Notes and Comments 2

The eight years of Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat, include it seems, the time he reigned with his father, who established his other sons out, but made Jehoram king. He seems to have reigned two years and over with his father, five or six after his death.

Jehoram, son of Ahab, began in Jehoshaphat's eighteenth year in the twenty-third year of Jehoshaphat's reign, or in the fifth year of the reign of Jehoram son of Ahab, Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat began to reign; six years after Jehu kills Jehoram. Their years do not tally, so that the fifth may be the end, and eleven and over be counted as twelve; in the twenty-third of Jehoshaphat, Jehoram be already in his sixth, but in sum the eight years include his co-reign with Jehoshaphat.

It is said that in the Mesopotamian chronology, “begin to reign" is not counted in the dates which begin with the new year. It is also said that in Palestine part of a year is reckoned a year; thus if one reigned three months more than eleven, it is counted twelve. So that if one were short enough a year might be counted to three kings.

Fragment: Truth Learned From Scripture

IT has been the profoundest joy to me that the truth giving the scope and true character of Christianity, and the special truths which compose it, learned from Scripture because it was there and was the truth about man, and the truth as to God and His ways, learned for its own sake in grace, has met every part of the system, infidel and erroneous, which has sprung up in these last days. How it shows, and makes one feel it was divine teaching! May one be kept simply there. 1878.

Fragment: Different Atmospheres of Scripture

If I open the Old Testament anywhere—the Gospels, the Epistles—what different atmospheres I find myself in at once. In the old—ways—dealings—government—man, though man and the world governed by God—piety no doubt, but piety in that scene; and even in the Gospels and Epistles the difference is quite as great—in certain respects, more important. In the Epistles (so the Acts) one active to gather—souls devoted to Christ, valuing Him and His work above all—power shown more than in Christ on earth, as He promised—it is gathering, then caring power. I get back, though now in the power of the Holy Ghost and grace in a saving, gathering way, to man, and it soon fails. But in the Gospels I find a Center where my mind reposes, which is Itself, always Itself, and nothing like It—moves through a discordant scene, attracting to Itself through grace (what no Apostle did or could do) and shining in Its own perfection, unaltered and unalterable in all circumstances. It is the thing about which all service is occupied, as its point of departure, and to which all under divine influence is attracted, for it is God. I was struck with this on the wide Atlantic, my head weary with long storms, on turning to my title—that blessed Book.

Fragment: Christ Leading Us Into Heaven

It is a blessed thought that Christ will Himself introduce us into the Father's house—into heaven. What an entrance will that be, when He leads us in, the fruit of the travail of His own soul—His own—and glorified according to His worth—and all His heavenly company there! And we await that day.

As witnesses of what God is to a sinner, it is evident the Christian should be at peace, and in the consciousness of grace, as well as righteous in his ways, for thus he is, to sinners, an evidence of what God is to sinners, for he was one himself; and he is witness of the efficacy and enjoyment of that grace.

Fragment: Pharisaim

As the Pharisees opposed the intrinsic righteousness of Christ, and the Sadducees the doctrine of His resurrection, so the principle of Pharisaism became anew the great source of public trouble in the Church, and sought to add to, and to legalize the truth which it could not deny, so that Christianity should cease to be grace.

Fragment: The Fulfillment of Various Events

Had the saints of apostolic times waited for the fulfillment of various events, before the coming of the Lord, they must have waited for the dispersion of the Jews, and a whole series of events, of long duration, connected with that dispersion, as well as their bringing back again. It would have come in as an. historical event, in a series, not as a living expectation; but they were the Church—not Jews—and the Lord was precious to them.

Fragment: Promises for the Wilderness

Promises, precious promises there are for the wilderness way, and indeed the glory at the end, but properly for the way. But without promises we know God in redemption—rejoice in what He is, through what He has done, "We joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ through whom we have received the reconciliation."

This is perfect blessedness, not what He has given, but what He is; this was the ground of the Syro-Phoenician woman—He would have had to deny Himself. We get not at promises, but at God Himself, and that by what is manifested and wrought in Christ. Promises are things given to us, but this is the Giver—this runs all through Christianity in its nature.

Fragment: Christ in Perfection

Christ is perfect enough to be always good; and as absolutely and infinitely perfect, is always absolutely and infinitely good.

I think the fact, that we have no Psalms in the New Testament, but a direction to sing them, is very significative of the presence of the Holy Ghost. The Church sings its own—has its own joys, and its own relationships.

Note that the angels, not sang, but shouted for joy at the Creation; then at the birth of Jesus, not then man; and in Rev. 5 the saints praise, the angels celebrating the Lamb outside.

Fragment: Sealing Connected With the Gospel

I have noticed incidentally, but not sufficiently, that the sealing is connected with the Gospel of our salvation; this makes what has perplexed many pretty clear. It is when the Gospel of simple salvation is received that we are sealed—so indeed with Cornelius; Acts 10.

Fragment: Sealing Connected With Calling

I apprehend that practically, the sealing of the Spirit connects itself, in Eph. 1, with the calling, i.e., stamps us and marks us out, and consciously so, for it; while, as earnest, it is connected with the inheritance. The anointing would connect itself with verses 17, 18.

The Cross

THERE is that in which the Cross stands alone. In Christ's glory I shall participate, and though God is One, and above all, so that there can be no comparison, yet in divine excellency in Person, Christ participates in the divine nature with the Father and the Spirit, and They are one with Him; but in the Cross, though the Father's love is revealed in it, and that He offered Himself through the Eternal Spirit, yet in the suffering proper to the Cross He was alone—wholly alone. It is in this sense, morally, more than the glory—that others can have—on the Cross what was excellent and glorious, none had share in accomplishing with Christ. He is the Lamb slain above—we reap the fruit, but He accomplished this glorious work Himself, and was alone in accomplishing it.

The full bringing out of good and evil on the Cross is very striking. God (speaking reverently, for the expression is incorrect, it was manifestation, yet to make myself understood), God was fully tested, and He was above sin, and there was absolute righteousness against it, and perfect love. Man was tested, and he was enmity against God—that was all his history, unless we add details of evil fruits. Christ, blessed be His name, was tested, and it was a perfect savor of love and obedience—there remained nothing to bring out (for faith); all was fully—good and evil—perfectly brought into the light; even Satan was there fully manifested, against the manifestation of love in Christ, and as god of this world.

That it was indeed necessary that the death of Christ should intervene, in order that the love of God could satisfy itself in flowing out in unhindered blessing, is easily understood in grace; but what depth of love is in the expression " how am I straitened till it be accomplished! "

What endless wondrous outgoing of love in all the life and actings of Jesus! We should think it infinite, for it never failed; but He—such was the depth, the power, the divine fullness of that which was within that He was straitened—His love wrought in such power, in such necessity to itself to bless, that to Him, His heart was straitened till all that saving power, in which God was fully revealed and glorified, could go forth to bless. This tells us clearly what He was. It is a wondrous expression—and such was the work upon the Cross; it was sufficient to let flow out all this love—wondrous work too!

Power in the Midst of Evil

THERE is a danger of being disheartened and " vexed " through the prevalence of evil, " Because of the abounding of iniquity, the love of many shall wax cold." How perfect the blessed Lord was in this! All was iniquity around Him, yet, in perfect communion with God, His spirit walked in peace, so that He could notice and recognize even all that was naturally lovely- the lily of the field -God's care of ravens -all that was of God here. But this is because He was perfectly near God (I speak of His mind as Man), but, for the same reason He judges perfectly man and all his thoughts and intents of heart.

But marriage is owned from the beginning-a child, in which simplicity, confidence and undistrusting readiness of heart to believe, guilelessness as not having learned the world nor its vanity -beauty of character, when He looked on the young man, who had displayed that character, He loved him; this is lovely, but the presence of God must try man -where was his heart? He went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. With the best dispositions and readiness to be taught, and plenty to make good use of, the state of the heart is found; "who then can be saved?" With man it is impossible, but then with God all things are possible. At the very outset, the Lord had shown him he was all on the wrong tack, seeking goodness in man-God only was good; the heart was detected-the Cross alone would do, those who follow Him must take it up-death to what man was, the only path.

But then there was a blessed starting point for this, "He came to give his life a ransom for many," Mark to.

The Cross was first redemption, then the death of the flesh; and we are, for ourselves, to take up the Cross, and, for others, to serve as Christ did. He had in this character, as now calling souls, only the cup to give-His baptism and His cup, though there was large, ample reward for those for whom it was prepared.

Then comes the reference of this question to the disciples' path. Where the flesh is not crucified, the world and Satan have power-they followed trembling, when He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem. There can be sincerity and blessing-Christ, the Son, revealed and holding fast by Him, but the flesh not subdued to the measure of that which we really believe, then there is fear and weakness, and it goes even to the point of being called Satan by the. Lord. See the difference of Paul by the Holy Ghost—his righteousness which was a gain to him, was loss to him, he needed it not; had he anything of this world? It was dung and dross, and followed—this one thing I do. If he had forty stripes save one, or despaired of life, he had the sentence of death in himself; he looked to a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory—a bright example of the power of grace and the Spirit, so as to have an undivided and so undistracted heart, and power with him as in Christ, a perfect example of the good which Paul had to imitate—a heart perfectly free in its own self; tested indeed, but perfect, and so perfect with God that it could, as above all the evil around it, deeply as it was felt, see and recognize all that was of God.

It is wondrously full of instruction to see man's heart sifted, yet all good of God owned; that edge of the divine word, of the word of Christ, which can run its edge through all that to us is so mixed up; nature and fallen nature—nature from God, and nature from man—and in perfect goodness in the midst of all, yet tell us plainly of the needed Cross, and the grace of a needed redemption.

Leviticus

Leviticus, though connected with Sinai, quod nota, in the wilderness of it, is spoken from the Tabernacle-this is its character. Then, after the offerings in order, of which sin-offering is special, the covenant and worship was founded on burnt-offering-sin-offering found to be needed, and then the law, manner of use and order of them; then comes Aaron's consecration, according to Ex. 28 and 29. In chapter 9 their hands are filled, but note here no blood is brought into the holy place for sin; though there might be evil to be atoned for, relationship is not yet supposed to be broken. But all went wrong; first in Nadab and Abihu, and then in not eating the people's sin-offering by the others, and though Moses was content, yet it altered all the order of approach. Then-though there had been failure-from chapters it to 15 inclusive, clean and unclean are to be discerned by the anointed, consecrated priests. Chapter 16 on the fault of Nadab and Abihu, etc., the necessity of reconciliation, and that the way into the holiest (Moses, the heavenly man, always went there) was not yet made manifest, was declared, and the manner of entrance there by Aaron prescribed in atonement. Thereon, i.e., after chapter 16, defiling wickednesses are gone through, connected with the people's relationship with God; this to chapter 20 inclusive.

Then the holiness of the priests in separatedness to God, and in approach to Him; then of the people's offerings. Chapter 23 contains the whole course of feasts, chiefly of joy, typical feasts, the history of the Lord's ways, the whole period of dispensation with them-a long gap, or interval left where the Church comes in. We have then what belongs to the holy place, save the altar of incense, which in effect was for the most Holy, the passing of the mind out of the holy place, i.e., we have the perfectness of the connection, of Christ's connection with Israel, and of the Spirit's (in this latter we know the Church has a place)-the double mystic perfection of 12 and 7. Twelve loaves, Christ's incarnate connection with Israel I believe, and then the sevenfold perfection of the Spirit shining on the candlestick that was of beaten gold (compare also Num. 8:1-4) but here it was before the Lord. This is the full mystic perfection of Israel; for us the Lord has taken it up into a higher sense. Then the Word reverts to the terrible legal sanction of all on which it actually stood, noticing any connection with a Gentile, a profane person, and the spurious offspring. Then, having given the people's mystic place in God's design and purpose, with the sanction of their present standing in it, the Land's portion as God's is mentioned-the sabbaths and the jubilee, and the portion of the people as the Lord's servants in it; chapter 25: 23 and 55. In chapter 26 His warnings and threatened dealings with them, as to the Land, first in it-then in turning them out of it-and restoration on Abraham's covenant, verse 42; this the Law. In chapter 27 are voluntary vows; up to chapter 26 are statutes the Lord made between Him and the children of Israel.

Numbers is their history in the wilderness-written, too, for our admonition, on whom the ends of the world are come- and what was connected, in God's dealings with that.

NOTE.-The three first chapters of Leviticus go together under the same "the Lord spake unto Moses"; the sin-offerings are another category of offerings. The meat-offering was most holy, and for the males only among the priests, as the sin- and trespass-offerings.

In the offerings it is formally the sons of Aaron to whom the sacrifices were brought, not to Aaron. I do not call to mind any sacrifices Aaron or the anointed priest offered (save for personal sin) except the great day of atonement, and his consecration -indeed in public service only the former. It was Christ's one great sacrifice. But the estimate of Christ, the handling of Him in the soul can only be by those who are priests, who are Christians. One only can do the work, and represent us, but we are with God, and in certain cases feed on, and that as priests, according to what Christ has been and has done when here-in Himself solely offered to God, glorifying Him, as made sin for us, but fed on in His perfectness and death. The unfolding of this in Leviticus is most precious.

The day of consecration was the day of the acceptance of the whole service by God, but as to the sacrifices, did not go within the veil. Aaron was in his garments of glory and beauty—he offers a sin- and burnt-offering, the two essential kinds; the people, every kind. Sin- and burnt-offerings are that in which Christ is accepted of God for us. It was the great general public act, and fire came out from God and consecrated and accepted both. The people enjoyed all that Christ was in life, and death besides, founded on the sin and burnt-offering. On the great day of atonement, he had special garments, and the service referred essentially to sin which was there; but to God's very nature within-the blood was carried within the veil. Before he offered anything else, he changed his garments, the burnt-offering was subsequent and consequent on the other. The service of Lev. 9 was not consequent on actual sin and defilement. It gave the full character of Christ's sacrifice and Israel's part in it, or ours as regards responsibility. The day of atonement was in view of actual sins and defilement, and that in a twofold way -God's throne and guilt. The rest was apart. In this sense it was only a sin-offering and sin-bearing. In both cases, i.e., chapters 9 and 16, it was in view of men, not intrinsic and its own character with God; hence the sin-offering comes first, as the burnt-offering in chapter 1. They were for us, but Christ came to put away sin; God's character and majesty and love and righteousness and holiness called for its putting away according to them. It was necessary that it should be put out of the universe, and Christ stood, who knew no sin, as made sin before God; it was about sin, man's sin, as he stood before God. This was the great fact which stands alone in eternity's history, and is finished.

So in the meat-offering, the perfect, proved man; then communion, and as a distinct thing, the sin-offering. But in the burnt-offering, the man brings it; it was on the part of man, sin being there, in view of sin in man, but the priestly estimate of all that it was to God. It was what it is for faith. Both that and the meat-offering are complete in themselves (compare John 6, only there we eat) under God's eye, not for actual sins to bear them and clear us. In the day of atonement this was so, even Godward it was a sin-offering, the goat, and because of iniquities -compare Heb. 9, "put away sin," "bear the sins of many." Hence in this estimate of divinely taught faith, it is not the High Priest, but Aaron's sons. He gives too the reason why these two are the occasions on which Aaron offers. There remains the special case of Eleazar the priest, with the red heifer, which, though done once, was not in the sanctuary. In the post-consecration services, there was no going into the sanctuary in connection with the sacrifices, they were at the altar. Then Moses and Aaron, king and priest, go in and come out.

Lev. 9 only refers typically to Israel. The work does not go within, though effectual to forgive according to the judgment of God; and its efficacy is revealed only when the king and priest come out-when Israel sees the Lord. The priest may bless from the sacrifice before manifestation, and so it is, but the worship is when Christ is seen, and the worth of His sacrifice known. For us, the Holy Ghost is come out while He is within; the fact of going in and coming out, only, is noticed here. On the day of atonement, the blood is carried within.

There is a difference in our enjoyment of Christ, our enjoyment of blessings in communion, sha-lom (peace) founded on the blood and fat being offered to God, (and this was eaten by every clean Israelite) and the enjoyment of the perfectness of Christ in Himself; which is for us of course through the blood of the holocaust, and, as a rule, accompanied it-we read of its meat-offering. This was in the meat-offering only for priests. This was offered to God intrinsically in its own perfection, not atoningly for others without; this last, man could not eat, but it was its own perfectness, as suited to God- all the incense offered to God-the expression of pure unleavened human nature, presented to God and burned for a sweet savor, but human nature expressing what was divine, but in a man; kneaded with oil, and anointed with oil as a whole, and in all its parts. Here, while the incense was all burned to God, priests, there consecrated to God, eat of it.

In the peace-offerings, there was, whether thanksgiving or voluntary, joy in the effect of Christ's work, and connected with it (if separated, it was not accepted) and fellowship one with another. In the light as God is, cleansed from all sin by the blood, we have this fellowship. But in the meat-offering, there was no fellowship with others; it was the enjoyment of Christ Himself; that of which the sweet savor is gone up to God, as a memorial, but of which I eat by grace. In the peace-offering too, there were leavened cakes. In the meat-offering it was not to be heard of-John 6 does not, I think, go with this; it is all manwards as in general. No doubt when so come, He was all this in perfect blessing, but here it is His incarnation and death that we might have life, blessed truth too, but not the offering of what He was in Himself towards God. Indeed this is only seen in Christ, when actually so in result, John 6:62; and our share in it also actually, verses 39, 40, 44, 54 -only John is individual and receptive faith for eternal life, not common enjoyment, when the sacrifice is known as a saving work.

We must not confound the yak'riv (he shall cause to draw near) part of the offering with the rest-the dealing with the presented, offered thing It was Kor'ban (oblation). The word offer " is used for this part, and ish-sheh (a sacrifice made by fire), and O-lah (holocaust); Christ offered Himself through the Eternal Spirit-this was yak'riv-but He thereon became an O-lah, an ish-sheh, and even a khat-tath (sin-offering) by the coming in, and acting of God. The offered Victim was laid on the altar, the fire of the divine nature and judgment proved Him so as to show there was naught but sweet savor, and consumed, and dealt with the sin He bore.' But in Christ the separation is moral-He gave Himself up to death-He was proved in His giving up to the fullest extent of death, and therein shown to be perfect; so, as to sin laid on Him. But His giving Himself up, and His proving and suffering were distinct-the consuming the sacrifice and the death were distinct-yet it is clear the consuming the parts, after death, has no literal place in Christ; but the death work and the altar work were distinct-the altar, consumption, was not Kor'ban, but the fire dealing with the Kor'ban -yet in Christ it went on clearly before, and so up to death.

The Kor'ban was the offerer's, or, when the blood and slain animal was dealt with, priest's work-one, the absolute surrender, the other, presenting to God-but it was presenting, offering up, bringing to God.

There were then two things-the proving by fire, and consuming by fire (this, without the camp) and the accepted blood; when the blood is considered, the Victim is clearly looked at as One perfect, and proved so to the end-it is sprinkled, as of known, complete value. And so indeed as the burning by fire, and hence it came after death in the type -it was burned for a sweet savor, or without the camp as made sin (then not yak'riv); and this is important, and hence after death, which we by faith can apply to Christ, all went up as a sweet savor. No doubt He went through the proving, but the type presents the sweet savor of the proved thing after death. Historically, in the antitype, the fire was applied to the crucified One, but it goes up, a sweet savor from thence as the sole result of that fire—it is equally important that, looked at as sin, this was all consumed outside the camp.

The priest's part then comes in; it was not the yak'riv part, save as already slain He brought the blood nigh, and caused the sweet savor to ascend—Christ offered Himself in His own perfectness, and He presents the blood for us. But then the High Priest represented the people as such, and in this character, when He has personally, not as priest, offered Himself to God, He acknowledges the people's sins—He becomes that khae tath, but in conscious confession first, not in judicial suffering—that follows. But the sins are laid on Him—the Lord has laid them on Him, and He, willingly bearing them, confesses them in perfectness before God for reconciliation being made. This the high priest does as representing the people, but it is not high-priestly in the proper sense, though the high priest's service—the priest's was with the blood, but then the sacrifice was finished—had the high priest not done this, there could have been no priestly service at all; even this was not done on earth, but as lifted up from it. Earth was connected with flesh, there was no reconciliation for it, and, as long as Christ was alive upon it, He presented Himself to men in the flesh; when that is done with, He begins His lonely work, where none could enter while it was going on—and, as representing the people, He makes reconciliation. Hence, no priesthood in any sense was exercised on earth, for the reconciliation work in which the High Priest was engaged, was as lifted up from it, and, though not in heaven, no longer on earth.

Leviticus Chapter 1

I think I see a difference between the burnt-offering and the blood on the mercy-seat, which had exercised me, more clearly. The latter is what is presented to God as contrasted with confessing sins on the scape-goat; still it was a sacrifice for sin. This latter was presented to God as a satisfaction for sin, not merely measured by man's responsibility; that was the altar of burnt-offering, and sin-offerings connected with it, but met what God was, with us, on His throne, where He Himself was-what He required, not from man as responsible as man, but for His holy and righteous nature. God in that nature was satisfied, so peace was made. It was a question settled, but there was no question of sweet savor.

But in the burnt-offering, we have the perfectness of Christ Himself in doing it; blood was shed, atonement was made; but it was what Christ was, and His perfectness in doing it when He was made sin. " That the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father hath given me commandment, so I do." The Victim spotless and perfect; the motive-love to the Father-perfect; obedience perfect. It was when He was made sin (hence blood-shedding) that the perfect opposite of sin was shown, perfect obedience and love to the Father in absolute self-giving-up, instead of self-seeking. Through the eternal Spirit He offered Himself without spot to God; hence, when the fire came, all was perfect sweet savor, and went up to God. Christ's soul in this directed all there -His absolute thought was the glory of God, and obeyed His will at all cost to Himself, yet perfect in doing it. " My God, my God " was perfect faith when abandoned-" Thou continuest holy," no disturbance of mind in calling upon God an instant in question, like Job, but the contrary, in far other sorrow. Hence in being made sin, and just then, all was sweet savor to God. Nor could aught else have brought out the glory of God; not in Adam's innocence. No redemption love, no righteousness, no holiness, no setting in grace His purpose in love in a creature. He enjoyed sweet blessing in innocence; but nothing had or could come out of what God was, save goodness and wise power in creation. It was not satisfying God-His righteous exigence -but a perfect sweet savor in the thing itself, though the cross did also satisfy Him in righteousness, and our sins were borne there too. Still it is here as shedding blood and making atonement, because sin was here, and God had to be glorified, when it was in respect of it.

In the burnt-offering, sin being come in, death, in the perfect self offering-up of Christ, could rise as a sweet savor and perfect satisfaction to all that God's nature and authority was and claimed, and more than glorify it. Hence it was l’ka-pher (to make an atonement) for the man who brought it. It was not merely bearing his sins, though that was needed, but meeting all the moral nature and character of God. It was the perfect offering-up of Christ in the place where sin had placed man—perfection in giving Himself up to God, even to death.

2. We must not confound here the kor'ban (oblation) and the yak'riv (he shall cause to draw near), with the consumption of, or dealing with the thing offered, the hik'tir (he shall cause to burn as a sweet savor); this is important in understanding the work of Christ.

We must carefully distinguish between the offering here kor'ban, yak'riv and the offering made by fire ish-sheh (a sacrifice made by fire), O-lah (burnt-offering) etc. The one is being presented to God, the other the dealing with the kor'ban in sacrifice. Save when he went in to present the blood after death, the former was not the priest's work, unless in the case where the high priest himself stood personally as the representative of the whole people.

3. Lir'tso-no (for his acceptance). See chapter 22: 18-20.

There is more than one aspect in which we must look at sacrifices, and learn from them as to Christ. The Passover arrested the exercise of the judgment of God, where the blood was sprinkled; the whole burnt-offering was for propitiation lir' tso-no (for his acceptance or favor) the bringing of favor upon him, and for atonement ka-phar (cover). But though death came in, as it must, for those who were in sin, in man's fallen estate, yet it was death as a whole free-will offering to God—a sweet savor.

4. It is not only ka-phar (cover) has the sense of forgiveness, but ka-sah (hide) also. The force of forgiving is to be noted—it is not per se atonement, but between the soul and God. It is ka-sah (hide) in Prov. 10:12. " Charity shall cover," as in Psa. 32:1. The atonement was needed that God might righteously forgive or cover sin. Men would unrighteously cover it up in conscience—with his brother, in wrong to self, he may, and through love; it is not out before God in government; there may be a question of conscience remaining for the individual.

There seems to be an evident difference between ka-sah (to hide) and ka-phar (to cover) as to covering sin. As far as I can see, the former is covering over in or as to the person in question—he is covered with hair, with leprosy, the latter is addressed to the person in whose sight it is covered, hence it is satisfaction, atonement—my sins are k'suy (hidden away, Psa. 32:1); but Christ ka-phar (atoned for) my sins. See this chapter as well as chapter 5. See Gen. 32:20 (I will appease), 1 Sam. 12:3, and Ex. 21:30.

Sa-lakh (forgiven) seems to be removing sin from the person, to take it away in the sight of the person to whom he is responsible, and so forgiveness—I set it aside, and it is gone instead of holding you still responsible for it. Na-sa (bear) is to bear, and so lift up and take away, something of aphesis (remission) and airo (to lift up), only airo is not to carry or bear, and would quite as much answer to Sa-lakh. Hence in that sense it is also used of the person himself for being under sin, chapter 5:1. "He shall bear his iniquity." One who bears my burden takes it away from me; but it is used for lifting up from off a person his burden, as well as for carrying oneself, and hence for forgiving.

In Greek airo is to lift up or take away—never to bear on oneself; anaphero is to bear, but as a sacrifice on the altar; upophero is never used for this; prosphero is to offer to. So he offered Himself without spot, ka-ray (offered). Kha-ta (to err, in Piel, to offer as a sin-offering) is the wrong direction of the mind; A-sham (guiltiness) what is displeasing, offensive to God, though man through carelessness may do it unwittingly; but when he knows he has done what is offensive, then he is positively guilty if he does not turn to God, making confession, and it be repaired or set right. But it is taken ordinarily for guilt or trespass, and it is evident that if I have done something offensive to my father unawares, if I come to know it, if I have right feeling as to him I shall set it right; otherwise it becomes, i.e., the state of my mind as to it, positive sin—and so I hold it when I find it out, and hence am right—only it needs atonement.

13. The burning of the burnt-offering, and the fat of the peace-offering, and when so ordered, of the sin-offering, is not expressed by the same word as the burning of the sin-offering but by the same word as " incense " and " burn incense "; so it was for a sweet savor, a sacrifice made by fire.

It is so much the clearer that the mercy-seat was a place of approach, not judgment, that there was no fire as on the altar. The fire was the fire of the altar, was always burning upon it, and judgment is according to works, man's responsibility, though God's righteous judgment.

In this respect, therefore, the burnt-offering was, perfect as it was, inferior to the sin-offering in its highest sense. It was not an offering for particular faults as the common sin-offerings. It was a perfect voluntary free-will offering, the consecration of man to God even unto death, and where sin and death were around, so as to make it more perfect dying unto all here, and self-surrender to God of life in the place of sin, so that there was none here where sin and its fruit was, but the contrary, and the rather—"Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life that I might take it again." But it is Man who offers Himself, divinely no doubt, completing in fact Psalm 40, and through the Eternal Spirit, to God, without spot. Still it was as a sin-offering that the blood was put upon the mercy-seat. No doubt that implied the previous offering of Himself to God, and that up to death absolutely, so that the sweet savor went to God, but it was meeting what God was in His nature as refuting sin (not the scape-goat which accompanied it—that was sins confessed), a sin-offering of which the blood was put on the mercy-seat. The burnt-offering was Man offered, perfect in the place of death; the day of atonement was God glorified in His nature, so that He was propitious, and could freely bless, which is His nature. But it was Himself glorified, so that we become the righteousness of God, and grace reigns through righteousness. But the point is, God is glorified, not merely man perfect, divinely perfect. It is not without importance to see that it was a sin-offering that was put upon the mercy-seat.

All the school of teaching, which makes it a filling up self-devotedness, though to death and in the place of condemnation, and not a true sin-offering, is proved false—i.e., perfect man, and perfect man right, not God when everything was contrary—but it was man, and there, consequently, they stop in their estimate of the character of the offering. But this was not what went within the veil, nor what was the ground of approach to God. This is just the question with some; hence they never get beyond man and the world.

Leviticus Chapter 2

In the meat-offering so-called, we have the perfectness of that which was offered-both perfection in nature, sinlessness, and the Holy Ghost, so, as led divinely, all had perfect savor; in the burnt-offering, the perfectness of the act of offering, though the victim was perfect too, as the min'kha (meatoffering) was a koeban (oblation) too.

It is admitted, I suppose, that lir'tso-no (verse 3, chap. i) is "for his acceptance.” The others were not Adam kiyak'riv (when a man shall have caused to draw nigh) but m... yekh'te... v'hik-riv (if... he has erred... he shall cause to draw near) not " if he bring," but " if he sin, he shall bring."

NoTE.-In the meat-offering, it is never said: " to make an atonement for him "; the offering here is food rather than atonement. At the same time it was the food of the priest eaten in that character, not the ordinary communion of the peace-offering. A memorial only was burnt; the mass was eaten by Aaron and his sons. At the same time the memorial and all the incense was devoted to the Lord.

The great first elementary statement as to the meat-offering is fine flour, and oil (and frankincense) put upon it that is, the fact of a pure human nature, and the anointing of Holy Ghost. Then there is brought out, as an additional teaching, the unleavened cakes mingled with oil. When the substance of the cake was formed with oil, which was, as it were, penetrated with oil, and it was unleavened, i.e., in the formed actual subsistence, not merely the nature absolutely as such in idea, but the dough made had no leaven in it-Christ as a living Person had no sin, and was in human nature born of, and lived by the Holy Spirit in fact in the world: " according to the Spirit of holiness." To this was added unleavened wafers anointed with oil, i.e., the actual sinless Man, who knew no sin, was anointed; for the anointing after John's baptism was distinct from what He was in His Person as Man. In the last case it is mingled with oil, unleavened, and the pieces anointed, i.e., we have the knowing no sin, the spiritual nature and power of His life, combined with purity of nature; and every distinct act of His life, every part of it in the power of the Holy Ghost—"If I, by the Spirit of God, cast out devils." I was led to this by the expression of "mingled with oil " and " dry " in Lev. 7:10, where " dry " is opposite to " mingled," for " dry " was anointed whether flour or unleavened cake.

I have spoken elsewhere of this chapter in reference to Christ in His life; this is true, but it is more in His nature, how He was constituted as a living Man. Of course death cannot come into this idea as such, but it does as the fire of the altar which perfectly tries what was in Christ, and only brings forth the sweet savor.

The first thought presented is simply the positive constituent parts, fine flour-perfect humanity as such-anointing with the Holy Ghost, and the graces of a soul wholly offered to God, without the smallest distracted or aberrant motive- mark this.

Then when Christ is looked at as a whole, as a living concrete Man on the earth, we have details of His being constituted a Man in His place of service and trial on earth, fine flour mingled with oil, i.e., perfect human nature, and formed by the Holy Ghost in the womb, or actually sinless human nature anointed with the Holy Ghost.

In the meat-offering baken in a pan, we have all brought together. It is fine flour-simple perfect humanity in itself- unleavened, knows no sin, sinless, mingled with oil, formed in its constituted being by the Holy Ghost, and then in every part penetrated by the anointing of the Holy Ghost.

4. b'lu-loth (mingled). It cannot, I think, be doubted that this is more than, and meant to be other than m'shu-khim (anointed), mixed, mingled is the sense of the word; see Psa. 92:10. It is not merely anointed as consecration, but His whole system invigorated and strengthened by it-it formed His strength; hence it is fresh oil there-the thick perforated cakes were so prepared; the r'ki-key (wafers) or these ones were simply anointed, but this doubtless penetrated all; still the difference is evidently intentional here.

5, 6. I have been led to fully inquire as to these verses. There are three kinds of meat-offerings-two baked in the oven (tannur) and one baked on a frying-pan; of these, the first was mingled with oil-the second, anointed with oil- the third (that baked on a pan) was mingled with oil, and then, being broken in pieces, oil was poured on it, it had both ways of the oil being applied. The first two have been heretofore noted elsewhere-the human nature of Christ formed by the Holy Ghost, and then He anointed with the Holy Ghost; but the last case has not been so much examined into.

I apprehend that we have first, as in the first kind of all, the divinely conceived human nature of Christ-He was conceived of the Holy Ghost; but then He was, at the close of His life, broken to pieces-every element of His nature was broken up by trial-desertion of friends on which a heart could lean, and worse than desertion-giving up what He loved, the Jerusalem He would have gathered-the compassion He looked for refused by every eye -denial by one He dearly loved—exposure to ignominy and shame before a heartless world- sleep, the refuge of His friends, when He would have one to watch by Him; but where, in every pang, in laying bare every feeling, was the power of the Holy Ghost, spiritual perfectness and power, not shown? He was poured out like water, all His bones out of joint, but never was the power and action of the Holy Ghost so shown-every part was anointed—and this breaking up was only the occasion of showing it.

In the three first Gospels, in general, we have more of the breaking in pieces -in John, of power, though not exclusively, for in Luke we find the power too. In Luke, He states to the thief, he shall be with Him in Paradise-in Luke, He commends His Spirit to the Father; yet in Gethsemane, in John, we have only the manifestation of the anointing. This I cannot here pursue further, but waiting on Scripture for it, it is full of interest-was not the suffering of His obedience, the display, or occasion of the display, of His spiritual power, and in a much more intimate manner? His life, though both were necessarily and always true, gave the whole cake-the outward, and, in this sense, superficial or outwardly manifested power of the Holy Ghost; but the breaking up every element of His nature in death-and it was absolute-showed every inward part, all His moral nature, as the complete exhibition of the power of the Holy Ghost in inward perfectness. Hence, more than miracles-a creature imperfect at other times can work them; but who could have been what Christ was, when the fountains of the great deep were broken up over His soul? I can here only imperfectly suggest it.

7. This is more the character of a mass, and the constituent parts merely are given, not its concrete state as a whole, but its nature as so formed, supposing there was no anointing, nor the frankincense brought into view.

14. This was not the offering of first-fruits of chapter 23. That was national, and a fixed day of the year -this a voluntary offering.

I think this gives another character of Christ as Man, and full of instruction. In the previous part, we have Christ as conceived and anointed of the Holy Ghost -"that holy thing." Here, it seems to me, though sinless, He is viewed as in Luke's Gospel, as born of human race, a descendant of Adam, not according to a natural way, but still as it is seed of another character of his, " born of the seed of David according to the flesh" -so of man in nature, he is ge-ersh kar'mel (grain of the earlier, finer growth), but as such He had to be put fully to the test, and pass through the fire ka-hey ba-esh (roasted or parched with fire), and so offered. Every fiery trial came on Him—all that could try Him by faith—and such should be, if He stood as Man before God, but He could be offered, and as such anointed with oil and incense. This is not the offering of chapter 23; that was a fixed offering at a prescribed yearly epoch—this, voluntary from an individual; that, a waved sheaf—this, grace is rubbed out of the ears of corn.

In the meat-offering, we have the personal human perfection of Christ, fully tried up to the fire of death—proving by God's holy nature, and sweet savor the result; not leaven, not honey or nature in its sweetness, but perfect unleavened humanity, begotten sinless by the power of the Holy Ghost, anointed with it, sinless humanity moved by the Holy Ghost absolutely towards God, and never swerving till the last cup was drunk, which could test its perfectness of nature, motive and objects, and then His soul remitted into His Father's hands. The burnt-offering was devoted humanity, the meat-offering tested humanity; the one with sin in view about it, the other proving there was none in it, perfectly tried and every grace absolute in its perfection as offered to God.

Leviticus Chapter 3

The peace-offerings were not to make propitiation either. It was communion in joy together, not simply priestly with the Lord.

The fat of the peace-offerings was burned on the burnt-offering, consumed with the burnt-offering. Compare chapter 6:11.

5. This connected the peace-offering with the burnt-sacrifice.

9. In the peace-offering, when it was a lamb, the whole rump was burned; I know not whether it was an intentional difference-the sin-offerings always refer to the fat of the peace-offerings taken away; compare verses 3, 4.

10, 11. Another character of this offering; it was the le-khem ish-sheh (the food of the offering made by fire) to the Lord. Compare Num. 28:2.

It is developed in verse 16.

Leviticus Chapter 4

This chapter begins a new subject revealed or ordained of God by the words vay' dab-ber I" he-vak el-Mo-sheh (and the Lord spake unto Moses).

3-12. There is no express statement in the sin-offering for the priest, that it made atonement for him, whatever be the reason of this.

13. I apprehend edah (congregation) is more the persona- the congregation looked at as a moral whole, a corporate person before God; and ka-hal (assembly) is the actual subsisting congregation composed of all its members. Compare chapter 8: 3.

15 V'sha-khat (and one shall kill) I do not know that it is more precise in verses 4 and 24. It has interest in respect of the point where self-offering and mediatorial work begins. It was not the ko-hen (priest) unless he were the guilty one, and then it is not as ko-hen. But I suppose hak-ko-hen ham-ma-shiakh (the priest that is anointed) of verse 5 is the same.

31. Here only the sin-offering is called a sweet savor, and it identifies the perfectness of Christ in sacrifice to God, with the bearing of sins in the same act.

The sin-offering was a putting-away of sin. Whether Azazel on the great day of atonement, or the ordinary sinofferings, the victim was charged with sins, bore them and took them away from the person, and put them away out of God's sight, by a perfect vicarious work. But there is another and very important character of the sacrifice, and in which its full perfection as to its effect consists. It introduces into God's presence -we are brought to God in His holy presence -the holiest -by it, as set on the mercy-seat. God has been glorified by it perfectly in His nature and glory, and we are brought into His presence in holiness by it. We come to the gold within, as the evil, measured by what man ought to be for God, has been put away on the brazen altar-one purges the conscience, the other brings into the light of God Himself. But in fact there is no separation now, because the veil is rent, and Christ gone within. That in which Christ suffered, bore, and so set aside for us the judgment, bore the sins and so purged our conscience, met the evil and so brought us into the presence of the glory -the light as God is in the light -but perfectly acceptable, agreeable to it. Righteousness sets us there.

It seems to me that a-sham (guiltiness) is more fault towards God, what a man is guilty of. Kha-ta (error) that in which he has erred from the right way, as the force at least of the word itself.

35. What is ish-shey Y'hovah (the sacrifices offered unto the Lord)?

Note.-In the sacrifice, the burning was not the priest's, but the fires, i.e., the proving effect of God's judgment producing on the altar the sweet savor. The altar was not the cross, but, I apprehend, the active sustaining righteousness of the divine nature. Further, in the case of the sin-offering, the body was not burned on the altar, but, when burned, burned without the camp. The priest's work at the altar, as to the sacrifice, was only occasional, and, so to speak, represented divine ordering of all, not acting for man-man did not in any way arrange the pieces, etc., on the altar. But all that was done with the blood was priest's work properly; only Christ did so offer Himself, not merely to become a Victim, but as a Victim that is in the fire of judgment on the altar, His will tried was in perfect self-offering found so under the fire -but this was needed and found, not done. He did formally offer Himself up, and so far there was a priestly act, only of a different nature; I do not think His offering Himself through the eternal Spirit without spot to God -was priest's offering -it was the bringer of the victim's work; nor was the actual consuming of the victim, so as to leave a sweet savor-that was, so to speak, put into God's hands as the consuming fire; nor the fact of His dying, for that was not priestly work at all. The only priestly work I can see there is what the priest did, not as in peace between God and the people, but as representing them-only that Christ was Victim as well as Priest, and having offered Himself for it without spot, He offered Himself as it, i.e., gave Himself up to death as sin-bearer, confessing, therefore, all our sins on Himself as Victim; but this preceded, I apprehend, this offering, for He offered Himself personally as a spotless Victim, i.e., spotless to be one-then the Lord lays the sins on Him-He is made sin for us. Instead of charging it on others as Adam did, He owns them as His own, and knowing the just rights of God as regards sin and sinners, offers Himself up to death and judgment -but I doubt whether this was not more as Victim than as Priest -to secure the divine glory and save God's beloved; this the Priest did, and this was arranging all on the altar, but it was entirely between God and the Priest. The wrath and death which followed was not a priestly part-that brought out the sweet savor as perfectly effectuating the offer, and was in itself, as coming from God the fruit of sin-bearing.

It is evident that the holocaust and sin-offering were, both at the same time in Christ. Note, in Heb. 9:28, as to the two parts of the offering, the prosenechtheis-eis to... anenegkein -the visitation of wrath upon Him as sin-offering brought out, by the trial, the sweet savor of His perfectness as burnt-offering.

Note.—I apprehend that the gold on the mercy-seat, referred to elsewhere as intrinsic proper divine righteousness, and the brazen altar governmental righteousness in connection with sin, is connected with the character of acceptance in Christ. God has on the Cross judged and put away sin—He has dealt with sin, so that we are free; but then in Christ's death God was perfectly glorified, and the reception before the throne is in the perfection of this—Christ Himself is there in consequence of it, and we are there in Him, the righteousness of God in Him. This is not dealing with sin, but what God delights, can and must delight in. The blood no doubt is witness of the putting away of sin on the mercy-seat, according to the exigencies of that perfection; but there is more than that—Christ is sitting there. On the altar sin is righteously dealt with—on the throne of gold divine righteousness is delighted in.

Leviticus Chapter 5

The v' (and) before hu (he) in the sentence “and he is a witness" has the force of "because" practically. The conclusion (German Nachsatz) is in verse 6, and from v'sham'ah (and he hear) to the end of verse 5 are the things in which he is guilty and has to make an offering for.

I have noted before a-sham is guilty as regards one we are responsible to-here God, of course. Kha-ta is departure from the right.

6. It is not that the trespass might not be a wrong thing, but as such it is treated, not as a thing morally wrong, contrary to the nature and will of God, but as a matter, relatively to Jehovah, offensive-when in holy things it was desecration, then as in consecration, a ram; but always, I think, a thing done against the Lord. Here it is also called a sin-offering; but he had defiled his conscience, gone against God's authority in the adjuration of the judge or himself (verses I and 2) and failed in an oath. In chapter 6 the wrong is more than made good as satisfaction of wrong, but it was also dishonoring to the Lord, and he brings a ram.

Here we see the use of ka-phar (cover). It is a thing done for him towards God, so that God's character is met, and his conscience, so that he is cleared, purged from his sin. It is not sprinkling, washing, nor exactly propitiation, though that be nearer, but there was guilt on him, a moral offensiveness that had to be removed out of God's sight, and which his conscience must feel if in God's sight. It ought to enter into God's estimate of sin, and must, if it was to be with Him. God must put out of His sight it or the man, and so it was in the offering. It was really bringing his trespass in the offering, but in the way of a given atonement for it, but the entering into it, as his to God. " He shall bring his trespass (offering) which he hath sinned." For the burnt-offering which was also ka-phar (cover), see chapter I.

-2, 3. We have an important principle, verse 2: the thing known to God is actually unclean, and the man guilty; the evil was before God, and He cannot bear it (here figurative, but that changes nothing). Then in verse 3, the man becomes guilty in his own conscience when he knows it. Both are true. Then kha-ta (sin or sin-offering) is the general word in contrast with o-lah (burnt-offering); the latter coming as an offering, though involving death-the former a necessity consequent on evil, propitiates, and as we know, not a sweet savor. Hence the a-sham (guiltiness) is a kha-ta (error) but looked at as responsibility, not as departure from what is right, though that be true too. We have defilement, uncleanness or a bad conscience, personal failure, not a wrong to another-then a wrong against God or one's neighbor, which is against God a ma-al (treachery, perfidy). All this is not crime " what ought not to be done " but wrong to God or man. All is called kha-ta (error) but from verse 1, is a-sham (guiltiness)-only when there is wrong, there is amends also, sha-lam (he restored).

13. Here nis' lakh lo (it shall be forgiven him) is the effect of ka-phar (cover). The latter is towards God-the effect, that the sin is put away from the man out of God's sight; it does not remain on the man, he is free from it, pure in God's sight.

New ordinance. It is wrong against the Lord.

Ma-al (to act covertly, to act treacherously).

17. This is not sinning knowingly against the commandment, but God is dishonored, and maintains His necessary righteousness before men.

21 (English Version, chap. 6: 2). The wrong is a ma-al (trespass) against Jehovah.

It is suggested to me at the end that we must remember that God always looks at things according to His nature; He may count us guilty by reason of them, but He sees good and evil, and judges them necessarily because He does, and is perfect.

Note.-The fire on the altar was burning all night, and this is the night-divine judgment according to holiness always here, but here where it is on an altar with a sacrifice of perfect sweet savor, Ex. 29:42, and Lev. 1 to 5; such is the place of our having to say to God-God's meeting with us in this world. In heaven no need of such, though this is the ground of our being there-all is holiness and love in itself, hence is rest, we of and conformed to it.

But for our hearts here, as sinners in ourselves in the world, our meeting place with God is where there is this perfect glorifying of what God is in Himself, taking the character suited to this world—the fire of judgment, but that holiness and righteousness, yet love—in a sacrifice perfectly agreeable to God in the nature of what He is; and there we meet God.

But when Christ stood as (made) sin before God, then obedience was perfect, and that is the altar—the sacrifice; its essence is burnt-offering, though all the others were associated with it, and part, as testimony of it, burnt there. But its wonderfulness is in itself—such a sacrifice in this world, yet lifted up out of it, though we have acceptance in it with God. The court was not within, nor was it out in the world of selfish strangers to God; it was in the court—the heart went from the world to it; Christ was lifted up from the earth to draw men—so the offerer went in, but it was not within where the worship was, nor even where the laver was; it was Christ rejected by the world, put out from it, but perfect to God, and the heart, as coming out of world, as one who had belonged to it, and in that altar meeting God. But what God is in righteousness and holiness, fulfilled in unmingled blessing above—perfect love having its fruits there—is a consuming fire down here, " Our God is a consuming fire," He always is it. It never goes out—but then in Christ this is a perfect sweet savor, perfect love and infinite being known there—but, though not a sin-offering, which is another thing, yet in view of sin, then glorifying God in that place, so that it is atonement, but for God's glory. It is a wonderful meeting place—all accomplished, yet in ever abiding efficacy; as I have said, in the place of sin, as made it, perfect obedience and love to His Father—Man therefore in the glory of God; and this we have now.

When He says " lifted up " from the earth (John 3:14), He is no longer of or on it, but then it is in connection with it, lifted up from it—has to say to men as they are on it, only as leaving it to come to God from the far country, to God in the perfection of His nature, and in a love to us which is also His very nature and Being, but shown in what He is to us. It is not in the world, but the meeting between God and men in it (compare John 12:31-33; chap. 13: 31, 32). What a blessing that God never changes His character, but then, in judgment, finds the sacrifice which perfectly glorifies it, and therein shows infinite love, and all this in Christ!

Leviticus Chapter 6

5. (Hebrew 5:24). "To him shall he give it in the day of his trespass-offering"—I apprehend. The offering itself was brought to the Lord.

8. (Hebrew 6:1). New ordinance.

9. (Hebrew 2). The English and universal ancient versions (Septuagint and others more or less precise) give " burning " not " place of burning," which Gesenius and the other dictionaries give. If these be right then al (upon) must be taken as upon the place (or mass) of burning (stuff) on the altar all the night. Arias Montanus gives super ustionem. The sense would be the same; it would affirm the fact; " this is " (or I mean " that is " as often) the burnt-offering on the burning pile or place on the altar all the night, and it may be so. It is the only place the word is found. I know not that be (upon it, in the masculine) instead of bah (upon it, in the feminine) would make any real difficulty; also it might be the altar.

19. New ordinance.

22. (Hebrew 15). Christ Himself was wholly offered; He had no nourishment in this sense, but doing the will of His Father; we have Him to feed on.

23. (Hebrew 16). It shall be wholly an offering, burnt no doubt, but it gives its character by the word ka-til (wholly).

26. (Hebrew 19). Note that the court of the 0-hel Mo-ed (tabernacle of the congregation) is called here a holy place.

30. (Hebrew 23). The force of b' (in) here. The accents, I suppose, make it to make propitiation in the Holy place. De Wette joins it with " shall not be eaten "; but surely that is not so. Once (chapter 17: 11) we have b' (for) after ka-phar (to cover, atone) but this is, I think, abstract for souls; i.e., in the case or matter of souls. The English version would be right. Is bak-ko-desh (in the Holy place) ever used for holy place? We have had b'ma-kom ka-dosh (in the holy place) as verses 26 and 27 (Hebrew 19 and 20).

Leviticus Chapter 7

7. When once it came before God a-sham (guiltiness) and kha-ta (error or sin) were the same-and this for us is connected with an evil nature. They were not the same as to the act in this, that the kha-ta (error or sin) was a moral thing,

of which the natural conscience and God's moral law took notice. But there are points as to this further on.

9. Though it is said that the meat-offering is for all the sons of Aaron, one as much as another, yet it would seem that in each particular case the offering priest ate it. Compare for the sin-offering chapter 6: 29 and 26. In the peace-offering, both are found: " Aaron and his sons " gives the character of the thing; it was a priestly portion and act.

10. Note this; one was incarnation, perfect manhood, all in the power of the Spirit, ultimately tried by fire; the other stood for a sin-offering.

15. "Shall not lay aside any of it until the morning."

19. This marked a distinctively holy character in the thing eaten.

22. New ordinance. This seems to be on a different ground from the fact of life, save so far as that what were life and its energies were offered to the Lord.

28. New ordinance.

30. It would seem the worshipper brings the fat, and the shoulder for a wave-offering; then the priest burns the fat—but who waved it? And could the worshipper be said to yak-riv (cause to approach) the separated fat and breast? The victim he can, but y'vi-en-mu (he shall bring it) is different.

But even if he eat with others, he must be directly connected with Jehovah in it—his hand must bring it. The fact merely is stated here; in two places they are put upon the hands of the offerer, yet another is said to wave them (Ex. 29:24, 25; Lev. 8:27), but in Lev. 9, Aaron waves what he is to have for himself—but he was alone here. The idea is presenting it to God, as consecrated. The Levites were waved (Num. 8). I suspect here the priest waved it; the contrast is with burning the fat.

Leviticus Chapter 8

There is a characteristic difference between this chapter and chapter 14. The anointing was the first thing, the object here, though as to the sons, blood was needed for it, and it was only properly on the high priest. The blood-sprinkling was the main point in the latter, the anointing followed it and was applied where the blood was-not in the case of the priests. In the consecration of the priests, Aaron is anointed by the oil being poured on his head, alone and without blood.

7. Note, there were two girdles, one on the tunic or shirt, and one, the girdle of the ephod; this is to be remembered. Ha m'il (exterior tunic or robe) is called in Ex. 29:5, the Ha m'il of the ephod. It appears from Exodus that lo (unto him) is the high priest, not the ephod, "Thou shalt bind him with it" (the curious girdle); but I apprehend his binding the ephod to him with it, though qua clothed with the ephod, it was a loose cloak, but thus bound to him by a girdle, which bound him, though not the first under-girdle. But another question arises: what does be (therewith) refer to? Several refer to the ephod, and I am disposed to think it right-it gives greater force to the girdle, for the practical force there is as Piscator gives it: "And thus he clothed him (legte um) with it " the ephod, i.e., he had the ephod as a close clothing bound on him by means of the khe-sheb (curious girdle).

10. Here as to places, and Aaron by himself, all is anointed without blood.

Heb. 9 speaks of sprinkling all with blood too, but here the tabernacle, vessels and Aaron are anointed without blood- it is viewed in another light. Josephus states the same fact in his Antiquities (iii, 8, 6. T. i, 162, Hav). But if this tradition be correct, as Heb. 9 shows it is, the leaving it out here gives a more full typical intention to this passage. Hence why was the altar?

12. The oil is poured on his head-this was not done, even after the blood, with the sons. The mingled blood and oil was sprinkled on all.

10-12. The tabernacle and all the things in it were anointed, the altar seven times, and then Aaron-pouring of the oil on his head to sanctify him. This was the whole thing complete-all was devoted, consecrated to God, not merely created good, but entirely sanctified to Him in a divine power of consecration, but more especially the altar. In the whole universe when absolutely consecrated to God, there is nothing like the Cross in its character of divine power of sanctification to God. With that goes the application of death in purifying in its efficacy, and its basis in Christ's work and God's decree as the one way of righteousness. It is not said the laver seven times, but it goes with that which was seven times anointed—the perfect and full power of the Eternal Spirit. Then Aaron is anointed by pouring of the oil on his head; He takes His consecrated place as consecrated priest, perfect in Himself and in the power of the Eternal Spirit, Priest to God in the scene consecrated to God. This was Christ, and that in which He served in itself; blood was not in question, nor sin (compare Ephesians, end of chapters 3 and 4).

13. Then the sons are brought, yet not now separated from Aaron-now all is looked at as having sin and defilement on it. The simple consecration which precedes will not do when we are brought into the scene. It was in a certain sense holier and higher, but now blood was needed-not merely an altar, which meant absolute consecration to God such as Christ's, but blood sprinkling, and this was done.

15. Y'khat-te (he made expiatory purification).

Although the tabernacle and all its furniture was sprinkled with blood on the great day of atonement, thus marking the reconciliation of all things by redemption, yet, on the setting up of the tabernacle, it was anointed along with and even before Aaron, without any blood, when the garments for glory and beauty were put upon him. Although, as regards the entrance of sin, the purifying by blood was needed, and hence, even at the time of consecrating, the altar where men came in respect of sin; was purified with blood-yet it is very sweet to think that as regards Christ's Person (for in the beginning of this chapter Aaron is taken alone-when the altar is purified, it is Aaron and his sons) and the title and perfection which He has, the whole scene of all things is filled with the blessedness and claim and power of Christ, according to the excellency of His Person, by the power of the Holy Ghost asserting and making it good-divine excellency!

As Christ's manhood was anointed by the Holy Ghost without measure, that He might divinely act by it in the manifestation of this grace, and every movement of the Man be the effect of the energy of the Holy Ghost, so that He spoke the words of God, and worked the works of God—these of course personally united—so, according to the manner of such a claim over it, and dwelling in it as can be in the mere universe, the divine excellency fills it in connection with the Person of the great High Priest Jesus; the power of the Holy Ghost, of which the savor and fullness is in Him whose title and glory the Holy Ghost makes good, fills and claims the universe.

Note, too, in verse 12 of chapter 21, the high priest was never to go out of the tabernacle. So indeed is it with Jesus; but then, in both these cases, we must remark that in connection with man, these figures have never had their simple fulfillment. In the Person of Christ we can contemplate them in indefeasible title, but He never wore, after He had historically to do with man, the garments of glory and beauty, nor went into the holy place in them, but only on the day of atonement, and then in linen garments. Hence, as we have seen, on that day the tabernacle and all was sprinkled with blood.

Further, on the day of atonement, the blood was brought within the veil, because if Christ had not done this, Israel could not, after all, have been blessed. The goat was primarily and properly for Israel, but in the priestly application of blessing, the blood is shed on the altar, and the priest blesses from the altar as outside.

In verse 15 it is not, I believe, reconciliation upon it, but of it; that is the sense of l'kap-per a-lay (to make propitiation of it) as elsewhere.

23. Then Aaron who is now identified with his sons, is sprinkled with blood on his ear, hand, and foot as they are, and they offer a wave-offering, which Moses burns on the purified altar-purified by the blood of the ram of consecration, as of the sin and burnt-offering-and then he took of the anointing oil and of the blood on the altar, and sprinkled it on Aaron and his garments, his sons and his sons' garments with him.

The blood was the blood which was upon the altar, not standing on it, but upon it. They were consecrated according to the efficacy and power and character of that blood sprinkling, in which, not merely sins were cleansed, though that were true, but God was glorified in His own nature and glory in the sacrifice of Christ, in which His holy and righteous claim was satisfied, and His glory made good. And though it is evident that Christ had nothing to be cleansed from, and needed no blood-shedding, as verses 10-12 indeed express it, yet He is in His present place in the virtue and power of that blood. He is raised from the dead en aimati (in the power of the blood) of the everlasting covenant. Having taken our sins, He is entered in as Priest in the power of that blood, which He Himself shed for us. It is not only that we are sprinkled with it, blessedly true as that is, but He is entered into the exercise of priesthood in the power of it, for us indeed, but in the measure of His divine glory, for in that work God Himself was glorified-all He is, displayed and made good in revelation in it.

Christ was consecrated to God in blood, not surely because He needed it, but that His obedience, by which we are saved, was unto death, and He is to God and loved of the Father according to the sacrifice of Himself-His laying down His life, yet it was only for us, yet withal for God's glory.

27. My impression is that t' nu-phah (wave-offering) is more " consecration " T'ru-mah (heave-offering) more " offering."

30. Note, the anointing oil was poured on Aaron's head, alone by himself, in verse 12. After washing all (himself and his sons) together (v. 6)-now, in verses 23, 24, he puts the blood on the three places, on Aaron by himself, and the sons by themselves but on all. Now he takes of the oil and the blood and sprinkles of it on him, his garments-them and their garments " with him."

There is no pouring the oil now on Aaron's head, Christ in fact was anointed with the Holy Ghost alone, the holy, righteous and obedient One; hence, when the blood comes in, He is not anointed with the pouring of oil on Him, nor was oil poured on the head of the sons, but as Christ received the Holy Ghost (Acts 2) from the Father for us when He went up having accomplished the sacrifice, and by Himself purged our sins, and so associated us with Himself-when the oil and the blood is sprinkled on Aaron, his garments, and his sons and sons' garments with him. It is not his personal consecration- that was a fact and done apart without blood-but the bringing in the sons into the place (though subordinately) with him, and then the blood (He having been obedient unto death in all) on ear and hand and foot comes in, that we may be associated with Him, and He exercise the priesthood, in the power of that blood-shedding, towards God, and for us. In Christ it was the measure of perfectness-in us of cleansing -in both of consecration to God; none of the sons receive it on the head independently, they are associated with Him. So the washing of Aaron and his sons was the same, for in water—cleansing, death to sin and life to God—the measure is alike. He died to sin-we reckon ourselves dead to it, have died. In that He lives, He lives to God, and we are alive to God through Him—He is our life, and has died for us, and we have to arm ourselves with the same mind.

All the tabernacle and its vessels are anointed when Aaron is, without blood as he is, and so the altar and vessels to sanctify them. Then, when Aaron and his sons are to be anointed, he sprinkles the altar with blood-the altar was sprinkled with blood to sanctify it, to make reconciliation upon it (of it)-this before putting any on Aaron and his sons. Aaron's sons are brought (not Aaron and his sons) and then Aaron and his sons put their hands on the head of the bullock, and so on the burnt-offering before the ram of consecration. But this subject requires more investigation.

In Ex. 29, directions are given for anointing Aaron with oil alone, and then him and his sons when sprinkled with blood-but not to anoint the tabernacle with oil; otherwise it is what is carried out here in this chapter. Its object is the priests; the direction to anoint the tabernacle is in Exodus 30:26-29. But when the tabernacle was set up, it was not then anointed-the cloud filled it, so that none could enter it, not even Moses. Then in the Hebrews, where the Holy Ghost had another object, the tabernacle and all the vessels are said to have been sprinkled with blood. In the chapter before us, the object is service connected with sacrifice, these last having been fully gone into in chapters 1-7. The altar therefore is here sprinkled with blood in connection with Aaron's sons, after all had been anointed with oil in connection with Aaron alone. And then Aaron and his garments, his sons and their garments anointed with him, but here the blood was, as it seems, mixed with it. It is this last chapter which must arrest our attention, first in itself, next, in connection with Heb. 9

This anointing is first of the tabernacle and all vessels, but also the altar seven times, and the laver and its foot; I suppose Christ in Person, the heavenly things He was connected with as come in flesh, and, above all, that on which the victim was to be consecrated and offered -His Person as that on which sacrifice was founded, and that especially was consecrated in the power of the Holy Ghost, so as containing that from which purification flowed. He must be all this for blood and for water, though death comes in for us to have a part in them; so as Son of Man who is in heaven, all was pure and in the power of the Spirit as so said, though divinely true, but to be so must be true in the Man and as it. And this was to be carefully maintained—nothing true for us could be true without it. Then when others are brought in; blood of course is immediately needed, and the full efficacy of sacrifice in every aspect in order to anointing.

But then Christ has to enter in as Man according to the efficacy of this; it is not of course that He needed anything, but that He must be on high when connected with us, according to the title the blood gave Him-the whole glory of God made good and conferred on Him as Man, and us with Him. Heb. 9 takes it up here, it begins with our exclusion, the way into the holiest not yet made manifest, and then shows eternal redemption, and eternal inheritance-a new state of things, and place, and relationship for us obtained by the blood. Hence in our chapter the blood off the altar and the oil go together, because now the anointing, the consecration-the link formed by the Holy Ghost between us -nay the place Christ has taken on high as High Priest, is in virtue of the blood -as One in the presence of God for us, He is so in the virtue of that blood -He is the righteous One, and propitiation (accomplished) there.

The blood has a positive value with God (besides our sins being put away), in the character and power of which Christ has His place as Man on high, and the whole heavenly place as subject of mediation has its standing in it, as the new heavens and earth will. Heb. 9 has its starting-point in sin, and the way into the holiest not open, but then it unfolds, in every respect, the efficacy of the sacrifice as leading into the new condition through the rent veil, and what, as founded on the cross, that new state and condition is. Hence we have the tabernacle and all its vessels sprinkled with blood-a defiled condition of things did not suit this new estate, any more than unpurged consciences could enter. This makes the first part of Lev. 8 so much the more important, but the results of sacrifice are not entered into as in Hebrews, because it is not applied, only the efficacy of blood and oil mixed passes on all.

The " for us " should in no way be in Heb. 9; 12, though indeed in result it be for us-it leads away from the intrinsic efficacy of the work. The point is, it is an eternal redemption; He has settled the matter according to God's nature, and nothing can be called in question again, or that nature must change, which cannot be. In verses 13, 14

(Heb. 9) we have application. But the word " eternal " here is emphatic; it was not a putting away merely of an incurred sin or penalty, but in the power of the Eternal Spirit dealing with the whole question of free access to God in the holiest, according to what He was -a conscience purged for it -and consequently an eternal place, redemption and inheritance before Him -necessarily such, for we are before Him by a once finished work according to what He is. Hence there is a passing away of the first, which typically was founded on blood shedding; the Testator dies -thus the transgressions which ever subsisted under the first covenant were by death cleared, and all connection with the living Testator -once the whole first system -was passed and gone, but gone in the putting away of sin, and we get remission of all which attached to us as alive in flesh (do not so exist before God, for Christ does not as so come in flesh -we know Him so no more) for Christ, the sinless One has died, the heavenly things defiled by sin are purged, and Christ (the Mediator Man) is entered into the true holy place-heaven itself -to appear in the presence of God for us.

Nor was it, of course, as often suffering; He appeared when the whole moral question was brought to an issue, His death the full proof of man's state of sin, and He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. The whole question in the universe was settled to the glory of God; and as we sinners were subject to death and judgment, He also, in particular application, bore the sins of many, and appears, the second time, having no more to do with sin (for He put it away) for them that look for Him, to salvation. Lev. 8 goes further, for it takes up first Christ alone, spotless, sinless, heavenly, the Son of man in heaven, what He was and is in Himself (and so owned by the anointing of the Holy Ghost as Man). Heb. 9 takes up man as incapable of entering, the way into the holiest not open, and the way the High Priest entered showing this state of things; and then by death the whole old state of things and ground of relationship done away -sin put away, our sins borne-and Christ, Man appearing in the heavenly place, in the presence of God for us.

