Notes and Comments 4: Volume 4

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 if 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.

Fragments: Forms of Speech of the Day

I use, but do not reduce myself to the mere import of the forms of speech of the day.

Fragments: Perfection of the Lord in John 4

How beautifully in John 4 the Lord's perfection, in submission to His Father's will, opens out into the large sphere of blessing into which that submission introduced Him. He had been rejected in Judaea—a sore trial and sorrow to Him, as to the beloved people, and had taken His way where "He must needs go," "wearied with the way," and sat, as He was, on the well. Here grace flows forth—such was the effect, in His perfect love, and rejection of promises in His Person; and then His "meat was to do the will of Him that sent Him." This opens, thereon, out for His heart into fields "already white for harvest." And it was more than Jewish promise—it broke forth into life eternal, and, in point of fact, does take up all that was of God in the previous ways of His grace—reaped what they had sown. We have other instances of this, as Matt. 11. Oh, for littleness, and lowliness of heart.

Fragments: Presenting Christ or Scripture

As to presenting Christ or Scripture. It is clear, if we love souls, we shall present Christ; so it was in the Apostles' preaching, though to Jews. They might start from, and reason on their Scriptures which they received. Scripture is what we teach from—have our standard of truth in—not what we teach as a subject, save where there is special occasion.

Fragments: Difference Between Paradise and Third Heaven

There is this difference between Paradise and the third heaven—the former is the place of delights, the garden of delights with which God surrounds Himself, God’s Paradise—the other is approaching God Himself in the Holiest of all, where Christ is gone.

Fragments: The Names of God

As regards the names of God, I quote the verses to put them together—Gen. 7:1; Ex. 6:3-6; Matt. 5:48; 2 Cor. 6:18; then Psa. 83:18; 91:1, 2, et seq.; Gen. 14:19, 20; and Dan. 4:34.

Fragments: Martha's State

It is a sorrowful circumstance that Martha does not weep at the Lord's coming to raise Lazarus; the very Jews do—she does not. There is something sad about her state—yet Jesus loved her.

Fragments: The Divine Character of Jesus

It is remarkable, all through John, how the divine character of Jesus shines through, but never going out of the human, and place of receiving and obedience. If He and the Father are one, the Father who gives the sheep is greater than all. If He has power to lay down and to take again His life, He has received commandment from His Father; so everywhere.

It is interesting to compare the two characters of Mary who anointed Christ's head in Bethany, and Mary Magdalene, both so attached to the Lord, yet how different as to the way of it—one sitting at His feet, the other rescued by His power from the full dominion of demons. The first does not, that I am aware of, appear after that blessed proof of her instructive understanding of the position of Christ—to the other, who had nothing in the world but Christ, He first reveals Himself after His resurrection, and makes her the messenger of His grace to the disciples; no doubt, in this, she was a figure of the Jewish Remnant.

Fragments: Miracle Not Setting Aside the Law

It is very simple, but important, to see that miracles do not necessarily imply the setting aside laws. Man produces previously unknown effects by them—change them he cannot; surely God can. The only difference is that man uses the laws themselves, and force, to produce the effect—God, the fiat of His will. God may act beyond laws, without setting aside any existing ones, because He can quicken and create. But the argument that there are laws, and God would not set aside His own, is perfectly without force.

Fragments: Sitting in Heavenly Places and Entering Into the Holiest

I have found it necessary, in dealing with others, to distinguish between "sitting in heavenly places," and " entering into the holiest." They would have it, the latter did not apply—we were always there. This is a mistake—in Christ, we are sitting in heavenly places always. But we are, in Hebrews, always men on earth, not united to Christ as in Ephesians, but He, a Priest apart on high, and, our conscience being purged, we enter into the holiest boldly by a new and living way. It is another and very blessed thought.

Fragments: John 14-16

It is well to remark that in John 14, the Spirit is sent by the Father on the intercession of the Son—in chapter is by the Son from His place in glory, in the Father's name—and in chapter 16 He is here below, Himself; in His own Person, acting.

Fragments: The Apostle Peter

With what deep feeling, in recollection, the Apostle Peter must have said, "Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again, when he suffered he threatened not, but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously"!

Fragments: Affection in Christ

How exceedingly beautiful is the unfolding of affection in Christ in the beginning of Philippians! Though the Apostle, in writing to the Corinthians, could give God thanks for them, is it quite different from Philippians. He thanks God "always," and "for all the grace showed to them" (1 Cor. 1:4) and this is most lovely and instructive; but his heart cannot say "at every remembrance," nor can he say "with joy" (Phil. 1:3, 4). Oh! why are not Christians always so walking, that their affections and communion should be fresh and unhindered?

Fragments: Two Points of Our State Connected with Our Fall in Adam

Besides our actual sins, there are two points of our state connected with our fall in Adam. Our alienation from God in nature and will, and our alienation from God in condition, place or standing—both must be corrected; the former is by having Christ for our life, being born again, but this does not in itself take us out of law—the new nature feels the evil of the old, not only what we have done, but what we are. It is not merely we cannot say we have not sinned, but we cannot say we have no sin—"I know that in me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing"; the law is a mere means of discovering this, the remedy is not in dealing with it at all, but my place is altered—in Christ not only I have a new nature, but I have died as in the old—in Him I am not in the flesh at all, I am in Christ who has died and risen again. I have a new nature—that must be—but Christ having died and risen again, and I being in Him, I have a new place too. This is what Rom. 7 and 8 teaches us. Baptism is not the sign of life-giving, but of change of place—we arise out of death, but death is the main point here. I do not take verse 2 Chapter 8 as an inferential "for"; verse 1 is the result of what goes before, and stands by itself, verse 2 begins an explanation of the "now" of the whole matter in life. The change of state, as previously the change of place or condition—deliverance, not new life.

Fragments: Palingenesia and Anagennao

We must not confound palingenesia and anagennao; palingenesia is a change of state as Matt. 19, and used for a recovery of wealth when fortune has been lost. Anagennao is being born "again," so anablepo, anakainizo, etc., it has the sense of "up" often, but "again" or "back"—the beginning of something new, with the sense of the contrary of what it was before, so analuo, anakampto, anakalupto, etc. The other sense is pretty much our use of "up"; see 1 Peter 1:3-23; Titus 3:5.

Fragments: Covenants

Covenant in no way implies two parties, but the contrary, i.e., in divine things; a mediator does, but there is an object of the covenant, assurance of blessing, and the circumstances of this object may require the interposition of a mediator, righteously to obtain for, qualify, and sustain them. Christ is properly the object of the Abrahamic covenant, but then, for the Church to come in, being guilty, there must be a mediator with God for that; they are brought into the covenant through a mediator, but the covenant is not made with, or properly for them.

A covenant is a disposition of God, secured by His binding or obliging Himself; this—man being a sinner—must be by the meritorious death of the Covenanter. In the case of a man's covenant, it seems to me it was conventionally brought to the same point—the authority of God being interposed, and the covenanter bound in this by the same sanction, quod nota.

Diatheke is the divine interpretation of b'rith (covenant) as to these matters, so that in the divine inquiry of it I have no need to search with anxiety for the root or meaning of b'rith (covenant) as to its ordinary human force.

Prophecy

Prophecy is direct when the people exist. It is addressed to the people because God cannot but own them, cannot but speak to and reprove them till there is no remedy. When He has said lo-ammi (not My people), then what the Jews call, as to several books Hagiographa (holy writings) khethubhim (writings) begins, as in Daniel; he says nothing to the people—there was no people to say anything to. He is the depository for the people of the purposes of God as to them. But yet more, of what would befall the Gentiles, he could not address himself, properly speaking, to the Gentiles save in the first responsibility of the head, but he reveals and interprets dreams of God about them, and receives instructions himself as to what was to come, what the Gentile beasts would be, and what would befall his people. In the Apocalypse I find this same difference. To the Churches there is a direct address. The Spirit of God recognizes the people, however low their state, but, after the Churches, not at all—He talks about the beasts, gives their character and doings, the persecution of the saints, and the resulting position of the saints at the end, but addresses nothing to them. It is as if to them also, on the earth, it was lo-ammi; there is no people on earth to address. The Church is not found there—this is remarkable; see Rev. 22:16; He testifies therein. "He that hath an ear is to hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches."

It is interesting also to remark, in a time of ruin and partial restoration, how we get the estimate of the ruin with full knowledge of God's ultimate manner of bringing in the final blessing, though owning clearly the present timeliness of service, and, on the other hand, the partial energy of restoration placing on the ground of responsibility, and revealing the circumstances, in connection with what was so restored, of the guilt that brought judgment, and the deliverance. But what I desire to remark is the two things we have to recognize—the Daniel, and Haggai, and Zechariah position, intelligence, and service. The Lord make us capable.

Isaiah

THE beginning of Isaiah is thus:-

Chapter 1, the judgment of Judah and Jerusalem, for their iniquity in general.

Chapter 2, their establishment as the head of nations, connected with the judgment of these last. Israel had been forsaken for their departure from Jehovah. This setting aside man, in his pride and pleasure, must be, for Jehovah judges (chap. 3) His own people.

Chapter 4, they are brought very low, but then there shall be a complete blessing, the glory being in Zion fully sanctified, though by judgment—the Lord's presence being then openly over them, as the cloud in the wilderness. This is complete in itself.

In chapter 5 Jehovah enters into an immediate pleading with His vineyard. Christ is distinctly brought in. It is Jehovah, but addressed by the Spirit as the Well-Beloved, and having done all possible for it, and only had wild grapes, as Jehovah He gives it up to the wild boar out of the forest. The various causes, in the ways of Israel, are stated, and the progressive judgments of God detailed. This takes in all Israel, and is thus more historical. The anger of the Lord is kindled against His people, and His hand stretched out. They are smitten and cut off (v. 25), but His anger is still there. This, I think, brings in Babylon, and the kingdoms of the beast, and darkness falls upon them.

But this brings in (chap. 6) the revelation of Christ as Jehovah, and desolation rests on the Land, only the people are preserved in the Remnant or holy Seed. We then have Christ in connection with the house of David, but as Emmanuel—God with His people—the Virgin's Son. With this, the passing away of Israel and Syria, and the inroad of, not the Beast, but the Assyrian.

In chapter 7 this is discussed more fully. The Land being now Emmanuel's, He is to be the hope and trust of the Remnant. They were not to make conspiracies and seek help elsewhere, but make Jehovah their Sanctuary. Christ's first coming (Jehovah) is then brought in, His rejection, and the shutting up of good in the narrow circle of His disciples (chap. 8:16-18). The nation are left in darkness, still it is not like what seemed less, for Messiah has come in, and, when the nation, in the last days, are in their darkest hour, the full revelation of Messiah in delivering judgment breaks forth. All is here the last scene, from Christ's rejection to the judgment when He comes. Chapter 6 to chapter 9:7, is thus a parenthesis, introducing the House of David, and Messiah. Then the history of Israel is resumed and taken up, as a whole, from the then attacks of Rezin and Pekah (which are the occasion of all this prophecy) and carried on to Babylon, but with the still outstretched hand to the Assyrian, whose judgment is stated; chap. 10:33. Christ is revealed as the Heir of the House of David—His character, and then peace in God's holy mountain, and full blessing on the people. Israel is all gathered, and all wars cease.

Chapter 12, the song arises, for Jehovah has done great things, and He dwells in the midst of Zion. This closes the opening of the prophecy. The question of Babylon is then taken up.

In what follows, after Babylon, the Assyrian having been introduced especially, from the end of chapter 17 (Damascus) the prophet looks out, in a remarkable manner, to the latter days (chapter 18 being the center) though partially applicable to the present encouragement. There is a certain, mingling of prophecies, which regard the then present time, to bring out a perfect testimony as regards the last day.

It is evident, as indeed it long ago struck me, that the destruction of Babylon, which God had specially set up as the golden head (though many historical successors) had to come in—yet made epoch, because the Jews were delivered, and what God had set up judged, and indeed by one who was God's servant. The world and idolatry were judged. This, chapters 13 and 14 give us, and they go to the end, though the present coming judgment is also before the prophet's eyes. The day of the Lord was at hand, the prophet being rapt into the time to come. These two chapters are, in a certain sense, complete. We have Babylon judged—the heaven and earth being shaken. The Assyrian destroyed on the mountains, and land of Jehovah, note, and then the country cleared of its internal possessors, and "Jehovah hath founded Zion."

Chapter 16 I should judge me-atz (from of old) (v. 13), to mean "from ancient days"—His original, general purpose connected (vv. 4, 5), with the establishment of the throne of the Son of David. But now is the more immediate judgment,

I suppose, by Nebuchadnezzar. "From the east," says Ezekiel, if it be the same time. No doubt chapter 15 begins with the impending judgment in view, but the prophetic mind passes on to God's counsels " from of old " (me-atz) returning then, in verse 14, to what was immediate.

Chapter 17 is proof how the object is the last days through present circumstances. Here the Assyrian, not Babylon, is the occasion—the inroads of Shalmanezer, Sargon and Sennacherib, but especially Tiglath Pileser and Sennacherib. But Jacob is brought low at the same time; but in the Remnant there is deliverance and salvation in the lowest estate of Israel, but the Remnant looking to God. The nation judged for leaving Jehovah and trusting its own ways, the multitude of nations come up, but are destroyed. This seems clearly to introduce chapter 18, or the condition of Israel in that day—the last days. Egypt comes in for present judgment, probably then by Sargon, but the prophecy evidently goes on thence to the last day.

Chapter 20. This gives the invasion of Sargon.

Chapter 21. My impression is that this chapter refers to present or more immediate times—the then fall of Babylon. But we must remember that this was the judgment on the golden head set up by God, and the deliverance of Israel, and, in this sense, a characteristic event in its bearing. Seir is judged, but her judgment has also a special character—she seems to have exulted in the destruction of Jerusalem, when taken by Nebuchadnezzar; see Obadiah and Psa. 137:7. Its final judgment will be directly from the Lord, see Isa. 34:5, and Obadiah, where the Jews seem to take part, as well as the heathen; compare also Psa. 84 Arabia and Kedar come under present judgment, connected with the fall of Babylon.

Chapter 22. This is a remarkable chapter. It would seem to be (vv. 1-14), the state of the city in Zedekiah's time, and its capture by Nebuchadnezzar, but the end of David's responsible family, and the setting up of the Gentiles, makes this of all importance. Jehovah had no longer a throne upon earth. It is the judgment of Jerusalem by the hand of the Gentiles. Along with this, we have a prophecy (v. 15 to the end) which clearly in its immediate reference, speaks of personages of Hezekiah's time. One is deposed, and another set up, alluding, I apprehend, to the last days—verse 25 referring clearly to "that day"—the last days. The setting aside of Jerusalem would make one understand this, but the combination is remarkable.

Chapter 23. The judgment of Tire is by Nebuchadnezzar, yet looks out beyond it, in verses 9 and 18. Up to this, it had long been the untouched power of commerce, and its pride. This was judged now, just as the natural pride of man was in Egypt.

Chapter 24. This chapter is a remarkable witness of this passing on from present to future, and final judgment. When Tire was taken, after a long siege, by Nebuchadnezzar, the whole land was laid waste—the Land of Canaan—not merely Canaan, as in chapter 23:11, but the Land. Hence it stretches out to a judgment on the whole earth; compare chapter 3: connected with chapter 2, where the direct subject is Israel, the land, the people, and the priest, but it is connected with the judgment which casts Satan and his angels down, and judges all the kings of the earth, and Jehovah will reign in Zion—the following chapters bringing in the full result; to the end of chapter 27, they celebrate the last days.

Chapter 25. This may have had its primary fulfillment in the fall of Babylon, but it is the setting aside of human power in favor of the needy. The darkness of this world will then be removed, and the resurrection take place, and the rebuke of His people be removed. This is celebrated then in a prophetic way, in which the Lord's ways are unfolded, and His people called upon to hide themselves for a little moment.

Chapter 26:19 is in contrast with verse 14. They have wholly perished, but Israel is renewed on the principle of resurrection, as the "sure mercies of David" are cited by the Apostle as a proof of it. Israel has wrought no deliverance, their restoration is power in resurrection. At the same time it is the time of the definite judgment of this world.

Chapter 27. Satan's power amongst men (viewed here as exercised in the hands of the Gentiles) is set aside, and Israel, though chastised, is purged and blessed; compare Psa. 74. But it is full judgment on Israel. This closes the inward history. The Gentiles judged are those amongst whom Israel had been in captivity—the Beast.

The subsequent chapters take up the last Assyrian inroad. What went before was the prophetic earth, which took the place of Israel or was part of the Land, with just an allusion to the Assyrian in the latter day. Now this latter is the object. God as ordered all His plans, and deals with His harvest with discretion. Here this Assyrian takes Jerusalem, which is in league with death and hell, in contrast with the Tried Stone lid in Zion, which enables the Remnant to wait. Jehovah foes His strange work, and (chap. 28: 22) it is kalah v'nechaatzah (a judgment of destruction determined upon), the decreed consumption of her, remarked on.

Chapter 29. In this chapter, Jerusalem is not taken, but he multitude of nations disappear, who have surrounded and brought her low. The moral ground of the judgment is stated—the darkness of heart they had got into, though they had the word, then all totally changed—the deaf hear the words of the Book—the external power of evil and malice against the feeble just is done away, and Jacob shall now never be ashamed, nd spiritual intelligence is their portion. The Assyrian is till the main person.

Chapter 30. This is also the case in this chapter. God's people's reliance on other strength than His is then judged. They were a shame to themselves in their uselessness to the world. But the judgment is much more the Lord's. The nation is wholly broken up—it is as a broken vessel, of which of a potsherd is left. Two faults are here—first trusting on fleshly strength, and then slighting God's word. Jehovah rises p, in His own rights over it all, to bless His people. Adversity; there, but the Lord gives His word and guidance, and these come in in full blessing. The full judgment of the Lord, coming in glory, is then revealed, and it is joy for the delivered. The Assyrian and the king are judged by power. The voice f the Lord beats down the Assyrian, and Tophet is prepared for both. Verse 18 is very striking; see Psa. 94:12, 13. In the Psalm it is more Antichrist, or the Beast, than the Assyrian, but the principle is brought out. The Lord leaves full play to chastisement, that pride and self-will may be abased—waits till this is fully carried out (only gives the word, v. 20, 21) and this, that He may be gracious, and in His own way and hat is fully. This principle is striking in this part of the prophecy.

Chapter 31. Helper and helped shall both fall down together, i.e., man's strength and the Lord's people leaning upon it—for Jehovah will come down and fight for Mount Zion. And the Assyrian, always the "enemy" here, shall be eaten down.

Chapter 32. This chapter, the end of which first led me to see a new dispensation, leads us, after the fall of the Assyrian, to the King inquiring in righteousness, "Who cares for the poor?" Misery would rest on the Jews, till the Spirit was poured out on them, then they would have peace, when judgment would come on the multitude of the Gentiles, and the city be seen laid low. Then peace would be there.

Chapter 33. The Assyrian (or Gog) is then openly challenged. The Lord arises to take His place, and fills Jerusalem with righteousness and peace. The Remnant are preserved and blessed, when Jehovah takes matters into His own hand, and Zion is the seat of peace and blessing. King-Messiah, is there, and security. They are not shut up. The pride of man is wholly brought low.

Chapter 34 continues another part of the same but in connection with the Assyrian. It gives the connection of Idumea and the Assyrian (compare Psa. 83) and records the terrible judgment which will take place in that land, always hostile to Judaea.

Chapter 35 is the blessing which follows for Israel.

This closes the divine history of the prophecy. Then we have (with the resurrection) the present events which gave the peg on which the prophecy hangs—Sennacherib's invasion. The latter part of the prophecy is the account of the Lord's dealings with Israel (restoring them, and crowning them with glory) in respect of idolatry, and Babylon, and in respect of Christ, with the full results. How simply the folly of ignorance, is the complaint of rationalists that the second part of it is not woes or burdens like the first!

Chapters 40 to 48 go together. Chapter 40:1-8 is, however, introduction. Jerusalem has been sufficiently chastised, and the Lord speaks to her heart. But that is accompanied by this solemn truth—"All flesh is grass." The people, God's own people according to the flesh, come under this designation—“the people are grass." That withers, but this does not hinder their full blessing, only it must be known, "God's word abides forever," and that is what secures the promises and their accomplishment. This is the introduction. The general statement is then taken up. He that bringeth good tidings to Zion and Jerusalem (for so I am disposed to take it) is to announce, with energy, God Himself "to the cities of Judah." He "will come with strong hand," with His reward, "shall feed his flock like a shepherd." Then comes the contrast between Jehovah and idols. Princes shall be brought to nothing. He is the Creator of the heavens. Why does Israel distrust Him? The strongest shall faint—"those that wait on Jehovah shall renew their strength." This is the general thesis.

He then begins, naming the object only descriptively, with Cyrus. He breaks up the nations which serve idols, but Israel is Jehovah's servant, and shall, in the strength of his Redeemer, thrash the nations. The Lord shall refresh the poor and needy—where all was waste, beauty and blessing shall spring up, and the hand of the Lord be thus seen, and the nothingness of idols proved. This goes on from Cyrus to full deliverance.

