None other could have been the king of this people.

But all this forebodes fearful things, in the king, and fearful days for Israel. And so shall we find it. In the divine order such a time as the reign of King Saul has its appointed uses. Showing us the kingdom in man's hand, it serves to set off the kingdom in God's hand—mischief and corruption and disaster marking the one, honor and blessing and rest the other. The kingdom brought in by their own desire would let them see how unequal they were to provide for their own happiness; just as “this present evil world,” which our own lusts have formed and fashioned, is found unequal to satisfy, leaving us subject to vanity still. But with all this, God's workmanship will stand in blessed contrast. The kingdom under Saul in all its wretchedness and shame might set off the glorious and peaceful days of David and Solomon, as this world of ours will set off “the world to come” in the days of the Son of man.

But however the Lord may thus serve His own glory and His people's comfort by this, it is Israel that now bring this season of shame and sorrow on themselves. They sow the wind to reap the whirlwind. Saul comes forth, the chosen one of a willful and revolted nation, to do his evil work. And thus he stands in one rank with another more wicked than himself. He stands as the type and brother of that king in the latter day who is to do “according to his will” the one who is to come “in his own name,” and say in his heart “no God.” Saul was now coming forth the first of that line of shepherds or rulers who were “to feed themselves and not the flock,” to eat the fat, and clothe them with the wool (Ezek. 34), and do all that evil work that is here prophesied of Israel's own king, and fill out that character that is here drawn of Saul.

Into the hand of such shepherds Israel is now cast, seeing they had rejected the Lord their good Shepherd, and desired one after their own heart. The first of them, as we here find, was of that tribe of which it had been said of old, “Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf, in the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall divide the spoil.” (Gen. 49:27.) And he was of that city, in that tribe, which had already wrought such mischief in Israel, and been the occasion of nearly blotting out the memorial of one of the tribes from among the people of the Lord. (Judg. 19-21)

But we further learn of him, that though belonging to the least of all the families of his tribe, and that, too, the smallest tribe in Israel, his father Cis was “a mighty man of substance.” And from this description, I gather that Saul and his father had prospered in this world, being men who were wise in their generation, people of that class who “will be rich,” though nature and family and circumstances are all against them. And Saul is first shown to us searching for his father's assess. Something of the family property was missing, and it must be searched for—their own ass had fallen into the ditch and it must be taken out. But though thus careful of his own things, he seems, as yet at least, to have had no great care for the things of God, for he does not at this time know even the person of Samuel, who was now the great witness of God in the land; and soon after this, his neighbors, “who had known him aforetime,” wonder with great wonder that he should be found among the prophets, so that to this day he is a proverb. All these are notices of what generation he was, telling us that though as yet in an humble sphere, his and his father's house had been formed rather by the low principles of the world, than by worthy thoughts of the Lord of Israel. And such an one was just fit to be directed to Samuel at the time when the worldly heart of the people was desiring a king. His mind was upon the asses, as Samuel seems to hint. The world was set in his heart, though from circumstances it had not as yet been developed in many of its proper fruits. And this is awful warning, beloved. Circumstances, as here, may indeed be needed in order to prove the ground of the heart; but it is the heart itself that determines the man before God (chap. xvi. 7), and sooner or later will determine the life before men. (Proverbs iv. 28; Matt. 15:19.)

In accordance with all this, on being introduced to the intended king, we have no mention whatever of any moral qualifications that he had. All that we learn of him is this, “that he was a choice young man, and a goodly, and there was not among the children of Israel a goodlier person than he; from his shoulders and upward he was higher than any of the people.” Thus and thus only is he spoken of. He is judged of simply after the flesh, looked at only in the outward man, and thus was suited to man who had desired him, for “man looketh on the outward appearance.” Therefore when the people saw his stature and nothing more, they cry, “God save the king.” This was the king after their heart. He was of the world, and the world loved its own.

And here let me say, that if Saul be thus the man after man's heart, and David, as we read afterward, the man after God's heart, we learn in the one what we are, and in the other what God is. And the distinctive characters of the two kings is this: Saul would have everything his own and be everything himself; David was willing to be nothing and to have nothing, but still in whatever state he was, to be the diligent unselfish servant of others. And thus man, to our shame, is presented in the narrow-heartedness of Saul, but God to our comfort in the generous self-devotement of David.

All this character of Saul will be awfully disclosed in all the passages of his future history, but the same principles are even now early at work. It may be that the less practiced eye cannot discern this, and it is indeed well and happy to be “simple concerning evil.” But heart will sometimes answer to heart, and make some of us, beloved, quicker to detect its treachery than others. Thus in Saul keeping back Samuel's words touching the kingdom, in hiding himself among the stuff when the lot had fallen upon him, and again in holding his peace when some would not give him their voices, there is in all this, I judge, only the show of virtue. For the love of the world and of its praise can afford to be humble and generous at times. It can even send forth those or any other virtues, taking care, however, to send them forth in such a direction as to make them bring home, after a short journey, some rich revenues to the ruling lusts.

In the hand of such an one is the kingdom of Israel now vested, but such an one was not “God's king.” To give them a king, however, appears to have been God's purpose from the beginning. The prophetic words of both Jacob and Moses upon Judah, as also the words by Balaam (Num. 24:17), intimate this; as also Moses' title, “king in Jeshurun.” And more than these, the ordinance touching the king in Deut. 17, and the fact that the Lord Jesus Himself sought the kingdom when He was here (Matt. 21:1), and in the end, at His second coming will take it (Psa. 2:6), prove that God's first purpose was to give Israel a king.

But things were not ready for the king all at once; various previous courses must be accomplished, ere that top stone in the divine building could be brought forth. Israel at first had to be redeemed from bondage—then to be carried through the wilderness to learn the ways and secrets of God's love—then to get their promised inheritance delivered out of the hand of the usurper. Till these things were done, all was not in readiness for the king. Had these things been simply accomplished, the king without delay would have appeared to crown the whole work with the full beauty of the Lord. But each stage in this way of the Lord Israel had sadly interrupted and delayed. After redemption from Egypt they had given themselves, through disobedience, forty years' travel in the wilderness; after taking the inheritance, they had again, through disobedience, brought pricks into their sides and thorns in their eyes; and now they forestal God's king, and through disobedience and willfulness again bring their own king, as another plague upon them. But this is the way of man, beloved, the way of us all by nature. Through unbelief and willfulness we refuse to wait God's time, and we procure a Saul for ourselves. It was thus that Sarah brought Ishmael into her house, and Jacob his twenty-one years of exile and servitude upon himself. Our own crooked policy and unbelief must answer for these sorrows. God, if waited for, would bring the blessing that maketh rich and which addeth no sorrow with it; but our own way only teaches us that he that soweth to the flesh must of the flesh reap corruption. To this day Israel is learning this, and reaping the fruit of the tree they planted, learning the service of the nations whom, like Saul, they have set over themselves; and their only joy lies in this, that God's counsel of grace, in spite of all, is to stand, and His own king shall still sit on His holy hill of Zion.

But in spite of all this, and though Israel is now transferred into other hands, God will prove that nothing should be wanting on His part. He had not only signified Saul to Samuel, and Samuel had then signified Saul at the sacrificial feast, and anointed and kissed him, (9:10.), but in the mouth of several witnesses the divine purpose had been established, and the Spirit, as faculty for office, had been imparted, and an “occasion,” as Samuel speaks (10:7) for proving that God was thus with the king, now arrives.

(To be continued.)

Perilous Times: Part 2

But from what are we saved? clearly from eternal judgment (Heb. 6:2). No, say some, not eternal, but age-long. It is admitted that whether the meaning of the word αἰώνιος is age-long or eternal, depends upon the context. Where God's governmental dealings with this world are concerned (i.e. where αἰώνιος is spoken of in reference to the duration of a dispensation, or to a course of things in this world), it no doubt has the accommodated sense of age-long, and this is the sense of “forever” almost invariably in the Old Testament. But in the New Testament, where the curtain which previously shut out the future, is, as it were, drawn aside, and eternal issues, in the strictest sense of the term, are disclosed, we find the word αἰώνιος used in its most absolute sense in reference to God, and as the context proves in an absolute sense also as regards either the future happiness or future punishment of men. Nothing, for instance, could be more arbitrary or illogical than to assert that the word αἰώνιος signifies different periods of duration in the two clauses of Matt. 25:46. If the life is eternal in the latter clause, and in the absolute sense of the term, so it is in the case of everlasting punishment, i.e. in the former clause. And in whatever sense the Spirit is eternal in Heb. 9:14, in that sense as to futurity is judgment eternal in Heb. 6:2. Nor is the meaning of never-ending (in contrast with what has a termination, i.e. with what is temporal) unknown to Greek classical writers; on the contrary, it is distinctly used in this contrast, as convincingly pointed out by others. It is therefore deeply to be regretted that professed teachers in the Church assert otherwise. Far safer and more true is the opinion of Pearson, in his “Exposition of the Creed” (Article, “And the life everlasting"). So likewise Neander, in his Church History, vol. p. 11, note, says: “Hence the different meanings given by the Gnostics to the word αἰών, which besides its primitive—signification eternity is used by them to denote sometimes the Eternal, as a distinguishing attribute of the Supreme Essence; sometimes the primary divine powers above described; sometimes the whole emanation-world, πλήρωμα, as contradistinguished from the temporal world. In the last-mentioned sense it is employed by Heracleon.” The simple Christian may rest assured that the natural meaning to which he is accustomed is the true one. Universalism (or the doctrine that all will be saved in the end) lays God, as it were, under a compulsion, under a law of love, a necessity arising from His nature as love, which not only ignores His being light, but which really is a denial of free and sovereign grace on His part, whilst it utterly denies the incisive and decisive terms of the gospel, and the critical form in which it is presented to us in Scripture by denying the finality of its issues, viz. everlasting life, and everlasting judgment. It implies that God would not be love, and that He would not be just if He punished any eternally, and thus virtually judges God, even though this may be far from being intended.

Again, there are two distinct resurrections, that of life and that of judgment (John 5:29). As regards those raised from the dead in the latter, is it conceivable that they will again die, and again be raised? Yet this must be the case if they are to have glorified bodies. No! these states are fixed and everlasting. There is the second death, the lake of fire, but no third death, and no second resurrection for the same persons. Men may endeavor to force Scripture, so as to suit their own predilections; but the truth remains unalterable in itself, and palpable to those who read it in honesty and simplicity.

“All men,” says the Apostle, “have not faith.” Faith is indeed the greatest vantage ground that the creature could receive. Wealth, power, intellect,—these fall infinitely short of it; for faith connects one with God, and gives an intelligence which even intellect cannot attain. But the sad thing is that, not only men generally have not faith, but they are opposed to those who have, and to those things which can only be apprehended by faith. When redemption is known, and the love of Christ in saving us, what could be more interesting to us—as at any time what could be more solemn for all men—than the account of our creation, as revealed to us in the word of God! What deliberation “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Thus Adam is called “the Son of God” (Luke 3:33), and God's loving interest in him is thus expressed, “And my delights were with the sons of men” (Prov. viii. 31).

With the utmost deliberation God forms man, directly and immediately, from the dust of the ground, and, by the direct and personal impartation of His breath, endows man with a rational and imperishable soul. Adam is thus formed in the image of God. True, of all living creatures upon the face of the earth, Adam and Eve were the last formed. This terrestrial creation, of which Adam was to be the head and lord, was first prepared for him, and then, by a distinct and superior creative act, Adam was placed at the head of it. In the face of this plain yet noble statement of divine revelation, what are we to think of the disgusting and atheistical theory of Evolution? That in other ages of the world men have so utterly given up God, and become so debased in their minds and thoughts, as to propound and believe all kinds of irrational theories, is indeed true;—what is so extraordinary and so startling is, that in the light of Christianity, and side by side with the Bible, such atheistical theories can exist and find acceptance. It is infidelity as to the Bible, and as to every truth the Bible contains. In a certain sense and to a certain degree men may persuade themselves to anything; yet we doubt if a man can ever succeed in altogether eliminating from his mind and conscience the conviction that there is a God. We doubt if there is such a being as a genuine atheist. We doubt, too, the possibility of really believing in annihilation. There is that within us all which tells us that the rational soul cannot die, and that to God it is accountable. And why, the gospel being what it is, should men wish it to be otherwise? “Come, for all things are now ready,” is the gracious invitation to us all. It is infatuation, and worse than infatuation, to refuse it. It is to reject Divine mercy, and to retain a responsibility which renders men liable to eternal punishment. Throughout the whole of Scripture we can trace, as it were, two parallel threads, which are never separated, yet never confused. These are righteousness and grace, represented in the Garden of Eden by the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (responsibility), and by the tree of life (grace). In Christ alone these have been perfectly reconciled, so that God's love and mercy can now have free course. Out of Christ they are irreconcilable, and judgment consequently ensues.

And it is striking to observe that whilst righteous judgment is so much the subject of the Revelation of John, yet the other thread of Divine grace can be so conspicuously traced throughout it. The very fact that God used the Apostle, who in his other writings dwells so much upon the intrinsic nature of God as Love (though as Light also), to write the book of Revelation, is itself no small indication that even there grace cannot be forgotten. But the awful consequences to the sinner of responsibility without life, i.e. without Christ, are inevitable, and are shown with fearful clearness in this book.

The theory of evolution puts man as a created being at the greatest possible distance from his Creator, and, denying the directness with which he came from the hands of God, destroys the sense of relationship to, and of immediate dependence on, God; it mocks the solemnity of his creation as described in Scripture, ignores the moral likeness to God in which he was created, and leaves the first origin of life wholly unaccounted for. It admits a sort of climax or goal, towards which the process of evolution is tending, or has tended, and prefers to attribute to it, rather than to diversity in unity, as God's creative plan, the wonderfully complex yet harmonious universe of which we form part, i.e. to blind impulse rather than to a preconceived design on the part of the Almighty. There is in organic life a continuity of design, and a unity in design. Emanating from the same creative center, the Deity, there is progress in the scale of creation, yet with separativeness of origin. Hence, like so many other catch phrases, Lyell's use of the term “independent creation” is, to say the least, extremely ambiguous.

Distinct acts of creation harmonize with creation as a whole, whilst being distinct: as each piece in a dissected map is in itself distinct, yet requisite to the completeness of the map in its entirety. In all God's works, creation as well as revelation, there is a wonderful co-ordination, and mutual adaptation, and in this sense no one specific act of creation is independent. But as to the fact of distinct and separate acts of creation, Scripture is express, and all human investigation and discovery, confirm it. Speaking of the grass, the herb, and the fruit tree, it says of each, “whose seed was in itself after his kind;” and of fishes “after their kind,” also of terrestrial animals that they were created “after their kind:” i.e. God created each kind separately, endowing each with its own seed; as conversely we read in 1 Cor. xx. 38, 39 that to each seed God has given its own body, and that in a similar manner one flesh differs from another. Hence in principle the definition of species is true, viz., “a species consists of individuals having a common resemblance, and reproducing their like by generation.” The records of geology, confirmed by all human experience and observation, establish the fixity within reasonable limits of species as above defined, and are utterly opposed to the theory of transmutation.

Absurd as is the notion of transmigration or metempsychosis, we could more readily believe it than that of evolution, and think the doctrine of Pythagoras just about as reasonable as that of Darwin, both being in fact, and in effect, simply heathenish. All that believe the Bible know very well that there are such beings as angels,—that they were created long before man, and that as an order of creation (we speak not now of what redemption will accomplish in due time, and in this respect) they are superior to man. Yet the pre-existence of a superior class of creatures is antagonistic to the theory of transmutation. In all points, Divine revelation, human experience, and geological records are opposed to it. We readily acknowledge that Mr. Darwin in his work on the “Origin of Species” has brought together many highly interesting facts—facts of importance in truly scientific investigation; but there is an infinite gap between any conclusion or conclusions they really support and justify, and the monstrous conclusion it is simply assumed that they warrant. Interesting natural phenomena are here most artfully intermixed with ingenious but unfounded surmises, whilst not a thing which essentially makes for the Darwinian or Lamarckian theory is proved, nor is one which makes for the Bible account of creation disproved. Whether we go back to the period of Egyptian history, or much farther back to the glacial period, or to any geological period whatever, the necessary links in the chain of evidence are wholly wanting. That every germinal vesicle in nature has sprung from one primordial spore,—vesicles which, whatever may be their apparent resemblance, are each endowed with its own form of life, and each requiring a principle of life peculiar to itself, in order to fertilize it,—that vesicles thus specially distinct could have sprung from one primordial spore, and this from some inherent power of development, amounts to a moral contradiction, and is even more absurd than to say that all the chemical elements have originated from one pure and simple; for here, at least, it could be no question of opposed organic tendencies leading to separate and independent existence.

The fact that a species consists of individuals bearing a common resemblance and reproducing their like by generation, remains (allowance being made for a certain range in each case within which variation is possible, though unstable) unaltered and unalterable. That the two processes are going on at the same time, viz. propagation by generation, and transmutation, would seem an extraordinary state of things, yet this must be if transmutation is true, for what is there to put a stop to it?—and if stopped, why (for each genus and species) just where it is,—the relative proportions of the various parts of animate nature so beautifully observed. But the gap between even the highest developed ape and the lowest example of humanity is immense;—how is this, and what has become of the missing links? It seems to us, in short, that the Darwinian theory is sufficiently refuted by those cases of evolution which nature does exhibit. For instance, the egg, the larva, the chrysalis, the butterfly, and then the egg again,—yet from the egg to the butterfly but one life, but one act of generation. So again we find the egg, the tadpole, the frog, and again the egg, i.e. the circle of evolution completed in one life and with only one act of generation,—all originating in one germinal vesicle, to which, specifically, it returns. In no other way or sense is evolution possible. The doctrine of development, whether as applied to biology or to theology is really infidel,—an attempt to stamp with the Divine sanction, and thus to justify, thorough and fatal departure from the truth as contained in Divine revelation.

Christ is the truth absolutely—the Scriptures in a written form: there can be no development in these, though there may be in individuals the increasing in the know ledge of the truth, the “growing up to Christ in all things.” But whatever is opposed to Scripture is error, and no development of truth at all. It is true that Scripture does not profess to teach science, and as little to teach, what it does teach or narrate, in a scientific way; its language in this respect is generally phenomenal. As connected with nature, science has its use; Scripture is concerned with an infinitely more momentous object and subject, the glory of God where sin is in question;—still any conclusions of science which contradict Divine revelation are necessarily and at once judged by it. If the upholders of science venture to deny the omnipotence of God, or to assert the eternity of matter, God's word, i.e. Divine authority, judges such conclusions as untrue and dishonoring to God. We think it is to be regretted that a Hebrew scholar of no little weight in this country, himself no doubt a Christian man, should deny that in Gen. 1:1 bara means to create out of nothing. It is true that it does not in all cases mean so, but in the above text it certainly means to create in the most absolute sense, i.e. out of nothing, or an argument is thus unintentionally given for the ungodly notion of the eternity of matter. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” This alludes to the very origin of matter, not to formation, but to creation. Is it conceivable that nowhere in the Bible is God spoken of as having in the absolute sense created matter? and where should it be asserted that He did so, but in the first verse of the first chapter of Genesis? He is the absolute Creator of matter as of life, as also the organizer of nature in its different kingdoms, the mineral, the vegetable, and the animal. These different kingdoms are constituent parts of, so to speak, one imperial whole. The Schoolmen, following Aristotle, state four universal causes of existing things: 1, the Material; 2, the Formal; 3, the Efficient; 4, the Final. The material cause was supposed to be that common substance or nature out of which things are made; the formal, that by which one object is made to differ from others produced out of the same common matter; the efficient, or motive cause, that which originates the motion or change from which the particular thing results; the final, that tendency or end to which the whole process of formation has reference, and in which it is completed. Corresponding with this, there are four words in Hebrew signifying to create, make, or form, and of these Bara refers to the Efficient cause.

Whether as regards Creation, or as regards the entrance of sin and misery into this world, no satisfactory solution exists, but that which is given in Divine Revelation. The wisest and best of the heathen writers of old were utterly baffled in the attempt to solve the problem; nor is it to be wondered at that those who now attempt to solve it apart from Scripture signally fail to do so. Yet confident in their own powers and theories, men reject the only true Light. But even though thought weak and contemptible by the wise of this world, the Christian may with truth say, “By the words of thy lips have I kept me from the paths of the destroyer,” and may rest assured that he is “kept by the power of God through faith unto a salvation ready to be revealed.”

On Acts 2:37-49

The effect of this solemn appeal to conscience, grounded on testimonies of Scripture undeniably direct, was both immediate and permanent. The truth of God searched His people unsparingly, His grace met them in sovereign goodness, and established in them the Christ whom they had so blindly and wickedly rejected.

“ And when they heard they were pricked in heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, What shall we do, brethren? And Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized each of you in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Him. And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, Be saved from this perverse generation. Those then that accepted his word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand souls. And they persevered in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, the breaking of bread and the prayers. And fear came upon every soul; and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things common, and sold their possessions and substance, and distributed them to all according as anyone had need. And day by day, continuing with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they did take their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding day by day together those that were to be saved” (ver. 37-47).

It was a real work of God in the conscience. They were not persuaded only, but pricked in heart. There was submission to His person whom they had just crucified, and this through faith in God's word. It was not mere remorse, still less a change of mind only, but a real judgment of self before God, whose part they now took against themselves and their unbelieving evil in the past, and a distinct casting themselves on Him whom they had so bitterly despised to their own ruin. Now they repented, and were baptized each of them in the name of Jesus for remission of sins. Through His name the believer receives remission of sins; in none other is, there salvation. He is exalted to give repentance and remission of sins. As they repented, so also were they baptized in His name, according to the charge laid on His servants. They took the place of death with Him: I say not that they then understood its meaning, as they doubtless entered into it more or less afterward. The Lord directed His servants to baptize; and the new converts simply and without question submitted. It was His way, nor is any other so good, though many a servant of His has diverged from His orders, and many a convert seems in effect to think himself, in this as in other things, wiser than his Master. It was a clean final break with sins and sin, with man and religions man, with Judaism. Little or nothing could any one of these confessors be supposed at this solemn new-born epoch to apprehend with intelligence; but they did feel before God their own nothingness, and the all-sufficiency of His name who had died on the cross. And they were welcome to the precious privilege conferred on them, as they could in no way have been recognized as disciples of His had they refused baptism in His name. It was the mark of His confession, the sign of salvation; and woe to him that spurns the authority and grace of Him who instituted it.

But there is another matter of new and immense import that follows. These repentant Jews who submitted to baptism in the name a Jesus Christ for remission of sins are assured of the subsequent gift of the Spirit: “And ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

They were already born of God: without which there could be no repentance, nor faith. They were to be baptized with water in the name of Jesus for remission. Not till then was the believing Jew to receive the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; for this is in question here, “the gift” (ἡ δωρεά), not merely the gifts (τὰ χαρίσματα) or powers which accompanied and attested His divine presence now on earth. It is the more necessary to insist on the specific character of the truth, because of the widespread confusion as to all this in Christendom. The gift of the Spirit here spoken of, the peculiar and abiding privilege of the Christian and the Church, is as distinct from new birth by the Spirit as from the gifts of which we read not a little in the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles. But there is a circumstantial difference in the manner to be noticed, that while the favored Jew in Acts 2 had to be baptized before he receives this wondrous gift, the hitherto despised Gentile receives the Holy Ghost before being baptized in the name of the Lord: a difference in my judgment worthy of God, and for His children instructive in His ways.

The inestimable gift was not overlooked in Old Testament Scripture: not only the new blessings of redemption in general, but that of the Spirit particularly. And Peter could here say that the promise was to them and to their children, yea, to all that were afar off, as many as the Lord their God should call to Him. Now that the time was come for displaying, not law nor government, but grace, God would call to Himself the most distant, and bless the needy to the fall. It is no question of a mere external sign, but of the power of God in grace according to His promise.

This was not by any means all the Apostle urged on that memorable day; but from among more and different words it sufficed the Holy Ghost to recall the exhortation, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” For now God was about to separate as well as forgive and deliver; at least the salvation goes beyond guilt and sin. He would set apart from the perverse generation hurrying on to its speedy ruin, which was rejecting the gospel as it had the Messiah Himself. From the separate people now proved utterly crooked and rebellious He would have His own to be saved, for His own glory and after a new way. This the rest of the book we have begun to study opens out to us; nor can anything of the sort be to us of deeper interest or of more practical value. For we too, though Gentiles naturally, belong to this new family of God, and new testimony of Christ.

“Those then that accepted his word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand souls” (ver. 41). “Gladly,” the reading of the Received Text, is rejected on ample evidence by the critics as not found in the oldest and best authorities. It seems to be a perhaps unconscious importation from, or effect of, chap. 21:17, where it is in perfect keeping. Here it is not. For, precious and comforting as the gospel may be, deep seriousness would characterize those souls so newly repentant, and on grounds suited to sound them thoroughly. A “glad” reception would better harmonize with a revival movement and its generally superficial results. The Pentecostal work was both profound and extensive: three thousand souls that day were no slight haul, but in every way suited to prove that a Divine person was, just come in grace no less than power, both to save and to gather. So it is the Lord's will that we should ever remember and heed from first to last. The Holy Spirit works by the gospel and forms the church.