In our chapter we have the altar anointed seven times, the full divine and perfect sanctification so marked; in Hebrews, He offers Himself through the Eternal Spirit -thus Christ enters through blood -He could have entered without but had so abode alone. But entering through blood in the efficacy of His own sacrifice, in which God was glorified and sin put away, He introduces us as Himself, through and according to the value of that blood, into His own place and standing, and now appears for us there-our present state which we are in and know by the Holy Ghost. But Hebrews is more representative, not our being in Him; and the testator question is of importance here, for the old state of things subsists while the testator lives. When he is dead, that is wholly gone, and the object of the will gets into a new place according to it -thus, through verses 17, 18, come in by the bye, they are of all importance. The new covenant is founded on death, its efficacy, but also as ending the old and bringing in the new thing, for death closes all that man lived in.

Notice also here that the tabernacle and altar were anointed with Aaron before the sin-offering, which is not in Ex. 29 It was anointed before Aaron, which shows further that it was not characterized by redemption and priesthood.

NOTE.-In the consecration of Aaron, there is no incense nor blood upon, nor approach to the altar of incense, but the bullock was burned without the camp, as if the blood had been carried into the holy place. Aaron and his sons abode in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation; and note that, though the altar stood first, Aaron was washed before he offered the sin-offering on the altar. They abode now where the Lord met the congregation, and where blood was sprinkled for them, as in the red heifer. All this was done outside the outer veil even. There was nothing of Aaron's place within yet, in any sense, nor association of the people with him there -neither for him, nor the people. The veil or sanctuary was entirely closed, he offers for the people, and blesses them from the offering, i.e., the altar, before he comes down; and then he goes in with Moses, but it is only his being hid-nothing appears of what took place within -he comes out with Moses, and they bless the people, and the glory appears; chap. 9: 23. All they had to say to the sanctuary was to go in and be hid there. But note in chapters 9 and 10 nothing is said but of his acting as previously except in chapter 10; this is (chap. 10:17) I apprehend, a mistake- it is (not blame, but) Moses' reason why he ought to have eaten it. Had it been brought into the holy place, it ought to have been burnt with fire, but it was not, and hence ought to have been eaten; this would make it appear that their conduct (chapter 9:11) was wrong.

Aaron and his sons are all washed together. Then Aaron is anointed, the oil poured on his head, verse 12, alone, without blood. Then as to persons, verse 23, blood on the tip of Aaron's right ear, hand and foot; then verse 24, on those of Aaron's sons; then oil, verse 30, and blood (of the ram of consecration) from off the altar, sprinkled on Aaron, his garments, his sons and sons' garments with him, it-to (with him). In the leper, the blood was placed on each part, and then the oil on each part.

The moral purity of Christ and the Christian, as such, is the same, for Christ is his life, and he is to walk as He walked. But in fact, I need not say, He only was absolutely pure; so he (Aaron) was anointed alone on the head with oil -so Christ was anointed alone, with the Holy Ghost, of course therefore without blood,

Hence, too, the obedience is the same, though we follow Him -His ear, hand and foot were touched with the blood of the sacrifice. His obedience and whole acts and conversation were always in the perfectness of obedience unto death. We follow, apart, on this principle -we reckon ourselves dead—arm ourselves with the same mind, because He has actually died. Then comes union, Aaron and his sons, his garments and his sons' garments were anointed with him-this with oil and blood together, because the value of the blood is known in the power of the Holy Ghost, and here it is not only obedience, but the title and earnest of a heavenly and priestly place along with Christ-though under Him, with Him. The value of the blood of Christ, inasmuch as He has glorified God, is to bring us into the presence and glory of God, and of this the presence of the Holy Ghost is the earnest and power. It is not for spiritual service here, but with Him there. There may be more in it, but I think there is this.

Note that the anointing of the tabernacle was quite a distinct thing from the sprinkling it with blood, and when it was sprinkled with blood, there was no question of anointing. This is of capital importance as to the application of this to the heavenly things themselves. In the consecration of men, the aspersion with blood preceded anointing, while the sacrifice as noted in a previous note was a peace-offering, not a sin-offering -in cleansing the leper, it was a trespass-offering, but the man was anointed after it -in the tabernacle, we have an anointing at the same time as Aaron without blood, and an aspersion with blood without any anointing after it. This last had, as is evident, a proper exclusive character of expiation or atonement.

Note also, that in this chapter the consecration being in connection with the Jewish relationship with God, the vessels of the court only are particularly mentioned, whereas in Exodus 30, all are mentioned in detail (vv. 26-29). This consecration of all, independent of blood, in connection with the person of the high priest, is to be noted.

Note, the double way in which the priest approached; first, the perfect savor of the whole burnt-offering arose to God—he drew nigh in the power of that. Afterward, consecrated by the blood sprinkled on them, their hands were filled with the oiled cake, the unleavened bread and the fat that was to be burned, i.e., Christ anointed, sinless, and dying, offered as a sweet savor. We approach in the infinite and perfect savor of the whole burnt-offering, i.e., Christ as offered up by Himself, so that the acceptance is infinite in its character. For I might find my thoughts of Christ, in recalling His name before the Father, so imperfect that I was more faulty and guilty than acceptable in it. But I approach in the perfection of Christ's sacrifice of Himself; yet it is my privilege to bring Christ, and present Him in memorial before the Father, so as to know the sweetness of communion with the Father in the common sense of the excellence of Christ offered, and I take His estimate of the excellence of the Object as the real one, though I cannot reach it. I know that He is before Him in that perfect savor, and I learn not to think of the imperfection of the degree of my appreciation, but of the excellency of the Object in God's sight. It is a sweet view of the manner of our drawing near to God.

Note.-Aaron was not washed alone at all, i.e., only the saints are washed as priests as well as sprinkled to be anointed. Note also that the tabernacle was anointed with Aaron to sanctify them (the altar seven times). Does this connect the priesthood with Christ as filling all things, ascending up on high, in which He became, or took at least, the place of priest? If so, then why the altar seven times?

34. I do not know whether I have sufficiently noticed it, but surely l'kapper alav is to make atonement or reconciliation "for it" (see chapter 1, etc.) not "upon it." I think it very notable the altar being sprinkled seven times, and all the tabernacle being anointed with oil to begin with before the blood, for the heavenly things thus are so-and Christ as place and altar of offering perfectly so with divine perfection. Then when connected with his sons, the altar already perfect and perfectly holy is, so to speak, made sin; and even He comes from the dead through (in the power of) the blood of the everlasting, covenant, i.e., having taken the sin, He must put it away to take His place and bring them into the new estate prepared for man and God's glory. But the thought is not "if He needed it"—it is in the power of en aimati as long ago remarked, perhaps alluding to Zech. 9:11, b'dam b'rithe'kh (by the blood of the covenant). Still having taken the sin on Him, He had to put it away by the sacrifice of Himself, not only for us, but for God's glory, as a part of the counsels of God whose glory He came to make good in love. We have, too, kip-per b'ad (make atonement for, forgive).

NOTE.—The burnt-offering and consecration-offering are alike, in this, chapter. The consecration of the believer is as absolute as the dedication of Christ to God, just as Joshua's shoes had to be off before the Captain of the Host—as Moses at the bush. In another analogy, the sin-offering and burnt-offering are one.

Leviticus Chapter 9

This chapter in all its aspects refers to the earthly blessing of the world to come, and that in virtue of the sacrifice of Christ in all its aspects, and, at the end, in virtue of His royalty. Hence remark that the blood of the sin-offering, though the body was burned without the camp, was not carried into the sanctuary—it was sprinkled where God met the people. The efficacy as to bearing away sin is the same, but there is not entrance within the veil, nor properly call to go outside the camp. The sacrifice is referred to in all its parts, and viewed as meeting man, or used by him—sin-offering, sin-borne—burnt-offering, the perfect savor of Christ's offering up Himself—the communion of the peace-offering, the real, proper apprehension of Christ, such as He was down here, comes last, for so indeed it does, when we are brought into communion, as the result of the sin and burnt-offering; we then afterward are occupied with, and estimate the personal perfection of Christ.

Here the priest's eating the meat-offering is not noticed—it is enjoyed, not feasted on in connection with priestly service. In the bringing it into action, this order is not observed -we have the sin-offering, the burnt-offering, the meat-offering, and then the peace-offering, because in fact Christ is all these first for them (Israel) before they have the communion. When Aaron blesses as Priest he does so not from the Sanctuary, He does so for us through the Holy Ghost-but from the sacrifice; this concerns what is noticed above-we have the efficacy of the sacrifice, but no entrance within the veil, nor relationship with Christ as there. It shows also the source and character of the blessing of Israel in the latter day -they get it from the sacrifice. But the public recognition of the value of the sacrifice in the world, and so by Israel, is by Jehovah's appearing in glory, i.e., Christ Himself, and so the people own it. In virtue of their having blessing through Christ's priesthood, and of course sacrifice, Jehovah appears to bless, but it is Christ, King and Priest, who appears. Historically their repentant cry brings Jehovah down to them -but this turns out to be Christ, and they look on Him whom they have pierced, and mourn finding that it is the Lord their Redeemer, the Messiah whom they had rejected and crucified. We know Him within the veil through the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. The eighth day is the beginning of a new system.

2. As far as I see, rams are consecration or because of desecration; they may be burnt-offerings, but as having a specific character, they are as above. If for trespass, it is for desecration or defilement, and so in the priest's consecration. Bullocks are representative as of people or priest, and hence also may come in as measure either of the party or of the faith. Thus as a sin-offering a bullock for Aaron and his house-for the people-for the priest-so of the largeness of faith in a burnt-offering. This (imperfectly expressed) assists, I judge, in explaining some feasts in chapter 23, which were the circle of feasts on earth; we have in Pentecost two wave-loaves -so there were one bullock and two rams, because they were offered up as one body in Christ, but there were two distinct parties consecrated. In Numbers where the offerings, not the circle of dispensational feasts are considered, we have not yet the full offering up of both representatively, but the nature of the consecration one; because it is not here the dispensational circumstances on earth, but the power of the offering to God. There was a remnant of Jews, and there was the offering-up of the Gentiles, but their consecration in Christ was one. In the seventh month, in the beginning of months, which was in general restoration, the same, because in fact there will be the double offering-up. In the seventh month, which is specifically Israel's restoration, one bullock and one ram-on the tenth day, the same, for that was clearly Israel. This was besides the sin-offering, considered elsewhere, and which was rather the heavenly saints, as Aaron and his family, and Jewish, and in principle all saints in Azazel (scape-goat).

This aids in Tabernacles. There we have thirteen bullocks, not full perfection doubled. The whole circle brought in Jews and Gentiles all complete, still all lost; and then we have a double consecration here, the two rams -the power of the earthly completeness declines. The fourteen lambs are Christ's perfection in representative efficacy as a Victim, itself never changing, and with the two rams including, I suppose, heaven and earth, though I have hesitated if it was not the difference of Jew and Gentile. On the eighth day, we get out of the Jewish circle into an extraordinary resurrection day, and then we have unity in all save the lambs -the Church one offered in Christ to God, and the consecration one. How far this eighth day would include the perfect time after the millennium I do not say, but it is possible, for they get into such a state indeed. The seventh day would then have to be considered which maintained the double perfectness of Christ as Victim, and double consecration which representative completeness maintained its perfectness only in singleness. Is it earthly only?

Note.-The burning of the burnt-offering and the fat was a distinct thing. Moses had done it in the ordinary way "according to manner." This was a special act of the Lord. They were burning on the altar, when this took place publicly as a testimony of the Lord's acceptance of them.

4. The min'khah (meat-offering) was to be b'lu-loth (mingled or tempered). This was the main essential thing, what Christ was personally, though also anointed.

7. Is there any reason why Aaron by the offering for himself made an atonement for the people also, or does it refer vaguely to what follows?

9. Not here within the veil, though burned without the camp. No doubt the blood had to be carried within for Israel, or for any, for God was thus glorified. But as to application to Israel, the blood was on the altar without, quod nota bene. But the goat of the sin-offering for the people ought to have been eaten. (chap. 10: 17, 18); compare chapter 4, the sin-offering for priest and people.

11. This chapter, as I have said, refers in all its aspects to the earthly blessing to come, in virtue of the sacrifice of Christ, and of His royalty. Yet note, the flesh and skin of Aaron's sin-offering was burned without the camp, but no blood was carried within the veil, nor indeed further than the altar. Nor is this blamed-the not eating the sin-offering for the people is—nay, the place of blood-sprinkling is " as the Lord commanded Moses; the people were included, verse 7, u-v'ad ha-am (and for the people).

17. Is not mil-l'vad besides "?

20. The yak'tir (burned) is not, I think, necessarily here the actual consumption by Aaron's putting the fire-he may have put it no doubt-but the ceremonial order of his doings; the actual consuming may have been by verse 24. It has been said it was the evening sacrifice there, but that seems to me to be getting away from the mind of the chapter. The fire from the Lord did not necessarily first set fire to the wood, but it consumed the sacrifice.

The fire consumes the sacrifice, and the fire consumes the two sons of Aaron; in both te-tseesh (a fire went out), quod nota. To-kal (devoured) is repeated too.

23. With regard to the offerings at Aaron's and his sons' consecration, blood was not brought into the holiest or holy place, the bullock was burnt outside the camp; so with the red heifer, and these sacrifices when the cloud had filled the tabernacle. The people were not to go in, and the priests could not go in till they were consecrated; here Moses and Aaron go into the tabernacle for the first time. The first thing must be every bearing of Christ's sacrifice, before any approach within—the revelation of God here below required this. Christianity comes in a different shape, because Man (Christ) is gone in, consequent on the accomplishment of the sacrifice in every character of it, and the Holy Ghost comes out as a witness of it, and that is the way of the presence of God on the earth now. There was only anointing in its first setting-up, so even of Aaron and his sons, Ex. 40

For the full consecration we must go to our previous chapter (8). But the offerings were only on the altar, though burned without the camp; it was culpability, not propitiation. The whole of this is Israelitish to the end, when the Lord comes out. The Holy Ghost not only anticipates this, but comes from within when Christ (Man) is gone in there according to the glory of God. There was no proper propitiation but on the great day of atonement—no going within the veil; but I must look into this further.

24. This consuming was not setting fire to, but God's testimony of His acceptance of what was offered. There is no sign of the original lighting, by fire from heaven, in the case of the tabernacle.

Leviticus Chapter 10

3. In both to have His first place-for sanctified is here giving Him His highest glory; so glorified before the people.

8. Is not this the first 'time the Lord speaks to Aaron, now consecrated?

9. A disordered internal state-the excitement of flesh, and absence of the sober sense of the presence of God is as fatal as, perhaps leads to, strange fire; they are closely connected. The priests' sense of divine presence, and godly sobriety is needed to our senses distinguishing between sacred and profane, unclean and clean-the former what is fit for God, or the opposite-the latter for the saint, and the opposite; and to teach in the word; so ever.

14. Here "a clean place," not "holy"; the daughters eat of it. It was not a priestly eating, but provision, though due to the priests as offering. It is evident that the eating of the enu-phah (wave-offering) and t'ru-mah (heave-offering) was not a priestly act. They were consecrated and eaten by the priest's family, but in a clean place, not in the holy place as the rest of the min-khah (meat-offerings). Here the enuphah and t'ru-mah were peace-offerings founded on, but not a proper sacrifice. They were communion on a sacrifice itself, though identified with it—but the fat was always burned.

I have looked into the Levites elsewhere—they were a enu-phah and were waved before the Lord.

Leviticus Chapter 14

In the case of the leper, it is different from the consecration of the priests. This is not consecration to God primarily, though blood be needed for us, and Christ, who needed of course none, yet associates us with Himself according to the power of it, exercising His priesthood in that power before God. The first thought is cleansing, consecration from defilement, though we reach up to the anointing oil, and here it is poured on the head of the cleansed one-he is viewed individually as partaker of the Holy Ghost before God.

First note he is become intrinsically clean, as we are when born of God, but he has to be cleansed and consecrated to God to be with Him, in communion with Him judicially, and in respect of his responsibility-first the work of Christ Himself, His death and resurrection, and the perfect and complete sprinkling with His blood, shed in the power of the Holy Ghost. The bird is killed, over running water in an earthen vessel—the power of the Spirit working in a human body. This is identified with the shed blood, and with this the man, clean as to disease, is sprinkled, and is pronounced clean. He clears himself from everything that could carry the remains of corruption with it; and then the various offerings are offered after seven days, but first the man is consecrated to God by blood and oil. The last kind of sacrifice, that for actual trespasses, is slain, and the blood is put upon his ear, thumb, and great toe. In this it is analogous with chapter 8, but there it is what is needed to the sons, having a part with the personally holy priesthood of Christ, the sinless anointed Man-cleansing consecration by blood. Here it is the quickened sinner who is restored to God, and cleansed and consecrated by blood that he may be, and then he gets his own portion, i.e., the knowledge and enjoyment by anointing-his mind, acts, and walk cleansed by blood, and he in all of them consecrated to God, according to its value.

Nothing as we have heretofore seen is to have a place in thought, act, or way, which does not suit the blood sprinkled on the organ of each; we are wholly thus consecrated morally to God, according to the price of Christ's blood.

Then the anointing takes place, and the power and action of the Spirit of God is operative in the man's consecration; but first note, it is its action before and in the presence of the Lord—not, so to speak, a prophetic action, coming out from Him with a partial revelation, a light shining in a dark place, but the full present unction and action of the Spirit of God before God Himself. The oil was sprinkled seven times before the Lord, not merely a person holily consecrated to a function, but the Holy Ghost (the Comforter) present, and in its fullness present, and acting towards the Lord. It was then besides put where the blood had been put-we are no more to grieve the Spirit of God in these things than we are to admit or do anything inconsistent with Christ's blood—His holy intelligence of God is to govern our thoughts and acts and ways; and then the rest of the oil is poured on the man.

Thus, consequent on the blood-shedding, the full presence and power of the Holy Ghost is developed, as with men. First, the Comforter is come-present, but before the Lord; John 16. He is there Himself in His fullness, He who fills all things, but present as sent or given, here before the Lord. Next, it follows the work of Christ in the individual, i.e., as wholly consecrated to, and cleansed for God in all his thoughts and ways, giving the holy, active, intelligent consecration, and, owing to the value of this blood-shedding, cleansed from sin, and to God according to the putting away of sin, and redemption to God by death, the death of Christ.

Then further, the Holy Ghost is given to give the full, conscious place of blessing and relationship to the believer- the oil is poured on his head, he is anointed—the love of God shed abroad in his heart—knows he is a son, is in Christ and Christ in him—is at liberty in this new place, has not merely the thought and walk of a holy man, but is an anointed man—has the Spirit of adoption, knows his place, a place angels never had, they were never sealed with the Holy Ghost. We know thus God dwells in us, and we in Him; this is more complete than the official anointing, and it is for personal fellowship, and personal relationship, but a divine one, and of sons in its nature. It is a wonderful thing that God should dwell in us for our enjoyment of Him; we dwell in God, and God in us—but then the Father and the Son are the objects of our fellowship and our faith. The Holy Ghost is the power of it, dwelling in us, and that in the power of a new life. Chapter 8 was priesthood, and the blood needed to bring in and fit us for it, and associate us spiritually with Christ, so that we might be priests with the perfect One; in the chapter before us it is our place as redeemed in the power and intelligence of the divine Spirit of God.

6, 7. In cleansing the leper, the bird was killed over the running water, the other bird was dipped in his blood and so the man sprinkled, and then the man was to wash; in the case of a house, the bird is dipped in the running water also, and the house is sprinkled with it.

There is no burning on the altar nor outside—death must come in, but the object is purification; it is sprinkling with water, though with all the efficacy of the blood. It is the action on the conscience, not the presenting of the efficacy to God, though the work was needed to purify the conscience. Further, it was a trespass-offering, of which the blood was taken to sprinkle the ear, hand, and foot; that is, first the sinner had to be occupied with his actual evil-what affected his conscience-not abstractedly with the sacrifice of Christ for sin. That is needed, because God must see all sin put away, even that which we see not, and sin as such; but this will not do as regards the conscience—practically it comes afterward, and is all-important in its place, but the conscience to be purified must be occupied with its sin; there is reality and personal humiliation in that. Thoughts, acts, and walk must be put under the efficacy and safeguard of the blood of Christ, and then its absolute efficacy as to all sin in God's sight can be entered into—after that, His perfection in devotedness to God, and life of holy grace and service as Man; the trespass was wrongs done to God or man in things forbidden, or violating a right, but here I judge the full sense is that which I have given. The former part was without, to purify and render capable of approaching God, in coming under the intelligent efficacy of the work of Christ; he is not at home in the camp to worship; but he can come into the camp as cleansed, so as to enter into the full relief and peace and drawing nigh of conscience. He that is cleansed by the water comes in the efficacy of the blood, but he does not yet know in his conscience the applied efficacy that he finds progressively when he draws nigh, so as to enter into the full appreciation of Christ's offering of Himself to God, and to draw nigh to God according to the acceptability and acceptance of Christ Himself, having so offered Himself for God's glory.

Christ has given Himself that we may come—the water brings us, dead to all creature condition and human glory, into the camp in consequence of this; there we realize all the efficacy and importance of the death which Christ has suffered, not merely to bring us in by purifying us, but its proper value before God. The detail seems repeated to show the impossibility of a sinner, not thoroughly purified according to the purification of the sanctuary of God's presence, coming into that presence in peace.

25, etc. The leper was cleansed by the blood of a trespass-offering being put upon his ear, etc.—the priest was consecrated by that of an offering of sweet savor which was in effect a peace-offering of which Moses had his part, and Aaron and his sons ate the rest.

Leviticus Chapter 16

In this chapter sin is entered-man's sin is shown-so that the free intercourse with glory in connection with flesh is impossible. But this brings in the connection with Israel in a new way-atonement, the full savor of Christ in connection with death, and the total putting away of sin (not merely bearing sins, and forgiveness of them) so that there was an absolute standing on that ground before God. Then an actual subsequent bearing away the sins of Israel, and a cleansing of the heavenly things also-a wider work than blessing without in virtue of sacrifice.

Christ is presented in the double character, for the nation and for Aaron and his house, and as to Israel as with the bullock for the Lord's lot, and then the bearer away of the people's sins—so it was Christ was offered, and died for the nation, but for the gathering of the Church also; afterward the sins of Israel will be practically removed. When the bullock is offered for Aaron and his house, the whole and perfect atonement is made, and for it the whole personal savor of Christ's offering ascends up, and the blood for others is presented in connection with that, "He has put away sin by the sacrifice of himself"—no doubt bearing our sins, but the truth intimated here is not so much the forgiveness of particular sins, as the total abolition of sin as between us and God by atonement, so that we stand on this blessed ground with God—it is the only one on which a sinner can-though in an inferior order, the goat, not the bullock. It is the same for Israel—Christ has made atonement, or they could not be blessed.

Then further, the whole scene is purged; this is a new feature, connected with Christ's going through the heavens in the virtue of His blood, and purifying the whole scene, to make it the place of His universal dominion and display of glory—not merely suffer that Israel might be blessed—but that blood be carried within, and the redemption of the Church, the purifying of all things wrought out, and the blessing of Israel flow from that height and be in connection with it.

Then afterward when Aaron comes out, the people's actual sins are administratively removed, and they can be freely blessed. This diminishes the direct application of the scapegoat to us; but besides that, we enter into and anticipate all that is true of Israel, as grafted into the tree of promise, and that Christ's bearing of sins is thus applied, yet I believe only positively spoken of in Peter and the Hebrews, where the Jew is first; yet it is as propitiation formally, in general, extended to the whole world; 1 John 2. This gives a much fuller character to the work of Christ for us, while it leaves not the smallest cloud on the truth that He washed us from our sins in His own blood, for sin is totally put away—our standing-place is without it before God. It is not merely sins administratively removed at a given epoch when Christ comes out, but we enter into the holiest completely purged. It is a full, heavenly, sinless qualification we now possess, "made meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light." No doubt fundamentally the same work is done for Israel, or they could not be blessed, but we go within with Aaron; their sins are, as I have said, administratively removed when he comes out.

The purification in the sanctuary was a distinct part of the great day of atonement; the cleansing of the outer sanctuary distinct. The burnt-offering came afterward quite distinct; nobody was to be in the outer sanctuary, when the high priest went through the cleansing of the inner-that was the essential substantive thing, the blood being brought to the throne, as the Lord's lot, and that was done for himself and his house (the priest's) and all the congregation of Israel. Verse 16 comes in by the bye. There was to be a cleansing of the place-that had been done for the most Holy when the blood was brought in, and it was to be done for the tabernacle- outside there was no such cleansing. In verse 18 he comes to the cleansing of the outer sanctuary, so that what was cleansed was the sanctuary itself, the blood being sprinkled before God Himself and on His throne, for Aaron, his house, and all the people, and during this time, no one was to come into the outer. Then he went out of the sanctuary, and cleansed the altar of incense, i.e., all was cleansed when man approached to God—not when man was cleansed by God. The tabernacle as the place of approach was cleansed; then came the putting the sins out of sight, quite another matter but connected. And then as a distinct service, in other garments, the service of offering outside. Nor was there any specific cleansing of the candlestick and table-they were not approaching-places.

I notice with much interest lately that cleansing, on the great day of atonement, referred only to the tabernacle itself and what was in it-not to the court or what was there. Here only the blood was carried into the holiest of all. But as to cleansing, the heavenly places alone are in view—this is full of interest; there was a cleansing away of sins on Azazel, but that was a distinct part (not as to Christ, separated in His work-the goats were one Christ) but it was a different subject-sins put away, but no approach in that to the sanctuary. And as to the holy of holies, the witness still there that the way was not open. Still, though only the shadow not the image of the things to come was there, the principle of entrance in peace into the presence of God was there-the blood was on the propitiatory. This was a thing wholly apart from all regular Jewish offerings, none of which contemplated entrance there. But what was done, was cleansing everything within, because God was there; it was apart, unconnected with any other sacrifices. When it was complete, the high priest offered burnt-offerings-but they were no part of this service. This, too, was not available for an occasion—it was effectual for God Himself, here only for a year no doubt, but cleansed all around Him for Himself, for what He was, and when all was revealed was an eternal redemption, an eis to dienekes.

But the point I am now upon, is that it applied, only to what figured the heavenly places. The red heifer was apart as a sacrifice, and was connected with approach to God, but for those who could still defile themselves where death was, and in this sense outside; but it was for particular defilement of man, which his conscience must take notice of as approaching God, but was of water to restore communion, though founded on blood and the consuming of sin, but blood only sprinkled where the people met God, outside. It was for the actual defilement of man, not what affected God's presence where He was; it came in, in a supplementary way, for man in his relationship to God where he could defile himself, hence is found in the book of Numbers-the wilderness journey. It was an outside thing, though of course referring to our relationship with God. Hence it is found in the Hebrews, just alluded to as a supplementary thing.

In Hebrews we are always weak individuals, in the wilderness, with access to God in the holiest where the High Priest is, only sitting down there.

The scape-goat referred to actual clearing and putting the sins away, so that they were not found again, hence applied to Israel (though of course it was for us). But it is only the outer part—we are looked at as responsible, according to our Adam standing in this world—our intercourse with God as human beings. But within was where God's presence was- not exactly our Father's house, but being where God reveals Himself-where all is according to His nature, and what is in heaven is revealed to us, " What eye hath not seen, God has revealed unto us by his Spirit," indeed, now there is no veil; as to our entering in, it is the to agia. But this is properly our place, and note here that there was no Azazel bullock. No doubt our sins are put away-Scripture, thank God, is full of it—but our characteristic relationship is cleansing for God, for His presence. Christ has spoken what He knew, and testified what He had seen, and by the Holy Ghost we follow Him there where He is gone, not without blood too; and that is what we belong to, and what belongs to us. We start with learning what God is for us down here, and all is forgiven, and we are redeemed out of this world, though in it, and we belong, by the purchase of Christ, to the place where He is.

Thus I would remark first that the cloud of sweet incense and the bullock seem our proper way and ground of acceptance—the two goats, Israel's; though we come in, as regards our guilt, in the same way, but the other is our own proper ground, i.e., the personal acceptance of Christ, and God perfectly glorified in His offering-not merely bearing our sins away. That meets need, and blessed it is that it does, still there is that which glorifies God as to sin, and divine favor in which. Christ stands, and in which we are accepted, and this is where we are before God, the sweet savor of Christ, and God glorified as to sin, as only through the sacrifice of Christ, not bearing sins, but according to John 13-this part the Jews have not. Their blessing, no doubt in a general sense, is founded on it, and the blood of the goat was put on the mercy-seat, as well as the sins carried away; but though Christ must be there that they may be blessed, they are not in His blessing—standing before God in the virtue of it, as He does.

8. As regards Azazel-the word is pretty plain I think,

I have heretofore noticed it; Ez, the goat-Azal (to depart) in whom the sins fail and disappear-and this is practically, I suppose, the force of eretz g'zerah (a land of separation), to fail, to be removed, perish, excluded. The sins disappeared wholly-they were sent off, and so gone to the land where no man was-they were lost. The use of the two words, only thus used here, is remarkable, for the total disappearance of sins, never to be found—there was no one there to seek for or find them. Just as in the Jewish idea, death removed man from this world, and then there was no remembrance, it was a non est as to this world—so the sins, they were gone, and were not, not to be found, like Rachel's children though not longed for.

The fact that there is no scape-bullock seems to me to depend upon the fact that they were priests. Hence, though in the necessarily imperfect shadowing of the law, it was only approach that was in question, qua priests we are not guilty sinners—for such, the actual sins must be cleared away—as priests we draw nigh, and that with boldness into the holiest now, because Christ has perfected the work which brings us there-for us once for all, and we have no more conscience of sins.

It seems to me that though I doubt not that the blessed Lord in bearing our sins held the place of Aaron as representing the people and confessing their sins on Azazel-not properly a priestly but a representative office (for priestly was in ability to approach God when others could not, and here he took their place as sinners)—yet Heb. 5:9, 10, points out distinctly that He was established as High Priest, only after His sufferings, " being made perfect," i.e., having been passed through His consecration by the things which He suffered, He became, and is thus and then saluted of God a High Priest—God publicly owns Him thereon.

I certainly think, as to the strict application of it (for as to efficacy, whatever efficacy there is in Christ's offering we have, and what is true of the Jew we have) yet as to the letter, the bullock for Aaron and his house is for us, the scape-goat is for the Jews. Aaron and his house were atoned for by themselves by the bullock, as directed indeed in chapter 4. The sacrifice was of greater value, of weightier import than that for Israel. But this is not all-this was complete before there was any purifying of things and places—Aaron and his house are purified by themselves; and in the case of the goat the blood was sprinkled on the mercy-seat, and atonement made for Israel also before the cleansing began. Then, in the Lord's lot, begins the putting the blood on places, before Azazel. It makes atonement, and purifies the holy place and altar, defiled by the uncleanness of Israel. It was Godward, the nature of sin as uncleanness in His sight; with this the places were all cleansed (the heavenly with better sacrifices) but the only thing mentioned in the first goat is the places—no doubt in respect of the uncleannesses of the children of Israel, as affecting God and His presence. No doubt thus death had come in and a sin-offering, but it met God, and after the reconciliation of the heavenly saints, the places were reconciled; and then last of all, when the high priest had confessed Israel's sins, Azazel was taken to the land not inhabited. And this confirms the order of power-first the Church received, then the heavenly places cleansed, and then Israel reconciled; there is the Church, the reconciling the heavenly things, and Israel. There are other precious differences elsewhere noticed, but this as to the proper order of application.

14. Notice that on the great day of atonement, the blood was sprinkled seven times on the mercy-seat, and upon the altar (v. 19)-as of the red heifer at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, once as far as appears on the mercy-scat.

Note.-The blood of the offerings for sin for priest and congregation was sprinkled before the veil; on the great day of atonement it was on the mercy-seat; in ordinary cases on the altar of burnt-offering. This would make it communion, but it puts the people (through the priests) in the holy place. At any rate the congregation must be fit to be represented there by them-fit for that place. Personally they came no nearer than before the altar of burnt-offering; there consequently their sin-offering was offered.

Note.-We have in fact the blood on the mercy-seat, and the scape-goat in Rom. 3 and 4; only the Lord's lot is set out in testimony for us as guilty to come, an hilasterion (mercyseat) through faith in His blood-the scape-goat is as delivered for our offenses (and raised again for our justification) and propitiation, though in view of God's glory (among whom I dwell), still is for sins as 1 John 2. The Lord's lot was a sin-offering, though not for particular acceptance or restoration, but, in general, for God who was there.

15. The sprinkling on and before the mercy-seat had its own efficacy before the Lord, but the cleansing then began with the holy place, etc. It may be they were sprinkled, with blood certainly, if Heb. 9:21 applies to this, but that may be doubted; otherwise it is said only of the mercy-seat and of the altar before the Lord, i.e., the altar of incense. Atonement was made for the places, but specific mention of blood could perhaps only be on the mercy-seat and altar.

The altar of incense was to be sprinkled (Ex. 30:10); but when the tabernacle was set up it would seem it was not sprinkled with blood (Ex. 40:9; chap. 30: 26, etc.); the brazen altar seems to have been cleansed with blood; Ex. 29:36. The sprinkling with blood and cleansing leads to the judgment that it was so done with all (the altar of incense certainly) on the day of atonement. Moses' doing it would not mean more than its being done under the law; but the connection with Sinai (Heb. 9:19) tends to show that it was then, and not recorded in the Old Testament. Still Heb. 9:21 gives no clear judgment that it was at the setting up; verse 22 clearly generalizes it, so that we may suppose he was already beyond Sinai.

-18. The question then arises, what is the altar here? In verse 20 the tabernacle of the congregation is said positively to be reconciled. The altar cleansed was the altar of incense, the altar before the Lord (see chapter 4: 6, 18). This changes the character; this reconciliation (ka-phar) to make atonement, was of the places where they went to God (only by priests). It was the holy place or sanctuary, the tabernacle and the altar. Aaron was to sprinkle the blood on the mercy-seat and before it; He makes atonement for himself and for all Israel- he makes atonement for the brazen altar before the Lord, i.e., reconciles it, but it is not said of the mercy-seat. In verse 17 he makes atonement for himself and house, and for all Israel; he makes atonement in it (verse 16) for the holy place, but not for the mercy-seat, but he does specifically for the altar; it was the idea of the people approaching The altar without was not the place of approaching, save as under sin; the atonement was made there-the sacrifice, whose blood was to work thus efficaciously, was offered there-but it was distinctly the place of approach that was cleansed. The place of approach and of offered incense-the mercy-seat-was what they approached, blood was put on it and before it for them. The altar without was the place where, when offering was made, the thing, as far as man was concerned, to come there with was sin. Hence we have blood put on the mercy-seat, atonement for Aaron and Israel, the cleansing of the holy place, tabernacle, and altar; then putting Israel's sins on Azazel.

It gives an absolute character to our reconciliation which Israel's has not, though in substance it is just the same. Christ was made sin for us-the whole thing is put away. It is not a question of dealing with sins-that of course would have been, if this work had not been done; but Christ intercepts this, and God's righteousness is now declared, in which we stand to start with, by faith, and are, always in. No doubt we are made to feel our sins as a means of discovering our state, but this is only the way of getting at it-we are all under sin, in this condition before God. I learn it by my sins, or much more deeply by my sinfulness, and then find I am made the righteousness of God. In Israel there is a dealing with particular transgressions. No doubt if Christ had not atoned for all our sins we could not have been the righteousness of God in Him-He did, Scripture says it, abundantly, thank God, but He was made sin and glorified God as in, and about it. But it is done, and we stand in righteousness in the efficacy of His work.

But Israel has to meet God about the transgressions they have been guilty of-suffer about them-feel Reuben to be guilty about their brother-transgressors, and God dealing with them as His people about their transgressions. It is surely practically true of us, yet not as His people who have sinned as such, but as merely and wholly sinners, and nothing else. Hence Israel has to feel in a special way that their sins, when they had to say to them, had been laid on the head of the scape-goat. My whole place is changed to be owned as righteous in Christ before God-Christ my righteousness; of course if He had not done the work on the cross I could not be, still I come in from a place of utter sin and alienation into divine righteousness. The truth is the same-the manner and circumstances are different. Indeed we have the bullock of atonement, they the goat-yet Christ for both, and Christ ever perfect in His work.

The question whether the altar before the Lord which was sprinkled was that of incense or of burnt-offering does not affect the general teaching of the passage. See verse 12, also Exodus 3o: to. My impression is that verse 12 is the altar of incense, see Exodus 3o: to; but it does not affect what is the important part of the question, I only add some fruits of further research.

The distinction of judicial righteousness connected with responsibility, and our approach to God according to what He is, is of all moment. This last connects itself with the purpose of God, Christ's delight in the sons of men before the Creation, and before the responsibility; but it is not that side that is treated here, but the nature of God, and access to Him as such. Israel stood formally in the place of responsibility, the law being the perfect rule of it; it was their standing as to the present government of, and relationship with God. That could not be, it is true-that is, forgiveness and purgation from sins-if what God was had not been glorified; and the Lord's lot was offered (in this case only the blood was brought into the holiest) and our responsibility is also met as we know, thank God. He gave Himself for our sins, " died for our sins according to the Scriptures "; but it was Israel's place as such, though in spirit we get the good of the new covenant, but then what characterizes us more is our approach to God within, not merely being in Christ, but as regard's God's nature and presence, the bullock marks our place-we have died with Christ, are not, in faith, in the old creation; it is not our politeuma (citizenship). It is more than the needed basis of forgiveness-it is justification of life. The bullock-offering is our whole position and present relationship, our calling is heavenly, and we have boldness to enter into the holiest by the new and living way. It is " quickened together with him, having forgiven us all trespasses," though here it is not the life, but the ground of acceptance-but it is in death and resurrection, beyond and out of the old creation. He was made sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. Hence too remark that, when the blood was carried into the sanctuary, the bodies were burned without the camp, a religion of man, as in this world, did not consist with it. It is death to the world-and heaven. This is a most immensely important point. The Epistle to the Hebrews is just leading them from one to the other; till then they had united both-served the tabernacle-it could not be.

The putting the blood on the mercy-seat was meeting God in respect of sin in the essence of His Being in death the fruit of sin-a wondrous truth! It was when made sin and bearing its curse, forsaken of God and dying that Man's obedience was perfect, and love to the Father in Jesus, and that wherein God's righteousness against sin, and supreme love to sinners was manifested. In the place of sin, as made it (and God Himself was perfectly glorified, John 13), obedience was perfect. Then the sprinkling seven times before the mercyseat was the perfection of its effect for our approach. This sevenfold sprinkling therefore was done on the altar of incense -God was not seated there. The scape-goat met responsibility and judgment founded, of course, on the blood of the other, but the first part gave access to God as He is, and the fitness of incense service, and this is truly blessed. The scape-goat was, first of all, Israel as an earthly people on earthly ground, in the flesh, but of course applicable to us (as Isa. 53), but to us as having been on this ground, guilty as sinners in the flesh by what the flesh produced; but now out of it, all that gone, not in the flesh, and as to that perfected forever; and so now standing on the ground of the blood within, with " boldness to enter into the holiest "-not justified without merely, but " made meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light "-so that while the positive preciousness of the blood remains for God Himself, yet it is not contrast with a state of guilt, but positive joy and worship where there is none.

Peter does not go beyond redemption out of where we were, and bearing our sins, and so dead to sins, man suffers in the flesh, is not dead-he has the Red Sea fully, blessed perfectness of work too, but not I think the Jordan. i Peter i: 3 is the Red Sea, but we are in the wilderness, though with a lively hope; hence of course the appearing is what is before us. Christ is ready to judge, and God's government on the earth is treated of; he reaches the " Day-star " as an extreme point of hope, and " the day of the Lord will come."

John 1e., in his Epistle (see before as to his Gospel), is a different class of teaching-it is Christ's, or rather the Son's Person, and life and that reproduced in us. Still he refers to the other, but puts it all together, " His blood cleanseth from all sin "-we are on earth, but Christ is the propitiation for the whole world, as well as for Jewish believers. Man is not looked at in the flesh; it is not exactly, therefore, bearing sins, but then we are in this world as Christ is before God, so as to have boldness. It is, what He is we are; and, in this, love is perfected. It is all what suits God, though the cleansing blood be necessarily there. But we are in the light, as God is in the light. It is what divine love has done for us, and the place it has put us in.

Paul, though he be essentially the same, does not give us Peter's form of it, " He gave himself for our sins," " died for our sins according to the Scriptures "-Hebrews gives us both sides, but the first more in view of the general result; " to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself " and, in correspondency to death and judgment, " bore the sins of many." Paul, I think, brings it more from God's side-Peter more Christ's work " that we might live to God." In Paul, God sets Christ forth a propitiatory " that he might be just in justifying." " He gave himself for our sins." " God commends his love to us." He reasons more downward from grace, though both meet in the one act, and are substantially the same as to this. " He was delivered " in Paul " for our offenses," " God made him to be sin for us "-God is for us in it. In Peter, He dies and is raised in glory " that our faith and hope might be in God." The truth is the same, but in Peter it is more our need and judicial. Hence, too, we never get sin in Peter, only sins. You get " the God of all grace " as a title, and referred to our present walk, but you never get the love of God, or love as in -Him presented in Peter-what we know as the fruits of it are, but it is not presented as such. All this is not clearly put, but profoundly interesting.

-18. As to kip-per (the piel form of ka-phar to cover), and kip-per al (expiate for). Al (for) follows the natural sense of kip-per (expiate), as the Lexicons say, though other prepositions be occasionally used. But it seems to me that kip-per must be very much taken alone in the sense of reconciling or appeasing, and the al merely gives the object about which the kip-per takes place. We may have it as " reconcile," with no preposition, as Gen. 32:20, " I will appease, reconcile his face," Dan. 9:24 with a-von (iniquity), Lev. 6:30. But we have kip-per al (expiate upon) the scape-goat. We have also Exodus 3o: to in English " atonement " upon it. Then Lev. 8:15 " sanctified, to make reconciliation upon it." In all al (for, etc.). Here the altar of burnt-offering. Now al must have different senses here-no atonement was made on the altar of incense; and it does not answer in the case of the scape-goat (in English " with "); with persons a/ is common. We have also Pkap-per al... min (to make expiation for) with al of the person, and mitt (from) of the sins. In Psa. 79:9, we have al with sins. In Lev. 16:17 we have b' (in) the holy place. If " in " be right absolutely the b'ad (about, or for) himself, his house, and all the congregation (a l'addresse de), not the object of the act, but as that which has its part in what is done, Ex. 8:24; in verse 33, we find kip-per without a preposition for the places and things, and al for the priests and people of the congregation. The only real difficulty is the scape-goat, but I apprehend it comes under the general rule. As to the altar of incense-it is only " on it " so far as it was defiled by the sins of the people. It was the object of the ko-pher (atoning work) made; so in verse 33 the places were reconciled, but the expiation had to be made about the priests and people as the object-b'ad (in reference to) offers no difficulty.

In chapter 8: 15 I am disposed to take l'kap-per a-lay (to make expiation for it) as meaning " in making reconciliation for it "-He sanctified it in this, ko-pher (atoning) for it. It was the object of the ko-pher (atoning) here, as in Gen. 2:2. As to Lev. 16:10" to make an atonement with " gives substantially the sense, though " with " may be too precise. The instrumental " with " is b' as in Gen. 32:21; Ex. 29:33 Sam. 21:3-but the scape-goat is the object as to which the Pkap-per (to make atonement) takes place, is before the mind as where sin is in question, requiring the ko-pher. In the passages with b' (in), this has nothing particular to do with the word kip-per, it is the common use of it, but here the scape-goat presented the sin as needing l'kap-par (to be expiated), but those were the sins on the goat-the goat was as to itself identified in idea with the other, and on it the sins were carried into a land where none could find them, and so peace was made; so that " with " gives the general sense, though too precise. As having the sins laid upon him, atonement was made in respect of him, not of the goat, but what was on him, and the blood being shed, all the sins carried away into the land where they are no more found. All was cleared away and removed-Christ bore our sins on the cross, then atonement had to be made for the sins that were upon Him, and there it was made in the same act, in His dying. For Himself; clearly no propitiation was made-He was making it; still He was the scape-goat, as well as the Lord's lot, and the actual sins that were there had to be atoned for. What He stood as, and what He carried was the object of the propitiation He made. In Lev. 19:22 we have al, both for the person, and for the sin.

(Dated 1874.) I turn to this great day of atonement a little more clearly, or rather precisely and definitely. The blood of the bullock and of the goat were sprinkled on and before (for I suppose this applies to the goat too) the mercyseat, and on the altar; so that as God was glorified by the blood, so access was given by it, " boldness to enter by the blood "-God glorified, and we able to draw nigh. But then the altar of incense (as I have supposed it) also sprinkled, i.e.,

communion, when not actually in heaven but only in heavenly places, according to what glorified God; and this is all we have of the blood on the great day of atonement. The bullock for Aaron and his sons-the fullest value of Christ as an offering -ours, though what was essential was done for Israel as regards God. Azazel was the actual putting-away of sins; then there was the burnt-offering, and fat of the sin-offering burned on the altar-the perfect value of Christ's sacrifice as a sweet savor to God, by which He is glorified in Christ's perfection in His sacrifice, " Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life that I may take it again." But the blood is here all within for God Himself; approach to Him and communion; see the difference of the sin-offerings even when the blood was brought into the holy (not most holy) place. The blood was sprinkled seven times before the veil-the place of approach in worship; then on the altar of incense, and then all the rest at the foot of the altar of burnt-offering, and, as to the people at any rate (nothing said as to the high priest) there was forgiveness. It was according to God, but it was not the foundation of all the rest; nor for God, the Lord's lot. Even the scape-goat was the removal of the sins, not exactly the forgiveness. In particular or individual sinoffering, it is evident-but in all there was restoration of communion, not foundation for it. Hence we have not forgiveness in chapter 16-cleansing we have, and sins put out of God's sight.

The more it is weighed, the more important does the great day of atonement become. It is not a burnt-offering to be accepted according to a sweet savor, nor a sin-offering to restore a soul by priestly intervention, or the people and priest in sprinkling before the veil and on the altar of incense, so that communion might be restored to them. It is in no sense application consequent on failure in responsibility. It was a sin-offering, and of course in respect of the priest and his house, and the people, but not application and restoration- God was in view. No doubt that the sins were carried into a land not inhabited, but it was not personal restoration nor access; as the blood on the mercy-seat, it laid the ground for it, though in another way. It was substitution, doing the work which bore the sins away out of God's sight. So in sprinkling the tabernacle, it was " because of the iniquities of the children of Israel among whom I dwell." The blood was brought in in respect of sin no doubt, but as meeting God's own nature. The sins were gone, but no blood was put on the brazen altar; it was not measured judicially by man's responsibility. The sins did not suit God's presence, and cleansing was effected on God's throne and before it, and on the altar of incense. We go into the holiest—the veil is now rent. Burnt-offerings were offered afterward, and the fat of the sin-offering, and the rest was burned outside the camp. A religion for the sanctuary is not a worldly religion—it goes outside the camp or earthly relationship with God. When the priests were consecrated, they belonged as such to what was within; hence the offerings were burned outside the camp; till after they were consecrated, they of course could not go in—not inside the brazen altar; they needed the judicial atonement. This was a special case; hence the blood was poured out at the brazen altar (for they were taken as sinners to be priests), and the body, etc., burned without the camp. In the case of the sin-offering for the anointed priest or congregation, the communion of all was interrupted, and the blood was sprinkled before the veil and on the altar of incense, for there it was needed to re-establish it, but the blood was put at the bottom of the altar of burnt-offering, for they were guilty—the bodies burned outside the camp, the blood having gone into the sanctuary. It was not God's nature met, but communion re-established with it, and judicially met withal at the altar of burnt-offering. Individual cases got their place back where communion subsisted. For Aaron himself there was no offering.

What makes the absence of a scape-bullock easily understood is, that it was for priests, persons already within as such. What concerned them was approach within, or rather God's nature or character within, for they would not have been there without it—it was done, in fact, when they were consecrated; but it gives strongly the true character of worship. In point of fact we were sinners just as Jews will be, or were, on the earth, and hence have needed the scape-goat, when our responsibility was in question as they do; just the same exactly as we anticipate the use of Isa. 53, or even the blessing of the new covenant, but it does show what our worship in the priestly character is (compare Deut. 16).

NOTE.—The new covenant does not go beyond forgiveness, and remembering sins no more. No doubt all depends, to the eternal blessing, in Christ having carried the blood once for all into God's presence, but the effect in the new covenant is only forgiveness, quod nota. How this shows too where the Evangelical Church is, though with their knowledge of sin they have not even this!

Leviticus Chapter 17

7. Lass 'irim (to wood-demons) from sa-ir, that which is hairy. The English Bible has "unto devils."

11. It has been thought that atonement "for the soul" should be "with the soul" ban-nephesh; but I doubt. It is not huper (for) but "in respect of," "in the matter of." But note, only what is on the altar makes atonement.

Leviticus Chapter 18

Remark how in this Book, when the details of evil are judged, Jehovah puts Himself personally forward as the One whose character at once rejects, and makes all these things impossible to His people—" I am the Lord." The people were in relationship with Him—He sanctified them. See also the two following chapters.

Leviticus Chapter 19

5. Ye shall offer it for your acceptance.

11. "One to another" seems to apply to all these words.

Leviticus Chapter 23

Feasts of the Lord, mo-ed (a set time), feast of unleavened bread, Khag (a holy feast).

Note the Sabbath, passover and unleavened bread were not dependent on their coming into the land.

9. Introduces a new ground of the feast.

10-14. This is an offering of obligation, and connected with the whole people-one of the regular feasts of the Lord, Christ's resurrection, to which Pentecost was subsidiary, though one of the great feasts, while that in chapter 2: 14-16, seems a personal free-will offering. It was not in itself a mo-ed (set time) feast; but it comes under a "the Lord spake unto Moses saying"; in verse 15 (chap. 23) Pentecost is attached to it, so to speak. Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles were gathering feasts; the Sheaf, the new Moon, and the day of Atonement were not. They were actings of God of whatever character, the basis of gathering perhaps, or leading to it, but not the gathering itself; Christ's lifting up did gather—"draw all men"—Pentecost was the actual power that did it. Tabernacles, not yet fulfilled, will be the great congregation when all Israel will be brought home from their wanderings—for us the heavenly assembly of all saints. But then resurrection presented the accepted sheaf in resurrection to God—it was Christ, first fruits of them that slept.

In the new moon Israel re-appears. The great day of atonement was not only the Lord's lot for His glory, but the actual putting away of the people's sins, and their knowing it through the appropriation of it in confession-so of us anticipatively by faith through the Holy Ghost.

The Sabbath, God's rest, stands by itself—the great Promise that overrides all.

Then the Passover, the basis of all, founded on which we have the feast of unleavened bread, the general result also in the sinless character of our association with God; verse 4, therefore begins afresh as the grand basis of all, unleavened bread being connected with it. The rest are special and actual dealings of God, and states and terms of relationship with Him; hence verse 9 starts with a new "the Lord spake," and that begins the ways of the Lord in the resurrection of Christ, first fruits from the dead presented to Him. SabbathPassover-and Unleaven are the general great truth of our being assembled to God, verses 1-8.

Then I get resurrection of Christ—the gift of the Holy Ghost-present dealings-then Israel recalled-their humiliation, and owning of sins, and the atonement made (Isa. 53), which we anticipate as first fruits of His creatures-and finally the feast of tabernacles, which comes after the fruit of the land is gathered in, and the fulfillment of all promise is celebrated in blessing. The divisions are thus thus marked by " the Lord spake," verses 1, 9, 23, 26, 33.

As to the offerings, some points are to be observed. The Lord's Passover we know—it is the grand basis; hence in the feast of unleavened bread, the sacrificial worship is commanded, but there are no special sacrifices. In Pentecost, a full perfect sacrifice is introduced of perfect satisfaction to God, also a bullock and two rams—consecration or failure in it—and, leaven being in the cakes, a sin-offering, and two lambs for a heave-offering. All kinds were introduced with the Spirit, the full knowledge of what Christ's sacrifice is in every form, seven being full worship in Christ acceptable to God. In Tabernacles none but the general sacrificial worship. They are all really connected with the Passover. In the Sheaf of first fruits only a burnt-offering—it was Christ; with the two cakes a sin-offering (only here) there was leaven. In the blowing of trumpets, only the usual sacrificial worship, on which all is based, i.e., Christ's sacrifice, blessing being only in connection with this; it is calling God to remembrance in Israel, when they reappear. On the day of atonement also, only the usual sacrificial worship—it is Israel's confession of their sin, afflicting their souls. There were, we know, offerings showing the whole work of Christ for sin, but here it is the historical aspect, so to speak—whoever of Israel does not humble himself and mourn, recognizing what Christ's Cross (now come in glory) was, will be cut off—fullness expressed, as I have said, in Isa. 53 Verse 22, I suppose, presents the remnant called out and, as sacrificed by the beast, belonging to the Spirit's time of work, but only exceptionally left, but not the offering up of the Gentiles, but not the bread of the first fruits yet gathered in an inferior way, so to speak.

11, is not rat-zon, " for your acceptance? " The wave-sheaf and the first fruits go together, and are connected with the land—resurrection and the Holy Ghost—and these with the non-riddance of the corners of the land form a complete whole. The offerings which were complete are spoken of elsewhere.

18. This seems to be a special offering, "with the bread." Num. 28:24 on the Passover, the then prescribed offering was daily, it seems, implied in verses 26-31, but it is not said. Here it is specially with the bread, for otherwise the number of offerings is not prescribed. Compare Josephus, Ant., chap. 3:10. The seven lambs-a perfect sacrifice; the one bullock-the plain measure of the worth of Christ's sacrifice, without question of its estimation by piety, or in its effect on the heart; the rams-always consecration; two-full witness of it. The sin-offering as meeting the leaven, and two lambs for communion; hence two, as adequately witnessed- it was here in its natural completeness and simply itself.

24. The feast of trumpets is a distinct feast, nor is this directly connected with the land; there was an offering made by fire-God was acknowledged in the sacrifice-but the blowing of trumpets characterizes it;

25. what sacrifice is not said.

27. The day of atonement is again distinct—it is a covering out of God's sight (kippurim atonement);

34. etc., so is the feast of tabernacles.

Note.-While leaven is met in the feast of weeks by the sin-offering, as needed to the actual relationship of the people, in none of the others it is so—we have "an offering made by fire"—not even in the day of atonement is any sin-offering mentioned; in the feast of weeks, the sacrifices are fully noticed, and the wave-sheaf—this is remarkable. When, if not in the Church and by the Holy Ghost, are they known? In the rest there is worship (the Passover speaks for itself by itself) and by an offering made by fire—that is all;

37 and 44, it is the same. It is always the mo-ed in the meetings with God, not the way of reception. So here, in this part of Tabernacles, it is specially characterized as to the character of appointed meeting with God; so as a Khag (holy feast) to the Lord, their former part, wanderings, are celebrated, and in verse 37, in general, worship-offerings are mentioned but not sin-offerings—offerings made by fire, no servile work, and on the tenth of the seventh month afflicting their souls. Then we have, but save the feast of weeks, no sin-offering nor any specified, though in Numbers those of Tabernacles are very remarkable. But in the feast of weeks we have the full intelligent appreciation, in worship, of sin in ourselves (though presented sinless) and of all that Christ has done, and of our presenting before the Lord; enu-phah (waveoffering)-t'ru-mah (heave-offering) seems to me to be more absolutely "offered up," as we say "given up " to God; though enu-phah was "consecrated" in general, t'ru-mah belonged to the priest who offered. The Levites however were a ents-phah, and they were (Num. 8:16) n'thunim n'thunim (wholly given; literally given given) to Jehovah; for nuph (offer or wave) see verses to, 13 and 15. Still it was for service as wholly consecrated, and that we all are as a prosphora (offering up, sacrificing), Rom. 15:16; but I still doubt this was a t'ru-mah. The enu-phah Aaron and his sons ate,

just as the Levites were given to them-the t'ru-mah was in the intimacy of priestly communion; one was blessedly useful in service, and consecrated to it-the other in the mind of Christ. There were I think three steps, Aaron, sons and daughters, all clean in the house-Aaron and his sons-and the offering priest; but see Num. 18:11-13—but this hardly abrogates the distinction of Lev. 7:31 and 33, certainly not chapter 6: 26. However, here I only refer to them for eru-mah and enu-phah; see Lev. 6:18, also verse 29, and chap. 7: 6-9; there is " the priest's that offereth " (verse 9) and (verse o) distinction, " all the sons of Aaron," or in verse Io merely general, contrasted with the people, and verse 9, appropriative—I mean distinction as to the kind of offering. If so, this would make an interesting difference in Lev. 2-the flour, dry or with oil, generally for the priests, that baked in the oven or pan for the priest that offered it. For the general idea of Aaron and his sons, as contrasted with the people, or burning it, see Lev. 2:3, 10, and chap. 7: 9. What is "one as much as another" in verse 10? For each one who did it, or for all? See verse 14. Verse 33 seems decisive as to the difference of t'ru-mah, even if daughters ate it, which I doubt,In the court of the tabernacle.

42. The Jews, it appears, hold that none but an Israeliteborn could keep the feast of tabernacles, i.e., dwell in booths, whatever the common joy might be. This has an intelligible reason, Israel having been, as such in the wilderness, as now strangers and wanderers. In Ex. 12:44, bought servants were to be circumcised and keep the Passover—they were redeemed members of the household, and separated to God by circumcision. Now in Zech. 14:19, the Gentiles are to go up and keep the feast of tabernacles. The sin of Jews was they would not own mercy to Gentiles. Gentiles must bow, and join in the joy of mercy to Jews; if they do not, this shall be their sin—they will be dealt with in judgment about it—they would not submit to Israel's grace.

Leviticus Chapter 24

The candlestick and the shewbread seem a kind of appendix to the Feasts. These are the gathering of Israel in connection with Christ, and the privileges granted to them through Him. The candlestick and shewbread seem to be their estate according to God's purpose as in their normal condition before God, and in connection with Christ as Man, but full of grace and the Holy Spirit, or at any rate and rather the light of testimony by it.

Atonement

THE atonement is laid as the great central ground of all God's ways in righteousness. God is perfect love to us there—He is Love; but then, where no hiding, excusing or patience with sin because of weakness was in question, where One who could bear it was, was made sin, all God was, in His necessary antagonism, horror of, judgment against sin, went out against sin, as such, in Him who was able to bear it. God being glorified, purpose, government, as death or chastening His children, can all come out and have their place.

The worth of that, according to which righteousness is obtained, is such that the purpose of God righteously unites us to Christ, and gives a place where He is in glory like and with Him—we are children, holy and without blame before Him in love. He gives to the Jews a place on earth, and deals with them for the display of His government down here; so with us as His children-God deals with us in chastisement and discipline, but all this supposes righteousness and nonimputation. There could be no government without this- God's forbearance before the Cross was justified by this.

It is evident there are two kinds of righteousness-justice as against evil, and adequate appreciation and even recompense of good. "Vengeance is mine, I will recompense saith the Lord" is a different thing from "The righteous Lord loveth righteousness, his countenance beholds the upright "; though both are abstractedly the just estimate of good and evil.

As regards the former, and the controversy we have had, when God has the character of a Judge, my adversaries are all wrong, because God's righteousness as Judge is in Scripture connected with blood, as in Rom. 3; so in the Passover. But as to the principle, no man could ever plead a part in the second dealing of righteousness save Christ Himself, for "all are sinners"; Christ, even as a Man down here, could be accepted as perfectly agreeable to God. But then Christianity, and even Judaism in its figures, goes a great deal further—for grace reigns through righteousness, and sinners were to be justified or accounted righteous.

To be justice, in the common sense of the word, it must be the just estimate of conduct itself, or adequate satisfaction for the fault—thus, a man serves me in a thing, renders due service, I am just in recognizing this, I own him in the place wherein he stands; if he owes me money and another pays it, or has done a wrong and another repairs it, he is also clear. In the case of material service, another's doing a man's duty may suffice, though, if the service be owed by the man, I am not bound to accept it; still, in material service, if the service only be due, and the man not in responsible relationship to me, I may be justly satisfied. But in relationships and moral right and wrong, this is not so, I cannot accept another's doing what my son owes me and be satisfied with my son; righteousness here requires the duty to be fulfilled, or is not satisfied. To be atoned for and put away as guilt can be rightly, because the guilt is owned, but not a doing the work or duty so that there should be no guilt. The latter weakens the personal obligation, sets it aside, the former owns and atones for it.

But in Christianity there is more, for God is to be displayed, grace reign, and man to be brought to God Himself. Hence the measure is God's glory and in itself unveiled, not man's duty—of this anon. But any attempt to meet responsibility in relationship by another's fulfilling the claims, tends to destroy the sense of guilt in it, and is morally heinous—if another has done my duty, and it is as if I have done it, or better, the claim satisfied, then I have done it as to justice and I am not guilty.

If it does not meet the case thus, the idea turns what is due into a material debt and destroys the moral nature of failure—becomes doing, not conduct. I ask if another's doing my child's duty would in any way affect the relationship of my child to me?

This I see in the figures—reconciliation must have an altar and blood-shedding; wrongs may be repaired toward man or toward God, and so it was ordained under the law, but in questions of obedience and relationship not so. There is guilt, and atonement must come in; omission or commission is all one here. Do I fail in worship to God-can another worship for me? Now all our questions with God are questions of obedience and relationship. But then according to principles I have noticed before, though all be done according to the glory of God, for indeed it is one act-the death of Christ—yet the application of the work to man is different; the brazen altar met man's sin coming as such—the mercy-seat was introduction into the presence of God. It was a golden throne; it was judgment against sin, and righteousness to enter into His presence. So Christ—He was both—He made propitiation for our sins, He is our righteousness in the presence of God in virtue of His sacrifice in which God was perfectly glorified. There is the firmness of God's judgment against sin, and perfect access to Him in light and glory. But then note, it is in either case grace—God acting sovereignly for Himself, and hence all must have the value of that. Our very forgiveness is God's righteousness, "we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins." Hence God shows His righteousness in forgiving—is righteous and justifies, according to this, the believer. God's righteousness is upon all that believe. But we do not think of repaying God now—nor may we now—"if thou hast sinned what doest thou unto him?"

The blood of Christ, i.e., the moral power and meaning of His blood-shedding, is the absolute perfection of the divine nature in connection' with sin, as putting it away—it leaves no blot, no stain, nothing contrary to its Holiness. It maintains, speaks of, tells out that Holiness, and yet not alone simply, but perfect love in it. It is the acting of God in the perfection of His own nature that is Love; for the spring of God's activity is love because it is His nature—what He is in purpose, will, what shows His nature—but it maintains what is necessary to it, i.e., Holiness, and this at the cost of the perfect devotedness of Christ to it, to both, i.e., to God, and that was perfection in its place too. But Godhead is perfectly, fully revealed, and indeed in nothing else; it is known, Christ knew it, others in some measure, but here it is all displayed, not in what God does in power, i.e., what He produces, but what He is and does in His own nature in the display of Himself. It is an exhaustless theme, as such a display of God, as such alone could be, must be. The Cross of Christ is the center, as to what is displayed, of all glory—the Son of Man is glorified, and God is glorified in Him; all the details only bring it out, but into these I do not enter—it is the great thought I desire to dwell in, I should not say " on," though that in mercy and grace and privilege too.