Chapter 42 Consequently introduces Christ, meek and unknown till He set judgment in the earth, and the isles wait for His law. He was to be a covenant to the people and a light to the nations; so Simeon. Jehovah is thus to be everywhere praised. He rises up now, having long holden His peace, and brings blind Israel by a way they know not, and the idols shall be ashamed—for Israel is blind and deaf; none so much so. He would magnify His Law and make it honorable. But Israel was robbed and spoiled—Jehovah, for that was the cause, had given them up for their disobedience, and His anger had been poured out upon them. But now all was changed. Israel was redeemed—called by His name—His; and He would preserve them through every danger, and bring them out from every place, for Jehovah had created them for His glory. He challenges the nations to say what He was doing. But Israel had been a witness of His ways, when there was no strange God there. For their sakes, Babylon would be judged by Him who was the Redeemer of Israel—the Creator, who brought in new things for His glory. The Lord then pleads with Israel, the people He had formed for Himself. But Israel had not served Him, but, on the contrary, wearied Him with their iniquities. He forgave them for His own sake. He had profaned, and given Jacob to the curse. But now He would refresh, and deliver, and calls to Jacob His servant, and His chosen to assure him of it. They should spring up as willows by the watercourses. He then takes up the controversy as to idolatry—the great subject of this portion of the Book—renews the promises to Israel, as his Redeemer—He who can do all things, He who formed Israel for Himself, and then calls Cyrus, by name, to perform His pleasure in rebuilding Jerusalem.

The destruction of Babylon is the setting aside the Gentile power which held Israel captive. It is the suppression of idolatry, so that the whole principle of full deliverance is Drought forward with the strongest testimony of the place Israel holds, and sovereign grace in Him who can do all things, and who loves and forgives His people. We are beyond the question of the Assyrian here. It is the establishment of Jerusalem by the power of God—Babylon being destroyed and idolatry put down.

Chapter 46 continues as to Cyrus. He is called by name or Israel's sake. Light, darkness, peace, and evil were His work, and the blessing of Israel is in God's creative power. His word and promise were not in vain. He was the one only sod. But His word went also out to the nations. Every knee should bow to Him, and Israel be justified before the Lord. The gods of Babylon fail before the judgment of God; nor would God delay the deliverance of Zion.

Chapter 47. The judgment of Babylon who had gladly oppressed God's people, when His hand was upon them, is idly stated.

Chapter 48. The Spirit then pleads with Jacob. God had foretold, lest they should say it was their idol. He had done it but once, lest they should say in human wisdom "I knew them"; but their neck was as brass. God would deliver them for His own name sake. He would judge Babylon. But if Israel had hearkened, his peace would have been as a river. But Jehovah would now deliver, refresh, and guide, only there would be no peace for the wicked."

This closes the first prophecy to the heart of Israel; the subjects—Jehovah, the one God—Israel, His elect people, and servant, formed for His praise—Babylon and idolatry, their oppressors—Cyrus, their present deliverer, but future deliverance, and Christ Himself, looked forward to, and no wicked Mowed, no peace for them. Jehovah and Israel, Babylon and idolatry, are in contrast. Cyrus the present instrument, but Jehovah who had judged Israel for their evil would redeem, and bless now for His own sake.

This general judgment and result having been unfolded, Messiah, Christ, must now be more distinctly brought forth, and Israel's relationship with Him.

Chapter 49 begins the second part of the prophecy. Israel is he in whom God will be glorified. The immediate portion closes at the end of chapter 57, and with the repetition of the last words of chapter 48, "There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked."

But if Israel is to be the seat and vessel of Jehovah's glory, Messiah must at once come in. But He comes in first, with the confession that, perfect as it was with God, His labor has been in vain with Israel. The answer of the Oracle of God is, it is a light thing to restore the preserved of Jacob, He should be a light to the Gentiles, Jehovah's salvation to the end of the earth. In verse 7 the ultimate purpose of God on earth is gone on to. Kings shall own Him—Israel shall be delivered—Zion, never forgotten, will be established in full favor in glory, delivered from the hands of the mighty, and kings and queens become her nursing fathers and mothers. And all flesh would know Jehovah was Israel's Savior, and where and why was her divorce. And thus He fully enters into the sufferings and work of Christ.

Chapter 50. Here Jehovah, with no diminished power to save, came, yea called, but there was none to answer. Was His humiliation a motive, when He had come into it, to know how to speak a word in season to him that was weary? Wondrous and touching word! Blessedly submissive—the Lord would vindicate Him! Those who feared the Lord and were in darkness were to wait on Him. Those who kindled their own sparks would lie down in sorrow. This passes on to the latter day, which chapter 51 Then takes up in the most beautiful way—the appeal of God to the Remnant, and, in the midst of it, the appeal of the Remnant to God, and the promise of full deliverance and judgment of the enemy, and then chapter 52 Continues, by calling Zion to clothe herself with glory. To the end of verse 14, this deliverance is spoken of. Thus we have the full final deliverance of Israel. In verse 15 in a beautiful progress, we have not the history of rejection, as in chapter 50, but the Lord's mind as to Christ. Messiah is introduced in glory, but as the rejected and despised One, One esteemed the smitten One, but the atonement, wrought in His work, now owned, and thus blessing would come even on the transgressors,

and Himself have the glory spoken of before, in verse 13. But the consequence is, he passes directly, as usually in the prophets, to the last days, when its effect in Israel will be accomplished; and the Church is passed over, only chapter 54 recognizes that more children have been born to desolate Jerusalem than to the married wife. And peace, now restored to Israel, shall abide forever—never to be taken from her; and her peace shall be great—no enemy shall prevail against her.

Chapter 55 is the call to repentance, but an invitation in grace, so that in principle whoever thirst can come. Promises are established in resurrection. Christ is witness to, and a leader of the various peoples. Pardon is abundant, for God's thoughts are above ours, and His Word is infallible in producing its results.

Chapter 56 goes, evidently, beyond promise to Israel. It passes on to the last days, and, while assuring the blessing to the Remnant, passes it on to the Gentile. His house shall be "a house of prayer for all nations," i.e., those who have taken hold of Jehovah's covenant. Hence, clearly, Christ could speak of the blood of the new covenant as "shed for many." Here it goes on, no doubt, to the new state of things, but the foundation of it was laid in the Cross. Verses 9-12 are the condition of the nation and their teachers, not the Remnant.

Chapter 57 goes on to what seems forgetfulness, on God's part, in the latter days. The righteous perishes, but this does not awaken the careless—they mock at the righteous, going on with their idols. Their wickedness is then rehearsed. Jehovah defies their confidences, and declares that those that trust in Him shall possess the Land. He had smitten, but now would heal; but "for the wicked" there would be "no peace."

Chapter 58. Pleading with the ungodly is resumed, for chapter 57 closes one section—their false and formal self-righteousness judged. On a true and upright return of heart to righteousness and God's ways, blessing would flow in as a river, and Jehovah's blessing on His people.

Chapter 59. His arm was not shortened, nor His ear heavy, but their iniquities had separated them from Him, and their evil state is exposed. From verses 9 to 15 is confession, and then God arises in His own strength, when all is at the very worst, destroys their enemies and acts in the power of the new covenant which is to be forever. Then follows, in view of the full blessing, and the result of the latter day, a whole development of all that took place connected with Christianity. It begins with putting Jerusalem in glory, as its thesis. But the state of the people is gone into, and the details of judgment and final deliverance, the elect Remnant being the first immediate object. This is the third part more specially connected with the second, as Christ's second coming is with the first—the Remnant taking His character.

Note in chapter 60, when the lighting up of Jerusalem is come, and the glory of the Lord enlightens her, darkness covers the Land, and gross darkness the different peoples (l'-ummim). Then her light gathers them all to itself. This chapter is the description of the glory. The Gentiles are subservient to this glory, and the days of her mourning are ended, her people all righteous, and they will be blessed and mighty without return of evil, at least her sun going down. Thus chapters 58 and 59 are the time previous to the Lord's appearing, i.e., His pleadings with the people then. Chapter 60 is the effect of that appearing, chapter 59:16 being the turning point. Chapter 61 brings in, evidently, Messiah and the full blessing, under Him, which goes on to chapter 62. Then chapter 63 takes up "the day of vengeance of our God." Chapter 60 brings in the sovereign re-establishment of Jerusalem in glory, fruit of God's own sovereign power and good pleasure.

Chapters 61 and 62 show the part of Christ, come in blessing, from His first to His second coming—His interest in Jerusalem.

Chapter 63, bringing in the vengeance, pleads with the people, and the Remnant with Jehovah, for the great body of the people will be objects of the vengeance—the carcass will be there. The judgment of the peoples, and enemies of Israel is in verses 1-6. Then come the ways of God in goodness, and of the people (vv. 8-10). It is the Spirit of grace in the people (the Remnant) which now recalls it. It turns into the most earnest pleading in faith (v. 15), but passes into the fullest confession, and places the people in Jehovah's hands, as clay in the hands of the potter, and recalls the utter desolation of what, after all, was Jehovah's, if it was His people's, to the end of chapter 64. All this is very beautiful.

Then (chapter 65) comes the answer of Jehovah. But note the appeal to God is for the people as a whole; God separates and judges the people (so in Sodom). Then God's answer introduces the finding of the Gentiles, and God's patient but useless appeal to the Jews, quoted by the Apostle, and, giving the character of the Jews of old and in the last days, intervenes for the Remnant, sparing because of them, but judging the people, taking them in their own ways and for their own doings, and makes the difference (as Malachi says) between those that sought the Lord, and the rebellious and idolatrous sinners. But, though saving and blessing the Remnant, it is really on the principle of a new creation, as all blessing must be, yet it is accomplished promises to Israel; but when, as a responsible nation, they are judged, verse 17 states, absolutely, the fact of new Creation. Verse 18 takes up, I conceive, the principle as now characterizing God's dealings with Jerusalem. Hence we have no setting aside anything. At the end of the millennium, the wicked who rebel are destroyed. How the rest pass into final blessing is not said. It may be as men suppose Adam would have done, had he not sinned. But it is not the substitution of another state of things, setting aside this, though it may merge into better things, just as Christ's reign as Son of man does.

Then comes the millennial state, often noticed; compare chapter 11 of more extent, and chapter 25 which adds resurrection too, as well as the blessing of the Gentiles. This thought of creation characterizes this part of the revelation, although physically it is not come yet. For us, at that time too, it will be the new Creation, and never pass away at all, but merge in what is eternal, though the reign over the earth will be given up, so as we have seen as to the earth, though the difference may be greater. The Jewish state is the fruit of sovereign power, not of dealing with responsibility, and a state God has produced for Himself for His praise. Hence in chapter 66 when the Jews shall have built the Temple, it is sufficient to say (for they seek to restore the old things, and as a beloved people on that footing) "All those things have been, saith Jehovah." But they, the Remnant, are to rejoice in that which Jehovah creates; the restoration of the old is utterly rejected. Then comes the new birth of the people, in the Remnant, and Jerusalem becomes their joy. Jehovah pleads in judgment with all flesh, idolaters and rebels (Jews and Gentiles are thrown together, but especially Jews) and then those that escape bring in the scattered Remnant from afar, and they will remain before Jehovah, His privileged priests and servants—the carcases of the rebels being there, a witness of judgment, for this is judgment. Chapters 61 and 62 is simple blessing from Messiah's coming, first and last, but, as we have seen from chapter 63, we have to do with judgment and new Creation.

The Lord looks to the heart and not to formal worship and sacrifice, so in the Lord's testimony. It is "the poor in spirit" (chap. 66: 2)—the same words spoken of Moses in Num. 11, and Christ's first blessing in Matt. 5.

Then there is another word in chapter 61:10, 11, and in chapter 62, "righteousness." That the Lord is their righteousness, as ours, is clear. The prophet says, speaking in the person of the people and Jerusalem, "He hath covered me with the robe of righteousness." Then "the Lord Jehovah will cause righteousness and praise to spring forth before all nations."

In chapter 61, Jerusalem's righteousness goes forth. What is righteousness? In verse 10 it seems to be full acceptance according to the mind of God, in a righteous way, as the best robe with the prodigal. So Abel had testimony that he was righteous from his offering. We are the righteousness of God, accepted and acceptable according to God's own mind, what He is—Christ being the ground, in Him only it is known and manifested. But this favor is not only realized, but reflected and manifested in fruits and the manifest state of soul of those enjoying it.

And here I remark that a place in this righteousness an never be had till it is submitted to, i.e., that a man has, consciously, no ground at all to meet God—self is wholly condemned, and sovereign grace alone accepts through Christ; “grace reigns through righteousness." Hence it never is, when the soul is not brought, emptied of self, and judging evil, into the practical reflex of it in the state of the soul. Christ is precious to God, but the honor (time) is for us also. Hence, essentially, the state answers to it; hence the righteousness shines forth—Jerusalem is right in all her thoughts; she judges evil as God does—in God's favor, as He does towards her—reflects it in her state and condition. And so with us, only in a higher and heavenly way. The righteousness is wholly Christ, but we are "accepted in the Beloved"; but He is in us, all to us, and manifested in us. Here, it will be publicly manifested, only when they see will they have it, and be seen in it. We know it is ours in a heavenly way. It will be manifested when we appear in glory; so Phil. 3. Still, by the power of the Spirit, it ought to be shown out now and this is just the assurance of salvation, and its fruits. Only when Christ appears will they know—we now by the Holy Ghost, while He is within, which gives all to us—a full heavenly character, and we shall be glorified with Him then. Only the nations will recognize the rightness of the exaltation of God's people, the people whom He has blessed. For Jehovah, and Christ's glory, will be owned. For righteousness, as I have long ago said, is God's consistency with Himself—He being essentially right. Ours would be consistency with the measure of our place before Him. But He has been perfectly glorified in Christ, and in respect of it, though in perfect holiness, yea, by it in obedience. Then this, i.e., Christ, is our righteousness. Hence God's, the necessary result as displayed in the creature, according to Christ, i.e., as He has entered into it as Man.

Edom

As to Edom, there are several points distinctly stated, and, after being made very small, the great judgment falls on the heathen there, and the existence and remembrance of Edom is utterly extinguished. It is stamped with the character of Gentile apostasy, as opposed to Israel, and relentless. It would seem rather that the destruction of Damascus preceded this, and thus the nations, in part at least, found themselves there gathered for destruction.

First, what happens as to Edom is the day of the Lord's vengeance on the heathen, and deliverance of Zion; see Isa. 34:1, 2, 6, 8, also chap. 63: 4, and 3, context; see also Psa. 83.

Second. It is the day of " all the heathen." For this, and also for the first, see Obad. 1:15, and 16, 17; and for the second, see Isa. 34:2, already cited, also chapter 63.

Third. When the warnings are given of coming judgments (in Jerusalem) Edom treats it with scorn, i.e., when in the midst of sorrow in Jerusalem. The Spirit of God's own testimony is there for the Remnant—the pride of Edom scorns it (Isaiah 21) and is treated with holy judgment and rebuke, yet in mercy. "Watchman, what of the night? Watchman, what of the night?" says Edom. "The morning cometh" for the faithful, says the answer of faith, "and also the night" for the scorners. "If ye will inquire, inquire ye." The answer of God is here, "Return, come." The answer is magnificent.

Fourth. Edom escapes out of the hand of Antichrist; Dan. 11.

Fifth. The heathen are employed by the Lord to make Edom small; Jer. 49:14, 15, and Obadiah 1-3.

Sixth. She is found in the confederacy against the Lord's "hidden ones," and thus is ripe for destruction; Psa. 83.

Seventh. She is filled with relentless hatred against the Jews, showing thus her iniquity; Ezek. 35:5, 11, 12; Obadiah 10-14; Amos 1:11, and Ezek. 25:12.

Eighth. Israel shall be the means of subduing them, when taken up by the Lord; Obad. 1:18; Ezek. 25:14, and Isaiah 11.

Ninth. The destruction of Edom is total, final, and irretrievable; Ezek. 25:12, 13; chapter 35, all of it, especially verses 9, 14. Obad. 1:5, 18, Jer. 49:13-18, etc., Isa. 34:9, a seq., also the absence of passages in Jer. 49, like chapter 48:47; chapter 49:39, etc. Obad. 1:21; Ezek. 35; Isa. 63 and 34, and other passages, show these things result at the end, and at the Lord's coming.

Notes on Isaiah Chapter 1

THIS chapter ends a division. It is a distinct condemnation of the moral state, then redemption by judgment.

Some find that the direction in Isaiah was to sit still, and the Lord would deliver-in Jeremiah, that whoever went out to the Chaldeans would save his life. We need spiritual discernment to apply (for there is our part-not to reveal) or understand the testimony, and revelation of the Lord.

27. What is the meaning of this? How we pass over Scriptures! Is the b' ("through"; A.V. "with") the means or the character? I have no doubt that Christ's death alone redeems (that is not the question) there alone mishpat (judgment) and tz'adakah (righteousness) are fulfilled for God, but are these general here, as the character of what must be where there is deliverance or redemption, or, as they are produced practically wherever redemption, are they merely characteristic of a supposed redemption wrought of God independently of them, as in the people? This last is only true redemption, but in the former case (for it was only the death of Christ which proved that nothing else would do, and that death must come in, not righteousness in life) it would be while stating the characteristic fact, still leaving it open to man's responsibility to meet the exigency of God's claims on him, only adding mercy which could forgive on repentance. We know it could not be so, and that, from the beginning, God knew Christ's death alone could meet it, and glorified Himself thus; but there would be the dealing with man in government, adding mercy for his full probation supposed. This was formally given to Israel in Ex. 34:6, 7. John the Baptist, and Christ on the earth, brought this to a crisis, and the full truth of what man is was brought out on the Cross. Man would often take the ground of Ex. 34 now, but it is ground tried and could come to nothing-not to speak of the absolute truth of the Cross.

This verse then would remain true, as characteristic at all events, but is it put as still probationary here, i.e., that left open here as probation? In chapter 49 et seq., we get the result clearly and definitely stated. But this probationary process it will be well to watch through Isaiah. It is, after the Cross, the denial of man's real state, from infidelity to Wesleyanism, though the latter may be guarded individually by individually owning its need.

31. What is the force of poalo (the maker of it)? Is it poalo or po-°lo (his work)? In sense, "his work"; or, in general, the active man who works? "Maker of it" is difficult—maker of what?

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 2

This gives the assemblage of the nations to Jerusalem restored, with its consequences in all the earth—the effect of the manifestation of the majesty and day of the Lord on the pride of man.

2. Akharith hay-ya-mim (the last days) is general, the end of the days, i.e., of Israel's history under its responsibility, leading in grace to the coming of Messiah, and Messiah Himself in His dealings with Israel in respect of that responsibility, not, I suppose, as finally reigning in glory. But it includes the elevation of Jerusalem to this state of glory—the whole process, till it be fulfilled; so Heb. 1. I do not think Akharey-ken in Joel 2:28 (chap. 3: 1 in the Hebrew) is "afterward," but "thereupon," and refers to the whole statement from verse 17 to 27. Hence Peter (Acts 2:17) justly and exactly "in the last days," not eschate ton hemeron touton (the last of these days); it is more general. And note, all these dealings are connected with man's responsibility, i.e., Israel’s—the manifestation of Jesus, and the then blessing, on power in grace.

9. "Humbleth himself." Query as to this. It is reflective, or practically passive. Has shaphel this sense? Shaphel really means "he is low."

Notes on Isaiah. Chapters 3 and 4

The Lord judges Jerusalem, giving her up to judicial misery, but then "the Branch of the Lord" shall come forth—the residue shall be holy, and the glory of the Lord there.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 5

This chapter had appeared separate, but I doubt if it be not part of the whole prophecy ensuing—chapters 6, 7 and 8, down to verse 20 inclusive, being in parenthesis. This parenthesis gives, not the instruction as to evil and chastisement by external enemies, but the special instruction as to the glory of Christ, and the judicial blindness of the people. The seed of David connected with the Remnant—thereon desolation of the Assyrian. The Land being withal Immanuel's—but these waters of Siloah being rejected, the waters of the Assyrian mount to the neck. The Lord Himself is the only refuge, the true Prophet, and the children are for signs. The law being sealed up among the disciples, the Spirit waits for a manifestation, in favor of Jacob, of Him who "hides his face." Meanwhile the law and the testimony are the means of judgment to Israel.

Having introduced this account of the glory of Christ, the judicial blindness of Israel, the Remnant, Immanuel the Child—this feeble fountain despised, Jehovah, the Hope of the Remnant, a Sanctuary and yet a snare—the testimony is sealed up among the disciples, waiting for the Lord who " hides his face "—the law and the testimony, the means of judgment. The prophet resumes the general course again as to the nations, which he had spoken of as brought up against Jerusalem and the Land, showing that the introduction of Messiah, of whom had been mention in the parenthesis, changes all. For, though the darkness and the dimness be infinitely greater, and they "driven to darkness," than in preceding trials, yet they that walked in it had seen great light. The yoke was broken completely, and the government set on the shoulders of the Child that was to be born to them—no end should be of His blessing on the throne of David. The link of the mind of the prophecy is in chapters 5: 30 and 8: 22. The parenthesis introduces Messiah for its effect on this trouble, showing His rejection, and the truth among the disciples of the great prophet, but then Israel in utter darkness thereon, but the great light not less true in the end. There seems to me to be solid ground for this course of the chapters, and judging the Spirit's mind to be this in the connection.