Further, the Spirit abides evermore, so as to cut off all excuse for not going on with God according to His word and will. So here it is noted that “they persevered in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, the breaking of bread, and the prayers” (ver. 42). Such was the course on which entered the souls just born to God and blessed of Him in Christ. The teaching of the apostles supplied the needed instruction, fitted perfectly as they were, not only by the Spirit's recalling to their remembrance all the words of the Lord Jesus, but by His own communication, according to the. Savior's promise, of all that they themselves could not then bear. Never was there such teaching for souls whose very recent introduction into divine relationships made them hunger and thirst for all would satisfy the new spiritual wants and affections of their souls. And they had it not orally alone, but after a while also in forms written by inspiration, that we too might have “fellowship” with them, taking in now not the twelve only but the great apostle of the Gentiles yet to be called. For “teaching,” however valuable, is not enough without “fellowship “; and few weigh how much they owe to the presence and living commentary on the truth which sharing it all together in practice furnishes. Then “the breaking of bread” has a most influential place, both keeping the Lord continually before the saints in His unspeakable grace and suffering, and in drawing out the deepest feelings of the heart, where the exercise or display of power might be otherwise a danger, as we see at Corinth, where the true character of the Eucharist was lost, and the assembly became a scene of ostentation. Nor are “the prayers,” meaning I suppose the united or common prayers of the saints, left out of this weighty record; for none can neglect “the prayers” without loss otherwise irreparable; and so much the more of moment were they then as the saints rose to the full joy of their new and everlasting blessedness. For power and privilege would be of all things the most fatal if the saints slipped out of the sense of needed and constant dependence on God.

On the one hand, the moral impression was great and immediate (ver. 43): “fear came upon every soul;” and not the less, but the more, because it was the effect of God's presence in grace, not in judgments which alarm for a moment but soon yield to a fatal reaction. “And many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.” The manifestations of power were not only marvelous, but significant, so as to reveal Him who wrought by means of His servants in His character and ways; alas! among a people manifestly treated as unbelieving and apostate: else His word had sufficed and made them out of place.

On the other hand, how lovely the picture the faithful present for a brief moment! “And an that believed were together, and had all things common, and sold their possessions and substance, and distributed them to all according as any one had need. And day by day, continuing with one accord in the temple and breaking bread at home, they did take their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding day by day together those that were to be saved” (ver. 44-47). Never before was such a sight among men on earth; never such love rising above the selfishness of nature, not merely in that land and race, but in any other; and all through the power of divine grace in the name of the Crucified now seen by faith on high. It was sweet fruit of the Spirit as far as possible from a claim or command, however right be the voice of divine authority in its place. But here was the flow, mighty yet unbidden, of divine love that embraced everyone begotten of God, without reserve or stint in hearts which answered in their measure to His who with His Son vouchsafes us all things. It was, no doubt, a peculiar hour of transitional character, exactly suited to a state which beheld all the faithful within one city; what, in fact we never do find when grace called and gathered elsewhere, and especially from among the Gentiles. There love surely was not wanting in the power of God; yet did it never take this shape, but one more adapted to the one body, where-ever found on earth. So, too, we may observe the continuing in the temple as yet steadfastly, perhaps more so than ever, whilst they celebrated “at home” (not “from house to house”) the Lord's Supper: deep and solemn joy in the remembrance of the Savior, but unabated attachment as yet to the temple and its hours of prayer. Even ordinary meals were lit up with the happiness of His presence: how much more where all His self-sacrifice was before their eyes 1 Thus did they praise God, and all the people regarded them with the favor with which they viewed Christ Himself in His earlier days (Luke 2:52). In the last verse “to the assembly” appears to be a gloss. “Together,” from 3:1, should come in here: “and the Lord was adding day by day together those were to be saved." It was the church, but described, not yet so designated till chap. 5:11, where the saints there called out together are styled “the assembly” or church.

On 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18

Having thus exhorted the saints to personal purity, and connected divine love with the quiet discharge of daily duty, so often apt to be neglected on that very plea and the vain pretension to higher ways, the Apostle now turns to their immoderate sorrow and surprise at the death of some among them. So filled were they with the expectation of the presence of the Lord, that they had not conceived the possibility of any saints thus passing away. They looked only for His coming, and drew inferences which, not being of the Lord, exposed them, as all human reasonings do, to danger. The need then was to maintain the truth, but to guard from such a misuse; but grace vouchsafed fresh and fuller light for them and for us.

“But we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning those that fall asleep; that ye be not grieved even as the rest also that have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, so also those put to sleep through Jesus will God bring with Him. For this we say to you in [the] word of [the] Lord, that we, the living that remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise precede those put to sleep; because the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout of command, with archangel's voice, and with trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we, the living that remain, shall be caught up together with them in clouds to meet [the] Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord. So then encourage one another with these words” (ver. 13-18).

The Thessalonian saints knew, as a settled certainty, of the Lord's coming and kingdom. They were waiting for Him, the Son of God, from heaven as a constant hope, the nearest hope of their hearts. They had never taken into account that He might tarry according to the will of God who would gather fresh souls to the fellowship of His love, while letting the world ripen in iniquity and lawlessness, whether in proud unbelief or in hollow profession, till the apostasy come and the man of sin be revealed. As to all this they lacked instruction, having enjoyed the teaching of the Apostle for but a short season, and no epistle being yet written. This is the first the Apostle Paul ever wrote; and while promoting the joy and growth of faith, of nothing does he write as a more necessary help than to supply a lack, which, if not filled up by divine revelation, laid active minds open to the enemy through speculations which he would soon suggest in order to undermine the truth already known, or their souls' confidence in God.

Their grief was excessive like the rest of men, Jews, or rather heathen, that have no hope. Why such extravagant sorrow about those who, if called hence, knew God's love and salvation in the Lord Jesus? Is life eternal a vain thing? Is remission of sins, or the possession of the Holy Spirit? Surely it must be only ignorance on their part, and not that any called of God to His kingdom and glory (not to speak of the church, Christ's body) could forfeit by dying, as they imagined, their blessedness when the Lord Jesus comes. And so it was for want of knowing better that they had yielded to thoughts which had plunged them in Christ-dishonoring sorrow.

Even here, however, it is remarkable that the Apostle does not unveil the state of the separate spirit, as we see done in Luke 23:43, Acts 7:59, 2 Cor. 5:8, and Phil. 1:23. He meets fully the error that death in any way destroys or detracts from the blessed hope of the Christian. He would have the saints no longer ignorant concerning those who may most truly be said to fall asleep: if they do, it is but more evidently to have the portion of Him who died and rose, as we assuredly believe; for they will rise if they meanwhile die. And is such a resurrection a loss? “Even so those also put to sleep through Jesus,” as it is here beautifully described, “will God bring with Him.” They were laid to sleep by Jesus; and, far from forgetting or even postponing their joy and blessedness, God will bring them with Jesus in that day.

But how so, since they sleep in death, and He comes from heaven in power and glory? Hereon follows a most enlightening and fresh communication. “in the word of the Lord,” which clears up the difficulty by unfolding the order of events, and thus the way by which the sleeping saints are to come with Jesus. The Thessalonian believers had fancied that the departed would miss the blissful reunion, or at least come behind the living that remain. But it is not so. “For this we say to you in [the] word of [the] Lord, that we, the living that remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise precede those put to sleep. For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout of command, with archangel's voice, and with trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we, the living that remain, shall be caught up together with them in clouds to meet the Lord in [the] air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord. So then encourage one another with these words.” Such is the wondrous intimation in this striking episode which brings us up parenthetically to the introductory words which assured them that the Lord would come, and the saints, including those that sleep, along with Him. Here we learn how it can be: He first descends for them, and afterward brings them with Him.

But there are details. He shall Himself descend from heaven with “a shout of command.” The word employed, being peculiar in the New Testament to this passage, cannot but have special force. Outside Scripture it is used for a general's call to his soldiers, for an admiral's to his sailors, or sometimes more generally as a cry to incite or encourage. It seems most appropriate as conveying a word of command to those in immediate relationship. Not a hint drops of a shout for the world, for men at large, to bear. It is here for His own to join Him on high. “With archangel's voice,” brings in the highest of heavenly creature glory to attend the Lord on that transcendent occasion. If angels now minister to the saints, as we know they did to Him also, how suitable to hear of “archangel's voice” when they thus gather round Him! Nor is “God's trump” silent at such a moment, when all that is of mortal man in His own shall be swallowed up of life at the presence of Christ.

Accordingly “the dead in Christ rise first.” It is no question of the first man but of the Second; and all of that family who have slept “rise first.” So unfounded was the despairing sorrow of those in Thessalonica. So far they precede the living saints, in being the earliest to experience the power of life in the Son of God. The truth is, however, that the difference in time is but just appreciable; for “then we, the living that remain, shall be caught up together with them in clouds to meet the Lord in [the] air.” The translation of all the changed saints is simultaneous. The grief of such as doubted the full blessedness of those meanwhile put to sleep was really ignorance and unbelief; for even if they could not anticipate the fresh revelation from the Lord, they ought, from their divinely given knowledge of His love and of His redemption, to have counted on His grace towards the dead saints no less than towards the living. They might have sought needed light as to the particulars from those raised up and given of the Lord to impart it. We can, however, readily conceive how haste wrought injuriously in them as in ourselves. But what an unspeakable mercy, that grace met the need to the correction of the mistake then, and to the prevention of it afterward! So is it habitually in the Epistles especially, as in all Scripture.

It is important to note that “the general resurrection” is as foreign to this part of God's word as to every other. The faithful dead, the faithful living, are alone spoken of. Not that there will not be a resurrection of unjust as well as of just. But there is no such thing in scripture as a resurrection of all men together. Of all things resurrection separates most distinctly. Till then there may be more or less mixture of the evil with the good, though it be a dishonor to the Lord and an injury to His people. But appearances deceive, and absolute separateness is not found; and God uses the trial produced by it for blessing to those whose eye is single. But at His coming the severance will be complete, at His appearing it will be manifest. Hence, the resurrection of the sleeping saints is called a resurrection out of, or from among, the dead; which could not be said of the resurrection of the wicked, for they leave no more to be raised. Thus both classes are raised separately, and the traditional idea of one general resurrection of the dead—is fictitious. Dan. 12 speaks of a resuscitation of Israel, Matt. 25 of the Lord's judgment of the nations: neither refers to the literally dead.

But the moral consequence of the error is as positively bad as the truth sanctifies. For the action of a general resurrection connects itself with a general judgment; and thus vagueness is brought in on the spirit of the believer, who loses thereby the truth of salvation as a present thing, and the consciousness of possessing eternal life in Christ, in contrast with coming into judgment. Compare Heb. 9:27, 28, and John 5:24. One of the enemy's main efforts is to annul this solemn difference: he would shake, if he could, the believer's enjoyment of God's grace in Christ; he would lull to a fatal calm the unbeliever, indifferent alike to his sins and the Savior. The first resurrection of the saints, severed by at least a thousand years (Rev. 20) from that of the rest of the dead, the wicked who rise for judgment and the lake of fire, is the strongest possible disproof of the prevalent confusion: an immensely grave appeal to the conscience of the unbeliever, a most cheering solace to those who are content to suffer with Christ meanwhile.

Further, it is unquestionable that death is in no way the believer's hope, but Christ's coming, when every effort and trace of death shall be effaced from saints deceased, as well as the living Christians, who have mortality, as others, at work in them. Then shall it be swallowed up of life; for He comes to receive them to Himself, who is the resurrection and the life. Thus the believer on Him, though dead, shall live; and the living believer on Him shall never die. Death is not the Bridegroom, but merely a servant (for all things are ours) for ushering us, absent from the body, to be present with the Lord. But here it is no mere individual going after dying to Him, but His coming, the Conqueror of death, for us all, whether sleeping or waking, that we may be changed into His glorious image even in the body.

But there is another, and in itself far more precious, privilege signalized here. Thus shall we always be with Him. This last is the deepest joy of the separate state when a saint departs: it is to be with Christ, So even was it with the dying but believing robber: Christ assured him that he was to be that day with Himself in Paradise. Only such a state was but intermediate and imperfect, however blessed. It was not the body glorified; it was not all the saints gathered. At His coming all will be complete and perfect for the heavenly family; “and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” What can lack, or what be added, to such words of infinite and everlasting joy? “So then encourage one another with these words.” The Holy Spirit says on this head no more. That which is perfect shall then be come.

Revised New Testament: 2 Peter

I. 1 has the great defect of an equivocal or erroneous rendering of iv (that frequent stumblingblock of the Revisers), and this in a text so much the more important as it is often pressed dogmatically, not seldom wrongly, owing to this very error. I do not dwell on “a” more than once used needlessly here, as this has been frequently noticed elsewhere; but “faith with us in the righteousness” suggests in our idiom the object believed in. This is not the aim of the passage. The Apostle means that the Christian Jews, to whom he is for the second time addressing himself, obtained like precious faith with us “your apostles” (3:2) in virtue of (or through) the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ; as the Revisers rightly give the last words in their text, though not in the margin. There were special promises to the fathers about the blessing of their seed, and God was righteous in fulfilling them. There has always been a believing remnant of that people, if of no other continuously. Jesus, not more truly man than the Lord God of Israel, has been faithful to that word of distinguishing favor; and if those Jews to whom Peter was writing received faith, like precious faith with the apostles, it was in virtue of His making good the promise to them and their children by giving them to believe. Such is the righteousness here meant. Hence “through” in the Authorized Version is substantially correct, as being less ambiguous than “in” of the Revised Version, which is apt to mislead by suggesting His righteousness as the thing believed in, instead of pointing out His fidelity to promise in bestowing faith on them. It may be well to make no abrupt severance of 3 from 2; but surely it is still more requisite not to mar the connection of 3, 4, with 5, the former being a sort of protasis, as the latter is an apodosis in sense. Hence, if it be right to close 2 with a semicolon, it is intolerable to put a period after 4, and to begin 5 as a new sentence. “Since His divine power hath granted to us all things that are for life and godliness.... yea, and for this very reason, adding on your part all diligence, in your faith furnish,” &c. All our old English Versions fail in this; none more than the Revised Version.

There is, however, an important correction which closes verse 3 (the margin of the Authorized Version being better than its text), as it had been in Tyndale and Cranmer. But the Geneva Version went all wrong, following Beza who knew the true reading but slighted it for an inferior one, and even mistranslated the inferior one through his inability to make out its meaning: “ἰδίᾳ δόξῃ καὶ ἀρετῇ, que lectio in paucis admodum codicibus, iisque dubiae fidei, a nobis est inuenta neque mihi sane probari potest.” Now there are a dozen cursives at least, not to speak of four of the great uncials, in favor of ἰδίᾳ δ. κ. ἀ.; so that there is ample and excellent authority. And any reasoning on God's being denied elsewhere to call us to His glory cannot swamp the clear force here of being called by it. Then follows fresh reasoning on ἀρετῇ, the upshot being “mihi quidem multo probebilius uidetur, διἀ praepositionem pro εἰς usurpatam, sicut etiam annotatiuimus Rom. 6 a. 4, et ἀρετὴν idem atque ἁγιασμὸν, declarare,” &c. No doubt the majority of copies support διὰ δ. κ. ἀ. it. In meaning the only difference that results is that the more ancient text adds “His own,” but in any case it is “by,” not “to.” Adam innocent enjoyed the good around and gave God thanks; Israel was governed as well as tested by the law. God called us “by His own glory,” outside and above all that is seen, and “by virtue,” the spiritual courage that refuses the snares which would entice us from the path that leads there. Compare Rom. 23, 5:2.

In 4 is corrected the error of Tyndale, &c., and of the Authorized Version following them. They ought to have gathered from the preceding verse that δεδ. is, if not a deponent, middle in sense, not passive. The change of order in “precious and very great promises” is abundantly sustained; indeed, the precise form in the Text. Rec. has scarce any support, but with a slight change many copies give it, some however having ὑμῖν for ἡ. mistakenly. In 5 “And beside this” of the Authorized Version is as untenable as any other of the older English. The Revised Version is much better, save as we have seen the dislocation by their punctuation. But “in” your faith is right, as well as “supply,” not “add to,” and so throughout 6 and 7. Only the italic “your” six times over is needless. In 8 “idle [marg. Authorized Version] nor unfruitful” is an improvement without “to be;” but surely die here means “as to” or “as regards,” not “unto” of the Revised Version any more than “in” of the Authorized Version. The Revisers give, like the Authorized Version, rather a paraphrase of 9 than a close version. In 11 the sense is “richly furnished” or supplied, not “ministered.” In 12 the true reading is μελλήσω, “I shall be ready,” (à A B C P &c., with the most ancient versions), not οὐκ ἀμ. as in the Text. Rec. and the Authorized Version, “I will not be negligent.” The change at the close seems uncalled for, due probably to Dean Alford. The rendering of 16, 17, is loose, not only in general form but even to the diluting ύπό “by,” to ἀπό “from” at the close. But 19 is given much better by the Revisers, the inspired contrast of the lamp of prophecy with daylight dawning and the day or morning star arising in the heart being clearly given. But it may be doubted whether the textual “private” or the marginal “special” of 20 gives the true force of ἰδίας. Divine prophecy is a vast connected whole, and none of it comes of its own or an isolated solution. For none (21) was ever ("in old time” was the error of Beza, &c.) brought by man's will; but moved by the Holy Spirit men spoke from God. It all converges on Christ's glory. There is no doubt a serious conflict of readings: ἅγιοι, (Text. Rec. οἱ ἅ) instead of ἀπὸ has à K L &c., ἅγιου τοῦ A. ἀπὸ θ. ἅγιοι C. &c. But the critics generally prefer the text of B and several cursives supported by the Bodleian Syr. and the Coptic, which omit ἅγιοι.

In 2:1 the Revisers give rightly “the Master” (δεσπότην) that bought them; for it is purchase, not redemption, which is in question. Purchase is universal; not so redemption, which is inseparable from faith in Christ and the forgiveness of offenses. It is clear from the passage before us that the most wicked are “bought” by the Master, whom they deny to their own swift destruction; that they were “redeemed” is mere assumption, and, in fact, a grave error. In 2 it is “the” truth. In 4 it is “angels when they sinned,” not “the angels that sinned,” which would require τῶν ἀ. τῶν ἁ.. and then would mean the whole; whereas the apostle speaks only of a part even of those that fell. Ταρταρώσας is the word translated “cast down to hell,” and occurs here only in the New Testament. It means hurling into the lowest abyss. In the same verse there is a question of reading on which turns either “pits” or “chains,” the more ancient copies inclining to the former, while the expression of Jude may have suggested the latter. In 5 “N. an eighth” means with seven others. If the Revisers render τηρουμένους in 4 “to be reserved,” and in 3:11 λυομένων “to be destroyed,” why not κολαζομένοθς in 9 “to be punished “? Does not this suit εἰς ἡμ. κρ. better than “under punishment"? It is a class so characterized. In 11 it is not “which are greater,” &c., but “greater as they are,” &c. In 12, 13 are hazardous changes, not “shall utterly (or, also) perish in their own corruption,” as in the Authorized Version, but “shall in their destroying surely be destroyed,” and “suffering wrong as the hire of wrong-doing,” instead of “receiving as they shall wages of unrighteousness.” Here the Revisers have been induced, probably by Drs. Westcott and Hort, not without other support, of course, to accept the reading of B àp.m. ἀδικούμενοι. But will the reading, even if feasible on so slender a basis, bear the version?— “In the day-time” is a questionable reading of ἐν ἡμ. in this connection, and, as has been remarked, hardly consistent with τρυφἠν, delicacy or indulgence of life, which might be by day quite as much as by night. Hence interpreters who differ widely in general, Calvin, Estius, Grotius, C. à Lap., De Wette, &c., prefer “ephemeral.” There is another singular choice, not of rendering but of reading in the verse, ἀγάπαις Acorr B against the overwhelming evidence of à A m. C K L P, almost all the cursives, and most ancient Versions, not to speak of early citations, for ἀπάταις followed by the Authorized Version. Is “stayed,” in 16, a real improvement on “forbad” of the Authorized Version, as rendering ἐκώλυσεν? “Withstood” might represent it better than either, or Mr. Green's “checked.” In 17 “springs” and “mists” are right; but the evidence in favor of “forever” is strong. In 18 τ. ὀλίγως ἀποφεύ. is the true text, not τ. ὄντως ἀποφυ. They were just escaping, not “clean escaped,” or even “just fled.” In 20 γέγονεν “is become,” not merely “is.” In 22 the Revisers may rightly omit the copula, but there is the usual laxity in expressing both the presence and the absence of the article: there hath happened to them the [import, pith, spirit] of the true proverb, A dog turned again to his own vomit, and, A sow washed to wallowing in mire.

In 3:2 the Revisers rightly read and translate “the command of the Lord and Savior through your apostles,” ἡμῶν having quite inconsiderable support, even if it could then bear the Authorized Version. In 3 the Authorized Version after Text. Rec. wrongly omits “with mocking.” The rather difficult verses 5-7 seem to be fairly given, though connecting πυρί with τεοη., rather than τη. as in the Authorized Version and most others. Of course “his” supplants “the same” in 7. In 9 it is rightly “to you” on preponderant authority; but there is some question between δἰ or εἰς, the former of which Tischendorf adopts in his last edition with à A, half a dozen cursives, and the ancient Versions generally. It would mean “on your account.” In 10 the Revised Version omits rightly “in the night.” Here again we see how lax are their views of the article. In 11 “there,” not “then,” is preferred by the Revisers on small but good authority, the copies greatly differing. “All” is an effort in the Revised Version, as in the Authorized Version, to express the plural which expresses every form of behavior and godliness. In 12 they justly discard the influence of the Vulgate in “hasting unto” (as indeed the margin of the Authorized Version suggests); but whether “earnestly desiring,” as in the Bodleian Syriac, adequately conveys the meaning is another matter. If they mean hastening the coming of that day in heart, for aught more seems far-fetched or worse, I believe them right; but this is rather exposition or application than rendering. Nor is their version of δἰ ἥν, “by reason of which,” though of course correct grammatically, the only one that is sure. The temporal sense is no less just. It is a question of context which suits best here. Bengel construes it with παρουσία. The Revisers scarcely seem justified in giving αὐτῷ (14) so defined a force as “in His sight.” Even Winer does not go so far. It might be “for” no less than “of” Him. From 15 we learn that Paul wrote to the Jewish Christians, as Peter did in his two Epistles. For it is idle to argue from i. 14, ii. 10, or iv. 3, to set aside the plain force of the address. Nobody doubts that every word is for U8 who were Gentiles; but as little should it be doubted that they are both addressed simply to the Jewish dispersion in the parts designated. These scattered Jews had, before they believed, fallen largely into the evil and even heathen ways of those who surrounded them. Wieseler's notion of Gentiles in chap. 2:25 is at issue with both Paul and Peter. But if this be so, the reference to the Apostle Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews is unmistakable, which speaks much of “the day.” The Revisers translate ἐν χ. κ. τ. γ. (18) no better than the Authorized Version. They have no right to say “in the grace,” &c., any more than the Authorized Version “in the knowledge.” The insertion of our definite article here misleads. It is more correct to say “in grace and knowledge,” &c.

Scripture Queries and Answers: Hebrews 13:7-8

Q. Heb. 13:7, 8. Does this mean that the faithful leaders here alluded to made Christ their constant theme in their speech one with another as well as with others?

A. I do not doubt that so it was with these servants of the Lord, as it should be with all of us who love Him. But this scripture says nothing about it, speaking of two wholly distinct matters. (1) Ver. 7 calls on the Hebrew Christians to remember their guides, who (the which) spoke to them the word of God, revealed truth in general; and to follow their faith, surveying thoughout the issue or termination of their career. Their “conversation” in the sense of Christian course was closed. The saints who remembered them would do well to imitate their faith when here. (2) Ver. 8 introduces a new subject: if there be any link with ver. 7, it is contrast with the faithful servants who were gone. “Jesus Christ [is] yesterday and to-day the same, and forever.” He is declared to be, though man, the Unchangeable One. What a safeguard against being carried away by various and strange teachings! Christ truly known satisfies the heart and gives rest to the mind otherwise greedy of novelties. Thus do even the naturally fickle become by grace restful and stable, as they grow up to Him in all things.

Fragments: Joel 2:28-29

Joel 2:28, 29, is a short independent prophecy, and so are the verses from 30 to the end of the chapter. Verses 28, 29, promise the outpouring of the Holy Spirit consequent on the repentance of the nation, which also accompanied its temporal blessings. The repentance is the point of departure for both. So the partial fulfillment of Acts 2 was on those who repented, though the temporal blessings could not come on the nation. Thus, though there was that which was analogous in the destruction of Jerusalem already accomplished, signs and wonders will come before the great and notable day yet to come. The blood of the new covenant was shed, and all things ready; but the nation would not repent, and could not get the blessing. The remnant get the spiritual part of it with “all flesh;” the Jews will all when they say, “Blessed is he that cometh in the name of Jehovah.” The order in the last day will be repentance, deliverance by the day of Jehovah, temporal blessings, the Holy Ghost, before the day of Jehovah signs taking place. This last stands, therefore, necessarily apart, as the calling on the name of Jehovah of course precedes the deliverance.

Fragments: Prophecy

Prophecy is sorrowful because it unveils the sin, the ungrateful folly, of God's people. But it unveils the heart of One who is unwearied in love, who loves the people, who seeks their good, although He feels their sin according to His love. It is the heart of God that speaks. These two characters of prophecy throw light on the twofold end it has in view, and help us to understand its bearing. First of all, it addresses itself to the actual state of the people, and shows them their sin; it always, therefore, supposes the people to be in a fallen condition. When they peacefully enjoy the blessings of God, there is no need of displaying their condition to them. But in the second place, during the period in which the people are still acknowledged, it speaks of present restoration on repentance, to encourage them to return to Jehovah; and it proclaims deliverance. But God well knew the hearts of His people, and that they would not yield to His call. To sustain the faith of the remnant, faithful amidst this unbelief, and for the instruction of His people at all times, He adds promises which will assuredly be fulfilled by the coming of Messiah. These promises are sometimes connected with the circumstances of a near and partial deliverance, sometimes with the consummation of the people's iniquity in the rejection of Christ come in humiliation.