Smiting

People have talked much of smiting, but the truth is it is not applied in Scripture to atonement itself. It is no harm that the mind associates atonement with it—nay, it is useful—because it is the great and essential thing of the Cross where Jesus, the Blessed One, was smitten. But atonement was a far deeper and unfathomable act of suffering, and wrath drank into the soul-forsaking, not smiting.

Smiting is used as to the setting aside by death all the Messiah privileges, though we may, and it is all well, associate the other deeper work, done at the same time, with it. It is only used in Zech. 13:7, and quoted thence in Matt. 26:31, Mark 14:27, and Psa. 69:26, referring in all to the relative position He took, contrasted with an accepted Messiah—the Shepherd was smitten and the disciples scattered. This is not making His soul an offering for sin, and the Lord laying our iniquities on Him; it refers to His position, and being Shepherd of Israel's faithful ones in this world-He was, in this character, smitten. The effect was the scattering of the sheep, not forgiveness and atonement. Hence we see it applied when they come to take Him, and the disciples fled. No doubt the actual blow was in his death—I speak now of na-chah (to smite)—it is any blow; ne-ga (stroke, plague) is used in Isa. 53:8 (margin), when the thing is explained, not na-chah, "For the transgression of my people was the plague, or judgment, stroke upon him." And so we know it was; but this is the explanation, blessed explanation of a fact which had also an outward aspect. Na-chah is the simple act of smiting; ne-ga goes, I think, further. This is seen when both are used as participles, " Yet we did esteem him na-ga (stricken)"—thus absolutely, the plague of God on Him; smitten of (mu-keh) God and afflicted. The truth was He was made a plague for the transgression of His people. But Messiah was cut off as such, and took nothing, and the sheep that were with Him then as Shepherd were scattered, and hence, as we have said, it is applied already in Gethsemane.

But there was, I am persuaded, in the atoning work a much deeper element. The forsaking of God in respect of sin, that no thought of ours can reach, though, blessed be God, it has reached us, for every sorrow was to meet there. I judge it is the want of deep apprehension of what atonement is—of what Christ suffered in His soul for it, which leads to cavils about other sorrows, and the application of passages to them. Every sorrow was there, but there was one which only the spiritual mind can in any sense understand. Isa. 53 shows that this was the case that, as they esteemed Him outwardly under God's judgment—and He was, in a far deeper sense, for their transgression—"With his stripes they were healed." But by this act, in which atonement did take place, there was, besides the atonement, the setting aside all His earthly Messiahship, and the taking away His life from the earth; and all this the Lord felt and entered into as to the setting aside of the people by their own wickedness.

Cleansing

Nothing is more striking than the extreme care as to the defilement of leprosy in Lev. 14, as to the details.

We find first that the man is cured, he has no longer the disease, the will of sin—he is converted. Then comes the cleansing—first Christ Himself given in humiliation, but in the power of the Spirit according to God known in the Word, in a poor earthen vessel but over running water. All this world's glory and nature—what man knows naturally, from the cedar to the hyssop—all is stamped with death, and the man sprinkled seven times-he comes under the absolutely perfect efficacy of Christ's death; this, outside the camp. It is essential efficacy of Christ's work, what is necessary for him to have to say to God; then he comes into the camp, but he must then be cleansed to have his place, and worship with God's people according to His presence among them, his own conscience and all taint of sin must be purged and removed. He shaves, and washes his clothes and himself with water and so is clean. There is the washing of water, regeneration, a change of condition, of habit and thought according to the Word, in order to his being amongst God's people; the washing of regeneration, not I think merely being born again, though involved in it.

But he is still out of his tent, his regular dwelling among God's numbered people—there he waits seven days; on the eighth, he again shaves all with scrupulous detail, not noticed before, for he is now nearer God, and washes clothes and body again, and is clean—v'taher (and he shall be clean), what had been said of his previous washing, and so he was, but that was cleansing from known sin, cleansing from the evil which he had come to know, what in his previous state affected his conscience, in fact what he was defiled by, so that he could come into the camp. Now he must be cleansed for the sanctuary, according to the purification of the sanctuary—the seven days complete, and a wholly new state and era beginning, which is really resurrection and divine.

Then he brings all kinds of sacrifices, save peace-offerings which are communion. The blood of the trespass is put upon his ear, hand and foot-he is cleansed and consecrated to God in thought, act and walk, according to the value and worth of Christ's blood. He is here before the tabernacle of the Lord—has to do with God in His sanctuary. The blood being thus on him, the oil is put on it-the Holy Ghost is given in consequence and as a seal of perfect cleansing by the blood-and he has to walk and think according to the power of the Spirit as according to the value of the blood. And then the oil is poured on his head—the Holy Ghost is given, that it may lead, guide, give him liberty, communion, and all that He brings by His presence in the soul.

Then the sin-offering and the burnt-offering—Christ bearing sin, and Christ offering Himself without spot by the eternal Spirit to God—are offered to Jehovah, and the man is clean. Cured first he was after the sacrifice of the birds—the charged bird gone away into the desert—sins put away when washed clean, and so entered—next, when washed in the camp, clean—next when the offering was offered to God, clean for Him in the sanctuary.

We learn the difference between the efficacy of Christ's works, so that being regenerate by the Word we are clean, and the application of Christ's blood to all we are according to our place in the sanctuary, and its own infinitely perfect nature, so that we are dead to sin, not merely forgiven—a state of heart and conscience, or, when the heart, as risen, goes with the conscience, according to Christ's death unto sin once and now living to God in that He liveth. Then we come before God according to the efficacy of Christ's offering before God, or rather its value to God, " Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life that I may take it again."

Forgiven, cleansed from what we were, we enter the camp; in it we are cleansed as dead to sin, and the Spirit life, and given to us also—before the Lord according to the value to Him of Christ's offering, and so cleansed to be before Him and forever, according to what His presence is, and Christ's worth-accepted in the Beloved.

In the consecration of Aaron it is to be noted that there is in no place a carrying of blood within the veil; this is very notable. Yet there was a burning without the camp for Aaron, see Lev. 8 and 9—this for the people was wrong; note this, for Christ did indeed and necessarily suffer Himself without the gate, even in respect of that which had no connection with going into the holy place-as the Jewish people and others in the millennium-but He bore the sins of Israel, not merely Himself in that way expiatorily, but as feeling them and bearing them as burden in sympathy, in respect of governmental judgment of a received people. We have seen the same truth in connection with the sufferings of Christ-His distress in connection with Israel as suffering under displeasure in the last day (or any one under law), besides suffering for love and righteousness, and suffering as expiation.

Lev. 16 is thus quite apart on another ground from the consecration of Aaron which was properly Jewish. Chapter 8 gives this regularly in consecrating Aaron in connection with them, in which there was no entering in within the veil, though the bodies of the sin-offering were burned without the camp; and then, in the application, there is the same as to Aaron, but then Aaron should, as to application to Israel in respect of God's dealings, have eaten the goat of the sin-offering which indeed he had not done.

But I question whether chapter 16 did not put Israel in connection with the most holy place in blessing from thence through a priest who had entered in there, though the veil subsisted and none but Aaron went in; and this in connection with judgment for sin—Nadab and Abihu, i.e., the failure of blessing on any other ground in any case. Hence, even on the inauguration day, Moses and Aaron go in and come out- King and Priest—and bless the people, and the glory appears, and then the fire consumes the sacrifice as from within, i.e., its acceptation by God as within, in respect of judgment, is publicly known to the people. This is, I apprehend, the position and doctrine of the Hebrews, only adding the heavenly calling, and abiding peace, and going within, i.e., the contrast of our present place, as we have already seen, but then reserving Israel's place in the last days.

It is evident that a priest, so minded, would have had profound joy in the thought that in virtue of Christ, the grace of God by a sacrifice of perfect reconciliation and expiation, the Israelite who had failed was placed in perfect acceptance with God. The eating of the sacrifice was thus in spirit the sense that one, beloved of God, was brought back morally and according to God's glory, to His favor through the perfect work of Christ.

This is the joy that belongs to our occupation about the fallen, though it be sorrow and humiliation, still, by Christ's coming in between, God is glorified and the heart comforted and lifted up in love. It is another thing to partake of the offerings as the fruit of the land, and free-will offerings all heaved up, or even waved. This is the joy of the fruits of the Spirit of the heavenly country in others, a true and, in one sense, more unmingled joy but less deep. Besides this there was the feeding on Christ properly speaking for oneself, though in communion. This indeed had a double character—priestly and common joy—joy which flowed from and was enjoyed in communion (but which might become mere common natural joy in the things enjoyed, and so profane in what referred to God) this was the peace-offering and what was immediate enjoyment of and with Christ. The Lord give us to know the service of gift—all this belongs to us in Christ.

Faith Not Sight

THE external course of events tells us nothing of what is really going on—that is inside it all. If the external plannings of men or Satan further God's plans they succeed, if not, they come to nothing; but what is really going on is still inside them all. Thus they would not have taken Jesus on the feast day, not to have an uproar, but He was to be the Paschal Lamb and He is taken. The Jews would have often taken Him, but His hour was not yet come; when it was, they take Him—their wicked plans succeed. When the heartless superstition of the Jews had the malefactors' legs broken, what was really doing in the one case was sending the man into Paradise.

To the outward eye what happened to Job were raids of Arabs and Chaldeans—ordinary predatory raids, and a violent storm blew down the house; Satan was in it all, and behind him God arranging the purifying of Job's heart and our instruction in all ages.

The political plans of Augustus, as to the census of the Empire, brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem for the birth of Jesus, and then it was not carried out for nine years, when Cyrenius was Governor.

All we have to do is to discern God's will, and have by faith the courage to do it. All His strength is power to carry us forward. It may seem all to turn out ill, or be a cross—it may be so, but we shall have the result of God's counsels and blessing by the way. Man succeeded in crucifying Jesus because however wicked the act on their part, it was just carrying out God's plans. He knew His Father's will—sought only to glorify His Name—had faithful obedience to act upon it, though to man's eye it was the ruin of everything, every religious hope even, and so it was in man and in flesh, but the birthplace of all counsels in glory, of that new thing in man wherein He will be glorified forever, that wherein He was glorified in all He is essentially: The outside was wicked men's success, the end too of pious men's hopes—the inside what all blessing that ever was, or could be really and permanently, is entirely founded upon, and that wherein alone God is fully glorified. Christ learned and did His Father's will, Satan's power and man's wickedness were there, triumphed as nowhere else. It was the foundation of all true and eternal blessing.

The Person of the Lord

How beyond all our wonder and praise is the Person of the blessed Lord! As an Apostle could say, and more because he knew it better, " Great is the mystery." But in one respect He was one with us all, great as His revelations were. No man knows the Son, yet He lets us see that He is that which no man knows. Who could say but there " God is known in death? " Is it not there love, God's love is known, never known really till known there? Yet it is weakness, and, as to His place as man, the very end of man. But in Himself God is known in love by His being down here with sinful men—by that love reaching even to us. He made Himself of no reputation, emptied Himself—not that He could be other than God—there is the mystery—but as to the form of God He did. Hence having taken the form of a servant, He is always such- receives all. Even when He takes the kingdom, He goes a long journey to receive a kingdom, and, when by His perfection in power He has subdued all, He gives it up to God even the Father. He gives up His own spirit when the time comes, but recommends it to His Father—raises up the temple of His body, but is raised by the glory of the Father—grows in wisdom, speaks what He knows, but He is the wisdom of God; He can do nothing of Himself—is obedient, but He is the power of God, and quickens too whom He will; created all things and upholds them by the word of His power. And this was His perfection, with the whole power of evil against Him, never to go out of the path of dependence and obedience-never to use power by His will. Thus He bound the strong man as in the wilderness-in death how much more even-He could have had, even in dependence, more than twelve legions of angels, but it would not have been obedience fulfilling the Scriptures.

But what an emptying that was when He who was God could come into death, though suffering, though obeying, bring all that God was in His moral perfection into death, and then when it was needed, in man's extremity through sin, in man's weakness, in the place of Satan's power, there glorify it—love, righteousness, majesty, truth, all found glorified there. God is glorified in Him, yet it was in death, and because it was death in all it meant for God; but it was all the power of love, i.e., God, in the emptying. I do not turn to John's writings here, already elsewhere spoken of, where the divine nature of the Lord is so distinct, where He comes out as God-not genealogic from takes the place of receiving everything. It is contemplation of the wondrous and unsearchable fact I seek, not Adam or Abraham or David—and yet, as made flesh, always proofs which are everywhere where He is.

But I would weigh some facts in the Gospels as to the manifestation of God in Him. When the blessed Lord had to do with unbelievers whom He knew and had to treat as adversaries, though His being God comes out—save His knowing all men, as yet not judging—what God is does not come out at all; it is only when driven, by the willful blindness and hostility of the human heart, to speak of things as they are, that forced and driven to the necessity of it, so to speak, the fact of His being God comes out, "Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him, but Jesus hid himself." There is no revelation of Himself in John 8. He does not come to judge, and the woman is not condemned—she is to go and sin no more. He gives divine power to the law, or rather He is, by His word, divine power in the conscience—no grace is in question, and they all go away one by one—divine power in the Word awakes the conscience. He is the Light of the world, and he who follows Him does not walk in darkness. But here there are none such; it is simply the Light shining in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not.

But Christ is divine—He can bear witness of Himself, yet He says "as the Father has taught me," as ever, in John, receiving all. Nothing inconsistent with grace, but the simple absence of all contrary to it. He could not contradict Himself, but He is only Light in darkness. As Man He hardly appears here, for that is grace; other cases present themselves where grace is at work. We may first take the woman of Samaria—but here away from Jerusalem, where with the Jews (not the people) He is always in judgment—where the great change of leaving them and having to do with the world, and bringing men to have to—do with the Father and with God spiritually, and that by life in the power of the Spirit, are brought out, and where Christ is the rejected Man and feels it, but is thereby thrown into the consciousness that He is the divine Giver of eternal life in the power of the Spirit. But here we have the Lord fully as a Man; the Jachin and Boaz of Christian truth had been set up in chapter 3—Man or Jew was naught, must be born again, and the Son of Man must be lifted up. God had loved and had given. Christ was a rejected Christ—He left Judaea where the Pharisees were jealous and would none of Him. Christ must be a rejected Christ for us to have part with Him—sad thing to say, but so it is—if it die not it abides alone. No doubt He could always quicken whom He would, but without His death we could not righteously see God, and if a man received a new nature without His death, there would be no putting away of the old; we must be risen as well as quickened—a new place as a new life—and that is only by His death. But He was rejected, felt it, afterward wept over the city, felt it deeply as none of us could feel—we see Him comforted, as rejected by His own to whom He came, by fields white to harvest.

He was weary with His journey and sat alone in the world—Oh, wondrous place! The world He had created, but more, into which He was come in love: and here only a weary Man feeling the rejection of His love, but, as to the place He had taken, dependent for a drink of water—He who had made it—upon this poor sin-wearied woman. But He had come where He could only come in grace; salvation was not of Samaria but of the Jews—promises were theirs, but they had rejected all—grace had its work outside, but then it was humiliation and on rejection he must needs pass through Samaria. He submits to human circumstance and conditions—He acts in divine grace. Here therefore where grace, free grace works, we find Him fully Man—a weary rejected Man, bound in spirit on a way He must needs take, and waiting on the kindness of another for a drink of water. Grace is in the humbled and obedient Man—there it is that what God is shines out. It is not "before Abraham was, I am," but "if thou knewest the gift of God," i.e., grace, "and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink." It is not the supreme God forced, so to speak, to say He is so to heartless adversaries without conscience, but God revealed in what He was in a lowly Man, and by His being a lowly Man; and surely if grace is, that is grace.

What heart is in the words! What a need to win the confidence of a weary soul! Yet the simple expression of what His own heart was full of, of God as goodness and brought out, as to circumstances, by the pressure on that heart of the rejection by His beloved people which he was suffering under! How wonderful to hear him saying just then "Salvation is of the Jews!" Perfect owning of God's counsels and ways! But in His rejection in them, grace flowing freely out—the natural expression of what He was full of, but as that was love, love which seeks to bring a weary soul to confidence in God by bringing that love down to lay its wants at the feet of such an one, to win confidence in a love that could do it. "If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith"—there He was—"give me to drink"—come even there—"thou wouldest have asked"—He would have given, for He was the giver. What a scene! Such a lowly place! And to learn what God is in it! Yea, what he is by it!

There is no feeling like that of the perception of the Person of Christ, and His words and He are one—He was what He said, always. Yet it is thoroughly in human nature I look at Him here, yea, that is the way and here I learn it. With adversaries He is simply God—in grace He is a Man yet God, and only precious as a Man because He is, and, as a Man, dependent. Yet we have seen the Father in Him.

I do not go into the state of the woman, that is another part of the question of the chapter. But He is the object of adoration for eternity.

I turn then to the Syro-Phoenician; here it is "He could not be hid." It was not the flowing out of a pressed heart to sorrow and need, but what God, so to speak, must be where faith is—Himself—He cannot not deny Himself: Still grace rises above all promise and curse, and God is revealed. It is not as in John 4 where the pressure on His heart of the rejection of His beloved people, and all it implied, had brought out what was in that heart; deeper still, the divine over-flowings of goodness not meeting promise, but finding its comfort in going out in free grace to need where no promise, no title was—rejected love making new channels for itself; God giving, and hence naturally where need, not where promise was, and giving eternal life and bringing to God in Spirit and in truth, for God, as He is was revealed, and so the Father seeking worshippers. This was John 4, and hence we find the opened heart of the Samaritans wider than promise, knowing more than appropriating pride, own Him as the Christ, the Savior of the world.

But in the Syro-Phoenician woman it was different; He goes to the borders of His earthly mission, retires to be alone (Mark 7) and would not have it known. Here it is not His own rejection, He labors among the poor of the flock—His mission according to prophecy, and as to Israel the designs of God—He is servant of this mission, nothing more, as to the place He takes; He is not rejected by proud Jerusalem, but sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. But He is in His mission, but in His divinely traced, not free path, He goes out of the sphere of active service to the borders of the curse without.

Meanwhile moral truths had come largely out; ceremonial observances contrasted in Israel with divine commandments, but, still further, the heart of man, called in question in contrast with all such mere ordinances, lost in importance, not merely in contrast with divine commandment, but in their nature as merely external; God looked at what came from the heart, not what went into the belly—a simple truth, but which for man is hard to learn. God goes to the true nature of things in respect of man—what comes out of the heart—what he is but what did come out of it? Murders, evil thoughts, all manner of evil, and the Lord had no more to say. Then He leaves this scene of labor, is alone personally—as Man in position He would not have it known; but it was. Then we come to what was known; He goes, as I have said, to the borders of the curse—the place which served Him as an example of hard-heartedness—the people on whom God's curse rested as compared with Israel. What wondrous elements are all brought together here! But He sought to be alone, i.e., out of His sphere of labor; His mission, as a sent one, a servant, He insists on. But a want was there, a want which sought goodness in power, and God was there; the poor woman drawn by it, though purposely repelled to prove her faith (the disciples would have got rid of her—neither owned promise, nor in fact exercised love as above all promise) draws out what is above all promise, what recognizes fully the right to possess where promise was, but appeals to goodness as, after all, reaching over it, fully recognizing man's complete misery and wretchedness without a title—a vile dog, which there was saying everything that was unclean and vile, but appealed to a riches in goodness which could reach in mercy even to that. Could Christ say "No! God is not that"?

No! God was there manifested and faith had all it sought for—it had found Him; there was no need of claim or goodness, but the confession of worthlessness and absence of all title—a need whose resource was in the goodness of God. The Servant who held Himself to His mission, as service He had to do, was after all the God of all grace, and God revealed in Him, and while owning God's ways in Israel, standing alone in the presence of the curse and the absence of all claim, what faith owned, but therein found God and infinite goodness—Israel's servant was God manifest in the flesh, was goodness, above all evil, above all curse, was God and God manifested. What God is is known in His being revealed in Man—being a Man; for that was infinite love.

But there was more than the revelation of His Person and the exercise of His power; I turn to another case, Luke 8, the Pharisee and the Sinner. Here we have not the rejected state of man and free grace rising above it all, but actual degrading sin in contrast with human righteousness—a legal condition as man stands in it, and what this blessed One was for sinners. Three hearts—man as he stands in his own righteousness—God's in Man—and the poor and degraded sinner touched by grace and won, in a certain sense unconsciously (i.e., with no dogmatical knowledge) by what was manifested in the Lord, what He was in blessed love first, then forgiveness. The legal man thought to judge, by human competency, if the Lord, this Preacher going about the country, were really a prophet, but he judged according to human righteousness—what man should be for God, but only in an outward way; his own heart, God's heart and light, and even this poor woman's heart unknown—light and love, light and conscience, and love in the heart, i.e., God, alike wholly unknown. God was in his house, in light, as He showed, and love, and he never found it out—despised Him—had no civilities or courtesies for Him—and judged from his own heart—while He was not like it He could be no prophet. Here self-righteousness, divine grace and sin come together in fullest juxtaposition and contrast, and divine light which makes all things manifest too, and that in the Person of the lowly Preacher, the Son of God. The Pharisee is wholly blind—says he sees—judges from his own heart, and sees neither the manifestation of God in Christ, nor the work of grace in the woman. Light and love are alike wholly foreign to him The Lord shows fully that He is the light that makes all manifest—knows what is in the Pharisee's heart—knows the woman's sins—and what the Pharisee was thinking of Him and her. But more—His grace, the grace that was in Him had attracted the heart of this poor sinful woman—her need was great, her shame great, her sin deplorable, to no human eye could she turn that would not scorn her but One, and that was God; there her heart found confidence—the more she was distressed and brought low, the more was her comfort in finding that heart; there, in that mercy, her shame could hide itself, for it was grace to her—scorn was not there. But all this, through grace, had won her to hate and own her sin. It was the meeting point of sin and grace, confession of a convicted heart through confidence in goodness in Jesus—sin seen and God seen, and because God was seen in love. Divine sight was there, not blindness, divine love had brought in divine light, so that God and sin in self were both known, and God trusted, and a guileless heart produced because grace was trusted. How deep a work to bring a soul to God, and have sin judged and God known! And then Christ was all—she thought little of Simon and his guests save One, Jesus was there and that absorbed her, she was delivered from her shame even as to all the rest, but not her shame before God. Then a silent heart wept, and washed His feet with her tears. There was boldness in her confidence, yet lowliness and thanksgiving in the boldness, she kissed His feet too, and spent what she had of precious on Him. Then as He had occupied that heart with Himself in grace, He occupies Himself with that heart—He has done with Simon and the rest—to such a heart He must give peace. But first He takes her part in that which shows not only that He knew Simon's heart and all about it, but there was that of which Simon knew nothing—besides blindness as to His Person—forgiveness. God, happily for her, knew all her sins and had forgiven them—wondrous revelation! The grace that revealed love and goodness, had brought forgiveness with it—relief, full and perfect, from God—when sin had confounded the soul before God, was seen as sin because God was seen and in grace, the grace could tell that it was all gone—before God forgiven.

The Person of Christ had drawn—she loved much. The grace of God in Christ had forgiven—of that, of God, Pharisaism knows nothing. The Lord takes up the woman's case in presence of the Pharisee's contempt, and shows what he was—what she was—what God was—what He was in Himself. Then He occupies Himself with the woman alone, "Thy sins be forgiven thee"; their remarks do not arrest Him, "Thy faith hath saved thee—go in peace." He had sounded the Pharisee's heart, sounded and brought to light her's—revealed God's, and conferred forgiveness—confession of sin and forgiveness of sin (and that is the cross for us) are the meeting place of the sinner in truth and God in love. Here again we have God revealed in a Man, but specially in respect of sin.

In the first case He does not come to judge, but He is simply with adversaries, and is simply in result "I am." In the woman of Samaria, He is rejected of the Jews and grace flows out giving life, going up to eternal life above, bringing to the Father—God known as a Spirit—and this by grace going out where promise gave no salvation and no claim to righteousness, but sin and need.

In the Syro-Phoenician, where faith comes, grace rises where grace is gone above all barriers—God is revealed to faith, and must be above them all, must be what He is in grace, cannot deny Himself, and faith pierces through all barriers, urged by need to appeal to what God is in Himself; in grace, and He cannot but be what He is, or be kept in by the barriers when that was reached, though He was there in One serving as sent where promise was; still God was there.

Luke 7 goes deeper and Light is there—Pharisaism and sin brought fully to light; the utter and deplorable blindness of Pharisaism manifested what man in self-righteousness is—no perception of God at all, nor of anything in Him. Then to the sinner a deep true perception of what He was as grace meeting need, and hence brought to God according to the power of His presence, and the grace of His nature, He being known, humbled fully before Him, but brought to Him according to what He was, the bond of the heart with Him formed, with Him known, and forgiveness, peace, and salvation received. It is deeper, because it goes into the full moral question of the state of man with God—light in the heart and soul of man as he was.

The case of the palsied man in Matt. 9 is somewhat different. It is not God revealed in His nature of goodness, what He is in Christ for men; it is relative—Jehovah of Psa. 103 manifested in Israel, His ways in Israel in grace, but relative—what He was, of course, but according to promise and prophecy.

I do not again enter into the full bringing out of the three hearts in Luke 7:36—to end, the Pharisee's, the sinner's looking to Christ, and, blessed be His grace and name, God's own heart already spoken of; light and love were there, neither the least known to Simon—he was blind, thinking he saw. Christ, in whom it is revealed, is the subject of our adoration. I only notice now " Thy faith hath saved thee "how God owns, as that which He sees in the heart of the poor convicted believer, what He has wrought. Tears and repentance were there, true love to the Savior, excellent fruits of faith, but faith by grace, gave her Christ; hence faith saved her—God's work in the heart, by which Christ was seen and appreciated. Her heart was thus shown, what God indeed had wrought in it, but in it; but then it was what it was fixed it wholly on another, it was not objectively itself nor reflectively—it knew Christ only. It produced lovely fruits, most lovely, which the Lord owns, but it saved because it saw Christ only. But what is lovely here, that Christ owns, attaches value to what was in her heart, wrought there surely, but was in it; its action on Him as its object gives us to see divine appreciation of the state of the heart thus having Him for its object. He does not say, "Grace has saved thee," though true, "My work, my blood-shedding has saved thee "—that would have been speaking of something in God, of His own work; but He speaks to her of divine value for something in the heart of the poor woman. This is unspeakable goodness, divine tenderness and favor. If it be a wonderful picture in presence of Pharisaism, we have to leave the Pharisaism to itself, as the Lord did, and see the Lord owning what was of God in the heart that turned to Him. The poor, desolate, and lonely woman could go away and say, " I have His approbation on what is in my soul"—the comfort of His approbation, yet thinking of Him still, not of herself, for thinking of approbation, a father's approbation, is not thinking of what is approved, or of self. Faith had saved her, and she could go in peace—she had it from Christ—and her faith in His Person gave divine weight and grace to His words.

The Old Testament

THE fullest moral teaching of the Old Testament has a peculiar character natural to the character of the then relationship to God, but in that goes most pure and deep, indeed I think has it more fully and deeply than the New—it is that of responsibility, but going to entire integrity and purity of heart. In the New Testament we get far more grace and fruits of love, no doubt the other is supposed or laid as a subjective ground, and out of which divine fruit is to grow, as Christ who was in nature and person holy—was the winning display of love and grace among men; the Holy One came down, He was holy, He lived in grace (of course not ceasing to be holy, I need not say) so holy that He could be in love without stint in the midst of all, and thus go down to the vilest. But the Old Testament looking from Adam upward was to inquire how man could draw near, not the display of God to man in man; I think in the Sermon on the Mount, with the exception of merciful which God showed Himself—and the opposite is hard selfishness and cruelty—it will be found that Old Testament principles in this are pursued to their full inward power, only, I think, with more calmness as became Christ, not so much in requirement and exercise of heart, as in the Psalm as a model and perfect expression of what it is in its blessedness. The government of God with the Christian applies itself fully to this subjective state, and it is (as it was perfectly so in Christ) that subjective condition in which, as in unhindered communion with God, the other flows forth from Him whom I know in love; see, for example, Col. 3:12-14. This is the natural consequence of the distinction of position—the Old Testament was the new life of a sinner with whom the question was "How shall I come to God?"; the Christian is come to God, and is of God then in the world.

Of Cyprian's treatise on unity I have not much to say. It is all declamation, and that is all. Whether Novatian was wrong is a question on which historical facts must be known and judged by Scripture. But Cyprian tells us nothing. There is a good lot of false doctrine as far as it goes, and the visible Church is all episcopal unity—the ark and no safety out of it; that is all, so he says. But there is nothing grave and serious in it; he had his idea, and quotes Scripture and Old Testament as the fathers do.

The Sabbath of the Old Testament

Gen. 2:2, 3.—First mentioned.

Ex. 16:5, 22, 30.—Given as a gift in grace to the people while under grace before the law.

Ex. 20:8.—Given as a commandment among the ten; this however associated with the rest of creation, as the whole system was.

Ex. 31:12, 17.—Given at the close of the order of the setting up of the sanctuary, as a sign of the covenant established by priesthood, in the mercy-seat a perpetual covenant.

Ex. 34:21.—Given as part of the covenant founded on supremacy and intercession after breach of the law-covenant in connection with their portion in the land by that covenant.

Ex. 35:2.—So imposed in connection with the setting up of the Tabernacle thereon.

Lev. 19:3, 30.—The comeliness of their association one with another and with God in the land—all that became them as a nation liable to sin, but consecrated to God there.

Lev. 23:3.—Prescribed as the characteristic beginning and sum of all the feasts in which they were called to appear before the Lord in pledge of rest.

Lev. 24:8.—The show bread was to be ordered from sabbath to sabbath.

Num. 15:32.—Expressed as an obligation during their journey which this book traces the principle of in the wilderness.

Deut. 5:12.—Ordained in connection with Creation rest, but as a memorial given as a remembrance of the grace of deliverance from Egypt, and thus of rest afforded to servants.

Neh. 9:14.—Remembered as made known to Israel as their special privilege.

Isa. 58:13.—Prophecy looks at it as understood as a privilege in grace—my sabbath.

Ezek. 20:12.—Given as a sign between God and them—His sabbaths.

Numbers Chapter 3

25. The door of the tabernacle of the congregation, i.e., the entrance of the court to get at the tabernacle. The altar is elsewhere said to be at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, there only, the people came. The laver was only priestly washing.

42, 43. Those only, I apprehend, who were as such in their fathers' houses unmarried.

46. As regards the change of number in Levites and first-born—Israel was numbered the first day of the second month, the people started on the twentieth, and as far as appears, the numbering of the Levites was the very next thing to the numbering of Israel, and of course that numbering was taken. Certainly many things passed between the numbering of Israel and the twentieth day when the camp moved.

Numbers Chapter 4

3. Host, tzava, as in verses 23, 30, etc.; see Ex. 38:8, and 1 Sam. 2:22, tza-va (to assemble by troops); but in Num. 8:25, it should be "service" as in verse 23 of this chapter.

14, for "censers" read "shovels" or "pans," it is from kha-thah (to remove), as ya-im (shovels) from ya-ga to take away. Which was shovel and which was pan I cannot say, but I apprehend the first were shovels, and the second pans, from the analogy of the word.

Note.—The laver is not found in the vessels carried in the desert, and covered with different cloths, and the reason is, I think, evident, and confirms the sense I judge to be that of these ordinances. The laver though a means of approach, was no manifestation of the divine character which produced a corresponding result in the believer; it was merely a means of the purification of man needed in his drawing nigh to God.

Numbers Chapter 6

I take it this chapter applies properly to Israel. The remnant even, though not willfully, is under the sin of the dead, and must own this to begin again; his first separation is all lost. This has been done by faith in those that owned, as in Acts 2, their guilt in it—they are separate, but the time of separation is not closed, nor the time to drink wine begun. The remnant at the end will enter into this in a peculiar manner, and through deep affliction, because of their long infidelity; still they will have learned their entire dependence on the Lord, and, in the way of repentance, the death of Christ, after long remaining unclean. They will be anew separated to God; when all that is closed, they will have their proper liberty, strength and joy in communion and power. Hence, with this is connected the blessing through the High Priest and His sons at the close of the chapter—Christ, Head of his own family is introduced in that character, as bringing the blessing of Jehovah on Israel, " They shall put."

The hair is sign of neglect of self for the Lord, and dependence on Him—power on the head, hence a sign of subjection in him that wears it, but subjection in devoted abstraction from self. Christ will drink the wine with them; it will not then be dependence by faith, the energy of faith in an absent Lord, restraint on self, though power through grace may accompany this strength made perfect in weakness.

27. This closes a division of the book. The people and camp are numbered and formed, their purity, and that even in consecration to the Lord, secured.

Numbers Chapter 8

Up to the end of this chapter is evidently the establishment of Israel as the people consecrated to God for the journey, and the type of the Levites as having service, but service dependent on the priesthood.

Numbers Chapter 9

This chapter presents the case of consecration, not of will, in an individual case hindering the bond of union with the congregation where God was; withal the presence of God for direction in the journey, to stop, to go on, or to abide.

Numbers Chapter 10

11 and 12. On the twentieth day of the second month they leave Sinai and rest in Paran.

13. From this verse to chapter 12:16 is in the journey; it is all we have of detail in journey, for there, in Kadesh in Paran, they refuse to go up to possess. They are ordered to turn to the wilderness by the Red Sea, and then go up presumptuously and are discomfited. All that is said of the journey is in Deut. 2:1, "we compassed Mount Seir many days." There were thirty-eight years from Kadesh to the brook Zered; Deut. 2:14. They had been a good while in Kadesh before the Amorites discomfited them; the spies were forty days absent after; after the twentieth day of the second month they had gone to Kibroth Hattaavah Hazeroth, from thence they came to Paran; on the return of the spies they were at Kadesh. Chapters 11 and 12 are in connection with this chapter in the journey; in chapter 13 comes the realization of promise in hope, and chapter 14 closes completely this portion of the book of Numbers.

The chapter before us is the order of march, different already from what had been instituted, and with more grace also; as chapters 11 and 12 are the failure in the journey, weariness, complaint, discontent and lusting, and then the prophet and priest rising up against the royalty of Him who is face to face with God, Aaron alone as priest making intercession. Thus the Church is in this guilt in refusing the supremacy of Christ as King taking sovereignly in grace whom He will. This is especially against Christ in grace, for this principle is also presented, that Moses, type of Christ in sovereignty and proximity to God, was also type of sovereign grace—he had married an Ethiopian woman. Here the Lord is, where He was with Moses in grace when Israel fell, without the camp, but then He is with Aaron and Miriam in judgment, who claim grace to exalt themselves. Miriam, who is in the position of testimony, for such is the place as prophetess, is covered with sin.

36. Here we have another division of the book; the freewill offerings, and charge of the Lord, and the journeying—the two parts of the wilderness life. But the ark went sovereignly forth.

Numbers Chapter 11

Note, the spirit of Moses had got away from God, not only he says, "How can I bear this people," but when the Lord says "You have despised the Lord among you," Moses says immediately " The people among whom I am." All return to the world in heart is really slighting the redemption which has delivered us out of it; but what is really important is this, that Moses as well as the people shows this want of confidence—the thought of want of power in God. God shows that there was not merely in Himself, but in the midst of them, the power in abundance which they had not faith on the one hand to trust, on the other to exercise, for, in order to governing and leading up the people, the Lord takes of the spirit which was on Moses and puts it on seventy elders, who should effect with him this task, and to draw the attention of the whole camp, for Joshua knew of it by the display of power in the midst of it. Such is unbelief!

Numbers Chapter 12

How deep the instruction in this chapter! "The Lord heard"—if we knew always how to leave it to Him! "The man Moses was meek" (poor in spirit) "above all the men on the face of the earth"—he left it all there—"The Lord heard." It is all beautiful.

10. The Lord, so to speak, spat in her face—how terrible! Yet there was much grace mixed with it all.

11. Miriam comes first in speaking against Moses (verse 1)—Aaron is the first to confess, and owns his own fault with her in it. It is the same word in Deut. 8:2, " he humbled them and proved them, to know what was in their hearts."

Numbers Chapter 14

This chapter is the revolt of the people despising the pleasant land, the fear of the difficulties setting aside faith, and in consequence producing a disparaging report of the land itself- they were gathered together against the Lord.

Besides, the general instruction, I have this to remark that Caleb just brings in what the rest all leave out—the Lord; and then, note, the effect is the heavenly good and joyful blessing is full before his mind—it is a good land, and the difficulties which absorbed the others disappear. "They are bread for us: their defense is departed from them, the Lord is with us: fear them not." Blessings and heavenly joys cannot sustain faith when the Lord is not looked to. The grapes of Eshcol were forgotten, as though they were not, for the others, and if faith be not in exercise, how should heavenly things be seen?

Note too in Ex. 3, we have full grace—here government. There Abraham, Isaac, Israel; hence "My presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest," and as we have often noted, the ground of consuming, grace and power comes in, the ground of looking for God to be with us, for He does not impute, but is with us against the sin. Here it is the principles of government there announced, not original absolute grace; hence there is government, judging, chastening. The rest, as far as I am aware, I have noticed elsewhere. But what perverseness, that while they forget the Lord entirely as to the path and difficulties of faith, they remember how to charge Him with bringing them into their present condition when they are discontented with it.

32. Shall pasture—be nomads.

34. Not "my breach of promise," but my turning against them, my hostility—t’nuati (my hostility, my alteration) only found here and in Job 33: to, "He findeth occasions against me." They would learn what it was to have God thus dealing in anger with them. It is to be in a position which brings anger and judgment from God; "My turning away and being hostile to them" is " You shall experience what it is to have Me against you."

44, presumed, i.e., proudly of their own will, see Deut. 1:41.

Numbers Chapter 15

Here we have grace which after all secures the land and joy and communion therein, the stranger being also admitted to this; error supposed when in enjoyment of the promises and atonement; presumptuous sin condemned; the memorial of the fringe of blue, the marks of heavenly-mindedness in communion, which recalls the commandment and gives force in the conscience to the first deliverance. Blue was next the gold always in the tabernacle.

Note how after the various forms of rebelliousness or unbelief, complaining, lusting, self-righteous exaltation of prophetess and priest against the king (who held immediate intercourse with the Lord) and despising the promise, the absolute certainty of the promise in grace, comes in before the apostasy of Kore, in which the perishing comes. After this, it is brought out that priestly grace alone—Aaron's rod before and laid up by the tabernacle of witness from which the righteous judgment had come forth on Kore—could take away the murmuring and lead them through the wilderness. The special place and privilege too of priesthood then comes out most instructively, and here alone, chapter 18:10, is eating in the most holy place spoken of, which must be communicatively from office; I cannot think it is among the most holy things.

The order of these chapters is very interesting.

15. Hak-ka-hal (as for the congregation). Does this make the sojourner a part of the congregation?

23. From the day that the Lord commanded (began to command) and onward to your generations.

Numbers Chapter 16

Here we have Levites, ministers of service, who will be priests between God and the people, and the famous men who rebel against the authority of Moses. The direct judgment consumes these, and the fire of the sanctuary they would approach consumes them. Korah acted on all the congregation, but Moses in judgment, and Aaron in intercession afterward, when their hearts rise against the judgment or Moses as cause of it, preserve the people. The supremacy of Christ as Priest is established as being near to God, but thereon the priests, and He especially in the day of atonement, but the priests every day being thus brought nigh, have to bear the iniquity of the sanctuary. This is an important principle, it is not sin against the commandment of the law, but the iniquity of the sanctuary; but the communion of the sanctuary, chapter 18:10, is theirs, and everything that the Lord takes as His, but this as priests.

Remark how for the history of Korah is a point by itself, the coming into the land being fully assured in grace, at the end of the failures in faith of Israel, in the previous chapter. Korah, etc., is positive rebellion against the authority of God in the royalty and priesthood.

Note the contrast between Aaron's formal self-exaltation along with Miriam against grace, sovereign grace, and God's exaltation of the priestly position as alone holding the burden and enjoying the communion and God's food of the sanctuary—all was polluted to all unless cleansed by this consecration; chap. 18: 32. Thus the world, alas! through the Church firstfruits.

Note prophecy and priesthood never reach the place of sovereign grace even in the Church. The Church's own place is in Moses marrying the Ethiopian, and face to face with God, because it enters into the mind of God where Christ is.

Numbers Chapter 18

Note the difference of priestly and family communion, all depending on Aaron in verses 9, 10 and 11-13.

Note too, that the first three verses of Lev. 2 are the ordinary meat-offering, from verse 4 the baked meat-offering—the latter dry, or mingled with oil, was for all the males of the family—the baked ones entirely the priest's that offered it; one was isolated offering in Christ alone, the other was general Church communion.

Note, in passing, the wave-breast was for Aaron and his sons; the heave-shoulder for the offering priest. This, however, would seem to be only in the case of the peace-offerings; the trespass-offerings and sin-offerings were for the males only, the heave- and wave-offerings for all the family, see also Leviticus 10:14. However, in heave-offerings there seem to be more decided consecration, not for service as presented merely but entirely given up; the Levites were a wave-offering. The heave-offering was an offering of gift, save the heave-shoulder; the heave-offering of dough, Num. 15:19-21. Lev. 7:14, I apprehend, must be one of the unleavened cakes.

The wave-offering seems rather presented to the Lord, and then to subsist for whatever service or use; the heave-offering to have been more offered to the Lord. It is a common word for everything offered to God and given up, so to speak, to Him.

Numbers Chapter 19

We have here the provision for defilement by sin, the principle of death in the desert, by death accomplished-long since applied by the power of the Holy Ghost.

This chapter is the restoration of worship. And so it is as to the Spirit, it is not forgiveness as acceptance, but a needed process in which the soul, and defilement on it, is brought sensibly connected with Christ's death by the power of the Spirit to be able first to worship, and then to serve.

It is well to take first the offering in itself in connection with Jehovah and then its application.

In the case of the red heifer the Lord speaks to Moses and Aaron; several are so. Moses receives what is necessary for God as such-the law between Him and man. When Aaron comes in, i.e., is addressed by God as in already, of course it refers to God, but it is priestly service, where we have to say to God. The red heifer was both. Intercourse with God refers to His holy nature (1 John 1)-compare Josh. 5:15, and the bush-as much as reconciliation, but still this is supposed in it. Here the blood was where the people met God, the efficacy of the great day of atonement is supposed, the individual is restored. Where he meets God, the perfect and abiding efficacy of the blood always is. It is purely a sinoffering all burnt without the camp. There was no imputation, the ashes proved that all that was settled long ago, but the man could not come to the tabernacle, though the blood was there. His communion and worship were interrupted; the sense of the sin, according to the death of Christ, was brought upon Him by the Spirit and Word. Hence the address was to Moses and Aaron; it was necessary according to what God was, but it was also restoration to one who was defiled, the atonement being a settled thing. It was not a simply priestly service. Then it would have been " the priest shall take," etc. Moses and Aaron give the heifer to Eleazar, he represented Aaron, but Aaron received the command, to give it its true and full character. The sprinkling with the water was by any clean person, not a priestly act, but none but a priest could take the blood. It refers to the wilderness, our path here, hence does not go within the veil, though, as burnt outside the camp, having all the efficacy of that which did, based itself on it, only applied to the journeying state, to man with God, not abstractedly to God in His nature. It is the High Priest, but as such, in atonement, he must for the full character of it go within the veil, but that is not the point here. It is a high priestly service, but refers to the administrative restoration in our walk here. Hence we have Eleazar to represent Aaron, but Aaron receives the command; it is not, or only as restoring relation with it as far as the people could go, sanctuary work. That was Aaron's part, separate from sinners, made higher than the heavens. It is high-priestly, but not the High Priest's proper place. That meets the eye of God, and represents the people and is perfect once for all. The command to Moses and Aaron meets this, but the work itself, while based on a perfect sin-offering is journeying restoration, based on what is perfect, but applied administratively to restore the man's cleanness, in order to come.

We have to consider here the analogy of our walk down here under the government of God, and Israel's place. Peter's epistle connects these two. Query, does Israel, in the millennium even, go further? I suppose not. His place then does rest on Christ having carried the blood within, but his relationship is at the door; they had in the fullest way touched death in crucifying Christ, even if it were atoned for.

The red heifer gives us a wonderful picture of God's estimate of sin in respect not of judgment but of holiness and any defilement. Its starting point and basis is the blood sprinkled seven times where the people met God, but showed that that had been wholly settled. Further the great day of atonement is supposed; there the blood was within the veil, so that God had been perfectly glorified as to sin, and the sins also put away. All that was a settled point, and for the approach of the people the basis laid in the seven times sprinkled blood; the question of personal state and defilement hindering communion remained, and to this the ashes of the red heifer applied. What I here note is, how in this respect, defilement and communion, the least defilement is intolerable to God. Every one that touched was unclean, the priest, the man that gathered the ashes, that sprinkled the water, all that was exposed in the house, the man that touched. Then I have the measure of uncleanness, the death of Christ, the Spirit and the Word, for the water is the Word in the power of the Spirit; the ashes were there, proof that sin as such before God, imputable guilt, was all consumed in the death of Christ, but it was measured by that in the heart. It was God's measurement, the true one of it, the Word discerns the thoughts and intents of the heart, as the eye of God—whatever is not of the life of Christ in us grieves the Holy Spirit.

We know, by the ashes, that the sin was all consumed and put away, and that enables us to estimate it as a question of holiness and our state. Thus the death of Christ, sin against His holy grace, the Spirit and the Word, are the measure of sin to the heart, but as we learn first its evil, we learn grace is above the evil and communion is restored—we judge ourselves, not having to be judged for it, and then return into deeper sense of the sunshine of God's favor.

But there is more; the glory of the world, all nature was cast into the burning of the heifer, and, when the water is applied to our souls, all this is gone and we are simply with the sole state of the soul in question with God. There is a natural life in which we live from day to day, even where rightly; here the soul is alone, such as it is, with God, according to what He is—revealed in the Cross, by the Spirit and the Word—and nothing else there. This makes it an absolute searching out, at least as to all that is then in question, as to its then state. We are manifested to God, and there is nothing to veil it, or interrupt the direct revelation of God to the soul, alone itself with God, naked and open to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do. It is wonderful how there we are in the inner world, and not in the vain show of the fashion of this world which passes away.

Note, the Levites were not washed but only sprinkled. The only other case of the use of the word is the red heifer and Ezekiel from niddah (separation) chapter 36. Perhaps it is because it is only service as offered in life, and not dying and renewal or new nature and life in order to be oneself with God, and that before Himself in heavenly places. The priests were washed.

Numbers Chapter 20

Moses acted not on the grace, but with "his rod" and "we," and was shut out, which note well, blessed as he was. May our souls be subject to His Word, His blessed Word!

14. This is not the same as Deut. 2:3. This was a proposal to cross Edom at once, but Edom would not consent, and they wander there a long time; at last God says, "Ye have compassed this mountain long enough."

Numbers Chapter 21

1. The "when" is wrong here; he heard sometime or other, and when they came into his neighborhood, he attacked them; see chapter 33:40.

13-15. Verses 14, 15 alone present any question. I see no reason why they could not have been written at the time, but my impression is that these two were added when the book was edited. This it surely was, traditionally by Ezra. It may have been by Samuel, or even Jeremiah when found in the days of Josiah, but by divine prophetic care owned by Christ Himself.

These references to Jasher and the book of the wars of the Lord, or legendary songs occur several times. They are appeals to common history as recognizing an unexampled wonder, or some alleged right for which their own testimony or faith would not avail—thus Jephthah. It seems to me quite uncertain whether "Is not this written in the book of Jasher" (Joshua 10:13) is by the author of the book of Joshua. It may be prophetically inserted as a witness to the truth of the account, as a phenomenon patent to all. It may have been a series of received history, a compilation so called, containing a notable number of passages in their history, compiled and added to at various times, just as I avow I do not know the date of the phrase in the book of Joshua. It is added as confirmation, and no change of what was originally written. It is even a question with me if the previous part of the verse be from Joshua. 2 Sam. 1:18, clearly comes in parenthetically, whatever its source.

Numbers Chapter 23

In Balaam's prophecies, the first three are the actual state, the fourth is the future.

The ark taken, and the priestly relationship broken, the royalty substituted fails also. Nehemiah does not attempt the crowning of Zerubbabel, there is no re-establishment of the fallen system, the Gentile slavery is acknowledged. What rested on man's responsibility was gone irreparably; but this did not touch what God had substituted in His own sovereignty to maintain communication with His people according to His own fidelity when they were unfaithful. In Samuel ordinance is there, and Zechariah, Haggai, and Malachi are there as prophets, and though that closed the canon up to John the baptist, yet we have, even at the end, Anna a prophetess who speaks to all who waited for redemption in Israel. Nor did the unfaithfulness of Israel touch the looking of faith to the resources which were in God, nor to the supply of that which was needful for the present exigencies of His people. This gives a clear idea of the position.

The great principle of the Balaamic history is that God was the unsolicited Guardian and Blesser of His people. The machinations of enemies go on, and that unknown to Israel, who consequently seeks nothing from God, but He is active for His people from His own grace to them, and nothing escapes Him. "Who are these men that come to thee?" says God to Balaam. God began as He did with Satan in Job's case, "Hast thou considered my servant Job?" On the other hand, Balak is in entire and all-perverting darkness. First Israel was forbidden to touch Moab, next he says, "He whom thou blessest is blessed, and he whom thou cursest is cursed," and he was seeking to bring the curse on Israel when God had said, " Blessed is he that blesseth thee, and cursed is he that curseth thee," so that he was just bringing it on himself.

This interest that God takes in His people, for Israel knew nothing that was going on, is of the profoundest interest; it was between God and the adversary, see Zech. 3, not between God and Israel-then He judges evil.

15. See chapter 24:1.

23. Note here it is said concerning Jacob and Israel, " What hath God wrought? "

25. Hatred and unbelief think of circumstances, and Balak, having been frightened by the sight of Israel, seeks in the folly of unbelief to withdraw Balaam from the influence of what he dreaded himself, for unbelief never thinks of the thoughts of the Lord, from whom surely the people was not hidden. His perseverance in seeking the curse enlarged the blessing; it is always thus. He does not know God, and God could not merely repeat the blessing already given, thus it is continually developed.

Note, after his justification Israel rises up as a lion, and does not lie down until after having seized the prey. When seen in his beauty, having pillaged the nations, he lies down and who shall stir him up? And note verse 16 (chap. 24) when prophecy is brought out he has the knowledge of the Most High, which is not of in verse 4.

It is interesting to see the terms that Balaam uses; “Jehovah" and "Elohim," and only in the two last prophecies when he did not seek enchantments. In the two first he uses only " Jehovah " and " Elohim "; and mark how in verse 3 " Jehovah will come to meet me," and " Elohim met Balaam," and " Jehovah put a word in Balaam's mouth." "How shall I curse whom God hath not cursed, and how shall I defy whom Jehovah hath not defied?" Verse 16, "And Jehovah met Balaam.”... "Balak said, what hath Jehovah spoken."... "Elohim is not a man."... "Jehovah his Elohim is with him."... "Elohim brought him out of Egypt."... "What hath Elohim wrought."... "All that Jehovah speaketh that must I do." All this is clearly Jehovistic, though Elohim is used, because Jehovah is Elohim. So in the next chapter, "And when Balaam saw that it pleased Jehovah to bless Israel," we are here clearly on Jehovistic ground—"then the Spirit of Elohim came upon him, and he heard the words of Elohim, and saw the vision of Shaddai... "they are like the lign aloes which Jehovah has planted"—he could not go beyond the commandment of Jehovah. Again in verse 16 we have "heard the words of God, knew the knowledge of the Most High, saw the vision of Shaddai." In this last prophecy which is a continuation without his going to meet again or Jehovah's meeting him, but which is introduced by the commandment of Jehovah, it is the distinct assertion that Jehovah, the Elohim of Israel, took the place of-was Shaddai the Almighty, yea Elion, who would order the whole world as He pleased, and of this Balaam warns Balak; compare Psa. 91, " He that dwelleth in the secret of Elion (Most High) shall abide under the shadow of Shaddai." "I," says Messiah, "will say of Jehovah, He is my refuge, my fortress, my Elohim, in him will I trust," i.e., He takes Jehovah, the God of the Jews, for protection, for the shadow of His wings. Hence He is protected by Almighty power—Shaddai. Hence Israel says, " because thou hast made Jehovah even the Most High " (for He is so, above all Elohim) " my refuge, thy habitation," He would be protected, and then in verse 14 Jehovah owns His knowing His name. Now Balaam shows this prophetically—Jehovah, whose name is all through in question, is Shaddai, is the Most High; Elohim, God Himself wrought for Israel, and there was no enchantment against Him, Jehovah met Balaam and declared Himself Shaddai and Elion in favor of Israel, taking the last name when He was setting the world aright in judgment, as He does in the mouth of Melchizedek, adding, " Possessor of heaven and earth."

All this makes clear what I have noticed a hundred times for edification before any controversy, "Jehovah" is the name of relationship taken with Israel, as "Shaddai" with the Patriarchs. No man could have given a name used just as frequently as "Elohim," as unknown in point of fact. But God revealed Himself specifically to the Fathers as "El Shaddai," and they were to walk in the faith of that name, as Jehovah to Moses and Israel, and they were to walk in the faith of that; to us as Father, and so we are to walk. " I am El Shaddai, walk before me and be thou perfect," "Thou shalt be perfect with Jehovah thy God," "Be ye therefore perfect as your Father who is in heaven is perfect." " So ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty"—Jehovah Shaddai.

Numbers Chapter 24

3. Terrible thing to have the eyes open when we have no part in what we see. But it is a wonderful scene to see this man forced of God to give unwillingly God's testimony in favor of His people, rebellious and perverse as they were. God insisting on His own mind, a true prophet is in the midst of and reproves the people, a false one is forced by, taken by God above them all, and has God's sovereign mind of grace and purpose above them all; he is not fit to reprove them—that is a holy work. But the scene is wonderful—God's mind all blessing. Compare Deut. 9 for testimony in the camp; and note here it was after all their history.

16. The second point is added, and points to the latter days and millennium, when the Most High is the name God takes. But further, the first two prophecies are the present relationship and mind of God towards Israel; Jehovah is there in the power of God, a Deliverer who has taken the people to Himself. That was God's present testimony. But in the third we get by the Spirit, Abraham's God (vv. 4 and 9) and so far that closes it—Jehovah their God is God; but the blessing of the Almighty is there. Then in the fourth the millennium and Christ. In one sense the third closes as to Israel and Elohim Jehovah Shaddai's blessing; in the fourth Elohim the Most High takes up the world, the latter days, and "thy people," and Asshur and the ships of Chittim.

17. I should think, certainly from Jer. 48:45, that Gesenius is right in his interpretation of kol-b'ney sheth (all the children of Sheth) children of noise, i.e., tumultuous war.

Numbers Chapter 26

59. For the omission of subject to "bare," see 1 Kings: 6 and 1 Chron. 7:14, whatever the difficulty connected with it; compare Ex. 6:16-20. This verse (59) is the greatest difficulty of all as to the counting 430 years of captivity.' I do not see that the 430 years of Gal. 3 is so much so, because it must, if strictly taken, refer to Israel's offering, for the covenant was kekuromenen (confirmed), i.e., some forty years after the arrival in Canaan; and the term here " begat to him in Egypt" implies, it would seem, it was one (i.e., Levi himself) who had come down, so that it might have been otherwise. Jacob was one hundred and thirty on coming into Egypt; Gen. 47:9. Joseph was thirty when he stood before Pharaoh. Jacob came down nine years (seven of plenty, two of famine) afterward. Joseph was about seven when he arrived in Canaan, seventeen when he was sold. Thus Jacob was to + 13 + 9 years from his arrival from Padan to his going down to Egypt, i.e., thirty years, i.e., ninety-eight when he left Padan, and about seventy-eight when he went there; he had remained some thirty-eight after Esau's marriage. It. is remarkable these late marriages of the first Patriarchs—Isaac was forty and had no child till he was sixty, Abraham none of promise till he was an hundred. Now Judah was about fifteen when he married and had children then. The moment of transition was the end of Jacob's life; he goes down, sixty-six souls of his family. They were to be as heavenly strangers till then, now to multiply for the earth; they could hardly have been had they so multiplied, they must have settled somewhere as Esau. Yet while at ease and princes, they were yet but a few of them and they strangers in the land, and when oppressed and ill-treated they multiplied and grew. In these were God's ways.

Numbers Chapter 28

2. Query as to this, " for my sacrifices made by fire," and compare Lev. 3

11. It is no doubt here l'ishshay (for my offerings by fire); but " and " is put in. " Bread " here is " food," there lekhem (food, bread); it may not exclude the min'khah (mealoffering), but the main object is the slain victim. See also Lev. 21:6.

Numbers Chapter 32

19. Both "yonder side" and "this side," are meever (beyond, from beyond).

Numbers Chapter 33

As regards this chapter and Deut. 10, the supposed difficulty is the proof, whatever we judge of the position of Deuteronomy Io, that the writer wrote from a knowledge of facts which hindered his supposing any liability to have his account attacked by difficulties which arose from ignorance- the best proof of real competency and integrity.

First I remark that, after two years, arriving at the mount of the Amorites, they failed in going up and compassed mount Seir many days, thirty-seven years; they went backwards and forwards in this neighborhood. Now we have three journeys backward and forward from Moseroth or Mosera to the Red Sea—Ezion-gaber point, when at length they turned round to go northward by the south of Seir—and from the Red Sea to Mosera.

31. etc., they go from Mosereth by Bene-jaakan, Horhagidgad to Ezion-gaber. Thence they go to mount Hor, and Aaron dies. It was in that country that Arad attacked them; his destruction is related between Aaron's death in mount Hor and their journey back again to the Red Sea. So that we have the journey from Moseroth to Ezion-gaber by Benejaakan and Gudgodah or Hor-hagidgad, from Ezion-gaber back to Hor, and, in chapter 21, back from Hor to Ezion-gaber before they turned round to go northward the other side of Edom to Moab.

Mount Hor is a district in the western edge of Edom, for the Israelites " pitched in mount Hor in the edge of Edom " before they turned Edom to go northward; but we have, in compassing Edom, a journey from Mosera to Ezion-gaber, from Ezion-gaber to Hor (the same side of mount Hor—more or less on the same identical route) and from Hor to Eziongaber. Now the first time they pass from Mosera by Benejaakan and Hor-hagidgad, i.e., a part of Hor designated by Gidgad. They returned on their steps to Hor by Kadesh. In Deuteronomy we find them going in the inverse direction, as might be expected on their return going from Bene-jaakan to Moseroth, which thus proves the general course of their journeys must have been towards Hor, for on the return journey we know they were going there at the time Aaron died, so that Moseroth is an encampment in the district and neighborhood of Hor; from the encampment he went up into the mountain itself to die.

Then in Deuteronomy 10:7, they return, as we have seen they certainly did, by Gudgodah and Jotbatha, which, according to verses 32, 33 of our chapter, is on the road from Mosera to Ezion-gaber, thus:—(see Map overleaf).

The left line through the dots, verses 30-35; the middle line as in verses 36, 37, and Deuteronomy 10. Aaron dies in Mosera in mount Hor where Israel pitched, and would have passed on through Edom but could not; then comes the right hand line. They come back to the Red Sea (chap. 21), pass up the other side of Edom, and cross the Jordan beyond the Dead Sea; now chapter 21 Connects itself with chapter 33, compare chapter 21: to and chapter 33: 43.

So that it is a great confirmation of the accuracy of the account, and only shows that Mosera is in the district of Hor, and that it was from this station Aaron went up to die. We have the three journeys positively stated, yet no one would have thought in reading, the two verses alone gave the two journeys, and that they returned on their steps, i.e., from Bene-jaakan to Moseroth, and then back by Gudgodah to Jotbatha. Yet the full accounts of Numbers prove they did, and the places in Deuteronomy are found exactly in the order of going and returning. We have positively in Numbers Mosera to Ezion-gaber, Ezion-gaber to Hor (chap. 33), Hor to the Red Sea, i.e. Ezion-gaber, and this by the stations which in Deuteronomy are mentioned, one in the order going to Mosera, and the two others on leaving Mosera in the order coming from towards Ezion-gaber, which we know to have been from Hor where Aaron died.

4, 5. Two solutions have occurred to me, each side being 2,000 cubits; but that allows nothing for the size of the city thus: -

The other, which I suppose must be the meaning, is verse 4, the pomaerium, and verse 5 the fields round. In verse 5, the pomaerium is reckoned to the city itself, hence not said from the wall; it was merely mikhutz la-ir (outside the city). The only question would be, if the whole would be only 2,000 cubits, but then there is no mention of the second 1,000 by itself.

The Mystery

WE may, I suppose, put aside some passages where this word occurs, as furnishing the explanation in themselves, and giving its application to something special.

1 Cor. 15:51

"Behold I show you a mystery, we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed." This may have place at the summing up and accomplishment of the mystery of Christ, but it is a special mystery revealed; so 1 Cor. 4:1, "Let a man so account of us as ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God." So Babylon is called "Mystery"; and the "mystery of iniquity," though it has its connection with the mystery in way of contrast, evidently is another thing apart.

1 Cor. 2:6, 7

There is nothing very precise here-it is the character rather of his testimony, and the wisdom which he spake; it was not the public, common-place wisdom wrought out of man's wit, but the wisdom of God in mystery-things which never would have been known but for God's communicating them, and which were of His counsels in Christ, hidden, while His government even was of this age, for a time but revealed by the Holy Ghost to those who are based upon the risen Man, whom God has made the Center of His counsels and of the mystery. It is this wisdom of this place, these counsels of God before the worlds for our glory, known therefore only by revelation and by the Spirit, and this is what he goes on to speak of to the end of the chapter. Here then "mystery" is not the subject of the revelation, but the character of the wisdom which the Apostle by the Spirit spake.

Rom. 11:25

We may also put this aside-it is the special mystery, ancillary to the prosecution of the great mystery, of setting aside Israel as blinded for a time, " in part," until the fullness of the Gentiles was come in. This was a peculiar plan of God, which was not exactly the Church nor the kingdom, but a temporary displacement of the earthly part, not its establishment under the new covenant, nor Messiah, but the setting aside of Israel in part, under blindness, until the fullness of the Gentiles should be come in. Then this preparatory thing being accomplished, the blessing of Israel, as such, would take its course according to the enlarged scope of the counsels of God, which embraced the heavens also. It was a subordinate special mystery, for naturally Israel would have been continued placed under the new covenant, and the Gentiles blessed with God's people; but all this is for the moment set aside, that the Gentiles, as a special thing, according to the counsels of God, to whom all His counsels are known from the foundations of the world, may come in. This then also is a special mystery, though serving in its place to the development of the great mystery of God's will in result.

Rom. 16:25

We have here the mystery without being told in what it consists, " The preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of (the) mystery, as to which silence was kept in all ages " (in the times of the ages) " but now manifested, and by prophetical Scriptures according to the commandment of the eternal God of ages, made known for the obedience of faith to all the Gentiles; the only wise God through Jesus Christ to whom be glory for the ages. Amen."