Note also in these parenthetic chapters, Emmanuel is given as "a sign," and as a sign in grace. The house of David had not only wearied men, but had wearied God also. Ahaz, feeling the proximity of God, shrinks, under the form of piety, from the offered sign, and God takes up the matter in grace as to Messiah, but in the revelation of judgment. All the subjects of fear of Ahaz were nothing at all, but the wickedness of Israel would bring in the Assyrian as the "rod of indignation." All this applied to Judah, for Israel was object of fear, and had been already sentenced, but then this is to engraft the judgments of the latter day on the rejection of Messiah. Chapter 7: 16, connects itself more historically with verse 9. Then, in chapter 8, "the children" are added to the sign to "both the houses of Israel." The resumption of the prophecy in verse 21 terminates in chapter 9: 7, but this identifies itself much more with Judah and the throne of David, though that affects the whole nation, from verse 8. It is more historical for Israel, and, after the miseries of Israel, the Assyrian who had overrun Samaria and menaced Jerusalem, and who was "the rod of indignation," is put in contrast with the Rod of the stem of Jesse, and the effect of the manifestation of the glory of Messiah, the Lord Jesus, is shown.

Note the Rod of Jesse, and Branch out of his roots for Israel, and the Root of Jesse for the Gentiles. In the beginning of the Apocalypse He is the "Root of Jesse" only—He has not taken His earthly throne as Son of David—at the end He is Root and Offspring, taking both places.

The recovery of the dispersed is spoken of, after the glory of the rest, and the ensign of the people. Both in chapters 8 and to, the Spirit reaches out to the latter days, and to the Assyrian of that day. This explains, in a measure, the linking of these passages, because it was necessary to bring in the episode of Messiah as sign (just like the little book in Revelation 10 and 11), to complete the history, and to give the ground of the dealings of God with Israel, and especially Judah, whether in mercy and sovereignty, or in judgment. Chapters 5 and 9, though it reach to Israel, are specially occupied with Judah, though Judah affects the whole land the moment Israel is out of the way, as in the time of the Lord, not then more Galilee, as it is said, than Samaria which was a thing apart. From chapter 9, the "anger not turned away," is generalized historically again; it had commenced specially as to Judah and Jerusalem, in chapter 5: 25. Now it recommences with Ephraim and Samaria. Chapter 12 evidently terminates the prophecy. The Lord is in Zion, and His greatness manifested there.

Recurrence to this quite makes me think it clears up the prophecy much, as to its order.

It is evident chapter 5 is the moral, legal, national guilt of Israel, as the following chapter is their sin as regards Christ, both more fully developed after chapter 4o. But then in this chapter (5), while the present state of desolation is noticed, yet that is declared not to be the close of judgment. But then he does not continue it, as a present thing, as in chapter 9 from verse 8, and following up to the Assyrian, which closes it, but brings in, in general, the inroad of the nations, bringing in darkness and desolation. But it would apply to the Chaldaean invasion, as well as to any other, not captivity. It is judgment on the Land, and it is purposely not particularized, only the nations from afar are brought up by Jehovah against it. But it would rather apply to the Chaldeans, and on to the Romans, though as desolating the Land. And, whatever the patience of God, the next chapter goes on to their time. Chapter 9, as I have said, gives detail from the then immediately succeeding time, on to the Assyrian, who closes judgment; chap. 10:5-25. Chapter 6 is evidently not the law, but a revelation of Jehovah. In chapter 5 Israel is an object of judgment—the whole "vineyard in the fruitful hill." In chapter 7 it is the house of David, Judah, and Jerusalem, and Israel is the enemy with Rezin. It is equally clear that Jehovah, in chapter 6 and in chapter 8: 13, et seq., is Christ. I suppose the same is intimated in chapter 5:1, but there as having originally planted Israel, not as coming to it revealing Himself, for that is chapters 6 and 8; yet in chapter 8 coming as Man, the Stone of stumbling.

In chapter 5 present judgment, and the darkening of the Land go together—in chapters 7 acid 8, Christ and final deliverance. But note, in chapter 5 there is no deliverance—Israel is guilty as brought out by Jehovah, and under the law—in Christ, however much greater the sin, there is.

Note, too, in what follows, Israel is always viewed as God's people not finally delivered from judgment, till the Assyrian is destroyed, but from Rezin and Pekah—is always viewed as God's people with whom He was dealing, and this, after all, is a comfort, and the full power of evil against them is therefore full deliverance. Nor is Babylon seen at all, until she is seen in judgment. Chapter 14 carries it on to the end—the Assyrian without, and Philistia within, being judged after the head of the Babylonish Gentiles, and then the rest in connection with Israel.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 6

The general mission of Isaiah shows a blessed state, and great preparedness of heart in the prophet. The vision was of the Lord in His holy character. The burning Seraphim were then celebrating it, lowly but exalting Jehovah. The prophet has the fullest sense of this, both for himself and the state of the people. No haste to go but a sense of what he was, and of what the people were, in presence of a holy yet evidently a known God. "Woe is me, I am undone, for I am a man of unclean lips, and dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips, and I have seen the King, the Lord of hosts." The effect was subjective, and that was all—the deepest and truest place. But the moment his lips are cleansed by the coal from the altar, and Jehovah says "Whom shall I send, and who shall go for us," he offers himself—"Here am I, send me." This is very beautiful. We are apt to run (I admit the difference of the Gospel) in haste, as soon as interested, and then to shrink before the carelessness or opposition of the world. Here he does not stir till the Lord has fitted him, and calls; then he is His ready servant. Here, consequently, we get the largest scope of prophecy—the fullest scheme of the counsels and intentions of God, in connection with His plans as to His people and His glory.

1. " The Lord," so in verses 8 and 11, but in verse 5 it is "the Lord of hosts."

6. The veils do not come into question here. I suppose it was from the brazen altar.

12, 13. The language of these verses is remarkable, and much stronger than one would suppose; I am not sure that I understand it fully. "And the Lord have removed far" (as in anger or displeasure, as in other places His face) "the Adam" (eth ha Adam) "and hath multiplied forsakings" (derelictions) “in the midst of the Land" or "earth." It seems to identify the dealings of God in the Land with the whole earth, and His actings on man. The Adam (God made eth ha Adam "in his image, after his likeness"—so as a dream, when one awaketh, shall He despise his image) for then shall all the question between God, and man in power and presumption, be centered there; compare Luke 2:14, for now He, in whom He is well pleased, is on high, rejected of the world, and we are in Him, but the whole world lieth in wickedness. This may be pursued, for the sons are accepted in the Beloved, but, save in mystery in Him, the ha Adam is set aside. "In the midst" (rokhav, breadth) but yet "in it," i.e., I suppose, the Land, there shall be a tenth, a Remnant, and it shall return, and shall be for burning—as Lebanon shall not be sufficient to burn—"shall be to be consumed" for fuel; for her iniquity shall be purged by the Spirit of judgment and the Spirit of burning, and, as the teil-tree or oak, whose root or trunk remains in casting their leaves, so the holy seed shall be the root thereof; compare Romans 11, which is just drawn in Spirit from this, quoad that part of the image.

The translators seem to have been misled by the apparent subject matter, but it seems strange they should have gone from so simple a word as l'va-er (eaten; strictly "consumed by burning") though it mean also consumption by browsing. Further we may observe as to this, in application, it is the Spirit of Christ testifying according to the righteousness of judgment, of which fire is the symbol, for even the Remnant shall pass through the fire, but He (who has indeed passed through, so as to bear their iniquities) shall be with them. Thence the word s'raphim (burners), here only, I believe, used. One of the burners came, and touched with a coal from off the altar (typifying the consumption of sin)—the altar of burnt offering—his lips, and he spoke accordingly. He bore about the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life of Jesus might be manifest in his mortal body. Compare the whole of chapter 27, as we have already referred to the Spirit of judgment and Spirit of burning, ba-ar (he consumed).

The Seraphim I conceive to be the agency of the power of God, according to His character, but here towards the Remnant, for every man's work shall be tried by fire; accordingly when the Lord tries the Churches His eyes are as a flame of fire. The Cherubim were the agency of God; as see observations elsewhere on Revelation. Thus he was qualified to testify, according to this, to the Jews, the special objects of the one and the other. This, accordingly, became accomplished when the Lord Jesus Christ came into the world (amongst the Jews) gathering the wheat and burning up the chaff, etc., for judgment, that they which see might be made blind. But He came for judgment because He came not for judgment, for so it is with man thus left to himself.

Note, the saint takes the message without knowing what it is, for it is of God, and the primary character of the prophet is direct association of mind with Him—it is a trust on the part of God, in which the prophet is separated into His interest from all others. That interest may indeed be the Church, or it may be the judgment of the Churches—but that is another question; it is always God. I have sometimes thought this was the meaning of "Lovest thou me more than these?" "Can you act for me, independent even of your tie to these?" I am sure the principle is necessary for efficient service for Christ in the Church.

This chapter specially puts the prophet in his prophetic place, and is deeply interesting as describing it. The prophetic place begins where the Church is withered, as it were. It is the presence of the Spirit of Christ, cognizant, by the knowledge of God's burning judgment, of what the Church ought to be, sensible in all perfect sympathy, as dwelling amongst it, of its state and necessity, and withal of the mind of God toward it, and knowing, therefore being, itself, as a word formed on the standard of God's holiness towards it, the development and depository of His mind towards it. We find it then thus exhibited. It is therefore the mind of God toward the Church, as so cognizant, and the mind of the Church towards God, both in their perfectness as in Rom. 8 Here therefore it is exhibited especially in that word, "Lord, how long?" For it knows, experimentally, the mind of God towards His Church in favor, and rests on that.

This chapter is the installation of the prophet in his office. To the end of verse 12, from the beginning of verse 7, is a substantive prophecy; what follows is detail. Verses 7-13 is the Covenant of David, in Christ, as failed in se.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 7

16. "The land, before whose two kings thou art in fear, shall be forsaken."

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 8

22. The ma-uph (dimness) of this verse, and mu-aph (dimness) of chapter 9:1 (in the Hebrew 8: 23) and khoshech (darkness) are to be connected, which, I think, clears the sense, specially when the plain application, or exposition, of Matthew be taken, in which, I take it, is a strict application according to the sense of the Spirit, in the prophet, in the passage.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 9

3. "Thou hast multiplied the nation, increased the joy to it."

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 10

6. Up to this, chastisement; now, judgment, but as it is the intervention of God, it is the deliverance of His people, but in a remnant.

20-27. Nothing can be more distinct than the elements of the prophecy here, and its bearing is equally important—the Remnant, the calah v'nekheratzah (A.V., a. consumption even determined) of the last days—the judgment of the great enemy; in this, the indignation ceasing. It is a deliverance, like Egypt, only Israel has been purged by judgment. Chapter 44, and the anointing has taken its effect, so that it is secure and stables How rationalists are to be pitied! And Lowth is not much better, indeed never to be trusted. No doubt in Hezekiah's time it cast its shadow before, compare verse 5. Chapter 11 must be read as the same prophecy, i.e., from chapter 10: 25 to 11: 6.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 11

This chapter follows the chastisements of Israel as such, and final judgment of the Assyrian, the enemy, as we have seen, of old of Israel and Judah when owned—and is the blessing of Judah and Zion as such, when the Root of Jesse shall be there. Chapter 24 is after the judgment of the different nations, only the Jews and Land come in amongst them, as chapters 18 and 24. Hence we have general judgment and general blessing, "the hosts on high," "the kings of the earth" (vv. 21, 22) and then the Lord reigns in Mount Zion. Rebellious power is brought down according to God's counsels—blessings for all are in Mount Zion. The evil of darkness over the Gentiles will be then taken away, death is swallowed up in victory for the heavenly people, and the reproach taken off His people everywhere. Israel then meets God with joy, and their own land is subdued under them. Chapter 26 sings the song of these judgments, and their course, and that of the people's and Jews' hearts. The power of the Gentiles is not reviewed, of His people it is, but it is Jehovah's not the people's work, and those that have ears to hear are invited to hide themselves for a little moment, till the indignation be over, for Jehovah is coming out of His place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity. Chapter 27 depicts this dealing with the power of evil, and with Israel which He keeps and gathers, but chastises as a people of no understanding.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 13

From this verse, Joel 2:10 and 31; chap. 3:15; Matt. 24:29; Ezek. 32:7, and Amos 8:9, I gather the following. The darkening of the sun is not Gog but Antichrist. The tribulation is under Antichrist before Gog, or the Northern army comes up. The people called up against the Jews (apparently, as in unbelief and connected with Antichrist) is Gog or the Northern army. This, and not Antichrist, is the terrible day of the Lord. The agency of the saints is connected with this; see Joel, etc. The sun is put out before this, apparently as in Dan. 11, end. Antichrist is not, properly, the indignation—that is when Gog, or the Assyrian, comes up, and wholly ceases in their destruction; compare Ezek. 38; 39, and Isaiah Io. It would rather appear that the destruction of Antichrist is connected with the agency of the saints. The sun shall be dark before them, and so the terrible day of the Lord. Antichrist is called "the king," "Lucifer," in the Old Testament scriptures. The Jews against Gog, or the Assyrian, as Zech. 9, and other passages of scripture.

The chapters from 13 to 21 inclusive are remarkable—a perfect confusion as to the events from which they are drawn, that there may be instruction for the fullness of prophecy to come. First, Babylon and Israel contrasted—the world judged in Babylon, therefore for it generally (v. 1) and the Lord choosing yet Israel, and "set them in their own land," not Judah there (Antichrist viewed herein) but Babylon put before the Assyrian, which we know was long after, and the Assyrian destroyed, in history, first—here, afterward on the mountains. This purposed on the whole earth, and then, afterward, the land cleared, Philistia—Zion then viewed as founded. This is a complete scene in itself; there are other details, however, that are general and complete for Israel and the Land.

Then we have Moab, which was destroyed by Babylon, is called to send the lamb to the daughter of Zion, and, at the end, a date of three years given. Then Damascus, which was carried captive by Assyria, and, at the close, the destruction of the Assyrian; still verses 7 and 4, the glory of Jacob made them but regard to God. Then we have a nation entirely beyond the limits of the nations in question, beyond the Nile and Euphrates, who take an interest in the Jews, but the Jews are left an entire prey in the midst of the nations. Then Egypt, given into the hand of a cruel king, smitten and healed—Judah a terror to Egypt, and Egypt, Assyria and Israel all one. God will send them a great Savior. Then as a further detail, the Assyrian seizes on Egypt. Then, no help from Assyria. Then, under the term of "the desert of the sea," the fall of Babylon by Elam and Media—the incredulity of Dumah judged, and Arabia. Then the fall of Jerusalem by Persia and Media—the rulers fled, then found in her bound. Yet the circumstances of the time of Hezekiah, evidently referred to, even persons' names, yet so as to bring out all the glory of the house of David on One who replaces another who has no right there, or whose right the land disallows. In that day, as to the events from which the prophecies flow, they are all extraordinarily jumbled together; as to those to which they tend they cast a perfect light. Tire and the land (ha-aretz, the earth), present more difficulty, and though of express force, I should feel of wider character.

It is evident that chapters 13 to 26 take up the present state of things universally in the world, as the subject of judgment, and God's dealings as long as Israel was a testimony, were supportable, i.e., that God's judgment could be displayed in it in the midst of the nations. There was no word of judging all alike, as from without, but, when Israel (or Judah) had to be judged, then the consequences of evil must come judicially on all around. The world in general was on the footing of dispersion, whatever changes in detail had taken place. The grand question was, what was Israel's faith when the world rose up against it in the Assyrian? God saved them then, but their iniquity was such, they were not to be purged till they died. So that they were then found guilty for judgment, though God raised up Hezekiah, and, in His then external government, could deliver the city; but in the internal, by the testimony of the prophet, they are declared wholly guilty. Hence, they are given up to the reign of Manasseh, which brought the judgment, being spared during Hezekiah's reign, having with him humbled themselves. How perfect is God's government, as are all His ways!

Then these chapters deal with the world as it is, and pass the line of judgment over it all around, and then pass over to the next thing—God's interference to bring about His order and blessing, which is really the next thing after the breaking up the order and existence of nations, among which His people had a place. He despised the rod of His Son, as every tree. The bounds of the people had been set according to the number of the children of Israel, and, hence, the whole system fell together.

But there was another thing to be considered—that which was the instrument of judgment. Hence the judgment, and captivity of Babylon itself, and its rebellious head too, is introduced, and Babylon was outside the dispersion before it, and a principle apart. It was union by the violence of the mighty hunter, and Babel the beginning of his kingdom. (The Assyrian is another power we will speak of afterward.) Hence Babylon stands out distinct. It was the instrument of judgment on all then, but then for the bringing in of God's judgment. It has to be judged, along with the rest, for God's people are in captivity there. As to details, therefore, we find first, this grand, absorbing power judged alone, and the audacious and blasphemous rebellion of its chief noted, calling down the judgment by which Israel is delivered. (Then the Assyrian falls on the mountains, and Palestine cleared by the Lord.) This is the complete scene of the results at the end.

Then comes the then present breaking up of the subsisting system of which Nebuchadnezzar was, historically, the instrument, passing even over, as we have said, to the last days. God interferes in that day, for that was the true power of judgment. Taking occasion from Damascus (through which quarter consequently, I suppose, the attack will take place) we have the inroad of the nations against Judah (but Jacob is as gleanings left only) to their own destruction, as in Zechariah. Sennacherib is partly an example—I say "partly," because it was not he that took Damascus.

Also in chapter 18, we have the additional element, that Israel shall be brought back by some extraordinary intervention of a nation (I have a strong notion it is England) who takes them up, but, having planted them in their own land, they become a prey there of the nations. Still they are brought as, and being, a present to the Lord of Hosts. Then, chapter 21, we have historically Babylon itself taken, and then the daughter of His people spoiled. At the same time the key of the house of David taken from the confident and proud ruler, who is put to shame, and placed in the hands of Him who is chosen of God. Chapter 24 gives the total desolation of the Land, but hence of the earth, and of the world, as that in which alone, as we have seen, hangs the possibility of earthly blessing and stability—the central system of an owned earth in government, and indeed all will be concentrated there in that day, all the nations of the earth; see chapter 26: 9, and compare Rev. 14. The judgment on this occasion reaches to the heavenly powers as well as "the kings of the earth upon the earth." "The Lord of hosts shall reign”—this evidently changes all.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 14

This is giving mercy to Israel in the destruction of the Assyrian, compare chapters 15, 16, Micah, and the subjection of all Philistia. Note, in remarking on Babylon, the different things which are assembled in that prophecy.

The subjection of Moab seems to be, according to the statement of the Psalm, the work of Messiah, after the destruction of the adversary, in whose exaltation Israel has rejoiced, or at least was joined with the Assyrian. They are called on to receive the outcasts during the oppression of Antichrist, anticipating his destruction, or showing their folly in not owning it by his destruction.

8. Meaz (A.V., " since ") seems to mean "from of old."

13 and 14 seem to have a special application.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 17

I do not see how it is possible, in all this part of Isaiah, from chapter 13 and even before, not to see that the Spirit of God is taking up the great plan of God, and speaking of future coming events, but taking hold of present ones as an occasion, and that connected with the government of God then, which will be fully displayed at the end.

Note Damascus was taken by the king of Assyria in the reign of Ahaz; but all this is evidently in the latter days. Moab, however, suffers first from the heathen.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 18

We have here the circumstances of the restoration of the Jews, in connection with a protecting nation out of the limits of ancient Jewish associations.