King Saul: Part 2

The insult of Nahash the Ammonite towards Jabesh-Gilead was this “occasion,” and the Lord gives Israel a complete victory over him by the hand of their king. For this battle was the Lord's, inasmuch as the Lord would fulfill His part in this matter. We need not inquire where Israel got their instruments of war, if now there was “no smith found throughout all the land,” for this day was won not by might nor by power, but “by My Spirit, saith the Lord.” This victory might therefore have been gained as well with lamps and pitchers, or with the jawbones of asses, or with slings and stones from the brook, as with the battle-ax and bow.

Thus again, as in ancient days, the Lord approves Himself not wanting, however willful and stiff-necked His people may be found. And after this, the king is accepted again of the people (12); and this chapter reminds us of Ex. 20 as the eighth chapter reminded us of Ex. 19 For in Ex. 20 Moses transfers them into their new position, but convicts them of the terribleness of it; and here Samuel formally plants them under their king, but convicts them again as with the thunder and tempest of Mount Sinai. The thunder and rain came upon them here, as the fearful pledge and prelude of the end of their own kingdom, as the shaking of the earth at Sinai pledged the end of their own covenant. And under it they cry out in Terror here, as they had done there. There they had said to Moses, “Speak thou with us and we will hear, but let not God speak with us lest we die,” —and here they say to Samuel, “Pray for thy servants unto the Lord thy God, that we die not, for we have added unto all our sins this evil, to ask us a king.” And in mercy Samuel here, as Moses there, encourages them still to hold fast by the Lord, who, in spite of all, was still graciously owning them as His people.

These two occasions are thus in strict moral analogy, and show us that king Saul was introduced into the Jewish system now, as the law had been at Moan Sinai, through the willfulness and unbelief of the people, Saul being no more God's king than the law was God's covenant. Israel has again lost their peace by all this, and cast themselves into sorrows and difficulties that they little counted on; but the Lord pardons and accepts them, as He had done at Sinai, and now sets them in the way again in their new character.

And now comes the trial again. “Fear not,” says Samuel to them, “ye have done all this wickedness, yet turn not aside from following the Lord, but serve the Lord with all your heart.” But, ere the first scene in the kingdom closes, all is broken and forfeited, just as the covenant from Sinai was broken ere Aaron and the people had left the foot of the Mount. There the people grew impatient at the delay of Moses, and, in violation of the very first article of the covenant, made a golden calf. So here Samuel had left Saul for awhile, telling him to go down to Gilgal, and wait for him there till he should come and offer the sacrifices, but now Saul offers the sacrifices himself. (xiii.) He forsakes the word of the Lord: The first act of the king was thus again a violation of the first command he had received. And thus was it all again, as at Sinai so at Gilgal, the immediate breach of the covenant on the part of man. The Lord, it is true, had grace in store for Israel while they were thus destroying themselves; as at Sinai He showed the witnesses of mercy on the top of the Mount, while Israel was sinning away all their present blessing at the foot of it. But still, in the king's hand now, as in the people's then, all was disaster and loss.

Speedy and yet fully ripe fruit was this of their own way. But, beside this one great act of forfeiture, there are traits of character now displaying themselves in the people's king that strongly mark his generation. We see him acting now after the manner forewarned of Samuel. He chooses three thousand men of Israel to wait upon him, sending the rest to their tents, thus dealing with them as his property, having right to do what he would with his own. “When Saul saw any strong man, or any valiant man, he took him unto him” —taking thus their sons and appointing them unto himself, as Samuel had said. And all his ways are in the same tone of self-will, fully opposed to the manner of God's king as prescribed by Moses. (Deut. xvii.) In the sovereignty of his own good pleasure, the people's king now does his own will, exalting himself above his brethren, blowing the trumpet throughout the land, speaking as with the voice of a god and not of a man, and saying, “let the Hebrews hear;” thus bringing, as it were, the people to his own door-posts, and there boring their ears, that they might be his servants forever.

And he would be priest as well as king. He would fain sit in the sanctuary as well as on the throne; in disobedience, he will himself offer the sacrifice; in all these things giving us awful pledges of the ways of him who is still to be more daring, magnifying himself above all, planting his tabernacles on the glorious holy mountain, and sitting in the temple of God.

Such was Saul, and such will be his elder brother or antitype in the latter day. But as, in spite of all the trespass and breach of covenant at Mount Sinai, the Lord did not allow the enemy to triumph over Israel, but brought them into the good land that He had promised them; so here, in spite of all this, He works deliverance for them from the Philistines as He had promised, and that, too, in a way that more marvelously displays His hand than the day of Gideon or of Samson. (14) This victory at Michmash, like the victories of Joshua, verified the faithfulness of the God of Israel. Not one good thing could fail. He had promised strength against the Philistines now, as He had promised the land of the Canaanites then, and this day of Michmash and that which follows fulfills the word of the Lord. (9:16, 14:47, 48.)

But all this, as everything else, serves only to develop the people's king more and more. The ways of a willful one are strongly marked in all that he does. His course is uncertain and wayward, because it is just what his own will makes it. But in the midst of all the present gathering darkness there is one object of relief to the eye—the person and actions of Jonathan. He is the one in the apostate kingdom who owns God and is owned of Him, the remnant in the midst of the thousands of Israel, the one who stood in the secret of God, and knew where the strength of Israel lay. And thus he is in full readiness for all the openings of the divine purpose. We see him in immediate sympathy with David, as soon as David appears. (18:1.) His deeds in Israel, before David is heard of, savor of the very spirit that animates David afterward; for the victory of Michmash which his hand won was in full character with that in the valley of Elah, which David afterward achieved. God was trusted in both of them, as the only giver of victory. The spirit with which Jonathan entered the passages between Bozez and Seneh carried David into the front of the battle against the giant. And this, I may say, is the character of every remnant—they walk in the spirit of the hope set before them, so that when it is manifested they are ready for it. As here Jonathan was ready for David,

Anna and Simeon waited for “the consolation of Israel,” and embraced the Child the moment they saw Him. In the latter day, in like manner, the remnant will be looking for the Lord as an afflicted and poor people; and so, in the meanwhile, we should watch for the heavenly glory in the spirit of holy retirement from the world and the things of the world. In spirit and conversation we should be as “children of light and children of the day,” thus signalizing our remnant character, though the night is still around us; that when the light of the morning breaks, and the day of the kingdom comes, we may find our native place in it. The oil in the vessels of the wise virgins tells us this. It tells us that they had counted the cost of being wakeful to the end—that they knew themselves only as “prisoners of hope” in this world, and that it was still but night-time, which would need the lamp, till grace should be brought to them at the appearing of Jesus Christ.

And the character of the apostate is marked in the very opposite way. It is this remnant that they hate, and their hope that they are not preparing for. It is this righteous Jonathan who now moves Saul's envy. Saul, it appears, would now have sacrificed him to his lust, as we know he afterward sought to slay him. For envy, or the love of the world, cares not though it have even a child of our own bowels for its prey, as we know, in the case of Joseph, it craved a brother for a sacrifice. In Saul it also hunted David like a partridge in the mountains, and even would have killed Samuel, to whom under God Saul owed everything. (16:2.) As says the divine proverb, “wrath is cruel, and anger is outrageous, but who is able to stand before envy?”

And with all this, he had no courage in the Lord's cause when the trial came. He makes a stir and bustles a good deal with his six hundred men behind him at Gilgal; but as we follow him to Gibeah, where the battle was at hand, he tarries in the uttermost part under a pomegranate tree, nor do we see him in the field till the day is won. He rages after the fight, but strikes no blow in it; and all that he does is to sacrifice the honor of Israel to his own will, for in the mere exercise of his own good pleasure, he adjures the people not to touch any food till the evening, and that curse hinders the full overthrow of the Philistines.

Thus all that he really is, on this memorable day, is the Achan in the camp. Jonathan is the strength, and he but the troubler of Israel. But with all this, he can be very religious, when religion does not turn him out of his own way, or when, like Jehu, he can serve himself by it. After the offense of the people eating the blood with the flesh, he orders the table of the camp himself in due religious form. But this, instead of crossing his own desire, only serves it, for by this he seems to take the honor of the priesthood to him, and thus to exalt himself. He bustles again as though he were the one object of importance in the whole scene, thus gathering the thoughts of man to himself, and walking in the full light of the world's countenance, which was everything to him, the thing that he lived for.

All this is indeed darkness, but we have gloomier shades to penetrate still.

When Israel entered the land, they received a commission to destroy the nations, for the day of their visitation had come. But here I would observe that it was not the whole earth that was thus to be destroyed, but only those nations which had been guilty of doing despite to God, and had filled up the measure of their sins. The Canaanites had had God's witnesses among them in old time, for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had been there, but they remained Canaanites still. The Egyptians had known Joseph and the grace and power of the God of Joseph, but they had ceased to remember Him. And Amalek had, seen the God of glory leading His hosts out of Egypt, with His cloud over them, and the water from the rock following them, but the hand of Amalek was at that moment raised against the throne of God. Of these three, Egypt, the Canaanites, and Amalek, Egypt and the Canaanites had been already judged, and the day of Amalek had now come; for surely when the Lord's cup was passing, they could not be forgotten.

But Israel had not been fully faithful to the commission which they had received against the Canaanites, as the 1st chapter of the Book of Judges shows us; and now our 15th chapter is just that chapter again under the hand of king Saul. The kingdom was now received, as the land had then been, and the king gets his commission now, as the nation then did. “Go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that he hath,” says the Lord to Saul by Samuel. But Saul makes terms with Amalek, as the tribes before had done with the Canaanites. He spares Agag, as Benjamin had spared the Jebusites, Manasseh the people of Dor, Ephraim the people of Gezer, Zebulun the people of Kitron, Asher the people of Accho, and Naphthali the people of Bethshemesh. (Judg. 1) And thus we have here with the king, as there with the tribes, the disobedience of man, and the consequent forfeiture of all blessing and honor. “Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord,” says Samuel to Saul, “He hath also rejected thee from being king.” (15:23.)

And this was as the loss of Eden to the Lord. The land of Israel should have been the earthly rest, where God would have kept His sabbath. But now it was defiled, as paradise of old; and as of old God repented that He had made man on the earth (Gen. 6:6), so now does He repent that He had made Saul king over Israel. (15:35.) Thorns and briers and sorrow of heart the kingdom was now to yield, as the cursed earth did then. Samuel goes away to weep, and the Lord takes no pleasure in the kingdom.

Thus all is ruin under the hand of the people's king, and the lust of his heart is seen again to work in this scene with fearful power. For he seeks at once to turn this conquest of Amalek to his own profit and glory, careless as he was of the word and glory of the Lord. He first flies upon the spoil, and then sets him up a place (15:12), that is, erects some monument to his “own name, thus seeking to make this victory serve both his pride and his covetousness. It is true, he says, “I have sinned;” but so said Balsam before him, and Judas after him. And even in that confession, the desire of his heart was not towards God's forgiveness and peace, but towards his own honor before men. For these are his words to Samuel, “I have sinned; yet honor me now, I pray thee, before the elders of my people, and before Israel.” This was his lust—he loved the praise of men. He would at all cost have the honor that cometh from man, and Samuel now delivers him over to a reprobate mind. He turns for a moment with him towards the people, but then leaves him forever.

The Declared Purpose and Present Moral Processes: 22. History of Faith

Here the special exhibition and teachings of faith cease, and the dispensation pre-eminently of grace and faith closes with heaviest judgments. How wise and wonderful the moral dealings of God with man, beginning with his expulsion from Eden. Every step in the process necessary, and leading on to the due time when Christ was to appear, the prominent features of what was necessary before He came are now plainly seen by us, for we follow on in His track, and there is always light. Those who lived in the early days of faith would not have known that their lives were so ordered as to become to us in this age lessons of truth which can only be truth because the church is called. But before these lessons were given to be learned in the patriarchs, it was indispensable that man should know and suffer the power of Satan whom he followed in disobedience to God. This was manifested in a peculiar way when he was without law and government as before the deluge. Men multiplied upon the face of the earth, and wickedness increased in a greater ratio. God had His witnesses even then, Abel, Enoch and Noah. He never was without a witness. But it was necessary that proof should be given of the power of Satan over man. God did not restrain the evil, and Satan so completely dominated over man that the earth was filled with violence and corruption, and God destroyed it with a flood. A new chapter in the trial of man came after the flood when the sword of government was put into his hand, to maintain authority and repress vice; and proof is given that both the governor and the governed were respectively unable, the one to govern in righteousness, and the rest to obey. Human might did not attain so great a degree after the flood as before it, and the deeds of the giants before were admired by those after the deluge, and became the means of developing a latent evil not seen before. Idolatry spread rapidly among men. They who would not bow to their Creator made an image and bowed to it. Three distinct features of fallen nature have been made clear, violence, corruption, and idolatry. Nay, it is not enough to say “features” of fallen nature, these are the nature itself, for in every possible way in which man acts he shows himself in one of these aspects. That such a nature could ever work righteousness was impossible. And here begins the working of a new principle, in a new form, namely, Faith; and faith in separation from the world, exemplified in Abram. From that moment the history of the world is made subservient to the history of faith. For it is God's remedy morally to meet all the evil in man. And the character of His dealings with an individual or with a nation is in strict relation to the faith, or the want of it, of those with whom He is dealing. The Word abounds in instances of this. The energy of subjective faith was, or should have been, more plainly seen when the object of faith was presented—to the nation of Israel, first by type; the object, Christ, was revealed for this end. If His worth and glory were but dimly seen in the types and shadows, yet all His varied excellences were there: only to be seen, indeed, when the True Light shines upon them; otherwise, dark and meaningless. And even when seen in the reflected light of Christ, what is that to the full blaze of His revealed Person! And because the revelation in Grace of the Son was needed for the manifestation of God, it was equally necessary that the ruin and sin of man should be brought fully into view, so that he might be shut up to faith. Whether we look at the corruption before the flood, or at heathen idolaters and privileged Israel after, every part of this process was indispensable and preparatory to the due time when Christ came into the world. There was faith before this, for Abel brought his lamb by faith, and his view of the Object was necessarily less clear; for no symbol did ever concentrate within itself all that Christ is. The efficacy of His work, the glory of His Person, were spread, so to say, over illimitable space, till He came to embody in Himself the whole infinite extent. Just so light was created, the first thing, and before the sun was made there were three evenings and mornings. But when on the fourth day the sun was set in the firmament, it became to this earth the source of light. All the light now comes from it, though light was first in being. There were many saints that trusted in God, as the Almighty, as Jehovah, But Jesus gathers up all the rays of faith; and He is the center of all, for even as He is the one source of all blessings, which diverge like rays of light from a common center, so is He now the One Object to which saints now tarn, to whom the faith and hope and love and every other holy emotion saints may feel, all converge and meet in Him.

The church taken to heaven, and God's purposes of grace in and by it accomplished, an awful though brief period of judgment passes over the world. The processes of faith are followed by the processes of judgment. For to teach faith, and thus bring souls to Himself, is not all God's purpose—an essential part truly. But God is going to set His King upon His holy hill of Zion, and when the King is there, all who have rejected and despised Him, who said, “We will not have this man to reign over us,” He will break with a rod of iron, and will dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. The earth is cleared from all things that offend, and Christ's righteous and kingly rule begins in millennial blessedness.

This blessedness is not introduced by the gospel of grace. Between the moment when the special teachings of faith cease, and the glory of Christ as King is displayed, is the time when the nations are judged. During that tremendous period, sin will have its fullest development, and these judgments become a divine necessity. Else there could be no joyful time of peace for the earth. So judgment is first, then peace.

How baseless the notion that the preaching of the gospel is the means for renovating the earth, for making all things new, and bringing in universal blessing. That all who now believe are supremely blest is most true. Believers are now a new creation, before God creates a new heaven and a new earth. But the question is whether the word declares that the millennium will be brought in by the gospel of grace. The only answer is that such is not the declared purpose of God. This to some appears a bold assertion. Minds not subject to the word dislike it as too dogmatic. The truth is always dogmatic, and must be so, or it ceases to be the truth. Both the Old Testament and the New declare that the reign of the Lord Jesus upon the earth will be ushered in by unsparing judgment upon the wicked. The present dispensation of grace will not, as it were, fade away in the bright light of millennial glory, as the light of the stars is lost in the blaze of day, but a dark night comes between in which wickedness and judgment reach their climax. This present dispensation closes under the blackest cloud that ever settled down upon this guilty world. And this is not a mere inference however legitimate, but the plain statement of scripture, repeated in the Prophets, in the Gospels, Epistles, and the Revelation, which is the special book of judgment upon the earth. The gospel is to deliver from judgment, of which the New Testament speaks in clearer tones than were ever heard before. The New Testament alone declares that wrath is revealed from heaven.

The Old Testament reveals neither grace so sovereign, nor wrath so imminent. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be damned.” And it is plain from this that the gospel does not contemplate all believing. The Lord Jesus commanded that the gospel should be preached to all, but a selection is made on the principle of faith. The righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ is truly unto all, for all have sinned; and there is no other righteousness than that which is by faith, but it is only upon those that believe. Now “all men have not faith” (2 Thess. 3:2). Believers are spoken of as elect, called and chosen (see 1 Cor. 1:26, &c.) “For ye see your calling,” “God hath chosen.” If the gospel were the means of bringing in the millennium, would it be said “not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble?” would not all be included? It is quite true, that in this scripture God hath chosen the foolish, the weak, the base, and the despised, in order “that no flesh should glory in His presence.” But the fact remains that God hath chosen those that are counted as nothing,” things that are not,” and hath included in His calling not many of the wise and great and noble of the world. To the “called and chosen” God has made Christ Jesus to be their wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption. The gospel has called them out, and separated them from the world unto God. If the blessings of the gospel are for those whom it separates from the world, how can it be blessing for the world as such, from which it separates?

Believers now are called to heavenly joys, not to earthly blessedness. The earth is left for righteous dealing from a sin-avenging God. When His name is vindicated, then He will bring in His salvation, which in the millennium is not heavenly blessing, but earthly:—very different object from that of the gospel of grace now preached; for by it souls are called, and chosen for heavenly glory. Whereas judgment, not grace, purges the earth from its evil that it may receive millennial blessing. We may surely say that, if earthly peace and prosperity were the intended result of the gospel, it is a manifest failure. Not because the gospel is not God's peace for man, but because sin and all evil is so antagonistic, so ingrained in nature, that the gospel of grace brings out all the enmity of man against God. The Lord Jesus said that He came not to bring peace but a sword, that a man's enemies would be those of his own house. This is the natural and sure result of the gospel, where those who receive it are separated from the mass and trained for heavenly glory. For how indeed can the world which loves its own, love those who though in it are not of it? Again, at the first preaching of the word, the Lord Jesus made known in parable that the gospel would not be received by all; only one class out of four received the truth and its blessing. On the contrary, the preaching of the word gave an occasion for the sowing and the growing of tares, and in result the whole field where the good seed was sown would be given up to judgment. Does this give a picture of success to the gospel in the sense of winning the world for God and for Christ? Nay, is it not evident that the power and aim of the gospel is not to win the world, but to win souls for Christ, to gather them to heaven? Do not the fishermen show the result of preaching, when having drawn their net to shore they cast away the bad? that a distinction is made? Would separation be the prominent feature in the parable of the closing scene of the gospel dispensation if the purpose of the gospel was to bring in millennial happiness? The fact is that, if there had not been good seed sown, there would not have been tares. That is the gospel of grace has been through its rejection the means indirectly of the worst evil. But when grace is the principle, faith must be the means; and faith implies election. And God has His election from among the Gentiles as well as out of Israel: “Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name” (Acts 15:18 et seq.). In this passage words are used which clearly prove God's purpose in sending the gospel: “To take out of them” “the residue of men” “from among the Gentiles.” Every creature, every created thing, belongs to Christ; and grace, according to the eternal wisdom of God, is now calling out a company of redeemed men, and would make them a special witness of the power and love of God; a bride for the Son, a body for the Head, companions for the risen man in glory: this is the present work of the Holy Ghost. The millennium is an ulterior purpose, and in contrast with the present dispensation.

It may be said that the gospel has failed to bring in universal peace through the unfaithfulness of the church. But if the church had never failed, if the first love had never been left, and the first glory never dimmed, it could never have brought earthly blessings for the earth. Had the church rightly any portion on earth save such as the Lord Himself had—scorn and persecution? The church owes its origin as well as its highest blessings to a Christ first rejected here and then exalted in heaven, whither the church is soon to follow. How can the saints be the earth's universal blessing—for it is their presence here which is said to ensure it—when they are so soon to leave it? But the church is not the witness of earthly peace, nor is it the aim of the gospel of grace to bring it in, but to take out a people for heaven. Judgment upon a Christ-rejecting world is God's revealed way of bringing in righteousness and peace. The indirect but not remote effect of the gospel is truly judgment. And though we know that the revelation of wrath is not far distant, yet the longsuffering of God for a little while may delay the judgment for the purpose of salvation; but vengeance is sure. In Noah's day the flood was delayed for one hundred and twenty years that Noah might have a place of safety. Even for Lot the judgment upon the cities of the plain was stayed till he reached Zoar. For, said the Avenger, I cannot do anything till thou be come thither. So when the time comes, when the Lord shall have taken away all His own people, swift and heavy judgment will fall upon “those that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ” Upon these and not upon the heathen will fall the heaviest wrath.

The rapture of the saints gives the needed space for the development of the evil which was partially kept in check so long as God had His witnesses here. Feeble and imperfect as their testimony has been for Christ and the truth, they must be taken out of the way before Babylon the Great is made manifest. The germ of evil first detected by the Lord in Ephesus, then sprouting into Nicolaitanism, bearing fruit in the doctrine of Balsam, the teachings of Jezebel, and every other religious abomination in Christendom, now appears with its abundant harvest, an agglomeration of all evils, under the name of Babylon. It is essentially religious evil, yet not exclusively for worldly ambition, corruption, and covetousness, which disdained no fraud and shrank from no violence to attain its end, have all been found in that system which when matured is called Babylon the Great; and not as extraneous evil, but the direct and natural product of its teachings and practice. What evils, what wickedness have not been frequently shrouded from public view, and screened from public vengeance, by the sacerdotal cloak? What abomination has not been sheltered, yea encouraged by world-religion?

Nor can we wonder at such a result from a system which blends revealed truth with Satanic lying. This is Babylon. It appeared at the beginning. On the earth just dried from the waters of the deluge, man with the fresh evidence of Almighty power before his eyes begins to build the tower of Babel. He world be independent of God. This is the first given feature of Babylon, for Babel is Babylon. It began with Nimrod; “he began to be a mighty one in the earth” (Gen. 10:8). The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, or Babylon; and a very significant beginning it was, for we soon learn its meaning. They would have a tower to reach to heaven, so that if another flood came they might get beyond the reach of God's power. It was to get a name; pride and ambition are the first given marks of Babylon. Achan gives another feature, namely, covetousness. His position as an Israelite gave him the opportunity to gratify the coveting of his soul. The true character of his guilt is intimated in his taking the Babylonish garment; for I doubt if this only refers to a material fact. The silver and the gold were hidden in his tent in the earth, and were covered with the Babylonish garment; “the silver under it” (Josh. 7:22). The taking advantage of a religious reputation to gratify a covetous heart is a prominent characteristic of Babylon. As the Lord said to the Pharisees, for a pretense making long prayers, but the reality was to devour widows' houses (Matthew 23). The pride of Hezekiah is in the same connection, for it is to the ambassadors of Babylon that he discloses the treasures of Jehovah. In these three instances we have marked and prominent features of Babylon. The first was an endeavor to get beyond the aim of God, to be as it were above Him; and this was the beginning of world power. “And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel.” In Achan there is the immoral use of religious profession for worldly gain, and in Hezekiah, the pride which makes a display of the things of God to win worldly applause.

But these are not all. In the city of Babylon other evils appear, though perhaps not more offensive to God. The idolatrous Nebuchadnezzar associated the God of heaven with his idols. He did not forsake them, he only acknowledged that the God of the Jews was greater than his gods. Belshazzar profaned the symbols of the worship of Jehovah; he and his lords used the vessels of God's temple to pour out libations to their idols. Darius was not ignorant of the power of God, for he said to Daniel,” Thy God is able to deliver thee,” yet he suffered himself to be exalted above God. It is this knowledge of God, with the practice of all evil, which is Babylon. All appear in Babylon the Great, and her guilt infinitely increased as it is combined with the fullest revelation of God in grace and love: a fully elaborated ecclesiastical system, which God forbore with till His church was taken up. Then what was left He rejected. This is not destruction, but rejection as a witness. The Lord will have no more to do with the backsliding church; He had taken a place outside and stood knocking.

The Sacraments (So-Called): Part 1

No right-minded Christian will otherwise than highly esteem the two ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper instituted by our Lord—the latter previous to His death, and the former subsequent to it. Why the Supper should have been previous to it, and the commission to baptize after it, may be an interesting question, but it is one not expressly answered in Scripture. It should at least have preserved the church from the gross error of taking in the literal and carnal sense the words, “This is My body,” “This is My blood.” Indeed, even this should not have been necessary to guard against the degradation of a spiritual truth, and a prostitution of our moral sense, which nothing but the deliberate intention of establishing and justifying sacerdotalism could possibly have brought about. And what will men not do when they are bent on anything? What will they not at length believe? They then take credit for sincerity—a sincerity however in error, which is the consequence of the rejection of truth, and which is therefore altogether without excuse. If utter darkness has no less arisen from an original and continued departure from a divine testimony in the traditional form in which it was known to, and held by, the patriarchs, then spiritual darkness has come about in the church from the rejection, and even perversion, of divine truth. But as all men have not faith, so all Christians have not spirituality. Writing to the church at Corinth, Paul says, “Ye are carnal.” He does not say they were natural, for in that case they would not be Christians—at least not true Christians; but he says they are carnal, at the same time distinguishing the spiritual from the carnal (1 Cor. 2:14, 15; 3:3). Yet nothing then in the church approached the imbecility of a later time. “I have fed you with milk, and not with meat,” says Paul. Is this to be taken literally? A believer in transubstantiation will perhaps say, “Well, Paul was a priest in the church of God, and in the Eucharist” (why not call it always, the Lord's Supper?): “he at least fed them with the flesh of Christ.” But so degraded a notion had at that time neither entered the head of Paul, nor of any other Christian. It was those who were destitute of faith, who, taking, the Lord's words literally, said, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Utterly unspiritual, and taking His words in a gross, carnal, and literal sense, they were of course stumbled. Again, the Lord says, “I have meat to eat that ye know not of.” Is this to be taken literally? On the other hand, the prophet Jeremiah says (ch. xx. 16), “Thy words were found, and I did eat them,” i.e. the food was spiritual and non-material, and the eating was consequently also spiritual, and non-literal. So in John 6, and in reply to those who, once disciples, went back and walked no more with Him, Jesus said, “Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life;” as much as to say, “If you so grossly misunderstand My words, now that I am with you, how much more egregiously will you misunderstand them when I have ascended to heaven?” The words He had just spoken were to be taken spiritually and not literally, and the eating is in this case also a spiritual and not a literal process.