Here however we have much, as suits the Epistle to the Romans in which is revealed that " there is no difference, for that all have sinned," that Christ is set forth as the mercy-seat through faith in His blood, the righteousness of God being the only one for all, and upon all that believed, Jew and Greek, i.e., Christ risen—Object of faith and Power of life in resurrection, which was in effect the basis of the mystery. Its result was not stated here, i.e., revealed rather than preached; we have here what is preached as the basis of hope to bring in souls into that which was revealed. Further, we have seen in this epistle a special mystery subordinate and ancillary to this, that is that blindness in part is happened to Israel till the fullness of the Gentiles be come in; indeed this was, in a sense, necessary to it—impossible to preach no difference through a risen Christ while the Jews maintained their privileges. The Gentiles brought to light by a risen Savior—sufficient Object between them and God, without the intervention of the Jews—such is the face of the mystery presented here, and proclaimed to the Gentiles for the obedience of faith. No difference is proclaimed; the unity of the Body is not yet brought out, but we have creation groaning till the manifestation of the sons of God, the joint-heirs of Christ who suffer with Him and will be glorified together. See chapter 1:16, 17, also verses 2, 3, 4, 5; compare also Acts 15:7-19.

Ephesians and Colossians

These still remain and here we have the substance and sum of the mystery.

Eph. 1:7-12

God has made the riches of His grace abound towards us in all wisdom and understanding, " having made known to us the mystery of his will according to his own good pleasure, which he purposed in himself, for the administration of the fullness of times, to head up all things in Christ, those in the heavens and those upon the earth, in him in whom we also have received [our] inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his own will, that we should be to the praise of his glory, who have pre-trusted in Christ."

Here we have evidently the mystery in its general scope according to the counsels of God, that is, to gather together and head up in one all things in Christ, in heaven and in earth, for the administration of the fullness of times; they also among the Jews who had believed anticipatively in Him, and the Gentiles also, being to the praise of the glory of His grace as taking inheritance with Him, and in the meanwhile sealed with the Holy Ghost until the redemption of the purchased possession.

Eph. 3:3, 4, 9

Here we learn that the mystery was made known to him by revelation. It is the mystery of Christ (a Messiah accomplishing the earthly promises of God is no mystery) that was committed to Paul, to make known what was the dispensation of the mystery, hidden during the ages in God, Creator of all things, that thus by the Church might be made known to principalities and powers the manifold wisdom of God, for it was a new thing. Here we have then added that the preaching of the fullness of Christ, and making known the dispensation of this mystery, brought the Church into the position of testimony of the variousness of God's wisdom to the heavenlies.

In Eph. 5:32, " This mystery is great, but I speak as to Christ and the Church." Here we have a special part only, that is the union of the Church with Christ, as of His body, His bones and His flesh, which set the Church in its own special and wonderful place when all was headed up in Christ in heaven and earth. It is a special mystery to itself.

Eph. 6:19

This merely takes up in general the idea of that which was thus specially revealed—the mystery of the Gospel. It was not the good news of evident import, as of old—the accomplishment of promises which belonged to the aion or aionoi of this world, but the mystery which none of its princes knew, or they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Col. 1:26, 27

In Colossians, after naming Christ as the Image of the invisible God-the headship of creation—the headship of the Church—the reconciliation of all things—the present reconciliation of the Church—comes the ministry of the Gospel to every creature under heaven, and then the ministry of the Church to fulfill the word of God gives i.e., all its fullness, to wit, the mystery hidden from ages and generations, but now manifested to His saints, to whom God has willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you the hope of glory. Here we have another face of this revelation, unknown through the ages-suited to the subject of the Colossians, the bringing in Christ Himself as the fullness, so that they had no need of Judaizing; thus it is "among the Gentiles," Christ is in them the hope of glory. It was the practical realization of the unity of the Church with Christ, not in the height of its privilege, but in its preservative power, still being really the mystery, i.e., no Messiah accomplishing in person the age, but a Christ among the Gentiles, source and power of hope. This then gives the present power of the mystery here below.

Col. 2:2

We have here the mystery of God in which are hid all the treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge—this in order that they should not be going to seek fantastic notions elsewhere, evidently implying both the whole extent of God's counsels, long time hidden, and the position and interest of the Church in them by its unity with Christ, center of all these counsels.

Col. 4:3

The Apostle here speaks of the mystery of Christ, for which he was in bonds. In general this is the same Gospel of a Christ for the Gentiles according to that which was now revealed, for the first time, of God and formed in part of conscious knowledge, and which was specially entrusted to Paul, that he might make it manifest as he ought to speak. These passages give the just idea of the mystery, that is Rom. 16, Ephesians and Colossians, alluded to in 1 Corinthians 2:7.

There is yet another passage which bears on the same subject, though it treats it in another way, it is:

1 Tim. 3:14-16

The Apostle speaks of Timothy's conversation in the house of God, the pillar and ground of the truth. The Church is thus in the world, the sustainer of truth, and what is this?

The mystery of piety or godliness. And this is what Christ was among the Gentiles-Object of Angels' gaze-believed on in the world, and received up into heaven; in virtue of all which the Church existed. She sustained, as united to Christ and thus the center and body of the mystery in the world, the knowledge of all that He was to whom she was united. God manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of Angels- thus incarnate and owned-preached among the Gentiles (not again a Messiah present among the Jews), believed on (not seen) in the world, received up into glory-thus the necessary Center of all things-so by counsel also in the accomplishment of this ordained glory which identified itself with that inherent, which found itself, in Him by whom and for whom all was created. The Judaizing Gnostics are again set in contrast by the Apostle. This, I think, quite shows and confirms the force of the expression.

Rev. 10:7

This passage remains; here there is more apparent difficulty, and that partly from the word musterion. The word etelesthe seems always to mean something brought up to its completeness, hence often necessarily the end of a thing, because, if I am accomplishing a task, finishing it is arriving at the completeness of the task, but if it is something in progress, or which develops itself, then it is its full existence which finishes, if you will, the development. And this word musterion carries its own dissolution, because the moment the subject of it is brought to pass, it ceases to be a musterion-when labors are complete, one ceases to labor; when the work is complete it exists in its perfection-thus teleo may mean "beginning to exist" or "ceasing," because in either case it is the completing of something. But here taking the words chronos ouketi estai (time shall be no longer) I think we must take etelesthe musterion, not as if the subject matter of the mystery had ceased to exist, but that the mystery is accomplished and ceased to be an unaccomplished mystery. It was no longer a mystery spoken of, and only circumstances working out to that which was contained in the mystery as a revelation; this would now take place and be accomplished. This gives its usual sense to mystery, but supposes that God, having only revealed certain things in hope—Christ in us, the hope of glory—His power in the proper exercise of government, so that evil has not been allowed to rise, has not been exercised.

There is also in 1 Tim. 3:9, the general expression "holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience."

It is a striking expression of the state of things in which we are that Christ, not simply works miracles and sets aside the power of Satan wherever he is, but gives power to His disciples to do it—yet John Baptist is put to death and it is not hindered. And He would not do any mighty work in "His own country"; Mark 6.

Note the absoluteness of Christ's gathering out of the world, and being a separative and positive Center, is shown in this, that He received even those who were with John Baptist. The whole passage has a character of unworldliness which it is well to note in the elements already given. He gathers round Himself—God Himself—as a new gathering to Himself out of a world which is thus judged and left as evil, a way wholly new and divine through it, following Christ (none in and of it), and heaven opened here on Christ, but to us now through the rent veil. All is taking (not the body yet) out of earth and associating it with God on a new footing with Christ and with heaven through the rent veil—oh! what a blessing.

Deuteronomy

I cannot but see the book of Deuteronomy as standing on quite a different ground in the purpose of God than the four books. It is more than questionable if a single ordinance of these books, after their first establishment, was perfectly fulfilled in the wilderness-their children were not circumcised.

It is an elaborate system formed after the pattern shown in the Mount, and as to events " they happened unto them for types, and are written for our admonition." It is an immense typical system, the facts historically true, but selected and given with ulterior and spiritual intention, often unknown to the author. Where, as in Deuteronomy, there are instructions for the practical living state of things in the land, and where this order was in no way carried out, the general provision is for the state of Judges. They are referred to, and the case is put of their having a king, but it is a practical state of things prophetically seen from the time of going over Jordan till the final restoration of Israel—the secret things The notion of its subsequent composition is absurd-if the Pentateuch existed, no one would have connected another contradictory system both being composed together subsequently is equally absurd. But the abstract typical system, and the directions for an actual disordered state of things, pursuing the great elements and introducing moral principles of a more general character, are perfectly intelligible. Had Moses, instead of being inspired, made both as an arranged composition, it would have been equally difficult. It is true inspiration, which is the key of it all. It is, in the main, a general direction for order in the country, and provision for an unformally ordered state. The types, when there are any, as in chapter 16, are of a more general spiritual bearing. The four books are a systematically ordered system, in many respects indeed, only fitted for the wilderness. Tabernacles was not, and that was never regularly kept.

The Lord quotes from Deuteronomy in His temptations. The moral motives for obedience are chiefly there.

In this book, holiness, grace and communion are much more remarkable; and note also the people are entirely anew placed in covenant with the Lord, see chapters 26:17, 18, and 27:9, 10. And remark here the new form of the dictation of this covenant; it anticipatively supposes them to be in possession of the land, and in worship and in joy before the Lord, and Moses and the priests the Levites. He who mediates, as revealer, the blessing, and they who minister its maintenance by a sacrifice and communication of worship, place them as " this day become the Lord's people," and therefore insist on keeping the commandments commanded. This is altogether a new covenant from Sinai, as it is said "the covenants," see also chapter 29: 1. It is a new base; it is not now "if ye shall be," but "avouched to be"—worshipping in joy, supposed in the Land, "This day ye are become," "Thou shalt therefore keep." Yet as the endurance, quod nota, of the blessing rests on the perseverance of the people in fidelity, it fails in result, though there be room for patience, as well as if it were based on the "If ye will obey, ye shall be."

Deuteronomy Chapter 1

1. b'e-ver (on this side); in Num. 32:19, it is me-e-ver (beyond, on yonder side, on this side).

2, 3. Nothing can be more striking in the government of God, than that a journey of eleven days was turned into a wandering of forty years.

5. b'e-ver (on this side); see chapter 3: 6, and Num. 32:19.

Deuteronomy Chapter 2

10-12. These three verses are a parenthesis and should be so marked.

10-12 and 20-23, are both of them evidently parenthetical. "The children of Lot for a possession"... "now rise up"... "unto the children of Lot for a possession"... "rise ye up, take your journey." These accounts of the country are graphic notices of great value, not only historically (the surest we have) but of God's ways and men's in peopling the earth, violence, war, etc. The only question is as to "as Israel did unto the land of their possession." To say that "go in and possess the land" proves it means only Canaan west of Jordan is folly; whatever was their possession, they entered into it on dispossessing the inhabitants. Nor is there the least difficulty in supposing Moses wrote it. He had partly entered into possession by casting out the Amorites; and what is stated is the way Israel entered in, not the history of an event. Hence Moses could say, in an Aorist sense, Israel entered in in the same way, but from the way it comes in I am strongly disposed to consider it as added, because we have an exactly analogous passage, I may say word for word without this addition, "destroyed them and dwelt in their stead," only that in verse 22, we have "even unto this day." This may be Moses, as it had long taken place. It is to be noted that the Horims are twice spoken of, verses 12 and 22. My impression is the passages are a divine prophetic addition. I do not think it is simply to encourage the Israelites, though it would do this in showing the ways of God—"the Lord destroyed them." But it showed important history—these giant races, and their pride, and removings, and destructions when God so willed.

The early history of man, found only with certainty in Scripture, is of much importance in judging of what short-lived man is. The characters of men of God may be given by their own mouth by inspiration. Paul does so speak of himself, only when forced to do it, largely; in the more familiar style of the New Testament says they made him a fool in speaking so much of himself. The question is, if it be inspired we should lose immensely if we had not these passages, and God has put them in for our instruction, without consulting the incompetent judgment of man happily for us. A part of the whole picture of truth would be wanting if this were not here.

53. "Said I" is wrong, and should be omitted.

Deuteronomy Chapter 3

20. b’e-ver; clearly " beyond "; see also verse 25 and chapter 4 46, 47, 49; also chap. 11:3o.

Deuteronomy Chapter 4

34. How "war"? see Ex. 15.

Deuteronomy Chapter 5

15. This is motive, not the thing celebrated.

28, 29. It is not the intention or desire to obey which was presumptuous—that was all right, and there is no allusion to what was said in Exodus, which was after all this. God had spoken out of the midst of the fire, and then Moses went up. The presumptuous point was taking all the blessings and covenant on the specific ground of "If ye will obey my voice, ye shall be." They might have said "We fear to have all our blessings depend on our own obedience, for fear we lose them." In the covenant of Sinai, the being God's people, and getting the blessing was "if"; and, I repeat, it is the whole point, when, after the terror of God's appearing, they said "We will obey"—it was a natural effect of terror, and a right intention. But they begged to hear no more, and no covenant was based on it—on Moses going up and bringing the "if" tranquilly down, they tranquilly undertook it as the base of blessing. Bound to obey they were—intention to obey was right—but a covenant of blessing on that condition was the grossest ignorance of self and was presumptuous.

The reason why God did all this was to teach men that, on this ground, no flesh could be justified. Nothing could be more important. The promise to Abraham had not raised any question of righteousness—it was a simple promise on God's part, certain to be fulfilled But here the question of righteousness was raised as it ought to be and must be, and first on man's part for God, according to what was rightly required of man; when that point was cleared, and flesh proved what it is, then the righteousness of God was revealed through the promised Seed. We should not have had half Romans and all Galatians but for this.

As to delusion in the people, clearly there was, as the golden calf proved. The law was never given to man, as such, as God's way of blessing, but to a peculiar people called to Himself, and brought to Himself, to have flesh tested. It was given as exacting obedience as the prior and indispensable condition of life and joy. It was positively "If ye obey, ye shall" ... "Do this and live." To Abraham, further, it was unconditioned promise, and the uncircumcised was cut off from blessing which remained to others—at the law the covenant was absolutely based on the condition of man's obedience as its first principle.

Continual access to God did not lay open to them—individual faith in promise might go to God, but the law, tabernacle and all said, "Death if ye come near." God did not come outman could not go in. In Christ God did come out, and, blessed be God, Man is gone in; the Holy Ghost signified this by the veil—"We have boldness to enter into the holiest, by a new and living way, consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh," and we draw nigh. And even in the sacrifices, they were in contrast with Christ, a remembrance of sins still there—now "perfected forever," never to be remembered.

Deuteronomy Chapter 7

In this chapter we have the consecration of the people to God.

Not to lose sight of it, I mark that the infidel argument from this chapter and Ezra 9:11 is wholly without force, and, as usual, superficial. The same language as that of this chapter is found in Ex. 34:12-17. The use of the word "prophets" proves nothing at all—Abraham was a prophet; and Ezra in this verse speaks of their then going into the land when the prophet spoke, and so said "by the prophet speaking." All the objections are nonsense and worse.

Deuteronomy Chapter 8

Here we have the discipline and exercise in the way.

Deuteronomy Chapter 9

Note here, the strength of the Lord with them in conflict with power greater than their own, but the history of the rebellion of their heart.

15-24. This goes by itself—a kind of parenthesis. Verse 25 takes it up from verse 14; verse 15 takes up Ex. 32:15, adding other cases of rebellion. There is a vast deal more as to Moses with God at the door of the tabernacle in Exodus, and above chapter 32: 31.

18. This is the second time, speaking simply historically,

in reasoning with them about their sins; it alludes directly to Ex. 34:28.

25. I think that here, "because the Lord said he would destroy you," leads him back to the first time, with which he then goes on.

Deuteronomy Chapter 10

1-9. I take these verses to be all a parenthesis, and verse 10 to connect directly with chapter 9: 29, showing that after the apostasy of Israel, the law (but now in the ark), the priesthood, and a land of rivers of waters, and levitical service with no inheritance but the Lord, was set up a system of patient grace in Israel. The death of Aaron showed, through Eleazar taking his place, that the priesthood continued, as did the service of Levi in the land which is the subject of this book, not merely in the wilderness in which all this was set up.

1-11, takes up the standing of the restored people. The basis of it all is laid in Ex. 34:1-9, which stands by itself; passing on (verse 28) to Moses, with the people—a mediatorial condition and government, see verse 27.

6, 7. Compare Num. 33:37, 38. There is no difficulty here.

Deuteronomy Chapter 12

The subject here is the one place of.resort where Jehovah's name was. " Ye shall not do so " refers to this, " ye shall not have high places." They might eat flesh anywhere, clean or unclean, only consecrated things were to be eaten where Jehovah had placed His name. Who was to eat it is not in question I think here at all, only the Levite was not to be forgotten. It would apply to the priests as others; whatever of this kind was to be eaten, and whoever was to eat it, it was to be eaten there. Priests are swamped in the whole mass of Israel.

5, 6, 7, 16-20, see also chapter 14:22-27, the people are to eat the tithes and firstlings; whereas in Num. 18:17, they are specially the priest's, as the tithes were the Levites'; also the tithe is at the end of three years, see chapters 14: 28 and 36: 12, 13. In chapter 14: 72, the tithe seems to be yearly, see also Num. 18:21.

5-14. One thing is quite clear, that the leading thought is "the one place" to which they were to go; for things are spoken of, of which no man ate anything.

17, 18. But here there is more difficulty, for here it is they are not to eat within their gates; still we find again this point of the place prominent, and the eating spoken of vaguely—they might eat of any (clean) beast, only pouring the blood on the ground. But what belonged to God, sacrifices, vows, etc. (verse 26), they were to take to the place where Jehovah's name was; and then it was left to apply the eating to what it legally applied to.

27. They were to offer their burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, on the altar of Jehovah, and the blood of the sacrifices was to be poured out on the altar of Jehovah their God, and they would eat the flesh. Now this referred strictly, according to the law, only to the peace-offerings-of sin and trespass-offerings the priests ate, and parts of the peace-offerings, and that is recognized in this book. But the point is offering was to be made here, in what referred to divine worship, to God, not to what the soul lusted after-here he might eat in communion with the altar, with God, but here only. Sacrificial eating was at the chosen place only. Hence what the soul lusted after, the unclean could eat of (verse 22). It is to be remarked that there was no payment of tithes by the people to the priests, nor at Jerusalem-they paid tithes of all to the Levites, then the tithe of their tithes to the priests, and then ate their tithes at home as if they were the, now, sanctified fruit of their fields. With regard to Num. 18:24-32, it is possible this may have dropped through disorder and carelessness; but the carrying up tithes to Jerusalem was a distinct thing. All nations have god-festivals, and Israel was to have theirs in connection with Jehovah according to the rudiments of the world.

As regards our chapter, it would thus, as noticed, offer no difficulty—offerings were carried up and they ate the part which was to be eaten according to the law; nor does chapter 14: 22, 23, etc. offer any difficulty as to this distinct or second tithe-they ate it before the Lord, or took up money and bought what they liked. Only firstlings, first-fruits, and all vows, heave- and wave-offerings remain, see Num. 5 and 18; these all belong to the priest. These reh-sheeth (first-fruits), so far as males went, some think they were all other firstlings except the males (Rosenmüller), or firstlings generally, not the priest's. But it is wrong as to the priests having the worshippers to eat with them; some, only the clean males of their house could eat, others all the family. But they must be a second set of firstlings as there was a second set of tithes, which there clearly was, see Tobit 1: 1, where the second tithes are very distinctly brought forward, and the third, so that this was a known ordinance in Israel. As regards the firstlings; the first-fruits were given to the priests, so in chapter 18. Tobit speaks only of the second tithes, but these or their worth he spent in feasting in Jerusalem every year. We must leave, I suppose, the directions of Numbers, etc., where they are; they are not the main object of Deuteronomy, but the people's going up with their festal joy to Jerusalem to connect it with Jehovah, and the firstlings and the like to be such as they might otherwise have eaten at home, but, according to Deuteronomy, were to go to Jerusalem with.

The first males, if the first born, would remain to the priests. The immediate object was to identify all their common joy with Jehovah by the place. Next, the character of worship, and all these services and directions, is common enjoyment of the blessings promised—not approach to God in the holiest. As to this, see Deut. 16 and 26, and Lev. 16

Deuteronomy Chapter 14

1. Compare with this Gal. 3 and Matt. 5.

Deuteronomy Chapter 16

9-12. The day of Pentecost was evidently thus—whatever day the first handful could be had, it was offered on the day after the Sabbath (Sunday); thence to the seventh Sabbath was forty-nine, and then on the fiftieth (Sunday) Pentecost was celebrated. In itself it had no connection with the previous feast of unleavened bread—historically it was so, but they were distinct ordinances. See also Lev. 23:15, 16.

Deuteronomy Chapter 26

The main points are noticed in the Synopsis, but I note the whole here as important. The worship is characterized by the open declaration, and founded in its nature and character of the present possession of and standing in the blessing which grace and redemption had brought the people into, and this it is I note as important. They are in the land, as we “in Christ” in heavenly places, "blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ," and we come with the joy, thanksgiving and praise, the worship that is, the first-fruits of that. It is the rising up by the Spirit of the return and effect of being in and enjoying the fullness of God's blessing. Then it is in the place where God is fully revealed, and where He dwells- the place in which He has put His name, which He has chosen to this end. He gathers the people, and so the soul with its first-fruits-the first-fruits of its privileged blessings-into the place which He has chosen to dwell in, and where He fully reveals Himself; we know where and the way. For us it is the Father's house, "My Father and your Father, my God and your God." Then not as without, hoping to get it, but as within, in the enjoyment of all spiritual blessings, as that in which we are, we offer our first-fruits to God. What we were surely comes in and greatly enhances the blessing, as redemption necessarily does, and such a redemption! But it enhances it, not alters or diminishes it, "A Syrian ready to perish was" -not "is." The first principle is the present full enjoyment of the blessing itself, and that is sufficient-characterizes it- only we do remember how grace has given us such a place.

Next, thanksgiving to the Giver goes before enjoyment of the gift; so ever.

Then, we rejoice in every good thing Next, there is not only blessing, but an estimate of what heaven—the Land—is, as God estimates it in itself, not merely its fruits for us, but what is the glory of all lands-what makes it precious; this is a blessed privilege.

Then grace flows out, the necessary effect of enjoying the love of God.

Note too, that while the personal consciousness of being in the place of blessing is the first and personal feeling, yet in the worship the whole people of God are taken in verse 9, "He hath brought us"; so, ever the Holy Ghost says "loved us, washed us, saved us"; though I know it for myself and say "we," yet, as often noted, I comprehend "with all saints."

Then comes obedience, " I have not transgressed... have not forgotten "; the last a special test of the spirit of obedience. Then diligent care to avoid defilement or turning anything away from God to self—purity and consecration to God.

Then blessing is prayed for on the whole people of God and on the land; i.e., as for us, as belonging to heaven itself, and the sense of its nature and excellency is repeated. In all, in and by this worship, and all brought out in it, we belong to God, and have God as our God.

Deuteronomy Chapter 27

Here note, on the one hand the altar is put on the mount of cursing, on the other it is not here a threatening of excision of the body, but a malediction on the individual who did not observe what was contained in the law; so that they are supposed in possession, but evidently on untenable ground. The public dealings of God with the nation in His right of government and righteous government are in the chapters which follow.

Deuteronomy Chapters 27, 28

Remark how not only here the curses alone, not the blessings, are recited (as alluded to surely in Gal. 3), but in chapter 28, where the governmental dealings are unfolded, how largely, though in a manner characteristically correspondent, the curses are developed and insisted on compared to the blessings. This stamps necessarily a peculiar character on the relationship between God and the people. It gives to us, accustomed to perfect and unwearied love, a somewhat painful feeling, not as to the rightness of it, but as to being in such a relationship. It is just what ought to be under law, indeed blessing must be always simpler, for the blessing itself, the favor is the great thing, and on a hard state of mind more positive and lower motives must (i.e., may) be brought to bear, but it makes us see what the position of law for man's heart is.

Deuteronomy Chapter 29

21-23. Note the way in which the Lord passes from the individual, separated out of the tribes of Israel, to the whole land as a natural consequence which follows certainly; compare the use of it in Hebrews.

Deuteronomy Chapter 31

There is much encouragement and comfort that the exhortation and charge to Joshua is given in the same time as the prophetic song which announces the failure of the people. Our present work and duty, whatever it may be in the Church, hangs from the charge, and is sustained by it, whatever we may know of the results as regards man's unfaithfulness. Note this well.

25-30. compare Acts 20:17, 29, and following verses. The analogy is very remarkable.

Deuteronomy Chapter 32

The connection of this chapter with Ex. 6, already noticed elsewhere, is exceedingly striking, as showing the place that these prophetic revelations hold. At the end here, they are returned and stand in the house celebrating Jehovah who has blessed. That is the place of these Psalm 8, He set the bonds of the "peoples" not "people."

As regards the development of principle in the Scripture history of the world; first, Innocence which precedes the ways of God, then man left to himself in sin (though not without testimony), but without governmental restraint. Then the principle of government in man's hand in Noah. After this, the sources of blessing and governmental interference being by man attributed to, and so morally fallen into the hands of the enemy, the separation of Abraham takes place by the revelation of the glory of the true God, and election, calling, promise, and we may add faith, are brought out fully to light as public principles of dealing, for without doubt God has acted on them ever since the fall. Then the establishment of a people, by redemption and deliverance, under the law and immediate government of God are introduced-a people of God in the world. Within this come priesthood, prophecy, and subsequently royalty.

After this, the government of the world trusted to man-one man as head of empire and sovereign authority in the world—replacing a people in relationship with God, center of other nations, who ought to have owned Him. After the rejection of Christ, who came under this state of things, the government is left externally unchanged, only the Jews are set aside; various historical changes take place, but the age remains unclosed, and the Church is called out for heaven, and then, God resuming His dealings with Jews and Gentiles as guilty of rejecting Christ as Head of all, and in Him all is substantially resumed. The Law-a people by redemption—Israel, center of nations—universal dominion in Man—royalty in Israel—and the results of calling, election and promise; the Church being in its own place apart, i.e., associated with Christ. Babel may be noticed, by the way, as introducing the formation of nations, of which Israel was to be the center.

The book of Deuteronomy then contains the terms of the responsible possession of the land with Jehovah there, so that their enjoyment of it should be inseparably connected with Him where He placed His name. Chapter 26 gives the expression of this and closes the book. It does not go beyond Jacob and redemption out of the ruin he had got into by going down into Egypt, and enjoyment of the blessings brought into by it. This is not approaching God, nor sure promises given to Abraham, etc.; the latter are not the subject of the book, for he was a stranger and a pilgrim, and the former gave rise to there being nothing, save a few circumstances to secure their and the people's enjoyment, about priestly action. Chapter 16 gives another character, God's work by which He gathers round Himself, and the condition of the people so gathered around Himself. Every male was to come to the place where He had put His name.

The three feasts are well-known, prefiguring the work of the deliverance of the soul based on Christ's blood, its state in connection with it-the gift of the Holy Ghost, so that there is a free-will offering, and the common joy of grace, yet warning-and the full enjoyment as no longer pilgrims but blessed in everything. The wilderness is not Deuteronomy. There it is properly typical, and the question was approach to God Himself in the holiest; hence it is heavenly, though the heavens were not yet opened, the veil unrent, and no one able to go in. Hence in this book there is no eighth day to the feast of tabernacles, nor are the sacrifices before as in Leviticus, and still more Numbers, but gathering round Jehovah and. the spiritual state connected with that which did it.

L'amour de Christ est un amour qui est all dessus de toutes nos misêres, mais qui s'adapte a toutes nos znisares, et qui n'est froisse ni refroidi par aucune de ces misêres.

The love of Christ is a love which is above all our wretchednesses, but which adapts itself to all our wretchednesses, and which is not repelled nor chilled by any of these wretchednesses.

Leviticus tombeau dans lequel nos peches sont ensevelis est le monument de la grace iternelle de noter Ditu.

The tomb in which our sins are buried is the monument of the eternal favor of our God.

The Red Sea and Jordan

IT is clear that the Red Sea is more the positive work of God who delivers, and the Jordan more that in us which realizes it, as associated with Christ. We are "begotten again to a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead"—I am set free and brought to God—he that had the power of death is destroyed—I am brought to God. Christ having died and risen again, death and judgment were there, but Christ has gone through them, and I am free and with God; death and judgment ruin those not in Christ.

But I have died with Christ in Jordan. It is a real work in me in the power of the Holy Ghost, so that that flesh which does exist, and was tried and judged in the wilderness, as it is, is dead, as I am crucified with Christ, and we sit in heavenly places in Him, and war there. There is no circumcision in the wilderness; it is the first thing in Canaan, and strength there and the camp there. There are no hostile powers destroyed in Jordan, they are there to fight the other side—we being the Lord's host. The ark had dried the river—then Gilgal characterized it. "Through death he destroyed him that had the power of death and delivered them that were, all their lifetime, subject to bondage." It is ourselves in Canaan, and the ark is there, we with Christ in grace—the power in Him; death is not inflicted as judgment, but it is death to sin. God condemned sin in the flesh in Christ's death, but that is Red Sea work, but then He died to sin there, and we reckon ourselves dead to sin; but not in Jordan deliverance through Christ's death, where death and judgment were, but death in us, and with Him, as an end of flesh—not deliverance from and by, but with and to—then practiced and realized in Gilgal, not known as deliverance once for all.

Though we start from death and resurrection, I do not think that Colossians takes us out of the wilderness; it is not however Hebrews truth, but a condition between. It takes up the Red Sea, but not for the wilderness, but in view of Canaan. The wilderness was no purpose of God (see Ex. 3:8 and chap. 15) but His ways. In Colossians the hope is laid up for us in heaven. When we are said to be risen, it is only the administration of Christ's resurrection in baptism (not so in Ephesians); it is "we are buried with him in baptism, wherein also we are risen with Him through faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead." It is only, too, on our going down into death as theretofore alive in sins, which is not in Ephesians, where we are dead in sins and created anew. Hence when he speaks of the Ephesian part (chap. 2: 13) he does not go on to resurrection. But then we must remark that in the Ephesians it is a distinct point, i.e., "quickening" is alike in Ephesians and Colossians, then, without any reference to baptism, resurrection and sitting in heavenly places of Jew and Gentile is stated. In Colossians, resurrection comes by itself, connected with baptism. Being "in Christ" is in all, Romans, Colossians and Ephesians, except Galatians—there it is not.

What is more remarkable is that, while Romans and Colossians have also Christ in us according to John 14, in Ephesians this is not found, save in the wish that He may dwell in our hearts by faith, which is quite another thing, and could not be applied to His being in us. It is clear Colossians is only a state on earth, but dead and risen with Christ and looking up to heaven. As heretofore remarked, we have not the Holy Ghost here, but life. The Colossians, too, is exclusively to Gentiles, not the union of both Jew and Gentile in one body, though the Church and Body be specifically named. Hence also state and condition, not relationship, is fully developed; not relationship either to the Father or to Christ. It is not the plan or counsel of God, but the state of the Colossians. Hence in Ephesians we have no "if"; in Colossians we have "if" in the first chapter-as they were on earth, the question remained. But it is not through the wilderness, but holding fast the hope, for the position is in chapter 1:27; so verse 5, the condition is in verses 10-14. So Eph. 1:4 is counsel; Col. 1:22 is what is to be. So the result in Ephesians is the showing forth the exceeding riches of God's grace; in Colossians we have "a hope laid up in heaven." "Resurrection" in the Colossians is after burial to death (we had lived in sin); in Ephesians, it is when we were dead in sins. After this in Colossians we have no resurrection. "Quickening" makes the essential difference, resurrection and heavenly places in Christ the place. Had He taken man living on the earth, He could not have made them one, but dead in sins, Jew and Gentile were all alike.

Colossians looks back and blessedly too-forgiven all trespasses, but stops there; Ephesians forward-it is a new creation. In Colossians, renewed in knowledge, but there it is anakainoumenon, a wholly new thing really, and so eis epigeosin, for it partakes of the nature; in Ephesians, "after God created." In Colossians the believer is clearly in the wilderness, but we can have a new life, whose hope is elsewhere; in the wilderness, and by faith looking at the resurrection of Christ, we are begotten again to a living hope by Christ's resurrection; so Peter, so Col. 2:12—we are not baptized in Jordan, but to Christ's death (the Red Sea)—our death is the end of the wilderness position, and the end of the wilderness death itself. But in Ephesians, this is looked at in the nature that belongs to the wilderness, or Egypt as it is—sinful flesh dead towards God, and, as to God, we begin in Jordan, or rather in what He does with us there when Christ is gone there for us. It begins with Christ, not as dying but raised from the dead, and so we dead in sins, found so, where He had come in grace (hence in virtue of the blood and the Red Sea) and quickened together with Him.

But Colossians goes farther than Peter; in Peter, Christ having suffered, we arm ourselves with the same mind, have faith in the Red Sea work, and so arm ourselves with the same mind, begotten again to a lively hope through His resurrection. That we have in Colossians but we have more; we were dead in sins and the uncircumcision of the flesh, and are quickened with Christ. But that goes no further here. It is life, Christ as our own life in the wilderness, and our hope and affections in heaven; dead with Him in baptism gives occasion to resurrection, not quickening when we were dead, i.e., chapters 2: 20 and 3: 1, refer to chapter 2: 12, not to verse 13. It is life, and life in the power of Christ's resurrection to whose death we have been baptized, and by faith in the operation of God, are therein risen, so that our profession here is resurrection and risen life-we are not alive in the world, i.e., Egypt, Christ is our life but it is hidden; we are on earth. Hence it is Christ's appearing that is brought forward-the hidden life manifested, and here.

The link between Ephesians and Colossians is in "the truth as it is in Jesus," the having put off the old man and put on the new-difference no doubt, but still a link. Just as the Red Sea and Jordan have the same general thought, but one at the beginning of the wilderness, the other at the end—one, deliverance out of Egypt, the other, entrance into Canaan—one, smitten with the rod opens the way, and is judgment, the other, the ark in it and the way made when the priests' feet touch the water. It is the power of life in grace.

As regards figures, Ephesians, though it recognize the fact of sins and redemption, yet in its teaching sets us wholly in Canaan, as once dead and a new creation, and Christ Himself as so risen from the dead. All is in heaven. We have no wilderness, or man proved here. Man is looked at as nonexistent morally for God, and no feeling there, and none to be awaked. The Red Sea as redemption and Jordan coalesce- indeed the Red Sea comes in by the bye, that is, though redemption through blood be fully recognized (chap. 1: 7), yet our sitting in heavenly places is the beginning of our history along with Christ. It is our state, and we begin from over Jordan, i.e., as out of it; or Israel is looked at as in a lost dead state in Egypt, and, as I have said, the Red Sea and Jordan coalesce, and we, as far as the type corresponds, are out of Jordan or death. Redemption is just noticed, but the purposes of God are before us, and that is in Canaan and with Christ or in Him now—the Red Sea and Jordan—Christ's death and resurrection, and especially Jordan (ours with Him), supposes we have to die, and of this there is nothing in Ephesians, being in heavenly places. In Colossians this is hope, and death to sin through Christ's death is brought in. Man lived in sin. A new creation is no part properly of the types; we may see where it comes in, but it stands by itself. Hence the calling in Ephesians is before the redemption, the inheritance after. Redemption supposes a people, object of God's favor, to redeem, though in Ephesians only forgiveness is spoken of. In one we are associated with Christ before God according to His nature, chapter 1:3-6 (redemption); but having put us there, we are trusted with the knowledge of Christ's glory in purpose, and so made heirs with Him.

The calling is more sovereign grace, not government of what is; one, we in, the other all things under Christ. Only hence we inherit and reign with Him; of this the Holy Ghost is earnest, of our place the power, only in these earthen vessels.

Galatians and Rom. 1 have spoken of elsewhere; 2 Corinthians has the doctrine of we in Christ and Christ in us. But in Colossians we have the administration of death to the old man and resurrection in faith of Christ's, i.e., here, and are quickened with Christ so as to have His life (here), and the hope of what is in heaven.

Another thing we may remark in the difference of Ephesians and Colossians is that Colossians being life is far more subjective, compare Eph. 1:15 and Col. 1:9 and following verses. In Ephesians it is more contrast with the old creation; compare, in the highest development of practice, Eph. 4 and 5, with Col. 3 Even in the highest subjective thought in the end of Eph. 3 the apostle turns to what is around in glory, and we are filled to this fullness. Also it is power not life. It is not development of life but contrast-the new creation and power, and the old as it actually was. Even in Eph. 3 it is power not life, as verses 16, 20. Chapter 4: 17, begins with contrast.

But I have said the Red Sea and Jordan coalesce. The desert constitutes the ways of God, seeing what man is, but Canaan was His purpose. Israel was brought to God at Sinai; nay, even at the Red Sea, and even in the song of Moses, from redemption (Ex. 15:13) he passes to Palestine and enemies in verse 15, which is striking (so in chapters 3 and 6). But they are different; one is Christ's death and resurrection looked at as leading forth a redeemed people to God, not merely forgiveness but redemption-deliverance by Christ by redemption. It is the redemption and deliverance itself, " He hath begotten us again to a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." I am redeemed out of the condition I was in, and brought to God, so verse 13, 14, is hope assured. But I die in Jordan, though it be by the Ark (Christ's) going into it; I do not say " He has delivered me by death and resurrection," but " I have died and am risen with Him "; I do not say " I am redeemed by glory," but " I am not alive in the world." It is Christ's death, but it is mine—the twelve stones are there, as a memorial, where the ark was, and they are where it came out, brought from the depths of Jordan. Then and then only is the reproach of Egypt-our captivity to flesh-rolled away, not in the desert; there the flesh is practically detected when we are delivered, "to know what was in thine heart." But at Gilgal, after I recognize myself dead, there is true circumcision of heart, the circumcision of Christ; then the Passover can be eaten—Christ's death looked at from God's side, in remembrance, with no blood on doorposts to secure from still threatening judgments, but all this owned much more deeply, because free and in Canaan. Then, too, we feed on the old corn of the land—a heavenly Christ. None of this could we do till we had passed Jordan.

The wilderness is no part of God's purpose, only of His ways; redemption and Canaan were His purpose; Ex. 3, 6 and 15.

I think it is important to notice that, in a certain sense, the Red Sea is complete, and closes the history—gives redemption its proper power; not the purpose but the redemption; the wicked are judged in death and judgment, and the people saved and brought to God—to His holy habitation. There is distress and guilt before redemption, but that is complete as the thief could go straight to Paradise. All that follows is experience till rest comes—experimental. There is a short epitome of experiencing grace till they come to Sinai, brought to God. But not only is the wilderness proving them, but Jordan connects itself with what is experimental, only based on faith. We have died with Christ, we are risen, we then find circumcision—return there as our perpetual basis of operation. Christ has dried up the Jordan, made it the way into Canaan; but it is not His death as a perfect redemption, the gospel as in 1 Cor. 15, but our state, crucified with Him, not death as judgment, though He bore it as such, sin in the flesh being condemned, but death, ours to sin, in Him. We go into a new order of things—the place of purpose by it; it is not perfectly meeting our condition, and saving us as the Red Sea. It is connected with experience, identified with purpose, but connected with its realization here.

There was no ark at the Red Sea, there was in the Jordan; the first was deliverance out of Egypt (natural state), the other entrance into Canaan. One was redemption, the other, the accomplishment (so far) of purpose. One was instrumentally wrought by Moses, who held the rod of God, i.e., the power of God in His dealings, the other by Joshua who led the people—the present power of Christ in the Spirit. One brought to God (in grace) in the wilderness, the other was to lead into the place of purpose-the resulting place of the people as God's host. Judgment, as well as death, was in the first, as we know from the Egyptians; in the second only death, there was no judgment—only the redeemed people had to do with it. The Red Sea was an act of sovereign power in redemption and deliverance. The blood on the lintel and doorposts having met the sin, now full deliverance is wrought by the death and resurrection of Christ. Satan's power, judgment which shut them in, were gone and secured Israel forever from them. It was finished, done, and they were delivered and with God.

But in Jordan death was there as death—it is the end of the career down here in every sense. But Christ goes down into it, and makes it the door into the heavenly blessing of God's purpose—He enters in alone when Jordan overflowed all its banks. But His going into the river destroyed all its power for His people. Here then, though going in alone, yet it is not redemption accomplished for them; He personally enters where they have to go, only they go over dry shod, and it is not a barrier but an entrance into heavenly places, and in that power they have all the good of it, i.e., done with nature and the wilderness for faith, dead to sin, to the world, to the law. They are crucified with Christ, though it be all a blessed passage into Canaan, and efficiently Christ is there till all are over. It is not redemption from and making it a wilderness where we are, but death with Christ, resurrection with Him; He associates His people with Himself, and they enter into a new place through what wholly closes the old. The differential point is that He goes where the people are to go, only making a way for them there, not delivering them from a place and state of condemnation and ruin, by redemption accomplished in Himself.

Joshua

Joshua is Christ as leading by the Spirit, which we have elsewhere seen, thus he seeks victory; he will attack and overcome. Even supposing Amalek sought to slay the weak ones, this does not alter its character, but only gave the occasion to the exercise of this energy; compare Ex. 17.

Joshua Chapter 1

Note the energy of faith and God fully with it—the energy which asks much, and which has the sources of water, and the grace which receives strangers by faith; at the end the failure of this energy.

Joshua Chapter 3

The Lord, after all the unbelief and failure of Israel, their incompetency to secure to themselves the blessing given, divides Jordan as easily and as graciously—indeed with more remarkable tokens of love as to them—as He had done the Red Sea.

Joshua Chapter 4

20-24. Note that not merely is circumcision in Gilgal within Jordan in the land, but the stones out of the bottom of Jordan are pitched there—we carry the witness and power of death there. We are dead and risen with Christ, not merely circumcised in heart—Christ's power is in it as well as the humbling though profitable end of self.

The full and entire deliverance of the sinner is associated, and indeed the only ground on which it can subsist, with the mortification of the flesh. The stones brought up from the bottom of Jordan were placed in Gilgal, saying, " Ye are risen, mortify therefore "; and in Col. 2 we find the true circumcision of Christ identified with the complete deliverance by His triumph over Satan, and that in death and resurrection; see Col. 2:11-15, and indeed to the end. Indeed without this deliverance in power, the mortification of the flesh would be impossible; it needs power—its only principle is death, for the flesh is unchanged.

Joshua Chapter 5

2. However much the Lord's power may have inspired the enemies of God's people with terror, so as to apparently secure victory, the first thing, before any effort to win it, is to make good the relationship with God by a perfectly circumcised heart; compare also Ezek. 3:3.

13-15. There is a point I have not noticed; the manna, Christ for the Wilderness—the corn, the heavenly Christ, i.e. Christ now in heaven as well as heavenly, i.e., heavenly as now—the Passover looking back, not a present escape merely, i.e., the Cross understood with all the value peace in heavenly places gives it—all this after Jordan and Gilgal, and the Captain of the host coming after, i.e., the beginning of conflict. But there is another point—simple obedience and dependence. In heavenly things men are for or against "for us or for our adversaries "; but whatever the conflict, all we have to say is "What saith my Lord unto His servant?" This is the spirit in which we are led—something like Paul, though there is a shade of difference there. The holiness needed for the conflict has been remarked. It is the confiding obedience which I had not noted; nor let us forget that if we eat the corn and fruit of the land now, we have the hidden Manna in heaven—Christ in His thrice blessed humiliation is never lost to our hearts.

The passage of the desert, however invaluable the instruction contained in it, is in a certain sense a parenthesis in the history. The Jordan coalesces, so to speak, with the Red Sea. I still judge what has been often remarked, that the Red Sea is the death and resurrection of Christ for us, and the Jordan our death and resurrection with Christ, but that only shows that one is the realization of the other, and that all the desert is not the realization, as in point of fact it is our life in this world with and under the hand of God, but not in heavenly places in conflict with Satan. This idea, remark, leads to a further point, that as we are dead and risen again in fact, another point is involved—ascension—for then we enter into the heavenlies; the redeemed and justified people are not there necessarily—it is their calling, as in Hebrews. So, as to justification in the Romans, we have never the ascension (only once, chapter 8, the fact that Christ is in heaven to intercede), while in the Ephesians we are sitting in heavenly places in Christ. It is not our ascension (then combats will cease) but our place in Christ there which brings, as in Ephesians, into combat with spiritual wickedness, though as to place and title we sit in Christ there. Combats with spiritual wickedness do not belong to the wilderness—we are there with God by redemption.

But some interesting points are connected with this coalescing of the Red Sea and Jordan bringing into the heavenly place.

It is to be supposed that the Passover was celebrated in the desert, as the case of an unclean person, or one on a journey is considered, but it essentially belongs to Egypt or Canaan. None of the men, born after Egypt, had been circumcised; this was evidently a characteristic difficulty. The moment they cross Jordan, before a conflict, they are circumcised—then only was the reproach of Egypt rolled away—they eat the old corn of the land, and they celebrate the Passover. And now, note, they had not to put the blood on the doorposts. In Egypt it was present security from deserved judgment—when sitting in heavenly places it was the memorial of Christ's work which had delivered. I apprehend that we never, in this way, realize and meditate on the value of the Cross till, as dead and risen again, we are sitting in heavenly places. Entered in virtue of it, we contemplate its value from a heavenly point of view and capacity. In Egypt we are, as men speak, at the foot of the Cross and come to believe on it as that which we there need. The Christian only in the wilderness may inquire from his experience if he is really out, and has properly, not as in Egypt, the blood for his present need to look at, nor as in heaven, the sweet and blessed memorial of what was done to deliver him. The saint, as sitting in heavenly places, turns to the true Passover, the work of Christ, with thoughts which not even the undelivered sinner in Egypt can have, though it is not his present need.

Nor, as elsewhere observed, is there circumcision till then. Manna was suited to the desert, the corn of the land and the Passover for those who had passed Jordan and were circumcised, who had judged flesh in a heavenly way. This character of the desert is instructive too.

Joshua Chapter 10

Note the difference of the ways of God. In Ai there is positive sin—lust is at work in the camp—God will not go out with the host, nor justify and so strengthen sin by letting it go on unnoticed. In Gibeon there was false self-confidence after blessing—they did not consult God, hence bound to their enemies. They are obliged to defend and hinder the destruction of the very thing they ought to have destroyed or possessed. They are not beaten, but obliged, though conquering others, as regards Gibeon to be strong to their own prejudice, and preserve what, in weaker times, would be a thorn in their sides.

Another instruction here is that, led of the Lord, Joshua is not, by the attack of his enemies, turned aside to follow them, or hindered from pursuing the course which the Lord Himself sets before him in his conquests. He takes the cities which are on the road the Lord leads him.

13. The first part of this verse, and 2 Sam. 1:18, a parenthesis, make no difficulty.

29. Note the taking down the king of Ai—God's possession of the land as pure; and the altar on mount Ebal—the people putting themselves in relation with God as brought there by Him, on the ground of thanksgiving—enjoyment, but of condition under, more.

Joshua Chapter 14

10. This makes about seven years for Joshua's wars up to this. It was seven years from the time of crossing Jordan, or in the seventh year when Caleb came to get possession of Hebron. The details, and as to Debir must be inquired into. In northern Palestine Joshua had long war. The southern kings he seems to have conquered more rapidly. Probably while engaged in the north, remains of the Amorite tribes and Anakim had returned to their cities, and Caleb had to drive them out. It is the detail of what is related in the end of chapter II, there, in a general way, ascribed to the leader in chief appointed of Jehovah. This would tend to make the time from Jordan to Joshua's death thirty or forty years-say he was thirty, a young man, when Caleb was forty; thirty-eight years in the wilderness = 68; 110-68 = 42. Thus he outlived the wars perhaps thirty-five years, compare dm). 24: 29 and chap. 23:1.

13-15. As to Kirjath Arba and Hebron; the name "Hebron" is as old as "Kirjath Arba," only it appears at first to have been the name of a district. We read in Num. 13:22, "Now Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt." It had received the name of "Arba" from some great man among the Anakim. But in Gen. 13:18, we have "the plain of Mamre which is Hebron"; it is evident that "Hebron" was the local name of the city—its first name, perhaps from the district. Some great chief among the Anakim attached his name to it, but this was merely occasional though it prevailed while they held it, which in the time of Caleb they did; he restored its ancient and true name.

Joshua Chapter 24

7. See in what manner the immense goodness of the Lord considers the conduct of Israel. Israel had murmured, Ex. 14:11, and complained bitterly, but had never cried to the Lord; but in the intercession of Moses all became their cry—their sorrow was a cry. How wonderful this goodness! Compare Ex. 2:23.

Baptism

Baptism never refers to Jordan, but to the Red Sea. It brings us where we have the manna and the spiritual drink in the wilderness, but into the wilderness where these are. In Canaan they were not-the manna ceased, and they eat the old corn of the land. That is, it is wholly short of heaven, and passing Jordan as bringing us there. It brings us to no part of what God gives, save supplies by the way, deliverance from Satan's world not bringing into God's place of habitation.

But this must be more inquired into; the blood met the judgment of God against them where they were in fact-sinners in Egypt, though God's people. They go through exercises up to the Red Sea-there they are delivered from their previous standing; redemption is complete, even to final deliverance, in figure, for the Egyptians are destroyed. But though redemption be complete, so that they are brought to God (Ex. 15), it is all, even to judgment, this world, and as a present thing this world as a wilderness with manna, water, and grapes and guidance; none of this is heaven, and this is the real difference. Hence typically it is Israel, or, as an analogy, the Church on earth though for heaven.

We have then Mara, manna, quails, water and Amalek—the whole scene so far, and Jethro's feast to Aaron and Moses, and Zipporah brought back. But all this is a little scene by itself, and wilderness life characterizes the actual effect of the passage of the Red Sea. The celebration of the song of Moses is that we are brought to God—that enemies will be as still as a stone—that we shall come to the place which God's hands have established as a dwelling place. They were baptized to Moses, but Moses himself never entered into Canaan. The wilderness is a place where responsibility is tested as to arriving in Canaan, even in figure, see 1 Cor. 10. We are not baptized to Moses in Jordan.

Though redemption was complete, the persons brought out are subject to a responsibility which supposes the possibility of not arriving; other things may make them safe—if they are really the Lord's, they will surely be kept—but their place there is with an " if," as in Col. 1 and Hebrews, and so in 1 Cor. 9 and 10. It is the external thing founded on Christ's death, based on a full deliverance, but testing as to the individual. There is testing even in Colossians—none in Ephesians, nor is baptism referred to, save as to professed faith and Lordship; conflict and government, the armor of God to be able to stand in the evil day, but not on a journey, uncertain whether I arrive, or sure to fail in myself, and if he is, sure to be kept by another, but only therefore sure, and hence tested.

Baptism takes this ground-redemption by Christ's death, not merely secured from judgment by the blood on the doorposts; I go further, I am brought to have part (am baptized into it) in His death professedly in baptism, and hence am called upon to walk in newness of life. I reckon (if it be real in me) myself dead—that I shall be in the likeness of His resurrection. I am called on to reckon myself dead to sin, and alive to God through Him. I am started in my responsible course in this world on the blessed ground of redemption, to reckon myself dead to sin, alive to God, and to yield myself to God as alive from the dead, and a blessed privilege it is to pass through this world-free, by redemption, to live to God, and to serve in such a world as this. The Spirit of God is given to me, and if it is real it will certainly end well.

Rom. 6 goes further; it takes Christ's death as death to sin, and the state man was in (He, the sinless One), and draws conclusions from it for us inasmuch as He was risen. But we were baptized to His death, i.e., to have a part in it—we are alive to God through Him risen (and consequently to Him risen-not to law), sin was not therefore to reign; but there is no resurrection with Him. The man in flesh was alive, and he has passed into death through Christ-there is no resurrection with Him.

Ephesians looks at it (and therefore never touches on baptism, save as the sign of outward profession in contrast with the unity of the body, chap. 4) in a quite different light. We are not to die, nor have died as alive in sin, but dead in sin and quickened together with Him, raised up together, etc. Hence, too, we have no justification in Ephesians, but a new Creation—we are what God makes us in Christ, His workmanship; we were dead, Christ in grace comes down there for us, accomplishing the work of redemption, and putting away sin, and we and He are all raised up into a new place.

Colossians is somewhat between both; a hope was laid up in heaven. We are quickened together with Him, but not simply a new creation, but forgiven all trespasses, and called to have our affections above, where Christ sits-not we in Him, our life being hid there; Christ is our life—He is in us—we are complete in Him, but not in Him so as to be sitting in heavenly places. We are dead, risen with Him but on earth, not merely delivered from but looking to, because we have the life that belongs to heaven, and He is sitting there. It is not union in the body by the Holy Ghost, but life. It is the character of life as Christ in heaven, but not union—being there and sitting in Him there through the Holy Ghost.

Now in the Red Sea we have deliverance—the salvation of God connected with judgment of evil, dealing with men, in either case, as belonging to this world; but Jordan is a passing out of the whole condition of responsible man in the world, godly or ungodly. We had, to have done with it, and we have, to do with death. The memorial stones were in Jordan, but death as away from God, in the place of death itself. It was not merely pronounced judgment, but being away, forsaken of God. The ark goes down there; it takes us out of death, through it, and introduces into heaven where Christ is gone, who has glorified God. Moses, figure of legal responsibility, as alive in the world, himself dies, has nothing to do with the land save reaching the vision of it, like a dying man seeing out of this world; he is no new creation. Christ is not here seen as shedding His blood, nor as a Deliverer in the place of judgment, but we in Him, as He for us having through death the place of man here, find entering, and we having done with the Wilderness—life down here—entering in Him into heavenly places. With this, baptism, as a sign, has nothing to do. It goes, in Colossians, as far as rising through faith of the operation of God in raising Christ, but places on earth with our affections and hope called to be in heaven, and then we appear to earth; our union place by the Holy Ghost is left out.

Romans is a conclusion—to live obediently and rightly here; Colossians, to live in spirit in heaven, but it is a hortative consequence. In Ephesians, we are sitting in heavenly places; what is sought is the presence and power of the Christ, who is there, operative in us on the earth still to make us vessels of God here.

In a word, Jordan is death as ceasing to belong to this world at all, and entering into heavenly places, as belonging to them, with an ascended Christ. The Red Sea is death as redemption and deliverance, leading us to live to God in this world, and "if" remains. The Red Sea is deliverance into a responsible life in this world, though, if life be there, we shall reach the goal; Jordan is dying to it, and entering into Canaan as united to Christ.

Baptism is at the Red Sea-not Jordan, though we may add resurrection to it as leaving sins behind, "Having forgiven you all trespasses"; we walked in them when we lived in them—now I have put off the old man and put on the new. It is individual, and reception into profession, "One Lord, one faith." There is no conflict with spiritual wickedness, no taking possession till Canaan. In Egypt they were slaves, not combatants—in Canaan, the Lord's hosts; in the desert with God, for their good—in Canaan with Satan, for God. Hence baptism goes further in Colossians than in Romans, but never puts us above nor in the body or unity. It saves—we wash away our sins in it, we go into death in it, and in Col. 2 it is added we "are risen"; hence also it is individually. The Church has never to die. It is first born in the new Creation, and when we are risen in baptism, it is by faith of the operation of God, so by the resurrection of Jesus Christ; but it is never entering into heavenly places. There was no ark in the Red Sea, nor memorial stones set up in it, or taken out of it. Hence Paul, though of course it could not be abrogated, was not sent to baptize, and carefully tells us so, but had a revelation about the Lord's supper, which is the sign of the unity of the Body to the partakers.

I have added here and there notes to explain, on reading this over; but it is important as to baptism and the nature of these epistles. It is clear that baptism, though it may go on to resurrection, in a certain aspect giving Christ for our life, never takes out of this world, but puts us in the position of responsibility in it, according to newness of life surely, but it is, " So we also should walk in newness of life." In Colossians it is, " If ye continue in the faith, grounded and settled. Hence the force of the warning in 1 Cor. 10. They were baptized, etc., " But with many of them God was not well pleased "; we are called to walk in this world as dead and risen again, as in the Wilderness-this is the utmost. Hence it is the expression of the outward visible Church, " One Lord, one faith, one baptism." We have a good conscience of the resurrection, we " Wash away our sins calling on the name of the Lord," are received into the responsible place of God's people in this world-that which is analogous to the Vine. The Wilderness and the world is a' testing place of result. Though with sure promises for faith, we are made companions of Christ " if," in this aspect of things-and so always looked at as in this world, in the wilderness; this, with the fullest comfort of promise and God's faithfulness for faith, is the character of Colossians, Hebrews and Peter.

Romans stands somewhat by itself, because it takes the ground on which the individual stands, the root of it, the nature of the place, and does not (save in occasional exhortations) deal with professed position, but the nature of the things he speaks of—their real value. As to this point, we have baptism in Romans, death, i.e. baptized into Christ's death, that is its real character as respects sin; I am to reckon myself to have done with it as a dead man-I leave what I was by baptism. It assumes Christ to be dead and risen, which is already our justification, chapters 3 and 4. This obviates the flesh's reasoning against the doctrine, by showing that that, by which we have a professed share in this work of Christ, is a profession to go into death to have a part in that as to sin, i.e., not to live in it. But we have no Church place, body, nor house, nor profession (save in exhortation), but individual place and baptism is referred to this.

In 1 Corinthians we have "All that call on the name of the Lord" assumed sincere, and being in the place of saints, but still the question raised; and here the ground of a public position, and a question as to its reality is directly raised, as noticed in chapter 10. We have the body in chapter 12, and the responsible profession, the egioi kletoi (called saints), but all that call on the name of the Lord in every place-a wise master-builder, but the possibility of wood, hay and stubble (besides corruptors); and hence the result in question, though both together there and hope it was all right, but warning. So the difference is made in Peter and Hebrews, of persevering and drawing back in individuals (there no question of Church); hence the Corinthians is the fullest unfolding of the Church on earth, though God's view of it is fully contemplated there. It was there as what He had made it, but placed under responsibility, and man's work down here, not the statement of the result prophetically-that is in Thessalonians, Timothy, and elsewhere (the tree of promise, because it is not the place of Church doctrine in Rom. 1). But in 1 Corinthians the wood, and hay, and stubble is in God's building, but God's actual “building” (on earth) "ye are"—"He has set in the assembly."

In Colossians we have more than in Rom., i.e., justification of the individual, and guarding that doctrine as to the individual. In Colossians, we have, " Wherein also we are risen by faith of the operation of God, who raised him "-it touches Romans by " dying," and Ephesians by " quickened " together with Him; but if quickened, forgiven, not going on to union, and sitting in heavenly places, only this looked at as truth, but the saint is seen as in fact dead and risen with Christ, and looking up where He is, his life being hid with Him there. It is not the Holy Ghost, but it is by the Holy Ghost we have the Body and union. It is life which, being Christ, is in heaven; hence also Christ's coming is " appearing " and our appearing with Him; union with and so meeting Him and being with Him forever is not here. The fact of the body and the Head is recognized, but the Christian's place in the teaching of the Apostle is “Ye are dead and risen"... “seek what is above, where Christ is." It supposes our being with Him before He appears, or we could not appear with Him, but does not teach it as its subject. Hence, I say, it goes further than Romans on this point. It is not "baptized, you a living sinner, to His death and now to reckon yourself dead and so walk in this world in the newness of life," but " buried with him unto death" "risen with him, being forgiven"—"therefore look up where Christ, who is your life, sits." “Buried" here is having totally done with the old condition of sinner, and here he looks for reality—he is risen together by faith of the operation of God, who raised Christ from the dead. It is not merely what it means as in Romans, and responsibility, but an explanation to true Christians, as such, of what their real place was, not by profession but by faith in contrast with forms and ordinances (quad nota); it is not " baptized to," but "quickened together with"—all your trespasses forgiven-they were pistol en Christo Jesou (faithful in Jesus Christ).

In Romans, it is the meaning of the thing as to previous life and present individual responsibility. In Corinthians the professed place as a public body in the world, professing Christ to be Lord. In Colossians the faithful in Christ Jesus shown what their place in Christ was, and even in contrast with ordinances though expressed by baptism. They had circumcision, but in its true and more than figurative power, as baptism showed they were gone, dead, and buried, and through faith in God's power in raising Christ, raised with Him, as their coming out of that burial of course expressed, but in the world and not to have their affections on what was on the earth, but on what was in heaven where Christ their life was. But this was the extreme limit of baptism; nor is there question of being sun (together with) Him, without introducing "by faith"—the en o, and there is no co-session.

Now in Ephesians, though it touches Colossians on one side, we get out of this. There is not what a living sinner dies to, but a dead sinner is created again—God's workmanship. Hence we have nothing to do with dying to sin, nor with baptism, save as connected with one faith-a professed one, and Lordship; body, Spirit and hope go together, for "by one Spirit we are baptized into one body," and abound in hope through its power—that is our one common profession here. In Colossians we have not justification, but we are complete in Him, and are to look up. In Ephesians besides not speaking of justification, we are sitting in Christ in heavenly places, and are to grow up to Him in all things, " the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ," and are to manifest God's character of light and love according to the model given in Christ. Of course, as we do not die to anything, baptism is not introduced as that, in any way, which passes on us.

Now the Red Sea, in one sense, knew no effect but Canaan; so redemption for us-heaven in type, for Israel in earthly reality. So in Ex. 3 and 6 there is no wilderness spoken of—Canaan is purpose, the wilderness only a way. Thus, in this sense, the Red Sea and Jordan coalesce, and as to earth even judgment is complete at the Red Sea. But when we come to the ways and dealings of God with and in us, the difference is very great. There is no ark in the Red Sea, no touching the waters of Jordan with the priest's foot, no experiment of death in any sense, even if its power is gone. At the Red Sea God delivers by power—His rod smites the sea, and there is deliverance of the people. It is redemption—they are borne on eagles' wings and brought to God, led forth by His strength as a redeemed people to His holy habitation—they leave the place of bondage; by Jordan they enter into the place of promise. The ark goes before them—Christ enters into death, though with divine power He dries it up, and we pass over; but we do so—it is a path we have not passed with our feet hitherto, nor could nature do so, " Ye cannot follow me now, but ye shall follow me afterward." We have done with the wilderness as with Egypt, with manna, the cloud to guide, and all wilderness provision; hence Jordan brings us into an Ephesian place. It is not union, but heavenly places which we have by union, and so by the baptism of the Holy Ghost; hence the comparison is made in chapter 6: 12.

The Colossians, as I have said, contemplates this position as true; hence "complete in him," and we have circumcision in Him, as Romans says "Those who are in Christ," but it puts us experimentally in the wilderness. Hence, though privileges are presented as a subject of desire, i.e., realizing Christ in our hearts by faith, and we have to take the armor to withstand, there is no " if " as to our place-we are not raised in baptism, but raised up together and made to sit together, as He raised Christ, according to "His great love wherewith he loved us." It is not "if," but the Spirit has sealed us for the day of redemption.

Baptism finally introduces on the ground of the faith, redemption by death and resurrection, into a responsible place; so 1 Cor. 10, one may preach the truth, and have the sacraments and be cast away, and fall in the desert.