This chapter is full of deep interest. The "swift messengers" (mar akhim kallim); I have not yet entirely assured myself of what they were. I take the statement to be literal as regards its actual fulfillment. The "rivers of Cush" I take to be not only the Nile but the Euphrates, as if he should say, "I am now speaking of a land or people beyond those in point of distance, which now are the extremities of and affect the Jewish land and people." Yet a people which is to have extensive empire of influential subjection, and intimately connected with the Jews in their dealings in that day, when Israel is developed in their full history and character, the last act being then accomplished, a people long deferred, as He saith—true, in the Remnant. " Shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? Yea, He will avenge them speedily." And it is the character of prophecy to say " How long? " " How long, 0 Lord, forever shall thy fury," etc. And the want of faith in the Jewish people is described by " none to say, How long? " Here then is the sense of m'musshak (drawn out, scattered). It is the same word as " Hope long deferred." A people continually, insultingly, ill-treated, whose hair is plucked off—the same word, passive for active, as " I gave my cheeks to those that plucked off the hair," where our Lord is describing His Jewish humiliation—a people terrible (no-ra) to be revered, wondered at, or feared, from existence forward forever, i.e., from the time the Lord made them a people; true, in principle, in the beginning, in fact from the time here finally spoken of, commonly translated " from this out "—a nation (now not mentioned as a

people because dealt with on general moral principles, and, indeed, judged accordingly) a nation, which has had " line upon line," first by presenting the measure and righteousness of God's judgments, in testimony, if they would hear, and then, " hear or forbear," it came upon them as the exact measure of God's judgments, and such, I apprehend, is the force of chapter 28: 13. The Word, as I find it, is ever a measuring line, and, as the strictness and perfectness of God's judgments must be familiar to readers of Scripture attentively, I understand it still as a line or measure in Psa. 19:4, and this use of it, is what, I believe, the Spirit of God refers to in Paul, when he speaks of the metron you kanonos (the measure of the rule, 2 Cor. 10:13) which he theos metrou (the God of measure) hath distributed, so I should be rather inclined to read it "had distributed" or "allotted" to him, to a nation then measured, measured, i.e., by the judgments of God (accomplishing His word which they would not receive in truth, and therefore they found here in judgment, as He saith, "Judgment will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet") trodden down, or under foot. Compare chapters 63 and 64, where this is all made the subject of supplication, and much answer given in chapter 65 as regards Christ.

2 and 7. "Whose land the rivers”—I sometimes thought this might mean "above mentioned," but these were only characteristic of the rest, and it is used, I imagine, generally. The nations have made Jacob a prey, as, during the times of the Gentiles, they can have been to one another, but, whoever was dominant, they were subject until this time. They were a prey twice; some might use them well, as the Persians did, still they were a prey, and soon out of their hands—"have made a prey" or "spoiled."

The rest of the chapter describes the Lord's dealing, in that day, as done as a summons and witness to all nations. He then explains the dealings as regards the Jews, when the previous dealing, resulting in their being brought, and their offerings accepted, recognized in all their previous character, is over.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 19

We have, here, Egypt, in dissension, given up to a tyrant, and in the terror of Judah, in the blessing of Israel.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 20

This is an episode as to Egypt, to wit, the inroad and success of the Assyrian.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 21

Babylon is taken. Idumea slights the warning. Arabia is judged.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 22

Jerusalem is taken, and Eliakim replaces Shebna, or Christ Antichrist.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 23

Tire is judged.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 24

This chapter is not a distinct burthen. It is the Land, and therewith as the earth, of which it is become the center, the world, and the manifestation of the Lord's glory in Jerusalem.

4. This verse seems to preclude the confining it to the Land, for, I suppose, te-vel (the world) is never used but in the one sense, generically. So the Spirit in the Apocalypse, 16:14, though leaning, as here, on the principal point to which the other was subordinate; so chapter 34:6.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 25

This is a celebration of the glory and blessedness, and what belongs to that day, the proud enemy, Moab being subdued under the Lord.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 26

9 and 21. "The inhabitants of the earth"; compare Apocalypse 3:10, "Them that dwell upon earth." Note the difference, too, between 2 Peter 2:9, where the comparison is with Noah and Lot, who passed through the tribulation, and Apocalypse 3:10. In Peter, we have rhuesthai ek peirasmou (deliver from temptation) and in the Apocalypse tereso ek us horas you peirasmou (I will keep from the hour of temptation). The difference is evident, and confirms the force of this latter, as interpreted, for the deliverance of the faithful Remnant; quod rota.

This chapter specially belongs to Judah, and the circumstances connected with that, before the indignation be overpast.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 27

4. The voice of the vineyard would be, "I have no wall; oh, that I had for myself briars and thorns"! This chapter takes up Israel on the destruction of Leviathan, and, connected with the last verses of the former chapter, closes with the gathering of the scattered gleanings abroad.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapters 28, 29

The double inroad of the nations. First, Ephraim is assailed by the Assyrian, etc., and overwhelmed, yet it was in the day of the Lord's deliverance. At this time scornful men, dwelt at Jerusalem, who said that the scourge would not reach them. But it should overflow the hiding place, and they should be trodden down by it.

There is "a consumption determined upon the whole land," yet unhappy and ignorant Zion the Lord loveth, and, when the learned cannot read His mind because he is unlearned, the Lord knows the thoughts He thinks towards them—thoughts of peace and not of evil—to give them an expected end. Jerusalem, or Zion the lion of God, shall be brought perfectly low, but the Lord shall fight against all the nations, and "they shall be as a dream when one awaketh" and according to His everlasting covenant, "Jacob shall not be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale."

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 30

3. We find here details. They seek for help from Egypt in that day, when "in returning and quietness" should have been their strength; therefore the Lord would leave them to the strength of their enemies. But He will wait till they have tasted all this, and then be gracious Himself, for the destruction of the Assyrian shall be the joy of a Remnant. Tophet is also prepared for the king.

12. "This word" refers, I suppose, to verses 6 and 7.

18. Compare chapters 8:17, and 18:4. Indeed it is the whole history as chapter 6, and originally at Sinai; Ex. 33:19. God must retreat into His own sovereignty to spare, though He punish according to our responsibility in government or in righteousness. And faith, founded on righteousness, waits for Him-or even in hope through grace, where divine righteousness is not yet known.

20. It would seem from this verse (of those chapters which enter into the detail of Israel in the latter day) that though fed and nourished with affliction, yet they shall leave their teachers, in spite of all who shall guide them in the way.

28. "Peoples."

33. "For the king also it is prepared." "The king" is mentioned three times in prophecy; here, in chapter 57: 9, and in Daniel

Notes on Isaiah. Chapters 31 and 32

We have here a special introduction of the circumstances of the change of dispensation—the first chapter which, by the grace of my God, opened my ignorant eyes to this serious and all-important subject—things important to us. The Lord is wise, though He is not looked to. The Lord shall fight for Zion, and the Assyrian shall fall, but not by "a mighty man." Then the King, reigning in righteousness, is introduced—His righteous character—and the manifestation of villainy as vile. The city forsaken, Jerusalem trodden down, till the Spirit be poured out on the Jews. Note the synchronism, and a total change of dispensation—all before should be but as an uncultivated fruit, and so it is. Still, blessing should be universal on Jew and Gentile; the city only should be brought low, and the Gentile fruit judged.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapters 33-35

This (the King being now introduced) is the judgment of the Assyrian. In his latter approach he spoiled, but had not been spoiled—the circumstances of Zion—the detail of all that had passed, or allusion to it, but the Lord arises. The Remnant are preserved, they see "the King in his beauty," and have their portion now, even to the end of the Land. The Assyrian could not prevail, nor strengthen "his mast"; how could he pass the Lord as a defense? Then there is a great judgment on the nations which has place in Idumea. It is the day of the Lord's vengeance. His recompenses for Zion. Then the universal joy, and consequence of blessing. Antichrist has nothing to do with all this. The only place he can be supposed to be mentioned is, if it be, where it is added, "Yea, also for the king it is prepared" (gam-hu lammelek). Otherwise it is the historic connection between Israel, Zion, the inroad of the nations, Egypt, the Lord, the Assyrian, the King, and the full joy thereon—their complete deliverance and security—and, in a word, everlasting joy upon their heads, seeing "the King in his beauty," possessing the Land, the desert blossoming, and holiness their way.

I also gather from this, that Edom and Bozrah in chapter 63, is not the destruction of Antichrist, but that which is spoken of in these chapters, the nations there, after the former had passed, by the coming of Christ with all His saints, from the scene. The controversy with the nations when Zion is taken up—the prostrate, because disobedient, lion of God.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 40

The second part of Isaiah begins by the proclamation, of the herald who precedes the Lord, that "All flesh is grass," and that "the people," even the people of the God "is grass." Man and Israel are withered and profitless, but this does not change the certainty of hope, because the Word of Israel's God endures forever. Then Zion is the scene of blessing—God's strength in judgment, the means—and He will care for His flock. Then His Almighty supremacy is unfolded, in contrast with idols. Israel should remember that He "fainteth not, neither is weary."

He reduces to silence all the heathen and their idols, sending forth the instrument of His power to execute His purpose. Israel had nothing then to fear.

Next, Christ is His Servant in lowliness, and shall be in power. He shall unfailingly accomplish all His purposes. Thus Jehovah will "lead the blind," and who is blind as Israel, having every opportunity and observing nothing? God will glorify His Law and ways, yet Israel is oppressed, for He hath sinned, but God has formed him for Himself—he need not fear, He will deliver, and, in spite of all his failure, he is not to think of the old things, but to count on this faithfulness of delivering grace.

Thus, while making grass of man, God acts here in certain delivering grace in His faithful love to His people—acts from His own unchangeable love and faithfulness. Christ, as His Servant, and the Elect One, is the great instrument of this. Israel had been rejected for sin—there was "no peace for the wicked"—but a Remnant would be saved. But, if chosen, they were chosen in "a furnace of affliction." It is grace, and God's own purpose, while sin is shown to be the cause of their condition. Christ, the elect Servant, is introduced—Cyrus and Babylon are brought in, as the first grand sign of deliverance, after the evil and the judgment of the heathen and their idols. Chapter 49 begins, specifically, the case of Christ, and Israel's condition in respect of Him.

This chapter is comfort to Israel, as witness of the power of God. In general it is the comfort of Jerusalem—thus the voice of the Baptist preparing the way of the Lord—the manifestation of the sovereignty of Jehovah. Then the Spirit of prophecy declares "all flesh is grass"; consequently, all the Jewish system falls together, founded in flesh. The Law, also, was "weak through the flesh," "but the Word of our God," says the Spirit in the Jewish Remnant, "shall stand forever." Then Zion, visited in blessing in the latter days, becomes the messenger of blessing to all the cities of Judah. Christ comes—verse 12 begins His controversy of the nations, in which Israel was the witness of the unity and glory of Jehovah. But Jehovah has to vindicate it Himself.

Nir 'tzah (is pardoned) is "discharged," satisfaction is made for it.

Connect kol kore (voice of him that crieth) and verse 6, k'ra (cry). John's crying was bammid-var (in the wilderness), i.e., of the Jewish people. Our Lord came in the street, the city, but did not kara (cry out), though He suffered, for good reason, out of it.

6. Note the use of khas'do (the goodliness thereof)—its gracefulness, I suppose. It is doxa (glory) in the Septuagint.

9. I do not know without examination, but I rather prefer "who bringest good tidings to Zion"—"to Jerusalem."

12. Tik-ken (meted out); the same word is used in verse 13 for "hath directed." "Heaven"—the heavens—what is this?

27, 28. We see the appeal of Jehovah, in grace, against the incredulity of the people.

31. "They that wait on the Lord" are distinguished.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 41

Then the "King of Jacob" challenges the nations, and, by the hand of Cyrus (as an example) destroys the power of idolatry. He giveth "good tidings to Jerusalem."

This chapter is judgment on the islands (Gentile nations) by the instrument which God had appointed, as contrasted with Israel.

2. "Righteousness," see margin. We have here, and in several other passages, a use of "righteousness " which illustrates and clears up its use in the New Testament, so that Gesenius translates it here and elsewhere "liberatio, salus." It is the interference of God's power here, in consistency with His own character, and in grace towards His people, which therefore necessarily delivers them. "Who raised up righteousness from the east?" God acts to vindicate His own character, and power against evil. It is God's righteousness. Taking Cyrus as a primary fulfillment, God is obliged to vindicate His title against the pride of the heathen, and idols, and false gods. It is His righteousness, but thereby His people are delivered in grace. So, "My righteousness is near; my salvation is gone forth" (chap. 51: 5), and "shall be forever" (v. 8). In chapter 45: 8, it is God publicly vindicating Himself as He is, so to speak, bound to do in the end, and so righteousness comes forth. So, I believe, "who have obtained like precious faith with us, through the righteousness of our God and Savior." This connects itself with promises, where they are, because the fulfillment of them is a part of God's righteousness. Hence God fully establishing and vindicating all He is, in the Cross of Jesus, and the blessed Jesus offering Himself up that He might. We come in who, through grace, are quickened together with Him, to be the righteousness of God in Him. He is made unto us righteousness, but it is properly and essentially the righteousness of God, not intrinsically in Him, but brought out into manifestation in that which is done, for so it is, and, here, so as to be the glory of God (which implies display) and salvation to those, however miserable, who come in on the principles on which it acts—which are, indeed, for us by faith, and hence the reasoning of the Apostle in Romans, Galatians and elsewhere.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 42

The Elect (Messiah) is introduced—the Servant. Thus the Gentiles will wait upon God, and for the Elect's law. Jehovah's power will be manifested against the idols—His, who had long time held His peace. He will manifest His glory to the confusion of all worshippers of idols in the deliverance of Israel, leading the blind: But who so blind as they who saw so many things, and yet not observing? Thus the Lord will magnify the Law. But Israel, robbed and spoiled, had been given up for sin as chastisement, but now the Lord, in sovereign grace (chap. 43) will redeem, and comfort, and declare them, and show, in His dealings with them, that they are His witnesses as of old. And now, also, they shall show forth all His praise, as, indeed, in His way with them, His praise has been shown. But, in fact, Israel had not sought God, but wearied Him with sin. But He, for His Name's sake, thus showing forth His praise in them, forgave them all.

This, and the following chapter give the place of Christ amongst Israel, and the work of God amongst them, notwithstanding their failure.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 43

This chapter ends at verse 25. Grace is here eminent as God's praise.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 44

Forgiveness and the Spirit to Israel, introducing Cyrus as the deliverer.

On pleading with Israel, the promise of the Spirit is added, which revivifies and encourages them to confess His name, and glory in Him, and thus again becomes the instrument of defiance to the idols, which are vanity, with all their followers.

Again the Lord is announced as having redeemed Jacob, and glorified Himself thus in Israel, who confounds diviners, and declares His purpose concerning Jerusalem, and now, of Cyrus as instrument of rebuilding the Temple.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 45

Cyrus—the testimony of God's purpose to Israel—and Israel of His name.

4. He has "surnamed" him, for His love to Jacob, "the servant" and "the elect." Observe here these two names, which confound Israel with Christ, Messiah.

The everlasting salvation of Israel is contrasted with the idols. The escaped of the nations are called on to recognize the hand of God who had foretold all this, and to look to Him as Savior, for to Jehovah "every knee should bow." This we know also is Christ exalted over every power, and everlasting. Thus using Cyrus, as the expression of it, for those times when judgment had called Israel "not a people"—Israel, elect, a servant, the witness of God against all false gods. If God upon the earth, as of old, eternal, and now, anew, of all His praise, Redeemer and Deliverer, acting in grace, and disposing of instruments as He would, as Almighty, proving it by the prophetic testimony, and the accomplishment of it in favor of His people, by the instruments He had chosen, Israel, the occasion and object, the means of all this display of glory (and that, in grace) is identified with Christ, as Elect Servant (chap. 42), but Israel in contrast with idols. But this Elect Servant is Jehovah withal, and thus, idols being set aside, every knee is to bow to Him. The nations who escape are called to own all this in Jacob, and looking on Him to be saved.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 46

Babylon is then summoned on the scene by the prophetic Spirit, and all her fate told; first, in the person of her idols in contrast with Jehovah's faithfulness to Israel. They carried Babylon's helpless gods into captivity, but Jehovah carried, and bore Israel from youth to age. He had made, and would bear them when Moses himself, His faithful servant, failed, feeling they were not his own, his children. It is the contrast of Jehovah with His people, and the impotency of the idols carried into captivity. Cyrus is yet the instrument of the specimen given of this. This, and the following chapter give the judgment on Babylon in similar testimony to chapter 45, i.e., the idolatrous power of the world. "All the world" is a question between Israel and Babylon.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 47

It is not the idols now, but the pride of Babylon, who thought never to see sorrow.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 48

These are the special dealings of God with Israel and the reasons for them.

We have the distinction of Israel—who is unrighteous though making use of the Name of the Lord—prophecy, the means of showing it was God's doing, making shame of idols. But Jehovah acts for His Name's sake. He spares, defers, refines Israel—choosing her in "the furnace of affliction," shows Himself the only God, and executes judgment, doing His pleasure on Babylon. If Israel had been faithful, her peace would have flowed like a river. But Israel will prove, as well as Babylon, that Jehovah is faithful to His Name, that "there is no peace to the wicked, saith the Lord."

This was necessary in judging Babylon—the judgment of Israel, chosen, and saved. Before chapter 45: 25, it was Israel justified, as a whole, in the Lord, and glorying in Him.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 49

Up to this, the Lord's controversy with idolatry and Babylon, only Christ (chap. 42) necessarily brought in for blessing. From this, to the end of chapter 57, Christ, Himself, as rejected. We find here the whole plan and ways of God in government, as regards His rejection of. Christ by Israel, i.e., the fact of Israel's not being then gathered.

Note how very distinctly we have first Israel, then the blessed Lord substituted for Israel when rejected by them, then, on resurrection, the condition of a new order of things, available at present, but resulting in the re-establishment of Zion.

This is a full development of the work of Christ, with a testimony that the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. Israel is taken up as a witness, and the Spirit of Christ in them takes up the summons to the isles, and people from afar, to recognize the election of God in Israel, in whom He would be glorified. But then, necessarily, comes in not only the wickedness and idolatry of Israel, but their conduct as to Messiah. He takes up Israel according to this counsel of God, declared in His will, and purpose by the Spirit "in the volume of the Book," but has to declare that if so He has labored in vain. Thereon the fuller revelation of God, as to His glory. It was a light thing to raise up Israel, He should be a light to the Gentiles, and God's salvation to the ends of the earth, which would be raised up and comforted in Him, scattered Israel brought back, and, notwithstanding all her fears, Jerusalem is blessed according to the immutable and tender love of God, for Jerusalem is the center of all God's affections, in providence on earth; see Jeremiah and Zechariah. All would be subservient to her blessing.

3. This verse requires attention. I apprehend the English translation neglects the Hebrew stops. I call Athnach a stop. I should think De Wette added words to complete his translation. The question is, can asher-b'ka (literally, "whom in thee") be translated "Thou in whom"? "The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my servant; Israel, thou art he in whom I will be glorified”? De Wette translates it: "It is Israel in whom, through thee, I glorify myself;" paying attention to Athnach. The English is: Thou art my servant, 0 Israel, in whom I will be glorified. This is the Hebrew: vay-yosner li av-di. attah Yis-ra-el asher-b'ka eth pa-ar (And said to me, my servant, Thou, Israel, whom in thee I shall be glorified). I apprehend "In whom through thee" is surely not there. I am not sure that one is warranted in adding "Thou" (art he) "in whom." The importance lies in the question, who is "My servant," here, Israel or Christ the blessed Lord? It is clearly the transition point of Israel, servant, and the Lord, Servant—verse 4 makes that plain.

I am not far from suspecting that De Wette's is the right sense, only that he has unwarrantably added "by thee," durch dich. Asher b'ka can hardly be an dem durch dich. Luther's is as the English. If I remember the French, it is in substance as De Wette, if not literally.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 50

The Lord then demands why He had rejected her. He had come Himself, in Christ, to be in her sorrows, and with equal power to save, and had been rejected, found no man to call when He answered. The humiliation of Christ is most touchingly put forth. Thus the Remnant come to be distinguished, and Christ takes the place of Servant, and though, thereon, Israel was in darkness, and the Remnant, he who obeyed His voice should trust in the Lord—how faithful, we have seen; those who kindled sparks for themselves would, of the Lord's hand, lie down in sorrow. All now hangs on this rejection of Christ, who speaks by His Spirit in the prophet, and presents Himself as Jehovah, but made a Servant in Israel.

Note this chapter contains the humiliation of Christ—His place of subjection in contrast with His divinity. Chapter 53 contains the expiation He accomplished for the people, and for many, in contrast with the exaltation of the Servant, which is other than His being Jehovah, distinctly.

We have here the moral question, of the rejection of Israel by Jehovah, fully tried—what Israel had done in rejecting Jehovah when He came in grace in Jesus, lowly for their sakes, the true character of the humbled Holy One clearly brought out. He is justified by Jehovah. To this is added the consequent exhortation to the Remnant in the latter days, who listen to His voice as the Servant of Jehovah.

Note—the appeal is after the divorcement. This gives it a most important, and deeply interesting character of grace, not developed perhaps, but they are to stand in the name of the Lord, and stay upon their God after this. This is pure grace, resting on what God is.

It is reasoning with Israel upon the circumstances in which Christ's coming placed it—first, the general fact of the rejection, then the nature of Christ's first coming, to the distinction of the Remnant.