It is a not uncommon notion, though it is a very incorrect one, that to be baptized, and to partake of the Lord's Supper, are commands. To a nation—a people in the flesh and under the law, circumcision and the observance of the Passover were indeed commands, at least so long as individuals remained members of the commonwealth of Israel. Every legal obligation had to be fulfilled by such. To put Christianity on this ground, however, is to mistake its spirit and genius. The Christian ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper are matters of privilege, not of enforced requirement; nor is there such a thing to be found in the New Testament as “the New Law” —or a new legal system. A person is not a Christian by birth, but a person was a Jew by birth, and upon that ground was under the law.

As regards the Lord's Supper, 1 Cor. 11:24, 25 simply enjoins us, as often as we partake of it, to do so in remembrance of Him. As to baptism, there was a command to make disciples of all nations, and to baptize them, but no command to people to be baptized. Acts 10:48 is no exception to this, it is rather “commanded that they should be baptized in the name of the Lord.” Privilege and blessing are not matters of command, but of divine grace: Christians are indeed subject to Christ, but this is not being under law. There is one advantage which the Church of Rome possesses over most other professedly Christian bodies. It meets, in its own way (which after all is but a parody of the truth), the varied needs of souls, and it does this with a dogmatic clearness and fixity of meaning wholly wanting to the usual Protestant systems. It thus meets the felt want of an age feeble in faith, and wearied with uncertainty and confusion. And truly there can be no rest for the conscience, no repose for the heart and mind, without authority to rest on. When the soul has not rest and peace through the finished work of Christ—where justification by faith only is unknown, or the proper (forensic) meaning of the word is denied, and the meaning of infused righteousness substituted for it—where consequently the soul knows not what it is to find perfect rest in Christ, a present and an assumed authority, such as that of the church, or of the Pope, saves the trouble of faith, and the exercises of soul connected with it, and gives at least a superficial and temporary rest or rather lull. The conscience is, as it were, drugged.

Now we feel as strongly as any Roman Catholic that, unless there is adequate authority for our confidence, that confidence is worth nothing, and will certainly fail us sooner or later. But the word of the living God as contained in the holy Scriptures is our authority—that word, in the Spirit's favor, is our confidence. We acknowledge no other, and we place implicit confidence in it. Ministers of that word may be used and blessed to us; but if so, they will be the first to own the distinction between a rule of faith—i.e. a divinely—given standard of what is to be believed—and a means of communicating it. The former cannot err, the latter can. As to the faith even the apostle Paul says, “Not that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand” (2 Cor. 1:24). If true to the Lord, whose servants they are, they will repudiate any personal authority in matters of faith, and will exhort and encourage their hearers or readers to base their convictions on the Scriptures alone. Tradition is but the enemy's device to injure the integrity of the Bible, as the sole authority for what is to be believed.

In the patriarchal age, and when there were no written records, certain men were the depositaries of simple yet divine revelations, which they communicated to others; but in these days, and in order to preserve such revelations from the alterations and corruptions which frequent repetition would inevitably bring about, human life was vastly prolonged. For instance, Adam was for more than sixty years the contemporary of, Noah's father, Lamech; and Shem died only twenty-four years before the death of Abraham. Shem therefore may have related to Abraham what Lamech had heard from Adam. Here we have, for tradition, certainty of origin and of transmission. Tradition was in the case of the patriarchs alike genuine and authentic. What now goes by the name of tradition in the Church is devoid of either. The attempt is made to justify it, and there is no want of boldness, or rather of impudence, in assertion: but assertion is not proof; and the written word, the Holy Scriptures, remain, and will remain, the sole standard and authority for what is to be believed. The law may require judges to carry it out; but they are not judges of the law, but of those who transgress the law, still less do they constitute authority to enact. So the true believer is no judge of God's word, but he has competency to understand and apply it. “I have not written to you because ye know not the troth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth” (1 John 2:21); and in the preceding verse, “Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.” Such only have the true verifying faculty. Nor should we be disturbed or alarmed by any expression of horror at what is called “the right of private judgment.” By this is properly meant, not, of course, the right to judge God's word when we have it in our possession, but the obligation to judge of everything by that word. It is not so much a right as an obligation. We are individually responsible to God that we do judge everything by His word, and shape our conduct accordingly. Take for example the first Epistle to the Corinthians. Here is a letter written by the apostle Paul to the saints at Corinth, and to “all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.” He sends this epistle, not through any official or presiding individual, for no reference to such a person or office exists in any of the Epistles. Even where in a local assembly bishops or elders, and deacons, are spoken of, it is always as indicating a plurality of them. No trace of a presiding officer is to be found in any one of Paul's Epistles—still less of diocesan episcopacy. The apostle writes to the saints, or to the church, directly and immediately; in fact, upon many points, in reply to questions they had asked him (1 Cor. 7:1). Now, is it to be believed that those Christians either had not the right to take this Epistle as being to them immediately, or if such were the case, that they were unable to read and understand it, as an inspired writing? And so with all the Epistles; excepting those called pastoral.” They were addressed to what was afterward called the “laity;” and will it be pretended that the laity could understand them then, but that we cannot understand them now? To take another example. The Epistle to the Colossians is thus addressed, “To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse,” &c. Communication between the apostle and the saints or brethren is direct and immediate. There is not the slightest allusion to any presiding individual: had there been such an office, it is impossible it could be so entirely and so systematically overlooked. We read indeed in. this Epistle (iv. 17), that Archippus had some ministry committed to him by the Lord. Is the Epistle sent either to or through Archippus? On the contrary, Paul requests the Colossian saints to read it amongst themselves, and directs further that it should be read in the church (i.e. assembly) of the Laodiceans, and, moreover, they are to say to Archippus, “Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfill it.” The letter itself would probably suffice to convey this message to Archippus, yet such are the Apostle's words, such is the way in which he puts it. If Archippus was (to use the phrase) “their minister,” we get a fine instance of independency here. But he was nothing of the sort, for, as has been shown, no such office was in existence in the early Church. Ministry indeed was, in its purity; but the office of a presiding minister was the invention of a later date.

Where there is no motive for distorting or falsifying God's word, how simple it is! Infinite depths in it, no doubt—how could it be otherwise if it is the word of God?—yet, for the most part, very and purposely simple. Why, then, should it be wrested out of the hands of individual Christians, or be nullified by committing its interpretation to others, unless to bolster up the fictitious claims of a sacerdotal caste 2 Difference amongst Christians is a very convenient plea for robbing them of the privilege and responsibility committed to them by their Savior and Lord, to hold and to heed His word. But, in fact, the remedy would be worse than the disease; less of truth would be known and held in common by them, than ever, and, in short, the same reason existed for taking the Scriptures out of the hands of the so-called “Fathers” (of whom it may be said, without exaggeration, quot homines, tot sententiae), had there only been in those days an infallible Pope to have done anything so advantageous for the church. But, unfortunately, infallibility came too late to make sense and consistency, much more orthodoxy, out of the Fathers.

A text (2 Peter 1:20) is sometimes quoted, or rather misquoted, in denial of the right of private judgment, “no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation;” but such is not the meaning of this text. It simply means that no prophecy of the Scripture is of self-interpretation, or of isolated meaning and application—that it must be taken as part only of the whole coordinated system of Divine revelation. This holds true of the word of God generally, though applying here more particularly to the coming kingdom. Acts of Uniformity, or the crafty policy of Rome, in instigating the civil power to punish those who, desirous of rendering unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things which are God's, cannot, if obedient to their Lord, accept the dogmas and dictates of a cruel and corrupt church, may bring about a certain amount of outward uniformity; yet, after all, we never read in Scripture of the unity of the church, though we do, read of the unity of the Spirit, and of endeavoring to keep this in the bond of peace. But the Spirit is truth; unity in error, therefore, has another origin and source. “To whom coming as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God and precious, ye also as living stones are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:4, 5). This was addressed by the Apostle “to the strangers scattered,” &c., evidently converted Jews, true Christians, and applies no less to true Christians now; none the less, if true Christians are sadly scattered in the days in which we live. Living stones themselves, and coming unto Christ as a living stone, they are built up a spiritual house, in the binding power of the Holy Spirit.

Babylon is a specious imitation of this, bricks for stone and slime for mortar, like the Babylon of old; and coming unto the Pope, the spiritual Babylon referred to in Rev. 17:5 rises into view—a vast meretricious system, destined yet to a limited sway, but soon to incur the everlasting judgment of God. And most artfully is the Church of Rome availing herself of the boasted but godless liberty of the day to recover her lost power in this favored but guilty land. It is often imagined that the Romish Church has herself become liberalised by the liberty accorded to her, and to all other ungodliness. Has she ceased to teach her candidates for orders, “Tolerantia religiosa, est impia et absurda” Has she revoked the article of the Council of Trent which decrees thus? “In matters of faith and morals, and whatever relates to the maintenance of Christian doctrine, no one confiding in his own judgment shall dare to wrest the Sacred Scriptures to his own sense of them..... If any disobey, let them be denounced by the ordinaries, and punished according to law.” Has she canceled the following clause in the oath taken by the Roman Catholic Bishops? “The rules of the holy Fathers and Mandates Apostolic, I will with all my power observe, and cause to be observed by others. Heretics, Schismatics, and rebels against the same our Lord (the Pope) aforesaid, I will persecute and attack.”

This is the sort of church which England is at the present time fostering, these are the principles which that church is cherishing. The way from Protestantism to Rome is easy and clear. Baptismal regeneration and apostolical succession are taught us by the orthodox Church of England. From this we have only to pass through the Ritualistic phase: consistency must then land us in Popery. The figment of baptismal regeneration, in place of the quickening power of the Spirit by the word, producing bricks instead of living stones; church ordinances holding people together, instead of the binding power of the Spirit, slime for mortar—this is the Babylon which Satan is building, the counterfeit city of God, the woman who falsely assumes to be the bride of Christ. But though she has yet to reach the climax of her audacity and wickedness, her time is getting short, her cup of iniquity fall, and ready for judgment; strong is the Lord God who will judge in her destruction, the sufferings of the saints whom she has persecuted with all the cruelty of religions, rancor.

The word “sacrament” is from the Latin sacramentum, the military oath of allegiance administered to the Roman soldiers, and is thus an ecclesiastical and not a Scriptural term. In the Latin translation it is used as the equivalent of the Greek word μυστήριον, mystery. It is so used in Eph. 5:32, where speaking of marriage the Apostle says, “this is a great mystery.” Hence the Roman Catholics make matrimony a sacrament. The absurdity of this is evident when it is seen that the usual ecclesiastical sense of the word would be gone if the Greek word μυστήριον is always to be considered as meaning a sacrament; for instance, “the mystery of the gospel,” “the mystery of godliness,” “the mystery of iniquity,” &c. Yet if not always, with what authority in Eph. 5:32? The Catechism of the Church of England tells us that “a sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace,” &c., “as a means whereby we receive the same.” According to the Prayer-book, therefore, the elements in the Sacraments are channels or vehicles of divine grace. But the above definition of a Sacrament is erroneous, for the “inward and spiritual grace” is not necessary to the definition of a Sacrament, and is mischievously false if we are to regard the water in baptism, or the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper, as its channels or vehicles. Yet everyone knows that baptismal regeneration is the teaching of the Prayer-book, and as to the Lord's Supper, the Catechism, in answer to the question “What is the inward part, or thing signified?” replies, “The body and blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper.” But the import of a sacrament in no way depends upon any subjective effort in the individual. Sacraments have also been compared with the tree of life in the garden of Eden, or with that in Rev. 22:2. These, however, in no way represent the death of Christ, and this would be moreover to maintain the opus operatum, to make them operative in themselves, a theory rejected by nearly all the Reformers.

On Acts 3

Thus did God gather to the name of the Lord Jesus; His church began to be built. But He did not therefore forget His ancient people. In word and deed He appeals to their conscience, if haply they might repent, and He bring in the predicted times of blessing.

“Now Peter and John were going up into the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth. And a certain man being lame from his mother's womb was carried, whom they laid every day at the gate of the temple called Beautiful, to ask alms of those that entered into the temple; who, seeing Peter and John about to enter into the temple, asked to receive alms. And Peter gazing on him with John said, Look on us. And he gave heed to them, expecting to receive something from them. But Peter said, Silver and gold have I none, but what I have, this I give thee: in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth walk. And grasping him by the right hand he raised [him] up; and immediately his feet and ankle-bones were made strong. And leaping up he stood and walked, and entered with them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God. And all the people saw him walking and praising God; and they recognized him that be it was that sat for alms at the Beautiful gate of the temple; and they were filled with wonder and amazement at that which had happened to him. And as he held Peter and John all the people ran together unto them in the portico that is called Solomon's, greatly wondering. And Peter seeing [it] answered unto the people, Men of Israel, why marvel ye at this [man]? or why gaze ye at us as though by our own power or piety we had made him to walk? The God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, did glorify His servant Jesus, whom ye delivered up, and denied Him before Pilate's face when he decided [lit. judged] to release [Him]. But ye denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, but the Author [lit. Chief] of life ye killed, whom God raised from [the] dead of which we are witnesses; and on the faith of His name did His name make this man strong whom ye behold and knew; and the faith that is by Him gave him this entireness before you all. And now, brethren, I know that ye acted in ignorance, as also your rulers; but God thus fulfilled what He announced before by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ should suffer. Repent therefore, and be converted for the blotting out of your sins, so that seasons of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and he may send forth Him that hath been fore-appointed for you, Jesus Christ, whom heaven indeed must receive till times of restoring all things whereof God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets since time began. Moses indeed said, A prophet shall the Lord our God raise up to you from among your brethren as [he did] me; him shall ye in all things whatsoever he shall speak unto you. And it shall be that every soul which shall not hear that prophet shall be destroyed from among the people. Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel, and those in succession, as many as spoke, did also announce these days. Ye are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God covenanted with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed. To you first God, having raised up His servant, sent Him to bless you in turning away each from your iniquities” (5:1-26).

The actual circumstances here recounted agree singularly with the special form the truth assumes. God is showing His long-suffering grace toward Israel, though He had commenced an entirely distinct testimony and work in the gospel and in the church. So Peter and John, who were certainly behind none in the new position and testimony, are seen going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour. For the time at any rate they seem the better Jews for being so blessed as Christians. Not even their apostolic dignity, nor the power with which they were just clothed, detached them. There at the Beautiful gate when about to enter the temple, a man lame from his birth, often seen, being habitually laid there, asked of them alms, and got a better blessing. For Peter gazing on him with John, arrested his attention who expected to receive some little boon. But if discouraged by “Silver and gold have I none,” he hears of something new indeed: “What I have, this I give thee: in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth walk.” And if the apostle promptly grasped his right hand and raised him up, immediately his feet and ankle-bones received strength, so that leaping up he stood, walked, and entered with them into the temple, praising God. It was not done in a corner. All the people saw and heard, recognizing him to be the same that used to sit there begging; and they were filled with wonder and amazement at what had befallen him.

It was indeed a sign admirably calculated to awaken the Jews, to attest the grace of God towards their utter weakness, to manifest the power of the risen and glorified Messiah, and so much the more as it was not His presence but His answer from on high to the power of His name appealed to by His servant on earth. If such was the instant virtue of the name of Jesus for the lame man, what would not follow faith in that name if Israel believed?

“And as he held Peter and John, all the people ran together unto them in the portico that is called Solomon's, greatly wondering. And Peter seeing [it] answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this man [or, thing]? or why gaze ye at us, as though by our own power or piety we had made him to walk? The God of Abraham, and Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, did glorify His servant Jesus; whom ye delivered up and denied before the face of Pilate when decided to release [Him].” This was no uncertain sound. But all is in keeping. It is the God of our fathers who glorified the Messiah, His servant Jesus. “Son” is not the thought, but Jehovah's servant as in Isa. 42, 49:1, 52, 53, whom the Jews had denied before the Roman judge, when disposed, yea determined, to let Him go.

And who is this that so boldly charged the Jews with denying their own Messiah? The very man who not many weeks before had denied Him with oaths. But Peter immediately broke down in a sorrow which wrought repentance according to God, as he judged not only the ripe fruit; but the root of his sin. Now restored, his feet washed, he is so completely cleansed from the defilement that he can without a blush or waver tax the men of Israel with the very sin from which he had been so lately freed himself. For redemption by the blood of Jesus had meanwhile come in, and its enjoyment is so much the greater as the believer judges himself before God. “But ye denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and the Author of life ye killed, whom God raised from among the dead, of which we are witnesses; and on the faith of His name did His name make this man strong whom ye behold and know; and the faith that is by Him gave him this entireness before you all.” None can preach, any more than worship, like a soul once cleansed, having no more conscience of sins. How desperate their position! The Holy and Righteous One they denied; a murderer they desired as a favor: God was distinctly against them in raising up from the dead the Author of life whom they slew; and the apostles were witnesses of this; as His name through faith in it made the lame man strong whom they looked on and knew. What and where were they in gainsaying unbelief of Him who responded to the faith by Him and in Him that gave such an one this entireness in presence of them all?

Then does the apostle explain how so dreadful a deed could be on their part. “And now, brethren, I know that ye acted in ignorance, as also your rulers; but God thus fulfilled what He announced before by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ should suffer.” In one way this might aggravate the degraded condition of God's ancient people; for how came they and their rulers to be so ignorant? They knew neither the scripture nor the power of God. They valued neither grace nor truth. They saw works, they heard words such as man never experienced before; yet were they more besotted than heathen, duller than their own beasts of burden. But He who suffered for them on the cross prayed to His Father to forgive them, for they knew not what they did; and now the Holy Spirit though the apostle assures them that so it was, as a plea for divine compassion. That His Christ should suffer was no afterthought of God, who predicted it by all the prophets and thus fulfilled it. So must the people learn their blind iniquity; so would He manifest His mercy who gave Him a propitiation for their offenses.

“Repent, therefore, and be converted for the blotting out of your sins, so that seasons of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and He may send forth the Christ that hath been fore-appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven indeed must receive till times of restoring all things, whereof God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets since time began.”

Here we have the condition of blessing to the Jews. Seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord are vainly sought for them as a people, till they repent and turn again for the blotting out of their sins. So the Lord had intimated when He bowed to their rejection of Him, and declared their house left to them desolate: “Ye shall not see Me henceforth till ye shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord” —of Jehovah. Whensoever their heart shall turn to the Lord, the veil is taken away. They will be converted for the blotting out of their sins. They will welcome their long-despised Messiah, and Jehovah will send Him. There will be at least a remnant converted and awaiting His advent; and He will appear to their deliverance and the discomfiture of their enemies, as many scriptures bear witness. Of that godly remnant not a few will be put to death; and these, whether earlier or later sufferers, shall be raised in time to join the saints already glorified; so that they all may reign with Christ during the thousand years according to Rev. 20. Those who escape and survive will become the first and most honored nucleus for the kingdom on earth, when heaven no longer has within it the Christ fore-appointed for them, Jesus, and times for restoring all things dawn on earth.

For God does mean to bless this long-groaning creation, and inspired the mouth of His holy prophets to speak of it since time began. They therefore do greatly err who deny the immense and universal blessing in store for Israel, the nations, the earth, and the creation in general. They do not know how God intends to crown men here below with lovingkindness and tender mercies, when He shall open His hand and satisfy the desire of every living thing. Judgment, undoubtedly, shall fall previously; and Jehovah shall punish the host of the high ones on high, and the kings of the earth on the earth. Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when Jehovah of hosts shall reign in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and before His ancients gloriously. For the great distinctive feature is to be, along with this exclusion of Satan and his power, the mighty and beneficent presence and reign of Jehovah. Jesus, who with righteousness shall judge the poor and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth, after He shall smite the earth with the rod of His month, and with the breath of His lips shall slay the wicked. And righteousness shall be the girdle of His loins, and faithfulness the girdle of His reins. The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Jehovah, as the waters cover the sea. And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people: to it shall the Gentiles seek; and His rest shall be glorious.

What a gap in the thoughts and desires of saints, who expect none of these great and glorious changes in honor of Jesus! How defective the outlook where the grand purposes of God are unknown in reversal of the ruin and misery of the world since sin entered it! It will be noticed that nothing is here said of the still more magnificent circle of blessing revealed in Eph. 1:10, when God will place under the headship of Christ all things that are in heaven and all that are on earth. Here we have only the earthly things in relation to Messiah and Israel, not the universe put under Christ and the heavenly saints.

Meanwhile the Jews refused to repent, and the kingdom, instead of being brought in, is postponed till they are converted for the blotting out of their sins at a future day, so that seasons of repenting may come from Jehovah's presence, and Christ be sent from heaven, according to the prophetic word. Daring the interval God turns the time of Jewish unbelief to the gospel call of the Gentiles, as well as to the formation of the body, the church one with Christ, wherein is neither Jew nor Greek. Here Peter is still exhorting them to repent, and in case of it pledging the return of Christ to establish the time of predicted peace and blessing. For Jesus was clearly the prophet raised up, like Moses, but incomparably greater, as Moses himself bore witness in Deut. 28:15-19: none could refuse His words with impunity, but to his own destruction. “And all the prophets from Samuel and those in succession, as many as spoke, did also announce these days.” As the Jews were the sons of the prophets and of God's covenant with their fathers, according to the promised blessing in the seed of Abraham, so was Jesus, His anointed servant, sent to them first to bless them in turning away each from their iniquities.

It is not yet the heavenly testimony of Paul, nor even what Peter preached to those converted and believing in Christ, as in the preceding chapter 2, but his call to the Jew responsible to hear the final appeal to that nation.

On 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11

From the special side of the Lord’s coming which consummates His grace to those waiting for Him by their translation to His presence in the air, the apostle now turns to the more general fact of “the day” when He deals with the world according to the concurrent testimony of the Old Testament and of the New. The gathering of the saints to Himself, asleep or alive changed into the image of His glory, is a new revelation, and is introduced here as such. Not so the appearing or day of the Lord, which had formed the burden of many prophecies, and, I think we may say, of all the prophets since time began. For it is an epoch and indeed period second to none in manifest importance, affecting every creature in heaven and earth, and displaying the immense change which God will then bring to pass in honour of His Son according to His word from the beginning.

“But concerning the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need to be written to. For yourselves know thoroughly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief at night. When they are saying peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh on them as the pain on her that is with child; and they shall in no wise escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day should overtake you as a thief; for ye all are sons of light and sons of day: we are not of light nor of darkness. So, then, let us not sleep as [do] the rest, but let us watch and be sober. For they that sleep, sleep by night, and they that are drunk drink by night; but we being of day, let us be sober, putting on a breastplate of faith and love, and hope of salvation as helmet. Because God did not appoint us unto wrath, but unto obtaining of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we may live together with Him. Therefore encourage one another, and edify each other, even as also ye do.” (Ver. 1-11.)

It will be remarked that there is no mention, no mixing up, of “the times and the seasons” with the presence of the Lord to gather His own to Himself on high. This, our hope, is wholly apart from the defined periods of which prophecy treats. Here where “the day of the Lord” is in question, they are expressly brought forward; for that day is the most momentous event embraced within this scope. It is not improbable from 2 Thess. 2:5 that the apostle had already taught them of it orally, as he certainly did of antecedent circumstances. But it is not necessary to assume that he had taught them as much could be known, nor even that he had ever by word of mouth gone into detail on the day of the Lord. There was really no need for this, because the Old Testament treats of no theme more largely and minutely. It was already, therefore, a matter of common and familiar knowledge among the saints. Yet the accuracy of their knowledge is here simply said of the sure and sudden and unwelcome coming of the day of the Lord. There was no need of writing anything now, for they knew perfectly that Jehovah's day so comes as a thief at night. The apostle may not have gone into particulars; but this great and solemn truth was part of their inward conscious assurance. (Ver. 1, 2.) They knew perfectly, not as some strangely say that the time of it is uncertain, but that its coming is certain, and no less terrible than unlooked for.

With this is contrasted the fatal self-deceiving security of men around them, of the world. “When they are saying peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh on them, as the pain on her that is with child; and they shall in no wise escape” (ver. 3). In 2 Peter 3 it is rather such scoffing unbelief as is found among philosophers, who point to the substantial stability of all things visible in the midst of superficial change and development. Here it is rather inward quiet and outward exemption from danger, through confidence in the social and political state of mankind; yet not without uneasy qualms which betray the real unrest and underlying dread of those that know not God and His Christ. As it was with men when the flood came and swept those all away who despised God's warning by Noah; as it was when, after feebler and briefer warning still in the days of Lot, condign judgment fell on the polluted cities of the plain; so shall it be in the day when the Sun of man is revealed. Sudden destruction, indeed, impends on those who trust themselves and their own thought, rejecting the testimony of God. This is the judgment of the quick; and, it will be noticed, no trace accompanies it of a judgment of the dead, nor yet of a burning up of the earth, however surely both are to follow in their own due season. It is the end of the age, but not of the world materially. As a snare shall it come upon all them that dwell on the face of all the earth. And they shall in no wise escape, any more than the woman with child when her hour is come and the birth-pang is on her. It is unspiritual ignorance, not to say folly, to apply this to the destruction of Jerusalem or to death, as some have done and do. It is the day of the Lord yet to fall on the world.