The gift of eternal life, and the sealing of the Spirit, lead one into the consciousness of being in Christ, united to Himself now as sitting in heavenly places, and soon to be with Him bearing His image. Here there is full present assurance of faith, and assurance of being "in Christ"—an eternal thing in which we are, and have eternal life, eternal redemption, heirs of God, joint-heirs with Christ. De facto we are down here, with a given faith and hope, to pursue our journey towards the thing hoped for—in the wilderness, on the footing of redemption—in the wilderness, on the footing of responsibility to " by any means attain," but having to persevere with promises that faith confides in, power that keeps through faith for the inheritance kept for us, but having to get across, having to attain, to persevere, to walk by faith and not draw back to perdition, though the believer will surely be kept, and He who has begun the good work will finish it unto the day of Jesus Christ; for we know that we have been apprehended by Jesus Christ that we may apprehend the result in glory (take hold of, possession, of). But we have not yet, and are most usefully passed through the desert. Philippians is the model practical walk of this; hence, as we have seen, all is earth, judgment too at the Red Sea-not at Jordan (Canaan), that is followed by power and conflict and government in it. It is Jericho, Gilgal, the Passover and the old corn.

Jordan is, in one sense, a supplementary repetition of the Red Sea. It is death in both cases, as in Rom. 3:20; chap 5:11; and chap. 5: 12, to end of chap. 8—dead and risen with Christ, so as to enter into the place of power in union with Him ascended.

This makes the Corinthians extremely important, because we have the profession and the true Church brought together. The assembly of God, " with all that call on the name of the Lord"—one Lord, one faith, and then the assembly treated as the body. Yet the outward sacramental thing before that, where they might fall; and so God's building might be built with wood, hay and stubble. It is the Church on earth, but the Church assumed to be such in its privileges withal, yet on the way—"confirm you to the end." They were in fact carnal, though assumed not to be natural; in this character they were to take care, as in chapter 10, " Ye are God's building," but there might be wood or hay; nay, one might defile God's temple, but they were it. Their bodies are members of Christ, temples of the Holy Ghost, but he might deliver to Satan even such; so he says "the weak brother perish"... "destroy not with thy meat." Yet the Lord will surely keep His own, and so He has told us in chapter assuming these, the Christians at Corinth, to be such, only in this world to be proved. " So run " again, " that ye may obtain," and then comes the reprobate preacher, and perishing after the sacraments, and the watchfulness against evil, and self-subjection, life and its working as well as preaching and sacramental privileges (compare the olive tree). Yet in that very chapter they are all treated as one body, " We are not to be condemned with the world, but chastened "... " If one suffers, all suffer." Union seems to me to be dealt with after chapter to: 15, but even here men may have gifts of power and be nothing; chapter 15 is a question by itself. All this is very important as instruction as to the Church, but must, though the principle be clear, be further looked into.

Eph. 4:4 takes the ground of 1 Cor. 12, only it is more simply the thing in itself; Eph. 4:5 takes the ground of 1 Cor. 1:2. In a certain aspect the Colossians is nearer Romans than it is to Ephesians, because in Colossians we die from a state of life, "ye walked when ye lived in them"; we are buried unto death. In Eph. 2, following the end of chapter 1, we are dead and Christ comes into that place, and then comes union or being in Him, not hope. And this is much more Jordan, but that Canaan and Joshua are in themselves union; but Christ comes into the place of death, destroys its power, and what follows is association with Christ where He is, not hope when our life is hid there-we sit in heavenly places in Him.

In Colossians we are risen with Him, but there it stops; hence, what is in Him apart is more brought out, as in chapters 1 and 2, " He is the first begotten from among the dead." And if we are raised, it is not union and position, but faith of the operation of God who raised Him. It is life, not, as heretofore observed, the Holy Ghost. And further, not only have we no co-session in Him, but we are not sunzoopoiesomenoi to Christo (quickened together with Christ).

The contrast of the address in 1 Corinthians and Ephesians is, I apprehend, marked in purpose. In Ephesians we have " the holy and faithful brethren," and then " Head over all things to the Church," and, after showing how in the new Creation they were in Him, to be so the unity of the House also is brought out, substituted for Judaism, but substituted by God, and viewed in its ultimate condition and present forming by God. In chapter 4 we have incidentally the three unities of the Spirit and body, Lord and profession, God and Father over all and in us. In 1 Corinthians it is with the external local Church at Corinth, possibly a mixed thing, "all that call upon the name of the Lord"—the outward profession. Incidentally we find (chap. 12) in connection with gifts and their exercise, and the one Spirit down here, the Assembly viewed as the body of Christ, but down here—the local Church standing in the place as its representative.

Query if the " Church of God... called saints " is not to be distinguished from " all that call." No doubt it might be a mixed thing, but it stands as representative of the Church of God as such; the " all that call " is profession as such. This makes chapter 12 more substantive teaching; he begins to allude to this in chapter to: 15 but chapter 12 is the teaching on it. I find chapter Io very peculiar in this respect: we have the sacraments as external ordinances having the supposition and possibility that those who partake of them be lost after all; such we have seen is the character of the Epistle, the Church on earth in its profession, and so as responsible, but then the responsibility involves reality and meaning, or rather we are responsible for and in what is meant, verses 16, 17, the communion of the body of Christ, and we one body as partaking of the one Head. How true this is we know, but it is very instructive as to our position, i.e., the real position of the Church in this world. External sacramental standing and enjoyment of privileges (compare Rom. 1:17, though that be not the Church, but it comes in principle to the same thing)—chapter 2:5, and then, verses 16, 17, the apprehension of wise men.

There is, I think, progress as to baptism, but it stands on very peculiar ground, obscure as a Christian institution. John the baptist preached the baptism of repentance—he prepared the way, saying they should believe on One that came after. But his business was to take the nation up on the ground on which it stood, and call to repentance, and in fact form a remnant to receive Christ; the remission of sins was in view for those baptized. But he preached repentance, and they were baptized to that, and so ready to receive Messiah—the Son of Man, even on earth, had power to forgive sins. When Peter preaches, he preaches Jesus rejected and exalted, made Lord and Christ, not repentance; when they were pricked in heart, he says to them " Repent," but the baptism was to the remission of sins because the work was done which gave it fully. They were baptized to the remission of sins. Repentance in man was always called for. But John called for that as his business, the remission was to come after.

The baptism was the baptism of repentance; now for the remission of sins to those that presented, Paul has a new commission. He is not dealing in the midst of a known people who have promises, calling souls out of it to repentance, and they should receive remission, separated from the untoward generation. He takes up man as man (owning the Jews) and brings him into God's presence in light. He was delivered from men wholly, from the people and from the Gentiles to whom he was sent, but belonged to neither but to a glorified Christ, to open men's eyes, and to turn men from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive remission of their sins, and an inheritance among them that are " sanctified by faith that is in me." He is not sent to baptize at all, and though he called men everywhere to repent and turn to God, for this is the essence of his work everywhere, yet it is not presented in his mission under the form of repentance—self-judgment in respect of a place we are already in, and inconsistencies with it, and advantages offered as the Law and Christ presented to Israel—but a change and deliverance from human blindness and Satan's power, to light and God for the remission of their sins and an inheritance by faith in Christ. This made him, first in Damascus, then in Judas, then to the Gentiles, call men to repent and turn to God. But for the Gentiles it was, even in testimony, a wholly new state, and baptism forms no part of it, no more than the mission in John; and he tells us himself, he was not sent to baptize. It went on; but practice, not commandment, is what we have in Scripture.

We have a commandment connected with baptism and apostolic mission, and to the Gentiles exclusively, but then there is nothing of repentance or remission. It is simply discipling all (the Gentiles), baptizing and then teaching them. The direction in Luke is repentance and remission of sins. In Mark, salvation belonged to him who believed and was baptized, for if he was not, he refused to be a Christian believing it to be true. No doubt those that received the Word were baptized, and so the Gentiles. This is historically clear, but the thing baptized to necessarily changed, and it dropped out of the mission to the Gentiles—it never was formally in any to the Jews, but introduced by Jewish habit, and by the authority of the Holy Ghost in the practice of John the baptist and the Apostles, and then of all. First it was to repentance to remission, then to remission to receive the Holy Ghost, then it widens out—as many as were baptized to Christ (all, I suppose, but so expressed, taking up the fact as it stood) were baptized to His death, planted in the likeness of His death—further, had put on Christ; no question of Jew or Gentile or anything else. It continued, only taking the form of truth into which men were brought, with the distinct declaration that it did not form part of the mission, though used always in it—Mark giving the strong ground of practice not obedience surely, but the openly becoming a Christian, putting on Christ. I do not think Paul ever commanded them to be baptized, but they were, and he did it himself.

Salvation is essentially in resurrection—of course through Christ's death; no doubt, as regards the counsels of God, the raised are put in heavenly places, but resurrection is the new estate. He " hath quickened us together with him, by grace ye are saved "; then comes the fruit and accomplishment of counsels. So in Romans we have justifying and presenting in righteousness to God. And the Lord could say, “I go to my Father and your Father, my God and your God."

The counsels of God set us individually in heavenly places, and besides that, as members of the body of Christ, and Jew and Gentile are raised up together so as de facto to involve the unity of the body. But when we are viewed as quickened together with Christ, we are looked at as dead in sin, and being quickened it is a new creation, a complete new place and salvation. Romans goes further back, there in Christ we have died to sin. Colossians, in practice, develops this, but Romans develops the life and nature, so there we die and are alive through Christ, and set free in practical power; but being in Christ and the Body, though recognized as common Christian knowledge, forms no part of the teaching of the Epistle—there a sinner is justified by the blood-shedding and resurrection of Christ. In Colossians and Ephesians it is a new Creation, and this involves counsels; justification, righteousness. Hence Christ's resurrection issues in justification of life in Romans, our quickening with Christ in Colossians and Ephesians; and resurrection with Him in Colossians involves, as part of that same plan and work, our being blessed in heavenly places, and the body of Christ.

But resurrection, after the effectual death of Christ, clears us and puts us in a new place in a new life. It saves us. We have died to sin, and are alive to God. The essence of it is in ezoopoiese, the form in resurrection egeire—anastases ek ton nekron. The sunezoopoiese (quickened together with) involves our being in the same glory further on. The sunegerthete (you are risen with) is found only in Col. 2, in connection with baptism.

Note as to baptism—baptizing in the name of Jesus is en or epi, but as to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, it is eis, which makes all the difference, save in Acts 8:16, where it is also eis to onoma.

The Table of the Lord

IT is a mistake to think that the proper blessing, or true character of the Lord's supper is connected with the title "Lord." That word is used as one of authority to guard against associating it with idols, and against profanation—to give it its dignity, and that is all right surely; but the proper word of blessing in it is "Christ"—"the communion of the Body of Christ"—koinonia (communion) and Lordship do not go well together, so when we partake of the Lord's table it is metechein.

Many ideas are current on this subject, and that on the part of those I truly love and value, and used by others with different intent, which I think unfounded. It is insisted that the Table is the Table of the Lord. No one of course doubts it, or that He whose Table it is, is the Lord, has peculiar claim to this title, this distinctive title. But while the heart joyfully owns this name, it is not, nor cannot be the highest and happiest aspect of the Lord's supper, not that which especially belongs to Christians in it. Of course were Christ not the Lord, not only the Table, but Christianity would be gone. But "Lord" is not the name in which Christians have communion there; and that is their precious part in it. "Communion with the Lord" is an ill-sorted term. The term “Lord" is used as to the Table when it is used in contrast with evil, or as a place of dignity and judgment. The Table of the Lord in contrast with the table of devils, the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils. Hence it is added: “Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy; are we stronger than he?” Again as to judgment: "This is not to eat the Lord's supper"—"he shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." Hence if we would judge ourselves we should not be judged of the Lord; and so on. But when the Apostle speaks of communion, he does not speak of “the Lord"; but "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?” “The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” And this is the more remarkable, because the moment he begins, in the same passage, to speak of the authority, contrast as to devils, and judgment of evil, he says always “the Lord," but as to communion not.

The Lord's supper refers both to the Passover and to Sinai: “This do in remembrance of me" evidently alluding to Egypt, and the occasion itself showing the one, "the new covenant in my blood" referring to the other. As Passover it is the recollection of deliverance through One broken for us—deliverance from judgment and wrath; as blood of the covenant, it puts us in a new relationship, on the ground of grace through the forgiveness of sins.

The Joys of Christ

WE ought to think of the joys of Christ as well as His sorrows. Nothing shows where a man's heart is, and what it is, more than when oppressed, distressed, and full of sorrow, where his heart finds its joy, and if it does find a joy unreached by it.

We see these joys in Christ—a secret comfort in the midst of His sorrow. He had meat to eat which man knew not of. Besides His communion with His Father, there was this working of love to us. Paradise shone in upon His heart in comforting the poor thief. “Go in peace" refreshed His spirit in the house of the Pharisee. “She hath done it for my burial” justified Mary against the reproach of selfish man. “Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them unto babes “was His joy in the sense of the heartless rejection to which the wickedness of man subjected Him. How blessed to the heart, besides learning where His joy was, to think that He found it in the working of His love to us!

It is lovely to see how the Lord does not merely show a resignation under trial produced by an effort which makes Him bow—and yet be absorbed by it as we often are, but a perfection of obedience and acceptance of His Father's will—such that He rises altogether above it, so as to be quite free to be in the fullness of, and express just what grace would do—or if needed, truth also—in that which was presented to Him. Thus, when led to the Cross, to the women he says: “Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me but weep for yourselves and for your children, for the day's come," etc. Then on speaking on the Cross for Israel, He says: “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do." This was the very one and only ground which could be good for Israel—the Holy Ghost answered to it in Peter's sermon; and Paul refers to the principle. Then to the thief on the Cross He says: “Today thou shalt be with me in Paradise." There was the full present effect of His work and salvation. Now how perfectly calm, as if He had only to teach in peace from heaven, is all this, and in perfect appropriateness in each case, which divine dearness could give; and how wide the scope of instruction!

The judgment of Jerusalem—the ground on which the Jews might be forgiven in virtue of the Cross—the full present blessing in virtue of the Cross, short of resurrection not yet accomplished. The whole scope of truth was here. Thus if we quietly do that which is given, and trust God in the peaceful answer to what is brought before us, what wide-spread power of truth comes in!

Ministry

THE connection of the Levitical service with priesthood leads, I think, to some blessed instruction; because priesthood, in its full sense, is the connection of man with all that is revealed of God in redemption. Only there is another element to be taken into consideration now—the Father revealed in the Son. The Levites were first wholly given to God, according to the efficacy and cleansing power of Christ's sacrifice. Then, for their service, they were given to Aaron, and accomplished their appointed tasks. Now, it is only under the hand, and at the disposition of the priest they can act, though their service be appointed; so we, the priesthood is for man, but to God, and is based on all that in which Christ, in connection with man's lost estate, has glorified God, and in which all that God is in love, grace, righteousness, majesty, truth, and holiness is glorified, and that in bringing man to Him in knowledge of all He is, and formed into blessing for God's glory according to it, of which Christ is the fullness—the veil now rent, and the way into the holiest open—we entering in there—He appearing in the presence of God for us.

So, it is when Christ is ascended up on high, having gone down to the lower parts of the earth, and then gone up on high so as to fill all things according to this redeeming work, that He gives gifts of ministry, and to bring the saints to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. And it is only as coming from this excellent fullness and nearness to God, that we can exercise true ministry, the spring, quality, subject, and resulting effect in confirming souls to it, are all there. Here is, besides this, the revelation of God Himself, of the Father in the Son. But this follows the same rule; He comes forth from the Father and manifests Him, but it is ever as in the bosom of the Father, " No one has seen God at any time—the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father " (not who was, but who is) and in the full concentrated love of the Father, as the only-begotten of the Father, and in this nearest enjoyment of, as in His bosom, He declares Him. It is in this constant association in receptive fullness and communication as Man, that Christ's ministry was carried out, and that in absolute consecration to His Father flows forth.

And this is our path of ministry, only that for us it must be “always bearing about the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life of Jesus may be manifested." In Him it was personal perfection. It gives a wondrous character to ministry.

Promise and Grace

THERE are three things in Scripture which go before God's work and grace in Christ, and to which His coming applies. First, conscience—man fell in sin into the knowledge of good and evil; next came full and absolute promise before law—law put the promise on condition, and brought in the curse; then Christ purged the conscience, giving God's own holiness as the proper measure of it—accomplished and put us in possession of the promise, and took the curse of the law, working out a better righteousness. Yet He has not simply met them, for he has raised conscience to the height, not of what fitted man as a creature, but to the height of God's holiness by the blessed revelation of it. He has given the promise in His Person, and added union with Himself, which, while it accomplished, was beyond all promise—this is the great truth of the Church—and has brought in a far better righteousness, God's righteousness. And the great difference is this—the former things were in relationship with men, and though the promise was God's, and as sure as His Word could be, yet it was in connection with, and could have and will have its accomplishment in men (through Christ) on the earth; but the fulfillment was in the revelation of God accomplishing His own thoughts, and revealing His own nature. It had its character and fullness necessarily in connection with and measured by Himself and His thoughts.

Fragment: Comfort in Weakness

This comfort, at any rate, we have in all our weakness, that in the ages to come God will be able to show the exceeding riches of His grace, in His kindness towards us in Christ Jesus; He will be glorified.

Fragment: Divine Favor and Love

Not only is it perfect grace as contrasted with uncertainty and legal fitness, but the Father's conduct was the Son's place and the whole of it—He had no other. It is to be noticed that, in Luke 15, in the prodigal son, it is not Christ's meeting the claims of God's justice as a holy righteous Judge, but the divine favor and goodness, though He had the best robe on (Christ), a sign of that favor and love—fitness, but according to the Father's heart.

Fragment: Infinitude of Object and Capacity

It is a great thing to have an infinite object, and an infinite capacity—God, and the Holy Spirit in us. I know well it is in a finite creature, and here in a poor earthen vessel, but there is nothing like it in those who are finite, and connected with the full display of God in redemption. And this infinitude of object and capacity are brought together by the Holy Ghost dwelling in us, "He that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him," and "Hereby we know that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit"; "The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by his Spirit which he hath given us." The angels, as creatures, we know are above us, not only excel in strength, but are most lovely in their sinless service, but of course they are not subjects of redemption, of that love which reached from the divine nature to man's sin, and displayed the former (while it brought to light the latter too), and that to bring man into the glory of God, and righteously through the work of Christ. Then the Holy Ghost gives us divine power to enter into this.

Fragment: Endeavoring to Keep the Unity of the Spirit

"Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace," is seeking to carry out, in spirit and. gracious manner and ways, that unity of saints externally in this world, which is essentially and always true in the unity of the Body in Christ, and thus to manifest it.

Fragment: The Obedience of Christ

The obedience of Christ would not have been as perfect if He had not been God. Where duty exists, it is the expression and test of love; and where would have been the fullness and inward perfectness of obedience, its motive, if He had not been God who is Love? So He says " That the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father hath given me commandment, so I do." But it was the expression of infinite Love, and so was perfect.

Fragment: Intimate Knowledge of God

The real intimate knowledge of God is beyond Satan, who is only in created heavens, though he can transform himself into an angel of light. Observe the difference heretofore spoken of between "Herein was Love manifested to us, because God sent his only-begotten Son," etc., 1 John 4:9, 10, and "Herein is Love made perfect with us," etc., "Because as he is, so are we in this world"; the double and complete thing—most blessed—first, love to us miserable here, on the Cross, but then perfected and proved. What blessed things belong to a Christian, in that we are what all that Christ is before God! Love in the manifestation of God to us, and that in love—Jesus being given even to death; but perfected in all the effulgence of divine love and inexpressible delight in Jesus, and all that Jesus is as having accomplished the work, and His Son before God even the Father—as He is moreover, so are we.

Fragment: The Hopes of the Church

If the hopes of the Church, in a heavenly way, had been economically the portion of the saints before the coming of Christ, then the death of Christ must have been, as it were, a duty or a desire. But it is this which makes the Apostle cry out "O the depth"; and much as it might be, in a sense, secretly known, and prophesied of as an evil, sinful fact, and typified as the effect of sin, the union of-the Church in heavenly glory was a thing hidden from ages and generations. There was what was the clear support of faith, and interpretation of the depth of God's wisdom in the circumstances, but nothing—not a word—which could justify the circumstances as to man's part, by which all the salvation of man was brought about. Well might the Apostle cry out in speaking of this as to the condition of the Jews, and its aspect in bringing all under mercy, "Oh! the depth of the riches!" For it is wonderful.

Fragment: Responsibility of the Church Distinct From Its Privileges

Note particularly, the Church is to give witness upon earth though its calling be heavenly; though its calling be heavenly, yet on earth show more or less also the powers of the world to come; the responsibility of the Church in this respect is quite distinct from its privileges. Note this particularly in the beginning of the Revelation, the Son of Man judges the Churches on earth, and is only " First born from the dead "His titles are earthly though risen. But note the Churches were to do this, so they are responsible for it, and so, connected with this point, though they may have an independent higher calling—so analogously the disciples cast out devils according to the power of Christ's name upon earth, yet they were to rejoice rather that their names were written in heaven. Now it was by the Holy Ghost as to power no doubt, but still it was not as heavenly calling but the title of Christ in blessing to bless on the earth—to set aside earthly judgment on account of sin—this was an accessory portion of the Church, though important to its place of testimony to Christ on the earth, for His title was to it, and He has power for it. The Church then has grieved the Holy Ghost in this, and not maintained the honor of Christ, still it is not its highest place. This is a great key to the Revelation—it links the two and shows the Church's portion here, taking up the Churches in connection with Christ in this point of view.

Fragment: The Love of God Presented in Himself

God could send just and adequate threatenings by others, or present to man what He required of him, and the consequences of failure, but no one could present the love of God to man in his sins but Himself (for no one was it) and that as above all. Man, enabled by the Holy Ghost, could speak about it as exercised towards the sinner, but he could not present it, for to do so truly in fact he must be it; and moreover he must have been such as God only is in love, to be able to be it in presence of all that was contrary to it. Such was Jesus! Truth indeed came by Him too, for no one could be the truth but He. No man had even a right to be such love to the sinner but God—it would have been a presumptuous wrong to God.

Fragment: Offerings

Note.—All worship is properly with burnt-offerings—death comes in but it is a sweet savor, "He by the grace of God tasted death for everything." Sin-offerings come in for need by the bye.

It is almost equally wonderful that Man is gone up on high into the presence of God, and that God came down into the misery, sorrow, sin, and death of man. But both these marvelous things are the truth. What a place man, seen in this light, holds in the counsels of God.

God's promises are precepts to Himself—binding on Him, and as His to us, showing us what He is in Himself.

Fragment: Affections

Some people's affections take their value from the object on which they are set. Some make their own in the strength that is in them, the self-devotedness they exhibit. But I suspect there is defect in both, and that the meeting of both (save of course of divine affections in God) would have proved the inefficacy of either.

Fragment: Full Openness

What appears frankness is not always full openness, dire tout ce qu'on veut, n'est pas dire tout ce qu'on peut. What is the Christian's part? To say nothing unnecessary on principle, and then one is simple in both. Let the Spirit guide us in all we actually say.

Fragment: "In Jesus"

Note.—"In Jesus" is not a scriptural expression as to people—we have "the truth as it is in Jesus." It is in Christ Jesus; Jesus is the name of the Person who is Jehovah the Savior—Christ is His office and relative place. So too the name of "Church of God"; "Church of Christ" is human, and not used in Scripture. "Church of God "is that which Scripture used and raises the thought and idea of the Church far higher, and gives it a reality and a meaning.

I add a remark, made long ago, proving that Scripture is much more accurate than we think in these matters; it is never said "God loved the Church," nor that "Christ loved the world." Christ's love of the Church is connected with relationship—God's love of the world with His character.

Fragment: Knowing God

It is a blessed thing to think that we know God, are more intimate with Him, adoringly surely because intimate with such Majesty, than with ourselves or any other being, human or angelic. He has revealed Himself perfectly in and through Christ, and dwells in us, nor is He inconsistent with Himself, or ever else but what He is, and as which He has revealed Himself, and we, partakers of the divine nature, know Him according to the apprehensions of that nature through the Holy Ghost. We dwell in Him and He in us. We can say this of nothing else; all else is uncertain in itself or outside me, but with Him I am in communion. I know Him because He reveals Himself—nothing else does, nor can—and that, as I have said, in communicating a nature which can know Him.

The Humiliation of Christ

THE humiliation of Christ opens out to my mind in a very full and blessed character. The essential being of Godhead cannot change, as is evident-the Absolute, as men speak- and whatever His humiliation, all the fullness of the Godhead (theotetos) dwelt in Him bodily. His emptying Himself (ekenose) applied to the morphe (form). He was in the status, condition of Godhead, of which, not to speak of outward glory, will and acting from His own will (though one with the Father, see John 5) was proper and essential. But the full purpose of His will in free devotedness, and always so, was to give up His own will, and this according to eternal counsels; Psalm 40.

It was not a lowly being, to whom it is evil to have a will of its own, who had none—that would have been nothing; nothingness was the place of nothingness. But He who in His essence could will, gives up His place, or condition as such, and says "Lo, I come to do thy will." It was a divine act, always so, but a divine act of kenosis (making empty). He was thus relative to the Father, not only as Son but as Servant-an immense truth! He gave up, not Godhead—that could not be—but the status and position of it, and came not to do His own will, but the will of Him that sent Him.

Man answered to this place according to the counsels and glory of God, as the angels, the obedient administrators of power, witnesses of a sustained creation, but he who had been made in God's image, and now fallen, was in the condition to be the sphere of the display of all God's moral glory, mercy, grace, righteousness, above all, love, for God is Love; in a word-redemption. Christ was a Man. And now, in the same perfectness, He takes no will, not even. of man, not even to eat when He was hungry-He lives by every word out of the mouth of God. He humbles Himself and is obedient even unto death, and that of the Cross-no resistance—no escape, though legions of angels would be ready at His call. He perseveres in submitting to all-a tested obedience, even to death. Not merely obedience in peace, as Adam innocent might, or an Angel (though doubtless they must feel the ruin) but tested by unvarying giving up of self and where evil was.

The Absolute in nature becomes Relative as a Servant in place—and "no man knoweth the Son, but the Father"—but this is revealed; and in this character exalted as Lord above all now. We adore Him as God; we see Him gone down under death as man, yet kenon (emptying) Himself, humbling Himself, laying down His own life what belonged to, what was divine all through. Now the center of all the sphere of display of the divine glory and of all in which it is displayed; but this is an outward consequence, Phil. 2 But the place of Man and Servant never given up-wondrous truth! Only He rules over all the sphere of His humiliation-heaven and earth are subjected to Him as Man while such subjection is called for- He reigns till all things are put under His feet.

But in His own personal place, in which He is in connection with us, or rather we with Him, He never gives up the serving place-He takes it now; John 13. In Luke 12, He takes it in glory, but in the heavenly blessedness connected with us—those His Father has given Him. And finally, when the reigning and subjecting process is complete, and He gives up the kingdom whose power was needed for that, He takes the simple subject place as Man in the eternal blessedness of God—still " God over all, blessed forever more," One with the Father-but His place as the subject Man perfect, and we with Him. Wondrous thought! The Firstborn among many brethren, metochoi (companions), not, note, koinonoi (common equal sharers) we could not be that, compare Heb. 2:14, consequent on verse God—and no mediatorial kingdom and power—being all in all—His kenosis (emptying) is no more undone than His Godhead. He always was and is Son with the Father-was and is always God; and now is and ever will be Man kenosas heauton (who emptied Himself), it was, and so ever is, His own divine act; only He has a temporary kingdom according to eternal counsels in this character, a kingdom which He gives up. The apostle John enters largely into this; his Gospel is the expression of it, but it comes out elsewhere in connection with the names of God, Light and Love, both of them essential names of God, yet with some difference, for Light has something of quality in it belonging to a person—Love is more absolutely personal. God is purity and manifests all things. But we are light in the Lord; as partakers of the divine nature, we partake of this quality. In 2 Peter 1:4, we are theias koinonoi phuseos (partakers of divine nature), not us (of the), and it is by promise our own state. But we are not love, for Love is sovereign goodness—that we cannot be; we love as partaking of the divine nature too, but we cannot be sovereign goodness.

But in Christ's kenosis (emptying) of Himself; and the course of His humiliation unto death, we find this love exercised—it is divine love expressed-we have seen the Father in Him—love brought to need—love active; " Hereby know we love, because He laid down his life for us." So that the revelation of God, that in which His Being acts, according to what He is, was in this way kenosis and self humbling of Christ; only we add " He gave his only-begotten Son," when we speak of it historically in its external action. And Christ, thus the expression of Love, i.e., of God, in the world, God manifest in the flesh, was also necessarily Light in the world—purity, and showing what all was, but showing sovereign goodness to it when thus manifested.

Formally, grace and truth came by Jesus Christ-He was the love of God in the world, and light in it. The darkness comprehended it not. But it was in Man, and it became thus impartitive, the Word of life, “He that hath the Son hath life," they that received Him being born of God; and being cleansed, the Holy Ghost could dwell in them in order to power of realization. Thus the Apostle prays that they "may be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man, that Christ might dwell in their hearts by faith," not merely be life and righteousness, but dwell there in the power of the realization of faith—He who is the expression and revelation of love—that we may be rooted and grounded in it. We dwell in love and in God, or rather here He in us, and thus are at the center of the display of glory; the more external thing, and so far finite that it is in that which is created, but the display of God's glory in it, though not without love as its source and sustaining, for it is in redemption. Christ thus takes in all—first descended then ascended that He might fill all things—but then the Saints, and this is their wondrous place, are associated with Him personally here, and we "comprehend with all saints"; for they are indeed His metochoi, loved as He is loved, however personally infinitely above them.

Christ has taken this place in the same divine, perfect love, self being gone, that He might put us in the same place with Himself—whom the Father had given Him—and even now, His peace, His joy, the Father's words, the Father's love, and the glory given to them—gone to His Father and our Father, His God and our God—to be with Him where He is; for in emptying Himself and becoming a Man, it was to associate us, the joint heirs in the same place, though ever Firstborn. Hence the Apostle adds "and to know the love of Christ"—not abstract here, "rooted and grounded in love," through His dwelling in our hearts, who is the divine fullness of this love—Himself; but now He has entered into the counsels of actual glory, length, depth, etc.—it is the love of Christ, the actual manifested, exercised love, yet still divine, " it passes knowledge," that we may be thus filled into all the fullness of God Himself, which indeed dwelt in Him bodily; compare 1 John 5:20.

Colossians does not enter on this ground, only touching it in "Christ in you, the hope of Glory.” It is blessed to see how the highest being of God is exercised in grace towards any poor sinner. It is there it is, though afterward perfected in us, see 1 John 4:12, 13. This has partly led us in this inquiry into the counter part, that “as he is, so are we," because—it is thus we enter into and understand it; " we are in him that is true, i.e., in his Son—he is the true God and eternal life."

But the gospel of John gives us large communications on this humiliation of Christ. His Godhead shines in every page of all the gospels, but John, as every one knows, in a peculiar way gives us the Person of Christ—the Word made flesh. Now I have remarked elsewhere the fact of the way in which He is everywhere One with the Father, yet receives all. But it is the direct expression of the truth we are studying-He is God, He is one with the Father, He is I Am. Everywhere He speaks to His Father on a divine footing of unity; " I have glorified thee, now glorify me." But He has taken the form of a Servant, never " now I will glorify Myself." "My Father is greater than I"; "The glory thou hast given me"-yet it was a glory He had—"with the Father before the world was," "Thou hast given him power over all flesh"—"I receive whoever comes, for I came not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me." He finishes the work the Father gave Him to do—it is the Father that sent Him; so chapter 8: 26. But it is in this chapter the Lord says: "Before Abraham was, I am," which the Jews well understood.

In a word His path was "that the world may know I love the Father, and as the Father hath given me commandment, so I do." His divine nature and Godhead shine throughout, but He receives everything—is sent-and has taken the relative place of recipiency and subjection. John 5 has a peculiar character in this respect, and presented at first some difficulty to my mind. "As the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them; so the Son quickeneth whom he will"; "My Father worketh hitherto and I work," as the Apostle notes, from the Jewish consciousness, making Himself equal with God. But in verse 19 he at once takes the place He is come into. "The Son can do nothing of himself (aph heautou) but what he seeth the Father do." "Whatsoever he doeth, these doeth the Son likewise," and quickening comes as part of this—"The Father loves the Son and chews him all." But He, though He acts with the same divine power as the Father, yet is shown all—does nothing aph heautou; and in verse 26 He hath given to the Son to have life in Himself, i.e., the Son in the form of a Servant down here, and given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is Son of Man. So that we know that it is in this humbled state that this applies.

Thus it becomes the clearest exposition of this unspeakable truth, the result of that, when in the form of God ekenose heauton—His own act—divine all through, at every moment. How true it remains "No man knows the Son but the Father"; but we adore Him. He is not ashamed to call us brethren, for now we are ez enos (of one).

But the point my mind rests on is, the kenosis of Himself; the rest is consequence, however blessed; Psa. 45:6, 7; Hebrews: 8, 9. Christ ekenose heauton, and took upon Hill; the form of a Servant. Our best delight will be to be hidden behind Him and see Him have all the glory. It is interesting to see that whatever depth the Person of the Lord may give to this, the blessing itself, which has its very character from its adaptation to our state, is enjoyed by the simplest faith, and the more simple the more it is enjoyed. Christ dwelling in our hearts by faith is enjoyed by him in whom He dwells, not by him who can explain it, though it be true it must be enjoyed in order to be able to explain it.

But this humbling of Christ by Himself is divine love, and in exercise—we know God by it. It is Himself in activity, yet in giving Himself up in this unspeakable way. In the Father He remains in essential Godhead, in the Son one with Him in the exercise of it, coming down to serve, the object in which we know God and see the Father. God is objectively before us in the Spirit's power, operative power in us to be able to apprehend, and have the love shed abroad in our hearts so that we dwell in God and God in us.

Judges Chapter 10

4. Note there is nothing here as to his conquering them, or them being called so after him.

Judges Chapter 13

25. "At times" is added to avoid the idea of permanent action in "move." It began to strike him, but it was by impulses, as pa-am (to move) implies.

Judges Chapters 17, 18

The land was the land in connection with Dan, and especially of Zorah and Eshtaol. Now this was the very part of the land that was captive to the Philistines. There Samson was born and there his doings. The Northern Danites came thence, and set up their teraphim before Samson. It continued as long as the House of God was in Shiloh, a few years after this. Samson judged Israel twenty years. Then there was Eli still in the time of the Philistines; he judged Israel forty years. This image of Micah was there all the time the house of God was in Shiloh; this gives a date. The captivity of the land was the Philistine captivity. There being no king shows nothing but that there were kings elsewhere, compare Psa. 78:58-61. And note, they were priests to the tribe of Dan, not to the northern part of it; so the men said “To a tribe in Israel." Were it not for verse 31 (chap. 18), one might well suppose verse 30 to be a prophetic, later addition; in this case, “the captivity of the land" might mean the Assyrian. But Jonathan is none the less a near descendant of Moses, and the question is one of interpretation, whether the captivity refers to the Philistines or a later one; if a later, then verse 30 is a prophetic addition. This I think very probable. The Judges, written in Samuel's time or thereabouts, go down to Shiloh. The prophetic addition shows the idolatry to have continued till the captivity. But this in no way affects the question as to Jonathan, or the date of his name.

Ruth

What a comfort it is to find such a history as this after the end of Judges—refreshing and pleasant to the heart to see that, in spite of all, God has a people where the sweet and pleasant fruits of His grace show themselves and ripen before Him, plants of His garden though they be in a bleak and lonely world, and cared for by Him though little noticed by the world, and happy to pass through it unheeded by it.

How little Israel at large cared for Ruth or her affairs? But He did, under whose wings she was come to trust. An active faith that brings us, is better than all other that goes on in what is enjoyed. Yet this has its place, compare 2 Tim. 1:5. But this has its place rather when positive service is over; compare John 19:26, 27. But how much larger a space in history and in Israel's thoughts did such a scene as Judg. 20 take.

Note, it is Jehovah all through this book.

Notice of Lange's "Life of Christ"*

IN page 18 of the preface of this book we have " Christianity, the announcement of the Incarnate Word." It is this assuredly, but this leaves out redemption, and God's righteousness, and our connection with Christ glorified.

Section 1 (27). " We can form no conception of man without God, nor of God without man"—of God without man we can think, for He created him; Man without God morally we can, atheoi en to kosmo (without God in the world) till he has to say to Him. But it is a root principle here. Independent of Him, or not in relationship, he cannot be.

Page 28. Man has to say to God but not (naturally) as a child of the Spirit, and reason knows neither the universal nor the eternal for man is finite; he knows what is infinite only negatively. Reason knows what is under it—subjecta quasi material - but conscience and responsibility alone are the link of intelligence as to God, and then faith. If He reveals Himself, he is in the infinite and cannot get out of it, but cannot measure it. It is not the subject of measure, because it is infinite. Reason has no capacity to apprehend the eternal Spirit, because my reason is measured by my powers, and the eternal Spirit—God—cannot be, or He would not be God. There is no idea of God. There is consciousness, we have to do with some One supremely above us.

Man's righteousness is measured by the relationships which the law takes up, with God who gave it, and his neighbor. He cannot, unless dwelt in by God, enter into the rule of life which is absolutely universal. I do not deny the sense of beauty may give, at least awaken, the sense of having to say to God otherwise than animals-it did with me. But all the rest here is fancy when a new life is not there, and then sadly vague. Righteousness we may know because man fell into a conscience, not love; no heathen ever knew love in God—agape (love) does not exist in classical Greek. With revelation, what he says is true as Prov. 8, but what follows is unsatisfactory, and obliges God to man, not having His love free which it is though sure, and dimming righteousness. If He is there, it is unpossessed and separate, and therefore infinite misery.

Pages 29-30 is all right in the main. “Man as created” is in a certain sense, in His nature, but the responsible man is confounded with the Man of His counsels. This was the second Man-man surely, but still distinct. “Created after His likeness" is not incarnation, nor incarnation redemption of those lost, and bringing man into union with Himself is never spoken of. But then all about attraction and repulsion is false; God wrestled with Jacob, though He gave him strength to overcome, not Jacob with God, and he halted all his life, and God refused to reveal Himself. There was the process of grace going on in Israel, but it was not Israel who spoke; Isa. 64:1. In Christ it ended “Now they have both seen and hated both me and my Father."

There were promises and grace; these he confounds with law. The covenant with the people was the old covenant which ministered to bondage; he confounds all together.

Page 31. “The repulsion" is the state of the fallen nature, which law and even Christ only brings more clearly out. " An excrescence of the nature "-of what nature? Man perverts his nature, and his nature cries out. All this is confusion. Conscience cries out, and he is miserable without the object his nature is made for. Experimentally right, but confusion from making man good, and a want to be good in nature. The result is all a delusion.

Page 33. Here again the great mistake "of a more excellent nature" as "the elect who first receive divine life"—"They do not come to God as strangers"—"He sends them"—their original nature the proof of their election! It is curious, the vague absence of truth with some experimentalism of a Christian mind But he goes on to, not from Christ; and his statement leaves the divinity of the Lord very loose: "Thus He is the One, in the sight of God, by reason of the reality which God hath given Him, in that He hath bestowed upon Him the fullness of His gifts and of His Spirit, that He may communicate them to man." Then what follows is all loose, "The sighs of humanity pleaded with the Spirit of God." "To flesh and Spirit," leaves all vague; it is conscience—or what Spirit?

And again the divinity of Christ is, to say the least, very loose, " He was anointed with the eternal fullness of God, thus He was the God-man " (ewigen Gottesfulle denn er war der Gottmensch). And all he then says is really unintelligible or supposes sin in Christ. Where was the “sinful nature of man consumed?” But sinful is not in the original, only Naturlichkeit (naturalness)-a different thought; he has no idea of its proper sinfulness-it is old ceon; and verklãrt, if “transformed," is gloriously so. This as in Christ is “the redemption of humanity" (Menschheit).

“Choosing members out of Christ's body" is rather strange (p. 37).

Page 38. Note man has the Spirit, “Each individual has the Spirit as a Person"; as to the fact he is a Quaker So the " Holy Spirit of the divine, human life." Again of Christ, " corresponding in the eternal organism of humanity to the fullness of the Godhead." "The Holy Spirit is in all, in different measure of display in different persons," and here "according to the fullness of what it is"—but this is not God, the Word incarnate. And note here it " streams out from Him "-in Scripture, He received it be-Adam (for men) when He went up on high, redemption being accomplished (Acts 2), otherwise He was alone.

Page 39. " Everywhere pervaded by a gentle breathing of the Spirit, a gale of eternity." " From this head," Christ,. " and from His (its) agency is developed the infinitely rich and marvelous organization of the life of mankind."

Page 41. " The more man develops the inmost depths of his nature, the more does the fullness of the Spirit, the glory of God," etc., " appear in Him."

Page 42. See the curious account of Christ here, and the Church in page 43; it is a kind of mystic Sabellianism.

Page 47. " Christ, head of humanity," as such in its unity. " All made alive in Him, and in this life they form that organic communion which He so fills and animates with His divine fullness," etc. It is monstrous-a strange, unreal illusion. " The God-man develops His life in the organism of the divine-human Church.... Nature is elevated till God is all in all! "

Page 50. We have mysticism falsifying and confounding. Christ's " is a lasting influence which must work till it has attained its end, till at His name every knee shall bow," and see this carried out in what follows—"the regulation of the company " Ordnfing der Gesellschaft.

Page 55. We get his delusions again. The third paragraph, " If we contemplate the won of the natural world of mankind, His life may be designated as the end of the world," is, in the first part, delusion, in the second part Christ's action—his great false principle definitely stated, and indeed the fourth paragraph on into the next page. The Notes developing do not render werdender. He refers to man conscious of himself, being conscious of God. God being mankind which is not brought to a complete thing till humanity is perfected as a whole; it is becoming God, is it not fully yet-developing is unfolding what it is.

Page 58. “The manifestation of God in the flesh" is not God manifest in the flesh. The whole wretched system of reconciliation is unfolded in the next page—it is Irvingite at-one-ment, and with original man, in whom desire after God as a need of heart already was. “Faith and prayer were in Abraham," "His call was an answer to them." Note the question is not of the spiritual development of man, but of the revelation of all that is in God, righteousness, sovereign love, and that to sinners, and so atonement and yet more.

Page 60. All this is confounding the craving of a want feeling emptiness, and positive desire after an object. For this the object must be known, and the subjective desire formed by it. Now the Heathen did not know God, " There is none that understandeth, none that seeketh after God." For all these men man may be developed, his salvation looked at, but God never as God, as such.

Page 72. Atonement is the Irvingite at-one-ment, thus: " Atonement is the central point of His being: in Him divinity and humanity, the spirit and nature, ideality and reality, Jew and Gentile, heaven and earth are re-united." Only he does not quite deny atonement as usually meant, as Irving. But it is the same vagueness as usual.

Page 75. " In His sufferings on the Cross is seen the reconciliation of the world, and by the light of this reconciliation a glory is shed upon all sorrow, upon all that is dark and terrible on earth, as being a dispensation of God's hidden kindness. Judgment is seen in its deep inward union with sin-annulling grace, and the world is illuminated to its very depths by the light of the divine government, glorifying itself in its victory over all evil." " His Spirit glorifies even the Cross, by revealing His victory in the resurrection." But in page 80, we do not know where the atonement is, " If then we contemplate the matter of the Gospel history in the impression it has left on Christian life, in the assurance of the manifestation of God, of the atonement, of victory over death, and of the heavenly glory of Christ and His people, the conclusion is irresistible, that in this definite and full memorial of the Christian Church we behold a sacred memorial to all mankind of the great days and great facts of their re-union with God."

Now as against the Strausses and rationalists this is all well to the point, and shows a personal sense of the real import of these things, and so far good, but looked at as doctrine what is " a memorial to all mankind of their re-union with God? " And with " the heavenly glory of His people? " Is it all ideal or real? The abstractedness of certain statements makes them 'absurd. What is the effect, as a reality, of what they never heard of? Abstract truths are often invaluable, but the way mankind is spoken of by Lange and others, translating into a fancied reality the ideal, makes all false. Thus, that " Christ died for all," was " a propitiation for the whole world," and all mankind thus interested in it, is of all moment, but when as some, Lutherans commonly, they make the world reconciled, all is fatally false. So God was in Christ reconciling, but the world, as so manifested, " knew Him not," and His own rejected Him. Make the abstract truth of His dealings to be an applied fact, all is false. So the Word of God was foretelling and typically symbolizing the coming Christ, but when it is made a growing progress in the realizing of the ideal, it is all totally false, and this is the system of these men. The reality of sin and of atonement disappears in mere vain fancies.

To be exact we must have the German, it is Versohnung, and is merely "reconciliation," "at-one-ment." But the system is plain enough in Lange and in a host of others, and where run to ripeness produces the grossest fanatical heresies and evil, as in Mercersburg, Irvingism, a large class of Baptists in America, etc., at this time.

The utter unreality of the whole thing, and thereby the falseness of its ideality may be seen in pages 85, 86, " That line of theocratic Monotheism which forms the key-note in the history of the religious life of all mankind "; and, " The order, then, of the general records of the life of Jesus appears to be as follows:—(1) The New Testament; (2) the Old Testament; (3) the theocracy, especially the Christian Church; (4) the religious life of the human race." This alleged development of religious life in Heathenism, perfected in Christ and so spread forward on the Christian Church, is widespread from Germany as its center. You may find it in M. Muller, Jowett, Lange, Dormer, Mercersburg writers, and numberless others-it is the fashion. It is simply this: God originally known, men did not like to retain in their knowledge, but the want of a God he could not get rid of; hence idolatry, etc., with a consciousness that could not be got rid of, an agnostos theos (unknown God). And this these foolish philosophers make progressive religious life towards Christ. Hence Lange makes Christianity and Talmudism the proof, but Talmudism is merely man's corruption of a divine, though an imperfect revelation-Christianity either a revelation or historically the corrupted result of what was revealed. And as to the four general records of Christ's life, in what was " the religious life of the heathen, a general record of Christ's life "? They did not know God, nor of course Christ. This the Word of God insists on, both as to intelligence and desire. It is confounding natural conscience and the craving void of a want of what they have not, with the revelation of that which meets that want. The revelation of God in Christ awakens the desire where it reaches the soul, and a man comes to himself, and, God being Light as well as Love, the conscience is brought into action according to what God is, and so is an Anknupfungspunkt (as entering in, beginning point) for God in the soul; that conscience came by the Fall-the want by man's being driven out from God for whom he had been created in blessing.

And remark how revelation drops out of even Lange's idea of testimony. The Gospels are "the direct impression made by His wondrous personality." Now I do not doubt this, but the Holy Spirit and His operation on the disciples is excluded; He was to call to their remembrance whatsoever He had said unto them, and hence it was according to His holy wisdom and purpose. And as to heavenly things, which are the essence of Christianity, they could know nothing but as the Holy Ghost revealed them, see John 14:26; chap. 15: 26, 27.

Page 90. We see the import of much of the idea of a preparatory life of Christ in the sentence " The life of Christ himself was gradually introduced by the consecrations of the lives of many, found in the line of the Old Testament genealogy of Mary." The whole of this is trash. As to "the eye fixed on heroes," "How can you believe who receive honor one of another"? That there were wants in human nature, which nothing meets but Christ, is true, but confounding Christ who meets them, with the want to be met or any false heroes who did not, is false. That there were God-appointed types of Christ in Israel where the revelation of God was is true. Of Scripture, as might be expected, he is very ignorant; I mean, as a scheme.

It is not as to the life of Jesus, His Person, that there is any difference as the rationalists pretend, but all that was dependent on Christ's being in heaven as to our present state in virtue of accomplished redemption, and as to the Church, as His Body, was wholly new. So, as to union of Jew and Gentile.

Then of inspiration we do not find a trace. As to the real difference of the Gospels he sees nothing but "what you must expect," page 100 et seq.

Criticism by the understanding is essentially false. Mere integrity of the text of course may be inquired into, but even here spiritual discernment bears a great part. But God, if it be a revelation, does not present Himself to be judged, but addresses Himself to conscience-judging man. See John 4, and the crisis was not to discern what it was by previous competency, but men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. The whole of this system is false, and connected with the first principles of it.

Page 115. " Jehovah commanded Abraham to offer up Isaac; he was willing to make the sacrifice; but, in the decisive moment, he understood the command as if Moloch had said to him: Slay Isaac." I do not understand if " in the decisive moment " be Lange's own; if so it is as poor as it is false.

Page 117. Note 3 shows the utter falseness of the system in its root, it declaring the incarnation was no humiliation. It was for Lange the result to which divine life in humanity grew-the perfect divine-human, the grand result. But this makes the whole system false, and totally so. It is true that humiliation directly and verbally applies to Him as man, " Being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself." Still it is clear that the whole passage (and one sees now why these doctors deny it) is opposing His course to Adam's exalting himself, when a man, to be as God; whereas the Lord, when in Godhead form, emptied Himself (not of Godhead-that could never be), but of the status of Godhead as such, " the form of God," and became as Man a Servant. Now humiliation is properly coming down in the sphere in which one is, but laying aside His status as God is another and a much greater thing ekenose heauton (He emptied Himself). It was laying aside not the nature assuredly, but the state and condition in which Godhead naturally subsisted, and taking another, and in this sense was the greatest act of self-humiliation-a coming down from the status itself, not being lowly in it. It was a positive arrangement of God, " a body hast Thou prepared Me,... then said I, Lo, I come to do Thy will 0 God." Now it was not solely with a view to the redemption of mankind, for all God's glory in redemption was brought out by it, and our being in the same glory with His Son, John 13 and 17. Compare Prov. 8 and Luke 2, the shepherds' chorus.

But He goes back as Man into the glory He had with the Father before the world was. When He had taken humanity it would have been as a failure, or temporary means to be thrown away as no longer of any use. When He took it He took it forever, that He might bring many sons into the same glory—His metochoi (companions). But He is in the glory He had with the Father before the world was—but He is as Man in it, and such was the wondrous counsel of God that we should be conformed to the image of His Son-the Firstborn among many brethren, bear the image of the heavenly as we had of the earthly. And this is the true place of man with Christ in grace, not His union with us, which Scripture does not know, for “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abides alone." Redemption is blotted out of Scripture by this system.

Page 122. Interpretation here is all mistaken and nonsense, but needs no remark but that Christ being recognized as " the eternal principle of the universe " is panchristism instead of pantheism, and shows indeed where the whole false principle is, and the mischievous evil of it, for He is in and identified there with it, with " this present evil world." He is its Creator, and it is fallen, i.e., man at its head, and so under the bondage of corruption. It is confounding Adam, the responsible man and head, the image of Him that was to come, with Christ the Creator and Savior, Lord of all as Man.

Page 125. In every place revelation and inspiration is entirely ignored-the gospel history is “the reproduction of religious consciousness or impressions." I own the human side which I think a great blessing, but the theory is absurd, for what is it to me, as to the account of Christ, what Peter, or Mark, or Luke felt about it save as mere vessels to communicate on God's part what is to affect my mind? If there be a revelation at all it must be from God, and it is not the effect produced on Mark by the history I want, but the history itself from God.

Page 152 et seq. There cannot be a more complete ignoring of the operation of the Spirit of God than all this, of the passage John 14:26. That the revelation of the Spirit in Christianity was connected with the personal appropriation of the things revealed is blessedly true and distinguishes, it from Old Testament revelation, " It pleased God to reveal His Son in me that I might preach Him," and the divinely thirsty soul comes to Christ and drinks; out of his belly flow rivers of living water. The New Testament says " us "; the Old Testament " Not unto themselves but unto us." But to confine it to this, excluding the positive action of the Holy Ghost according to John 14:26, is to leave us to the profitless uncertainty of man's mind. The whole statement of Christ's sorrows, and the reply as to the difference of the Gospels is written in total ignorance of the truth; as total ignorance, though in a very different spirit, as those who made the difficulties. It is all miserably poor.

Page 181-2. We have here, in fact, true inspiration formally set aside. There are four factors (p. 181), but the Holy Ghost is not among them—"(1) direct remembrance; (2) tradition; (3) written memorabilie; (4) already existing gospels." Then in page 182, we have what he allows of the Spirit, i.e., its moral operation and effect of the Gospel in the heart of the writer, but none direct in the work-that is formally denied, i.e., the doctrine of inspiration of the older theology. It is a mere vital energy in the person. But the truth as to it is as old as John 14:26; he is an infidel as to inspiration, nor has he one true idea of the import, character, or bearing of the different Gospels. It is emptiness exemplified though he is defending them against rationalists. He says that " the old theology forgets they were continually filled with the Spirit "; they were not always filled with the Spirit, though he always dwelt in them, and further were not always led by the Spirit to write Gospels. The human part is followed with little intelligence, and the divine part denied. But it shows also, what I have not doubted, that in these Fathers also there was no true faith in the Holy Ghost and Word. They represent the falling Church, not the Scriptures given by inspiration of God as our sure resource when the Church was fallen. Origen saw better than Lange's note on page 186. The whole structure of his reasoning is as prosy as it is weak.

In page 223, after an immense mass of confusion and weary misapprehension of the spiritual meaning and purpose of the Gospels, we have the evil root of the system brought out and connected with it: "Divine strength partially remains in man," etc., and " The life of Christ after the government of the incarnate Love of God in the depths of Israel's life," whatever that means, entered into the world to pervade it; and all this goes on to realize itself in the four forms in the Church and in the state (military among the rest!) and so in the world. It is deplorable nonsense.

Page 258 is an entire misapprehension of Christianity founded on the false basis of connecting us with an incarnate Christ without redemption. Hence Paul's ministry is set practically aside, and the entire rejection of the natural man.

Inspiration is equally ignored. I believe personal faith as to life and atonement has saved his own soul from the effect of all this, but the system is false, and fatally false in principle and in every part and detail. If "as the incarnate Word, Christianity was perfect from its very origin," redemption formed no part of it. The incarnate Word was perfect ideally and really as he says, and therefore He was rejected and abode alone till His death wrought redemption for believers. We find too what he calls receptivity that is the author's elect ones who from natural qualities received Christ.

So in page 259, we have the fabulous nonsense of the system fully brought out. It is not worth notice in presence of the false teaching, but more complete stuff than pages 259, 261, could hardly be found. But " redeeming incarnation " is the doctrinal central point, and prophecies were " the beginning of His incarnation."

It is useless to go through all the imaginative nonsense of every page, but some points of positive error may be noticed.

Page 273. Here as everywhere, "receptivity” and “dispositions" before grace.

Page 278. The mixture of state and merging the positive communications and operations of the Holy Ghost in a state of suited feeling. Mary is " the climax of the old ceon," and pureness the new. All the rest is fancy, but sets aside the true history. The thoroughly Christological view of life and of the world is the essence of error (page 279).

Page 281. Christ " could only have become a prophet by being born again "; this is the effect of making prophecy a state of life and soul, not inspiration-Balaam and Saul disprove it.

Page 282. The second paragraph embodies the full statement of the false principle. The mystical nonsense, but important as reaching the climax of humanity in Christ as human development, may be seen in page 285.

Page 286. Religion is the first and most general form of the coming of Christ," not the effect of His quickening power. It is a Werden of Christ. All that follows states the false principle, as does what is said as to the Law. This too is connected with Christ taking the nature of man, not the person of a man.

Pages 288, 289. Again the denial of inspiration; and see the use of Isaiah's prophecy, also the abominable statement of the origin of the holiness of Christ's human nature. All that follows is mystical nonsense.

Page 295. Here again denial of inspiration, " Healthy poetry is transformed into a supernaturalistic formula "; this in speaking of Elizabeth's salutation of Mary; I: 43-45. Openly again in page 296, " We consider Mary the authority for the history of Jesus' childhood."

Page 299. " Christ saved and enriched the world." All is framed on the false system of the denial of the corn of wheat remaining alone till after it had died, and the denial of any real inspiration.

Page 303. He does not even give heed to the Greek text, it is panti to lao (to all the people) not " to all nations." See too the note: " It may here be, once for all, remarked that our view is, that in the realm of primitive Christianity there is for every Christological human disposition a pre-disposing revelation, for every revelation a corresponding human disposition. The God-man could not but be surrounded by a periphery of the God-manlike." See too the mystical notion of the state of the shepherds.

The difference of Matthew and Luke is slurred over unreconciled, and the history of the Magi as pure trash as ever I saw. The careful rejection of the real intervention of God, and the way all is made subjective is noticeable here as everywhere, and wearisome to repeat. The question as to Luke is on chap. 2: 39.

Pages 312, 313. Inspiration is here denied again, and true circumcision, as shown in Christ, made to be "civilization of nature."

Pages 314-318. All this is really deplorable stuff. I never read such nonsense in this line of things as this book. There is an absolute ignorance of the mind of God which is painful to read-fruit of ignoring God's action in the statements.

Page 322. Christ " the genius of the new human race "; speaking of Luke 2:46, 47. So page 332, but the statement he founds on Col. 1:15 is wholly false, and the argument none at all, " Christ is the first-born of the new human race, or rather the prince-born of mankind, and of the world."

Pages 323-324. He cannot help introducing his own thoughts, degrading the Lord. He makes, too, by deifying man, everything natural unnatural, while God disappears. I doubt his soundness as to the divinity of the Lord. But the whole is a pack of childish stuff, He never "expressed an ideal of dwelling in the temple"; he degrades everything.

Pages 326-328. As to prophecy all is infidelity. It is not only stupid stuff, but absolutely and in its essence false-the contrary is positively taught in Scripture. There is no trace of apprehension of the divine mind; it is deplorable.

Pages 349-357. The account of John the baptist, though all hollow, needs no comment; that of Christ's baptism by him is false from beginning to end. The meaning of John's baptism was exactly the opposite of Christ's death-led people to receive Him and not put Him to death. If it signified Christ's atoning death in His case, it did so in the others, and they were all Saviors; it did not mean two things, though Christ be expressly excepted by John's remonstrance. And so far from its being to Christ's death, those who had received it were baptized over again to that; Acts 19. Christ threw Himself in with the godly remnant in their first right act, but the Spirit of God takes care to except Him from its meaning as to others. The whole thing is total ignorance of the truth. It was not the law, “the law and the prophets were until John," then the kingdom of heaven was preached.

The Lord's baptism by John was at the end of the account of his ministry, as related in the beginning of the Gospels. When he says " I knew Him not, but He who sent me," etc., it refers to John's personal knowledge of Christ in contrast with his prophetic testimony, not to his testimony dependent on the Holy Ghost coming on Him. That only showed He was the Baptizer with the Holy Ghost. He had given a prophetic testimony that He was the Lamb of God (John 1:29), with the same distinction, verse 31. The testimony, verse 32, was subsequent. This made him competent to say through the prophetic revelation (v. 33) that He baptized with the Holy Ghost, and was Son of God. It is after this the exclamation “Behold the Lamb of God," whereon the disciples followed Christ; He had now publicly taken His place. There was already a previous testimony, verses 15 and 19 to verses 26 and 27. Then the next day that of verse 29. But the turning point of Christ's position is in verses 32-34. But this stands by itself undated, and was what John said after it had taken place, when Christ had left him thereafter.

The object of the chapter as to John is to give all his testimony as to Christ. And in this place the two capital points that He was the Lamb of God, and the Baptizer with the Holy Ghost. This last comes in as a distinct record. This took place after the Lord's baptizing John; then the Lord was forty days in the wilderness. And the Lord went on acting, but not in public ministry, and John went on till cast into prison, and the Lord was in Jerusalem and went into Galilee, but did not definitely leave Judaea and go into Galilee till John was cast into prison-taken up in Matthew as the next thing after His temptation because this was His public ministry in Israel, so Mark and Luke. This is only in John 4. John is more the personal history of the Lord, and then the giving of the Holy Ghost. Thus John 1:32-34, though perfectly in its right place, comes in, as to chronology, parenthetically; verses 29, 33 served one the other as to date. As to the date of the event, verses 32-34 may have been, probably was, before verse 19.

It is wearisome to wade through pages without any truth at all. What stuff is in pages 357, 358! With the usual denial of inspiration though John says: “He that sent me," etc., “said to me"; and the usual ignorance consequently of the meaning of Scripture. Again what namby-pamby nonsense is page 359, besides just exactly a contradiction of the truth as to John. One phrase, however, I suspect to be misrepresented in the translation, for if not he contradicts himself; he says, speaking of John the baptist, “As the prophet of the Messiah he knew nothing officially of Jesus." It should be, I think, “knew nothing officially of Messiah as the Divine Prophet," i.e., yet.

Page 360 is the same stupid nonsense. How bright the simple record of Scripture is compared with all this! But this ignoring consciousness, now widely spread, is very bad.

Page 361. All this is not only mystical nonsense, but utterly false doctrine; he does not really believe Christ to be God or man; it is a kind of Sin-Being with divinity. It is the most complete folly and nonsense that could be thought of. I suppose He thought Himself possessed of divine intuition! Facts are mere nothings to him; but then besides the root principle of the abominable false doctrine is here too-a really antichristian scheme.

Pages 364-365. The unutterable stuff of this " Christological pantheism," here leads him to fatal error as to the divinity and Person of the Lord. His merging personality in life and life-consciousness, and this connected with inspiration, makes at once a mystical world of folly and false doctrine. The utter falseness into which it runs may be seen by a comparison of page 366 with the passages the sentences allude to. He confounds too temptation from without with lust within, and brings in gross moral ignorance from making Christ a kind of perfect soul of a totally corrupt world imperfectly from creation, while " ideality and reality met in completeness in the Person of Jesus." But was He as God before incarnation? What is “more tempted by sin than any other man"? "Tempted by sin” has indeed no sense where is the sin the man is tempted by? He confounds trial and lusts. Man has sin that dwells in him; had Christ? All this is ignored. Compare James 1 and Rom. 8

What is feeling the temptation of the world "? As its soul it may be understood—a divine fullness and an evil world in the same person, which is his dream, would produce this antagonism; but was the world Himself? He was " the principle of the creation of the world " (page 360), then " of humanity," then " of Theocracy," till last of all He became " the life principle of Jesus." The distinction of finiteness and definiteness is false, for what is defined is finite, though it may be used metaphorically. Did He create the world? Who was HE before the incarnation?

Page 370. The Cross is degraded by this system. In Gethsemane and Golgotha He was alone, save His Father and God.

Pages 373-374. You may get a specimen here of the man's mind It helps to account for all the wild fancies in the book. If you want what is equally low and nonsensical, you have only to read the account of the temptation; the pandering to rationalism is deplorable. How much simpler to say, " He was tempted of the Devil! " So God says. How he appeared I do not know, which is indeed not the least consequence; the inquiry spoils its power.

Page 394. All this on " the plan of Jesus " is very bad. Spontaneous perfectness and uniform obedience is lost in a mass of poor ideas. It is really a wretched book with an idea of depth which is only human mind, and worshipping it, and missing wholly every divine apprehension of Christ. How different the divine simplicity of the Gospels! All this planning and arranging of Christ (pages 393-394) lowers Him in every way as a divine Person, as an obedient Man who lived by every word which came out of the mouth of God, and who walked in daylight so did not stumble. There is no true conception here of a single element of His path.

Pages 407-408. This is better than the rest, though an effort to beautify ideally what is much more beautiful simply. We must remember (page 410) that neither Lange nor any of these men ever go into that other world in which alone we are connected with Christ-the world into which He is risen. Hence all the conclusions they draw are always and necessarily false; but this page shows great ignorance even of the Old Testament. The second note shows only how low he and such reasoning can go. But it is the effect of not seeing the judgment of man in the flesh, and Christ risen, and the new Creation. The third note (page 411) shows how totally he is unable to meet the difficulties by not seeing the coming of the Lord, and the Church's place. Most of the fourth note is very sad. It cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.