5. I do not apply the boring of the servant's ear with an awl to the "opening mine ear" (it is fixing the sign or symbol of service, as receiving command, to the post, i.e., the master's house, i.e., marking the constancy of service) though they are both connected with the same subject. I should apply the boring of the ear of the servant (more especially, i.e., therein it was exhibited and fulfilled) to the Lord's willing subjection to death after He took upon Him the form of a Servant, and had identified Himself with His Master's wife's and children's interest (for His Master had given Him a wife and she was His Master's and His, and thus became the tie to the Master) "being found in fashion as a Man, he humbled himself," etc., being unwilling, even though He could (for He must have gone out without His wife) have gone out free—He preferred to subject Himself for His and their sakes. It was love, and the accomplishment of love. The "opening the ear" is, I take it, submission, intelligent submission to His Father's will, not love after He was a Servant, such, I think, as chapters 40 and 52 express it, as saints, and our Lord throughout, especially in John's Gospel; so Matt. 12, but especially in His becoming a Servant. Therefore the Father saith "Behold my Servant"; so compare Isa. 53, Heb. 2, and John 12, Ka-ri-tha (Thou hast digged, Psalm 40) seems to make Him a Servant, "ears hast thou digged for me"; compare Ezek. 16:3, 21, 35; Hebrew, verses 30, 29, 14, also Isa. 51:1, for the word, " Thou hast formed me to be a Servant," was Israel as a witness, as we have seen Him to be the only faithful One actually of Israel, and therefore applicable in principle to Him, though spoken of literal Israel. The ear marked the servitude, as reception of command, "Thou hast formed a body for me," in which I am to be a Servant. And observe it is the Son, as before His incarnation, who says " Ears hast thou digged for me," and accordingly it was in His incarnation He took on Him the form of a Servant, as see Phil. 2. Then pa-thakh ("he opened," Isa. 52:2) is generally subjection to servitude. "Behold, saith he, I am thy Servant." When the Lord Jesus had taken the glory (Christhood) upon Himself in behalf of man, man then being apostate, "it became him for whom are all things," etc., therefore, "though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience," therefore He had "the tongue of the learned and knew how," etc., therefore "Behold," "Consider him!" Yigel (he openeth, Job 36: to) He openeth their ear to discipline, instruction, and the like, to make the mind to understand. Thus, by faith in Christ Jesus we are made to understand the Scriptures, it is an yigel ("He openeth") to us; so of any revelation of God's mind. It is connected, however, with willingness to obey, but concerns the communication of the matter of the obedience. It is the knowledge, the intelligence necessary to obedience—the opposed to "closing the ear" that they should not hear the perception of the will, or at least the communication of God concerning it; so, the Lord, "He that hath ears to hear let him hear."

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 51

To the end of verse 12 of chapter 52, we have progressive instructions to the Remnant, progressive summons of the Spirit of the help and glory of Zion, reckoned to be possessed by the Remnant as a nation. Verses 7 to 20 are the progressive, or double, interference of God.

The history of Israel, in the Remnant, is thus given, up to their full glory, to the end of chapter 52: 12. First, three addresses to the people, "Hearken unto me" (vv. 1, 4, 7). Those who sought justice—His people—those who know justice. The Remnant thus distinguished and summoned, the Spirit takes up the appeal in the demand for the awakening of "the arm of the Lord" (v. 9), in power, which is another thing, but power is there. It was the Eternal that consoled them. They had forgotten Him. Had He gone to sleep and forgotten? He who neither slumbers nor sleeps, whose power is there—now that Zion is awakened to know it calls on Zion to awake, for all was mercy now, to awake and clothe herself with beauty and glory, as Babylon had to come down and uncover herself of her false glory. For what were the peoples to oppress the people of the Lord? What had He here? The Lord had consoled His people, and made bare His holy arm in presence of the nations. They should go out from their captivity, and the Lord be their avant and arriere garde. Nothing can be more splendid or lovely than this allocution of the Spirit. It was not, indeed, for Jerusalem to cry what awoke the Lord—it was for her to awake.

The first appeal to the people encourages weakness, by the recollection that Abraham was alone when the Lord blessed and multiplied him. The Lord would comfort Zion. The second recognizes them as His people; hence the nations are introduced—Jehovah’s righteousness near—His salvation gone forth. And, though the heavens should vanish, His righteousness and salvation should be forever. The third appeal, not to heed the reproach of men, for they were as a garment moth-eaten, but God's "righteousness shall be forever," His "salvation from generation to generation."

The Lord, thus in relation with, and encouraging His people, awakens the cry that the Arm of the Lord "put on strength." Verse 12 is the answer of Jehovah, who demands how Israel should be afraid of a man, when He comforted her. He calls on Jerusalem to stand up in that, when she had no sons able to comfort her. He had pleaded her cause.

15. Compare Jer. 31:35, and Job 26:12. "Dividing the sea" is not the Red Sea, but raising it into tumultuous waves. So in Job 7:5, he compares his skin to this—it was split, and broken up, and rough—rugosity—and put away as bad; but compare chapter 26: 12.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 52

Jerusalem becomes the holy city, secured from profanation, and He reasons with the insolence of her enemies as against Himself. All this hangs on allusion to their position in Babylon. This celebration of the deliverance of Zion, in connection with the Remnant become a people, demands a full explanation of what leads to it all, and Christ necessarily becomes the great subject. But this is introduced thus. In this account of the compassion of Jehovah for His people, and the glorifying of Jerusalem, He who had taken, and had alone title (from chapter 49: 4) to be called the Servant of Jehovah, necessarily would bear a great and conspicuous part. "Behold my Servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted," etc. But here another principle comes in. The humiliation of Christ served to distinguish, even to the end, the Remnant who listened to the voice of "His Servant." Here the exaltation of Christ is connected, through His humiliation and offering for sin, with the introduction of the Gentiles. "As many were astonished at thee" (for He becomes the Object of the Spirit's thoughts now) for "His visage so marred," "His form more than the sons of men," "So shall he sprinkle many nations," and "that which kings had not heard, shall they consider." This introduces the following chapter.

From verse 13, to the end of the following chapter it is the exalted Servant, with the results of His first manifestation, and the mystery of His first reception fully developed.

In this chapter the Remnant recognize much more the true substitutory character of the sufferings of the rejected Christ, so that they were healed by that by which their sin was consummated. The first verses show their rejection of Him, now confessed as sin; full grace to the nations, and to the people, and to Jerusalem, is the result of this, but not governmental details.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 53

This is the rejection of the report, and blindness of Israel to the arm of the Lord; compare chapter 51:9. For such was Christ before men, for and amongst men, and, as the Remnant declare in the latter day, esteemed naught by the Jew. Yet it was as a vicarious Victim, as they now acknowledge, and, as we, blessed be the God of all grace, acknowledge beforehand, who first trusted (proelpikotas) in Christ.

3. The "Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief" is the same as "surely he hath borne our griefs, and our sorrows he hath carried them"—kho-li (grief) and mak'o-voth (sorrows). This we know from Matthew is applied to His healing their diseases and sicknesses. The Lord that healed them entered, as Man, into all the sorrows of which they had to be healed. Then came their thinking Him "stricken and smitten of God"—the last word is that used elsewhere for "smiting"—mukeh (smitten of). I think, the hu ("He," verse 5) does not give "yet He." It is much more emphatic. Kholayenu hu nasa (He hath borne our griefs) v'hu m'kholal, etc. (and He was wounded), etc. This gives the force of "and" (vav). He was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, and He was wounded for their transgressions. They had esteemed the hand of God out against Himself; as under God's displeasure Himself; but "because of the transgression of my people" the stroke (nega, verse 8) was upon Him.

6. This is the faith of Israel's Remnant in the latter day (as of us now). It was for the people, but not for that nation only, but being made an offering for sin, the stroke of Jehovah being upon Him, He should see of the travail of His soul, many should be justified, and thus and therefore He should be exalted. Thereon and thereafter, Jerusalem should be exalted, and elect, recognizing that she had had more children while she was a widow and deserted, than when a married wife. Now she should inherit the Gentiles, and Jehovah be her Husband-being called as a woman deserted never to be rebuked any more; chapter 54: 9.

10. "And Jehovah was pleased to bruise him, he put him to grief" (che-cheli). Thus the grief went on up to the Cross—then comes in its full force. "If his soul shall make an offering for sin, Jehovah's pleasure shall prosper in his hand, and he shall see of the travail of his soul." "By his knowledge shall my righteous Servant lead many to righteousness, and he" (hu) "shall bear their iniquities."

11. "Instruct many in righteousness"—lead them into it—"and shall bear their iniquities." I suspect the translation here is "by His knowledge" (of Jehovah, God, the Lord) "shall my righteous Servant teach righteousness to the mass" (many), "and their iniquities He shall bear." It is the word and work of the maskilim (strong ones) where the very same word is used. For "Turn many," read "turn the many."

12. "He was reckoned among transgressors, and bore the sins of many, and supplicated for the transgressors." That the atonement is fully brought out is very clear—that they were wrong in their estimate of it in unbelief, equally so—that when stricken on the Cross, it was for the transgression of Jehovah's people is clear—but, I think, from verse 4 we see, compared with Matthew, there was an entering into Israel's sorrows which went on to the Cross. The sorrows and grief were not merely the contradiction of sinners, for He bore them and carried theirs. That was added—"they hid their faces from him" (if that be the sense)—"He was cut off from the land of the living"—but the stroke was on Him for the transgression of Jehovah's people. I get the fact—their false estimate of it—His taking their sorrow on Him—their using this to turn away from Him—and atonement.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 54

The millennial glory of the Jewish Remnant, noticing the attempt against her.

5. " The God of the whole earth," elohe kol ha-aretz; note this.

13. All her children should be taught of the Lord.

14, 15. No power shall be against her, though, indeed, they should gather together against her, but no more by the Lord.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 55

The resurrection, security and blessedness of the new Jerusalem, founded on the resurrection of Christ, and therefore now received into the heart by faith, as fully noticed elsewhere.

Christ is here viewed as risen; see chapter 53: 10, and becomes a source of life to "everyone that thirsteth" calls in grace, establishes the sure mercies of David; see Acts 13:34. He is a Witness—a Leader to the people. Nations shall run, that knew not, to Him, because the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, had glorified Him.

This it seems to me, however, speaks of Christ in His relationship with Israel, and therefore He adds, "If God" (as such, for it so was) "be glorified in him," the Son of man, "God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him." But here it is resurrection and glory with Israel. We can introduce much more, but this grace, and call by grace, leads to summons to repentance, and "Seek the Lord while near," and the assurance, largeness, and certain accomplishment of the word of promise in blessing, so that this blessing should be to the Lord for a name—He should be known by this.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 56

He returns, therefore, in this chapter, specifically, to the Remnant in the latter day, but founded on the basis of grace in Christ, now known, and fully laid and declared in the midst of the sin of Israel, the blindness of her watchmen, i.e., blessing shown in taking away the righteous, the great iniquity of Israel going to the king, debasing herself to hell—God's care of the humble and contrite, and in grace, having seen Israel's ways, He will heal, for He creates "the fruit of the lips." But, again, after Christ fully explained, we have the Remnant, and no peace to the wicked”; see chapter 48: 22.

This, and the three following chapters, is God's view of what the Jewish Remnant would have been on His precepts, and according to His plan, and what it was in and by its failure. The end of this, however, is in chapter 59, verse is to the end; and thereupon, in chapter 60 we enter into the fruit and power of His work in and for His own.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 57

From chapter 49 to the end of this chapter, we have a complete development of the Messiah, but laboring in vain in Israel, object of much larger counsels—thereon, His humiliation, death, exaltation, saving of many, glory of Israel, and, again, return to the Remnant. "Listen, 0 isles, unto me," is one of the keys in this, for, in fact, only in Christ can the isles be thus brought in, whether during the absence of Israel (lo-ammim) or when Israel also is gathered, as is supposed here, as to the prophetic import of this; for direct vicarious efficacy is supposed for them in chapter 53, yet warranting call to the Gentiles in virtue of the rights of Christ, "Though Israel be not gathered," quad nota, for here the ministry of Paul, and, after him, of this dispensation, comes in.

And note here, in passing, gifts are not merely Pentecostal, founded on the exaltation of Christ the Man, but connected with the unity of the Body with Christ. For Paul's commission was, distinctively, "Though Israel be not gathered." He became one "born out of due time," as though that was in him only. Peter was not so; he was as if the promises were accomplished, or accomplishing for the Remnant, before the exaltation of Israel among the Gentiles. He had his mission founded on this—Messiah exalted, and the promise of Joel, before the day, accomplished. So, also, he proposes the return of Messiah. Hence it is evident that the mystery of the Church was a properly new revelation, not an accomplishment of promise, as all Peter's service. "God hath accomplished to us their children," as Paul says himself—"according to the righteousness of God our Savior."

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 58

We have another prophecy from this chapter to the end of chapter 60. It is properly the spirit of prophecy which speaks of the moral state of the people before Jehovah. If this had not been their then state, it could not have been addressed then to them. So Paul uses it to convict the Jews, as such, but it treats of their latter end when again in their land, "while it is yet called to-day." Thus this chapter charges them with their sins, supposes profession and form of piety, with evil. Whereas, were it true in the Spirit of grace, and real love to the poor of the flock, they would have enjoyed the favor of the Lord, and He would have given them the heritage of Jacob their father.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 59

The state of ruin (which, after all, in those days will be felt by all) is here accounted for. The Lord's arm was not shortened, His ear not heavy, but their iniquities had separated between Him and them.

In verse 12 The Spirit of prophecy becomes a Spirit of confession, and weighs in sorrow its extent, and so rises (v. 15) into the necessity of the Lord's intervention, for man there was none. Therefore His arm brought salvation, His righteousness sustained Him; compare chapter 51. Thus His glory became, in action, necessarily grace, though in the execution of judgment against the wicked. This makes the difference from glory in grace, in this dispensation. Thus the name of the Lord is known from the West, and His glory from the rising of the sun. The Gentiles will be judged.

The specialty of Jerusalem is then brought out in this deliverance. The enemy comes in like a flood—the Spirit of the Lord lifts up a standard against him, quod nota, for here is a work of the Spirit before the Redeemer comes to Zion. Then the Redeemer comes. Thenceforth the Spirit in the prophet, and in Christ, for it was the Spirit of Christ in them, and the words which Jehovah had put in His mouth (for He whom Jehovah had sent, speaks the words of Jehovah) would not depart out of the mouth of Israel, the Remnant with whom Christ is here identified. The prophet being thus addressed, "nor from his seed"—for such they are accounted, children God had given him, a seed who should serve Him, keeping the words of Jehovah, by Christ, forever—the Spirit upon them, and Christ's words in their mouth forever—this was their state.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 60

We have here not the moral state only, but the glory of Jerusalem as to her own (v. 4) then as to the Gentiles, as to the Lord Himself, her glory, and that everlasting—her people all righteous—the branch of Jehovah's planting, that He might be glorified. She was the place of Jehovah's feet. His sanctuary would be established there, and all woods of cost brought for its embellishment, even from far. He Himself would be her Sun, her everlasting Light. Note it was to be her light. The Gentiles were to come to her rising. The comparison with Rev. 21:22, is evident in all its parts, but there there is no temple. It is not the place of God's feet—He is the Temple there, and the Lamb.

Notice the difference between the heavenly Jerusalem (Rev. 21 and 22) and the Jewish, or earthly, given in this and the following chapter, not only in the difference of immediate glory, but the former is risen in glory (of righteousness and true holiness)—all grace. Most blessed is the account! Read and study it yet! Also put together what is the portion in the city (Rev. 22) with what the city is. Grace and glory be unto Him who has given, and made it! (2 Cor. 1:20). Nothing can be more blessed than the picture there (Rev. 21 and 22) of matured holiness in grace, and this brought out into accomplishment in itself, and then overflowing in grace towards others. The tincture of grace runs through it all. Adam was complete in that little sphere, so blessed, but then it ended; blessed as it was, there was no flowing out there. It was not the matured blessedness of communion—unity with the fullness of God through grace. In Jerusalem there shall be display of glory, but glory suited to the dealing with them. Righteousness shall be its character. But the Church! The Church knows grace. My God, what hast Thou done in Christ, given in the Cross! What hast Thou given us in the revelation of Thyself! May the secret of God be in our souls! May He be our secret! And, my God, Thou knowest the rest, may I know it, have it! Oh! that I might, may be kept there, and that be kept with me, through grace! That is what I pray for, but I say, "Thy will be done." May the fullness and grace of Christ be exalted!

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 61

Here we have that which especially—characterizes this dispensation—the Person and character of Him who is the great instrument whereby it is effected, and as were stated accordingly in His teachings, as well as His full manifestation with the fruits as dispensationally shown.

10. Christ, in Spirit, speaks in the name of Jerusalem, and His people.

Christ takes up the character of messenger of glad tidings to Jerusalem, to Zion. He is anointed of the Lord Jehovah to this purpose, to comfort thus the mourners. We know that the Lord Jesus cites this up to "Acceptable year of the Lord." He could not yet say "The day of vengeance of our God." But without this distinction, yet made, which involved (as we shall see, further on) the judgment of the mass of the nation, and its new creation, all the results of this message, and interference in grace, are recounted, so as to make "righteousness and praise to spring forth before all nations." All will have seen that they are "the seed which Jehovah has blessed" these mourners, now more than comforted, instruments of praise.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 62

In this chapter we have Christ's intercession, His putting the spirit of intercession in the watchmen on her walls (The Lord grant it to the Church—His Church!) and the effect is defined, for He will not cease till all is accomplished, and He sets the watchmen in the same position.

8. The oath of the Lord, now revealed, secures the blessing forever, and this in face of the world.

Note here, there is a Remnant, having the Spirit of Christ viewed as a Jew, who are the Lord's remembrancers till He bless Zion fully.

This chapter calls out the special supplication of the Spirit, as in the prophet, for the Remnant, calling also upon those in whom the Spirit was to exercise this function, on the declaration of the Lord's promise associating it with the coming of Him who should come. In the list of mercied they are brought together—the Remnant, people, city, and Messiah the Lord.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 63

To verse 6, this chapter declares the manner of its accomplishment—that He found none of the people ready to assist Him, and He trod the wine press of vengeance alone, on the infidel peoples; it would seem that it was of them, not including the Jews. There was ein-ish (no man) with Him, am-mim (of the peoples). So the LXX, kai ton ethnon ouk estin aner met'emou (and of the nations there is not a man with Me), and I think, the reason for their not being called go-im (nations) is evident. From verse 7, this naturally calls out the expression of the continuity of the Lord's love and kindness towards Israel, recapitulating the necessitude of the Lord's love, and calling for exercise of it upon the ground of its former manifestation, drawing out in chapter 64 the earnest intercession of the Remnant in Spirit, i.e., the Jews, with the Lord of its salvation.

To the end of this verse we have the day of vengeance, in which Messiah, the Lord Jesus, executes vengeance in Bozrah against the peoples, according to chapter 61:2—alone, amidst the peoples, in this work.

This commences another subject—the holy and humble expression of the Spirit of grace and truth in humiliation, acknowledging grace and owning their state and evil, and counting on the favor of God towards His people, while owning all their desert in evil. This goes on down, to chapter 64: 12.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 64

It is well to note the words "me," and "us," and "them," which are found in this address, showing the manner in which the Spirit of Christ identifies Him with, and yet speaks for and in the people. First, the Lord will count upon His people, for He saw and enters into their affliction. In chapter 63: 15, "Me," for He recognizes this grace in confessing their infidelity, and will now confide in Jehovah, whatever their condition, and Christ can say "Me," and "them," and "the people of thy holiness" (v. 18), and therefore demand the intervention of God, notwithstanding the wickedness of the people, for none has known what awaits him who, in confidence works righteousness. Further they would be but as "clay in the hand of the potter," chap. 64: 8. And they present the sorrows of the people, the "holy and beautiful house," "the holy cities," to the eyes of Him who had formerly delivered them. Would He yet refrain Himself, yet hold His peace? But this appeal opens out the occasion for the Lord to reveal His definitive judgment, and His ways in general, and how His grace had acted.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 65

Here we have a distinct revelation of the intermediate operation of God's grace, its reasons and principles. The application of the first two verses, though Paul might well feel willing to stop there, are too well known to need comment. We have then the contrast between the natural people of the Jews and God's elect, with the inheritance now to be fulfilled to these. The identification too would appear of the former with the spirit of infidelity manifested in the latter days, giving them the general corporate character, and their portion whose spirit and infidelity were thus and then manifested under the eye of the prophet, even in those days, and thus therefore applied to their consciences, for their rejection was now beginning.

We have then, first, grace to them "that sought him not," and that "asked not after him"—a nation not named by His name Inconceivable patience with a rebellious people that walked in the way of their own thoughts! Jehovah then declares His judgment, the judgment He is forced to execute on the iniquities of them and their fathers.

8. Here the Remnant is separated. Jehovah acts in His name of might and majesty, and He brings forth out of Jacob and Judah (out of all this evil) for He is supreme, a Seed, an Inheritor, His elect, His servants. Here the names of Jesus are given, attached to the Remnant, and peace and security shall be for His people that have sought Him, for it is not now, as verse 1, for the Gentiles, though grace more wonderful yet, nevertheless, as to His people led to seek Him.

11. He reverts to those whom He judges, and contrasts them with the servants, and, as a whole, they are entirely set aside, and His servants called by another name, and God's promises are thus accomplished, and an answer, beyond their thoughts, given to the demand; chap. 64. It was a new creation, and pure grace of the creating supremacy of God, but accomplished all His promises. To the end of chapter 65 this state of things is described—the result of an entirely new establishment and order in heaven and earth. It was a system of secure earthly blessing, and of judgment withal, so that evil was not permitted, God rejoicing in His people and joying in Jerusalem. The actual judgment which introduces it is given in the next chapter.