The apostle, however, immediately and carefully declares how different is the lot of the faithful. “But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day should overtake you as a thief; for ye all are sons of light and sons of day: we are not of light nor of darkness” (ver. 4, 5). He is not afraid that it would endanger the young believers in Thessalonica, or any others, to know how grace had distinguished them from the rest of mankind; his very aim here, as elsewhere, is to impress this distinction on them ineffaceably. He says, first, that they were not in darkness, that the day should surprise them as a thief; secondly, that they all were sons of light and sons of day. Not only were they unlike the world as in darkness and the objects of the Lord's judgment, but positive sharers of divine nature and blessedness. Indeed, such is the peculiar being of God's children generally, as he adds, “we are not of light nor of darkness.” We are of God, who is light, and in whom is no darkness at all.

But privilege known and enjoyed by the believer is the very hinge and incentive of responsibility; and so the apostle proceeds to exhort— “So then let us not sleep as do the rest, but let us watch and be sober” (ver. 6). If children of God, it is a deep spring of joy in Christ and of thanksgiving to our Father; but how instant and inalienable the call to walk according to the relationship! So here, if sons of light and of day, sleep—indifference to the will of the Lord—becomes us not, but watchfulness and sobriety, as those who derive their life from Him who is the one true light, and will bring in the day, as free from excitement as from careless ease. The righteous shall then shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.

Then follows a brief but vivid picture of the slumbering world and of the wakeful Christian: “For those that sleep by night, and those that are drank drink by night; but we, as being of day, let us be sober, putting on a breastplate of faith and love, and as helmet hope of salvation” (ver. 7, 8). Sleep suits the night, and so does excess: men naturally do in the dark what they would not like to do in the light. It is the common and undeniable practice of men which is thus brought before the mind. To what is the Christian exhorted? It is not exactly, as in the Authorized Version after the Vulgate, &c., “Let us who are of the day,” which would require the article, but let us as being of day be sober, having put on a breastplate of faith and love, and hope of salvation as helmet. Thus the believer is called to be in arms as well as watchful and sober. But the arms here, as but young Christians were immediately addressed, are not offensive, but defensive only: the three characteristics of their life here below, faith, love, and hope. We have seen how they are used in chap. 1 of this epistle; here they re-appear in the last. Indeed they cannot be absent if we would speak of the motive principles of Christ, whether in truth or in practice; and hence they are more or less prominent in all the apostolic writings.

It must be understood that “salvation” here is used in the final or complete sense when the body will share the application of that gracious power which has already dealt with the soul. The believer has already life everlasting and redemption in the Son of God, and thus receives the end of his faith, soul-salvation; he is therefore looking for the salvation of his body (Phil. 21) at Christ's coming as Savior, who shall transform our body of humiliation into conformity to His body of glory, according to the working of the power which He has even to subdue all things to Himself. “Because God did not appoint us unto wrath, but unto obtaining of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with Him.” These are plain words which trace up to God the sovereign grace which distinguishes the saints from the world from first to last, and makes Christ and His death the turning-point of all blessing for those who look to Him, as His wrath abides on such as are not subject to His Son. As lawyers, however, are apt to find in the law more difficulties and stumbling-blocks and evasions than any other class, so do theologians in the written word, to the dishonor of God and the injury of all who confide in them. Could any minds save those perverted by systematic divinity have ever allowed so low a thought as that physical waking or sleeping was here meant? Yet Dr. Whitby did thus think; and even Calvin says that we might not unsuitably interpret it as meaning ordinary sleep, and that it is doubtful what is now intended by sleeping and waking, for it might seem as if he meant life and death, and this meaning would be more complete. Assuredly this pious and learned man here gives a very uncertain sound with the trumpet. It were better to utter no opinion at all than to leave the realer under such a confusion of sounds. But even this is not the lowest depth, for there have not been wanting men who wish the apostle to teach that the words bear the same ethical force in ver. 10 as in 6, 7, the necessary inference from which would be that, whether we be spiritually watchful or slothful, we shall alike enjoy the portion of everlasting blessedness altogether with Christ. Does not this sound uncommonly like moral indifferentism?

Dean Alford, to take a recent case, seems in no small strait as to all this in his remarks on the passage (iii. 278, 279, ed. iv.): “In what sense? surely not in an ethical sense, as above: for they who sleep will be overtaken by Him as a thief, and His day will be to them darkness, not light. If not in an ethical sense, it must be in that of living or dying, and the sense as Rom. 14:8. [For we cannot adopt the trifling sense given by Whitby, al., —'whether He come in the night, and so find us taking our natural rest, or in the day when we are waking.'] Thus understood, however, it will be at the expense of perspicacity, seeing that γρηγορεῖν and καθεύδειν have been used ethically throughout this passage. If we wish to preserve the uniformity of the metaphor, we may [though I am not satisfied with this] interpret in this sense: that our Lord died for us, that whether we watch are of the number of the watchful, i.e. already Christians] or sleep [are of the number of the sleeping, i.e. unconverted] we should live, &c. Thus it would = ‘who died that all men might be saved:’ who came, not to call the righteous only, but sinners to life. There is to this interpretation the great objection that it confounds with the λοιποί, the ἡμᾶς who are definitely spoken of as set by God not to wrath but to περιποίησιν σωτηρίας. So that the sense live or die must, I think, be accepted, and the want of perspicuity with it.”

Of course Alford is right in accepting the sense of living or dying, but wrong and irreverent in imputing want of perspicuity to Scripture. He saw Paul, not the Holy Ghost perfectly guiding and guarding him, in what is written. Apply the Dean's reasoning to a kindred mode of speech in Matt. 8:21, 22. Was there want of perspicuity in the words of the Lord Jesus? or in 1 Cor. 8, does the unexpected but striking turn given to the word “edified” = “emboldened” in ver. 10 destroy perspicuity? It really gives force in every instance: it is only men's perception which is at fault, with the still worse fault of lack of faith in God's word. If they felt their own shortcoming but owned the perfection of Scripture, it would be the right attitude, and they would learn, instead of indulging an assumption which covers ignorance in themselves, injures others, and is a great disrespect to God. The verse is really the conclusion of the answer to the Thessalonian difficulty as to the dead; and the Holy Spirit seems to have boldly used the words γρ. and κ. ethically in 6 and 7, and metaphorically here, because He took for granted the mind of Christ in the saints, which could not misapprehend His different aims in the two cases. Christ died for us, that whether alive or dead, we should live together with Him. It is living along with Him where He is and as Ηε is, glorified on high. And as the Apostle called on the saints in 4:18 to comfort or encourage one another with these words, he repeats it here in ver. 11, with the added call to edify one the other; for the solemn judgment to fall on the world in the day of the Lord should the more build up believers consoled and rejoicing in their own proper hope at His coming.

Revised New Testament: 1 John

I. 1 stands better in the Revised Version, which not only makes each verse more distinct, but correctly distinguishes the tenses. It is in each “that which;” whilst the two later are not perfects, but simply preterites. But there is no need for the awkwardness of “the life, the eternal life” in 2, any more than for “that eternal life” in the Authorized Version. Nor should the verse open with “For,” but “And.” In 3 is not the true force “report” rather than “declare,” or “show?” “Yea,” &c., well represents καὶ δέ The first serious difference of reading is in 4, ἡμεῖς, “we,"(à Ap.m. B P &c.) for ὑμῖν, “unto you” (Acorr C K L &c.); and “our” (à B L., many cursives and versions), for ὑμῶν (A C K P, the majority of cursives, and many ancient versions). R. Stephens followed the Complutensian editors in preferring “our,” Elzevir followed Erasmus and Beza in adopting “you;” and so respectively the Revised Version and the Authorized Version. If “our” be right, it would join the believers with the apostles in the same joy through fellowship with the Father and with His Son. But is it not strange that the Revisers adopt a text so ill supported as αὕτη ἐστίν (A, &c.), when there is such strong and united authority for the more emphatic;—ἕστιν αὕυτη (à B C K L P, the mass of cursives, &c.), “And there is this message,” &c.? Certainly the early editors, Erasmus, the Complutensian, and Colinaeus all give the emphatic form according to ancient authority, but not R. Stephens, Beza, and Elzevir. Was it Beza that influenced the Authorized translators in “This then?” He ventures in his notes to take καί as equivalent to οὖν, where it is clear that it merely adds an entirely new subject; and this a “message,” not “promise,” as would be true if the text of all the older editors could stand. But it is really ἀγγελία, not ἐπαγγ., in spite of C P and some cursives. It is remarkable that our translators, in misrendering their text, stumbled on the version of the right text. There is good authority (à B C P, &c.) for omitting “Christ” in 7, though most witnesses insert it: which one would think should have been stated in the margin.

2:2 is a great improvement on the Authorized Version, where the words added in italics overstep the truth, and unwittingly imply a serious error. If “the sins of” the whole world were expiated, what would there be to judge? Never does Scripture so teach, save as to believers. Yet Christ died for every man—gave Himself a ransom for all; but only of believers is it said that He died and suffered for their sins, or bore them in His body on the tree. But He is the propitiation for the whole world, as well as for our sins; and so the gospel can go forth freely to all the creation. Is 3 adequately rendered by the Revisers? Who could gather the difference between the present and the perfect in the opening clause? Even the Authorized Version makes a faint effort; the Revised Version none. Surely ἐγν. (the second “know”) means “we acquired and possess the knowledge of.” So it is at the beginning of 4 also.

Further, is it an intelligent division of the Epistle to make 3-6 a part of the paragraph beginning With ch. 2? To my mind verses 1, 2, form the necessary supplement to the doctrine of chapter 1 in both its parts (1-4, and 5-10), intimating not only the responsibility of the family of God, but the provision of grace to restore in the case of sin. Then 3 begins to unfold the qualities or characteristic ways of the life given us in Christ, the eternal life of the believer: obedience (3-6) and love (7-11), with their opposites. But this points to two paragraphs to be marked accordingly, which the Revisers have utterly missed by grouping 2:1, 2 with 3-6 as if they were continuous; whereas the great break is after 2; and 3-11 might bettor have gone together, though it is perhaps more strictly correct to give first 3-6, and then 7-11 as distinct.

In 7 the true reading “beloved” is rightly followed, as fitly introducing the commandment—love. Also the Revisers as rightly expunge “from the beginning” at the end of the verse, however important these words are in the middle of it. In 8 the rendering of the Revised Version is correct— “passing away,” not “past,” as in the Authorized Version. Past it will never be till Christ reigns in power and glory. Yet the same thing being true in Him and in the saints (whatever the difference of measure), the darkness passes away, and the true light does now shine.

Is not the arrangement of 12-29 objectionable? It gives evidence that the structure of the Epistle was not understood. For 12 is the comprehensive address to all the family of God (τεκνία) on the ground of their sins forgiven for Christ's name. Then 13 divides the family into the, three classes of (1) fathers, (2) young men, and (3) babes (παιδία), respectively and specifically addressed again in (1) 14, (2) 14-17, and (3) 18-27; 28 and 29 resuming the general designation to the entire family as in 2:1, 3:7, 18, 4:4, and 5:21. Clearly therefore, if this be true as I feel assured, a new paragraph should not begin at 18 as in the Revised Version; as it might also have conduced to clearness if 12 had stood alone, and a new paragraph had begun with 28. No doubt the Revised Version has sought to distinguish τεκνία from the class contained under it (παιδία) by adding “my;” but is this the best way of marking the distinction? Is it not due to the same lack of appreciating the truth intended that the Revisers like others adopt the well nigh absurd variant ἔγραψα instead of γράφω in the last part of 13? It is contrary to the plain facts of the context, and the necessary bearing of the verse. The Apostle had not written before to the babes; he was now writing to them as such for the first time, as in the same verse to the fathers and to the young men. Then he goes over the ground again to the three in 14-27, where ἔγραψα is requisite, not γράφω. It is granted that diplomatic evidence is decidedly in favor of the misreading ἔγ. in the end of 13. In fact, only K, a Moscow uncial, with a fair amount of cursives and some ancient versions, stands opposed to the great mass of ancient authority. It is one of the very few cases where a few witnesses of less value contain the true reading disfigured from an early date, so that the error was widely diffused. The effect is most disastrous on the interpretation, as any English reader may see in Dean Alford's work, where we are thereby landed in the bewildering conclusion that we have three classes of readers, denoted the first time by τεκνία! πατέρες, νεανίσκοι, and the second time by παιδία, πατέρες, νεανίσκοι: a strange confusion, where the fathers are made the central group, first introduced by τ. and then by π. as if these were identical, whereas there is the necessity of admitting that τ. and π. are differently addressed; a singular thing if they were the same class, to the loss of the truth that the first is the general designation, as the latter described particularly the youngest class. The inference is that τ. and π. address all the readers alike! and that “nothing satisfactory” comes out, which is very true. If γράφω, be accepted all through 13, light dawns, and the beautiful order of the truth shines unmistakably. After speaking of all in 12, the writer first briefly addresses each of the three subdivisions, and then a second time more fully, as need required, which gives so much the force to the “fathers” where he could only repeat, without adding one word more; for Christ is all. In 18 “there have arisen” or “come” is better than the Authorized Version, as last “hour” is more vivid. In 19 it is rightly “they all are not of us,” i.e., none are of us. The margin, like the Authorized Version, is in error, if not nonsense.— In 23 the true text is reinstated from the ignominy of italics on ample and unimpeachable authority (à B C P, about thirty-five cursives, Vulg. Cop. Syrr. Arm. Aeth, &c.). In 24 οὖν, “therefore,” is rightly dropt. In 27 “the same” or “his” is a rather evenly-balanced question; but it is “true,” not “truth;” and it is a question between “abide,” or “shall abide,” at the end.

In 28 “if” is better than “when,” as the question is one of contingent consequence, and not exactly time. The margin has to be brought in to supply the deficiency of the Revised Version in rendering ἀπ' αὐτοῦ. “From before Him” has been suggested. In 29 the imp. form of the margin is better than the ind. of the Revised Version; but there is no indication of the difference between the two words for “know.” “Also” is by the Revisers adopted in the last clause; but in this epistle we have the older authorities agreeing in strange readings.

3:1 is an instance of what appears to be an enfeebling gloss appended to the first part of the verse. ἐσμεν is admirable in 2; but here καί ἐσμεν seems justly questioned, though attested by à ABC P, many cursives, and the Vulgate with other ancient versions. The Revisers rightly say “children,” not “the sons” as in the Authorized Version. The apostle John brings out eternal life and to be born of God; not the position of sons in contrast with slaves. Compare John 1:12, 13. In 2 they have corrected “it doth not yet appear” into “it is not yet made manifest,” though it does not accord with their claim of precision for the aorist, which Dean Alford would render “it never yet was manifested.” Of course actual appearing is meant, not making known by the word to faith, for this is already and clearly made; as the next clause indeed declares, without the copula of the Text. Rec “We know that, if He shall be manifested, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.” The “it” of the margin for “He,” though approved by Tyndale, &c., seems uncalled for. In 3 there is a strong effort to guard against the misconstruing of ἐπ' αὐτῷ “on him,” by the italic addition of set. At length there is an adequate public version of 4, so long misrendered to the inculcation of endless error in theology: “Every one that doeth [or, practiseth] sin doeth [or, practiseth] also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness,” not the transgression of the law, which is not imperfect only but false. Compare Rom. 2:12; 4:15; 5:13, 14; and 1 Cor. 9:20, 21. In 6 “knoweth” in the text is a loose rendering of ἔγνωκεν, inferior to the Authorized Version. From 13 “my” is rightly omitted; but the omission of τὸν ἀδελφόν near the close is questionable, the general truth being reserved for a later statement. In 16 again we have the perfect έγν rendered “know;” but while permanent effect is meant, a past act ought also to be implied: “We have known” or “have come to know.” The Text Rec. adds μου in 18: why should the Revisers supply “my"? In 19 it is “shall we know,” not “we know” as in the vulgar text followed by the Authorized Version. I doubt greatly the soundness of the rendering of 20, though it is plain that the Authorized Version is rather free and breaks the connection. Some critics and grammarians are much perplexed to find or make the construction smooth, as omission seems to have been resorted to with the same purpose by the copyists. That Lachmann and Tischendorf should make a new paragraph after this verse, breaking the manifest and weighty link between 20 and 21, might seem incredible if it were not before our eyes. I do not see how one can evade rendering 23 as in the margin, not as in the text, however unusual it may sound, which no doubt led to the tampering in 5. 58lect εἰς τὀ ὄνομα. Compare John 5:24, and other instances of like construction.

4:2 is badly rendered, repeating the old failure of all our English Versions from Wiclif downward, the Rhemish being as often the worst. As the proposition stands in them all, the result is a grave and manifest error. For evil spirits do not shrink from confessing the bare fact stated. What they do not own is the person thus predicated; for this supposes His glory, yet in the humiliation of manhood. It would be senseless to talk of Moses or David, of Homer, Alexander, or Caesar, coming in flesh; for not one of them could have come otherwise. But the Son of God might have come in His own glory, or as an angel, or in any form He pleased. He was pleased to come in flesh, to come of woman, in the accomplishment of infinite grace. Hence the point here is the person that came in flesh, not the fact that He so came, which would be expressed by the infinitive or an equivalent and appended statement, whereas here we have the participle. It should be therefore “confesseth Jesus Christ come in flesh.” This is confirmed in the most direct manner, if we accept (as most modern critics do) the words τὸν Ἰησοῦν without further addition in 3. It is easy to understand in copies accretion more or less from the preceding verse. In 5 there is an effort by inserting “as” to guard against the inference which the Authorized Version might convey, that it is about (περἰ) the world, whereas it means out of it (ἐκ): a worldly source rather than subject. But “in us” will never do for 9, though a seemingly faithful or literal rendering, as in the Rhemish alone of English Versions. It either deprives of all sense, or conveys a false idea. The true force of ἐν ἡμῖν in this connection is “in regard to us,” or in our case. The Authorized Version renders as if the Greek were εἰς ἡμᾶς the converse of their error in Rom. 8:18, where from the English we might suppose ἐν ἡμῖν must have been in the text. See the same thing again in 16. In 17 the Revisers of course rightly say “with us,” nearly as in the margin of the Authorized Version, instead of their barbarous textual rendering “our love,” which is the destruction of the truth intended. Our love could never give us boldness in the day of judgment; whereas if divine love has been perfected with us, even to the giving the Christian now to be in this world as Christ is, we may well have such boldness. How wondrous is our identification with Him who is perfect! More wondrous if this be so now in this world that we should have boldness in that day. There is in 20 a rather bold adoption of οὐ on small but good authority, instead of πῶς, but doctrine is not affected by it.

In 5:5 the Revisers may be justified in introducing the copula, for which there is good authority. In 6 there is a difficulty in fitly representing the change from δι' ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος to ἐν τῷ; thrice in the latter clauses (ἐν being omitted in the last instance in Text. Rec. with most copies, but not the oldest save à). Christ came by water and blood, not in the power of the water only, but in the power of the water and in the power of the blood. The believer's blessing is through the death of the Second man, not of the first; and this in virtue of His death, not only to purify but to atone. We need expiation, as well as purification; and both we have in the death of Christ; as the Spirit also bears witness, who is, and because He is, the truth. It is needless to discuss verses 7, 8, as it is clear and known that the last half of the former and the first half of the latter are spurious: three (not six) witnesses, and one testimony. Without the living energy of the Holy Spirit the other two witnesses to the death of Christ were of no avail for us. The three unite to assure the believer on God's part that life is in the. Son and nowhere else, as His death alone purifies and expiates. There is needed correction in the text and translation of 13, which is encumbered in the Text. Rec. and Authorized Version, where there ought to be nothing about “and that ye may believe,” &c. Minor points might be added after this as before; but nothing further occurs to me just now as of any great moment in the revision of this deep and blessed epistle.

Genesis 1:20 and 2:19

Q. Gen. 1:20; 2:19. Can the translation be correct? The first text seems to teach that the fowl as well as fish sprang from the waters by God's fiat; the second distinctly states that out of the ground were formed the fowl as well every beast of the field.-X. Y. Z.

A. The margin corrects, or rather in giving the true construction leaves no room for, the error. Nothing really is said or intended about the waters bringing forth fowl: the latter are spoken of in a distinct clause. Benisch and Leeser are just as faulty as the Authorized Version, or more so, as they perpetuate the error in the face of its marginal emendation; De Sola, Lindenthal, and Raphall break off from the error, due probably to the Targum of Onkelos, the Talmud, R. Eleazar Hagadol, Rashi, and other Rabbis, who maintain hence the common origin of fish and birds from the waters. Many follow these from Bishop Patrick down to Professor Gaussen; and no wonder as the Septuagint and the Vulgate and the Arabic are wrong, though the Hebraeo-Samaritan and the Syriac are right. The true rendering is, “Let the waters bring forth abundantly, &c., and let fowl fly, &c.” There is no discrepancy in this case to be reconciled.

The Declared Purpose and Present Moral Processes: 23. History of Faith

Now that His own are gathered, the others are left as dregs. There may be no marked external change, the observance of religious ordinances may be uninterrupted, there may be nothing more than the expression of wonder at the sudden disappearance of many well-known persons. Little will those who are left behind know that the removal of the true church is the immediate forerunner of judgment upon the false church. Only a little space left for the full ripening of the grapes of the vine of the earth, and then the vintage. In the short interval (comparatively) between rejection as a witness, and destruction as a harlot by the Beast and the ten kings, the false church assumes its final aspect, and is seen by the Apocalyptic prophet in all the shameless wickedness of a harlot. Every feature and aspect of sin from Nimrod downwards is found in her; not in an incipient stage, but in full manifestation. Christendom, when infinite riches of grace has been fully revealed, acquires the dread pre-eminence of being Babylon the Great. And as the expression of the worst evil, so its judgment is the heaviest.

Even when the prophet is declaring God's judgment upon the ancient and heathen Babylon, the Holy Spirit looks onward to the mystic Babylon of which the city of Nebuchadnezzar was but the type. The judgment of the world is included in the prophecy against the ancient Babylon (Isa. 13:11). And though the pride and arrogancy of its king be great, the language of the prophet (Isa. 14) goes beyond a simple description of the heathen king and his city. The Spirit of God gives the time, when “thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon.” It will be in the day when the Lord Jehovah gives rest to Israel. That day is not yet come, and it is evident that the prophecy looks onward to Babylon the Great. But does it not go beyond the ecclesiastical system destroyed by the Beast and the ten kings? Is not the direct power of Satan as exhibited in the false prophet referred to (14:12-21)? Lucifer, son of the morning, is apparently a reference to what Satan was before he fell, and the expression of his heart, “I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will be like the most High,” the pride which caused his fall. (Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.) The same awful character of pride is seen in the “man of sin,” who “exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (2 Thess. 2:4). Disgrace and unhonored with any burial was the doom of the king of Babylon, but does not the prophet speak of a worse than the heathen king, “Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land and slain thy people"? If darkly, yet is not this a prediction of the judgment upon that man of sin who is both the false prophet and the king that does his own will, in a word, the same doom as Rev. 19:20? Be this as it may, we know that prophecy wonderfully blends the future with the circumstances which are the occasion of the prophecy. And if the false prophet is included in this prophecy, the name of the Apostasy is applied to that state, which will arise from the destruction of the corrupt thing which is pre-eminently called “Babylon the Great.”

It is given to John in a vision to see this system of iniquity as it appears to God. A woman when used as a type gives the position of those of whom God is speaking. Israel having broken the covenant is a divorced wife; the church of God is as a chaste virgin, the Bride, the Lamb's wife; and here John sees a woman arrayed in the glory of the world, possessing its riches, dominating its rulers, by means of her golden cup seducing the nations to drink of her fornication and sorceries. Her name which the world may not see, which those who drink of her wine may not understand, is revealed to John. This woman is “Mystery, Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots, and abominations of the earth.” She is drunk, but not with her own wine, but with the blood of saints and martyrs. When John saw her he wondered with great astonishment. The angel tells him the mystery—the secret condition and doom—of the Woman and the Beast upon which she is sitting. It is the refuse of Christendom which, after being spewed out of the mouth of the Lord, is perfected in evil, and becomes a harlot—the unholy alliance by man of Truth with all evil, which is designated by God with the name of the most degraded condition among men. She is declared to be the source of every abomination in the earth; it is the system of wickedness which is not merely the sensuality of the flesh, but the opposition of man to God, first seen in Nimrod who manifested the first principle of Babylon, afterward developed against the Jehovah God of Israel, as in the literal Babylon, and now against the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. So that Babylon has always been the antagonism of man to the special revelation of God at the time, and is the concentration of all evil.

The Beast—the imperial power of the world—upon which the Woman sits will eventually, with the ten kings, destroy her, “eat her flesh and burn her with fire.” He will take possession of her riches— “eat her flesh,” and utterly destroy the system— “burn her with fire.” The Beast and his coadjutors are the visible means of her destruction, but it is no less a direct judgment from God upon the worst form of evil that had ever yet defiled the earth. The manner of the harlot's judgment is retributive. By her fornications she had deceived the nations, and under the vile name of harlot they turn upon her and become the executors of God's wrath; her slaves become her executioners. This is the end of that which was begun by grace, which soon through unwatchfulness became corrupt, which provided a home for Satanic agencies, which the Lord who began it at the end rejects, and man destroys.