Page 413 is a very clear statement of the evil principle of the book; so page 414 near the top. It is striking how God is left out even in miracles (page 418). It is "a new higher life stage." I do not think he really believes in the divinity of the Lord; i.e., that He is God; see pages 419 and 470, which convince me that he is not sound.

" The Son of Man anointed with the fullness of the Godhead." When? It confounds incarnation and what happened after His baptism by John-" Jesus and the Christ." I admit of course that He cast out devils by the Spirit of God, and that the Father who dwelt in Him did the works; but the question is His Person, the life realized in the Old Testament, the Angel of the Presence, etc. His becoming man was, as to form and status, a kenosis.

What is " incorporated with humanity "? He abode alone.

I suspect Selbstanschatiang is mistranslated " actual vision," and misconceived, and conformed with what follows. At any rate the total falseness of the whole system is fully shown in the last sentence: "Christ Himself exhibits the completed mediation between the unconditioned omnipotence of God and finite conditioned nature-therefore the mediation of miracles." But the resurrection knocks all the argument on the head. No nature process would have raised Lazarus in his body. But the whole of this (page 422, last paragraph) is the false principle of the whole book. Alas! resurrection and all else succumbs to the pestiferous folly of this book. " Clairvoyance by its purity," " Demoniacal possession by its awakening foreboding power," all are a " mediation of the life power of Christ in miracles "; and if you wish to see a specimen of the quintessence of nonsense, you have only to read the pages on resurrection (page 426, etc.).

Page 432. He goes a step further here in uniting Christ and the world.

I read through, but the connection of effect in people with casting out demons, the previous susceptibility of souls for good, spiritualism, which has governed all Lange's thoughts, here the assertion that miracles were by the mediation of moral states, is as miserable as can well be conceived; that sin and Satan's power are connected, and chastisement may be found with a moral ground for it, no one denies. See note 1, page 446, for a specimen of trash.

Think of the wedding guests become one as branches with the true Vine, with Christ as " principle of the world's transformation," and so the Water becomes changed for them into wine! What I wonder at is how men of sense can have had such utterly childish nonsense translated; but this is a phenomenon to be noticed. It was a higher ethical ecstasy, a beautiful but extraordinary state of mind! They were transported by the power of Christ's Spirit from the beginning of the world to the ecstasy of the transformed world! That it was typical figure I believe, but:—I do not go further into the mass of mystical nonsense with which this morally weak man goes on, pages 451-453. The resurrection of the wicked has no place in his system. Miracle I have noticed elsewhere—exclusive of natural means it may be, but the true miraculousness lies in this when God's will, whether powers of nature are used or not, is the cause by immediate power, if without natural means, mediately or by those means of an effect which would not otherwise arise, is produced where natural agencies would not be in activity without God's will at the time—it is a miracle.

Pages 476-479. All is wrong here as to parables. Christ uses them both ways. I do not doubt that God formed the imagery of the world in a way adapted to moral use, but to make it part of the form of life is all false—a kind of Platonism.

Page 483. All the statements as to the parables of the kingdom are incorrect, and the interpretation erroneous, while his " susceptible souls " are mixed up with what is really contradictory through his dread of " fatalism," and denial of grace.

Page 491. Here, with the common misinterpretation, we have the evil principle of the whole book. I -leave all the parabolic interpretation; but (page 512) we have the natural human heart identified with grace in Christ; in page 515 a difference in man's nature, in man's capacity for salvation—a horrible principle flowing from his rejection of grace. Whence comes it? See too page 523, where "kingdom of the Spirit" means "man's state spiritually by nature," "the mental gift"; so page 524, the unfaithful servant, where the principle comes forth in a frightful shape.

Prophetic Map

What I conceive is to be expected as to the map of Providence is very simple, and speedily to be shown. Turkey in Asia to come under the power of Russia, whereby it, in Scripture designation, becomes the king of the North, wherein Gog is identified with it, being brought up out of the North quarters. Turkey in Europe to be made, as far as Philip's power extended, Greece again and perhaps the courts of the Archipelago in Asia.

Austria would probably take hold of the Servian and Bosnian provinces, which were not part of the Grecian kingdom. Persia will be under the influence of Russia. I have a strong notion of the severance, in a great measure, of the Babylonish provinces from the minor Asiatic, and to be independent of them, though not of the power of the king of the North; Persia may be amused with, but he will not have the possession of some of them, while England will merely offend him on the other side, but it is on the former part I rest as facts as stated.

I think Austria will be dismembered, and change its position.

It would appear to me thus (see Map).

In Ezek. 38:6 we have “of the north quarters, with all his bands" under Gog as their head, “chief prince" (or prince of Rosh) Meshech and Tubal.

In Daniel the land of Mizraim does not escape, and then " the Ethiopians shall be at his steps."

We have here then the two component parts of the Gentile portion of the great valley of Jehoshaphat.

It is my opinion that the French will carry the power of Antichrist overrunning the Mediterranean, and I should think Greece, i.e., carrying them along with them, and should find themselves at the point of division just in the Arabian country, i.e., the point of contact, Jerusalem and Judaea as the southerns always have as we know. Russia, the northern Scythian nations, I am disposed to think the Turks also, but do not feel sure the position they will hold (it is as possessing Turkey, i.e., in Asia particularly, they will be king of the North-but see the distinction put between the Assyrian and Gog) Persia or rather Media and Persia-Peres (see Dan. 5) will be in their train, and also, so I interpret, the eastern Ethiopia or rather eastern descendants of Ham, just as the western or southern descendants of Ham will be "at the steps" of Antichrist / or the mature apostate body, for they will be judged as Antichrist, Gog and Magog, for coming against the Jews.

As to Poland, it seems at present reserved between the two for squeezing out the Jews as it were, as in fact, I believe, they are a mixed race not properly eastern, Scythian nor western; but Sarmatia, southern of internal Africa and China will have, I conceive, no proper part in this great catastrophe. They are included in other descriptions at least as far as I see.

It is to be observed that the Medians and Persians are different races, the former being Japhet, the latter Shem, i.e., Japhet and Shem bore a part in the taking and destruction of Belshazzar in his impiety, and I suspect Shem and Ham were in Babylon, i.e., Shem as ruler and Ham as the mass of the people. However that may be, we know that Ham possessed the southern parts of Euphrates, etc., i.e., we have Ham on the two rivers, the Nile and the great river, and separated by Shem, i.e., Judaea formerly theirs in possession in Canaan. Esau and Ishmael holding Arabia-we thus readily account for the nations apparently the same in Antichrist's and Gog's army, in fact it is just what under the circumstances we might expect. I say “apparently," though Cush be mentioned in both; and there were undoubtedly descendants of Cush on both sides, for the beginning of Nimrod's kingdom was Babel, etc. So the word “Libyans " in Ezekiel is Phut, a son of Ham, and in Daniel Lebin; I should suppose the same as Lehabim the son of Mizraim.

The annexed form of map will make it plain.

The French, i.e., Western Europe under Antichrist, then will extend their conquests along the Mediterranean, Egypt not escaping. Gog, the chief prince of Magog, will possess himself of the rest of Shem, and therein of the eastern Cush and Phut. They meet naturally, the body of the Jews having come out of both, i.e., east and west (note, Uz was the son of Aram); specially Poland I suspect beginning it in Judaea where the valley of Jehoshaphat and all related in Joel and Daniel take place, for there, it is manifest, all the powers of the world will be brought together as they have acted within the limits of God's known providence, and formed the subject of Scriptural statement as to kingdoms, i.e., powers in the world previous to the interposition and restoration of the four great kingdoms with " the power " of Ezekiel, acting as described in Joel; and of other types the Gog and Magog of Revelation includes all and runs over the whole extent of the inhabited earth, not the powers of the earth as in the formative system, for then the system is formed and it is re-action, in God's wisdom and permission, of judgment on those not truly of it, as I am led to believe.

The Noachic and Abrahamic earth under Providence so as to leave the will of man to act; see Genesis 10:1, 2-4, and compare also Ezek. 38:13 and Gen. 10:7. For Dan. 11 Compare Gen. 10:5, 13, also Noachic.

Note, Nimrod was the first gibbor-tzayid (mighty hunter) in the earth; gibbor-tzayid is "prowess," including craft, cunning, i.e., tzayid (hunting). It is an important characteristic word running through Scripture; compare 1 Peter 5:3, Christ the Chief Shepherd. Compare also 1 Peter 2:22, and Gen. 6:4; 2

There is not a more important chapter in Scripture as to the providence of God than Genesis 10. We may inquire the names of the cities—this city—building is of Cain; see also verse 22. Does not this make part of Asia Minor Shem, though there were Ludim, sons of Ham?

1 Samuel Chapter 2

25. The arresting prayer in the way of God's governmental anger is not new, see 1 John 5:16. It is refused in Jer. 7:16; chap. 15:1. Here the question is merely asked.

1 Samuel Chapter 6

Critics have made a difficulty in this chapter about fifty thousand in Beth-shemesh, but it is a blunder. “He smote the men of Beth-shemesh,” but the fifty thousand were Be-am (of the people)—Israel, not Beth-shemesh.

1 Samuel Chapter 7

This chapter is practically the one which gives us Samuel's own service as judge.

1 Samuel Chapter 9

11. "Seer" is the term used in common parlance in Samuel's time for prophet.; another word is used in Gen. 20.

1 Samuel Chapter 10

This is dearly a verse by itself. The previous verse ends the present directions for Saul, and his direction is to "do as occasion serves." Then comes a special direction in case of his going down to Gilgal; nor did he at once take up the kingdom, but went home.

This verse goes on with what had been closed in verse 7. He takes his place publicly as king only in chapter 11:15, which goes on, Samuel considering his office as closed, to the end of chapter 12.

1 Samuel Chapter 13

1. What difficulty there is in this verse I cannot conceive. Saul "was the son of a year in his reign" (see margin) "and he reigned two years over Israel, and Saul chose," etc. "Saul reigned," is the identical expression used in Kings, "and... was... years old when he began to reign," but, if so, his age is left out—"He reigned (two) years" is the accompanying expression there. He must have been between thirty and forty, for Jonathan his son had command of troops; a younger son forty when Saul died.

8 refers clearly to chapter 10:8.

19. "Hebrews" is the regular Gentile word. Abram is called “Abram the Hebrew"; see also Ex. 2:6, 7, 13, so chapter 1:16 and 19. There cannot be a doubt that it was the name used by strangers—“the children of Eber."

1 Samuel Chapter 21

13. Ey-tiv (it please) used for seeming good with nothing to follow.

1 Samuel Chapter 23

Note particularly the difference of the strain of David in his last words, and the song when he was delivered from all his enemies and from the hand of Saul—when the Lord had been with him in all his difficulties and trials, and what man was in the enjoyment of all the results of this deliverance and exaltation by the Lord's blessing. The end of blessing here is to recount the failure of man—of trial, the abundant fidelity of the Lord. This is true in many other instances, yet the covenant remains firm and assured; but triumph over sorrow, humiliation in the results of blessing over man in blessing, read again the end of 1 Sam. 2. This is a most important and humbling consideration. How completely the case with Paul, i.e., the Church, but it is in the intimacy of confidence we can treat it—not justify those who are the occasion of it.

2 Samuel Chapter 7

23. "For you"; one MS. (182), Kennicott, has "for them." I should have suspected l’cha "for thee," "for thyself."

2 Samuel Chapter 21

1. There is no “then"; the only note of time is “In the days of David."

15. The war was rather on the part of Israel against the Philistines. The war was against the Philistines.

2 Samuel Chapter 22

24. Not iniquity, i.e., indwelling sin, but that which would have been iniquity for him if he had done it; this is the true sense of it.

2 Samuel Chapter 23

8. It is to be noted that these statements contain no complete recital of the facts, but merely what redounds to the glory of the person named in what happened. "Whom he slew" is a mis-translation; (he stood) against eight hundred who were slain at one time. I have some doubt if 474, a good M.S., Kennicott, be not right, "The wise man"; however he is called in 1 Chron. 11:11, "Son of Hachmoni" (margin).

11. Shammah is omitted in Chronicles, and his deeds are ascribed to Dodo's son, Eleazar. They were very likely both there, but I should doubt it was the same occasion. This is a foraging expedition for plunder; 1 Chronicles hardly so. The language, however, is nearly identical.

Except Abishai and Shammah, the first twelve were the monthly captains.

2 Samuel Chapter 24

6. Dan-jaan. Dan is evidently not Laish; it was a name known long before, as may be seen by Jor-dan. This is confirmed by the comparison of Deut. 34 I with this verse, where we see Dan-jaan was above Gilead, "All the land of Gilead unto Daniel" Josh. 19:47 is evidently an insertion subsequently to complete the history, verses 46 and 48 very apparently coalesce when it is left out. It is one of the proofs of the careful revision of the records under the prophets.

9. In Chronicles 1,100,000, but there all the males of Israel-grown men. Here Judah on the contrary given as a whole in round numbers; here formed men of war. In Chronicles I suppose more exactly. Note here the 800,000 were Ish-khayil (valiant men), the sum of the male population was greater, i.e.,1,100,000 without Benjamin and Levi. The men of Judah are taken in general here, they are not given as Ish-khayil; hence in round numbers. In 1 Chron. 21:5, the men of Israel are not the Ish-khayil. If this word be sought with a concordance, its force is very plain, as Judg. 3:29; 1 Samuel 31:12; so with B'ney (sons of, i.e., sons of strength, soldiers).

Note.—We say “Come"; the Jewish remnant "How long?" So the saints when speaking of vengeance and judgment. Christ to Israel, man on earth, "How long shall I be with you?" How we see the difference everywhere!

1 Kings Chapter 6

1. I have no doubt at all that this applies to their being settled in the land. The Judges were three hundred and ninety years—rest two hundred and seventy nine, oppressions one hundred and eleven years—Samuel, up to Mizpeh, twelve—402 years; Saul forty, David forty—482, not taking into account overlapping of years of judges or reigns. Samson and the Philistines must not be counted apart, nor Eli; they were in the time of the oppression of the Philistines.

1 Kings Chapter 8

30. The whole of this prayer is founded on the direct government of God on the earth—does not go beyond the promises made to Moses.

66. This eighth day I suppose was at the end. It would seem from 2 Chron. 7:8, 9, that the Tabernacles was last, the dedication of the altar first. They went away at the end of the day of restraint.

1 Kings Chapter 9

25. Solomon also offered incense, and burnt offerings and peace offerings three times a year.

1 Kings Chapter 15

There is certainly confusion here, as verse 6 comes in after Abijam. It is some question to me if Maachah was Absalom's daughter or granddaughter. If Absalom's daughter, allowing only five years from Absalom's death, she must have been six years old at David's death; the common chronology gives eight. Rehoboam was a year old when Solomon began to reign, so that she was five or seven years older than Rehoboam if Absalom's daughter, supposing her born within a year before his death-the shortest possible almost. Solomon reigned forty years, this makes her forty-six or forty-eight at Rehoboam's accession. It is possible she may have been Absalom's granddaughter, as in Chronicles it is not said his mother was Maachah. If 2 Chron. 11:20, 21, 22, be directly connected, it is clearly so. The mother's place was, and is a kind of official one in the East, not the wife's.

There remains 2 Chron. 13:2, which, if not a mere misreading, must be compared with chapter 11:20-22; and, if the same Abijah, raises further the question of Absalom or Abishalom-is Absalom the son of David? The fact of Kings 15:2 and 10, shows that something is to be sought out, some key I mean to it. The author of Kings and Chronicles cannot contradict themselves, nor each other, in the same passage, and both on the same point.

I think it is evident that it was not Absalom's daughter—it might be his granddaughter but it is very doubtful. Maachah may have been Abijah's grandmother. But there seems little doubt Abijah's mother was of Benjamin; it may be she was called Michaiah, and Maachah as the change of name is the commonest thing possible. Uriel and Abishalom were both known. One Uriel, I suppose, her father, the other a well-known ancestor. So Abihail, 2 Chron. 11:18, is evidently only a descendant of Eliab's. It is thus possible, though I doubt it, that Maachah may have been a granddaughter of Absalom, and daughter of Uriel. What adds to the probability of this is that Absalom was son of Maachah, so that the name may have been kept in the family; 1 Chron. 3:2. Uriel was a Benjamite, and called his daughter Michaiah; Maachah was given in Judah where David's family connection was naturally kept up.

1 Kings Chapter 18

36. Elijah cries, as Moses did, to the Lord God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel. Who was happiest and nearest the Lord? It is not in the worst times, at any rate, we are always farthest from God. The people took no heed when the question was on their faith in the God of Abraham; on the proposition of a sign they say “It is good." This shows their state—it was a sad but a misled one; the rulers of this people caused them to err—a pitiable one, but what a sign of the power of Satan.

2 Kings Chapter 9

Ahaziah killed in flight in this chapter, in 2 Chron. 22 he was caught and brought before Jehu; buried by whom?

2 Kings Chapter 17

33. Whence had they brought them?

2 Kings Chapter 18

4. This was very distinct faith, and reference to God—I mean the destruction of the brazen serpent.

2 Kings Chapter 20

In the history of the fall of Samaria and the Assyrian inroads, there are questions of chronology partly internal partly comparative with profane history (cuneiform). The margin (Usher and Lloyd) have resolved the interval by an interregnum. This is at any rate in substance right, because Hoshea is said to have reigned nine years. Yet in the twelfth year of Ahaz he begins to reign, and Pekah was slain in the third year of Ahaz, for Ahaz began in the seventeenth year of Pekah, and Pekah reigned twenty years. I do not enter here into the nicety of current or complete years. What was the condition of Hoshea, said to reign instead of Pekah, whom he slew, I do not know, therefore I say “in substance."

Then in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah, i.e., the eighth current year after Samaria was taken, Sennacherib came up. This all hangs together perfectly; then fifteen years were added after his illness. That his illness was before the Assyrian invasion is clear from verse 6, and the same in Chronicles. The external difficulty is this: Shalmaneser came, it seems, three times against Samaria, was overthrown, and Sargon, mentioned by Isa. 20, took Samaria ("they" in Kings, i.e., Assyrians). But by the Assyrian Sargon reigned at any rate seventeen years. After Samaria he conquered Philistia, Egypt, or at any rate the Ethiopians, and thus was in or near Judaea. This puts Sennacherib's attack in the twenty-fourth year of Hezekiah, in the sixth Sargon takes Samaria; Sargon seventeen at least, twenty-three at least complete. Now it has been a question whether it should not be read "in the twenty-fourth year of Hezekiah" instead of the fourteenth. "In those days" it is said "of his sickness," but it was certainly before. Further Merodach Baladan sent to congratulate him on his recovery. Now Merodach Baladan was put down by Sargon his first year, but, it is said, immediately returned. But Sennacherib put him down again on his accession to the crown. Thus it might be in the reign of Sargon, when he was king in Babylon, that he sent to Hezekiah, and as Sargon was attacking or had attacked and conquered Philistia and Egypt, the promise to preserve from Assyria was quite natural. Jerusalem would be evidently in danger when Samaria, Philistia and Egypt were conquered, and Merodach Baladan, having resumed his power, would naturally seek to coalesce with Jerusalem, and after chapter 18:15, he had not many treasures to show his ambassadors.

2 Kings Chapter 25

27-30. This is one of many passages which show a revision of the previous historical parts of the Old Testament at some such date as Ezra. The prophetical care of the published history is one of the Biblical facts of importance as to inspiration and authority of Scripture. The middle of Isaiah is a demonstrative example of it.

1 Chronicles

That Chronicles is a gathering up of fragments that remain I long ago noticed, besides its Judah and Davidical character as contrasted with Israel—very likely by Ezra, a priest or by a Levite. They take up the remnant that returned, but go back as far as possible to its connection with their original history.

1 Chronicles Chapter 2

It is to be noticed that though Jehovah was known, the name did not in general enter into the habits of popular thought till it was a national God, and then it did, and this is a proof of the antiquity of the Pentateuch. The names are not compounded with Elohim, but with El.

Further, there is no evidence in Chronicles of any names compounded with the name of Jehovah or jah before that name was taken in covenant by God. The earliest is that of "the sons of Ethan; Azariah," verse 8. In what generation he was is not shown; Ethan was in the same generation with Achan's grandfather, and Achan was in Canaan, so that Azariah was quite probably after the Exodus. The notion that genealogies give all the steps is notoriously unfounded, and in Chronicles it is merely the gathering up of memorials. In this case it is more than probable he does not say "the son of Ethan" but "the sons"—Azariah was the only one who represented the family.

There is no proof that Caleb was the son of Hezron, son of Pharez; if it was the same Caleb as in Numbers, he was the son of Jephunneh. One thing is certain, the Hezron in question died in Canaan in Caleb Ephratah, and it was after this that Abiah bore a son. Hence we see there were no early names in Chronicles with "jah"; Abijah was the grandson of one who died in Canaan. In general the names are after the Exodus. Carmi and Hur are given as sons of Judah because they were directly descended from him, for they were clearly not his sons, nor was Shobal; verse 50 shows that Shobal was at least great-grandson of Judah's grandson, and Reaiah was his son, i.e., there were at least six generations.

The notion of some that the name “Jehovah” began with Samuel is, upon the face of it, the most improbable possible.

It is supposing that the nation had no name for its God at all—a thing the most unlikely, and the most unlikely at that time, and if they had not a divine revelation. A nation without any name for its God is incredible in those days.

7. Carmi, son of Zabdi, son of Zerah.

42. Caleb is here clearly of the race of Judah.

1 Chronicles Chapter 3

21. The sons of Rephaiah are either stocks apart as constantly given in Chronicles, or connected with the preceding royal race through daughters or unnamed sons of one or another branch; and this is confirmed by Hattush, grandson of one of them, coming up with Zerubbabel. So that they were anterior in date, as a genealogy, to Zerubbabel's coming up—collateral branches of the royal race with Zerubbabelsons of some of Salathiel's sons or others.

1 Chronicles Chapter 9

The beginning of this chapter shows the services of these genealogies, used to link the two, though imperfect. Compare Neh. 7:63-65.

1. We shall not understand Chronicles till we see it the re-establishment of the remnant, but connecting it with the old things. We see, too, if the source be ascertained, passing over generations is as nothing in the genealogy.

11. Note “House of God” is used in Chronicles in the historical part, though "House of Jehovah" in editorial, so to speak. In Kings it is “House of Jehovah." Daniel says “House of God."

35-41. This is taken up again from chapter 8:29-38, to carry on the former history beginning with Saul's death, and begins the history with recurring again to the family of Saul. The porters and singers were Levites of a particular category. It all clearly refers to the return from captivity. Chronicles and Nehemiah are distinct lists, perhaps using some like sources, made at different times.

1 Chronicles Chapter 10

4. Does this dying word say anything for Saul: “uncircumcised"?

1 Chronicles Chapter 11

1. There is no “then." Simply it was some years after—nearly seven. This is often the case in Old and New Testaments so that there is no mark of time.

These names are, excepting Abishai, the captains of the courses each month, only Dodai is given not Eleazar son of Dodo.

36. Here the lists seem to diverge from those in 2 Sam. 23

39. Here they seem to correspond again.

42. These from Zabad are all added.

1 Chronicles Chapter 12

23. Compare chapters 11 and 1.

1 Chronicles Chapter 16

22. We have the joy of faith, see Psa. 105. The Psalm goes on then with the famine in Abraham's time and its consequences. Egypt and God's government up to the land not the subject here.

The Psa. 96, but not so definitely, is the bringing in the First-begotten. It is Jehovah's claim and title here, and that over all the earth which He will assume in judgment but for the world's joy.

34. After past and future are sung past faithfulness and power to come. His unchangeable mercy to His people is declared, and then the repentance and final consequent blessing—the first and last verses of Psa. 107

As regards the presence of a testimony on mount Zion before the establishment of Israel in settled peace royally from God in this chapter, we have the first part of Psa. 105—the part that recognizes the pilgrim character, and certain promises without condition given to Abraham or the Fathers, and their position in the midst of kings. This was the basis of their position—these were the promises they were to remember. All the dealings of deliverance in Egypt are no more recorded here, as their faults in the accompanying Psalm 106. God remembered Abraham in Egypt—they were called upon to remember him now. Jehovah had remembered His covenant. His judgments were now in all the earth. It is a call to Israel to get upon their true ground of the ancient promises and seek Jehovah; the ark of the covenant being now not established in the Temple but by the faithfulness of God in the midst of His believing ones. Psa. 95 was different—it was a moral summons to Israel in general not to harden their hearts while it was called "to-day"; but Psa. 96 here follows, which is the appeal to a new song for all the earth on the ground of Jehovah's glory. They are called to come up and appear before Him, then giving up the gods of the nations; next is the well-known formula of "His mercy endureth forever" established by faith here, verse 41, enjoyed in 2 Chron. 6:3, recognized by Nehemiah, owned in the manifestation of glory in 2 Chron. 7:3, and recalled and applied to Israel's circumstances in different Psalms in the acknowledgment of all their failures. Psalm 106 their bringing back, and the dealings with them, from all lands, in the recognition of this day that the Lord has made for them, and of Messiah, then more widely to the Creator of all things, God of gods, Lord of lords, that redeemed by judgment His people from the place of their captivity, that guided them, put them in possession in spite of all obstacles; who remembered them when fallen and redeemed them and provides for all; Psa. 136. But it is particularly, it seems to me, Psalm 106 that is taken up here, i.e., half Psa. 105, 96 and 106.

1 Chronicles Chapter 29

22. The first time I suppose was in chapter 22, or it is a wholly new sentence.

2 Chronicles Chapter 6

4. This is what we look for, I'David (unto David). David embraces the Lord's character in the days of His flesh, His humiliation, and His conflict until His peaceful glory in the built temple, His enemies being overcome, should be manifested. Then He is also the Church's Husband; during this it is of import that He should be the humbled Man, and it is of the truth, and indeed essence of the faith of the Church that she should also own Him as the Anointed, clinging to and cleaving to Him as Her Beloved. In all this David was a type, and therefore expressed by the Spirit, according to that in which he was made a type, the full development of all that appertained to Him, according to whose order he was spoken of as the beloved, the David (beloved, dear) while he looked out in spirit for that which should belong to his son Solomon, for it was out of the David state, that all the glory of the Solomon state grew; and it was the view and aim of the Solomon state, though unattained, that was the basis of the conduct of the David state, for neither could He have been Solomon without David, nor yet David without Solomon, neither, as regarded God, even "Him for whom" etc., nor Himself "who for the joy " etc., as we see with much other matter begun and ended with in the Hebrews as to mystery.

I conceive therefore, waiting for further proof, that l'David means "upon," "of," or "concerning" the circumstances of the Beloved, i.e., it is the expression of some part of Christ in His character as "Beloved." This, we have seen, embraces from His leaving the glory to His having it again, i.e., from His humiliation to His Solomon state, for He left not His divine nature or glory, but His assumed—He took the Jesus-Glory, and the life of His people, that He might lay it down and take it again as the ground of His and their exaltation, quod nota, as, and so I apprehend, Heb. 2 states. All the acquirement of the Glory is His David state (specially this applies to the two great times in Jerusalem, in His presence there in Person, and afterward in Spirit, i.e., in the latter day), the enjoyment of it His Solomon state, when He is manifested to the people.

And so accordingly I receive 1 Chron. 17 which is immediately connected with this ha-a-adam ham-ma-a-lah (the Man of high degree) but I do not take the Jehovah Elohim (0 Lord God) to be more than address, so it is constantly, and here, and is the pledge of the covenant power of God as rested in on this subject.

Here also I think we shall find the clue to the ka-hal (congregation, verse 22) and b'ka-halran (in the great congregation, verse 25) in Psa. 22, that very full Psalm. Ka-hal is the David congregation, though as true of the other, Christ's Solomon congregation, or of peace; compare 1 Chron. 13, etc., and 2 Chron. 7 and 9, also Psa. 72

2 Chronicles Chapter 7

Note, in the feast kept by Solomon at the dedication of the Temple, that though the feast of Tabernacles be kept, yet the great day of atonement was included in it. The fifteenth was the day of Tabernacles (Lev. 23); they left Egypt on the twenty-third; so that there was that seven days, thus 15 + 7 = 22. But the feast of the dedication of the altar was 7 days to 15-7 = 8. So that the great day of atonement fell on the second day of that feast. Did they keep it, or is it passed over in silence on purpose? It having been in the antitype fulfilled long before, now the fruits merely are reaped.

2 Chronicles Chapter 15

10. The fifteenth year of Asa was thirty-five years from the death of Solomon, or at any rate from Rehoboam's mounting the throne of Judah.

2 Chronicles Chapter 16

1. Josephus says probably it was in consequence of chapter 15: 9, that Baasha built Ramah, and this all together brought on war, for Ramah was hardly built. Baasha died in the twenty-sixth year of Asa, see 1 Kings 15:33, and chapter 16: 8.

2 Chronicles Chapter 22

2. It is known that forty-two should be twenty-two, as it is in 2 Kings 8:26.

9. I am not anxious about it, additional facts so often clear up difficulties, but I think this verse can be easily reconciled with 2 Kings 9:27. First, the order that he should be buried because he was Jehoshaphat's son was executed by his servants taking him up in the chariot to Jerusalem. When he saw Joram killed he turned and fled and Jehu pursued, not personally at the time for he went on to the palace and had Jezebel cast down, and ate and drank, etc. But he did not let him go any more than the king of Israel; hence he orders others to smite him. Found in Samaria—a natural place for him as Ahab's family was there—thence he sought to escape and took the road to Megiddo and was slain, brought to Jehu, he had him sent up to Jerusalem and buried. But the story is not dear; or, as is more consistent perhaps, they found him in Samaria, brought him to Jehu, and he escaped thence and fled, and was then killed in his chariot, died at Megiddo, and was then taken to Jerusalem and buried. The apparent immediate connection in 2 Kings 9:27, is only in italics. In Chronicles Jehu seeks Ahaziah after killing his brethren; it was on his way to Samaria after the death of Ahab's sons (2 Kings 10:11-13), and then it was in verses 8, 9, of our chapter that he sought and found Ahaziah. This makes the account plain so far that there is no kind of contradiction. If Gur and Ibleam are between Samaria and Megiddo, not Jezreel and Megiddo, it would be almost certainly the true one, and I apprehend this is the case if modern maps are to be trusted, but in another order. From Samaria Ibleam is beyond Megiddo; from Jezreel it is to the right, being north of Megiddo, Samaria south, Jezreel east, but it is the going up, or ascent, to go there, and he got as far as Megiddo though wounded in his chariot and no further. The ascent to Ibleam was the road from Samaria. It is very possible it did not go through Megiddo; there is a range of mountains between Samaria and Megiddo in the map. But from Jezreel nothing would take him to Megiddo. Kings mentions nothing of Ahaziah's going to Samaria, which was quite natural as Ahab's family was there, and it was his way, or nearly so, to Jerusalem, but merely says, Jehu gave orders to smite him too, which was done on his way to Ibleam. Once slain, Jehu made no difficulty about his being buried being Jehoshaphat's son.

2 Chronicles Chapter 34

9. They had been sent, doubtless, round the country, over which it appears Josiah exercised a certain control, see verse 7. It was these who returned to Jerusalem. The three mention in verse 8 managed it with the high priest.

14. Not a book but the book. It was a known thing, “the Book of the law of Jehovah by the hand of Moses."

2 Chronicles Chapter 35

20. This was thirteen years after.

Ezra Chapter 2

41. It is possible there may be a textual error here; compare Neh. 7:44.

Ezra Chapter 9

9. It should be we “are," not we “were” in this verse; the difference in the sense is important.

Nehemiah

According to ordinary computation Nehemiah came up B.C. 445, returned in twelve years, i.e. 433, and came back "after certain days," see chapter 13: 6. Hattush came with Zerubbabel, B.C. 536.

Nehemiah Chapter 5

1. Note here that “the people” and the Jews are already distinct.

Nehemiah Chapter 11

Are not the verses wrongly divided here, i.e., this verse should end at “two” in the third line, and verse 13 also should end at "two” in that verse, and then on to “great men," end of verse 14? However it is so in the Hebrew.

Nehemiah Chapter 12

16. We have here Zechariah the son of Iddo in the days of Joiakim son of Jeshua; and in the Targums, in Jeremiah, the Jews are accused of slaying Zechariah the son of Iddo, prophet and priest, in the sanctuary. Note in Zachariah 1:1 Berechiah is the son of Iddo; compare Matt. 23:36, “Zacharias the son of Barachias." So that we have remarkable historical probability of Zechariah the prophet's being so killed, but I avow that 2 Chron. 24, being nearly the last chapter in the Hebrew Bible, I think it exceedingly probable that it may have been the Zechariah referred to in verse 20 that the Lord refers to, "Son of Barachias" being an addition.

Job

It has interested me in the history of Job that all Satan's accusations failed. God practically justified him against them. “In all this Job sinned not." The trials served as preparatory work for God's purpose which follows in making him know himself; and giving us the solution of the great problem of this world's government, at least so far as to set aside man and his judgment and righteousness, and God's use of it for His special dealings with the saints. Of this Elihu is the interpreter, and man's nothingness and self-judgment is then brought out and God's blessing.

The patriarchal character of Job is every way evident; the history which introduces and closes it speaks of Jehovah. It is an account given by another, very likely Moses, including Job's expression of submission. But in the dialog which is the didactic part of the Book, including Elihu, all is God and the Almighty. It is its character I speak of here, for his age and the character of the idolatry confirm it.

Job Chapter 1

1-6. This is the history of the book.

It is to be specially noted that in its introduction and dose we have Jehovah in the Book of Job. In all the Book itself; including the speech of Elihu, we have Elohim, Shaddai, etc. In the Book itself we have the ways of God as God in the whole world. In the introduction and close—the interpretation of divine government—we are behind the scenes in revealed dealings. This leads to special observation of Elihu's place. There are springs or sources of action in the beginning and close—motived dealings; in the Book, facts on which man reasons, and from which he draws conclusions; we are above in the former, below in the latter. Compare chapter 3: 21, and Psa. 139:15.

Job Chapter 2

9. Compare chapter 1:5.

Job Chapter 3

The comparison of light of life in the Old Testament and the New has something remarkable in it. In the Old it is coming and being as born in the outward light of this world, as in verses 16-20 of this chapter, and more fully and to our purpose in Psa. 66:13, see also chapter 33: 30; but for the New, for the Lord, this is merely John 11, "the Light of this world." But "In him was life and the life was the light of men"; and then John 8, "He that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life"; it is not the light of nature—life in this world. "Seeing the light" is being born in the Old, having light in this world, having life in it. Now the Light of life is having Christ, seeing by the power of that life which is in Him, He being withal the Light itself. "The life was the light of men," but a phenomenon contrary to all physical possibility, "the light shineth in darkness" (where light is, darkness is no more) but in man "the darkness comprehended it not." But He is Light—in John 8 detected the Pharisees, the light exposes all things. But following Him there is more—the Light of life—he livingly sees the light, just as the new-born babe first, and the living man sees the light, is in it because alive to Christ who is the Life—when received He is the Light of life, i.e., being alive we see the light as living men, as being such, " In his light we see light."

Job Chapter 5

9. Note this verse and yet more to the purpose chapter 9:10; I have thought there might be connection with these passages in the mind of the apostle in Rom. 11:33 seeing the reference to Him who created all things, and so bring out comparatively the unsearchableness of this counsel of God, these riches of Christ.

Job Chapter 7

1. Job is the enosh (man) in himself, i.e., as exhibited in himself, see verses 9 and 17.

Job Chapter 9

There is more emphasis than we are often aware of in this chapter. "How should a man be just with God?" More emphasis on "with God." Man may be just in a certain sense—not fail in a way to disturb his conscience in his relationships with men—but just with God is another thing. The three friends put the course of things in this world as an adequate expression of God's righteous judgment. This even is not true. But when the question is how to be just with God, it is wholly different; and this the inward exercises of Job's soul brought him to. The working out this, though in impatience, is what we have in this chapter, and arriving at a need, at the conclusion, which the Savior specifically met. God was there, fear being taken away, and One who could lay His hand on both. Man in the inward parts is exposed before God.

21. On the ground of being perfect.

29. On the ground of being wicked.

Job Chapter 27

3. Note here man's spirit is called ru-akh Elo-ah (Spirit of God), so it returns to God Eccl. 12:7. So we have "The God of the spirits of all flesh," and certainly Eccl. 3:21 is important "Who knoweth the spirit of the sons of Adam? That is it that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that is it which goeth downward to the earth." Compare Num. 16:22; chap. 27: 16, and Heb. 12:9; there cannot be a stronger word than genos. Its sense of kind makes the sense of race or offspring so much the stronger.

Job Chapter 28

This is a very remarkable chapter; it pursues man's skill as doing all sorts of things—skill, metallurgy, engineering, binding the floods, and bringing forth hidden things from the earth. Skill, unlimited in a certain sense, in what is subject to him, but this is not wisdom; that is not in the land of the living -

only one thing in this world, though it be it not, has heard its fame, knows it negatively—"death and destruction," they show that all that is vanity does not sustain an I, and which cannot sustain itself. God ordered all these things; and so far, as to creation, i.e., where man lives, had wisdom as to what does occupy man. But He put man in relationship with Himself; that is more. And the true recognition of this, and the consequent exercise of conscience, that is wisdom for man.

But then will comes in (chap. 29) in connection with self and makes self, alas! its center, though even God be owned. And compare the conscience chapter before God, and self-complacency with and before himself and before men. And how then (chap. 30) pride and contempt of others and occupation with evil with love of self breaks out.

Job Chapters 33, 36

There is a difference between these two chapters. The former speaks of the ways of God with man, the latter of His ways with the righteous. Hence it does not follow in the first that man is converted, only God deals with him; if he hears it is well, he gets the blessing. It is God—God dealing with man, whoever he is, and so breaking his pride; then if he hears the word he gets the blessing. In the latter chapter God is dealing with the righteous, "He withdraws not his eyes from them"; it is not only that He deals with them. Hence he has a specific object-He shows them their own ways—opens their ear—commands them to return, "If they obey" and so on. This is a different and specific action; with hypocrites it is another thing. The general government of God is to be considered in the first case, see verses 29, 30.

We have to remark this in Elihu's speech, that he brings forward God and gives Him first His rights, and draws all his conclusions thence. He first speaks to Job and shows, as we have seen, God's dealings with men by which He asserts His supremacy and warns them God deals with men. It was not a question who was right and who was wrong between God and men, nor as the friends said of bounden retributive justice. Next he speaks to wise men who can understand him. Job had been haughty with God-said it was no use delighting Him. Elihu says He is certainly righteous, and it did not become man to say even to a prince "Thou art wicked," much less to God. Here he speaks of God's title to be owned, and of what He is, but He does judge rightly and break down pride. It becomes man to bow under His hand and seek to be taught. Elihu desires here that Job be fully tried and humbled in view of the dishonor done to God before wicked people by his words.

In chapter 35, Elihu turns again to Job, and takes up the title of God against him. Job had said "What profit should I have if I were cleansed?" Elihu says, "What profit would God have if Job were righteous?" "Judgment is before him in the midst of all the oppressions of the earth," and Job should see His hand and trust Him, and was visited because he did not, and yet Job had not sense to find it out. Next Elihu speaks of God's dealings with the righteous whom He chastises for their good, but still in view of His own character and title. If the righteous submit they are blessed, and so would Job have been; but hypocrites have no understanding of His ways, and cry not when He binds them. He then exalts God in general. In all he speaks in God's behalf.

Job Chapter 38

1. Note Elihu speaks of "God," and of "the Almighty." Here we have "Jehovah." In the few words of application between the Lord's speeches, He is called "God" and "Almighty." Here it is ignorance; in chapter 40 Job acquiesces in silence. The Lord takes up Job's competency to call in question His judgment; it results in self-abhorrence.

Note farther that "Jehovah" is in the mouth of the author of the Book, not of the personages in it; so in the first two chapters. It was important to identify Jehovah with the God of all ages and all dealings with men, but the persons whose history is recounted did not so know Him. This is all natural and true, and gives its true moral date to the Book.

Job Chapter 40

2. Note as to date and composition and even moral object in this Book, the author always says "Jehovah." The persons in the history always say "God" and "Almighty," and so Jehovah Himself to Job in this verse.

15. "With thee!" note this.

Life and Eternal Life

IT is well we have Christianity. The thoughts of a future life by philosophers well show what their thoughts are worth. How thoroughly disgusting for instance are the thoughts of Madame de Gasparin. But one thing is specially worthy of note, that ancient heathenism is rapidly reviving. Lambert is merely Buddhism (or do I confound Brahminism here with it from want of memory?), save that in Buddhism in the three highest worlds there is no danger of descending.

All the Gasparin view is horrible and pretentious nonsense. Christian spiritual joys-the love of brethren—Jesus as He is—divine delight of a new man—all that constitutes heaven is out of philosophy, unknown to it. The Christian is more at home there than in this world. This is natural as they have no idea of a new life. But philosophically the spiritualist's ideas are wrong. I—personality—does not require memory; I is never memory—it is always conscious I. It supposes continuity not memory. I remember facts but they are brought to a present I, which I thereby continue to that time. It is done easily in brief space. The present I—there is no other—is in yesterday made present. If I look at I as in the scene past in time, my consciousness looks at another person though I may know it is myself by the facts, by memory entering into my present consciousness. I am conscious it is the same because my knowledge of the events is by my being in them. If there be an I, one individual soul, it is clear it continues though all memory of the past were lost. The conscious identity is lost as regards the circumstances, the knowledge of it (as in a somnambulist), but the I is the same. Faculties are not I but of I; nor is reason more so than anything else. No doubt God is the supreme Intelligence; but to be a cause this is far from all—there must be a will and action in power.

If, as some of these people assert, eternal life being only in Christ proves that man does not live, is not immortal, it proves that he does not live now. I do not use this at all as a proof that he does live after death, for it does not do that at all, but it shows that the argument proves nothing Other things may prove that I am alive now and not then, but eternal life being only in Christ does not prove it, because if that showed that a man had not life without it, it would prove that he had not got it now, if not a Christian. If a man has life now without having eternal life, he may have it then; what kind of life it is remains to be proved, and how long it lasts. I have eternal life when I am certainly mortal as to my human existence, when I am not immortal but mortal. The word “eternal" does not therefore apply to my state of existence as man, for I have eternal life when I am mortal—I may be immortal and not have it. The very angels have not eternal life as we have it in Christ; are they therefore mortal or do they not exist? That is the question here. It is clear the decay of the body or system of senses proves nothing, if the soul be distinct in nature. All the argument from eternal life to existence in any shape or duration is perfectly baseless.

Life is that which a being enjoys, the position in which he is placed. Hence in man it may refer to that in which he enjoys what is down here, or, as he is in relationship with God, to his enjoying that position. Sin brought in the ruin of both. But we may lose one to keep the other, and save or spare one to lose the other. Literal death closes the enjoyment of what is down here, rather, more exactly, the capacity to enjoy. Being by sin it may involve a great deal more—through redemption it may involve much greater blessing, as leading to a higher enjoyment of the other part of our position—relationship with God.

Sin separated man from God—God was no source of enjoyment at all. Responsibility man could not destroy, but he was cut off by the state of his soul from any enjoyment of God, and responsibility brought only fear; he sought enjoyment in what was beneath him and hated the One to whom he was responsible. Now "life" is employed in both these respects and death too, “She that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth"; we are "dead in trespasses and sins," being alive.

Death may be used generally for deprivation of capacity of enjoyment, in either or generally involving both, or rather expressing that general idea, because the bringing in of death was judicial separation from God. When once man had taken his own will and lust he was dead as to God, and, though he might enjoy for a while what pleased those lusts, was dead to God; then judicially driven out from the place where life in the world was to be found in the tree of life. He was under death physically, appointed to die, and dead towards God. The law came and proposed enjoyment here, but with God. Verbally the judgment of man and woman in Paradise was only as regards his life, and her giving life, here. Driving out the man was another thing.

The life promised in the law was a life of enjoyment with God, but not necessarily out of this world. Man being made for God, the only full enjoyment of life even here is with Him, or we are dead whilst we live. And then actual physical death, closing even enjoyment without God, ushers into the place of judgment in connection with responsibility which is another question, a question of guilt and righteousness not of life, though these may go together. Christ is life and Christ is righteousness for us. So that when I say "the wages of sin is death," it is no doubt physical death, but having lost God it is abiding death to the soul when that is come, so that if it be said "if ye live after the flesh ye shall die," it does end life here but takes in the loss of all enjoyment in the soul. We are without God already, and all is lost, in event, with life here. "If ye mortify the deeds of the body ye shall live," it is not that we may not die physically, but possess the enjoyment of the soul in a higher way too. No doubt it is in the new Creation, but alive here with divine life we shall live that life in its proper sphere.

The whole question is if I consider life down here, or in relationship to God. Only Christ gives us life, the capacity of enjoyment with Him already down here (only in the sphere to which natural life belongs) but we are not, save by faith, in the sphere to which that life belongs and whence it comes.

The Law only proposed life generally, as the result of obedience. Life and incorruptibility were brought to light by the Gospel. We have the life of God, joy in Him, but not in the place to which it belongs, but in the place of ruin to which natural life belongs, though even so now in that state without God. Eternal life, in the thought of God for us, is in the sphere that belongs to it, i.e., the new Creation—likeness to Christ—conformity to His image. So we shall have it when He appears—now we have it having Him as life, but in a sphere foreign to it. Those spared in the millennium have the life and divine blessing on earth with it. Others may partake in the earthly blessing, not having it, and so fall away. But this even, in the spared then, is not its full development; incorruptibility is not then come, though the sphere is peace not combat, and Christ manifested there. In Luke 9 we have Moses and Elias, the disciples, and the cloud besides. Eternal life belongs to a certain sphere of enjoyment, but it is the capacity of enjoyment and has its highest objects now, but is not in its sphere, “This is life eternal to know thee" (the Father) "the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."

I feel one has to go step by step in reading John's Gospel and Epistles too. The Epistle goes farther than the Gospel as to the blood of Christ. The first great point is Light and Life. Life being the light of men who do not receive it. Even the lifting up on the cross is that men "should not perish but have everlasting life."

Next from chapter 13, we have cleansing but with water, and this for companionship with Christ where He is gone—a part with Him who is departed out of this world to the Father. From thence we have the state and life, abiding in Him, and fruit here, and the Holy Ghost. Our place with the Father and with the world, Christ's.

With Pilate again He is on Jewish ground (Psa. 2), King of Israel and Son of God, but the Jews rejected in His rejection. He was their King, but they had “no king but Caesar." In Gethsemane and on the Cross we have the Lord only in that character in which He freely lays down His life that He may take it again. In both it is simply Himself, freely giving Himself and it up. In chapter 20 we have this present time till Thomas, and then the millennial manifestation after the remnant gathered, and closing with Peter and John's service—the present time and Paul left out.

But note, the eternal life and the cleansing associate themselves. Christ, as come down here, spake that He knew and testified that He had seen; He was the eternal life with the Father and manifested—the Son of man who was in heaven (he on). Then when the cleansing of chapter 13 comes, it is that they may have a part with Him going to God as come from Him, going out of this world to the Father, all things put in His hands, when He could have no part with them; He was washing them in view of where He was going. So He has sanctified Himself that we might be sanctified by the truth, the Spirit takes the things of Him and shows them to us, and that is all the Father has, and we " are changed into the same image from glory to glory as by the Spirit of the Lord "hence " unblameable in holiness before God and our Father at the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints," so John 3:2, 3. Still from chapter 13, it is our state and position—the revelation of the Father in the Son, so that we know where He was going and the way, and the coming of the Holy Ghost to make us know the things and our connection with Him—our position.

We get “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (not the " sins " even of believers), and who baptizes with the Holy Ghost. But we must be born again; even the Cross is to “have eternal life”—the eating His “flesh and drinking his blood" to live by Him. We have life and cleansing (by water) for the sphere life belongs to, not bearing sins or justifying, nor redemption by blood; that belongs to the old life and its fruits, or rather ourselves as viewed in it. You have Christ's death for our life, from love to us His sheep, or otherwise He abides alone, but so will have fruit, is loved of the Father because He lays it down that He may take it again. But all this just shows what I refer to and mean.

But in the Epistle it is different, not that there is a development of redemption or justification or bringing us to God, but, as fellowship is its subject and down here, although life and its true character in us be its primary subject as that which we have—that fellowship—yet we must bring in the blood of Christ or the unclean would have it, and the guilty, which cannot be. Hence after stating the subject matter and object (chap. I: 1-4), the apostle speaks of what, from God's nature, we must have to have it; for we walk in the light, as God is, to enjoy it. We walk in the light as God is in it, having fellowship one with another, the blood cleansing us from all sin, not water here, for as he says, " He came not by water only but by water and blood," the fact having been witnessed in the Gospel. It is cleansing and divine favor, forgiveness, here, not propitiation and judicial righteousness, for this compare Rom. 4, for we could not have administered forgiveness if there had not been the other—the justifying.

We cannot say we have no sin, nor that we have not sinned, and we have forgiveness on confessing them, and cleansing from unrighteousness. His advocacy to restore communion is that of the righteous One who has made propitiation, but all this refers to fellowship and communion. This is done towards God and according to His nature—the forgiveness is received administratively and actually on confession. And this of course runs through, the sins of all Christians are forgiven as to redemption and judicial imputation.

Love was manifested in that He sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins, but it refers to what we are fit for, how we are fit for communion before God; and love is perfect in this that " as he is so are we in this world." For the rest, it is what this life is as contrasted with the sinful one, and that the Spirit, the water, and the blood all bear witness that eternal life is not in Adam, but the gift of God, and that in the Son.

I have now to see how life is put forward in the Gospel. First "in him was life, and the life was the light of men " (these last specifically), as here “the light shone in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not."

Chapter 2 is Jewish, when being Son of man He returns.

Then, chapter 3, we have its nature in us, "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit." But it is also practical cleansing by the Word of God (water); then comes the Cross, "must be lifted up," and God “has given." But this introduces heavenly things (the other, even for the Kingdom, as earthly) and in connection with this He testifies what He has seen and heard. It is eternal life and the words of God down here. All things are given into the Son's hand.

In chapter 4, Judaism is left. The Father is seeking worshippers, and God must be worshipped in spirit and in truth. Here it is God's gift, and a Christ, a divine Person, completely humbled, dependent for a drink of water, which He had created, on a rejected stranger, gives living water—the power of life in the Spirit (the law of the Spirit in Christ Jesus), which is in us but springs up to the place of its source, the heavenly relationship known through the Son.

Chapter 5. The Son is acting in power, as and with the Father, and gives life, quickens whom He will—first souls then and now, and in due time will bring up all out of their graves to life or to judgment which is committed to Him as Son of man.

In chapter 6, it is the incarnate and dying Man, and faith receives and feeds on Him—first, flesh and blood, a dying One known in death (closing relationship with the first man altogether), and then as the Bread come down from heaven to give life to the world, not promises to the Jews or Israel; hence it is always for believers " I will raise him up at the last day." Responsibility as to receiving life is at the end of chapter 5.

Chapter 7. Instead of Christ's showing Himself to the world and giving rest there, He gives now the Holy Ghost to those that believe on Him—the time was not come for the other. This time is characterized by the Holy Ghost " was not yet " (ouk en ett).

In chapter 8, He is the Light of Life, but, as we have often seen, rejected in His words.

In chapter 9 He gives sight and is rejected in His works.

Chapter 10. Here He gives eternal life to His sheep, lays down His life for them, and though the wolf may catch and scatter them, cannot catch them out of His hand. Also it is eternal life—they cannot perish. He and His Father are one—it is a common work and security. Judgment is the Son's only.

Chapter 11 brings in another important element. He is the present power of resurrection and life for us—resurrection going first—here back to mortal life as Jesus was here. Now a life had with Him, spiritual quickening and resurrection from the dead as He is hid in God, and if alive first spiritually, will never die; but I doubt not when He comes not at all, though death is not then yet destroyed, but he who has the power of it bound. This is not positively revealed, but here seems to be found on principle. With a rejected Christ the power of resurrection must come first; hence in Ephesians, when dead in trespasses and sins we are quickened together with Him and raised, and sit in Him in heavenly places, but here Christ is looked at as having been Himself raised as One who had died, descended as to this where we were, and God is the Workman. So that, though impliedly owned, it is another aspect of it than life from Him.

In chapter 11 we have resurrection and life—His power—death theirs, but in God's mind for them and to gather the children of God.

Chapter 12 closes His then present relationship with the Jews. We have the remnant attached to and separated to Him; then the final presentation to Israel, and the Gentiles, but for that, the Son of Man's glory, He must die. The world is judged, but its prince cast out, and the attractive point for all men set up before their eyes. The blindness of the Jews is then stated; still He was come Light into the world, and believers would not walk in darkness, and His Father's commandment which He fulfilled in His Word was life everlasting.

Chapter 13 enters, as said, on the new position He was taking, only.

The beginning of chapter 14 shows what they had had while He was there.

The beginning of chapter 15, shows the disciples' relationship with Him while He was there. The Comforter's coming as, in a certain sense, taking His place, is gone into in the latter part of chapter 14, and at the very end of chapter 15, and in chapter 16; only in the beginning of chapter 15 they are exhorted to hold fast the connection, and abide in it, as are we. But it is responsible position here.

In chapter 17 the character and form of eternal life is the knowledge of the Father and Jesus Christ as sent of Him; for so He is ever seen in John, though everywhere God in his writings. “The Father " is the guiding word here, and then Christ as sent, though before the worlds.

As regards eternal life. First in its essence and nature it was in the Son with the Father; 1 John 1:2, so in John 1. “In him was life"—as Man down here, the Person of Christ. He was given to have life in Himself. Life and incorruptibility are brought to light by the Gospel. But “eternal" life was in the counsel of God and promised us in Christ Jesus before the world was. In its full result it is in resurrection glory, “In the end everlasting life," “Springing up into everlasting life." But we have it when we have Christ, “He that heareth my word and believeth on him that sent me hath everlasting life," " is passed from death unto life." “He is the true God and eternal life." And “whosoever believeth on the Son” was to have “everlasting life." Thus it is essentially in the Son, given us in Christ Jesus before the world. But in counsel this is in glory with the Father, yet intrinsically in Him and received from Him; before we are there we have it.

Then as regards Old Testament saints, the general truth remains. They must be born of the Spirit to have part in the kingdom which they have, " So is every one that is born of the Spirit." But life everlasting is, as far as I am aware, only spoken of the millennial state ad-ha-o-lam (forever and ever) Dan. 12:3, and in Psa. 133, simply o-lam (evermore).

The life is in and accompanies Messiah's presence, only we know now that it is in resurrection it is displayed in man, and that we have it now in a glorified Christ. The saints on earth in the millennium will, I suppose, have it in the form in which blessing is brought to them. The foundation is in John 3:14-16; the moral change and that in communication of life is in chapter 5 et seq. But the place and character of eternal life is in chapter 3: 14-16. As with the Father we see it in the eternal Person of the Son. Saints were quickened by the power of it in all times, but it was not brought to light. In Christ incarnate it took its form as regards the purpose of God—it is revealed in Man. But this was not the full purpose in counsel—that was conformity to Christ in glory as Man, through the Cross and triumph over death and him that had the power of it. The fruit will be life ad-ha-o-lam (forever and ever) for those on earth, but not participation in the glory. The Gentiles will have it then too, as we see in Matt. 25

The testimony as to eternal life before its full revelation in Christ stands, I think, thus. In the New Testament we find it clearly contemplated by the Jews, as in John 5 and Matt. 19:16. It may have been vague, but was fully before their minds as was the resurrection. As regards the Old Testament, not to speak of its implicit revelation in the relationship of God with Abraham, in Psa. 16, the path of life in resurrection through death is clearly announced, but only as to Christ directly. In Psa. 21, we have not death, but length of days forever and ever—long life—eternal life. Psa. 16 is more, it goes through death into the divine presence by resurrection. This is governmental and millennial. Then when Judah is Lo-ammi, and God's ways with them then are brought out,

Daniel is distinct as to the saints also " They shall wake up, some to everlasting life "; this carries it out, as I judge, to scattered Israel. Matt. 25 extends it to the Gentiles in the earth. The full heavenly character and place in which it resulted in Him, who had come from heaven and went back as Man into it according to the counsels of God, gave eternal life its crown and glory; but it is not the direct force of the thing itself. Yet John, who speaks most of it, always brings it out on earth whether in Christ or the saints. Paul pursues it to the heavenly glory in which alone he had seen Christ.

It is worthy of note how Paul never speaks of eternal life as a present thing. He says many things which involve it as " not I but Christ lives in me," but as he brings us before God justified, and in glory, so eternal life is there for him, as for all, in its fullness. He can say in general; “The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." But it is not, as in John, a present living power in us more than a state to which we arrive; for Paul the end is everlasting life—for John, "He that hath the Son hath life." I do not mean difference in doctrine, for there is none, but aspect and apprehension in the Word—one is intrinsic life, the other condition in result before God.

Connect these passages, Titus 1:2—life promised before the world, then 1 John 1:1-3—here it was with the Father and was manifested in the world—what and in whom the life was Then John 1:4, 5, life in Him, but this life light distinctively and as such for man, not for angels. It was the display of that in which man was to be in light before God. The old man understood nothing of it. But then 2 Timothy 1:9, 10, where we find it manifested by the Gospel after He had gone up, life and incorruptibility being brought to light in it. Now, turning back to Titus also, it is manifested by the Word, by preaching, by which Word we are begotten to life. Thus life is eternally in the Son, before the world and promised before it, given us in Him, i.e., is manifested in the second Adam, the power shown in resurrection, and its place in the counsels of God in the glorified Man forever. The first Adam, however true and real his responsibility bringing in result death and judgment, comes in as to eternal life by the bye. Then Christ undergoes death and judgment for us and enters into the power of life in Himself, but by the action of God, into the new eternal sphere of man's blessedness. Thus life was before the world, will be after it as to its present state. The first man and the world only come in by the bye—between—as the sphere where all is brought out and the work of redemption wrought, for that was in respect of sin, and so God is glorified as to the first Adam, and life is in righteousness according to God. But what a thing eternal life then is!

It is to be remarked that in John 3 eternal life is not connected with being born again but simply the kingdom. It is necessary for that we get a nature suited to have to say to God in whatever way. It is the Spirit's work—a nature suited to know Him. Eternal life is connected with heavenly things, and the lifting up of the Son of man, Son of God. This shows us what eternal life is; it is wholly in Christ (compare John 1) and to us through the incarnation, but necessarily also the death of the Lord Jesus, compare John 6:33-58.

In Him and promised to us (Titus 1) before the world was, but brought into man by the incarnation (for He was in heaven) and we into its place and condition through His blessed death, resurrection and ascension, compare John 6:62. The Bread from heaven is Christ; then we come into its own proper place by redemption and in resurrection, for redemption in the full sense brings us into heaven. The Kingdom, specially the lower part, does not meet this. No doubt every blessing does for sinful man, but it is not the proper fruit and result of redemption—heavenly things are that—eternal life knows no other place. In Christ thus, who was and is eternal life, risen—here He the Son of man was in heaven. There may be condemnation by rejection here, but entrance into that to which Christ belongs involves for us redemption, death and resurrection. This in its great principle of application is reasoned out in Rom. 4 and 8.

Further we have the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that being justified by His grace we should be heirs according to the hope of eternal life. The renewing (anakainosis) of the Holy Ghost is not merely " regeneration " or a new life; it is objective bringing into the sphere we are introduced into by Christ and redemption, the kainos state of things—new creation (kaino ktisis), the neos regeneration is more subjective, essential but subjective and in application does not, that I see, go beyond earthly things, but earthly things with God—the desert now (not Canaan) and the desert to blossom as a rose but not Canaan. So in 1 Peter 1:22, 23, it is subjection " you have purified your souls in obeying the truth, being born... of the Word." No doubt heaven is here full in hope, but the regeneration, the being born is subjective condition. The strongest point of connection, for that is what it is, is in James 1:18, but it does not in fact reach out of the sphere down here, though the sort of nature for that according to the purpose of God. Peter is “hath begotten again" (anagennesas). In Matt. 19:28, the regeneration (paliggenesia) is clearly earthly and a state of things. So that what I get in regeneration is a subjective state “born of God," "of the Spirit," "of water," "of the Word," and as a sphere merely, so far as earth, only the foundation of relationship with God.

But the Spirit as shed on us goes farther. Here I have an anakainosis of the Holy Ghost.

The whole sphere of relationship is changed and the hope of eternal life comes in. So in Colossians and Ephesians, the palaios anthropos (old man) is put off. This is general, the former man now grown old and rejected, but then we have distinctly the neon and the kainon; here neon is in connection with regeneration and subjective, and kainon new in nature and character, and, brought into a new sphere, its relationships are in question—neos begins, kainos is different, and so lives in a new sphere. Thus, Colossians, we have put on the new—it is a new man now beginning, but it is anakainoumenon into knowledge according to the image of Him that created it. This is the renewing of the Holy Ghost shed on us, anakainosis. The nature is proper—capable—but it is in a wholly new scene and there developed in power. So Eph. 4 we are ananeousthai in the spirit of our minds. This is subjective again, in contrast with the corrupt old man—what it is—and we have put on the kainon anthropon, one new in character, different, created according to God in righteousness and holiness—neither corrupt nor innocent, but according to the character of God Himself. The sphere is not entered into; he had largely done this, and his object here is character, still it is objective (kata).

The washing of regeneration cleanses subjectively, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit—has Its essential nature and characteristics—but the renewing of the Holy Ghost leads us into the whole sphere of that new state of things into which Christ is entered as risen and now gone up on high. And though we must be born to have life, and have life if born, yet eternal life is only known in redemption, and the scene and state into which redemption brings. Hence though we have put oak the new man (kainon) in putting on the risen Christ, yet there is an anakainosis through the Holy Ghost in bringing us into the apprehension of the new creation (kaine ktisis) where all things are new (kaina).

Then in John 3 also, water is no way baptism. Baptism is death, as is evident—our purifying, having done with the nature in which I lived the water came out of His pierced side and life is in the Son, second Adam, and that consequent on death as come amongst the first. God has given to us, therefore, eternal life it is said there, and as the water and blood through death testify it to be in the second, risen One, Son of God, so the Holy Ghost is a witness of it. Here again we have what Eternal life is. But the water, though really purifying, the application of the Word, yet is here only by birth not death and resurrection as in baptism, and goes only to the kingdom.

" Ye are clean through the word which I have spoken to you"—a new nature and moral effect that was produced, and must be, by John 3; but the sphere did not thereby go out of this world—by death and resurrection it clearly does. But the Son of Man coming in in the power of that life which was before the world, and then dying and rising, introduces into the new creation (kaine ktisis). He abode alone while here, but by redemption, and being in Him, we have our place there, and to this the Holy Ghost corresponds.

Note, the Master or Teacher (he didaskalos, Matt. 10:24) is no difficulty; Israel was the disciple (he mathetes), and so he ought to have known—it is the article of contrast quite common.

But there is another point, I think, which comes out from the end of John's gospel. I have said for us it must be by death and resurrection, but in itself it is in Christ, and this leads to another and more intimate apprehension of what it is, though always on this ground.