Notes on Isaiah. Chapter 66

The forms of piety will be among the Jews-the House, and sacrifices-but the Lord rejects them all. He looks, in His elect, to a humble and contrite spirit that trembles at His Word. They were despised by those who abused His name, but, from the temple and city they trusted in, the Lord judges them, and Zion then brought forth her children, and was blessed and glorified. The Lord comes to do this (v. 15)—assembles all nations-pleads with all flesh, with "fire and sword"—the slain are "the slain of the Lord."

The end of this chapter presented considerable difficulty- to know who it was that escaped of them—Jews or Gentiles? But there is an intentional mixing, or leaving of the confusion that they have made. I had not sufficiently regarded the persons addressed as "you." There is a residue distinct among the Jews, before the judgment, from the mass, and of the mass others are spared as a residue. But these last were all mingled together, and with the wicked Gentiles also. "Ye" and "your," all through the chapter, designate those who are spoken of as "trembling at God's word," while nothing was decided. Then it is said "your joy," "they shall be ashamed." Then the Lord "renders recompense to his enemies."

13, 14. "Ye shall be comforted"—"His servants," see chapter 65: 13. Also " indignation against his enemies."

15, 16. All flesh is to be judged.

17, 18. The character of the Jews who have turned away, and become enemies. They are known, and the Lord provides for His own glory (they were not witnesses to it, though they said, perhaps, "Let the Lord be glorified") all flesh should come and see it.

19. They that are spared of the Jews, who were joined to the Gentiles (for though two were in one bed, one should be taken and the other left) perhaps Gentiles also, seeing the judgment was on "all flesh," would go and declare the Lord's glory among the Gentiles (but this was not, properly speaking, the faithful Remnant) and the Gentiles shall bring "your brethren."

22, 23, 24. We have the contrast between the unbelieving Jews and the Remnant, shown again with the force of the terrible judgment of God. The contrast, all through, is between the Remnant and the unfaithful; the assembly of the nations comes in by the bye, to show to them, in judgment, the difference between the faithful and the other Jews—those who mourned in Zion, and those who haughtily joined the Gentiles, and apostate, and despised them. And thus, while Israel failed to be witness, and, on the contrary, joined the Gentiles, and thus left nothing to the faithful who could not lift up the mass, but to mourn and tremble at God's word, God provides for His own glory, and makes the Gentile understand the difference in judging those who were joined to them, and setting up those who, desirous of His glory, were impeded by the evil from accomplishing it, or doing other than mourn. Their brethren were brought-all flesh should come—their "name" and "seed" should remain, and the rest should be an abhorring to all flesh; only some would have escaped to tell the tale of this judgment, and bring up the others scattered far and wide (brethren of the faithful), and cause the Gentiles to come up to see the glory of the Lord, and the distinguished blessing of this residue in Him-the glory they had loved and desired. So, changing heaven for earth, will it be for the faithful Remnant who love the glory of Christ, and mourn, in the Church, as to the Church itself. "You" and "them" these, are the residue, and the other Jews. These other Jews join the Gentiles, and are mingled up in their evil, perhaps, though they have their own proper, and if Gentiles are spared of those with whom they are mingled, it is accidental and of grace by the bye. The Jews spared are forced to be the witnesses of the acceptance, and right judgment of those they had despised, but who are now comforted, and owned of the Lord-the others, transgressors, were an abhorring to all. The Remnant in the Church, which is faithful, which has kept the word of God's patience, will be kept from the "hour of temptation which shall come," etc., and those "who call themselves Jews but are not" shall own that God had loved them-this faithful Remnant.

This chapter is very instructive and solemn too, light being thus shown on it; verses 6-16 are a sort of proclamation—verse 17 resumes the question between "you" and "they." Verses 8-15 of chapter 65 give the revelation of the two classes among the people—chapter 66 gives the consequences—their state in general, and the Lord's ways having been given in answer to the appeal of chapters 63 and 64.

The Assyrian

AND now more particularly for the Assyrian.

The first general threat as judgment on Ahaz, Isa. 7, is the Assyrian, verses 17 and 20. Immanuel is promised as the Hope of Israel, but the Assyrian is to come up-days, such as had never previously visited the people. In chapter 8 this is opened out. The Land is treated as Immanuel's, but, inasmuch as the people despise "the waters of Shiloah which go softly, and rejoice in Rezin and Remaliah's son," the Assyrian reaches to the neck, and fills the breadth of Immanuel's land. And again the Remnant are called upon to trust in the Lord, who should be for a sanctuary, as for a stone of stumbling. Note also the way this identifies the Remnant, connected with Christ, and the whole history of the people of the Jews, and, with this, read Peter's first Epistle, chap. 2: 8, and compare Isa. 28, and again 1 Peter 3:14, 15. And clearly in the end of this prophecy, Isa. 9:6, we have the Messiah, Christ, recognized by and in Israel on the throne of David, and the glory to come.

But these chapters are important as showing that the Assyrian is the grand enemy whom God has in view, as coming against Israel or Immanuel's land as such. There may be a confederacy with which His people are to have nothing to do, and a covenant with hell perhaps, but the Assyrian is the enemy and scourge, temporally, of the land and people. The rest who are not disciples, a believing Remnant, will be in the state of chapter 8: 21. Further, it would seem clear that, though there has been a special accomplishment, as we have seen (but applied only to Jewish Christians, for the citations are Hebrews, and 1 Peter) yet that the Remnant are treated by Christ, according to the prophetic Spirit, which is the principle of His relationship with the Jews, until He be king (save that He is High Priest, hidden and unknown-like Moses on the mountain-now within the veil, while we know and are united to Him, the Church, the veil being rent, but upon their hearts). But the Remnant are treated, in that day, as His disciples, and the children, which God has given Him, for signs and wonders to both the houses of Israel. And while we have, as above, much higher privileges, and the Christian Jewish Remnant, also, still the passages could be applied to them, as being in a place which the latter-day Remnant will decidedly have also, in which God will view them also, though if losing life here by suffering, surely to be rewarded with it then.

But it is evident this prophecy takes in the whole, from the failure of the house of David in Ahaz, across Christianity owned as a Jewish Remnant, or a Jewish Remnant treated as Christ's disciples, on to the time when Christ is owned publicly by, and as born to, the Jewish nation. The law and the testimony is the rule, also remark, though amongst His disciples. Christ is the answer to the Assyrian. Chapter 6 to 9: 7, is all in parenthesis, chapter 6 being the judgment on the people in connection with the Lord's glory morally, and chapters 7, 8, and part of 9, the circumstances connected with the Land-promises, the house of David, and its results. Note also chapter 8: 9, supposes the assembling of all the peoples.

In general, the present judgment is at the end of chapter 5. They have despised the law and the testimony, the Lord has smitten them, but this would not do, and He has brought the nations upon them. In general, verse 30 presents the condition specially set out at the end in chapter 8: 21, 22, etc. But it is resumed in detail in chapter 9: 8, and the history of the stretched-out arm begun with the nations, who commenced their inroads, though the house of David was there, Syrians, Philistines, etc., and all this is pursued again to the Assyrian.

Chapter 10. Up to this His anger is not turned away. But now the Assyrian is "the rod of his anger" (umatteh-hu, and it is a staff), i.e., "the staff that is in their hand which is mine indignation," or "the staff is in their hand, mine indignation." The hu (it) is demonstrative, including the mat (staff) substantive. God sends him against an hypocritical nation, but he boasts himself against Him that hews therewith, and the Lord judges him. Israel leans no more upon him that smote him The Remnant returns to God (again applied, in Romans, to the Remnant of Israel of that day because they took the character of Remnant then fully). The people that dwelt in Zion were "not to be afraid of the Assyrian," though he lifted up his rod after the manner of Egypt (to wit at the Red Sea, I apprehend) but the indignation ceases, and the Lord's anger in their destruction. God's rod shall be upon him, after the manner of Egypt, too.

We have here, certainly, the last days, see verses 20, 21. At the same time an inroad of the Assyrian, of which God's people, which dwells in Zion, is not to be afraid, and which is terminated by a judgment on the Assyrian, in which the indignation is closed, for he had been the instrument of it. He uses His rod and His staff. In chapter 14, the Lord will yet "have mercy on Jacob." Jacob will have rest, triumph over Babylon, and her king fallen and destroyed. And the Lord will break the Assyrian in His land and on His mountains, that is the purpose purposed on all nations. Compare with this, Nahum 1:11, 14, specially for the identification; verse 13, and note the final character of this judgment, verses 12, 14 and 9, and also 5, 6, 7 and 8. We see how great and general the day is, though the Assyrian be, finally the actor in it.

In general, it is the inroad threatened of God, but associated with or preceded by the nations coming up. But at the time that God shows Himself in favor of His people, though he reached even to the neck, it was the character of the Assyrian's inroad, historically, and typically, for in the threats we have read, it is identified with the final deliverance and the ending of the indignation. In Micah, we have a positive application of this to the Lord Jesus. In chapter 5: 4,.5, etc., after speaking of Babylon first, as in Isa. 14, and spoken of the many nations who are now gathered against Zion, but whom the Lord gathers together as sheaves to the threshing-floor, the Assyrian is singled out, and put in relief; and, showing what had happened to Christ, and how they had been given up in consequence, so that we can have no doubt of its going beyond an historical statement as to Hezekiah. He is the Peace, when the Assyrian comes into the land,, and study, verse 4. Further the land of the Assyrian is itself' attacked and wasted by the leaders of Israel.

We have then to consider Isa. 28 and following chapters, which open much of the details of this subject. First, in chapter 28, we have Ephraim overflown, but "scornful men" dwelling at Jerusalem, who have "a covenant with death and hell." But they would be trodden down by "the scourge." It is perfectly clear this is not Hezekiah, for the circumstances are the contrary. Chapter 29, God "encamps against Ariel." There are mounts and forts (which Sennacherib was not allowed to make; see Isa. 37:33) but the multitude of the strangers would be as small dust and chaff, arid, of the nations that distress Ariel, as a "dream of a night vision." God visits from Heaven.

The same general truth is in Micah, only there Zion arises and threshes. Yet, at this time, there is entire incapacity to know the mind of the Lord, or to understand the revelation He had given. Therefore He confounds the wise, and delivers Himself. Here; therefore, we have again the multitude of nations come up against Zion. The sure foundation having been laid there, and he that believeth not making haste, and complete and final deliverance Auld then be afforded. Jacob would no more wax thin.

Hitherto we have only had the multitude of nations, and the condition of Israel—Ephraim overwhelmed—Jerusalem in the hands of scornful Men—and the scourge passes through—none that understands, save the Remnant always who believe in the Stone laid in Zion, quod nota.

In chapter 30, they go down for help into Egypt, and after the promise of all deliverance from the Lord, at the close of the most dismal circumstances and rebellion. It is "the Name of the Lord coming from far," to sift the nations, etc. And the Lord's glorious voice shall be heard, and the Assyrian is beaten down who smote with a rod, for the Lord's rod is upon him, as in chapter 10:24-26. In chapter 31 They go down to Egypt—in chapter 30 it was rather their state of mind, and the counsel they took—here, the act. But all this shall fail—helpers and holpen—and the Lord shall be like a lion surrounded by shepherds. And then shall the Assyrian fall, the Lord's fire being in Zion, and His furnace in Jerusalem purifying the people, but consuming the enemies. Hereupon, in chapter 33, which seems to speak, but not definitely, of the same enemy (the nations are there) we have Zion delivered, and in chapter 39 the nations summoned, and a sacrifice offered in Idumea, and all the chiefs brought down; compare chapter 63. It is not said that the Assyrian is there, but though he falls, he is said to flee from before Zion. If it be the Northern army, of Joel, he is driven eastward. All nations there, also, are gathered in connection With the Northern army. The same general truth of all nations is found in Zechariah and Zephaniah.

We have yet Psalm 83, where we find Edom and others—Assur joined to cut off Israel from being a nation. In Zephaniah, of which there may have been a partial fulfillment in the conquests of Nebuchadnezzar, we find Assur destroyed, and Nineveh wasted, but this is in that land.

It remains to be inquired if the king of the North, of Daniel 11, be the Assyrian. He will plant his tabernacle, after conquering Egypt, in Jerusalem, on tidings from east and north, and come to his end, none helping.

"Tophet is ordained of old." Speaking of the Assyrian, and the king also, they seemed, in general, to be judged together, i.e., nearly at the same time, and in the great uproar of nations, which the Lord quells. Compare, also Isa. 21 and 22, where, after the taking of Babylon by Elam and Media, the daughter of His people also is spoiled, Elam bearing the quiver and Kir uncovering the shield, when the key of the house of David is laid on Hilkiah's shoulder, to be a glorious throne to His Father's house.

Isa. 7, 8 and 9:1-7 require a little more attention. We have the king of Assyria whom the Lord brings up; next, the family of David is despised, and the Lord makes Assyria flow over to the neck, filling the land. There is a general association of the peoples, who will be broken in pieces, but the Spirit of Christ warns His people against a confederacy. They are to sanctify the Lord Himself. He shall be a Sanctuary, but for a Stone of stumbling. The disciples are separated, and the Spirit of Christ in the Remnant waits on the Lord. He, and the children the Lord has given Him, are for a sign. There is darkness and trouble, but then great light, for a Son is born to them; compare Rev. 12 Here the subject is still the Assyrian, and the Son born. There are confederacies in Israel when the peoples come up. Hence, though Antichrist be not excluded from the troubles, the peoples, in general, and the Assyrian, are directly spoken of. We have perfectly the same elements, as elsewhere, as to this prophecy.

Note, also, it is the king of Assyria who takes prisoners the Egyptians and Ethiopians.

Note, further, as to the connection between Isa. 5 and Jo: 8, though Israel and Judah be distinguished, "all Israel" is the subject of the prophecy. In chapters 7, 8, on to 11:7, we have the house of David parenthetically, in order to introduce the history of Christ, from the infidelity of Ahaz up, going through His rejection and the Remnant to His manifestation in glory, as the Son born to the people in chapter 9: 7. Chapter 6 is the special blinding of the people, in view of the glory of the Lord. Chapter 5: 30 connects, or resumes, with particular details based on the history of Ahaz in chapter 9: 8, going on to the end of chapter 12. The Assyrian and the confederacy of nations is judged, in view of the Son of David—Immanuel; and the Remnant in Judah in chapter 8, in view of the people, and the public results of the manifestation of the Lord, in chapter 10.

I return to my earliest, though imperfect, thoughts as to the Assyrian first taking the city, and then, after Christ's coming in, being destroyed on the mountains of Israel. There may be difference of association involved in these two cases. Thus, in Psa. 83, we have Assur joining with Edom, Moab, etc.- the nations surrounding Palestine. This is in the Book which speaks of the general lot of Israel. In Micah, Christ is the Peace when He comes into the Land. In general, the taking of Jerusalem is spoken of in connection with the assembly of the nations, as in Zechariah. The wish, in Psa. 83, will be accomplished, but the manner of it must be sought elsewhere. The judgment of Assur, and the judgment of Edom, are both connected with the judgment of the nations or peoples with Edom, it is clear, see Isa. 63 and 34, and for the Assyrian, chapter 14. They are connected in a general way in chapter 30: 28, 31.

I conclude that Ezek. 38; 39, and Isa. 14:25 are the same. Both involve the judgment of all the nations. Probably also Isaiah 10:24 refers to the same period. I suppose, also, chapter 30: 28, 31. If we turn to Joel, we find the Northern army judged, and all nations too.

The question remains, who takes Jerusalem? This is connected also with the assembling of all nations; see Zech. 14:2 and 12: 3. It is not the inroad of Gog, as such, for he falls on the open field. Yet the Assyrian is the "rod of God's anger" (and see chapter 31: 8), "and their staff his indignation." We may easily understand that the part of Assyria in this matter is kept out of sight, on account of the early historical application of it to Sennacherib.

It would seem that Jerusalem will be taken by the Northern army. Thus much at least-the king of the North, who overflows and passes over, sets the tabernacle of his palaces in the glorious, holy mountain. Perhaps he had already made his inroad there; Dan. 11:40, etc. In Joel 2 and 3, they "run to and fro in the city." The Northern army is afterward removed (chap. 2: 20), when they cry to God. I doubt that Jerusalem is taken after this. Then in Isa. 28 (and hence to the end of chapter 35, is most important to read on this subject—it is just the detail which is given of this part of Israel's history) Ephraim is overflown. The covenant of the scornful men at Jerusalem, who rule there, do not fear, because their covenant is "with death and hell." Yet the scourge does reach to them, and they are trodden down by it. With this, the Foundation Stone in Zion is revealed, and "he that believeth shall not make haste." This is the Lord rising up to do His strange work; compare Zech. 14, where the city is taken. The scene then is general. After this, the Lord brings all nations against Jerusalem, Isa. 29, but to disperse and destroy them. The Lord will defend Jerusalem, Zech. 12; Isa. 31:4, 5; see also Mic. 4:11, 12, and compare verse 12 with Isa. 30:28.

In chapter 28 we have judgment by the storm not escaped- the tried Foundation laid for the Remnant, but the storm reaching the proud rulers in Jerusalem. In chapter 29 Ariel is brought down, but the multitude of nations is swept away. In chapter 30, the nations are sifted with a sieve of vanity, and the Assyrian is beaten down which smote with a rod. In chapter 31 The Assyrian falls when the Lord defends Jerusalem; so, Zech. 12, of the nations, but Jerusalem had first been taken. In Psa. 83 we find Assur confederate with all the surrounding nations. Edom helps (Obadiah 11, 12) when foreigners enter into the gates of Jacob, and cast lots on Jerusalem. The king of the North places the tabernacle of his palaces in the glorious, holy mountain between the seas. In Obadiah, the day of the Lord is near on all the heathen, when Edom has so acted at the capture of Jerusalem. Jehovah's feet standing on the Mount of Olives is of the highest interest here, in connection with what has been said as to the closing of the government of the nations when Israel was given up, and the grand system of the image (then instrument of judgment) took its place.

Then the glory of the Lord went there, and the vision disappears. Now the Lord resumes this government, only we find Him there as Man, because the glory has taken the form of Christ. It exists in His Person. This is distinct from the judgment of the beast and false prophet, for which He comes from heaven. Here, He returns into connection with the earth and Israel in judgment. It may be immediately after, but it is distinct. It is not yet " sitting between the Cherubim," nor yet " coming from heaven." This last is the introductory part, as it would seem from Psa. 50, for I apprehend, verses 3, 4 and 5 are the progress towards verse 2. The nations, in general, known before the captivity, will besiege and take Jerusalem- the Assyrian being confederate, and the chief power—Gog, I suppose, behind. The Lord Jesus will then confound them, and destroy them utterly. Gog (who has Assur's land) will then perish on the mountains of Israel. A great slaughter of the confederate nations will take place in Idumea. The Assyrian and confederates, I suppose, are as a mere screen to Gog, as instruments of whose ambition, also, they act. The king of the North overflows the countries in general, only Edom and Moab escape him, unless we return to the application of this to the willful king. I suppose the Assyrian will have been for some time "the rod of judgment" on the nation (and be amongst the nations who take the city, if not in person, confederately) but at last, when he comes up, he falls by the judgment of God, and the Jews, being given power, smite the nations, and the destruction takes place also in Idumea.

But it seems to me that the taking of Jerusalem, and the destruction which takes place there, is rather before the confederacy of Assyria and Edom, etc. Whatever may have been the instruments, Psa. 74 speaks largely of what is done there; so Psa. 79 It is in Psa. 83 that we get the confederacy which would cut them off from being a nation. The Assyrian, we have seen, will fall when the Lord appears in favor of Jerusalem. There may be a question raised if Psa. 74 is an enemy from without-of Psa. 79 there can be no doubt. In Isa. 33 we have the case of an unprovoked attack, or of the Assyrian under His influence, and then, consequently on this, the slaughter of Idumea, and of other people there, I suppose. The question naturally rises, when does Gog come up? When is this peaceable state of Israel in the Land? First, it is before the final display of the Lord's glory, so as to make the heathen know that He is the Lord, the Holy One, in Israel. Only they are brought out of the nations, and dwelling peaceably, but it is God's land, and God's people, Isa. 38:14, 16.

We must consider, I think, the attack of Gog as consequent upon the peace given to Israel in general, after their establishment by divine favor. This proves that God is amongst them. His being so has never hindered the folly of the nations. Then, Israel's sin, often allowed success—now, they will learn what His presence in Israel is.

But there is another point. This concerns Israel and the Land, but there are attacks of the Assyrian which concern Zion; thus chapter 10:24. So that there are the people relieved, and till this attack of the Assyrian, the indignation had not ceased, the Lord's hand was stretched out against them; so see verse 12. So in chapter 31 it is Jerusalem. Zechariah also speaks of Jerusalem, chapters 12, 14 and 9, only there he uses Ephraim also against Greece. It seems evident, from chapters 14 and 12, that the nations come up twice against Jerusalem. They take it the first time, which occasions the Lord's judgments, for His eye is ever there. The second time, He defends its inhabitants, and gives them power. Then it is the Assyrian falls, as also in Isaiah to: 24. Still he had been, up to that, God's rod of indignation against them.