But the harlot is not the last phase of the world's religion. She may be burnt, but there remains much apostasy. They who aided the harlot to deceive men by her sorceries are themselves deceived by the lying miracles of the false prophet. If the false church is swept away it only makes room for open and direct antagonism to Christ. The Beast from the earth may have arisen before the harlot was destroyed, he is beyond question, the little horn that came up among the ten and displaced three of them; for he is characterized by intelligence, eyes like a man, and has a mouth speaking great things, just as the false prophet does who only assumes the place and position of prophet after the corrupt church is destroyed. Not even the shameless harlot could provide a place for him. Such is his open and undisguised enmity to Christ that no system that admits the name of Christ as Lord, however corrupt and vile, could subsist side by side with his blasphemous assumption. This wretched being is called “false prophet” because he is the special opponent of Christ the True Prophet. Christ declared God, His truth, and love. This man denies the Father and the Son, that is, the special revelation of God as in the Person of Christ. For how should we know the Father save by the Son whom the Father sent? It is the denial of the special truth of the gospel, that he might sit in the temple as God. He is also called the king. that does his own will, and disputes the right and title of Christ as king to reign over the earth. He is not called false priest. And in what he is called he is evidently the tool of Satan.

Christ is now our High Priest, and this is His only function now in exercise. “For their sakes I sanctify myself.” “He ever liveth to make intercession for us,” and “if any one sin we have an Advocate with the Father.” And so long as Christ is in the presence of God as our Great High Priest, the aim of Satan is to bring in false priests. Rome is proof, which puts the virgin, saints (so called), and her own ordinances and her priests, in the place of Christ. When Satan is cast out of the heavenlies, knowing that he has but a short time on the earth, he concentrates all his power and malignity against Christ as king and prophet. For it is as such that the testimony for Christ in that day will be characterized. Satan's energy has always been against present testimony. All the sources of power and influence, invisible and visible, will combine to bring men into conflict with God. Frogs issue from the month of the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet. They are demons working miracles to bring kings and peoples to the battle of the great day of God Almighty. Man has emancipated himself from Babylonish corruption, not to seek truth, but to fall under the strong delusion that they might believe a lie. Christendom becomes heathendom. All—save a few sealed in their foreheads by God—worship the Beast and his image; they are idolaters. Is not this image the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel? Satan uses it to seal man's ruin.

The Beast and the false prophet are the personal enemies of Christ, and so in the day of battle the Lord meets them in person, and both are cast alive into the lake. As there was no death such as is common to man, so no resurrection for them—soul and body not separated by death, but cast alive into the lake. All that are in the graves shall come forth, the sea will yield its prey, death and hades will surrender their prisoners at the call of the Son of man to be judged before the great white throne. But the lake of fire never opens its gates save to receive the judged. Satan is bound and chained in the bottomless pit for a thousand years, but is not cast into the lake of fire till immediately before the judgment of the great white throne.

Thus the earth is prepared by judgment for the reign of the Lord Jesus. For He will come in the pomp and glory of victory. His enemies who would not bow to Him must then feel the avenging might of His arm. No other way of taking possession of His kingdom would be consistent with His rights and title. To reign as some imagine by the spread of gospel truth, even if there were outward semblance of obedience, would be an unworthy way for the King of kings and Lord of lords to slip by stealth, as it were, into His kingdom. God's purpose is to exalt the Son. By faith He is exalted now as the Savior; then by unsparing judgment. Satan and his deluded followers are allowed a brief day wherein to manifest their utmost hate and power. But the Lord appears, and His enemies are slain by the breath of His mouth.

Though the special teachings of faith ceased when His saints were caught up to meet the Lord in the air, God will yet have a testimony on the earth. Hitherto it has been a process of grace. At this time though grace be not absent, yet this brief period is characterized by judgment. There was a special testimony by the two witnesses. I apprehend their sphere was in Jerusalem, at most within the land. Rev. 11:9, 10 give the moral condition of those who were tormented by their testimony. “They of the peoples” were there, “and kindreds, and tongues, and nations.” But there are other phases, “And they that dwell upon the earth,” an expression that gives their moral character. Jew and Gentile rejoice together over the death of the two witnesses, as they did when in the same city the Lord was crucified. The Lord Jesus said, “When the Son of Man cometh shall He find faith on the earth.” There was no faith in the city “which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt where also their Lord was crucified.” After three days and a half the Spirit of life from God enters into the two witnesses whose bodies lay unburied, and they stand upon their feet. The only effect upon their enemies is great consternation. A great voice Calls them to heaven, and their enemies see them ascend in the cloud. Heavenly honor for them, but judgment falls upon the city. Seven thousand are slain, all the rest are affrighted. They give glory to the God of heaven, in spite of themselves compelled to acknowledge Him as the God of heaven. But neither the testimony nor the ascension of the two witnesses, nor even the earthquake, led them to receive the testimony of their coming king. The Lord says, “my two witnesses:” they are His special witnesses to the Jew at this time. It is this special testimony that brings upon them the power of the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit. That is, they are slain by the direct and immediate power of Satan.

Besides this special testimony, to the Jew, a general proclamation of the everlasting gospel goes out to all. “Fear God, and give glory to Him; for the hour of His judgment is come; and worship Him that made heaven, and earth, and sea, and the fountains of waters.” How sunken in ignorance when men are recalled to the worship of God as Creator. There might be some who gave glory to the God of heaven: did they deny Him as the Creator of earth and sea and fountains of waters? And this call to worship Him is not accompanied by the promise of grace as heretofore, but by the announcement of impending judgment. The hour was come. It is the last call before the kingdom. Many a call had been made, to individuals, to a nation, to the church, and all in grace, all for blessing. This is on the eve of judgment. God's forbearance so patient, so long, had only given the world opportunity to increase in evil till there was no remedy but judgment. But God will have His remnant, as Matthew 25 shows. The angel flying in mid-heaven may be the symbolic representation of the “brethren” that carry the gospel of the kingdom, which is nearly the same as the “everlasting gospel,” to the Gentile; and from these the Lord gathers out His sheep and separates them from the goats. Surely there was faith in these “sheep,” but was faith ever on a lower ground? But if never so low, how great the mercy which will save the hitherto outcast Gentile, upon the ground of kindness to the “brethren;” the remnant of the Jews who carry forth this gospel; and the king takes it as being done to Himself. “Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of the least of these my brethren ye have done it unto me.”

The history of the professing church is the history of the decline of faith, each succeeding phase becoming darker. But grace likewise kept pace, yea kept in advance of the continuously increasing evil, and carries out its purposes. For some must enter into rest (Heb. 4:6). These two most prominent facts cannot escape the attentive reader of the seven epistles. There is a third fact, which is the direct result of the break-up of collective testimony and of the grace which meets the ever failing condition of the church as a public witness for Christ, that the power of subjective faith is more manifest at the close than at the beginning. Before the Object of faith was revealed the power of faith was kept up in the soul by the Holy Spirit in view of the promises, as in the patriarchs. Afterward types were given, which, while exhibiting to Israel in the wilderness the several glories of Christ, were a help for those who were led to look beneath the surface. But when Christ was here, the Object of faith was fully manifest, and in exact proportion as He filled the eye and the heart so was the subjective power of faith seen. The Holy Spirit created love in the believer's soul as he gazed upon Him, and the more earnest the gaze, the more would love grow and the faith that worketh by love. When the eye is off Christ, no matter what other object is before it, the church, the saints, or even service—not to speak of the world, then “first love” is left. And though like Ephesus, orthodox and correct, there is a fall, and in these epistles we see it such a fall that the professing church never regained her original standing.

Objective faith was where the decline began. All manner of sin of which the church is guilty dates from this. How could it be otherwise, for what is faith without an object? Men may speak of faith, and even boast of it; but if Christ as the one object fill not the eye and heart, all the talk about faith is mere imagination. Now that the knowledge of the word has so greatly spread, and truth, long forgotten truth, is familiar to most Christians, there is great danger of falling into this most subtle snare of the devil; so that he would make faith to be the object before the soul rather than Christ. It may seem to some paradoxical, but it is no less true that when faith looks at itself, it ceases to be faith.

When the church reached the Thyatira state, it was given up as a witness for Christ. Grace recognized and separated a remnant. Being such, it could not be acknowledged as if in the pristine condition of the church. In Apostolic days it was a holy witness for God, in the days of Thyatira that position was irretrievably lost. But here comes in the grace suited to the despised remnant: “No other burden, but hold fast what thou hast till I come.” The altered condition of the saints is met by the tender and compassionate grace of the Lord. This little remnant soon lost the place of holding fast, and passing through Sardis we come to Philadelphia, where in a condition of greatest weakness we find the sweetest promise of all, grace in its fullest expression of best privilege to the believer. For what promise to the overcomer in any other church, so prized by the heart that has Christ alone as its object, as the promise to the overcomer in the epistle to Philadelphia? Thus as the outward aspect darkens, grace brings Christ before the heart in the most intimate expressions of His infinite and unchanging love, as it were, restoring to the individual believer what the corporate church lost at the first.

As the rejection of Christ by the Jew was the appointed way to the cross, the eternal purpose of God, so the failure of the church—apart from its responsibility—only serves to make still more prominent faith as God's moral means of bringing souls into the most intimate communion with Himself, which is the highest condition of happiness a creature can know. The failure of the church magnifies the riches of His grace, and He is glorified by it. Not that this makes the church less responsible, but it does marvelously show how the grace and wisdom of God makes the sin of man, even the failure of His own saints, to praise Him. Sin brought Judah into captivity in the literal Babylon, then grace gave such power of faith to Daniel and his companions that they became victors over fire and wild beasts. Now, the church-remnant apparently in captivity in the mystic Babylon, or what will soon be developed as such—have the privilege of exhibiting and proving the power of faith over equally adverse circumstances, yea the same, as the Roman amphitheater, and Smithfield declare. Victory in a different way, but the same. The victories of faith must always be subservient to the purpose of God, to the truth He is revealing at the moment. In the one case it was to demonstrate His Godhead and power to an idolatrous king, in the other to prove the sustaining energy of divinely given faith under the cruelest sufferings endured for Christ's sake. In the one we see the God of heaven and earth, in the other the God of grace.

Thus if faith as a dispensation has failed like all before it, in its subjective power it brightens, and amid the wreck of the building that God began on the day of Pentecost, our souls cling more to the object of faith, Christ is more exceedingly precious. This is according to God. But how astonishing the process. With what amazing skill Almighty wisdom and power have blended man's inevitable failure ender any dispensation with the display of the infinite resources of grace. O depth of riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable His judgments, and untraceable His ways.

But the time is come for creation to cease groaning, for deliverance from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. What a moment for the earth when the voice of a great Multitude is heard, as the voice of many waters, as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Hallelujah, for the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth (Rev. 19:6). It is the anticipative shout of the heavenly multitude, of the armies which follow the King of kings and the Lord of lords. One more daring acct of rebellion to fill up the cup of iniquity ere the kingdom be established, one more tremendous display of Divine vengeance, and the earth is set free from the bondage of corruption. It is the supper of the great God, and the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven are called to it. There are two other suppers, that of grace in the gospel (Matt. 22:9; Luke 14:16), for the Jew and the outcast Gentile. There is the marriage supper of the Lamb, where the church will be displayed in His glory. But this supper of the great God is His vengeance, and not men, but fowls that fly in the midst of heaven are invited, “that ye may eat the flesh of kings and the flesh of captains and the flesh of mighty men and the flesh of horses and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men both free and bond, both small and great” The beast and the kings of the earth then mustering their armies know not that from heaven the command is already gone forth to gather the fowls to feast upon their flesh. All the glory and the might of the world are there arrayed against the Lord God Omnipotent; it all becomes carrion for birds of prey, save the two chiefs who are east alive into the lake.

The millennium is specially for the glory of the Lord Jesus as Son of Man. The world had rejected Him. Now by His own might He rules over the nations with a rod of iron until every enemy is subdued, and peace spreads her wings over the world, and nations shall no more learn war, then all is prepared for the outshining of His glory. Every blessing is poured down upon the earth, and the earth responds in the full yield of her fruits. Israel will have fullness of blessing. “For Jehovah shall comfort Zion; He will comfort all her waste places, and He will make her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the garden of Jehovah; joy and gladness shall be found therein, thanksgiving, and the voice of melody” (Isa. 51:3). And these natural blessings are the evidence of their moral condition. All will be taught of God, from the least of them to the greatest of them. As rebellion and iniquity had marked them before, so in that day holiness will raise them above all nations, and their metropolis shall be called “Jehovah shammah.” In His holy mountain ferocious beasts become tame, children lead them; asps lose their venom, infants play with them (Isa. 11). “They shall not hurl nor destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Jehovah, as the waters cover the sea.” Israel in their destined place, blessing goes out from them to the surrounding nations. The holy mountain is the greatest effect of the King's presence, but the glory radiates to the outermost circle, the inanimate creation rejoices in it, the places where judgment lay heavy join in the song which creation, freed from the bondage of corruption, will then raise. “And it shall come to pass in that day, I will hear, saith Jehovah, I will hear the heavens, and they shall hear the earth, and the earth shall hear the corn, and the wine and oil; and they shall hear Jezreel” (Hos. 2:21, 22). This is the order of millennial blessedness, and though specially addressed to Israel, and having special application to the mercy that meets their sinful condition and God's judgment upon them, yet it gives the channels of blessing for the whole earth. Isaiah speaks of Jehovah as sitting upon the circle of the earth (ch. 40); here Jehovah is in the circle of the heavens, and displaying His beneficence with a largeness unknown before; dispensing His blessings through the gradations of rank and order which the government of glory will then have established. He waits, as it were, to hear the heavens, and they become media for communicating fruitfulness to the earth, or, as it is beautifully and poetically said, the corn and the wine and the oil call upon the earth, and the earth hears and brings forth her increase, as witness that the curse is removed. Yea, it is so removed that the corn and the wine and the oil hear Jezreel.

It is not a little remarkable that after the earth has called to the heavens, and has itself responded to the call of the corn, wine and oil, there is a place which in its turn calls to the fruits of the earth, in order to complete the chain of blessedness. Evidently, here “Jezreel” is symbolic, though the name is found frequently in its mere historical import. But I doubt if any name is used symbolically without being either then or previously found in connection with circumstances which intimate its symbolic significance. Naboth's vineyard was in Jezreel. Ahab coveted and Jezebel procured it for him by slaying the owner—murder and robbery which God avenged by the hand of Jehu. But Jehu was a bad man, and gratified his own ambition under pretended zeal for Jehovah. Hence even the blood of Jezreel will be avenged upon the house of Jehu. So Babylon was God's instrument of wrath upon Judah, but she served herself and was proud against Jehovah, the Holy One of Israel, and therefore she comes under righteous judgment. “And I will render unto Babylon and to all the inhabitants of Chaldea all their evil that they have done in Zion in your sight, saith Jehovah” (see Jer. 1 and 51). In like manner Jehu was the executor of righteous judgment against the house of Ahab, but he was proud against Jehovah, and judgment overtakes him.

Here Jezreel is the name applied to the whole land, it had all become polluted with blood and oppression. “The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah is exceeding great, and the land is full of blood and the city of perverseness” —or wresting of judgment (see Mark; Ezek. 9:9). In the prophet's day the whole land was characterized by the crimes which made Jezreel prominent in the days of Ahab, and in judgment Jehovah takes away His blessings. “Therefore will I return and take away my corn in the time thereof, and my wine in the season thereof.” But in “that day,” the day of the reversal of judgment, the place where the heaviest judgment fell shall be cleansed from its iniquity, the curse of innocent blood shall be taken away, yea, the slain of the polluted blood of the house of Ahab shall be obliterated. In “that day” not only shall the earth be delivered from bondage, but mercy will rejoice against judgment, and Jezreel too, the defiled and forsaken, shall flourish again even more abundantly than before.

Sin had interfered with the communication of blessing to the earth, redemption reconnects the severed links, and the chain is complete, most manifestly when the Lord Jesus reigns in glory over the earth. Jezreel the place once of sin and judgment, now of mercy—calls to the corn and the wine and the oil, as the evidence of God's favor, and in accordance with His promise at the beginning; forfeited then because made conditional upon obedience, secure now through restoring grace; and these call upon the earth to bring forth, and the earth calls to the heaven, for the first and the latter rain, and the heavens call to Jehovah, and God the source and giver of all hears and gives in the appointed order and way. “I will give you the rain of your land in his due season, the first rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest gather in thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil” (Deut. 11:14). But the land of Israel can no more be the limit of millennial blessing than the Jew could be the sole object of grace after the cross. Of necessity both the grace and the glory must overflow. Now the grace that bringeth salvation appears to all, then the glory of His presence will fill the whole earth. Jesus, Jehovah God, rules and blesses by His own power.

It is amid this scene of glory and universal blessedness that the final test of man takes place. As grace succeeded law, so glory succeeds grace, and looking at the various ways of God from the beginning, first, man left to himself without government, then the sword put into Noah's hand, then the law, then grace and salvation through faith, and soon the revelation of glory and power in the millennial reign of the Lord Jesus. How complete and perfect the trial of man, how thoroughly he is made bare, and, as we may say, exposed to his own gaze if he will only stop to look thereon, how incurably evil his nature God all through revealing Himself in His majesty and power, in His holiness and truth, in His patience and longsuffering, grace, love, all divinely and marvelously verified in the cross of Christ; the baseness of man, notwithstanding the goodness of God, his moral vileness, his natural inability for anything good, are before us in imperishable records. History and present experience are only collateral proofs of the word of God that in man there dwelleth no good thing, but every evil thing.

But the word goes farther than our experience, or past history; it declares that in the future dispensation the nature of man remains the same, that the presence of glory in the Person of the King of kings and Lord of lords does not change it. Man is fallen, only converting grace can raise him from the ruin, his evil must be purged from him, it cannot be cured. Restrained partially it might be by the sword and the law; rampant now under the dispensation of grace; repressed it will be in the dispensation of glory, as prophecy abundantly declares. But it always was, and will be to the end solemnly true,” Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Millennial blessedness cannot remove this necessity. Israel will in that day be a converted nation, but that is above and beyond the corn and the wine and the oil, though I am perfectly willing to take these earthly blessings as indicating for them the higher and spiritual blessings. But the word of God is plain that no external advantage, not even of glory, can supersede the new birth. So the dispensation of glory is as much a moral process as any preceding dispensation. Vastly different indeed are the circumstances. The power of the King present to the sight, not merely known to faith, to execute instant judgment upon every open and flagrant offender; Satan the tempter is chained up. But this only proves that man is a sinner without the devil to tempt him; it adds another evidence of the essential evil of the nature of man, of its unchangeable character. And when Satan is loosed for a little season, he finds the same material to work with; unrenewed man falls an easy prey. Then the last judgment takes place, death and hades give up the imprisoned bodies and souls, and men in resurrection of judgment stand before the great white throne. The lake of fire closes upon all whose names are not found written in the book of Life.

There will be new heavens and a new earth, not in a mere dispensational sense as in the millennium, though then there will doubtless be surprising physical changes in the earth; but the new heavens and new earth will eternally abide. The kingdom, where Christ has reigned in glory for a thousand years, He will deliver up to God even the Father; the Son Himself be subject—as man—to God (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), that God may be all in all.

Then will be accomplished the eternal purpose of God, secured upon the basis of redemption by the blood of Christ. Sin could and did sully the beauty of the old creation, but cannot touch the glory and exceeding beauty of the new creation shining in the brightness of redemption glory. The first creation sprang into being at the simple word of God, but such as the new creation could only be by the blood of Christ. Through that precious blood it is, that the believer now delights in God. Then in eternity man will delight in God, and God will delight in man.

The Sacraments (So-Called): Part 2

How are we then to define a sacrament, so that the definition may be what a definition should be, viz., adequate, yet devoid of superfluous conditions? A sacrament is an ordinance instituted by Christ Himself, and which exhibits, in a symbolical form, the way, or the meritorious cause, of our salvation. Hence the Anglican body rightly says, there are two sacraments and two only. One of these is subjective, the other objective. Baptism, the subjective, and the initiatory rite of the church, signifies that death and resurrection in and with Christ is the process of salvation. “Know ye not that so many of us as have been baptized unto Jesus Christ have been baptized unto His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him by baptism unto death.” (Rom. 6:3, 4). “Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him,” &c. (Coloss. 2:2). “For ye have died, and your life is hid with Christ in God.” (Coloss. 3:3.) “Verily, verily I say unto you, He that heareth My word, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but is passed from death unto life.” (John 5:24:) Death and resurrection is the fundamental principle of the gospel—on the part of Christ it is the meritorious cause of our salvation, on our part it is the necessary process; and of this truth baptism is the symbol. The Lord's Supper is the ordinance in which the sacrificial death of Christ is symbolically presented to us, as forming the subject-matter of the church's communion with the Lord, and with each other, and that in peace with God. The Lord's Supper is particularly connected with the church as the body of Christ “For we being many are one bread (loaf), and one body” (1 Cor. 10.17); but we are baptized into one body, not by water, but by the Holy Ghost.

Water baptism is connected with the kingdom—a wider sphere than the church. And even though the church and the kingdom are, as long as the church is upon earth, coincident, the terms are not synonymous, either as to their general meaning or in reference to the individuals who may be in either. To be in the church is to be in the kingdom, but the converse will not always be true. Water baptism is connected with the kingdom, and that again is connected with this earth,—the kingdom, whether in its mystic or in its manifested form, here on earth. The principle of death and resurrection is so thorough, that it utterly baffles any attempt on the part of men in the flesh to follow that way—such an attempt would be hopeless. Faith in Christ is the only way. Hence the weakest believer, if a true believer in Him, has a vast vantage-ground. Life in the risen and glorified Son of God is indeed a divine gift, and not only entitles the believer to, but requires that he should, reckon himself dead to sin, dead to the law, and dead to the world. Nor is this mere theory—it is most solemnly and wonderfully true. An earthly religion would be useless to such, it cannot reach him where he is—he worships by the spirit of God—he is in Christ, and boasts in Him. Amidst all the sorrows and changes of this world, he has access to “the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort,” who never forsakes or forgets His child, even though He may chasten him for his good; and if called to die, it is his privilege to realize, practically, the momentous importance and unspeakable reality of that life in Jesus, which, having reached his soul, whilst in the body and in this world, passes, through the dissolution of that body, into the presence of Him who is that life—without break of continuity—changeless and his own, from the moment Christ gave him life, and onward to a never-ending eternity. Beyond the power of sin or death, to touch, taint, or injure it, such gift is God's unspeakable grace and mercy, to poor man, ruined by sin, and under the terrible power of Satan and of death, with eternal judgment before him, the only escape from which is in that Savior who “bore our sins in His own body on the tree,” and who is “the way, the truth, and the life.”

For baptism the Lord gave a formula of words, not as “consecrating” the water, but as giving validity to the rite as performed in His name, and by His authority. No such fixed formula of words, but giving of thanks, attends the celebration of the Lord's Supper; for 1 Cor. 11:24; 14:16, 17, compared with Matt. 26:26, and with 1 Cor. 10:16; prove that εὐλογέω=εὐχαριστέω, and that, εὐλογία=εὐχαριστία, i.e. to bless means in this case to give thanks. To quote the words of a very able writer: “The term εὐχαριστια is used metonymically, resembling in all respects the phrase ποτήριον εὐλογίας, ὅ εὐλόγουμεν in Paul= ὁ εὐχαριστηθεὶς ἄρτος καὶ οἶνος, in Justin Martyr—the bread and wine over which the prayer of thanksgiving has been pronounced. The latter says expressly that, immediately after the president of the church has pronounced this prayer of thanksgiving over the bread and wine, and the church joined in it with their amen, the sacramental elements were distributed. He mentions no other consecration.” We quote this, simply as confirming what we have just stated as the teaching of Scripture, not as regarding the “Fathers” to be any authority whatever. On the contrary, it is to the Fathers we must go to find the basis of that systematic perversion of Scripture, and of that traditional and corrupted Christianity, which has existed (though with increasing departure from the truth) from the time the apostles were removed from this world; who even, in their later writings, endeavored to combat the tide of corruption, both of doctrine and in practice, which was then commencing to invade, as it soon overflowed, the church, to its ruin as, a testimony in the world for God.

It can scarcely be necessary to observe that circumcision and the passover were types, whilst baptism and the Lord's Supper are symbols; and symbols only. The type looks forward, and is prophetic; the symbol, as it were, looks back, and is figuratively expressive of a known truth, i.e., is historical. The two sacraments, viz., baptism and the Lord's Supper, are of similar import to circumcision (which signified the cutting off of the flesh), and the passover (which was typical of the expiatory death of Christ); but, the atonement having taken place, Christians commemorate the Lord's Supper in the blessing of accomplished redemption, and hence it has to them the character of the peace-offering. But the sacraments are not operative and efficacious in themselves. Whilst in the Lord's Supper we have communion with the Lord as to His death, and its value to us, nevertheless one main object of the sacrament is to mark off and separate the Christian profession from non-Christianity, and that by signs significative of Christ's death.

This is essential to the meaning and nature of a sacrament, rightly understood. Marriage is not a sacrament, though it is, and was from the first, a divine institution. It does not distinguish Christianity from Judaism or from heathenism, for the relationship exists in these. There are in fact two “sacraments” only, using the term in the proper sense, the term itself no doubt being merely ecclesiastical, though expressing the two New Testament ordinances, and not necessarily in a wrong sense. Confirmation is not regarded as a sacrament in the Anglican body, though it is retained as a rite. Still, not a trace of it is to be found in the Scripture. The word ἐπιστηρίζω occurs four times, all in the Acts; and it is impossible to read those passages with an unbiassed mind, and not see that the meaning is no ritual process, but morally and spiritually—to strengthen or establish. Thus Parkhurst says in his Lexicon “In the New Testament it is used only in a figurative and spiritual sense for confirming persons in their adherence to the gospel, notwithstanding opposition and persecution.” These occurrences are Acts 14:22; 15:32 and 41; 28:23; the last text being, “And after he had spent some time there, he departed and went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples.” And in 15:32, Judas and Silas, the prophets, exhorted and confirmed the brethren. Now the so-called “Bishop” is the person who “confirms” —doubtless for the sake (as is so often said) of decency and order. But this human view of decency and order has utterly overthrown God's order, and made human authority in the church paramount to Scriptural authority, generally with the flimsiest pretense, and often without any at all.