I have an idea that Colossians, as to the point of progress, takes the ground of John 20, Christ risen breathing on the disciples; as God breathed into Adam the breath of life, so Christ does in the power of His resurrection. It is life in the power of resurrection, by the Spirit communicated, that was associating them with Him in the power of that life. In Colossians we have not the Holy Ghost, but we have “risen with him." In Ephesians we have the Holy Ghost and sealing for the day of redemption; hence purpose and the new Creation. This evidently connects itself with the coming of the Holy Ghost, whether from the Father as putting consciously in the place of sons, or sent by Christ glorified revealing all given to Him as Man. In general the Holy Ghost leads us into knowledge of the purpose of God, length, breadth, depth and height.

The Old Testament saints will clearly have been born again, and have the kingdom. They, as every one else blessed, are clearly dependent on the work of Christ as propitiation, as in Rom. 3, “the remission of sins that are past." But there is more in the Cross (as received). It is not the blood on the doorposts the blessed Lord refers to in John 3. There is the recognition of the world being no place (though God may be with us in it, not as in Egypt), but the world recognized as atheos and place of Satan's power, and so Christ, proving it, lifted up out of it. While He was in it consequently He was alone—men by nature were of it. And though born again they get the kingdom; here was more—He, Christ, was alone in His Person that eternal life which was with the Father, and was alone such in the world which was not it in any way. Hence “the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father," "the Son of man who is in heaven." Who else was there? Even had ascended? He was thus alone. He came "eternal life" into this world, but was alone in the out-of-the-world, heavenly condition of relationship and Being in which eternal life consists, which was before the world not only in God but in counsel for us—given us in Christ—manifested in Him alone in the world, and now consequent on His being lifted up and gone out of it into the heavenly place of which He taught, that into which we are introduced in Him.

Now in John 6 we have this brought out; not the blessed Lord's death as offered to God, the one ground of all blessing, but the reception of it, entering into it by man. He is the Manna, the Bread which came down from heaven, was not of this world though in it and born of Woman. This is expressly stated in John 17, and carried on to the disciples. It is life to the world—Jew and Gentile all merged in sin in nature, and so children of wrath; and here Ephesians joins in chapter ewe are there quickened together with Christ and set in Him in the heavenly places. But in John 6 we have the process in the apprehension and reception of Christ—the digesting by faith into the life of our own being. He is first the Bread which came down from heaven to give life. But so only, though really such in power, He remains alone. We have it only in resurrection, a new life and condition of man because in nature he was away from God in nature and wrath—a condition entirely out, away from God, yea, in enmity. Hence as receiving this life we enter into the expression of this, and that in our conscience, in Christ's death and resurrection; we are rejoiced to have a part in death because it is death to the nature and system estranged from God, and have life only in the new condition in Christ. It was in Him in this world not in the old condition in life though entered into it—come down from heaven; but we have it who were of that condition by being delivered out of it, having wholly done with it by death—ceased to exist as to it—and entered as receiving Him dead into the new place.

But John 6 takes up not our entering in, though we receive Christ for it, but the full reception by faith of His dying in grace, so that divinely for faith the life-giving One separates us by the end of criminality (death) and atoning redemption, but here in the power of separation absolute, and judicial, from the old; not leaving it, which He could have done, but so no use for us, but by dying to it so that He did so in that which was needed for man as coming under that judicially, and man's ceasing to have to say to it in the only possible way because we were alive in the nature which made it such—death only could end that, besides the putting away of sins. Hence we have eternal life through it in due time—the form of it in that we shall be raised again and conformed to Him where He is gone; but it is not our dying with Him here, though that be true, but our full entering into His doing it in grace, giving Himself in flesh for the life of the world. And this belongs to the character of life He had with the Father before the world was, for He ascends up where He was before.

Nor is there any full truth as to what man is, or God is (in respect of man), or the world is so as to be with God according to the power of Christ's work but by this. He gave Himself for our sins that He might deliver us from this present evil world—that, though the truth, is its lowest expression, for He brings us to God according to all God's judgment of good and evil, as glorified in Christ in His death (and so taking man to Him and making him the vessel of the revelation of what He is). Whoever believes on Him has this, but it is only by the death and blood-shedding he has it. The Word has been made flesh that it might be thus. To guard against false conclusions from this as to the term " eternal life," we must remember that the spared of Matt. 25 go away into it; still even then it is those who have received Christ, in His humiliation, in His messengers—will have had shared in the sorrow of a Christ the world rejects. So the 144,000 of Rev. 14 and “the great multitude" of chapter 7, though the matter be not then in hand.

In John 6 we have One in whom is eternal life in nature and being, always in the bosom of the Father as living here, coming down and bringing this new heavenly thing, and dying,

giving Himself even to death to close the old thing and set it aside, i.e., to believers, thus while having it in Himself dealing in respect of the world, i.e., of man's condition in it so as to make an end of that, and introduce us in the pure glory into which He is entered according to the worth of that which He has wrought. He has taken flesh, eternal life being in Him, and given it for the life of the world. It is the death we enter into, and receive in our souls, so as to have a part in the eternal life in Him. Hence in the sacraments, figures of this, the first has no connection with union with Christ in its signification; the second has—we are all one Body. Yet it is not so as that in itself, we are thus one with Christ therein risen in figure, but we are all one out of the world as united to Him; the union with the Head is by the Holy Ghost, another truth founded on His ascension, yet supposing His death—being so united we return and see how it all came in, and own death not union. In one sense death goes deeper than union, because all God's moral nature is made good and glorified in it, and the question of sin settled. Union is a special privilege of ours.

In a word, Christ is eternal life with the Father, becomes Man and dies, setting aside for us the whole condition of man with God in the world—making cease, as setting it aside—and then takes man up into the new glory purposed, of which He was thus worthy.

The Ways of God

How thoroughly, after all the history of man's ways, all the failure and ruin, evil brings out the whole nature, character and ways of God Himself! The Cross is just the central proof of this, but the whole history tends to and flows from that.

I adore the perfection of those ways of God which, while revealing in a living Person, i.e., Himself in a living Person, the perfection of blessedness and grace as the attractive power for the heart, and which thus forms it, yet does so in that which by its perfection judges the conscience and makes the work of this Person necessary, so that there is a setting the conscience on the full ground on which the heart is, without which there could not be perfect blessedness. Were it only the perfect enjoyment, alas! man would think something of himself, but as it throws light on his conscience he is dependent entirely on the work which cleanses (has cleansed) it, and thus is in humility, and yet he gains immensely because his moral estimate of things is thus according to the perfection which has judged his conscience. Then his walk is in the nature which has loved this Object, and according to the light in the conscience which He has thrown on it, i.e., "as God is in the light," see 1 John 1.

This connection of conscience and the Object is very blessed.

The World

As regards the law and the teachers of the law, the world, as it is, is in no wise save materially the world made by God. God made Paradise and man lost it; and the world grew up as it is as a system formed by the action of Satan on man's lusts and passions, let it be murder or music and civilization, for Cain began both.

Now the way back was wholly closed—man could not return to Paradise. Of this I have often spoken, but the law was the rule for man on earth, but it could not take man back to Paradise, could not carry on a sinner to God in heaven. Man had not been made as man for heaven; the earth was given him, but this the law could not restore—it was given to the first man. Hence now, if we are to be with God it must be a state suited for heaven itself, and partaking of the glory of God. For we rejoice in hope of the glory of God, and in sinning come short of that glory. The law deals with man on earth and applies to him there, but Christ has taken, in virtue of His work, a place as Man in heaven and in glory. He introduces us into that new sphere and heavenly Paradise, into " the holiest by a new and living way." This is a wholly new thing. It shows us, by making us know God, the perfect righteousness and rightness, the perfection of the law as addressed to responsible man on earth as rule of his conduct on earth as the first man. But to bring back the Christian to it is to bring him back from the heavenly position of Christ before God to the impossible condition of the first Adam-sinner on the earth, where there is no way back. They have turned back from the way forward, which is Christ risen and death to the old system, to arrive there.

The law is not made for a righteous man; I must then give up my righteousness to take back the place of unrighteousness out of Christ to apply it.

The certainty of a fact by sight is not belief, because, as far as it is worth anything, it is certainty not belief—nothing to accredit it but perception.

Courtesy of BibleTruthPublishers.com. Most likely this text has not been proofread. Any suggestions for spelling or punctuation corrections would be warmly received. Please email them to: BTPmail@bibletruthpublishers.com.

The Wisdom of God

THE Wisdom of God is a wonderful thing. It must put things in their place or it is not wisdom—that the Cross does. We are sinners—we must come as such; all then is changed. Yet what sin is, what holiness, what hatred, what love, what man, what God, what the world, what its prince, what the Devil, but this by the bye—we come as sinners, then love is there. So Christ always drew out what people were and met them divinely. For surely here is wisdom too. Christ in life, and in death is God suiting Himself to man and drawing man to Himself.

Now philosophy assumed the competency of man, and to make even God the subject matter of its judgment and thoughts. This was necessarily false. It either left God out and all was clearly wrong, or brought God in and it was worse, because God and man were both out of their place—they are both in it at the Cross.

But then further, the saint becomes nothing and God all—Christ all. This is just right, and the very fullness of blessing, to have done with self and have the fullness of God to dwell in and enjoy; and here is the daily process. It is done completely at the Cross. It is brought out practically by all the discipline of God. But then, when we have this place of nothingness as self, there is divine wisdom unfolded to us.

All things were made by Christ and for Christ. All things are to be gathered together in one in Him, and to be reconciled—all to the eternal fullness of God—all that is in heaven and earth. The result is purposed before the foundation of the world, but in the world, in the creatures, responsibility has come in—we are guilty and all is defiled. But it was all ordained before the world to our glory. Christ has perfectly glorified God morally, and brought out what He is as nothing else could have done. Redemption and grace have a glory, and that through perfect separation from evil, and perfect obedience of Man in the midst of evil, which is all its own. Done for us, we have a part in the glory which belongs to it—the glory of God—are the first-fruits of it—the inner circle round the blessed and glorious Center in which God is displayed in Christ. Then all things will be gathered round as a redeemed and reconciled Creation to the praise of His glory—the glorious result of the hidden wisdom ordained before the world to our glory. Then Christ will be displayed as the Power as well as the Wisdom of God.

Finally the. great center, moral center, is the Cross—Redemption; when in the weakness of the creature, and the fullest effect of the power of evil, and its present effect—death—good triumphed. Its weakness was stronger than the power of what was against it. It was really divine power but in weakness of the creature, at least of what was of the creature, though divinely, for creature it could not be called. Death was the end of the creature in itself, the birth-place of the new Creation as leaving the old wholly behind. I speak of its effect, for none but a divine Person could have done it. It is Christ and He crucified in the lowest place the creature man can be brought to, but Christ, the Wisdom of God and the Power of God. Then we can have a place in the glory itself, the glory of God, because He is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption—not power.

We are brought before God and intelligently according to what God is. We are always dependent and subject—that only is our place, as really with God—our blessedness. To be out of it is everlasting and perfect misery; the pretention to power is man's folly in assumed independence, which is sin.

We are of God—that is our nature, and actual condition in Christ Jesus, and He is of God wisdom to us, and righteousness, etc. So that we glory in the Lord. Power remains in His hand; we may be instruments of it hereafter, and spiritually may be vessels of it now, as far as emptied of self.

I have very imperfectly brought out what I would here. The great point is the place Wisdom, has now; subjection and nothingness beginning with the Cross for the sinner which is deliverance—being nothing, for the saint Christ being all. We know perfect love. We know the counsels and purpose of God—have Christ's mind, but as a soldier in an army, he does not know the bearing of each act in carrying out the plan in the presence of the enemy, he marches right and left as ordered, it is all he has to do, and perfect wisdom is in each step of obedience, and inward wisdom in restoration, for he is thus in his place with God, and in motive, for it is love to his Commander, confidence in Him as well as obedience. All thus becomes right.

I return for a moment to 1 Cor. 1 and 2. The Cross is the end of flesh and the world—death to one, the deepest possible shame and ignominy to the other. Flesh is wholly set aside, and now folly written on its wisdom—no flesh is to glory in His presence, "He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." Flesh cannot glory before Him—we are to glory in Him, but then the whole being of man in the flesh, morally speaking, has ceased for the Christian. "Of him" (God) "are we in Christ Jesus," and "Christ Jesus is made unto us wisdom of God" (for that is the great subject here) and then righteousness, sanctification, and final deliverance—we glory thus in Him.

But then the whole thing is new. There is a plan, a purpose of God for our glory—a purpose before the world. The highest in the world knew nothing of it; if they had, they would not have crucified the Head of it. This is revealed to us by the Spirit; man's heart has not conceived it, but God's Spirit has revealed it. And that is the Spirit the Apostle had, and we have in our place. Then the same Spirit gave the words which were the medium of communication, and the same Spirit enables us to receive it. No one can instruct the Lord, but we have the mind of Christ in whom all this wisdom is. So it is a wholly new sphere and form of Wisdom which is in this purpose of God, the hidden Wisdom, before this world of responsibility and failure and sorrow.

But note it was the princes of this world not knowing it which, as to means, brought about what its accomplishment is founded upon. And note, this is a positive fresh revelation—not anything discoverable by man's mind. A man's spirit knows what is in him and none else; God's Spirit knows what is in His mind and none else. It is purpose that was before man or the world existed, and it is revealed and communicated, not by man's wisdom or words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Ghost teaches.

Note how simply the true wisdom is stated in Eph. 5, as we see it in Proverbs, “Be not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is." Simple obedience and, by singleness of eye, intelligence of what the Lord's will is, is in practice divine wisdom; as to the way of having it, compare Rom. 12:1, 2.

Axioms have no evidence—they are principles which contain their own evidence—the statement is another form of the definition or nature of the thing. “A whole is greater than a part”—that lies in the meaning of “whole” and “part"; it is given that form for the convenience of reasoning. So "one is the half of two” is hardly an axiom; it is the meaning of the words. “Two" means two ones, and "half" means a part contained twice. Axioms are only convenient forms of tautology, and so is all mathematics.

Fragment: Infinite, Unmotived Love

THE Blessed Lord ought to have had some object worthy of His giving Himself for. Infinite love, and unmotived love, save what was in Himself, was shown in His giving Himself for us, and this was all perfect as obedience in a given work, but God's glory was, and all fully, made good. This was an adequate object for Him. Lord of all He is, as Man, through it, but this only partially adequate; but God's glory is adequate.

Fragment: Perfect Love and Obedience

The position of Christ is very striking as showing the absolute intrinsic perfectness of His love and obedience. There is an end of man—all that was in man was against—hatred to, God in goodness—so that He has no sustainment from man, only hatred and evil; He turns to God, and then He is forsaken. Broken, and more than broken from man—pressed up to death, He turns to God, and finds forsaking there—He was left alone, repelled by man and, in a certain sense, by God when He turned to Him—was alone, but accomplished all in His own love and obedience, and perfected the work, so that He could say " Therefore doth my Father love me."

Fragment: Relationship of Christ With God on the Earth

As regards the relationship of Christ with God on the earth—He never, save on the Cross, addresses God by that name, always " Father." It was the name He taught His disciples, and taught them to address the Father with. This may be seen in the Sermon on the Mount even; it was the place in which He set the others, He being there, and this was eternal life. The end of John opens it out. The disciples say “Come forth from God "; when twelve years old, He takes also this place. In reference to the Psalm this is important. On the Cross, though perfect there, He takes the place, “My God, my God!” Christ entering in Spirit into Israel's sorrows was not His relationship with God. This testimony of the Gospels is very remarkable.

Fragment: Jesus as a Servant

We have thought elsewhere how Jesus, the Son, was humbled, came into the lower parts of the earth, below all things—His very soul brought into the dust of death that He might be above all things But see also how He was a Servant, that He might be a Son, i.e., as Man He was the Son and owned as such of the Father, but amongst the servants He was the lowest, yea, a reproach of men and outcast of the people, rejected by all the servants, "A worm and no man," put to death as a Servant, as though He had broken the law of which they were the masters, that He might be the First of Sons, " The first-begotten from the dead," having risen out of the law, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence; for just in proportion as we are humbled, we have exaltation of God—ever, ever, ever is this true! Amen.

Fragment: The Period of the Lord's Ministry

I get three facts, partly helped by the researches of others, as to the period of the blessed Lord's ministry. Before He entered on His public ministry—calling disciples away from all to follow Him, but after His baptism by John when He had begun to teach and make disciples and had been back into Galilee—John 1:43 and beginning of chapter 2 in verse 13 we have a Passover; John, as often observed, not cast into prison (chap. 3: 24). In Matt. 12 we have the corn ripe after a Passover, for they could not eat corn till after it, perhaps after Pentecost even, and John was now cast into prison—had been there some time—he had heard there of His works; chap. 11. It is in Matt. 4:12 That He hears John is cast into prison—perhaps the same time as John 4. He was then, i.e. Matt. 12 in Galilee. In chapter 14, we have the five thousand people fed; after Matt. 12, but then (John 6) the Passover was nigh; John 7 feast of tabernacles. Then He lingers about in Jerusalem, Jordan, etc., and comes up for the last Passover, i.e. three years and a part of a year.

Fragment: Priesthood

So far Christ seems to have exercised the office of Priest, before He ascended up on high, in that He confessed the sins to be His on the Cross, i.e., practically, and is so revealed to us in Spirit. But herein indeed the High Priest was rather acting the part of the people. It was on the people's lot, not what was carried within, so that His priesthood office was exercised before God elsewhere; so that, properly speaking, this was not exercised till after His ascension. In Spirit He did as here, so in John 17, but this was a sort of prophetic anticipation. So it was in Spirit we know—the other as in Psa. 38, to be the virtue of what. He did, but properly His direct office of priesthood was in—“within the Veil." This was appropriate, only qualificatory for it—He was then teteleiomenos (consecrated—made perfect).

Fragment: The Heart Set at Ease

Alas! how the heart can spring up when set at ease after all manner of dealings with it. Peter, so humbled, so wonderfully restored by exhaustless grace, set at ease, must know what was to happen to John—what shall happen to him? He loved John surely, and it served as occasion to revelation—still the Lord must say “What is that to thee?” and turn back to the “Follow thou me."

I add the Jewish commission to Peter seems to me evident here.

Fragment: The Question of the House and the Holy Ghost

It is important to remark, as regards the question of the house, that the Holy Ghost is never said to dwell in the body—not of the individual, but as a whole.

Fragment: Characteristic Knowledge in Adam

I think we get a measure of characteristic knowledge in Adam in his knowing the beasts. It was subjection of them to him, and, I suppose, the faculty of speech connected with the impressions produced by the animals, and some power of sentiment or apprehension, but there was no abstract reasoning connected with the knowledge of good and evil, nor flowing from the absence of God, which is a source of the widest exercise of intellect on which man prides himself, and which is always false and only ignorance, though it may be dealt with as finding limits.

Fragment: Faith

Faith alone is absolute certainty—it alone has an absolute motive for believing. I have an adequate motive to determine my assent practically, as my mind must do one or another if indifference is impossible—I may have the anxiety of doubt. I may have sufficient motive to believe, but never absolute. I do not call mathematics certainty, not because I doubt, but because they are not the subject of doubt. I may be ignorant, or I know that diverse forms are equal in quantity. I do not say “I doubt”—I am certain; but I am ignorant—“I know."

Fragment: Tongues

Tongues were as plainly language as possible—not always consequently understood by the speaker, though he felt the influence and presence of God, and perhaps certain apprehensions; hence his understanding (nous) was unfruitful. If he could interpret (or another) well—but even the prophets, where there was no question of language, had to search out their own prophecies to have their minds fully fruitful through them.

Fragment: Soul and Spirit

I am confirmed in the thought of the soul being the seat of I, and the spirit the seat of both intellectual and moral powers (which are to be developed in good and evil) and by the latter of which we are in relationship with God, or capable of being so; but all these are nothing till the will is right by a new nature—nothing but the capacity of error, and misery of a soul separated from God.

Fragment: "Ifs"

I have fully entered, elsewhere, into the place the "ifs” hold in the Word in connection with our journey towards the glory, not with our place in Christ. This made me think that in Ephesians, in contrast with Colossians where a hope is laid up for us in heaven, there would be no "if" in Ephesians, for there we are sitting in heavenly places in Christ—and so it is. We get helps “till we all come"—the "whole armor of God," that we "may be able to stand" where we are, but no " if " as to the result of the course. This difference from the Colossians confirms strongly the general view.

The one loaf is better than the twelve.

Fragment: Christ Meeting the Needs of the Church

Note.—The sense of hunger is a necessity—thirst is a desire after some positive drink; there is also anxiety which is met only by the wisdom of Creation which gives repose and confidence.

Christ as suffering—the Bread of life—meets the hunger, meets the necessities of the Church.

Christ exalted—the Giver of the Spirit—believed on, is the Object of the Church's thirst; it thirsts for God there exhibited—the revealing Spirit is the generator. It is an active feeling, a desire of an object, with an Object thirstingly desired.

Moreover He meets also the anxiety of the Church—He guides in it, leads forth, gives us the consciousness of His caring for the Church when we are anxious about it. He is the Shepherd of the sheep, as well as the Food, and Giver and Object of the Spirit.

I feel I have given these thoughts very imperfectly—the subject is wonderful and most blessed.

Testimony

As to the testimony or Gospel—there will be always a testimony—prophetic within or evangelic without, for that I apprehend is the universal distinction—until, as to Jerusalem, the times of vengeance, of God's judgment preclude it. It may vary its form, adapt itself (as being of God, it must) to the circumstances and time, but there will always be one until the judgment and blessing arrives. I do not see that the times of vengeance at Jerusalem preclude the testimony in the world at large in general.

As to particular revelations as to it—the everlasting Gospel, it would seem, goes out before the coming of Christ or the destruction of the beast, perhaps before the destruction of Babylon; it applies to heathen, at least to idolaters. The mind of this in Israel is in Psa. 96, the judgment and introduction of the first-begotten is in Psa. 97. Query, if the Gospel of the kingdom be not connected with this, though spoken of more generally—Psa. 2 as a great thesis gives the principles.

The Kingdom of the Father

IT appears that not only "Kingdom of Heaven," but so far as I find Kingdom of my Father," or "their Father's Kingdom" is peculiar to Matthew; and it would seem to meet the notion of the Jews expecting Messiah, King upon earth. They would not be subjects of Messiah's kingdom upon earth, but they would have something much better—they were to be sons, and Jesus ascended (refusing to be touched or worshipped by them as King upon earth then in resurrection, in which character He would reign over the Jews and world) to His Father and their Father, His God and their God. Declared, however, Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the dead, they then were not to be reigned over by the Son Messiah, but were to be sons, "Behold what manner of love," etc., therefore in the kingdom of their Father, Jesus appointing a kingdom to them, as the Father to Him, they sitting in His throne as He is in His Father's now. In this then, as a Son, He is with the Father and we with Him as sons in His, i.e., the Father's, kingdom. To the Son shall be given the positive kingdom over all under the whole heaven—we being with Him in the Father's sitting there—He as Son with us, for it is the Son of whom we speak, and we sitting on thrones in His kingdom over the world. It is therefore, I believe, never called "the Father's kingdom"—but “My," "Their"—"Your." It is called "His inheritance in the saints," and so "The Father of glory," “Called to his own kingdom and glory." It exalts us then to a very special place, as to us, in our persons. All shall then be subjected to Him, and the glory will be perfect to Him of redemption as regards us, and therefore with us He, as Son, will be in the Father's kingdom as individuals, while He yet reigns in an undelivered kingdom—His earthly kingdom, in which there are yet things which remain to be subjected. In this we are now upon earth, and therefore it is its patience (see Apocalypse), and this is the force and explanation of the latter part of John 17.

All this is very wonderful, but the glory is all to Him who redeemed us. First it sets also Jesus in a wonderful place, and shows the power and necessity of the resurrection, and that too as regards the saints in the beginning of the millennium; and what force there is in the word " Walk worthy of God who hath called us," etc. And we learn also the force of Ephesians t at the end, and also chapter -2: and the Gentiles also therefore are brought in, and this I think proves further, as well as the fact of the bride, the Lamb's wife, that all the saints shall be in it, as does, as it appears to me, every other consideration which I yet notice, little as we deserve it.

This, I think, fully explains the passage in t Corinthians 15, the delivering up the kingdom to the Father; in fact as to the risen saints it is given up—He holds it now as regards them, though apparently quite otherwise, and this is what Revelation reveals—then they will reign with Him.

The view of the Father's kingdom given above, as brought before us in the passages there referred to, has received abundant confirmation from John 14 which was much opened out to me, in faith as to the subject of it, the other night. It hangs on this—“As I said unto the Jews, whither I go ye cannot come, so now I say unto you." The remedy is, "Ye believe in God"—"He is not present with you, so though ye cannot come and I am gone, believe in me "—this is the position of happiness they are placed in. "Believe in me "—then I go to prepare a place for you, and I will come again and receive you to myself, that where: am, ye may be also " this opens out necessarily the position of the Father—this is in the Father's house.

Then comes that which shows that we have no faith save as we believe in what is commonly called "the millennium." We may not know it to be such, but we have no faith in Christ crucified save as we believe in this, for that which gives its value and import to the Cross is the Person, the present personal glory of Him who suffered, His resurrection declaring this; i.e., it is seeing Christ in the glory of the Father and of His Sonship, seeing Him preparing the place now. If that we believe in now be not true, then our faith is false, i.e. if the glory then revealed be not the verification of our present faith, then is our faith false, and in fact it is nothing else. He sitting only now in the Father's throne—necessary to our apprehension of that throne in the place of which we are to be, and therefore which we could not know out of Christ—but our present faith or its Object, is that which gives value to the sacrifice of the Cross; i.e., the faith of the glory (to be revealed) is the only real faith of the Gentile, or rather Church faith—"I go"—"Believe in me"—"I am preparing a place"—"I come again to receive you to myself, that where I am ye may be also."

Now what is this "Whither I go ye know and the way ye know?” "I go to the Father," and "I am the Way"—"I am the Way, and the Truth and the Life”—the Life in which you enjoy this. "No man cometh unto the Father," but He went to prepare a place—but He went to the Father—He prepares a place there, with the Father—we know the place, i.e. our present faith is of the place to which He is gone to prepare, even with the Father, but it is where He is we are, i.e., we are sons with Him in the Father's house—sitting in His throne as He sat in His Father's throne, but then not sitting on His Father's throne. He is Son and we are sons with Him in the Father's kingdom, and sitting in His throne with Him in His kingdom as one with Him, as sons, yet seeing the Father in Him—as seeing Him, united yet distinct.

The position into which the Lord puts us then is plain as to faith, and as to place, and as to all, save as sitting in the Father's throne which is incident to Himself and makes us know, what otherwise we could not, that throne of the Father in the kingdom of which we are then.

This is all indistinctly put, but will serve as a clue to the apprehension of the Scriptures which is engraven on my heart, and in which, in Christ ministered by the Spirit, I have fellowship—fellowship with the Father and the Son—know where He is gone, and the way, and see the coming glory. If I had not seen Him in the Father's throne, I could not see that throne, and therefore not the place in which I shall be; and He is now gone to it, only revealing the throne to us by now seeing it, for it is by seeing Him we see the Father, though now we (by Him) know the Father—come to Him (as one with Jesus), and know all the glory which is our hope of faith, and therefore, if not verified, falsifying all our hope of faith, i.e., the Father's kingdom—the Son's—and all the glory and blessing of both—we with the Son in the Father's kingdom in blessing—with the Son in His, in association in power as one—and both of them as one with Him.

Such is our fellowship with the Father and with the Son! Lord, realize it to us!

I add here also John 17:24, with the reason, and this will open up our place.

Note, further, the Father is the Fountain head of love, i.e., it is in the name we, and so alone, really know Love. The Son is the Minister of all power. The Father exercises no power, though He may give it; but He exercises none. Therefore He says, "The glory," i.e., the present glory, i.e., so fulfilled, "which thou hast given me, I have given them, that they may be one, even as we are one," and " that the world may know that thou hast sent me."

Then He speaks of all that are called—all that the Father had given Him, “I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it, that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them." So the offices are plain and manifest, distinct though they be combined as they are indeed.

The worship of the Father is then properly in the certainty of love. We look to the Son, even Jesus, for the ordering of providential and all power. Note this well.

The order of this part of John runs thus it would seem—the Lord was not presenting Himself in His own Messiah glory, but declaring the Father's, " I have glorified thee on the earth," and again "I have kept them in thy name "; not that He was not Messiah, but that He claimed acceptance not in His own but in His Father's name.

He presented Himself in the witness of the Son. This was fully brought out in the raising of Lazarus—the quickening power. Here then was the final witness to them. Thereon (chap. 1) from verse 47, is the Jewish national rejection of Him—verse 54, His seclusion from them—verse 56, they inquire for Him—from the companionship of resurrection power He comes out then (just before the Passover showing Himself more or less) and presents Himself prophetically indeed, but as there in reproach and condemnation of the nation that rejected Him, showing what they had refused—their Messiah—in refusing Christ the Son of God.

The testimony of resurrection caused the people to receive Him, and to own Him as sent. Then comes the Gentile power, and for this the necessity of death—what would have been "Beauty and Bands," if not rejected King of Israel, and the gathering of the ammim (people).

Verses 35, 36 (chap. 12), His testimony to the people and hiding Himself—not losing His witness of Messiah, but even then shown and not shrinking from the necessity of His death; verses 37-43, the judicial account of the blindness of the people; verse 44, the great assertion, noted above, declared now that He came, and so declared on His rejection, in revelation of the Father—His word, His, revealed glory; then the extent (v. 46), compare verse 36, and therefore (v. 47) "If any one" and verse 49, the responsibility in consequence—whatever came of it He spoke the Father's word, believed or not, and showed the Father's glory, seen or not.

In chapter 13, we have the distinctive work and office for the disciples, beginning with His sacrifice in love, His service in love though gone to glory—loving to the end—washing the feet and so forward to the close of the Gospel.

There is another thing unfolded in all this, and that is His sitting in His Father's throne is the revelation of the glory of His Person. We know Him in this character now, we are as sons with Him when He is in it as a Man, a Governor over the earthly house, but we here till the establishment of the full order of the kingdom, gathering together in one all things in heaven and in earth in Him—" in him," in the title of His personal glory, His own Sonship with the Father—the association of His own essential unity with Him. This is a most glorious and blessed point of view, and it is in this point of view the Revelation is given—it is Jehovah, but Jehovah in the Son, and yet the throne of God, but the eternal living One in the Person of Jesus, and it is seen accordingly that the Lamb was in the midst of the throne. The Father was seen, i.e. the Father's throne—God's throne—and Jehovah seen revealing God. " The Father," we may say, seen, but seen in the Lamb, the Son; see also Rev. 7:10, 17, in the Greek. This is a most important and blessed point. Not that they are ever different, but they are distinct—it is “The throne of God and of the Lamb," Rev. 22:3.

As to the Kingdom of Heaven and of the Father and the Son, developed in the millennial estate, we may further notice as the Kingdom of Heaven is its aspect towards the Jews, so, as regards the Church generally, it is the merged character of the millennial glory—its suspended estate that is, as then there will be the Son's throne and the Father's throne. So now the Son is sitting on the Father's throne till they are commixed; hence the position of the Church—the earth is the scene of the Son's kingdom, but the Church is to have its portion on His throne in the Father's kingdom, as sons with Him. Hence in the Church on earth we have the apparent anomaly (though the very way of glory), the expecting state, i.e. the Lord sitting on the Father's throne, from which He shall be manifested. So in the Revelation accordingly we have the horns, and seven eyes in the horns of the Lamb. Hence Christ is to be applied to in ministering (the government of) His Church, which are the seven Spirits of God (before the throne as the Object of glory and worship) sent forth into all the earth, quod nota; whence also the second beast as governing the Church or governing Christ (as order in the world too) has horns like a lamb but spake as a dragon, which is plain if we see what the dragon was (Rev. 12); but the position of the Church is most clearly seen by it, and the Revelation much explained. Hence also we see the meaning of the expression “translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son," which see.

The Christian Position

There have been three characters in which God has been revealed—God Almighty—Jehovah—"Our Father which art in heaven "; all most important. The first inclusive, and, in one sense essential, attached to the name of God. The others bringing into closer affiance, into closer applicability to, the character of God—names of more direct personal relationship. While the glory is maintained, and the blessedness enhanced of the Lord God, we have these definitely set out in Scripture—to Abraham, the representative of all at Sinai, and in the Lord Jesus “Thy holy child Jesus."

But what I would now notice is that in learning the character of God as " Our Father which art in heaven "—the Christian relationship to Him therefore in the New Testament said " Thee, the only true God "—we are not to lose the others. In truth they were all centered in the Lord Jesus as God manifest in the flesh, and there we learn it, and, in proportion to the measure of the Spirit, exercise the faith in it, though the Father is the specific relationship " Our Father," He in whom we know Him being the Son, but we also know the Lord—He was the Lord. “No one can call Jesus Lord but by the Spirit of God." His Almighty Person indeed is not fully manifested, described until Rev. 4 and 11:17—yet He was so. Hence it is manifest we have in presence them all; but see farther in Acts 4, that while our relationship is with the Father, and to dwell in the Father's house, still we act on the faith of these also "Lord, Thou art God which hast made," etc. Here we have the sovereign pantokrator (Almighty)—men gathered against the Lord, "For of a truth against thy Holy Child Jesus"—here is the fulfillment addressed as to the Father, as to the realized act, but recognized as being the God who made heaven and earth, etc. It was against Jehovah—it all was—but in fact owned as the present Father. Here also we find the accuracy of the scripture Word, for these two are characteristic in fact, or general subjection—this is personally in relationship, “They shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." It is our duty thus practically to recognize these things, be perfect in them, though specially as children. Jesus shows them, “The same yesterday, to-day and forever," "All power in heaven and on earth"—and “The Son, the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person"; here therefore we find it.

Now we find the rejection of the Wisdom of God in John the baptist, and in Christ in Matt. 11:16-19, and then the justification of the children of Wisdom—the thoughts of the Lord upbraiding them for rejection as manifested—His calling the children of Wisdom. Further the comfort of Christ in submitting to the will of God in seeing the counsel of God as to all things, and the call of babes—His actual and moral purpose—upon the trouble, and apparent failure, of the rejection by the world; for His sovereignty and moral character are brought out together, and not one without the other, though the general character also, and the Sovereignty in title of Christ was hence by His coming to the world—all this is wonderfully brought out in the faithful feelings of our Lord's mind at the close of this chapter.

But it leads to something further as to the universality of Christ's work. All Christ's work, as done by Him, must have reference to, must embrace the world—He could take nothing less as His due. The whole was His title—He came as Man to men, and as Son and so heir He had right to all the world. The work of Christ as presented, as what He should expect as the Man of promise, was therefore to have the world. The Heir of the world was the promise—Christ was the seed to whom it was confirmed everyway, therefore, in His responsibility as Man, in His title, and in His dispensation of promise, the world and nothing less was the portion of His work as Man, His title as Son, His inheritance as Heir of promise—in a word, Christ had title to the world, and He came in love—that title He must be conscious of, and He came in love about it, " For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world," etc. Hence as present in humiliation, this was true, and when He takes the inheritance in Person it is equally true—He could have no less expectation as then manifested, for the witness of the love, the necessity was such, “God sent his Son into the world." He will have nothing less when He appears. This was shown in Adam also, in the history, see Gen. 2:18, 19.

But here was the greatest, the grand hinge of Christ's submission, “Though he were a Son," and therefore Heir of all things, “Yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered." He came in love—He came in title—and the " world knew him not," and “His own received him not ".

" Then have I labored in vain, saith He, and spent my strength for naught." This was His deep anger against the scribes and Pharisees in the Gospel of Matthew—this His upbraiding in this chapter. He had to bear the rejection of the world, not only in the patience of suffering, but as the disappointment of all the purpose for which He was manifested as alive in the flesh, “While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."

“At that time"—here was His submission—"Jesus answered and said, I thank thee "... " for so it seemed good in thy sight "; the sovereign purpose, also the moral rightness, force, etc., and " revealed it unto babes," and the exercise of it—" Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." But here was perfect submission under disappointment. He was righteously angry with those who rejected Him for so doing, but then submitting to God, He saw that all things were delivered to Him in heaven and on earth by His Father " Lord of heaven and earth," and called to Him, according to the mind of the Father, those who labored and were heavy laden. As he says in John 17, " As thou hast given him power over all flesh, to give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him "; that was the summary. But note, there was the general love in which He was manifested, and so the manifestation to, and also dying for all, as sent into the world, Jews and Gentiles joining too in the guilt.

Then the sovereignty of love in giving certain, in spite of universal rejection, to Him as the Church of the risen Christ; for it was Christ, the Anointed One of the Holy Ghost, who loved the Church which He saw in Spirit when rejected by the world, and the exercise of this specialty of love in dying for them, " Having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end." He learned this before, in His rejection, He could teach it to others and does teach it to others. In the meanwhile the Church was given to Him, on His rejection by the world, as His comfort and fullness in the world, and in the Lordship of all things in heaven and on earth, in which He should be ruling over it when He bringeth the only begotten into the world. This explains too " The fullness of the Gentiles "—this makes us know what " His yoke " means; see Isa. 50, and read John 12 too.

But the point is, He could come to and for nothing but the world, as present in it, though in dispensation, exhibited amongst the Jews. This is the point in John. The rejection was the point of submission, and He bowed perfectly and simply to the Father, and this is expressed all through; it was His perfectness, and took for salvation such as the Father was pleased to give Him—a wonderful, most wonderful submission! Yet perfect, and in Spirit, in the knowledge of the Spirit, He loved the Church which was to be His as rejected and risen, and actually as Christ—loved, then given to Him actually in the world. This is the clue to that, and in John 17, and, bearing their sins, presents them to the Father, whom He thus perfectly serves, as He sees, and is Himself satisfied. Besides perfection, submission as a Man; as humbled He is highly exalted, and all things given Him not only on earth as Messiah, His due in title, but in heaven and on earth, a much larger portion, yet indeed His due as Son—and the Church out of the world in the specialty of devoted love, and kind to Him in the cognizance of it—His companion, the witness of His faithfulness as itself purchased by it, in the glory with Him—glorified with Him, while over the world that rejected Him, He and it reign more gloriously, infinitely far, than if then received. And thus is this scene accomplished, and the Mediatorial exaltation over the world completed, with the specialty of the Sovereignty in the Church added, till God be all in all, He having brought in the blessing, and given the competency, so to speak, to the Persons of the Godhead to enjoy, because the blessing of Their love was fully accomplished through Him, while the work of each in it is manifested and apparent as They are all united in all. The work of the Spirit is manifest herein, for it is to take of the things of Christ, and show them to us—It testifies in the world, and brings believers, or the elect, by faith into the Church as given to Christ, that they may be heirs with Him and of the world. The whole truth is thus brought out, and its principle.

Now our Lord teaches us, from having experienced the blessing of submission, and the bright prospect of love which the submission to this Sovereignty brought in, to take His yoke and learn of Him, for He is " Meek and lowly in heart." This is the point of instruction, though it rested on all things as given. No man knoweth who the Son is, and His ineffable dignity and Person, nor the Father, save the Son and He to whom the Son will reveal Him.

It is a wonderful passage! We have given but a rough sketch of it in this. Well may we say " No man knoweth the Son! " No man indeed knoweth Him, nor the Father—that is the point—save He to whom the Son reveals Him. The moral beauty of the passage we have not touched upon. The force of the " Labor and are heavy laden " cannot but be seen.

The principle adverted to above, as to the world and the sheep, applies to any man in whom the spirit of Christ dwells, and we can realize it intelligibly if taught of God.

There can be no doubt that a Christian, with Christ's Spirit, desires the—salvation of everybody with whom he is brought into intercourse in that Spirit, and seeks it in Spirit; at the same time he may be conscious, knowing that none but God's elect may come in, that this person may prove a very hater of Jesus, and, when he does so, he abhors him utterly, and he endures all things for the elect's sake that they may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. I am quite conscious of the two feelings—in weakness surely—as distinctly and as knowing them to be of God, as I see them in Scripture. The Spirit of God walks in love through the world, but it endures and labors in the consciousness that the elect are the portion which it shall bring in blessing to God. Thus it is said that " Christ loved the Church," not " Jesus," not simply " God," but " Christ," i.e., He, anointed with the fullness of the Spirit in which He entered into and felt with the mind of God, He, as the Bridegroom, and knowing this place in the Spirit in which as risen He was to be, gave Himself for it. The great point is, in seeing our Lord, to recognize the distinction of His acting—of His earnest desire in acting, and in the highest point of acting, acting from Himself, and yet acting in perfect and sole obedience—Christ did in the Spirit and the Person of the Son. He acted aph e(m)autou (from him (my) self) and so laid down His life, yet He did it as tauten ten entolen elabon (this commandment have I received) in simple obedience. He came to do the will of Him that sent Him, not His own; now this was reconciled in suffering. If I willingly put myself in a place of suffering, I put myself into the place of patience or obedience—so did the Lord, and said " Therefore," as a man, " Not my will but thine be done." Different parties have taken up either of these separate from the other, and both have marred Christ, and this is the real point between the Irvingites and anti-Irvingites quoad hoc, and while both have one end of truth, it appears to me that they neither know the real truth of the matter, and both have fallen into error—one of ignorance, the other by bringing in truth to dangerous approximation, and, in some instances, the line distinctly overstepped, in words of dangerous and mischievous error.

Now it appears to me that the Lord Jesus is the central point, as it were, of this question—we are elect in Him in the full character in which He is known, as to all His fullness of office as risen. The Church is united to Him risen, as in the flesh and as being in the world. Thus God loved the world; as acting towards it in Christ, I find the double service—acting in humiliation as a Man, in service to God He gave Himself a ransom for all " Tasted death for every man "—also, as fulfilling the purpose of God in the Spirit, so known in comfort on the rejection of the world, Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for it, and this is unqualified redemption into glory according to the infallible purpose of God and effectual ministration of it by the Son.

Further, while therefore the testimony of the Spirit goes forth as the truth of God into the world, yet is its specific work, effectual work, exclusively in the elect of God, testifying of Christ effectually and fully, gathering them, uniting them, as life thus to Him and dwelling in them, as so quickened and gathered—a witness to God. It condemns in testimony because of a world—rejected Christ—by it we are saved, in efficacy, because it unites to Christ risen in the testimony of a living faith. The work of God, viewed simply so, was universal and could not but be, while de facto also His holiness showed all were at enmity too.

The work of Christ, as Man, unto death was individually universal—the work of the Spirit has also its universality of condemning testimony. But looking at them specifically, while God showed His love to the world, we have the purpose of the Father, the work of the Son having its double aspect, because, though there were some given to Him of the Father, He purchased the world unto Himself. The effectual accomplishment of the Spirit is in the elect; hence in the purpose in 1 Peter 1, the Father and the Spirit are mentioned, for the Son has His own peculiar title (but He might seem really dishonored in the world which rejected Him) besides His subjection to the Father, though not dissonant from but the very object of the Father's will; and that title is universal, unqualified, and also coincidently in His work perfect in the universality of His love, whence His patience—He has it in His Godhead, as the Father loved the world in His Godhead, though, as the Father, He purposed the salvation of the Church making them therein His manifest children, for, though the purpose of all, Christ continues, so to speak, in His purposing Godhead.

The depth of this subject as most blessed, so is most full of the fullness that cannot be reached, while we are filled into it and made the fullness of the Head of the body, and most sanctifying if we receive it in humble reception, enabling us to hold things in simplicity. Hence I say, God loved the world—Christ died for all, so also He loved the Church and gave Himself for it, and the Spirit (the Accomplisher of all individual result) worketh effectually in them that believe.

Note the vast difference of the way of God's dealings in the case of the professing Church and the world at large. To the professing Church which had had the truth and not loved it, God sends strong delusion to believe a lie, whereas to the world at large the Gospel of the kingdom and the everlasting Gospel are sent as a warning and to call men.

Death to Nature

My dear brother,

Exaggerations are always dangerous, and, where imagination is at work, deceive to people's cost; but the subject is a serious one. " Dead to nature " is not a scriptural expression, so we must see what people mean and what Scripture says: But deadness to the world and all the flesh is after, is what is wanting among Christians.

As regards natural relationships, they are very carefully maintained in Scripture. The matter stands thus: God established certain relationships—"from the beginning it was not so" (divorce)—"God made them male and female"; sin has come in and spoiled all. A new power has come in, which, while fully recognizing them as of God, and using them as images of the highest spiritual relationships with Christ and the Father, has nothing to do with them-is above and out of them. In general those who say much about them and being dead to nature, do so because they are not. Paul lives alone and says as a rule, “Let every one of you have his own wife." The speaking against it is of Satan.

The Lord had considered the lilies and how God had clothed them; seeking these things as an object is another matter. Adam was to dress and keep the garden when he had no sin, but we need to have our affections on things above by a new power, and need a single eye to it to keep us out of the power of what is corrupted. “All things are lawful to me but I will not be brought under the power of any." They even who had wives must “be as though they had none," for the time is a constrained one.

Nature is of God, but its corruption is not, and it is corrupted, under the bondage of corruption and that is the difficulty. But “dead to nature" is legality; to seek it as it is, is not of the Spirit, though He has given us all things richly to enjoy. My body is of the old creation—my life, as born of God, of the new, and we are left for spiritual exercises in this very way. Nor is the matter therefore so simply spoken of as some would, humanly. It is meant to be a holy exercise, and those who do not spare the body may be satisfying the flesh.

The Apostle speaks for spiritual power and for order, " Every man has his own gift”; but it is a gift. He wills that men marry as a rule, but tells them that the married man cares for the things of the world, that they will have trouble in the flesh, but he spares them.

We have died with Christ, our life is hid with Him in God -He is our life. We have been crucified with Christ, yet live, yet not we, but Christ lives in us, and this life lives by the faith of the Son of God. But you will find that when applied it is always in view of certain objects which turn the heart from Christ—"All that is in the world, the lusts of the flesh," etc., are not of the Father. We are dead to sin, to the rudiments of the world. You will further find that these are distinguished, and that the highest Christian state does not contemplate this at all.

In Romans the Christian is looked at as a man alive in this world as we are, but justified, and Christ our life. Here we get " dead to sin," Christ having died to it, and our " old man is crucified with Christ, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should no more serve sin, for He that is dead is justified from sin " (not sins), you cannot accuse a man of sin in the flesh if he is dead. In Colossians it goes further. “Ye have died " and here they are risen also, and so are looked at as risen men on the earth; they are dead to the rudiments of the world, are not alive in the world, subject to ordinances. So we are “dead to the law by the body of Christ," in Romans; it is also said, " if Christ be in you the body is dead because of sin." But “dead to nature” is, in all that we are said to be dead to, quite unknown to Scripture in word or thought. It falsifies the idea of the bearing of death there.

But none of these is the highest measure taken in Scripture. These think of sin, though of death to it, but never of our living in it. Colossians goes a step further, and on to ground which is fully developed in Ephesians; here man's highest condition in this respect is spoken of, he has not died to anything-he is viewed as dead in trespasses and sins, and then as a new creation, a creation after God. It is just mentioned, Col. 2:13. This is fully developed in Eph. 2, and here note Christ is not viewed as life-giving, but as raised when a dead man, He having descended in grace to where we were, and in an effectual work for us, so that we rise with Him and into the same place. This is referred in 2 Cor. 5:14-17, and in the remarkable summary in John 5:24. All this stands on a different ground from being quickened and having died—we have changed our place and position, are created anew; but if dying to be brought in and dwelt on, people are really in general under law and do not count themselves dead, and if they talk of dying to nature, which Scripture does not, they will soon find to their cost that nature is not dead.

I should earnestly press being dead, crucified with Christ; Christ and nothing else our life—not of the world as Christ is not of the world—that the Spirit of God be the source of all our thoughts and desires to live Christ. Death to sin we have, to the world, our old man crucified with Christ, and, if Christ be in us the body dead because of sin. So all that is in the world, the lusts, and pride is not of the Father. But neglecting of the body may be " being vainly puffed up in a fleshly mind," and " dead to nature " does not enter into the sphere of scriptural thought. Who is dead to it, and what is he dead to? Is the new man dead? The question would be: Is nature dead? And that they will soon find it is not. They should not eat nor drink. Now they should not do this save to the glory of God, and, with prayer and thanksgiving, have no motive but Christ in anything, the body of sin being destroyed.

What is specially wanted now is individual devotedness. I dread anything that would weaken that, but " dead to nature " in word or thought Scripture does not know, and in the highest character of Christ, dead to anything does not come in at all, but a new nature in relationship with the Father and with Christ, and in Him sitting in heavenly places. If I talk much of being dead to nature, I am occupied with it. I write briefly and in a hurry, but you will find I believe the principles of Scripture here.

Yours affectionately in the Lord, August 16th, 1878. J.N.D.

Review of Leckley's Rationalism*

THIS book is a useful index, on many subjects, by one who has read all sorts of middle age facts, and records his reading. But it is a very superficial or narrow-minded book—not one elevated idea, and all within the narrow-minded circle of his own views. He has not an idea of any energy beyond what he calls rationalism, i.e. the course of events which comes from God knows where, and which he admits, in his last page, has destroyed every noble feeling. The belief in dogma and eternal punishment—his great bugbears—"have produced persecution"; as if the Heathen had not persecuted! If he had said “a priesthood in possession of power" had done so—a la bonne heure. He accounts for it in the Christians opposing circus-games and theaters!

His delight is skepticism, as of all this class—anything as the truth they have no conception of. Now this is folly, for if the Son of God came down to earth, if God became a man, it is a fact, not becomes as taught a dogma; to make it of no importance is evidently false, because it offers an infinite object—affords the highest and most formative motive—implies, especially when inquired into, the deepest moral elements in the relationship of God and man. Am I to worship Him or not? And worship is the highest condition of the soul. Is He to be all to me or not? Is the rejection of Him, and perfect love in Him indifferent? All this, and his judgment of events is very superficial. Thus the excessive corruption, and money oppression, the shocking of conscience before the Reformation is all ignored. It was “progressive enlightening "! Now this is quite false in fact, though that helped through printing, etc. But the Italian enlightened ones were infidels, and then opposed. Providence ordered these things, but he habitually overlooks the principal causes which operated towards the recrudescence of popery, spiritualism, etc.—all is ignored; he sees only his own ideas.

I will come to details:

Volume 1, chapter 34, etc. The whole ground of rationalism is false—here it takes the subjective state of men, not evidence, as the test of truth; see also page 101. But page 102 is mere positivism—" We believe what we have experienced "; but nothing can be more degrading, nor can anything be more illogical, or at any rate unreasonable than this, because it assumes our material experience to be the measure of everything, whereas even our mental experience—our own bodies prove the contrary, i.e., the action of what is not material on matter. A woman faints when she hears her son is crushed—what does that? My heart beats—what keeps it going? Nor is it true that because I believe in devils, that I am “nervously excited” if I adequately believe in other things—he admits it was not so when the Church's power was believed. When all was doubted, then this dread of devils came in; this is to be noted.

Rationalism, by Leckey's own account, brought in the fear of devils, i.e., brought men back to fetishism, until it made man disbelieve everything it could not see—a baser thing still; and then I add, the reaction of spirit rapping came in. Man cannot do without the consciousness of another world of spirits; it is part of his nature. Christianity, as to all mythologies and all traditions of what is beyond sight, gives us the truth of it.

Pages 103 to 113. What is “the clear world of reality "? Preconceived notions are avowedly the ground of judgment, with Leckey only preconceived doubts of all but what is seen, which is the least real of all. It is only the incredulous spirit of this age vaunted to the discredit of the credulous of another—and the facts passed over; see his account of the Reformation, and what men call " dogma," i.e., what may be truth. This to them is immaterial. The only important point is the change in the twelfth century, in Innocent III's time, and here we have no research.

Page 176 is weak, and the book superficial though useful as giving an index to one class of facts, and showing where the present wind blows. But there is no standpoint of judgment at all—that which he takes he has to judge, for the views of this age may be as false as the medieval ones, and I have no doubt they are. But truth this class of persons never think of. They will speak of darkness, of superstition, of light in themselves, of conscience, i.e., of " Man's competency to judge good and evil finally"—a strange thing to say in looking at what is in the world, and the variety of judgments—but of truth, of what God is, of what He is revealed to be, even of responsibility, never.

For them there is no such thing as “The truth”—it is an evil “to make guilt out of errors of opinion." I understand compassion on ignorance, but surely if I have rejected the true God, and worship Venus, or accept Mahomet as a prophet; there is some moral depravity. If Christ be God adequately manifested, the error which holds Him to be only man is a culpable one. But his argument in this page is weak. What is said does not only prove that supposing miracles should cease, it can be accounted for—it shows, if valid, that there was a reason to expect they would cease; his facts too are wrong. As a history of the aberrations of man and of Christianized man too, on one side, to set up the other it is all very well.

Pages 353-355, “Religion"! but I wait.

Page 390. “A high degree of civilization always connected with degraded morals, and the fall of national powers," etc.; note this!

Page 388. What religion is: “There are two moral sentiments which seem universally diffused through the human race, and which may be regarded as the nuclei around which all religious systems are formed. They are the sense of virtue, leading men to attach the idea of merit to certain actions which they may perform; and the sense of sin, teaching men that their relation to the deity is not that of claimants but of suppliants." “They co-exist," he says; but classical heathenism was mainly one—Christianity the other. But then he knows nothing but morality, or more or less Catholic or earlier corruption.

Now can anything be more superficial or miserable than this? Which is true? Are both? Or supposing merit to be false,—as, if the sense of sin is true, it must be, for guilt is not merit, nor "striking a balance" anything but the vilest of thoughts,—if the sense of sin is right, is there no answer to it—or what? No goodness in God known? No judgment to fear?

His religion consists of subsisting thoughts in man, without knowing what is true of them, or leaving God wholly out, save supplicating some unknown One. Knowledge of Him, or goodness meeting conscience, to say nothing of righteousness, wholly left out. There is conscience—there is pretention to merit in man—they do co-exist. Priesthood uses both for its false profit. But I cannot conceive anything more superficial, or more total absence of search after truth, than this sentence.

I could understand his longing after an answer and not having one, or trying after one and losing himself. He takes what every one sees and leaves it there, but leads every one to some thoughts of God even if false—him to none.

Page 396 and following—“The spirit of truth"!

Volume 2, pages 58, 62. Notice this about truth and persecution, “guilt of error" and "cause of persecution"—clergy! "Among the Protestants it may, I believe, be safely affirmed, that there was no example of the consistent advocacy or practice of toleration in the sixteenth century that was not virulently denounced by all sections of the clergy, and scarcely any till the middle of the seventeenth century!" Persecution among the early Protestants was a distinct and definite doctrine, digested into elaborate treatises, indissolubly connected with a large portion of the received theology, developed by the most enlightened and far-seeing theologians, and enforced against the most inoffensive as against the most formidable sects. It was the doctrine of the palmiest days of Protestantism"! "If man is bound to form his opinions by his private judgment... it is absurd to brand honest error as criminal, and to denounce the spirit of impartiality and of skepticism as offensive to the deity. This is what almost all Protestant leaders did in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and what a very large proportion of them still do, and it was out of this conception of the guilt of error that persecution arose "!

Page 67. “The axiom that the whole is greater than a part, represents the highest kind of certainty to which we can possibly attain, and no message purporting to be a revelation can be received in contradiction to it. For the reality of such a revelation and the justice of such an interpretation, must necessarily be established by a process of reasoning, and no process of reasoning can be so evident as the axiom "!

Page 68. As to Bayle, he says: “Bayle, like Montaigne and Descartes, was tolerant because he was rationalistic, and was rationalistic because he was skeptical "!

“Different men according to the measure of their faculties obtain some faint glimpses of different aspects of the divine nature, and no one has a right to arrogate to himself the possession of such an amount of perfect truth as to render it unnecessary for him to correct and enlarge his views by comparing them with those even of the most ignorant of mankind "!

Pages 84, 85. "The truth is scattered far and wide in small portions among mankind, mingled in every system with the dross of error, grasped perfectly by no one, and only in some degree discovered by the careful comparison and collation of opposing systems. To crush some of these systems, to stifle the voice of argument, to bann and proscribe the press, or to compel it to utter the sentiments of a single sect, is to destroy the only means we possess of arriving at truth "!

Life in John 3

IN this chapter, note how prominent the place “Life" takes in this Gospel. Even when the death of Christ is spoken of, it is " That they might have everlasting life." But there it is connected, note, with the proper and essential character of that into which they were brought.

“We speak that we do know and testify that we have seen." “No man bath ascended up into heaven but he who came down from heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven." Christ reveals and can reveal, as from and in it, the true nature and holy blessedness of heaven itself; and this His death takes us into. He goes out, with absolute death, to all the evil in this world, in resurrection, in the power of, to us, a new life—to Him, a new state of it—into a heavenly place and condition.

The nature of the life is always the same. So in us, “That which is born of the Spirit is spirit”—is of the nature of its source—as “That which is born of the flesh is flesh," which belongs to the old world. Thus, born of the Spirit, Christ as risen is our life, and we are thus associated with the heavenly things in a nature suited essentially to it, as by a title in which God in heaven is fully glorified; so, " Of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom and righteousness, sanctification and redemption "—Our conversation is in heaven, whence we expect Jesus.

It is true that even the Jewish partakers of the blessing must be born again, because they have to say to God, and their blessings are founded on Christ's death also. But this goes no farther than the prophetic testimony which a master in Israel should have known. It was needed, for the earthly part of the kingdom, that they should stand in relationship to God in truth. It is consequent on that that the Lord speaks of the heavenly things, at least intimates His speaking of them. The Jews did not receive His testimony as to Israel's earthly hopes, and being born again for them. Yet as the Spirit in sovereign grace went whithersoever it listed, so instead of Messiah taking the throne of David then, according to the flesh, the Son of Man was going to be lifted up, and eternal life in Him fully brought to light beyond death.

The new covenant, note, does not go beyond forgiveness—there is no introduction into heavenly places and things.

Repentance

There is a very definite difference between repentance and sorrow for sin; in the former the will is identified with the new man and his judgment—in sorrow, even godly sorrow—for often we are merely disappointed in ourselves—this is not always yet the case. I mourn, grieve over my failure, would desire to be free, but would not give up, as to my inmost will, what holds me in bondage. Self has still power on the side of evil, over the will.

But when I repent really, my will is wholly in the new man. I am glad of all that is detected of self—reserve nothing—cling to nothing in my mind—am not loath to give it up. I dislike the thing in my mind—am clean, and see it as unclean in its true light. While it has power over the will, I may know it is so, but I do not so see it. The soul thus is not really set right, even if it has left evil. Godly sorrow will not cherish it, but it has not yet always got free from it; repentance has. It is the new man by itself in power judging the other as a thing disliked and apart—the door, founded in Christ, of renewed communion. It is connected with a just estimate of Christ's purifying sacrifice. The effect of the sprinkled ashes brings the soul into God's presence in the value of that sacrifice.

As regards turning and repentance we have some other passages which throw additional light on it. Thus in Acts 3, we have " Repent and be converted," and in Acts 26, “That they should repent and turn to God." Here I apprehend that “turn” is not simply a change of will, but as in the last case “turning to God." When God turns, He acts on us and turns our will round. This leads us to repentance and judgment of our ways according to God; then there is remission. Here the working of God is not entered on, as it is an address to conscience, and they are called to judge their ways and turn to God. It is the side of the truth addressed to men's consciences.

As to the difference of Acts 2 and 3, one is individual repentance to enter into the Church—the other, the repentance of the nation returning to God. This does not affect the nature of true repentance.

The Lord's Coming and the Church

IF there be a spiritual coming of the Lord, it was clearly the first coming, for though He came truly in the flesh, He was not so known save spiritually—none could come to Him, as so come in the flesh, save the Father which had sent Him drew them; " It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing, the words that I speak unto you they are Spirit and they are Life." Accordingly He spake and was known in testimony—He was known as the Word by His words, they had the power in which He appeared, to draw to Himself then; " He that heareth my words and believeth on him that sent me hath everlasting life."

It was only spiritually He was known, though He was manifested in the flesh—it was only in the word which He spake that He was received, for they which believed on Him by miracles He would not commit Himself to. In a word, as it was hearing the word and keeping the word which was the sowing of the Son of Man, so it was not manifestation to men, but veiled, and manifested to be the Person (though men ought to have known Him) only to those whose eyes were opened by His word to see Him through the Father's grace. This is argued in John 6, and its principles opened out in chapter 8. So John came in the spirit and power of Elias, though he was that very, true one of whom the prophets had testified.

The real personal coming, if we should distinguish, of the Lord Jesus, though the same true one then, is then in manifestation clearly the second, when it shall not be merely a revelation to believers of Him; for the point of John 6 is that it was as really so when He was present in the flesh as when exalted and hid with God—but "every eye shall see him, they also which pierced him." It is clear this is far more thoroughly personal, than appearing as the carpenter's son revealed only to those who were drawn of the Father as given unto Him. Christ is spiritually present now; so effectually He was when in the days of His flesh, for He then came not judging or executing judgment, which He must do in Person, but testifying in the word of testimony—spiritually received then indeed in Person in the execution of judgment—the great governing ordinance of God, in which He Himself is honored in the execution of it.

So also the Church now knows Him, and the glory in spirit; in fact, in respect of this all are on a par, as Jesus appeared so as that they only who were taught of God could know who it was—the Son. So those, amongst whom Jesus was in the flesh, did in moral fact only see the Son as we see Him now, i.e., the moral character of the perception was the same, so that blessed as His presence was, it was expedient for them that He should go away.

Nor has the glory of the Son ever been assumed in manifestation at all—Jesus glorified the Father upon earth, and now saith He " Glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." It was the time of the Son's humiliation not His glory—the transfiguration was in part an exhibition of it—God was also glorified in Him in the perfect actings and obedience of the Son of Man. But the Son of God has never as such had, i.e., as regards us, His proper glory—that is reserved solely for His coming, which if it be not personal with this object there is no honoring of the Son in His proper honor. It is the only real personal coming of the Son of God—the fulfillment of the great object of the Father, of God—that all men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father. To that end judgment was given Him; therefore the Revelation speaks of Him previously as the faithful Witness, i.e., of the Father. The character He gives Himself on earth, and now from heaven, and having wrought our redemption, is “Behold he cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him." Here there is properly the personal coming of the Lord; before, He manifested God in the flesh, ascribing the glory to the Father—then all glory is ascribed to Him. If it were by the Spirit only, it would be only what was before, it would not be the proper glory of the Son. What we want is the manifestation of the Son—in the glory of all surely—but precisely and properly in His Person, so that all shall see Him, for the Son's sake, though with the delight and in the glory of the Father, when shall be the manifestation of the sons of God now hid with Christ, i.e., as Christ is in God.

If there be no personal coming in glory of Jesus, specifically in Person as the Son of God, all as it were is lost, though that cannot of course be; but His Person ceases to be the great question of glory, which it is, with the Father—with the divine Being—with the eudokia (good pleasure)—with the I AM (the Jehovah) of glory.

His first coming was in witness—though it were indeed the Son; His second coming is in Person, when every eye shall see Him, and the glory of Him who was hidden be known. On the questions solved in this, hinge all, all true divinity—the knowledge of the Son, all rests in this glorious appearing, and the Church is merely just a witness, till that appearing, of the truth of Him (to their own blessing) who shall then be manifested, and they, being also in the truth, believing the truth, with Him in glory.