In Isa. 28, though passing through Ephraim (so that that is settled by Israel) Jerusalem is trodden down by the scourge, its rulers being scorners. In chapter 29 Jerusalem is besieged and brought low, but the multitude of nations is suddenly destroyed. But the people had no sense of divine things- they were hypocrites. But a very little while, and all is changed, and the terrible one is brought low, and the scorner consumed. This is judgment within also. In chapter 30, both the Assyrian and the king are destroyed-the Jews sought help in Egypt in vain. The Lord, for His Name's sake, now destroys the Assyrian who smote with a rod. In chapter 31, the Lord defends Jerusalem from his attack; note chapter 30: 20. Christ is, after this, set up, chapter 32. It would certainly appear, after this deliverance of Jerusalem, that the general deliverance remains yet to be accomplished. The thought of Idumwa, at the close, will be to take possession of the two countries; Ezek. 35 We have seen them (Psa. 83) associated with Assur. From Obadiah, it appears that Edom (by whomsoever the taking of Jerusalem may have been accomplished-perhaps Persia and Media, Isa. 22) was one of the company. After this, the Assyrian is destroyed, and Jerusalem rescued. This confederacy of Edom turns against them; Obad. 1:7

If we suppose that Gog's destruction is not an instantaneous act on his coming up, the arrangement of facts would be easy. Israel will certainly be subjected to the oppression of the Gentiles, after their return and apparent prosperity; Isa. 18

and Psa. 107 When in this state, Russia in possession of Assyria, and so called in the former ante-captivity prophets, comes up to conquer the Land. Meanwhile wickedness prevails at Jerusalem, but there is a testimony. It is the time of the power of the West also. (At this period, save the Remnant, they are trodden down of the heathen. The body accepts, I suppose, Antichrist as a friend.) Jerusalem is taken, and Edom thinks to possess the Land. The scourge treads down at Jerusalem, in spite of the pride of the scornful men who dwell there, who have made lies their refuge. They are still the people of God's wrath, and the Assyrian is the rod of His indignation, and, iniquity being at the full, they are given up. At length the Lord interferes, and destroys, from heaven, the wickedness that rises up against that, and the scorners are consumed. Then, the Assyrian having seemingly all at his disposal, the Lord interferes as King in Zion, and defends it, and destroys the Assyrian, so that there is no more yoke.

Dan. 8 would present a difficulty. There, the Assyrian would seem to be a power of a somewhat different character. Query, if he be not the second beast in the Land. It is possible that he may be a power put forward by Gog in the ancient Assyria (see verse 24), who shall do all this, though Gog may come up too. The difficulty is in Ezek. 38:17. Where is he spoken of? Compare Psa. 44; 46, 47 and 48, for the deliverance of Zion, and the consequences. The state of the city is in the Psalms which follow from Psa. 51 In Psalm 6o we see their position among the nations, and the lot of the neighboring countries; see then Psa. 74 (another Book). They do not abandon Zion, though it be desolate. See Psa. 75 and 76, for the judgment, the covenant and Messiah- Psa. 79, Jerusalem taken. Psa. 80; 81; 82 and 83 all refer to this; compare Psa. 85

On re-reading this, there is no proof that the Assyrian takes the city-it is taken by the nations.

Another important point to remember is, that the dealing with Israel, as to sin, to bring them in heart back in connection with Christ, is different from their deliverance by power. We have seen that in the history of David. He delivers and sets up the ark in Zion-afterward the altar in grace on Mount Moriah. The order of this, we must examine. The distinction is clear; so Psalm 13o comes in. His feet standing on Mount Olivet is in the connection, I judge, i.e., in power taking Jehovah-judgment, not to bring them to repentance by showing Himself to them. Zechariah ro closes the public, royal deliverance (as Christ rode in, and was rejected, and then a deeper scene came in) and then, chapters I i and 12, we have the moral rejection and repentance. It is to be doubted whether the repentance, i.e., on seeing, is not all after the deliverance by power. In Psa. 93-100 we have only deliverance by power. In Isa. 50-53 we have the voice of God's servant listened to, righteousness sought after. The Lord, indignant, rescuing and setting up Zion, and making His people know His name—His arm made bare, and all the ends of the earth seeing the salvation of Israel's God. But Israel's humiliation before the Cross is subsequent; so, see Psa. 20, 21 and 22—judgment in 20 and 21, expiation afterward.

In Isa. 59 we have the confession and state of things which brings in the intervention of the Lord; see also Deut. 32 This would put the destruction in Bozrah before that, seeing which produces the repentance, or, at any rate, before the reflective repentance of Isa. 53, which knows not deliverance, but forgiveness. On the latter, full blessing comes, as it seems, but the deliverance shuts out the unclean enemies; Isa. 35:4, 9. It is with this coming and deliverance, answering to the cry of the ruin of the house, that Isaiah closes. But the cry there is not as to Him they have pierced, but on promises, and as being His people, acknowledging rebellion; see chapters 63 and 64. The answer is the distinction of the Remnant, and appearing in glory for judgment. This distinction, and the notice as to standing on the Mount of Olives, are the data acquired here. The details are noticed for inquiry.

In respect of Zech. 9, it may be noticed that it has been already remarked that the Lord, in riding into Jerusalem, takes distinctly the Jehovah place, " The Lord hath need of him," and enters, and looks around. So that the deliverance would be by Him as Jehovah, yet as King and Son of Man. And such is the deliverance of Zech. 9, as see verse 14. Only, of course, " Son of Man " is not seen here, because that goes much farther (see the extent of character taken in chapter 12: I).

The Assyrian: Note

Note.—it seems that be-in...l signifies "between," and, in English, this makes a most material difference in Dan. 11:45, for, in this case, the person in question does not enter Jerusalem, but remains without—an element of the utmost consequence for determining who it is. But note it is yam-mim (seas) not yom (sea); in any case, l' is not properly "in."

Fragment: Children of God

Note. We may say Abraham was a son of God, i.e., he will have this title in the world to come, from Luke 20, where the Lord declares that in the resurrection they are children of God, being children of the resurrection, and, I suppose, this would apply to the Old Testament saints.

Born of God

Being born of God marks a new nature, and, as shown to us in John 3 the moral necessity of that new nature, from Christ's divine acquaintance with what heaven was. With man on earth, and flesh, there could be no link formed. He came from heaven, and, as Son of Man in heaven, He could say with absolute certainty, that is what must be, what is in a Son of Man that can be in heaven. But being raised (risen) with Him is something more, though it be that life, because it changes the position of the person, and implies the death of the old thing, the old man. Now this is not merely a new life, it is deliverance—the whole condition is changed. Hence it is now revealed salvation. And hence, also, salvation is spoken of as come, and ready to come, because redemption is wrought, and we are partakers of the place and title, into which redemption brings us, in which a risen Redeemer is, and we in Him, but we wait the actual bringing into it which will be our own change or resurrection, for " we shall not all sleep," which is complete deliverance from the whole condition and scene in which we are in flesh—the redemption of our body. We are in it, as in Spirit—our "life is hid with Christ in God." We wait for it, as to actuality in our bodies.

In the Ephesians, though we get the divine nature and presence, without "now" or "then," holy and without blame before Him in love, yet we do not get "being born again," but "being quickened together with him," and "raised up together," putting "off the old man" and putting "on the new man." We are "risen with him," "created again," and the like. Christ, as in the world, spoke of being "born again," a new nature, for He was then, in life, the new thing, but had not wrought redemption. Therefore He says, "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things," and then goes on to the Cross. Hence He could speak of being "born again," but He could not say "reckon yourselves dead." Now, we do—we say, "I am crucified with Christ," "Ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God," reckoning Christ dead and now risen again. We receive life in that way, i.e., as dead and risen again, and our place is in Christ thus risen. Thus we are "dead to sin," "crucified to the world," "dead to the Law." To the two former, it is having done with them—the nature and the sphere it belongs to and moves in, under Satan. In the last, the Law does not lose its authority, in itself, but we have died as to the nature to which it applies. We are not in the flesh. Hence, when it is only "born of God," we are in the condition of Rom. 7—the new nature working inwardly, but leading to the discovery of the old and our weakness. When we know redemption, we are delivered and free. Hence it is when we have received "the truth, the gospel of our salvation," that we are sealed. In the beginning of Ephesians t, we have therefore, "before him," as well as "holy and without blame, in love"; and in the end, the same power has raised us up in Christ. The Holy Ghost has sealed us, as in the place where redemption sets us, and makes us have the consciousness of the salvation, of being saved, and is "the earnest of the inheritance." Also we have Him as "the Spirit of adoption."

A New State

I am more deeply convinced than ever, by renewed study of Romans and other scriptures, that the view I have insisted on, as to a new nature and place in resurrection, as contrasted with flesh under law, is not only true, but is the great fundamental point on which the Apostle Paul insists as distinguishing Christianity. That, while surely sins are expiated and put away, " all are under sin " is what he is dwelling upon, and that wholly as in flesh, and hence death and a new state come in, through grace, in Christ. Besides the blessed fact of putting away sins, this is the truth of the Romans—righteousness being established by the obedience of Christ as such. But this, too, in contrast with law. Even as to convincing power, he does not say by the law is the knowledge "of sins," for conscience told that, but the knowledge "of sin." "All have sinned," is in the end of Rom. 3; so in verses 12-16 is offenses under law specially. Both "sins" and "sin" in chapter 4: 7, 8; so verse 25. In chapter 2: 12, is actual sinning, as in chapter 3: 23. From chapter 6, where death is applied, "sin" is the subject.

The details, I have given here, serve as reference, but only show the force of the Apostle's argument. It is well to note them specially. I add, when I have said above, Rom. 6, it must be remembered that that is founded on the great truth that we must not look to law, which is individual, but beyond it to the two great heads, Adam and Christ—one of sin, the other of righteousness and life. Only "for that all have sinned "comes in. In Galatians we have only chapter 3: 22, where all are "concluded under sin," where we have help to see what the force of "righteousness" (chap. 5: 21) is, in contrast with "sin."

It is clearer and clearer to me every day that the whole gist of the Apostle's teaching, especially in Romans, is that as the law was correlative with flesh, and so, we being sinful, a ministration not of deliverance but of death, we are brought in Christ into a new condition by the Spirit of life in Him, and that, this being by death, we are free in the new man according to the law of the Spirit of life. That deliverance is not by the law, but by having life in the power of the Spirit in contrast with flesh. The law came in by the bye, to bring clearly out what flesh was, but that Spirit instead of flesh is true deliverance, Christ's death set aside the title of flesh. The whole of Rom. 8 is the teaching of this. The new power of life—the Spirit in the power of life—has set me free from flesh and its law of evil, has put me into another existence and life. But that my conscience might be true, and God's righteousness maintained in it, God has condemned sin in the flesh, in a Sacrifice for sin, even the Cross. Thus, Spirit and flesh are fully contrasted, and the law has no place even with either, for judgment has come on flesh, not law which could make no hand of it, and then Spirit replaces flesh. This makes the "fors" of verses 2 and 3 quite plain, which are otherwise difficult, and the whole bearing of the teaching clear.

Fragments: Divine Love

I think I have remarked that it is not, cannot be said we are love, though it be said we are "light in the Lord." Love must be sovereign and free in its nature, where true and right. As creatures we love with a motive, but this is another thing. But divine love must, in its nature, be free and sovereign. Hence, even in human affections, it is not said "Wives, love your husbands”—it would, in Christian condition, be out of place. "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee”—that is another thing; but to the husband it is said, "Husbands, love your wives." And though this be in a given relationship, yet it is from the higher position in kindness and grace, and towards the weaker vessel. Hence also we must add to brotherly kindness (philadelphia), love (agape) - a higher principle which connects us with God.

Fragments: Special Work of the Holy Ghost

With reference to remarks that have been made, I would say that there is a special work of the Holy Ghost before the second creation, and even in Christ, as on the first, though of a very different kind. All work on the creature in every shape, is immediately of the Holy Ghost. But all the movement (as in Luke 1) and in the forming of Christ in the womb of the Virgin herself was of the Holy Ghost, and so was the Apostle's work. I only refer to the introduction of it here, as a new kosmos (world) of beauty. It is still true as to the individual. All was in the womb till Christ's death and resurrection. I only refer to it generally as remarked by John Bellett. Christ's place in that most lovely picture of the pious Remnant was peculiar, but it is all connected with Christ and His birth in this world, even we may say Zacharias's.

Fragments: Hymns of Worship

There has been a question of hymns of worship to the Father, but it has raised a question in my mind how far hymns are suited worship to the Father. We sing about Jesus, in whom all unsearchable riches and grace and truth subsist and are come. But can we do that with the Father? I have some doubt of it. I have looked at some hymns addressed to the Father, and after the first words, the hymns all speak of what we are and have got. I doubt that this was merely that the writer was not at the height needed for it. I hesitated as to the possibility of it before—the character of these hymns tended to confirm the thought. In Col. 3:16, they read theo (to God); still the heautous (yourselves) has a large place in the thoughts here and in Eph. 4 But this will require more thought, and is a large and important subject. Divine relationships and the true character of worship, as well as the nature of hymns are involved in it.

Note, praise is different from worship. We may celebrate the excellency of some one without worshipping him; see Rev. 5:9, 10.

Fragments: "Justified"

It is one of those striking facts which one overlooks, but which have their importance in the character and teaching of Scripture, that we have not even the word "justified" in the teaching of any of the Apostles but Paul, save the well-known corrective statements in James. Nor is "righteousness" used by them in what is called the forensic, i.e., judicial sense. We have Paul stating it too in Acts 13. In the gospel, we have "Wisdom justified of her children," "This man went down justified rather than the other " (Luke), "By thy words thou shalt be justified" (Matthew), "He willing to justify himself" (Luke), "Ye are they which justify yourselves," and "The publicans justified God." These are all in the Gospels, otherwise it is as I have said. So we have seen of the Church—Christ naming it as His building—the Acts historically as a fact in the world, and manifest—else only in Paul.

Fragments: Christ's Sojourn on Earth

Having often spoken of God's dwelling with us only in virtue of redemption, I was led to think of Christ's presence upon earth, and this really throws great light on His sojourn here. He did not dwell in the midst of any one. He came to represent God to men, and the Son of David, the Messiah to the Jews, but only that. It was not taking up His abode with us. That does belong to grace and redemption, Israel historically, and the saint and the Church by the Spirit. But He was here presentatively, and alone. The Holy Ghost could dwell and abide in the redeemed when He had accomplished His work and gone up. He was in the way with Israel to the Judge—God was in Him reconciling the world, not imputing their trespasses. This was another thing than dwelling in it as an abode. Hence in John 1 "dwelt among us" is another word eskenose (tabernacled) amongst us, and even this applies, strictly, only to the Apostles. Still it implies that He was sufficiently there for the display of God revealed in grace, which is the capital point. But His Person was all alone, full of grace and truth, and declaring God; His place, even then was on the bosom of the Father.

Fragments: Beyond the Occasion of the Demand

It is interesting to see, as to God's way of dealing with us, that His explanations, answers to prayer, all His replies to us, go beyond the occasion of the demand. Thus, in Rev. 17, the whole relationship of the beast with the woman is unfolded when the woman's case is before us. In Dan. 7 we have the whole condition and place of the saints in the answer to the inquiry, what the fourth beast was. So in Psa. 132, the reply in each case goes beyond what is asked; compare verses 13-15 with verse 8, verse 16 with verse 9, and verses 17, 18 with verse 10. So in Matt. 13, the explanation of both tares, and wheat, and fishes goes into the results when what is spoken of in the parable itself is over.

Fragments: Difference Between the Body and House

One thing makes very clear and distinct the difference between the Body and the House. One could not speak of the "Body of God." Christ, the Glorified Man is the Head, and the Church is His Body. But the House is the House of God—His temple or tabernacle.

Further Note on Isaiah

MORE definitely as to Isaiah. The first four chapters are introductory. Jerusalem being judged, all the earth will smite it, and then the glory be over Jerusalem. Then in chapter 5 we have Israel judged as a responsible people in this world, according to the government of God in it, and, in the close of it, smiting within by Jehovah, and bringing on them enemies from without. Chapters 6 to 9:7, take up the question of Christ as an introduced subject, as it historically was, into the midst of this history. He being introduced, we have first the general fact of the Assyrian over-running the whole land. Then Immanuel, as the seed in it-a confederacy of nations, but the Remnant, who, associated with the Rejected Stone, wait for the Lord, delivered by the intervention of God in judgment—and the Messiah—reign celebrated. In a word, though chapter 5 closes in itself, chapters 6 to 9:7, come in parenthetically in connection with Christ, and chapter 9: 8 resumes the general history from the time of the prophecy. God's hand is stretched out still. Then the governmental dealing with the people is carried on to the Assyrian at the end, and the blessing of Jehovah in the midst of Zion. Chapter 13 begins Babylon, which is no part of the general history (i.e., of Israel-God dealing with them as His people) because Judah was in captivity there. The only question is, Who is the king in chapter 8:21? I suppose the evil king, only so noticed in Isaiah; see chapter 30:33.

Note, in passing, chapter 7 as an instance of how literal facts are made to assimilate to typical circumstances, though they detail literal prophetic facts. We may remark how this pictures the rebellious people and the world within the limits of mystic Israel, setting up Antichrist in opposition; yet, I doubt not, literal fulfillment.

Chapter 21 seems to me to give us Babylon in its mystical character at the end, drawn it may be, as the prophecies ever are, from present circumstances. I note it, because we have the prophecy as to Babylon proper in chapter 14. This, too, goes on to the end, but gives the actual taking of the city there far more fully; still it goes to the end in the worldly history.

There are three great general facts which enter into this prophecy which is not idias epiluseos (of its own particular interpretation) and which are used to complete the scene, while the final reference is to the latter day. The Assyrian (Israel being owned) Nebuchadnezzar, his inroad, setting up the beast, and times of the Gentiles. His destruction which leads on to the last days, and the restoration of Jerusalem. Chapters 13 and 14 take up Babylon, representing there the new formed power of one Gentile beast as a whole, and goes on to Jehovah's founding Zion. This was anticipatively represented by Cyrus's action.

Moab is then judged as all within the promised Land, and while the main prophecy goes on the establishment of the throne of David (Christ) making allusion to David's history, who sent his parents there, and also to the tribute paid to the kings of Israel, but also to the fugitives of Judah in the last days. The present fate of Moab is also announced, I suppose, from the hands of the Assyrian, but it may be from those of Nebuchadnezzar, as he hesitated whether he should first go against Jerusalem or Ammon, verse 14, but rather, I apprehend, the Assyrian.

Damascus and Ephraim, chapter 17, we know to have been the Assyrian, but the chapter goes on in the clearest way, to his doings in the last day. This introduces the general history of Israel in the last day expounded elsewhere.

In chapters 19 and 20 we have the judgment of Egypt, and its healing for full latter-day blessing. Here it is again the Assyrian; chap. 20: 4. We have then a mysterious Babylon—the desert of the Sea—and Edom, where we know the last judgments are to fall.

Chapter 21: 16 declares the then present judgment of Edom, as before of Moab. We have then Jerusalem itself judged, and Eliakim, he whom God shall raise up, substituted for Shebna, the false and judged holder of the key of the house of David, or who at least is over the house. Moab, Damascus which introduces, by the figure of Assyria, the inroad of the nations of the last day, come first—they are the clearing of the promised Land. Then the condition of Israel on their return into the Land. Then we come to what is outside—Egypt—and it and the Assyrian are blessed with Israel. Then mystic Babylon, and Idumea, the final judgment of Babylon and of the beast, and hostile power in Idumea. Then the judgment of Jerusalem, but the house of David set up.

Tire, I apprehend, represents the world, perhaps to be accomplished in this place—its gain and merchandise consecrated to Jehovah, though it remain the world; chap. 24. Though it be the land as the sphere where all is brought to an issue, yet it takes in the earth, the known formed sphere, as all judged there. The then coming judgments are also noticed, as chapters 20, 21, and 16: 14.

Chapter 24 clearly unites the thought of the Land and of the earth. Thus in verse 5, we have, one cannot doubt, the Jew order of things, though it may extend further. In verse 16 we begin a series of verses which reach to a wider earth; in verse 17 we have the expression of Revelation, "them that dwell on the earth" katoikountas epi tes ges. Then in verse 18, though the Land is still the scene of judgment, yet "the earth" goes out to the wider sense; verse 21 is clearly so. But it always, I think, contains the sense of those that have had to say to God, and the revelations of His ways, and rejected, oppressed, opposed, or despised, apostatized from the revelation He has made of Himself. There is a wider scene called the world. The earth is a moral thing, "When thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness."