Take, again, what is called “ordination,” or official appointment to the office of a teacher in the church. Here is another most striking instance of the way in which God's word is set at naught, and the sovereign operations of the Holy Spirit completely checked by human regulations under the plea of decency and order. That God sometimes used the apostles as channels, through whom, extraordinarily, to convey some spiritual gift, is most true, and the Greek preposition used (&a, with the genitive), shows that God used them instrumentally (see Acts 8:18 Tim. 1:6); but 1 Tim. 4:14 also shows that when, on a certain occasion, others were associated with the apostle, the particle of association per& is used not that of instrumentality. The place which the apostles had in the church was unique, and marked by God in various way s, not only us a whole, but in detail. That the apostle Paul deputed Timoth; and Titus to ordain elders in specified localities is true; but where is the authority now to ordain elders?—where the proof that it ever was to be transmitted?

Paul, indeed, says to Timothy, “the things which thou hast heard of me, in the presence of many witnesses, the same commit them to faithful men, such as shall be able to teach others also.” Every care was taken that, till the canon of Scripture was completed, the truth which God had revealed should not be lost. But what has this to do with ordination? Truth, which any of us may deem now to be far from generally seen or held, we are anxious to impress upon our children, or others, even although it is already contained in the written word. Guides or rulers in the church there are, and wine) so long as the church is upon earth; but elders or bishops, specifically, there are not, just as there are no apostles, and consequently none deputed to act locally for them. Whatever may have been the qualifications necessary for an elder or bishop, we see from Scripture, e.g., Rom. 12:7; 1 Cor. 12:8, 11, 81; 14:12, 26, 29, 34; 1 Peter 4:10, 11, that the ministry of the word in the church (assembly), was open to such as were qualified for it, and for the occasion, by the Spirit, that women only were excepted. If ordination were the sanction, 1 Peter 4:10, 11 would be meaningless. Also, whatever may have been otherwise desirable in an elder or bishop, the essential function pertaining to that office was to rule (i.e., to take a spiritual oversight and care), not to teach (see 1 Tim. 5:17). Doubtless ability to teach was desirable, but this by no means implies that teaching was the primary duty of the elder or bishop, much less that no one might teach who was not an elder. The distinction between the functions of teaching and ruling is clearly made in Rom. 12:7, 8, and 1 Tim. 5:17.

No doubt at an early period of the church's history we find a sacerdotal and hierarchical system in the germ: first, kcal episcopacy, soon to develop into diocesan; a priestly caste, gradually coming into view, with a corresponding metamorphosis of the elements in the Eucharist; the growth of Catholicism, soon to ripen into Popery. But all this is the corruption of the truth, a corruption which, it is admitted, began to work very early—but which, whatever tradition may say, is branded by Holy Scripture as the corruption of God's word and order. As this sacerdotal element developed itself in the early church, so every truth waned and vanished under its baneful shade. The priesthood of all true believers was ignored or despised, spiritual worship consequently was lost, and a half Christian, half Jewish kind, substituted for it. The simplicity of the way in which the Lord's Supper had formerly been observed was annihilated; the elements underwent a so-called “consecration,” and, began to be regarded with superstitions reverence. The gospel was unknown in its purity and power, and contemned by the side of this perverted “sacramental” system. Immense, in short, was the loss to the Church and to individual souls, and great the dishonor done to God's word, great the despite to the Spirit of grace.

This terrible state of things was but partially rectified at the Reformation, the Church of England was but half reformed; baptismal regeneration and apostolical succession were doctrines never eradicated from its tenets, and we are now living to see the result in a frightful relapse into Romanism, or in the giving up of all faith and even profession of Christianity for blank infidelity, these being the two poles of unbelief, as to the Scriptures, and as to the power of God, through the Spirit. Of supreme importance to the individual, and consequently to the church, as evangelical truth is, experience has proved that there is a tendency, when too exclusively dwelt on, to disregard, either as though it were non-essential, or as though it could have no practical importance, the teaching of Scripture as to the church—her calling and destiny. We do not say this evil goes to the same lengths, or is fraught with such dire effects, as that of being absorbed with, and trusting almost exclusively to, a spurious sacramental system. Very far from this, evangelical truth, i.e., a clear and fall gospel, is of paramount importance—there could be no true church, no happy and intelligent Christians without it.

The gospel, and that only and exclusively, is God's grand ordinance for the salvation of man, and the too general absence of the knowledge of the gospel in its power and fullness, and the substitution for this of mere ordinances, amply accounts for the state of heart and mind in which so many are to be found, even though they may be very devoted church people. But if the teaching of Scripture, on the subject of the church, is in any measure slighted, there is just as certainly great loss to the individual, and great dishonor to the Lord. True, it is impossible to go back to apostolic times; sadly true it is that we seem to have witnessed even in our days, though on a smaller scale, what we might almost call a second fall of the church. Doubtful it is how far any considerable body of Christians now existing in the world can fairly and justly claim to represent the church. Still, when in spirit and in heart all true Christians, the whole church in God the Father is included in our thoughts and spiritual desires—with subjection to our Lord as the Head of His church even the (literally) two or three gathered together unto His name will not fail to know his presence, and to have His blessing. There may, through circumstances, be more or less of isolation; nevertheless, if the eye is single and the heart true, we shall surely find that “the secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him.”

King Saul: Part 3

Thus the judgment of God lies upon him, and an evil spirit from the Lord comes to trouble him. (xvi.) And now the time has arrived for revealing again “the secret of God.” For in all the seasons of man's destruction of himself, there has been another thing going on in the plans of the blessed God. Thus of old, the promised seed is sown in man's field of briers and thorns. (Gen. 3) While his brethren are filling up their sins and sorrows in Canaan, Joseph, unknown to them, is growing up in Egypt for their help: while Israel is in the heat of the furnace, Moses is preparing to be their deliverer in the distant solitudes of Midian: And again, while disasters follow sins in quick succession, the Judges are brought forth as God's deliverers for the people; and at last, when the priesthood was defiled, and the glory gone into the enemy's land, Samuel the child is brought forth to raise the stone of help.

Thus had it been before, and so is it now again. Saul and the kingdom are bringing ruin on themselves, but David, “the secret of God,” is under preparation to set the throne in honor, and the kingdom in order and strength. And what are all, these things but notices to us of Him who is the true secret of God. For as such, the blessed Son of God is now, though flesh and blood decay, the hidden seed in the believer, that is to burst forth in the resurrection a plant of glory. And as such He will by-and-by bear up the pillars of the earth, when all things else are dissolving. He will then come forth out of His secret chambers, as Joseph or as Moses, as Samuel or as David, and shall be as the light of the morning, after a dark and dreary night, when the sun riseth, even a morning without clouds.

And this is always the way of grace: it comes into exercise after man has been convicted of entire insufficiency. It speaks on this wise: “Except the Lord had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.” Man makes Jerusalem a Sodom, a filthy rain, and then out of that rain, God in His own grace and strength builds again “a city of righteousness.” (Isa. 1) And this grace ever takes for its instrument the weak thing and the foolish thing of this world. Such was Jesus of Nazareth, such was Paul with a thorn in his flesh, and such is David now. “Man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh upon the heart.” Man had already, as we have seen, looked on the outward appearance, and found his object in Saul, who in person was the goodliest of the children of Israel. But God's choice was not to be ordered by such a measure. (Psa. 147:10.) A rod out of the stem of Jesse is His object, a root out of a dry ground in which there was no comeliness before the eye of men, the one of whom his father, “according to the flesh,” says in scorn, “there remaineth yet the youngest, and he keepeth the sheep” —the one, who like a greater than he, man was thus despising and the nation abhorring. (Isa. 49:7.) This one, this youngest son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, the keeper of a few sheep in the wilderness, is now God's object. “Arise, anoint him,” says the Lord to Samuel, “for this is he.”

And here again I must notice something that seems to me to have great moral value in it. I allude to what appears to have been the different condition of Saul's house and David's house, when they are severally brought before us. Saul's house, as we have seen, was of no repute in Israel, but had made a fortune as people speak. David's, on the other hand, had once been in honor, was of the tribe of Judah, and in its genealogy bore the distinguished name of Boaz, who had been, perhaps, the first man in his generation. But now it seems to be otherwise with them, for David and his father and his father's house have no distinction now, but simply take their place among the many thousands of Israel. But what of all this the world finds its object in Saul ("for man will praise thee when thou doest well to thyself”), and God, in David. And these things teach us, beloved, that it is safer to be “going down,” than “getting up,” as the word. is, in the world. And they tell us also that whom God will exalt, He first abases; whom He will glorify, He first humbles. He puts the sentence of death in the children of resurrection. But with the wicked there are no bands, their strength is firm. (Psa. 73) Saul went through no sorrow up to the throne, as David did. Esau, the man of the earth, had dukedoms in his family, while Jacob's children were still homeless strangers on the earth (Gen. 36), yet it is written, “Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated.”

God's way is according to this, hard indeed for flesh and blood to learn, and God's hand thus found its object in David, and we now have accordingly a new feature in the scene before us. We have David, God's chosen, as well as Saul within, and the Philistine without. David is before us in the strength of the Spirit of God, and he soon gives proofs of his ministry both upon the rejected king and upon the uncircumcised. Both are made to own the power of the Lord that was in him. Whether it were the harp or the sling, his hand is skilled to use either. The king had an evil spirit in him, and the uncircumcised is breathing out slaughter, but David stands above both in the strength of the Lord. The unclean spirit goes oat from the king at the bidding of his harp, and the Philistine giant falls under his sling. (16, 17) It might be thought that king Saul's evil course was interrupted by this, but it soon appears that this was rather only another stage in his downward way. The sow was to return to her mire. The unclean spirit goes out only to gather and bring in seven other spirits more wicked than himself. This quieting of the evil spirit was but a flattering of God with the mouth, for the king's heart was not thereby set right with Him. He was not estranged from his lusts by it. His love of the world and its praise, his self-will, and hatred of the righteous, rule him still, and God and His word and His glory are as little regarded as ever.

On Acts 4:1-12

The discourse of the apostle was interrupted at this point, which is lost to many a reader by the division of the chapters.

“Now as they were speaking unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them, being distressed because of their teaching the people, and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead; and they laid hands on them and put them in ward unto the morrow; for it was already evening. But many of those that heard the word believed, and the number of the men became about five thousand.” (Ver. 1-4.)

Religious authority took umbrage. Who were these men to speak within the precincts of the temple? It is true that a mighty miracle had been wrought publicly, and undeniably; but officials are sensitive to any invasion of their rights, and are apt to leave God out of the account, speaking as of the world and knowing none else than the world to hear them. But a class came forward now, which had been comparatively in the background whilst the Lord lived and labored. Then were the Pharisees His active adversaries, the advocates of defective and spurious righteousness opposing the Righteous One. Now the enemy had ready another and very different body among the Jews, the Sadducees, roused from their habitual calm by a truth which convicted them of utter infidelity and consequent antagonism to God and His word. Miracles were bad enough in the eyes of free-thinkers; they brought the power of God too near; they were a sign to unbelievers that they might hear the truth. But the resurrection, exemplified in the person of Jesus, was intolerable; and none so intolerant, as those who boast of tolerating every shade, when the truth confronts them. The mild Sadducee outdoes the previously fierce Pharisee; none so disturbed by the announcement of Jesus risen from the dead.

And no wonder. The resurrection of Him whom man had just slain is the most conclusive and irrefragable proof of God's power according to His word, the most complete refutation of those who admit nothing beyond the natural course of things in this world. Laws which govern that course none dispute; nor the knowledge of such laws men call science. But the resurrection proves One above those laws, which in no way control or limit His power, as He will demonstrate in the day in which He makes all things new. Meanwhile the raising of Jesus from the dead, while the ordinary course goes on, is the sufficient and striking witness to the power which will destroy the world that now is, and create a new one, wholly different, to His own glory.

Hence the skeptical school took fire at the apostles for proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead; for it laid bare their evil unbelief and convicted them of being enemies of the truth, fighting against God Himself. Otherwise they would have inquired into the facts and compared them with the Scriptures; and must have rejoiced that He had done so blessed and glorious a thing according to His word. For the resurrection of Christ is the pledge that those who are Christ's shall rise as He rose: He is avowedly the first fruits of those who are fallen asleep. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. They are the heads of the two families, the Adam family, and the Christ family, death having come in by the one head, as now resurrection by the other. Those that are Christ's rise at His coming. It is a resurrection from among the dead, as His was; and they reign with Him for a thousand years. The rest of the dead do not live till the thousand years have been completed. Blessed and holy he who has part in the first resurrection: on such the second death has no power; but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. No one doubts that in another sense they will reign forever, to the ages of ages, as will all the godly who will be born of God during the millennial reign. But this period of special reigning over the earth ought not to be ignored, because of the eternal blessedness of the glorified after the kingdom is over and the new heaven and earth are come in the absolute sense, when the wicked have been raised, judged, and cast into the lake of fire. Theirs is not a resurrection from the dead; for there are none more left in the grave, they themselves being the last remainder after the righteous were raised.

Thus it was not merely the truth of resurrection which roused Sadducean spite, but the resurrection from the dead. The resurrection of the unjust, of the mass of mankind, is not from among the dead; like the resurrection of the just, it is the effect of the power of Christ, the Son of God, when He summons the wicked from their graves to judgment. The righteous have life in the Son now, and rise to a resurrection of life; as the unjust to a resurrection of judgment a thousand years after, when they must honor Him whom they now despise. So perfectly does John 5 agree with Rev. 20. There is no discrepancy; but there are two resurrections according to Scripture, not one only. The general indiscriminate resurrection of the creeds is according to tradition, but a fable. There will be a resurrection of both just and unjust, of the just to reign with Christ at His coming, of the unjust to be judged by Him before He delivers up the kingdom to Him who is God and Father, when He shall have abolished all role and all authority and power. Men, and even believers, whose mind is on the things of men, are offended at the grace which discriminates now, as it will yet more manifestly by the resurrection from the dead. They prefer a “dim religious light,” with its vagueness and uncertainty; they shrink from that blessed hope—at least in its definite shape—which is the fruit of sovereign grace for the believer, involving as it does the solemn and dark background of judgment for all who despise both grace and truth in Christ.

But if the apostles were put in ward that evening till the morrow, the word was not bound, the true light was already shining. Many of those that heard believed. The number of the men rose to about 6,000. This would suppose not a few women and children. Compare Matt. 14:21, Luke 9:14, John 6:10. No sufficient reason appears for taking “men” (ἀνδρῶν) otherwise than in its usual preciseness.

“And it came to pass on the morrow that their rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together at Jerusalem, and Annas, the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of high-priestly lineage. And having set them in the midst they inquired, By what power or in what name did ye this? Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said unto them, Rulers of the people and elders [of Israel], if we this day are examined as to a good deed done to an infirm man, whereby he hath been cured, be it known to you all and to all the people of Israel that in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, in [or, by] Him [or, in this (name)] he standeth before you whole. He is the stone that was set at naught by you the builders, that became the head of the corner. And in none other is there salvation; for neither is there a different name under heaven that is given among men by which we must be saved.” (Ver. 5-12.)

On the morrow flocked together the religious authorities from the highest, including all grades; and the two apostles were challenged. Peter answered in the power of the Spirit who filled him, that the good deed was done in His name whom they had crucified, and God had raised from the dead; whom His word characterize as the Stone, set at naught by the builders, yet become the head of the corner, the rejected but exalted Messiah. What a situation for the rulers and people of Israel! And what a light on all that had befallen “Jesus Christ of Nazareth” was afforded by the testimony of Scripture to the Stone, the unquestionable figure used about the Messiah!

Consider ever so briefly Gen. 49:22-24, Psa. 118 (22 the very passage referred to), Isa. 28:16, Dan. 2:34, 44, 45, specially with the use made of it by our Lord Himself in Matt. 21:42-44, to which we may add Eph. 2:20, and 1 Peter 2:7-8. There is first His relation to Israel; then His rejection by the chiefs, but exaltation notwithstanding; next, Jehovah's commendation of Him to the believer in the face of divine judgment; and, lastly, His establishment of God's kingdom here below, to the destruction of the Gentile powers which had displaced Israel. The New Testament, while it of course confirms, supplements all this by connecting the Stone with the two advents of the Messiah rendered necessary alike by God's grace and His judgment, and by Israel's unbelief now and repentance in view of His coming again, crowned by Christ's place as the chief corner-stone, who brings even now those of the Jews who believe in Him into better blessings than the nation will by and by receive at His appearing, even to be a holy and a royal priesthood with all that is suited to each of these blessed relationships.

Into this Peter does not enter here; for he was addressing, not the believing remnant of Christian Jews, but the proud and bitter enemies of both Christ and the Christian. But he does set forth, to Christ's honor, and in love even to those who had so guiltily cast Him out, the sure and exclusive assurance of salvation in Christ. “In none other is there salvation; neither is there another—a different—name under heaven that is given among men whereby we must be saved.” How blessed that, though God has set Him up at His own right hand in heaven, His name is given under heaven among men on earth, by which we must be saved if saved at all It is here and now that we must be saved; for it is of grace, and by faith. There is no other name—our own least of all; and no other way, for He is the way. Faith exalts the Savior and the God who gave Him, and leaves no room for works of righteousness of our doing, even were we capable of them, which in our unbelieving state we certainly were not. All is of grace; but grace reigning through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. How awful that men should neglect so great a salvation—yea, though on behalf of Christ His servants beseech them to be reconciled to God.

On 1 Thessalonians 5:12-28

The apostle next turns to a need rarely if over out of season among the faithful, even where the stream of faith and love is yet fresh and strong, the due recognition of those that labor and take the lead on the part of their brethren.

“ Now we beseech you, brethren, to know those that labor among you and are over you in [the] Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them exceedingly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves.” (Ver. 12, 18.)

It is commonly assumed that the persons indicated by, these expressions of spiritual toil, admonition, or presidency, were bishops or presbyters. But this is to lose the special instruction and value of what is here urged; as it is an oversight of the apostolic order as presented in the Scripture to take for granted that any were appointed in the Thessalonian assembly to the office of oversight during so brief a sojourn as the first visit, among converts, all of them as yet necessarily novices in the things of God, however bright, and fervent, and promising. To the careful reader of Acts 13-14 no argument is needed to prove that it was on a second visit, unless the first were of long continuance, that the apostles appointed or chose for the disciples elders in every assembly. The wisdom of this, if not the necessity for it, will be evident to any sober mind that reflects, even if we had not the positive prohibition to Timothy of any such persons from such a function. (1 Tim. 3:6.) For surely, whatever Popes may do, it would be harsh in the extreme to suppose that the apostle in his own choice of bishops neglected the principle which he so gravely charges on his true son in the faith.

Undoubtedly elders, or bishops, were to be honored, especially those that labored in word and teaching. (1 Tim. 5:17.) But the weighty lesson inculcated in the other Scriptures we are considering is that, before there was each an official relationship, those who labored among the saints, took the lead of them in the Lord, and admonished the saints, are held up by the apostle as entitled not only to recognition in their work, but to be regarded exceedingly in love on account of it. Very probably they were just the persons suited for an apostle, or an apostolic delegate like Titus, to appoint as presbyters; but meanwhile, and independently, this established a most important principle, and quite as wholesome for the saints themselves as for those who had no external title as yet: nothing more than a spiritual gift exercised in faith and love, with the simple-hearted desire of the Lord's glory in the healthful, happy, and holy condition of their brethren.

Nor is this state of things among the Thessalonians at all an exceptional case; in other places we may see what is analogous. Thus, among the saints at Rome, where (so far as Scripture teaches) no apostle had as yet Sojourned, we find gifts which they are encouraged in the Epistle to exercise, teaching, exhorting, presiding or ruling, &c. Apostolic appointment they had not yet; and accordingly we hear of no such officers as bishops or deacons. But it is a mistake to infer from this that there were or could be none otherwise taking the lead; for Rom. 12 explicitly exhorts such persons to exercise their gifts, even if they had no outward appointment.

Similarly in the Epistles to the church in Corinth we find no trace of elders, rather the proof that they did not yet exist there. For if they did, would it not be strange to ignore them in the absence of godly discipline we see in 1 Cor. 6, and in the presence of such disorder as there dishonored the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11), not to speak of confusion in the assembly (1 Cor. 14), and heterodoxy germinating in their midst (1 Cor. 15)? If elders were not there, one could understand these evils hid directly at the door of the assembly without reference to any individuals appointed to rule. Their absence is readily accounted for: the Corinthian assembly was still young, however vigorous. It was usual to appoint on a later visit those of the brethren in whom the Lord gave the apostles to descry fitting qualifications for the office of a bishop. Yet, meanwhile, they were not destitute of those that devoted themselves, like the house of Stephanas, to the service of the saints (1 Cor. 16:15, 16); and the apostle enjoins subjection to each and to every one joined in the work and laboring.

At Ephesus there were, as we know from Acts 20, elders or bishops; but this did not hinder the free action of those who were gifts from the Lord, whether pastors or others (Eph. 4), who might not have the local charge of elders. The same remark applies to Philippi, where express mention is made of bishops and deacons, but as there might be, and no doubt was, the exercise of gifts in teaching or presiding before such officials appeared, so there was nothing in their presence to hinder the liberty of the Spirit in the assembly. Compare also Col. 2:19 with 4:17, Heb. 13:7, 17, 24. 1 Peter 4:11 illustrates and confirms the same principle: a golden one for us now, when we cannot have apostolic visits, or the then orderly appointment to local charge such as they were authorized to make. But we may and ought so much the more sedulously to own all that the Lord gives for the order and edifying of the assembly, as we hear the apostles exhorting the saints in so many places to do, where elders were not, and even where and when they were.

It might be asked, if there was as yet no official nomination of the chiefs at Thessalonica, how were the saints to know the right persons to own, honor, and love as such? The answer is, that the Spirit of God would give this, if not with the intelligence, and surely not with the authority of an apostle, but quite enough to guide the saints for all practical purposes. Therefore, says the apostle here, “We beseech you, brethren, to know those that labor among you,” &c. Here was the warrant of the word; the Holy Spirit would do the rest, unless self-will and pride or envy hindered. Even so such service of devoted labor and lowly taking the lead and faithful admonition would make itself known in the conscience, as it would yet more readily to the heart if the saints walked with God. Yet this is so novel among Christians, that even devout scholars find very great difficulty in discovering the meaning of εἱδέναι, whereas its force here is its constant use. If the saints can know a brother to love him, so they can know those whom God uses for their blessing and guidance, and, if right themselves before Him, will respect them the more for not slurring over what is wrong, though a pain at the moment. “If thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be fall of light.” You cannot love as here exhorted unless you know them; just as it is to render brotherly love impossible if we cannot tell who are our brethren.

To be at peace among ourselves is of great moment in order to such recognition, as the recognition conduces to it. So it follows here.

But there is no countenance given to the unloving, careless thought that those who labor are to undertake the whole burden of the saints, especially that which draws on moral courage and patience. This is enjoined, not as Chrysostom says here, on the rulers, but also on the brethren generally. “And we exhort you, brethren, admonish the disorderly, comfort the faint-hearted, support the weak, be long-suffering toward all” (ver. 14). Love alone can thus work, looking at the saints as they are in God's sight, and grieved at the havoc Satan would make in that holy garden of the Lord, for whose will and glory it is jealous. Such is to be our way with our brethren.

Next follows a cluster of short, pithy exhortations almost to the end, which deal first of all with our spirit or state personally; next, in our more public walk.

“ See that none render to anyone evil for evil, but always pursue that which is good one toward another, and toward all. Rejoice always; pray unceasingly; in everything give thanks, for this [is] God's will in Christ Jesus toward you. Quench not the Spirit; despise not prophecies; but prove all things; hold fast that which is good; abstain from every form of evil.” (Ver. 15-22.)

Grace is the characteristic of the gospel; and as it is the spring in God Himself as shown in Christ, so would He have it in His children; not human justice, for the just against the unjust, but unselfish love doing good to the evil and suffering evil from them. Thus would He have us to be not overcome of evil, but to overcome evil with good. Such is Christianity in practice, above heathenism and Judaism alike. Such is it one with another and toward all, and so Peter no less than Paul: “If when ye do well and suffer, ye shall take it patiently, this is acceptable—grace—with God.”

Nor should the Christian give an ill impression of his God and Father or of the portion he even now possesses in His grace, any more than of his prospects. With what joy the disciples returned even from their Master departing to heave! And the Holy Spirit in due time came to make the joy unfailing. (John 4:14.) What has there been since to dry up the spring” “Rejoice always.”

But we are still in the body and in the world, as they we are. Therefore is the word “pray unceasingly;” just as we see those who returned with great joy from Olivet, all with one accord continuing steadfastly in prayer with Mary the mother of Jesus, not yet the abomination of prayer to her or to His brethren. But this due expression of increasing dependence on God should never be without thanksgiving; but as we are in everything, which otherwise might make us anxious, by prayer and supplication to let our requests be made known to God (1 Phil. 4:6), so are we here exhorted to “give thanks in everything.” And as a constant spirit of thanksgiving is the very reverse of nature's querulousness, because of manifold suffering and chagrin and disappointment, the apostle fortifies this call with a reason subjoined, “for this is God's will in Christ Jesus toward you.” Otherwise it would soon in the declension of Christendom have been counted levity and presumption. How truly does the apostle say in his second epistle, “all have not faith.”