Let the Church deny this, and it ceases to be a Church—it ceases in its plan and acceptance—it is gone—it must be cut off in its form. God may pass by—He may bear with, as He does daily with all of us, ignorance and slowness of heart; but let the Church deny this—the ground of its existence has ceased—it has ceased to exist in the sight of God. The Spirit has no office in it, for its office is to testify of Jesus, the glory of Jesus as having all things that the Father hath; but if this be not accomplished, His present title is denied—it is a false one. The Church is witness that it is true—a painful, suffering witness, because He has it not now; let her deny that He is to have it, and what is she suffering for? Nothing! She is joined to the world—she has ceased in her existence. Hence also he who denies the voice of the Spirit in the Church ceases to own the witness of the glory, for the Spirit alone can bear witness of the glory—the apostles also bore witness to all that they had actually seen in Him from the beginning—and therefore the Church ceases.

It may be mixed up, i.e., in us, in our ministrations, with our errors, weaknesses, our unbelief may quench it, we may mistake also, as unspiritual men, other things for it, but if it ceases the Church ceases, it exists not. But it has not ceased to exist in the Church—God has not left Himself without witness, let everything be judged, but let not God be denied.

Herein I think—I speak now of no recent appearances in the professing Church, but of the truth abstractedly by itself (they may, as regards this, be or not be such)—the Evangelicals and Dissenters, and their haughtiness are the infidelity of the Church, and the immediate cause, i.e., in proximate operation, of its cutting off. It is, the professed faith of it, joined the world, and therefore the Church exists no longer. Truth that saves an individual may be casually ministered, but they have no faith as a Church, and therefore, when the truths in which this consists are brought forward and are denied, they can no longer be recognized in such a character—the excision approaches of the Church—such is the position now. It will speedily be carried into manifest effect.

The acknowledgment of sin as unto death—of the Cross—of the power of reconciliation in Christ—the atonement—and the testimony of the Word from God, as believing and submitting to God as true in it in Jesus, constitute individual faith saving the soul; a man is a competent member of the Church or a Church. The presence of the Spirit, i.e., the Holy Ghost, and the coming again of the Lord Jesus—His real manifestation in glory due to Him, constitute the faith of a Church—held in humility they are its glory and its hope. Simple apostasy substantially denies all these, as the Roman Catholic rulers.

The three first may be held, and the Church ready to perish, though they be blessed and saving truths; and the holding of them, denying the others, will be for the holders of them in that character a more awful position, as regards the Church, than any other. God expects the reception of His truth from them—holding it (they say " we see ") therefore, they not doing so, judgment comes. In fact the Evangelicals are properly so but feeble allies of the Dissenters whom—I speak not of individuals who may yet remain perhaps as saints among them—I abhor. The Evangelicals I rather pity—they are attempting, honestly, I dare say, to join the Church and the world. The Dissenters, very dishonestly as to their own principles, the world and the Church; while the world, poor world, has given up the Church, and the Church under divine guidance is, I trust for His mercy and security as it surely shall be in it, giving up the world. May God, even our Father keep us humble, holy in spirit and conversation, and leaning in faith upon His word as our resting place, and Him in the sureness of His love, and very humble, giving us grace, patience, and that of faith, which is for our profit and blessing, and qualify us for His glory, forgiving us our weakness for Jesus sake, our Lord, and in Him.

Reply to Baboo Keshub Chunder Sen*

MR. SEN had no need to tell us he was not a Christian. That the blessed Lord " led a life of perfect self-abnegation," every true Christian owns; it was perhaps the first thing which struck me in Christianity. But if there be self-abnegation, there is a self there to deny-not a sinful self, but a self. Mr. Sen's statements are old workings of the human mind mixed up, as was not unnatural, with Hindoo pantheism. As to Christ it is what was in early Christianity called "Monothelism," or really the Monophysite heresy-one will, or one nature, and a new form of Arianism with what was called the word eudiathitos (well disposed) and prophorikos (set forth) i.e., in God, as a quality or part of His nature or coming forth personally, with this difference, that those who went by these Greek names held He became personal at Creation, not at His birth as'Mr. Sen does. I do not at all suppose Mr. Sen borrowed these ideas-probably knew nothing of them; but they show the same workings of the human mind. Our business is with the Person of the Lord.

The system of Mr. Sen is this: “Did not Christ say—Before Abraham was, I am? Did he not say distinctly—Before Abraham was, I am? How then and in what shape did Christ exist in heaven? As an idea, as a plan of life, as a predetermined dispensation yet to be realized, as purity of character, not concrete but abstract, as light not yet manifested. That was the form in which Christ dwelt from all eternity in the bosom of the Father; looking at Himself in this light, the Christ could not but believe in His pre-existence. His earthly life had certainly a beginning but the divine life in Him could not possibly have had a beginning. Holiness assuredly has no beginning; wisdom has no beginning; love can have none; truth can never commence to exist. For these existed through all eternity in God Himself. Whatsoever is good and true is co-eternal with God. Though the human Christ was born, all that was divine in Him existed eternally in God. In fact, Christ was nothing but a manifestation on earth in human form of certain ideas and sentiments which lay before in the Godhead. Let me explain this more fully in two or three words. Before the world was, the Eternal God existed, and in His bosom slept Jesus, or rather the ideal Jesus. Yes, Christ was there with all His disciples, and all His apostles and prophets were there—yea, the whole picture of the economy of Providence in relation to the Christian dispensation."

This is mere Platonic idealism.

“It seems to me to be beyond all doubt, that Christ's religion was pure, natural, and perfect idealism. He was not a materialist, but a true idealist. He saw His own Spirit and He saw the divine Spirit also, and in deep communion He found the two identified. He felt He was but a drop lost altogether in the vast ocean of the divinity. Never did He think of Himself. There was no self at all in Him."

Now all this is a denial of the true Christ in both parts of His Being, i.e., the divine and the human. It openly denies His personality as a divine Being existing before the worlds. He all through, as did the Holy Ghost in His apostles, formally asserts His personal existence. For Mr. Sen these were qualities in God—Christ and the Christian Scriptures assert the " He " existed. In Mr. Sen's discourse I read “He existed in Heaven before He had an earthly existence. Did not Christ say that He existed long before Abraham lived? “Here we are merely deluded by words. No one existed—ideas did in God. “In what shape” it is asked, “did Christ exist in heaven? As an idea... yet to be realized, as purity of character," etc.; but that is not “I." Now I shall show that Christianity affirms uniformly the existence of Somebody, and His existence before the worlds.

Take this very passage, “Before Abraham was, I am "; not, “holiness was in God." “I " is somebody, not something which existed when "I " did not. " Holiness existed when I did not " is not I existed, and existence in its absolute character, not "I was " but "I Am." "I was" is in time—“I am" is eternal. If Christianity be true, if Christ spoke the truth, He—not "an idea to be realized"—had an eternal existence. And this the Jews felt and took up, stones to stone Him for making Himself God.

" The same was in the beginning with God." Here I find not a quality of God, but some one with God—unity of nature and Being, but distinctness of Person—“He was God," but “He was with God." This Word was made flesh—became a man. But where the unity of the Father and the Son is stated, personal distinction is carefully maintained. " I and my Father are one "; no doubt in the mysterious unity of the Deity they are one, but there are Two who are so. " The Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world." He did not send an idea merely. There was a living Person there who said He was sent. Nor was it merely when in this world, that He was sent for He says: “I came forth from the Father, and came into the world; and again I leave the world and go to the Father." “Glorify Thou me with Thine own self; with the glory I had with Thee before the world was." “Lo! I come in the volume of the book it is written of me, to do Thy will, 0 God." Here we have a Person, an “I” who has an intention, a purpose, and comes to fulfill it. Again " For I came not to do mine own will, but the will of him who sent me." "If it be possible, let this cup pass from me, nevertheless not my will but Thine be done." Holiness had not a will which was not to be done, nor love either.

All these texts, and a crowd of others that might be quoted and from Christ's own mouth—who, Mr. Sen admits, speaks the truth—proclaim a living, existing One who could say "I," and that before the worlds; not "an idea," but One who existed with God, and who was God, and who was in the Father's glory before the world was—One who could say "I."

That this blessed One did reveal the Father (Mr. Sen says He did not, but only the Son)—that He was holy, pure, the manifestation of divine love, and that He who had seen Him had seen the Father—every true Christian owns; but there was a " Him " to see, who could declare He had been in glory with the Father before the world was. That He and the Father were one, every true Christian owns, but the same verse teaches him there was "He" and the Father.

That "in two thousand years man's intellect," nay, the Christian's as taught of God, "has not fathomed this" is true, and that two thousand more will not suffice the Christian owns, but he knows more. "No one knows the Son but the Father." Now that He has clothed what is divine, in human nature, none can fathom it. The Father we do know by the Son's revelation of Him, “The only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him "; and again,

“No one knows the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him," but this is not added as to the Son—Mr. Sen says " He did not manifest the Father but the Son "; the Scripture says " The Son but the Father."

But the divine glory of His Being is maintained and secured, when He became incarnate, by the incomprehensibility of His Person. But here too the Father and the Son are carefully distinct. But though I might multiply quotations proving the personality of the Lord before the worlds, this is not quite all—He created the worlds as He upholds them. Thus, in a passage I once had the pleasure of quoting to Mr. Sen, I read: " God... has in these last days spoken to us by (his) Son, whom he has appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his Person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." Here I have, so to speak, the whole career of Christ, down here to speak to us, and gone up and sat down on the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens. But it is the same by whom God created the worlds—He upholds all things by the word of His power—He is a divine Person, with divine power, but One by whom God made the worlds.

Nor is this all. We find that He holds His place of glory as Head of Creation because He created all things I read, Col. 1, " The Son of his love... who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: for by him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers: all things were created by him and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the Head of the Body, the Church." I add this last that there may be no question as to the Person spoken of. “All things were created by him and for him." Christianity is not Pantheism either. It is not emanation—it is not evolution—though it does tell us far more, it tells us things were created, and that there was a Creator who now upholds all things by the word of His power; and this Creator was the Son.

Nor are these the only testimonies, though Creation be not the proper subject of the New Testament, but Christ and redemption; still as part of His glory it is introduced. I read in John 1, of the “Word who was with God, and who was God "... “All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made." Nothing existed but by His fiat. All that had a beginning had its existence by the power of Him who had none, who was when everything that had a beginning began. But it is not simply formal passages which speak doctrinally, but all the teachings of the Scriptures refer to Him as a personal Being. Thus: " Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men." This is said of somebody, and of somebody who was in the form of God, and did something with Himself—came into such a form as to be able to die, as in Heb. 2 He is " made a little lower than the Angels for the suffering of death." Are “holiness and love," "qualities in God," "ideas," made lower than the angels? The ideas are always the same. It would be wickedness to talk of God's holiness and love being lowered. When Christ humbled Himself to death, the death of the Cross, holiness and love were exalted, at least in their greatest display.

So I find in 2 Cor. 8, “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that when he was rich, for our sakes he became poor that we through his poverty might be made rich." Can the holiness, love, truth, which Mr. Sen affirms to be “co-eternal with God," be ever anything but what they are in themselves? But here is One who was in the form of God, the very status and condition of divinity, and takes another form and goes down to death, even the same divine Person, never proved more so than in His humiliation, but who became something (" was made flesh "). With a quality that is impossible—it is always the identical idea it was before, if not it is not it. The Word become flesh, did not cease to be the Word, but was what it was not before—became something—and subsequently took manhood into divine glory. Personal identity can change its state and form—ideal identity must remain what it is or identity is gone. But when John said “He that cometh after me is preferred before me for he was before me," he spoke of somebody to whom he was a witness—not of holiness and love.

Connected with this is another statement I must notice, in which the system approaches Arianism though not the same; a statement sufficiently obscure, but which will serve to show the untenableness of a system whose birthplace is human imagination mixed with traditional Hindoo pantheism and not divine truth. “The Lord took away," we are told, " if I may use the expression, the lower half of His holy nature, that much of it which related to the moral relationship of Son, and He invested the same with flesh and bones and blood, and sent it into the world. All holiness and truth dwelt in the Father, the eternal fountain-head of all that is true and good and beautiful. It comprehended all manner of holiness. It had in it the germ of all forms of virtue and righteousness. Purity of life dwelt in Him in its fullness and integrity. Out of this substance the Lord took out only one form of purity, that which applies to the Son in His relation to the Father and His brethren, and comprises human duties and virtues, and having given it a human shape, said: Go and dwell thou in the world, and show forth unto nations divine sonship."

Now, if it be “the lower half” of His divine nature and it was no divine Person but " ideas of holiness, love, truth," etc., then we have a lower kind of holiness, love and truth. He who has seen Christ has not seen the Father, but only “the lower half of His nature." But it was “to teach us Sonship or true loyalty to the Father "! But He was no divine Person before, and had “as much of His power and wisdom and purity, as the Son needed for manifestation on earth.... Thus was the Son incarnated, and not the Father "! But there was no one incarnate He tells us, only an inferior part of God, ideas were given a body, and that was the Son, " as much of His power and wisdom and purity as the Son needed for manifestation upon earth." It could not thus be said “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father "; it was only “the lower half," as much specifically as was needed to manifest divine humanity, loyal obedience. We might as well say “My foot is my mind because it obeys it, and by the nervous system is connected with it! " We, Christians, have a Christ who revealed the Father—the only-begotten Son who declared Him—One in whom dwells all the fullness bodily.

There is the same want of all reality in His humanity. Mr. Sen says, “Touch the human, bodily Christ, Christ as a self and a distinct individuality, and it vanishes, so unreal it is." Now the true corporeal existence of the Man Christ is carefully insisted on in Scripture. Not only is it said “The fullness of the Godhead bodily," but the reality of flesh and blood is constantly and formally insisted on as vital. “The word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us," John 1 " He was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death." “For both he that sanctifieth and they that ate sanctified are all of one, for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren." This goes further but it introduces what follows, "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise 'took part of the same that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death ... Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren." He was a real, true man, only knew no sin, and a divine Person incarnate—a perfect revelation of God, and of the Father as only-begotten Son—“All the fullness of the Godhead," or that bodily.

But I continue. “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of life," 1 John 1. He insists on having handled Him; nor had He evaporated to his mind; he insists it was no unreality as to His true bodily human nature. And after His resurrection, in those beautiful and touching words, " Why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have"—He is as much a Man now as ever, though with a spiritual body and glorified. “I see," says Stephen, "the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." God has made Him, whom the Jews crucified, Lord and Christ.

But further. It is insisted on as vital in 1 John 4 that he that “confesseth not Jesus Christ come in the flesh is not of God "; and in 2 John, he that “confesseth not Jesus Christ come in the flesh" is a deceiver and antichrist. The real proper human humanity is insisted on, a divine Person—no doubt the Word made flesh, but partaking of flesh and blood because the children did, only without sin. Mr. Sen will say, “I teach that He took flesh and blood." No doubt. But it is in itself "a volatile, ethereal something which will hardly bear the gentlest touch. Touch it and it evaporates. Touch the human, bodily Christ, Christ as a self, and a distinct individuality, and it vanishes, so unreal it is. The divine idea, the divine life, which is embodied in Christ, that is His substance, that alone liveth and abideth forever." “He saw Himself abiding eternally in God, before creation and after death. So the life of Christ springs from divinity, and into divinity it goes back. His thoughts and sentiments, His wisdom and light, His energy and vitality emanate from the divine spirit, and return to the divine spirit"; just after this follows what I have already quoted, "How did He exist? As an idea, as a plan of life." Let not the reader be deceived by “He” and “Him." There was no “He," no “Him." There was holiness in God, in the Father, and truth and love and other perfections, but no personal Being who became anything. The Father put " the lower part " of Himself into flesh and blood (yet it was only an idea) and hence Christ! And yet the flesh and blood was unreal, “so unreal that it evaporated at a touch." It is no self, no distinct individuality—touch it and it vanishes! The divine “idea," no Person mark, which is embodied in Christ, that is His substance. Now this is no true Christ at all. Now John boasts that he not only heard and saw Him, but touched Him, and He did not " evaporate " nor " vanish "; he just states the exact opposite to show He was a real bodily Man in flesh and blood, and declares that it is antichristian not to own Him come in flesh.

But this is not all. After His resurrection He did not “return into divinity"—He never ceased to be God. It was in flesh He said what Mr. Sen quotes, "Before Abraham was, I am"; but He says to His disciples "Handle me and see that it is I myself," and showed them His hands and His feet saying "I myself"—was formally insisting on His being" a self and an individuality." It is not merely an induction, it is insisted on as a fundamental truth. He returned into the glory which He had with the Father before the world was, but He returned as Man, a glorified Man.

Holiness does not die, an idea does not die, nor does it rise from the dead save metaphorically; but “if Christ," this Person who died for our sins "be not risen, our faith is vain, we are yet in our sins." He was equally a divine Person before, as we have seen—the Word who was, who created the worlds. “All things were created by him and for him," and that Word was made flesh. “He was with God and was God," and “made himself of no reputation”—gave up the form of the divine glory to take the form of man—and “In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily."

On each point—it is not merely that Mr. Sen is not a Christian—his system denies the Christ of God; He is " an idea in divinity," and He is "unreal, and evaporates in humanity"—I use his own words. He is “an inferior part of the Father," and the inferior part is embodied in a man, not to manifest the Father as the Christian Scriptures" positively state, but the Son amongst men to show what men ought to be.

Note also, all love of Christ is lost; I read "The love of Christ constrains us"—"the love of God which was in Christ Jesus our Lord"—but an idea cannot love us, an idea cannot give Himself, for us an idea " returned into the divinity cannot be " the firstborn among many brethren," an idea cannot be the " Heir of all things " having created them, an idea with a shadowy body cannot die for us. All that—is said of Christ in His interest in us cannot be said of an idea—it supposes a living Person, divine in His nature but made flesh.

I have spoken of the Person of the blessed Savior, however briefly and imperfectly, in the main of John's teaching as to Christ. But there is another side of the truth—His work wrought for us; mainly Paul's presentation of Him. For, though all teach the same truths as Paul says, 1 Cor. 15, yet characteristically John brings down God to us—Paul brings us up, accepted in Christ, to God.

A few introductory remarks as to man's state, in view of Mr. Sen's system may introduce this part of our subject. “Christ’s pantheism," we are told, "is the conscious union of the human with the divine spirit in truth, love and joy." As to what man is, we are told, "you cannot resist His influence, you may deny His doctrines, you may even hate and repudiate His name, but He goes straight into your hearts and leavens your lives. He does not care to inquire what doctrine you believe, or what dogma you accept, nor even what sort of life you lead. You may be the basest of sinners. You may be intellectually opposed to many of His doctrines. The truth that is in Christ will perforce overcome and penetrate your souls in spite of your perverseness, and secretly influence your character."

But alas! though with how rich blessing in result, history tells us the falseness of all this. The One whom "every heart must receive”—was crucified—He was "The despised and rejected of men... we hid as it were our faces from Him; He was despised and we esteemed him not"; Jews and Gentiles join in crucifying Him; one of His disciples betrays, another denies Him, and all abandon Him. History proves the contrary of Mr. Sen's statements. That conscience may be struck by the perfectness of Christ, a perfectness seen there only—intelligence convinced by proofs, and even the heart weep over innocence, is true—but all this Christ disowns as of no avail; the revelation of God draws out the enmity of the human heart. Faith simply founded on intelligence is counted nothing worth, John 2:23-25, though the judgment was 'right. Man must be born anew, Feeling, and just natural feeling is nothing worth when Christ is in question; Luke 23:27-31. Nor, comes closer home here, does just admiration of Christ's perfectness, and a lovable character; Matt. 20:16-26; Mark 10:17-27. We must be born again.

And let us now see how Christianity treats this question of man's disposition. “Wherefore," says Isaiah prophetically, "when I came was there no man, when I called was there none to answer." And in the New Testament it is stated doctrinally. Speaking of Christ as the life that was the light of men, "The light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not." If there were some that did through grace receive Him, they were “born of God." And the Lord, John 3:11, “We speak that we do know and testify that we have seen, and ye receive not our witness." And in verse 19 the secret comes out, "This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil"; and again in verse 32, “And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth, and no man receiveth his testimony." So chapter 8: 45, “Because I tell you the truth, ye believe not." And the result is seen in chapter 15: 22-25, and in one word there, “But now they have both seen and hated both me and my Father... They hated me without a cause." He came into the world, and “the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came to his own and his own received him not."

The view that Mr. Sen takes of human nature, in relationship to the manifestation of what is divine in Christ, is contrary alike to fact and the testimony of Christianity, and it is still true: with the name of Christ upon them “They see no beauty in Him to desire Him." Money, pleasure, ancient superstitions, power, and a thousand other things attract the heart, not Christ. But this rejection of Christ leads us to another part of Christianity, not the manifestation of what is divine to man specially known in the Person of the Lord Jesus, but what He did for man as a Savior. Of all this there is no trace in Mr. Sen's system.

Christianity treats man as lost, " enemies in, their minds by wicked works," " by nature children of wrath "—the worship of Vishnu, and Shiva, of Kali, or even of Sudra and Agni has not proved the contrary, nor the, state of Christendom where Christ is professed; all around us, East or West, proves that we have had a bad Creator or that we are a fallen race. To show good in the midst of it does not change—has not changed this. It has been shown in Christ and rejected. Christianity is founded on the rejection and death of its Head. Not that God's plans were frustrated; the Son of Man came, when man's state was fully proved by His rejection, to give His life a ransom. Divine love was shown in the gift of the only-begotten Son, and man's necessity and. God's righteous judgment of sin, in that the Son of Man must be lifted up. Nowhere but in the Cross are the infinite love of God and His righteous horror of sin fully shown, both; but in the Cross God's nature was shown—sin intolerable but the sinner loved. “Hereby know we love, because he laid down his life for us"—hereby know we what sin is, when it was thus dealt with in Him who was made sin for us. But all have sinned, every mouth is stopped, and all the world guilty before God. There is corruption, violence, oppression in the world as a fact—Mr. Sen does not deny it. The motives of men are the opposite of what even Mr. Sen ascribes to Christ, even when there is no open profligacy. Man “must be born again," not in the unreal sense of Brahminism, not with a cord round the waist, but a new and holy life, and a cord round every evil passion, to abide with and have communion with God, “Without holiness no man shall see the Lord." Is it fitting, nay! is it possible he should? Can miserable passions be the happy and loving companions for any of a holy Christ? Man must be really and truly born again.

But this is not all. There must be a judicial putting away of all our sins—a purged conscience as well as a pure heart; where the conscience is not purged, the heart cannot be free. It is indeed a felt want whenever the conscience is not hardened, and then even easily awakened—of this Christianity largely speaks. On this, the first of realities, Mr. Sen is wholly silent. There is nothing as to guilt, though he speaks of evil; how should there be if we also are part of God, which is pantheism? There is nothing in his system that meets the sinner, and sinners we are. He speaks of various wickedness, and of man's estate, and of his own even in a general way, but not a word of what is to meet it. Scripture does—it tells us how " Christ died for our sins," "was made sin, He who knew no sin"—Christ is set forth as "a propitiation through faith in his blood," and as to those who believe, it tells us how "we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins," how "His blood purges the conscience from dead works to serve the living God," how it "cleanses from all sin," how He was "delivered for our offenses and raised again for our justification," and that thus " repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name." Thus a moral change, and indeed a new life in us on the one hand, and a righteous forgiveness of all our sins on the other, form the practical basis of Christianity. Is this, or telling people that they "love Christ at bottom, even if they hate His name and reject His doctrine and live in sin," the most true?

Christianity, then, where it is real, gives peace in the conscience and purifies the heart by faith.

But we have named another truth which has no place in Mr. Sen's system—the resurrection; and now I speak only of believers though all will be finally raised. There man appears in a wholly new state, out of the whole state and condition of this world and mortality—no sin—all his sins gone forever in the Cross—he is forever past death, past the sphere of Satan's power, actually suited for God's presence, not merely spiritually enjoying as the believer does here, but body and all rendered fit for the habitation of glory—what is called by Christ His "Father's house." There He is already entered as Man, glorified with the glory He had with the Father before the world was.

Faith knows its standing now before a holy God, partaking of the life in the power of which Christ lives as risen, when “He had by himself purged our sins," and obtained the glory for us. When the time comes for all to be complete, we shall be like Christ, raised in glory, and with Him forever where He has gone to prepare a place for us.

I have spoken of the work of Christ as affecting ourselves, dying for our sins and purging our conscience. Mr. Sen says: “Of what use is a dead Christ to us? " If He remained dead, as the Apostle teaches us, He would be of none.

" Jesus came down in all His glory from heaven to teach us sonship in true loyalty to the Father"—"To manifest that life was His mission"—and "His beloved Son was one with Him because He was made of divine humanity."

But Mr. Sen sets aside the importance of Christ's death as much as possible—“To that home He would return after finishing His earthly career."

The Lord, after saying He was the " bread come down from heaven to give life to the world," tells us "Except ye eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you," making the realization of His death essential to having life, for the blood separate from the flesh is the state of death; to which He adds, "What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before." This is the more definite because in the preceding chapter He presents Himself as giving life with the Father, "Quickening whom he will" here as the Object of faith, incarnate, dead, and going back to heaven, only the last in a new state in which man never was before.

Of this Mr. Sen makes the following: " On the occasion of the Last Supper He commended Himself to His disciples and the world at large as mere bread and wine to be assimilated to the soul, as mere leaven that in time leaveneth the whole mass " I Of this there is not a word in the passage. "As leaven He lives to-day; He is not dead. For two thousand years men have tried to find out the dead Christ under the stone. But the Spirit of God has marvelously rolled away the stone, and Christ is not there. Even for three days Christ would not consent to live on earth as a dead Christ buried under the stone. So the Lord took His Christ unto Himself, and has in all ages discomfited and disappointed those that have searched for a dead Christ on earth. Where then is Christ now? He is living in all Christian lives, and in all Christian influences around us. Of the dead Christ I speak not. Of what use is a dead Christ to us or to our nation?"

Now with a great deal of rhapsody, to which it is hard to attach any sense, it is perfectly clear that the object of this passage is to destroy all the importance of Christ's death, Now Christ Himself attaches all importance to His death—"Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." He is “the Lamb of God," "Therefore," He says, "now doth my Father love me, because I lay, down my life that I might take it again." He gives His “flesh for the life of the world." “Now," He says, "is the judgment of this world: now is the prince of this world cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die." The people would have it that Christ was to abide forever, and the saying was unintelligible to them, as it is to Mr. Sen. But it is Christ's death which is the means of drawing all unto Him. I may recall the passage already quoted: "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life." He has “made peace by the blood of his Cross." "For without shedding of blood is no remission."

Why have we so large an account of His death, if it be "of no use "? A living Christ, though much more, was the accomplishment of promise to the Jew—a dying Christ opens the door to every poor sinner. It is not a dead Christ but a Christ's dying which is of use. The Word of God made flesh, and His coming into our place of sin (knowing no sin, but made sin for us), of death, of Satan's power; of God's judgment, and "bearing our sins in his own body on the tree," and glorifying God there in dying—that is of value.

The Cross of Christ is morally the end of man's history, the beginning of God's; There the enmity of man against God was fully shown, in rejecting Him in Christ, manifested in goodness; sin and law-breaking being already there, the infinite love of God towards man who did it was manifested there too. The risen Christ takes the new place for man which He has obtained, for those that believe—reconciled to God by His precious blood. He came to give His life a ransom for many. He who was the "brightness of God's glory, and the express image of His Person, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty In the heavens." I have already quoted these passages as to His Person, I repeat them here as to the object of His incarnation: “He was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death"—"Through death he destroyed him that had the power of death," i.e., He annulled his power.

I should quote the whole of Heb. 9, and the blessed effect in chapter 10, were I to adduce what applies to this subject; anyone can read it, but "A testament is of no force at all while the testator liveth." “By his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption." It is by, means of death that we receive the promise of eternal inheritance. I quote further these two passages: "Now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment; so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." The veil is rent; and “We have boldness by the blood of Jesus to enter into the holiest." We are sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. “For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified." He sits continually as Man at the right hand of God until His enemies be made His footstool. Citations might be multiplied, but these suffice to show the place Christ's death has in Christianity.

I close this part of my testimony by citing what is a summing up of the whole course of the blessed Lord. “Christ Jesus, who when he was in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but made himself of no reputation and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men and being found in fashion as a man he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." And, note, "He made himself of no reputation" when "in the form of God" He "humbled himself," being in the form of a man. It was not "an idea" that did this, but One in the form of God who could say “Lo! I come." It was One who had a mind in Him when in the form of God—not "an idea in the mind" of another.

There would be many details to notice, but I have no wish to break the great lines of truth by details. Thus Mr. Sen tells us: “Christ said, There is none good but the Father"—Christ never said so, He said, "but God." But God, Father, Lord, are all confounded in Mr. Sen's discourse. God is the name of a Nature and Being—Father, of a relationship. If we make the difference of Persons, and do not say merely God in the unity of nature, Creation is attributed in Scripture to the Son and the Spirit, not to the Father. Next, Christ is never, by Mr. Sen in his discourse, called “Lord," which is of the essence of Christian truth.

Further, we all existed eternally as much as Christ! “Christ was there with all his disciples, and all the apostles and prophets were there—yea, the whole picture of the economy of providence in relation to the Christian dispensation!” I do not know what “part of Himself" the Father took, for all of us to be incarnate. Mr. Sen says “Christ took only a lower part "; we must have been some bad part, for men are wicked- for we were “all there as well as Christ." What “idea" in God were we?

The thought of a Savior is wholly lost and absent from Mr. Sen's mind. In result, Christ's divine existence before incarnation was merely “An idea in God"—He did not exist at all! His “remembrance of His pre-existence” is merely trifling with words-there was no “He." “He knew that holiness was in God"—so do I, but that is "all He knew, for that was all there was"! But where “The Father sent the Son," there must be somebody to send.

The humanity of Christ is equally unreal. “Touch it," as Mr. Sen says, “and it vanishes." The real true humanity of Christ is as fully denied as His personal divinity.

The death of Christ is not merely passed over, but carefully made nothing of.

His resurrection and entrance as Man into glory is all left out—the resurrection of that true “human Christ," the same though in a new estate.

All Christianity is denied in what is diligently insisted on as fundamental in the New Testament.

But it will be said: “But Mr. Sen tells us he is no Christian." True! But he professes to give us an account of what Christ was, and it is a false Christ—false in everything essential to His existence, Person and work—a labored denial of all that constitutes a true Christ. And let me suggest to Mr. Sen here, that the true Christ, the Savior, is neither Oriental nor Occidental; as far as He was externally the former, He has been rejected by Orientals and Occidentals. As a Savior, He came down from heaven and revealed the Father—told what He had seen, and spoke what He knew (John 3), and, rejected by all, died for us to save us, and, as Man, is gone up to heaven where He was before. A heavenly Christ, lifted up from the earth, is alone a Savior for West and East.

Mr. Sen contradicts himself constantly, but into this I do not enter—the subject is too serious to make it a mere debate. He says, “India craves the knowledge of what Christ is," and he gives it a false one suited to local prejudices, and not the expression of eternal Truth.

The Son of Man

THE use of the term “Son of Man" is worthy of closer remark. Christ never calls Himself "the Christ” save to the woman, of Samaria, outside Judaism; John 4. He confesses it before the chief priests, that He is the Christ the Son of the Blessed, but then His own testimony is “Moreover" (plen) "I say unto you, Henceforth" (not hereafter) "ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power"—so Stephen saw Him (but that was a vision for one -"full of the Holy Ghost") and yet standing—and "coming in the clouds of heaven," i.e., they would from that out only see Him in that way. He calls Himself "Son of Man" continually—it is His name of predilection in the first three Gospels—in John more frequently "Son of God." In John it is used as to the place He has already taken, for He comes into the world, and the Jews are rejected, and His Person as divine while on earth and as to the Cross, see chapter 3; in chapter 4 for His Body given for the life of men and ascending up—Christ on earth; in chapter 5 judgment given to Him because He is such.

Men never call Him "Son of Man," save Stephen as seeing Him in heaven, which after what He said to the Jews is very significant, as is His not being yet set down. Save these cases, the term is used as suffering—as Lord of all—forgiving—in grace seeking and saving what was lost—or coming again in power and glory; as a general rule suffering and rejected, or coming again in glory.

In the Old Testament the name is only used in respect of future glory and power, in Dan. 7 and Psa. 8 The "made a little lower than the angels" of the latter is used in Hebrews as being in order to be able to suffer death.

The term is used in Revelation, "One like unto the Son of man," as judging in the midst of the Churches, and as coming in the clouds of heaven. In one Psalm (80) He is viewed as the future Deliverer of Israel, who is to come.

The “suffering" point, as connected with the term, is very clear in John 12. It is emphatically stated there. In Luke 9 we have it distinctively in contrast with the Christ, and so that the whole blessing is on new ground, and repeated as the grand practical needed truth, verses 43, 44. The remark made above, which is already evident from John z: 51, reading “henceforth," shows the different use of it in John. Heb. 2 takes it up most distinctly in doctrine, and unfolds most fully its connection with the interest He takes in men (the seed of Abraham) as such; they are "all of One." Ephesians 1 Connects it with the Church or the Church with Him; and Corinthians 15, the bringing about the result by resurrection. And this explains the after-subjection of the Son, for He remains—infinite grace—Son of man; His personal glory and headship remaining, but His kingdom, rule and, authority given up, as heretofore seen.

This explains the character of John's Gospel also, where the divine nature of Christ and His oneness with the Father is so clearly stated—having taken already the place of Son of man, He is always divine, but always recipient and dependent. It is not the Kingdom but the Person—a divine one—the Son one with the Father, but the Son of man who has taken the subject place, as we have often seen, all through. This is most important in itself, and for the understanding of John's Gospel, and most blessed. The whole of chapter 17 brings it out very strikingly, where He brings the disciples into His own place, and having brought the Son into Man, He brings men to be sons with Him—by Him, but with Him. This is very lovely. And this is His eternal place consequently, only then glorified of course, as He demands in chapter 17, “Glorify thou me."

His Person comes out strikingly in such passages as “The Son of Man who is in heaven." But although John distinctly uses it in the way and for the reason mentioned in connection with His Person—the Man down here, yet "The Son of man who is in heaven"—"That meat... which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed"—yet the death and future glory are not lost sight of in connection with it, only it holds fast the Person as a present thing. We have it in chapter 6, and we have it when the Greeks come up, adding that the 'corn of wheat must fall into the ground and die or it abode alone. “The Son of man must be lifted up"; and this goes further than "The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation." In John it is directly connected with God—His nature and Christ's work—yet on the part of man towards God, the other side following under the title of "Son of God." But in John it has a most blessed and revealing character, which is indeed the gist of the whole Gospel, adding "The other Comforter."

The absolute unity of His Person, though in a taken nature, is seen in chapter 6: 62, as well as in chapter 3: 13.

It is evident "Son of man," though the predicted, miraculous descendant of Adam by the woman everywhere, is used in the three Gospels in contrast with the Christ (of Jewish promise) according to the promise of Psa. 8 and Daniel, showing He was to suffer, and not then take the place of Psa. 2, but suffer as Son of man in a more dispensational way; whereas in John it is His Person—He who could say "Father," could say it and did say it as Man—a present thing, as remarked before but not developed. See chapter 1:49, and then verse 51 as following it.

In John the "Son of Man" is first seen in chapter I with the Angels of God serving Him as their special object. Then He is "Son of man who is in heaven," but came down from it. He "must be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." This "lifting up" is always in connection with the Son of man.

Then chapter 8, "When ye have lifted up the Son of man, ye shall know that I am he." So chapter 12, "How sayest thou: The Son of man must be lifted up, who is this Son of man?"

After chapter 3, chapter 6 next takes up the Son of man. There He is the One "sealed of the Father," but again "come down from heaven"—His flesh and blood to be eaten (to go up where He was before). If "lifted up " He was to draw all men. This " lifting up " was clearly His death, but His death as "lifted up," and this word seems to me of importance—His death as rejected and cast out of the earth, but thereby connected with heaven, and the Object of faith to the earth, i.e., to men on it as consciously lost then, but no longer of it. Hence connected with the Son of man, and contrasted by the people with Christ (Messiah) abiding as they thought ever, according to the law; as "Christ" and "Son of man" are contrasted in themselves in Luke 9.

"The Son of man must be lifted up" is associated with heavenly things, as with the serpent stricken to death in John 3. Israel even must be born again for earthly promises according to the prophets—for the setting up of the kingdom, of course the Gentile; but loving the world is connected with the Son of man being lifted up, “If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me." And it is on the rejection of the Jews, as such, for rejecting His word, that He says “when lifted up” they would “know it was he." When too late they would know whom they had rejected. So it was with the altar—it was not in the camp but in the court of the tabernacle, at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation (of meeting). Only in chapter 8, He is the Word, I am whom they have rejected. It was one coming from the camp towards the Tabernacle (Heaven) who found the altar the first thing heavenward—so Christ on the Cross, lifted up, the Witness, dying, that we were dead in sin, but find it in grace in a sacrifice for sin. We go further—we enter into the holiest through the rent veil, but here was the meeting place, but it as having done consequently with the world (the first Adam) as Christ had there done with it—He was lifted up from the earth and all became heavenly but judgment, and that is so to us.

He is "lifted up" in chapter 3, in connection with dying men, like the brazen serpent, and as introducing to heavenly things; He is " lifted up " in chapter 8 in connection with the utter rejection of the Jews; He is "lifted up" in chapter 12, drawing all men unto Him—the wide sphere of application here below—all this by His death. These are the only cases of the use of the word regarding Christ.

Matt. 12 gives us the turning point very completely. The Pharisees and Sadducees who composed the Jews (and all religious men, ritualism, and self-righteousness, and infidel rationalists) are rejected—no sign given but a rejected Christ in the grave (Jonas), when it would be too late to be connected with the nation in flesh. In a word, death is brought in and the new resurrection state, but death to man and all hopes in man—the fig-tree is cursed. Then chapter 16, the Lord takes His own place in connection with man, not Judaism—“Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am?” Peter then owns Him as “The Christ, the Son of the living God." As “the Christ" He is to be proclaimed no more, but still He was the accomplishment of promise—the Seed of David according to the flesh, and Son of God, of the living God (proved in resurrection). This confession of Peter is the whole Gospel, as to the Person, stated in the beginning of Rom. 1—practically in 2 Tim. 2:8.

The Son of God, accomplishment of promise as the Christ, the Son of David, brings in life in divine power so as to be able to triumph over, death. He goes down, as Man, into the full effect as to man's estate of sin, and Satan's power, breaks out in—victory, and puts, man into a new place beyond it all. The Son of man “made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death," is the Son of the living God in power. On this the Church is built by Christ—the living stones added to the Living Stone. Secondly, as a distinct matter, the keys of the Kingdom—not of the Church, there are none—are given to Peter; the human-built, responsible Church is Paul's work, 1 Corinthians 3, but that is not our subject here. Hence from this point He begins to tell them the fact of His rejection, and death, and resurrection—the wholly, absolutely new footing on which man was set; besides, afterward, the Son of man should come in His glory—but this is chapter 17.

We learn that flesh may keep our state below the revelation we have really received, so as to be an adversary to Christ, for in minding earthly things we are adversaries to Christ, enemies of His Cross—for if we follow the Son of man, the Cross is the path He trod and we tread. Paul, stood and started on this ground, “If one died for all, then were all dead," and he knew no man, not even Christ, after the flesh. It is not therefore a passing, as often noticed, from Judaism to the Church, but a passing from man in the flesh to a resurrection manhood through the Cross and death. The Christ-hood living connection with Israel, according to the flesh, being thus gone, and the Son of man taking up man's case, entering into and putting man into a wholly new condition in resurrection beyond death and Satan's power. That, as to the Son of man—but, on His being the Son of the Living God, the Church also is built, His then Christ-hood being then broken down, but, this is in connection with the wider place of Son of man. The Church is not built upon His being "Son of man," but on the Son of man being the “Son of the Living God." The "Son of man" is individual and general—its public result and state is in chapter 17, Luke 9, etc.

Note though what is called "The eternal Sonship" be a vital truth, or we lose the Father sending the Son, and the Son creating, and we have no Father We have no Son, so that it lies at the basis of all truth, yet in the historical presentation of Christianity the Son is always presented as down here in servant and manhood estate, as all through John, though in heaven and One with the Father. "This"—this Person—"is my beloved Son"—He who was as Man there, yet there. In Matt. 3 the whole Trinity is revealed, and we may say for the first time fully: Wonderful grace it is! Hence "No! not the Son," has no difficulty; Mark 13:32.

Righteousness and Intercession

As to the righteousness of God and intercession, the righteousness stands thus: the Glory of God is fully revealed in the face of Jesus Christ—there is no veil now; We have to walk in light as He is in the light. In a word all the glory is revealed and all must be according to its requirements. We are in His presence or out of it. Hence, when we speak of sin, we say, “We have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

It is then according to the nature, fully revealed character of this glory, we have to stand before God. But Christ on the Cross has not only acted consistently with it, as His life even could not do (because He was not yet made sin) though perfectly consistent with it as life, but this glory was there made good. All that God was in glory was made good in a way that would have had no place if sin had not been there—it was in that it was brought out. “Hereby know we love, because he laid down his life for us."

So the divine Majesty was shown—"It became him for whom are all things and by whom are all things in bringing many sons to glory to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings" "though he were Son." Nothing could show the irrecusable requirements of His Majesty, as the sufferings of the Son when He took this place. So of His righteous nature, and judgment against sin; the Cross gives rise to the same thought. It is made good, as it could nowhere else be. So His truth. "The wages of sin is death." All that God is morally, and note, all there in respect of sin, so as if sin had not been there, they could not have been displayed and glorified, and the Son as Man made sin to this effect. Hence we read, "Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him." This very glory of God is made good—realized in that which brings us to Him. And now we behold with open, i.e., with unveiled face, the glory of the Lord—Man sitting at the right hand of God—God's righteousness displayed in it. And we, so to speak, it being done for us, and we being in Him, are the making good of the glory of God in righteousness. The sin was the only part we, as our part, had in it; but this, as we have seen, was needed to display it in all its own glory.

We stand in the Universe those in whom the glory and righteousness of God are displayed. So actually the glory given to Jesus will be given to us, and when He appears, we shall appear with Him in glory.

Now the intercession of Christ is founded on this being our place. We stand before the glory, in righteousness, in and through Him we are it. But our hearts have to be brought into association with this, in communion. For this Christ, who is that eternal life which was with the Father, is our life, and there is a nature, i.e., we are capable of enjoyment, for we have derivatively the nature, as we have before God the righteousness which is to be enjoyed in love. But we fail. “If any man sin"—now Jesus Christ the righteous is our Advocate according to the excellency of that which places us in that communion. And the soul is exercised by grace and love, in grief as to that which ought to have been joy. But the same affections are in play about the same object—first, as sense of loss and pain, but bringing to the sense of the blessedness of what we have got out of communion with, and attaching us to it intelligently as precious. What led us away was really not valuing it, estimating it, i.e., that into which we were brought we were lightly separated from, not feeling the loss or the value in possessing it, but when separated as to condition of soul, our springs of joy are dried up in the new nature. What has made us lose it is purged, and the same affections are brought into play in grief which ought to have been in joy of communion. When the soul is brought to this, i.e., purified from what made it light about it, and communion valued, it is restored with increased fixedness and capacity of communion But what grace is this which has brought us to God Himself! I here only note that the advocacy is exercised according to the perfection of divine communion into which we are brought. So even of priesthood, “Such a high priest became us, holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens."

The same truth is brought out as to our future condition and present realization of it, in Jude: “Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy." So in 1 Peter: “In whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory."

Again what is very immediately in connection with this—Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father. All He was involved this resurrection. It was His glory to do it, as Christ—had glorified Him, or rather His glory did it—was made good and displayed in it.

Now we have to connect the heavenly character of Christ's priesthood with its care of our earthly state, of which it takes account. The way of this in Hebrews is evident—not as the Jewish priests compassed with infirmity while priests, but “tempted in all points like as we are" on earth, sin excepted, and perfect in heavenly glory when exercised on high where He is. But we are connected with both. Such a High Priest became us, holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, higher than the heavens, but withal One that can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, as passing through this world of sin and trial. But this shows in a wonderful way our place" For such a High Priest became us." We are called to association with what is undefiled and higher than the heavens, and yet experience a care which applies to infirmities, weakness and need.

But this, as association, calls up into heavenly things, and identifies us spiritually with them, but at the same time morally with every heart-exercise in which, while it brings us into dependence, the deepest and fullest sympathies are woven into our hearts in One who has been and who is divine in His love and human in His sorrows, and touched with the feeling of our infirmities, in a grace which knows them and was perfect in them.

It is a great thing to have the' heart met where it is, and to be taken from where it is to brighter and, better scenes where He is who perfectly knows both, but belongs to the highest though He has descended to the lowest for our sakes. And that makes it all sweetness in the sorrows, and yet our hope and life where all is bright in the holiness of God, and the love is found which has been the source of all' the grace.

How infinite, how perfect on every side is the grace, not one element wanting up to God Himself, and Him we call our Father!

Note, there are three ways in which the priesthood of Christ is presented in the Epistle to the Hebrews. First, in His sympathy with those He is not ashamed to call His brethren as in chapters 2 and 4; then as that on which the whole religious system depends; thirdly as representing the people—not so much a priestly act but as the High. Priest represented the people on the day of atonement, and this introduces the sacrifices.

There is however this difference between chapters 2 and 4 as to the. priesthood; chapter 2 while showing Christ made higher than the heavens, insists on His being made like unto His brethren—truly a Man in flesh and blood, so as to feel as a man for the saints in their trial. Chapter 4 on the other hand specially looks at Him as gone up on high, a High Priest who has gone up through the heavens, and speaks only of "was" as to His suffering being tempted. This was needed to give the place and exercise of His priesthood, the former (chapter 2) to show how He came down, and was Man to be qualified for it. In chapter 5 as in chapter 4 it is the exalted place in priesthood, only again He had, in the days of His flesh; passed through the trial so as to pass thence, fitted in compassion, into the place of its exercise.

The Government of God

THE government of God, however imperfectly manifested outwardly, is yet exercised at any rate as to His children, and is in result with the world. It is exercised according to His judgment of what is right and what is wrong. He makes good His righteousness in government though all be not yet apparent; and so Job and Elihu reasoned, but not with adequate present witness, of which we can judge, and what modifies it apparently, with all patience and long-suffering it is not "speedily executed." Through this, when His saints err from Him, they must go; He maintains His true character. Hence they are difficultly saved. God must, after His patience, bring the trial which expresses what He is and proves what man is. And when it comes, it sweeps on to its results dragging on men with its stream. How are the righteous to get through this? This is the point, in Peter, of the difficulty—as Lot and Sodom, the just and the ungodly and the sinner in Peter.

But then while the government of God maintains its own principles and respects not persons, and meets His children in an erring path and overthrows them, it maintains His way and overthrows them if they cross it. But then with the saint He goes through this-much deeper into the soul. He does not merely correct the way, but lets His mind in as to the spirit that led to it. The will is broken—we find what we are—the soul, which had gone its own way, finds itself again with God, though sorrowfully, and God is known—the state of the soul is changed, it is not the free exercise of will, but the siftings and subduedness of a soul that has to say to God, and the happiness that accompanies it, though this last way be regained through trial. If there be any motive which has led astray, or any evil, and not merely levity and estrangement of heart from God, any false confidence in the soul, it is judged, of course.

But further. The walk becomes more thoroughly a following of Jesus under the effect of the Cross. This is ever true and simple, deeper and more experimental. We get a striking example of this in Peter. The original starting point of the disciples, as it must be, “Follow me," the one only right path in a world that was wrong, and that the perfection of Jesus. But there was confidence in self, and Peter must go through the dreadfully humbling process of his fall, yet Christ praying for him and watching over him. Self-confidence is broken down and will—he did not go where he would, but bound and led by another. Thus he could serve, as emptied of self confidence, what was dearest to Jesus—His sheep and lambs, a care He now confides to him—and suffer with Him, just what he could not do before. And now Jesus says again “Follow me." In the measure in which self was judged, experimentally known and judged, he could. The full study of this is a most instructive lesson, and from Jesus' first care, praying for him, full of grace.

Peace

The connection and place of peace in Luke, and as to the last or application to us, in John also, is, extremely interesting. As soon as Christ is born, the unjealous delight in the divine glory in man's blessing celebrates His birth. They pass over man's fault in putting the Savior born into the manger, and, filled entirely with the divine thoughts in fit, celebrate His praise. And what was this? “Glory to God in the highest, on earth peace, good pleasure in man." That was the result in its own nature of the birth of the Savior. This presence of the Lord, the fruit of infinite grace, was in itself, if received, peace and blessing-carried it necessarily in what it was in itself—and will produce it finally.

But the Lord was rejected, and as some received Him, He had to say, “Think ye that I am come to send peace on earth; I tell you Nay, but rather a sword. Five shall be in one house, two against three, and three against two."

In the end of Luke, the Kingdom is celebrated, which will indeed bring in peace on the earth. There it is said: “Blessed be the King that cometh. Peace in heaven and glory in the highest." All that God had done on earth had been marred and spoiled by Satan, and as long as these wicked spirits were in heavenly places, thus it must be. But there is war in heaven, and the devil and his angels are cast out, and there is no more place for them. Then there is peace in heaven—Satan is bound. Now there can be peace on earth, and under the Lord's rule there will be peace. But between these two we stand. And in that same Gospel of Luke, the Lord comes after His resurrection and pronounces “Peace" on His disciples. But this was a peace of a far deeper and fuller character, not peace on earth, governmental peace, but peace made with God. He had made peace, perfect peace, so that the soul might enjoy cloudless communion with Him-all that is of the world or of this scene, as alive in it, being shut out. He had brought them, or had done what brought them into this peace by His death, and now He pronounced it. And if we turn to John, this will shine out with the brightest evidence. The Lord had warned His disciples that He did not come to bring peace, but a sword; so that the peace on earth was not there, but the fire already kindled. But He had ineffable peace of soul as not of the world—He was in, and His soul in the unclouded light of His Father's countenance. It was a link—between man and God, infinite in blessing (in Him in every sense infinite, and in us objectively and as regards the power of the Holy Ghost, and as being in Him and so in cloudless light, with God) no matter what the circumstances. Now Jesus through His death, and as being in Him and He in us, brings us into this blessing—"Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth give I unto you." This is unspeakably blessed.

The peace of the Christian is not the same as being justified—"Being justified, we have peace with God." This must be according to His nature; hence completely what He is, which makes it very blessed, and though in us connected with our being alienated and enemies by sin, yet in itself is only measured by what He was before sin existed—the outgoing of His own nature in itself—before sin, and we in absolute harmony with its full display and proper nature. Sin has been the means of bringing us to know what holiness, righteousness, love are, but they are all in God—the last is His nature. Thus in seeing what Christ says, we learn what it is. "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you." Now His peace was consonance in every way with the divine nature, and the consciousness of communion with it—that it rested on Him unclouded, but that was not by sin put away. It was in itself divine and, though now in a Man, eternal consonance. Now for us, of course, it had to be made—"He has made peace by the blood of the Cross," and this was so perfect, as to the whole nature and character of God, that He was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father—is glorified with God in virtue of that work in which He glorified God perfectly and in respect of what we are as sinners, but glorified God perfectly.

Hence we are brought into this-" Having been justified by faith, we have peace with God." It is in the midst of evil no doubt, conflict and warfare around, so that it has the character of peace. Still it is, and this makes it specially to be so, "Peace with God." Not as to the circumstances-that is the "Peace of God keeping our hearts"—a blessed thing, but not so deep and direct as this. This is with Himself-our secret with Him, His with us. I think it will turn to delight in His own glory in heaven, to which it ministers now. But here it has the character of peace with God.

Then we must remember that it is a state of mind in the unclouded consciousness of what God is (but necessarily according to His nature) to us according to the value of Christ's work, and in Him.

There is another order of peace from the conformity itself to this nature—a subjective peace, "The mind of the Spirit is life and peace."

I note the effects of the power of seeing the glorified Christ more distinctly. It absorbs the heart. "I have suffered the loss of all things, and I do count them but dung," it is not only that we have given them up, but their power is gone; the actual trials on the path become matter of joy—they are the fellowship of His sufferings, conformity to His death. It gives unity of action and perseverance. It gives a heavenly character to the path—the calling is above—confidence and joy in reference to God. It is God's calling and in the blessedest way in Christ Jesus. Christ Himself is the object, but this is united with our being glorified by divine favor resting on us as on Him. “Resurrection from among the dead"—for this too, divine righteousness in Christ Himself can alone be fit or suffice.

Walking Worthy

My attention has been drawn to the use of “Walking worthy." In Ephesians we see dearly its connection with the noticed force and character of the Epistle. This treats of the Christian and then of the Church's privileges, and the saint is to “walk worthy of his vocation” here, especially in Church place, and the worthiness to be of that.

In Colossians, where the glory of the Person of Christ is brought out as they were slipping away from the Head—I do not say His headship, but the glory of Him who is Head—they are to "walk worthy of the Lord." It is in this part that God and Father, the Lord and the Spirit are brought out.

In the Thessalonians, who, from being heathens, had been brought to know the one true God, the Father-" The Assembly of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father " having not intermediate and indeed demon powers, but being in direct, immediate relationship with the one true God, they are called to " walk worthy of God who has called us to his own kingdom and glory "-so they were " turned to God from idols, to serve the living and true God."

Philippians, in which we have the experimental condition of the Christian, and the Gospel is spoken of as in conflict in the world (Paul being in the bonds of it) they were to “walk worthy of the Gospel." So Paul was "set for the confirmation and defense of the Gospel"—he speaks of the "beginning of the Gospel"—Timothy had served with him "for the Gospel"—the women had "contended with him in the Gospel "Paul was set "for the defense of the Gospel"—they had fellowship "in the furtherance of the Gospel." So it will be seen that when they are called to walk worthy of it, conflict is also spoken of, for which a right walk was needed, but they were not to be terrified by their adversaries. The true Gospel was as a cause, as a person in conflict in the world—they who stood by it as one they contended along with, were to walk worthy of it. They were "striving together with the faith of the Gospel," contending along with the faith of the Gospel in the world—not “for” the faith, but “with” it, as an associate with it in its conflicts.

There is thus in the three “walkings worthy," I think, a practical difference though essentially the same. In Thessalonians it is the essential measure and its nature—“Worthy of God," imitators of God as dear children, "Who has called us to his own kingdom and glory." Then the manifestation of what this is in a divinely perfect expression of it in Christ, “Worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing." In Eph. 4 we have more our own present place in it by the Holy Ghost "the vocation wherewith we are called”—all our privileges and place being known to us through the Holy Ghost sent down when Christ was glorified—the place we are in in connection with Him glorified now:

Memory

Some make the act of knowledge the thing retained; if so, the idea is only a modification of the mind-a man holds it as part of the "I”' (ego). What then is immediate perception, or activity continuing? The activity is not an idea. The activity of a faculty need not continue-no activity dependent on will need; nor involuntary either in man, because in man -it is the effect of a body acting on the senses, and when it does not act, the effect, but for some other reason, would cease.

That knowledge is retained in a latent state, i.e., when the mind is not occupied with it, is certain. How or what it is, I do not know, nor does anyone else, I think; but that is the whole story. Association is a mere means out of reproduction, i.e., by will, but of the recurring of anything to the mind by a natural chain; only will can use it, i.e., I seek a person's name, etc.—I remember where, with whom, etc., I have seen him, in order to recover the name, but the suggestion is without will.

Imagination and memory are closely connected, i.e., the power of reproduction in the mind's consciousness of scenes, which in memory have been in their own combination present in imagination, the elements in some other. It may be a question, can we remember without association; but I think we can-though it plays so great a part it is difficult to separate it. What is more surprising is, calling up a scene, a passage by will. I say, “I will remember a line of Horace"—"the place I passed my childhood in"; I cannot account for my will being determined here. When I, reasoning on memory, would try to analyze some point, what does determine it? I suspect it is what is best retained fixed in the memory, unless it be determined by the kind of thing which judgment says is most to the point then—what is most familiar to the mind But I am not able to analyze memory yet, if ever I do. What the scientists say is simply nothing. I doubt whether the knowledge which is stored up is rightly called “memory," though the materials of it. When we say “memory," I think we include recalling out of these stores, or the power of doing so, which is the same as saying it is there. It is in this point my analysis is short. Memory is various—I suppose depends on the force of impression. I say “I will make you remember it," i.e., I associate pain with it. "He will remember it but once," this shows it includes recalling it. “It is never out of his mind." I remember vividly people, circumstances, facts, never dates within years without special labor.

I suspect memory is much more material than we are aware; hence memoria technica. Like abstraction, our first perceptions are vivid, and of particular circumstances gradually generalized. So Memory. If it be Horace, it is a book, hard Latin, a school, a master, my learning it, gradually referred to what has most struck me in it—having itself formed an undeveloped faculty, a particular kind of taste, etc.

Consciousness

I would say a word on consciousness. It is used, I think, in two senses—consciousness, properly speaking, and reflection on "I," or the conscious person. They are so closely connected, it is no wonder; but the difference is important, for I apprehend it is just the difference between a beast and a man in this respect.

The living " I " is always a will in thought or for act, and consciously wills—wills, knowing it wills—so does even a beast. If it wants to get out of a room, it knows it wants it. Will is always conscious of itself, but it does not set about to reflect therefore on itself as I am doing now.

This reflective self-consciousness is man's distinctive prerogative, as having a spirit. “I " has the power of using the upper faculty to reflect on the workings of "I." I reflect, but the capacity is in the spirit of man. "There is," says Elihu, " a spirit in man." But how was this before the fall? I mean as to “will." And here I have to remark that I think “will" is used in two ways—intention, the tendency of nature or " I," towards something, and the determination of " I " to go out towards that something, and where this question is raised in a moral ground.

All will is sin, because it is not obedience, i.e., is assumed independence of God, and much more. Now unfallen Adam had no such will as this. It was tested in the tree, and he ought to have said "I can have no will—I obey"—but he distrusted and willed. But in the place where God had set him, as dressing the garden and keeping it, nature was free in the sphere God had given it authority in; and so as to animals Here God had given authority, and will was in its place while the whole man was subject to God. But he used a will in the sphere of testing obedience and was lost—Christ in the most perfect testing said “Not my will but thine be done." His tendency of nature and “I” to escape suffering was right—that suffering eminently so. He had, being a perfect Man, a will of nature and morally too, but no will which willed when God's will was there. This is commonly, in its grosser form, called “Self-will." It is the determination of “I" to have its own way.

Now the determination; of Christ's "I" was to have God's will absolutely—that will from heaven down (Psalm 40) was His only motive for acting. He was the obedient Man. We have a will which strives (not merely suffers) and it is checked—right it should be!—but that was not Christ's case. His whole moral, being was obedience, "I come to do thy will"—"Not my will, but thine be done." The desire and intention, of nature not to suffer was there, rightly there but Ills determination, His only and perfect one was to do God's will, suffering bring what it might. Save the testing point, there was with Adam no determination of will, called for or in posse.

Now consciousness is itself, and, where real, like sense certain of itself. Senses give the certainty of the thing they are conscious of to themselves—adequate for use of what is learned from them by experience, particularly sight.

Memory is according to its vividness and strength. Testimony, is according to the testifier. Divine—it is doubly certainly it is necessarily true, and the conviction of its truth, where there is belief divinely given.

The Headship of Christ

THE question has been raised how far Christ gives up the glory and headship spoken of in Eph. 1, drawn, as in 1 Cor. 15 and Heb. 2, from Psa. 8 He gives up the kingdom, that is certain, when He has subdued all principalities and power. His divine glory into which He has taken manhood is immutable, that is also clear. It is a question of His relative place, not His Person. We must, I think, distinguish between our relative place and conferred authority. This last Christ gives up. He is exalted now, but He has not yet taken to Him His great power and reigned, nor is He sitting on His throne yet, but on His Father's. He is become so much higher than the angels, having by inheritance a more excellent name than they—this is His place. Angels, principalities and powers being subject to Him—that is relative authority, though not yet the reign.

We have a place above angels, as united to Him, and as the fruit of redemption, and shall be made like unto Him. All this, I apprehend, continues-" Glory in the Church by Jesus Christ, world without end." It must be in Him.

I see in Ephesians two things-"Exalted him above every name," and "Put all things in subjection under his feet"; just as Adam was quite above the creatures, and besides had dominion over them, which was God's will, not a necessary consequence nor the same thing, only the second Adam has companions though He be anointed above them. This subjection of all things to His personal authority He will give up, not merely the kingdom looked at as a millennial reign, but the “all things" subjected to Him. He has not to put down angels and saints who delight in His glory, but those who oppose it and who are rebellious against God, and the fruit of creature-will and sin; but administrative authority is given up—not only Godhead of course, but, I suppose, personal exaltation remains I do not mean merely personal preeminence as Son of God, for that too cannot be otherwise. It is not merely the "Son of Man is set," but "This is my beloved Son." But His relatively taken place remains.

Once made a little lower than the angels, He has now passed through the heavens, not merely angels, principalities and powers being made subject to Him, for that is given superiority as Messiah and Son of Man, but, as to the exercise of authority,

He gives it up and is subject; but He does not cease, as to His place taken as Man, to be superior to the angels, even when there is no question of His throne, for that is conferred rule-is given up, as we know from Corinthians, and He takes as Man the place of subjection, the perfect personal place- for rule is not. That refers to what is below us, here even to what has to be subjected -"Head over all things," in this sense, is given up. But the raised Son never ceases to be the Center of the whole company of heaven, and the saints with Him, “the firstborn among many brethren," "the only begotten." As God He of course possesses all things with the Father, but, as to His place as Man, He is not only the Head of all principalities and powers, but far above all principality and power, and by the necessity of His Person and title always will be—it is His place, when righteousness dwells, when it no longer reigns; He is always "Firstborn," when He no longer reigns in His conferred dominion. Though in another sense we shall reign forever and ever.

This subject occurred to me again, and I looked over what I had written above. It is substantially right, and clearer than I had any thought of when I wrote it. One point seems to call perhaps for correction, for its substance came to me as a new idea. That is that " put all things under his feet " (Psa. 8) in Eph. 1 is taken as the same as " gave him to be Head over all things to the Church." Now I suppose they must be considered as distinct. Putting all things under His feet includes at any rate an acquired dominion which He has not yet, and which He will give up. In 1 Cor. 15 He is contemplating hostile, or at least unsubdued power—power which is not of and which does not own Him. Hence He reigns, when God puts them under Him, till all His enemies are made His footstool. But all things are not yet put under Him, as we see in Hebrews, and He is on His Father's throne, not His own. But He is personally exalted far above all principalities and powers. These—"And hath put all things under his feet," “And gave him to be Head over all things to the Church which is his body "-are two distinct things. Death is put under Him when the time comes, and it is the last enemy He destroys, but He is not over it as over that which was created by Him and for Him, and which the Fullness will reconcile by Him to itself. Only in Colossians it was the Fullness—in Ephesians the Man is exalted to God's right hand, and given to be Head over all. But the putting “in subjection under his feet," and being "Head over all things to" are distinct things. It is clear that the exaltation above every name is a distinct thing, for that is so now, but I think the putting all things under His feet, and giving Him to be Head over all things are so too.

Popish unity attaches Christ to unity, and hence may and does legalize with His name every corruption and evil; Christian unity attaches unity to Christ, and therefore gives it all the character of grace and truth that is in Him—gives it all His excellence.