Next we have terse but full exhortation as to our more public ways. It is not here the personal call of Eph. 4, “grieve not,” but “quench not the Spirit,” followed up by “despise not prophecies,” which serves to fix its true bearing. Both suppose the free action of the Holy Spirit in the assembly, where He must not be hindered in His general movement even by the least member of Christ, any more than despised in the highest form of dealing with souls, or “prophesying.” On the other hand the saints must not be imposed on by high or exclusive claims which are never needed by, and would be repulsive to, the truly spiritual. They were to prove all things, to hold fast the good, to abstain from every form of evil. By σἶδος translated “appearance” in the Authorized Version, is really meant kind or form.

This brief but full exhortation is followed by a beautifully suited prayer. “Now the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit, and soul, and body be preserved entire without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful [is] He that calleth, who will also do [it]” (ver. 23, 24). Thus does the apostle commend his beloved children in the faith to the God of peace Himself, after so comprehensively urging their own responsibility; and this both generally and in detail, which is the reason of distinguishing the spirit, the soul, and the body, the entire man inner and outer, and even the inner divided into spirit and soul, that they might look for God to set them apart wholly, and every whit within as well as without to be preserved entire without blame at Christ's coming.

It may be well to add that “the soul” is the seat of personality, “the spirit” is rather the expression of capacity. Hence the soul, with its affections, is the responsible “I;” as the spirit is that higher faculty capable of knowing God, but also of unutterable woe in the rejection of Him. The God of peace Himself claims and sanctifies us wholly. For this should we pray, as the apostle for the saints in Thessalonica, that they might be preserved entire blamelessly, and in every respect, at the coming of our Lord. And for our comfort he adds that, as He who calls us is faithful, so also He will accomplish His purpose. Peace with God, the peace of God, the God of peace; such is the order of the soul's entrance into and experience of the blessing through our Lord Jesus, as the Holy Ghost is the person who effectuates this wonderful purpose of our Father, whether now in measure, or absolutely and perfectly at Christ's coming, a hope never separated in Scripture from any part of Christian life.

But there is another trait of that life to which the apostle invites the saints. “Brethren, pray for us.” What grace We can understand easily an Abraham praying for an Abimelech, and perhaps also a more faulty Abraham interceding for a faulty prince of the world who had done a wrong which he wist not fully. But how blessed that it is the privilege of the saints to pray for the most honored servant of the Lord, and that he seeks and values their prayers.

Then follows a warm expression of loving salutation to the brethren, to all the brethren.

But there is another word of marked significance introduced with peculiar solemnity. “I adjure you by the Lord that the letter be read to all the [holy] brethren.” We may conceive how proper and necessary this was when the apostle sent out his first epistle. It was a communication in the form of a letter, so characteristic of Christianity in its affectionate intimacy as well as in its simplicity. Depth of grace and truth it has in its nature, whatever the form in which it may be presented orally or in writing. But being a letter, and the first of the apostle's sending out, he will have the things he writes acknowledged as the commandments of the Lord, and read to all as concerning all in the Lord. For though he does not put forward his title of apostle, when he could only rejoice that its assertion was needless, he writes in the fullest consciousness of it (1 Thess. 2:6), and here implies its fullest authority, but withal would be in immediate contact with the least member of Christ's body, as he wishes finally that the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ should be with them (ver. 28). It was not that he suspected the integrity of those that were over them in the Lord, but that he would impress on all the saints the solemnity of a fresh inspired communication. And truly, the more we reflect on the gracious interest of God in thus drawing out the heart of the apostle, guided and filled with suited truth for His children, the more will our value rise for such unerring words of divine love.

Revised New Testament: 2 and 3 John, Jude

The Second Epistle Of John

I. The Authorized and Revised Versions are questionable as to “lady.” Kyria is not without claim as a proper name instead of the appellative “lady “; while the idea of some that Eclecta is meant seems unfeasible, and indeed refuted by 13. But the Revisers rightly say “in truth” as characteristic of the apostle's love. Loving in truth supposes the truth known, but it goes farther and so stamps the love. Thus in fact the Authorized Version renders the same phrase in verse 4. Again, it is not well to confound lyv. with vv., the perfect with the present part. “That have the knowledge of” might fairly represent the force. In 2 the Revisers say “it” in the last clause to mark the change of construction. In 3 they give correctly the future: “Grace shall be with us,” &c. For ἡμῶν (à B L P &c., and so Stephens) they read here, instead of ὑμῶν as in K, most cursives, and so Elz. followed by the Authorized Version. Undoubtedly “you” is the more usual wish; but this is rather an assurance, and the peculiar form well admits of the apostle's putting himself with those addressed, as in the preceding verse. “The Lord” (κυρίου) is doubtful, though strongly supported, as some of the best uncials, cursives, and versions do not sanction it. In 4 “I rejoice” is a dubious rendering of the aorist, though I presume its adoption was mainly grounded on the perf. that follows, εὕρ., which certainly must mean, not “I found” only, as in the Authorized Version, but “I do find.” The Revisers rightly give “we received.” — “That we love one another” in 5 goes back from the entreaty of the apostle to the commandment of the Lord when on earth. In 6 divine love is shown to be identified with obedience, or at least inseparable from it, as it really is in the new nature, eternal life in Christ. What created the need for thus pressing the truth is the fact (ver. 7) that many deceivers went forth into the world, those that confess not Jesus Christ coming [ἐρχ.] in flesh. The received text εἰσῆλθον, though supported by most, and in the Authorized Version, must yield to the more, ancient and truer ἐξῆλθον. Of course the last clause should be “the” deceiver and “the” Antichrist. Here, too, it will be noticed that those who so wrongly contend for a continuous force in σωζόμενοι and ἁγιαζόμενοι, the Revisers included, are obliged to own that the present part is timeless in this instance. Compare 3 John 3, where it is really no question of epoch. At any rate the late Dean Alford very properly shows that in these cases the present has nothing to do with time, but represents the great truth of the Incarnation itself, as distinguished from its historical manifestation [ἐλθών, 1 John 1:6], and from the abiding effect of that manifestation [ἐληλυθότα, 1 John 4:2); as all three are confessions of the Person Ἰησοῦς χριστός, distinguished from the accus. with infin. construction, which would have reduced the confession to simply the fact announced; whereas in each case it is the PERSON who is the primary predicate, the participle carrying the attributive or secondary predicate. There has been sad tampering with the MSS. in 8, and the text accordingly varies in the hands of the editors also. Thus Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Wordsworth follow à A, eight cursives, and other good authorities, in the reading αἰργάσασθε, which gives the at best commonplace sense “ye wrought.” These and others also, as Colinaeus and Alford with the Revisers, give “ye lose not” and “ye receive,” but “we wrought.” The text adopted by Erasmus and the Complutensian editors, by Stephens, Beza, and Elz., yields a touching appeal to those addressed, that the apostles and all who labor in the truth and for Christ might receive full recompense. Copyists, commentators, and critics missed the meaning, which is as delicate as it is forcible, though Beza was dull enough to say, in alluding to the text with the uniform second person, that the sense is the same. The Complutensians interpolate καλά after εἰργ., as does the Antwerp Polyglott; but not Goldhagen's edition, which some have supposed a reprint of the Greek Testament in either. Romanist theology sought to draw from the verse a Scriptural ground for their Pelagian notion of the meritoriousness of good works. Its real drift was, as one might expect, generally misunderstood. The correction in 9 is most important, “Whosoever goeth “onward,” προάγων, (à A B 98m.g. the best Latin, Sab. Aeth.), not παραβαίνων, as in the Text. Rec. and the more ordinary copies. “Transgression” is not the point, but development as to Christ, instead of abiding in the doctrine of Christ, His deity and humanity. It is really more forcible to omit the second τοῦ χριστοῦ or αὐτοῦ, and so the oldest MSS. and versions, &c. “Greeting” is the better rendering in 10, 11. In 12 à confirms K L P with most cursives in reading ἡμῶν, “our,” with Erasmus, Compl., Steph., Elz.; but ὑμῶν, “your,” has good and ancient authority.

Revised New Testament: 3 John

1. A similar remark applies here as to 2 John There is in 2 the better rendering of “in (lit. concerning) all things,” not “above all things” as in Homeric usage. Thus simply is a strange difficulty, as others before had shown it ought to be, banished from our version. In 8 it is rightly “brethren.” Compare 2 John 7. The literal rendering “thy truth” would hardly convey the meaning, and “the truth that is in thee” as in the Authorized Version is not quite the thought, but “thy [abiding in the] truth, even as thou walkest in truth.” In 4 an omission is supplied, “these things,” or “this.” Only here Text. Rec. omits τῇ, which is read by A B C &c., and this the Revisers rightly follow, “in the truth.” The marginal alternative of “grace” for “joy” would scarcely have received notice if the combined Vatican and Vulgate had not stood so high with the Cambridge school. The correction in 5 is important, for the ordinary text is almost senseless, “to the brethren and to strangers.” It is really “toward the brethren, and that, strangers,” τοῦτο instead of the second εἰς τοὐς. Gaius, or Caius, was, thus open-hearted toward the preaching or teaching brethren, and this if strangers; and John would have him go on in that faithful work of love. He would have Gains, not merely to receive them, but to set them forward (6) on their journey worthily of God, who loves such men and such ways. In 7 “the Name” is the true reading on almost all authority worth speaking of, without “his” (αὐτοῦ), which is due to the Complutensian editors (not to Erasmus), followed by Beza and Elz. The best authorities give, not ἐθνῶν, but ἐθνικῶν, “of those of the nations” or Gentiles. In 8 it is not ἀπολ., as in Text. Rec., but ὑπολ., to bear up or welcome. It may be well to mention here that àp.m. and A join in the absurd misreading ἐκκλησίᾳ, instead of ἀληθείᾳ. This error may have been through the words that follow. How vain to idolize these venerable documents! Had B instead of A been one, we might have heard more on behalf of the variant. From 9 the Text. Rec. drops τι, “somewhat,” which the Revisers of course accept on excellent authority. They have done well to mark ἐπιδέχεται as distinct from ὑπολ. in 8. It is used for recognition or admission of authority, and sometimes for entertaining people. Never was a mistake greater than to conceive the Greek Testament lacking in precision. So in 10, “bring to remembrance” is more correct than “remember,” as “wicked” is preferable to “malicious.” The casting out those who would receive the traveling brethren appears to have been an arbitrary rejection or declaring out, not a Scriptural expulsion or putting out on the part of the assembly. Gaius was not to “imitate” the evil but the good (11). The copula of Text. Rec. should disappear. In 12 it is rightly the sing. “thou knowest,” not “ye know” as in the Authorized Version following Text. Rec. It seems strange that in 14, as in 2 John 12, the margin does not represent, as in the Authorized Version, the literal rendering “mouth to mouth.” In 14 we find “the” friends rightly in the Revised Testament on both occasions. In the second epistle we have the children of the elect sister saluting; here as writing to Gains the apostle brings in the friends saluting and saluted. How refined and sincere is the love that is of God!

J E.

1. The Authorized Version has “the,” the Revised Version “a,” servant. Judas, bondman, &c., is best, as often pointed out. “To them that are called” would answer to τοῖς κεκλημένοις rather than to τ. κλητοῖς, the called. But “for” Jesus Christ, though grammatical, is open to question; “in” as parallel would seem better, or perhaps “by.” “Sanctified” in the Authorized Version is the right version of a wrong reading displaced on good authority by “beloved.” 3. It seems strange that Lachmann should by punctuation so divide the sentence as to impair or destroy what is otherwise simple and weighty. He puts a comma after the twofold ὑμῖν, the effect of which is to falsify the epistle; for it does not treat of the common salvation, but is an earnest contention for the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Mere scholarship without a spiritual mind is untrustworthy in divine things. In Text. Rec. followed by the Authorized Version ἡμῶν is wrongly omitted: the Revised Version inserts it correctly on high authority, and renders the text better in more than one word. In 4 κρῖμα is rather the “charge” for which they were to be judged than “condemnation.” Hence it came to mean the sentence or doom, as with us crime. In 5 the marginal rendering appears to be better than that of the text; but θεόν of the Text. Rec. is rightly rejected on ample authority. The Revisers correct the double error of the Authorized Version in 5, “once knew.” It should be “know once for all.” “This” is an error, not of rendering like those just named, but of the Text. Rec. followed by Authorized Version. It should be πάντα, “all things,” not τοῦτο, “this,” as in the later copies. It is a mercy that the love of paradox with deference to A B &c. did not as in Lachmann and Alford introduce Ἰησοῦς here, where Κὐριος without the article, Jehovah, is the true reading. But why τὸ δ., “afterward"? Why not “in the second place?” In 6 “angels” rightly in the Revised Version, not “the” as if all were concerned. It is a defined set among the angels. But is “hath kept... unto” good English? “He hath in keeping” might do better perhaps; and so I see, nearly, Mr. T. S. Green. In 8 the Revisers rightly give us” —yet,” and drop “filthy,” which is implied in the context, as they represent well the anarthrous force of οὗτοι ἐνυπν., which can hardly bear “these dreamers,” but means rather “these in their dreams,” or “dreaming as they do.” In 12 I think there cannot be a doubt of the article as the genuine reading, which gives vividness and objectivity to the σπιλάδες, whether sunken rocks or blots be meant. But it is not correct to impute to Beza simply the Authorized Version which construes do. with ἑαυ. π., inasmuch as the Syriac and ancient versions in general so take it, except perhaps the Vulgate followed by the Rhemish alone of English versions, which takes it with εὐωχού—In 13 it should be the plural form “shames” or “disgraces,” which is more usual in English, to guard from the equivoque; for they can clearly have no sense of shame. It means shameful things.

Do not the Revisers furnish an unnatural and misleading version of τούτοις in 14? What is the sense of “to these?” One can imagine a far-fetched way of supposing that Enoch prophesied to the corrupting apostates who shall meet their doom when the Lord is come in judgment. But a dative of reference is far simpler, “for,” “as to,” “of” as in all the English versions like others. They of course give “came” as in prophetic vision, not “cometh,” which is to confound the tense system; and they translate ἐν here rightly with (i.e. amidst) His holy myriads. And here be it noted that Professor Volkmar's assumption that Jude quoted from the so-called Book of Enoch is not only unfounded but gross ignorance; for while the words in our epistle fall into harmony with all revelation, those of the Aethiopic document are as different from Jude's as they are opposed to the truth. The apocryphist makes the Lord come in judgment of His holy myriads 1 instead of His enemies, contrary to all scripture, but the not unnatural thought of any unbeliever, Jew or Gentile. It is untrue that Jude quoted from this pretended Book of Enoch. The κατὰ πάντων of our epistle (15) resists any such idea. Not improbably it was a Jewish forgery; and men who could resort to such iniquity have no true perception of the truth, as here we see that, if the forger meant to incorporate the words of Jude into his fable, he failed even to accomplish this seemingly mechanical task, and taught heterodoxy in the change he introduced, however slight in appearance. Compare either the English version of Laurence (chap. 2 p. 2, Oxford, 1821) or the Aethiopic (chap. 2 p. 2, Oxon. 1838). M. de Sacy renders the passage correctly enough, “Et venit cum myriadibus sanctorum, ut faciat judicium super eos,” &c. His note adds: “All reste, on pourrait supposer que l'auteur du livre d'Enoch aurait emprante ce passage de Saint Jude.” Very likely the author imitated Jade, and incorrectly borrowed, as we have seen. Certainly Jude did not quote from this apocryphal book, as Professor Westcott like others seems to suppose.

In this same 15 Tischendorf retains αὐτῶν after ἀσεβεῖς as in the Text. Rec., contrary to his critical note (Ed. viii.), which rejects it on the highest authority, but he reads λόγων against weighty witnesses. In 18 there is a question of text and of translation. Text. Rec., in accordance with the majority, reads ἐν ἐ. χ., in the last time; but the ancient copies give ἐπ'ἐσχάτου [τοῦ] χ., à &c. attesting the article, B C &c. omitting it, which the Revisers follow. Compared with other varieties of the phrase, it would seem to mean “at the end of the time.” In 19 the true reading is ἁποδ. without ἑαυτούς, as Eras. Compl. and Stephens edited, but Colinaeus even before Beza and Elz. added it. The Rescript of Paris supports it and a few cursives, which may have been Beza's three old copies. But this sort of separatist is not to be confounded with the αἱρετικός in Titus 3, 1 Cor. 11, Gal. 5, for the mischief was according to the context from their being within, not from their going out. They were certainly far from the mind and grace of Christ; but if they separated the saints from themselves or themselves from the saints, it was not, it would appear, by an outward breach: they carried on their deadly and corrupting work inside: They were “sensual,” as the Authorized and Revised Versions say, or rather “natural” men. Dean Alford reasons from the words, not from the written word, when he treats ψυσικοί as midway, between πν. and σαρκικοί. For 1 Cor. 3 plainly prove that σ. is the true midway term, and means one unduly deferring to intellect or fleshly feeling, but a saint (like the Corinthian believers); whereas ψ. means man in his natural and absolutely unrenewed estate, as indeed here described πν. μὴ ἔχ. In 22, 23,. the authorities are most conflicting. Some like the Text. Rec. make but two classes, others three. One could not gather from the Greek or the English of the Revisers that some of the most venerable and best documents, supported by the oldest versions and other witnesses. point to ἐλέγχετε. (A C, many cursives and versions), not ἐλεεῖτε (or 1XEar/., in 22; or yet more to Zancplyoifivoec (14 A B C &o., which they rightly follow. The Vulgate repreBents the ancient text fairly, save that it deserts its own rendering of S, in verse 9, which substantially suits 22 far better than “judicatos.” Dr. Wells and Bengel first vindicated the true text, in which the critics wonderfully agree. Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Wordsworth, Griesbach and Scholz are poor enough,Weetcott and Hort worst of all; for what can be more absurd than for scholars to present, as an inspired text, such a jumble of readings as orie tdv 1XEEcire &atcpevopivovc 04,4'Ere itc 7f.

K.r.X.? For to construe this at all we must take the first words as a strict relative, and the first verb as an indicative, to the utter dislocation of the rest of the sentence, and the destruction of any just sense from it as a whole. The twofold Asars of N B cannot stand, nor the omission of oSc Si in 13 before creoCere. The Revisers did adopt unhappily the first iXEare, but the rest of their text is all right. It seems surprising that they should not have named in their margin the good and ancient evidence for iXiyxErE. In 24 both Authorized and Revised Versions agree in adopting “you” as in N B C L, many cursives, and all the versions of note, though Eras., the Compl., Colinaeus, Stephens, Bengel, &o. preferred abrcnic,” them,” with K P and some forty cursives. In 25 there is no reasonable doubt that goo? in the Text. Rec., followed by the Authorized Version, is well left out by the superior authority of the older MSS. and versions. It probably crept in from Rom. 16:27, where it is as perfectly in place as here superfluous. But there are two omissions also of the Text. Rec., which are properly supplied by the Revisers, as, I. X. r.K. bpti-Jv and 7rpO z. r. °wamn, which rest on ample and sure authority, giving of course additional force and beauty to this solemn yet comforting epistle, with its closing doxology.

Lectures Introductory to the Study of the Pentateuch.

Crown 8vo, cloth .. .. 4 6

Lectures Introductory to the Study of the Earlier Historical Books.. 3 6 Lectures Introductory to the Study of the Book of Job 1 0 Lectures Introductory to the Study of the Minor Prophets.. 4 6 Lectures Introductory to the Study of the Gospels.. 5 0 Lectures Introductory to the Study of the Pauline

Epistles.. 6 0

Lectures Introductory to the Study of the Acts, Catholic

Epistles and Revelation .. 5 0

Lectures Introductory to the Study of the New Testament, the above three vols. uniform.. 14 0 Lectures on the Church of God, fourth edition revised 2 0 Lectures on the Second Coming and Kingdom of Christ 2 6 Lectures on the New Testament Doctrine of the Holy

Spirit, new edition ..

Lectures on the Book of Revelation. Derry 8vo. Occasional Lectures..

London: W. H. Baocas, 25, Paternoster-square.

2 6

6 6

4 6

King Saul: Part 4

AND in all this we see Israel; for (like prince, like people) Saul is the representative of Israel in apostacy, as he is the forerunner or type of their king in the latter day. This way of Saul under David's harp has been the way of Israel under God's ministers. Elijah raised among them for a moment the cry, “the Lord He is God, the Lord He is God,” but all was quickly “Baal” again. In the light of John the Baptist they afterward rejoiced, but it was only for a season; and when the hand of the Son of God Himself was among them to heal them and bless them, for awhile they flocked to Him in thousands, and when He preached they wondered (Luke 4), and when He entered their city they cried “Hosanna” (Matt. 21), but all soon ended in the cross. The evil spirit had been charmed, the unclean spirit had gone out, but the house was still ready for it, and for it only. And thus the harp of David and the grace and ministry of the Son of God were only the same stage in the downward paths of the king and the people. They were, both of them, disobedient and gainsaying still. And it was this case of David's harp, as I judge, which our Lord had especially in mind, when He said, “If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out?” thus likening to Saul that generation of Israel to whom He was preaching, and making the power of David's harp the same as the power of that preaching. And the parable of the unclean spirit going out and returning with others more wicked than himself, which the Lord then delivers (Luke 11), is thus a setting forth both of the history of Saul and of that generation. And so we shall find, that the spirit which now went out of Saul came into him again with increased strength, as the casting out of devils and cleansing the house of Israel for a time by the Son of God ended only in His becoming the victim of their lusts and enmity. For Saul was the man after Israel's heart, the full representative of the revolted and unbelieving nation.

But Saul's sin is not to hinder God's mercy. David has a work to do with the Philistine, which must be done, be the king never so unworthy. And in this we still see the way of the Son of God. He came to destroy the power of the enemy, as well as to heal the daughter of Zion; and though she, like Saul, may refuse to be healed, the Son of God must do His work upon the great Goliath. He must lead captivity captive. He must make an end of sin. He must break down the middle wall of partition and nail the handwriting to His cross. He must slay the enmity and abolish death. He must accomplish all this glorious triumph over the full power of the enemy, though He find none in Israel, who were His own, to receive Him, nor any in the world, that He had made, to know Him

This again is shame and comfort to us: shame, that we could thus treat His love comfort that His love survived such treatment. And upon this, I would further notice (for it carries another lesson to ourselves), that though Saul knew the power of David's harp for a time, he never knew David himself. He had not learned David, if I may so speak—David was still a stranger to him (xvii. 56). And how does this tell us of man and of Israel still! Man will enjoy the rain from heaven, and the fruitful season; but remain ignorant of the Father who orders all this for him Israel was healed of Jesus, but did not learn Jesus; many pressed on Him in the throng, who never touched Him. And all this is like Saul who could be refreshed by David's music, but still have to ask, “Abner, whose son is this youth?”

And this, beloved brethren, is truly sad and solemn; and I think I can say that I never felt more awed, while meditating on scripture, with thoughts of what man is, than in this meditation on poor wretched miserable Saul. The subject is indeed very solemn. It gives us the way of man, the way of a child of this world, who goes on in self-will, with desperate purpose of heart, to take the world for his portion at all cost. And it is no theory, nor singular thing. It finds its counterpart in our world every day; and would in ourselves, but for the gracious keeping of our God. And I do pray, beloved, that neither my pen nor your eye may travel on through these dreary paths of man, without our heart feeling what a thing it is thus to live and thus to die a lover of this present evil world. “He that being often reproved hardeneth his neck shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy.” (Prov. 29:1.)<

Bible Treasury: Volume 14

Sanctification: Positional and Practical [Leaflets]

Table of Contents

God's Dealings With Jacob: Genesis 32

The Declared Purpose and Present Moral Processes: 16. History of Faith

On Some Hindrances to the Interpretation of Scripture

The Enemy's Work: A Word in 1846, a Warning for 1882

On Acts 1:1-11

On 1 Thessalonians 1

Revised New Testament: Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians

Revised New Testament: Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians

How God Delivers Sinners

The Declared Purpose and Present Moral Processes: 17. History of Faith

Fragment: "That Christ Might Fill All Things"

On Acts 1:12-26

Christian Liberty

Brief Thoughts on Ephesians 5

On 1 Thessalonians 2:1-12

Revised New Testament: 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon

Scripture Queries and Answers

Burnt-offering

The Declared Purpose and Present Moral Processes: 18. History of Faith

On Acts 2:1-11

Deliverance From the Law of Sin: Part 1

On 1 Thessalonians 2:13-20

Revised New Testament: Hebrews 1-12

Christians Should Bring the Lord Into Everything

The Meat Offering

Unsuitable for God and the Christian

The Declared Purpose and Present Moral Processes: 19. History of Faith

What Is Truth?

On Acts 2:12-21

On 1 Thessalonians 3

Revised New Testament: Hebrews 13 and James

Open Brethrenism

Errata

The Peace Offering

The Declared Purpose and Present Moral Processes: 20. History of Faith

Deliverance From the Law of Sin: Part 2

Perilous Times: Part 1

On Acts 2:22-36

On 1 Thessalonians 4:1-12

Revised New Testament: 1 Peter

The Declared Purpose and Present Moral Processes: 21. History of Faith

King Saul: Part 1

Perilous Times: Part 2

On Acts 2:37-49

On 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18

Revised New Testament: 2 Peter

Scripture Queries and Answers: Hebrews 13:7-8

Fragments: Joel 2:28-29

Fragments: Prophecy

King Saul: Part 2

The Declared Purpose and Present Moral Processes: 22. History of Faith

The Sacraments (So-Called): Part 1

On Acts 3

On 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11

Revised New Testament: 1 John

Genesis 1:20 and 2:19

The Declared Purpose and Present Moral Processes: 23. History of Faith

The Sacraments (So-Called): Part 2

King Saul: Part 3

On Acts 4:1-12

On 1 Thessalonians 5:12-28

Revised New Testament: 2 and 3 John, Jude

Revised New Testament: 3 John

Advertisement

King Saul: Part 4