The Father's Name

As regards the revelation of the Father's Name, and Sonship, Christ being on earth and afterward, it is clear Christ did reveal the Father's Name, but there was nothing that really entered into the place of sons in the disciples. But more than this—when Christ revealed the Father's Name, He Himself stood in the place of Son as a Man on earth, and it was only supposing the disciples had got hold of it, " Our Father, who art in heaven," the disciples being consciously on earth; for the highest form in which the Son made the Father known was with a Son on earth. In His Person it was the same thing, but His position was only of a Son on earth, with whom the disciples were associated, and, at the utmost, according to His then relationship as on earth, or they would have been above Him on earth, which is absurd.

But now the Son is gone, as Man, into the place of Sonship in glory in the Father's house—the glory He had with Him as Son before the world was—yet as Man there, as Son. With this we now are associated, His Father and our Father, His God and our God, and we are associated with Him as sons in heavenly places, according to the glory He had with the Father before the world was. This again connects the eternal purpose and heavenly glory. But now my object is to compare it with the earthly state of Sonship-relation, which was of man on the earth, as such, with the Father in heaven (as in the Lord's prayer), is, as risen into the new condition into glory, entered, according to full purpose (the perfect thoughts of God in the heavenly relationship), into the Father's house as sons, according to immediate relationship with the divine nature.

This connects itself too with another point, the nature of atonement work, already alluded to elsewhere. We were under responsibility as men—take the Law as a measure. Christ dies for us, bears our sins, and meets that responsibility for us. But the work of the Cross did more. He glorified God there. Hence our portion is with God according to His own nature, in our new one. One was represented by the brazen altar, the other by the blood on the mercy-seat.

I do not say the Father's Name is given up in the former sense, in the note above—the walk on earth, and we cared for by a Holy Father, as so walking. But it now carries us further—we enter as sons into the Father's house where Christ is entered.

"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." The relationship is, in se, the same, for it depends on the Person, but the condition is diverse. The Father loved the Son, and we learn it, and with it, as so loved, the joy He had in the world. But He takes us there, where He is, with Him, and we see Him in His glory as loved before the foundation of the world. And He declares to us the Father's Name as thus revealed, and now dwells in us that we may know it; hereafter, actually with Him in the glory, seeing Him as He is. The Person is shown even when down here—they should have known Him as in the Father and the Father in Him. But the latter is dropped when He comes to the presence of the Spirit, and "I in you, and you in me" is substituted. The personal place unchanged—"I in my Father," its display as on earth, dropped, and we in Him who is in the Father. When mere glory comes, on the other hand, the display only is spoken of—"I in them, and thou in me." By this the world knows—by the former the love is in us. This does not hinder the Father's gracious love to us, as walking down here, being exceedingly precious.

The Throne of Grace

Note the expression "Throne of Grace," Heb. 4:16. "Throne" is connected with government, and the principles and character of Him who governs. God deals in grace, and governs in grace, but He does so according to His own nature and character—He governs. Israel, on Moses' intercession, was dealt with in grace, but that was not exactly a throne, and Israel was replaced under law. Here God governs a people who walk in this world, but, on the principles of grace, we come boldly to a throne of grace, to obtain mercy and seek grace to help in time of need. The Father takes a positive interest, as from his own heart, in the children, but an "Advocate with the Father" (1 John 2) is not simply "their Father"—that would not do—it is "the Father" "of whom ye say he is your God." The Son has revealed God, necessarily thus as Son. He Himself loves us because we have loved Christ, but it is a revelation of God the Father by the Son—not in the way of a relationship with us, though that be true. But it is a much fuller revelation of God, and in a new way. A child has not an advocate exactly with his father, but "if any one sin, we have an advocate with the Father." We have communion with the Father and with the Son, but it is with God who is Light. On sinning and getting out of communion, the nature of the revelation is not changed to put me under Law and Jehovah, but restoration is needed according to its nature.

Remark, here, that in John, however high the privilege spoken of, the saint is always looked at as in this world.

Note, further, that in Heb. 4, we have, at the end, three great and important principles for going through the wilderness—the Word, the Priesthood, and the Throne. This is very instructive. The Word searches the thoughts and intents of the heart—all that is working in the mind (desire) and will—as the eye of God. The Priesthood sustains, in grace, in every infirmity and in difficulty and trial. The Throne is perfect grace, but it is a Throne—absolute sovereign power, positive government though in grace, and according to the character and majesty of Him who sits there. We go there "boldly," for all is grace, and the great High Priest is for us with God.

Still the Throne rules according to its own principles, though I am sure to find mercy and help there, for He who sits there is sovereign goodness, and can bless righteously and graciously because of the Priest. Our privilege is to go there, but it acts as a throne when we do not, still in connection with the Priest.

Jeremiah

Jeremiah gives the judgment of Jerusalem and the Jews in the Land. Ezekiel, the dealings of God with Israel banished, and it is disowning, and His glory leaving Jerusalem and the Temple. He takes the Gentiles, up to the first beast, and resumes them after the last beast, in connection with Israel. Daniel takes up the beasts and their history, in connection with the saints and his nation, etc. The Apocalypse takes a further point, and herein connects itself also with Zechariah. The Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, had been presented to the Jews in Jerusalem as Son of Man, and rejected, and as the Lamb, had taken the throne on high, and become the Lamb in the midst of the Throne. In this character He exercises the power by His Spirit—the seven Spirits sent forth into all the earth, previous to His coming forth to exercise it, either as the King of kings or Lord of lords, or as the Root of David. Rev. 2 and 3 are His judgment of the Church on earth. Therefore the throne in heaven. He governs (by knowledge) the world before taking to Him His power. Zechariah takes up Israel and the nations.

Jeremiah. Chapter 23

36. "The living God"—note this.

Jeremiah. Chapter 25

26. This passage, I think, shows that the king of the North, Gog (the king of Sheshach, as I believe) has possession of the regions called " North " in Judaea, by virtue of the system of judgments which come thereon. It is not then his simple inherited possession. "The king of Sheshach" I take to be Gog, not in his original, natural position, but after his having in a great measure possessed himself of the earth, and then upon the putting out of Antichrist, being alone in the earth as against God—the sun darkened, they that are drunken, drunken in the night, see Hab. 2—and so thus, indeed, the king of all the confusion; but it is in the night of his destruction. Of the activity of this, Nebuchadnezzar seems a type—of its being confounded, Belshazzar. I have always thought Nebuchadnezzar, as conquering, to be the type of the Assyrian of the latter day.

But it appears to me that there is a point here of new light breaking in—the Gog, the Assyrian, becomes the representative of power over Babylon, when Antichrist is put out, and, though put out by God's mighty ones, he will think it is all to his dominion; see Joel, and the account of the Assyrian in Isaiah. Then, having come against the Jews, he will say, "Where is now their God," setting himself as "the man of the earth" against "the God of the earth," as the other against Antichrist—for the earth is his sphere, power not infidelity and anti-christianism, which is the distinctive point of the former. But Antichrist is in fact the inferior power. Isa. 14:12, clearly, I think, applies to him, Antichrist, but the passage which I will go into here, seems to embrace a larger scope, and to open out this very position of the last king, as finding his destruction in having all drowned in his person, except the head who shall then see that their power is gone, "none shut up nor left."

We have observed, elsewhere, the distinctness of character in Antichrist and the king of Babylon in this point of view, i.e., the virtual headship of confusion, on the destruction of Antichrist, but who holds it in power (for in this God will vindicate it as between them) but who, then turning that power against God, as having all, touches not them, the Remnant but the apple of His eye. "The king of Babylon" is not, in my opinion, used of Antichrist, which is a most important point, and opens out the whole question, and reflects light on many others; compare the connection in Isa. 14:22, 24, 25. Verse 13 shows the other's assumed dominion in his origin. He is not power but popular, the head "of" not "over," in his principles, as Buonaparte said, "I am the representative of the people"; consider also verse 29, et seq. Then Psa. 48:2 determines, I think, verse 13, and thus the whole matter is made plain. We have also, hence, a very definite understanding of Rev. 16 and 17 and the time of chapter 18: 21, confirming generally the view heretofore taken, the details not being there unfolded; see note on the passage now.

The bearing of this I feel to be sound and interesting, but there is not sufficient scope left for what passes between the destruction of Antichrist and the inroad of Gog, as in Zechariah for example, and Gog and the Assyrian are unduly identified.

Jeremiah. Chapter 27

1. I suspect the fault is not in "Jehoiakim" in this verse, but in "Zedekiah" in verse 3—that it was in Jehoiakim's reign Jeremiah warned the Ammonites, etc. And he did the same, as to Judah, when Zedekiah was king; verse 12. But it is a matter of fact to be inquired into.

18. It is deeply interesting to compare this verse with Gen. 20:7, and John 15:7. One sees that being a prophet, i.e., having the communication of the mind of God, places one in, and supposes that intimacy with Him which enables to ask and have of Him, and obtain. It produces and implies, in its nature, that kind of confidence, that claim in grace arising from intimacy, that possession of His mind which enables to intercede. Martha was sure Christ was in this position; she did not know, nor realize His intrinsic living power. And note, the Christian, so far as he values his place in Christ, is in this position, "If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done"; compare John 16:26, 27; see also 1 Cor. 2:16.

Jeremiah. Chapter 31

30. Note, whatever the inworking of grace, and however complete the forgiveness, the state of Israel in the millennium is one of strict law, only direct and personal.

33, 34. I compare these verses, and verses 29, 30, with Isaiah 60:21, and chapter 65: 19, 20. Only here dying is for his sin—judgment in this world. This would seem to be SO in Isa. 65:20.

Jeremiah. Chapter 36

18. This is a prophecy of Scripture—the spoken and the written—the same thing. The Epistles were the same—the "I, Tertius," represents Baruch. The form of inspiration was, however, different, and blessedly so. Not less inspiration, but more in the intelligence. We have the mind of Christ. The Holy Ghost, dwelling in the Church, enters into all its circumstances. The prophets studied their own prophecies. The New Testament is "We speak that we do know."

28. God's judgments are not set aside by burning rolls of parchment.

Jeremiah. Chapter 46

25. "Amon of No" (see margin). Is there any case of pakad (visit) with min (from) having the sense of cutting off? It is curious having el (to) with Amon, and al (upon) with Pharaoh. I am aware el is not usually placed with the name of a god. The Septuagint (i.e., Origen's text) seems to have read b'nah (her son) and to have left out el. Perhaps el has its force of "towards," "as far as," i.e., God's visitation of Egypt would reach as far as to cut off Ammon from Thebes; see Nah. 3:8, for minno Amon (than No Amon).

Jeremiah. Chapter 50

40. Elohim—used as to Sodom, and nowhere else.

Jeremiah. Chapter 51

In Isa. 13 we have "the burden of Babylon," as it appears to me, the whole power of confusion—Babel. Chapter 14: 25, includes the Assyrian, which was long before the rise, you may say, of Babel, in the literal history on which this is founded. Yet it is here identified with it, as the closing point of power—the " easing of indignation." Hence we learn that it is in its full, real exhibition, and closing character that it is here spoken of. Consequently, all necessary to the antitypical circumstances are brought together. The burden is of Babel all through. Confusion is to be put out and confounded. Hence, first we have the army of "kingdoms of nations," with God's sanctified ones, His gibborim—the Lord's host altogether. This is "the day of the Lord" at hand, and destruction from the Almighty; see the same thing, precisely, in Joel. The effect—"the Land is laid desolate"—the sun, moon, and stars, put out. The world (re-vel, whole earth) punished for its evil—pride and haughtiness laid low. A man made more precious than fine gold. This implies the destruction of the army itself, also, dreadfully. The heavens shaken, and the earth removed—a known symbol of the final judgment of the latter day, as in the Lord's hand. Here we have the full, antitypical character of the whole scene of the latter day, in its generic accomplishment—its accomplishment in the world, in which the host of the Lord is gathered, but gathered into punishment because of their arrogancy, saying "my hand," whereas the Lord led them up as "the rod of his anger." But the real instruments are not included in this, the gibborim—the sanctified ones—those whose pride is in His exaltation. That passage is complete.

Then we have the typical facts of the destruction of Babylon, as holding the Jews in bondage, in which Antichrist shall keep them, for it is their deliverance, rather Jerusalem's, from the Babylonians, which is then noted, and against them. "For the Lord will have mercy on Jacob," also note verse 2, the people (gomim) bring them to their place, who may be scattered, and, what has never been yet accomplished since Babylon, "they shall rule over their oppressors." Then, when Jacob has "rest," for this is the point of the second part from chapter 13:17 to chapter 14:1 (now the terrible day in which Gog is brought into destruction, evidently is past before "the rest") the arrogancy of the proud, the man of the earth is set aside. Hence, in celebrating the fall of the king of Babylon, it includes the whole scene of power of man assumed over the world. It is all one great crisis. Lucifer in this is Antichrist, and it will be found, in every particular, to be the counterpart of Christ, in his assumptions in all the characters of His glory. This was that which was the power of Babylon over the Jews. At the same time there is that which never got hold of Jerusalem, though it thought it got hold of it as a nest. The Lord broke the Assyrian on his god—the Lord's mountains, and the yoke is taken off. The Assyrian is the successor of Antichrist, in being alone in power, but does not take Jerusalem, though he oppressed the Land, which is therefore here spoken of. The fall of Antichrist sets Jerusalem free, and in fact the earth. The Assyrian, Gog, who has been brought up "with a hook in his nose," perishes, and the Land is cleared. Thus the whole scene is brought before us, giving, as the subject of the prophet's prophecy is Judah and Jerusalem, Babylon and its proper head, Antichrist, but, lest there should be mistake as to the whole scene, the Assyrian is introduced as destroyed under the circumstances which ensued thereon. The order has been spoken of and gone into in another place.

8-59-62. Note, as to Babylon, this makes it plain, whatever judgment may be as to ulterior facts, that the then testimony as to the then Babylon was a testimony as forever. Zedekiah and Seraiah, and the testimony to be then read in Babylon, clearly apply to the then existing Babylon, and Babylon was to be desolations forever. I reject no ulterior instruction here. So chapter 25: 12, where, after giving the nations round about up to Nebuchadnezzar for perpetual desolations, at the end of seventy years He gives up the king, nation and land of the Chaldeans, and makes it a perpetual desolation. The destroying mountain is to be desolate forever, see chapter 51: 26. These are all that are said. Thus of three, two are certainly ancient Babylon.

Then as to " from generation to generation " (Isa. 13:20) " Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency... shall not be dwelt in from generation to generation"; see chapter 34: 10, 17, as to Idumea, and chapter 51:8, as to salvation, and Jer. 50:39, as to Babylon. I cannot doubt that Jeremiah 50 and 51 apply to ancient Babylon. Moreover, in the testimony given to Seraiah, it is said, "Thus shall Babylon sink, and shall not rise from the evil that I will bring upon her."

Remarks on the "Antiquity of Man"*

In reading this book one can only say: Wise people often confound themselves by their too great wisdom—its narrow limits, or endless modifications always suppose it to exist. It is very natural that the unlearned, who have not confused themselves, should be surprised at the learned ignorance of those who have.

Chapter 2. " The deposits of peat in Denmark, varying in depth from ten to thirty feet, have been formed in hollows or depressions in the northern drift or boulder formation hereafter to be described." "Around the borders of the bogs, and at various depths in them, lie trunks of trees, especially of the Scotch fir, often three feet in diameter, which must have grown on the margin of the peat-mosses, and have frequently fallen into them. This tree is not now, nor has ever been in historical times, a native of the Danish Islands, and when introduced there has not thriven; yet it was evidently indigenous in the human period, for Steenstrup has taken out with his own hands a flint instrument from below a buried trunk of one of these pines." "The oak has now in its turn been almost superseded in Denmark by the common beech. Other trees, such as the white birch, characterize the lower part of the bogs, and disappear from the higher; while others again, like the aspen, occur at all levels, and still flourish in Denmark." "The capercailzie is also met with, and may, it is suggested, have fed on the buds of the Scotch fir in times when that tree flourished around the peat-bogs." "The minimum of time required for the formation of so much peat must, according to the estimate of Steenstrup, and other good authorities, have amounted to at least 4,000 years."

Flourishing around the peat-bogs may be, but in general it is not the case. The trees have formed the bog in great part. I distrust all these statements wholly as to the time of bogs being formed. In certain circumstances they form rapidly. But with all his desire for long dates, his authorities only go to 4,000 years, and man does not reach to the bottom. The lowest part was probably formed before trees were there, and then trees helped to form the rest, like a cedar swamp. In Canada another kind of tree always grows when the first growth is cut down. Swamp and bog stuff, and a peculiar grass form bog earth, and then, if trees grew and fell, as they easily do in bogs, or when hewn, they rapidly form a mass of bog, some only being preserved sound. Now thus, on his own showing, the date is, on the shorter chronology, long since the flood.

As to the ancient Swiss dwellings, we get another fact. In Eastern, i.e., wild mountainous Switzerland beyond the plateau, there are only stone remains. Page 18. "During the dredging operations on the Lake of Zurich, they discovered a number of wooden piles deeply driven into the bed of the lake, and among them a great many hammers, axes, celts and other instruments. All these belonged to the Stone period with two exceptions, namely, an armlet of thin brass wire, and a small bronze hatchet." Now there may have very likely been a ruder contemporaneous class. Near Berne itself we get into the cold Alpine region. Denmark may have been put as far back in civilization, just as Britain in the time of the Roman conquest—at least as to agriculture. Bronze instruments are not beyond Greek and Marseilles, i.e., long within the time of history.

Page 27. "The most elaborate calculation is that made by M. Morlot, respecting the delta of the Tiniêre, a torrent which flows into the Lake of Geneva, near Villeneuve. This small delta, to which the stream is annually making additions, is composed of gravel and sand. Its shape is that of a flattened cone, and its internal structure has of late been laid open to view in a railway cutting, one thousand feet long and thirty-two feet deep. Three layers of vegetable soil, each of which must at one time have formed the surface of the cone, have been cut through at different depths. This upper layer belonged to the Roman period, and contained Roman tiles and a coin. M. Morlot, assuming the Roman period to represent an antiquity of from sixteen to eighteen centuries, assigns to the Bronze age a date of between 3,000 and 4,000 years, and to the oldest layer, that of the Stone period, an age of from 5,000 to 7,000 years."

I feel some doubts as to la Tiniere, as the Rhone fills that valley too, and it is alleged that part was lake in those early times. Further, as vegetable soil is formed at three distinct heights, the dates, and even the formation itself, as alleged, are uncertain. It may easily, or more likely, have been special floods. That a tiny stream, like la Tiniere, should have raised a delta thirty-two feet, I doubt very much. How came a delta to be a "flattened cone "? Why is the Roman period assumed to be that of Augustus? I suppose the coin said nothing. All this is excessively vague. The judgment is only between 5,000 and 7,000 years. So that, with the utmost desire to make it long, it comes to nothing, unless to prove that man is not ancient, even where man seeks to make him so.

Again, supposing the data correct, which again I doubt from what I have seen of Yverdon, and the rapidity of present increase, far more from throwing up sand than from the Orbe whose water is very clear—but supposing the Bronze is 3,300 years old, we only get back to a date long since the Flood, at which period there was still the Stone period elsewhere.

As to la Tiniere near Villeneuve, I now know what this little torrential rivulet is. Montreux not Ayn side of the station. But Lyell has taken a testimony in the most credulous way from Morlot. I have it from a member of the Lausanne Society that all rejected his view of the case. He stood alone. A skull, 8 meters deep, which he would put I forget how many thousands of years off, is deeply and distinctly stained with bronze or verdigris, the distinct proof of its bronze or copper date. It is now in the museum at Lausanne.

Page 29. "The old convent of St. Jean, founded 750 years ago, and built originally on the margin of the Lake of Bienne, is now at a considerable distance from the shore, and affords a measure of the rate of the gain of land in seven centuries and a half." " M. Morlot, after examining the ground, thinks it highly probable that the shape of the bottom on which the morass rests is uniform." The judging of the time without knowing the depth is most idle work. "M. Morlot thinks it highly probable "! It is, I should think, highly probable that as it advanced into the lake it grew deeper, and took much longer time to fill up. The vast morass, between Morat, Neuchatel and Bienne lakes, certainly cannot be judged of even as being formed. There is no proof of its not being an abiding state from its mud and the nature of the ground. It is not a delta. It runs along Neuchatel lake where no delta would naturally have been formed, and where the Thiele runs out of Morat, not the Broye into it. The river goes round the hill of Veuilly, and a vast wide plain of moss, or sumpf, goes far into the Canton of Berne, then borders Neuchatel and begins again towards Bienne lake, which I know less, though I have passed up the river in a boat—thus In result we have only the proof that man is not so very ancient. Besides if Bronze was 3,300 years old, in which we have Christianity and the Iron period, it is not very evident why 3,450 years should be for the Stone period, even to the earliest. Chamblon is not above thirty or forty miles from Pont de Thiêle in the same valley, with the Lake of Neuchatel between. So that the state of civilization could not be very different.

Chapter 3, page 37. "The great aim of the criticisms has been to get rid of the supposed anomaly of finding burnt brick and pottery at depths and places which would give them claim to an antiquity far exceeding that of the Roman domination in Egypt. For until the time of the Romans, it is said, no clay was burnt into bricks in the valley of the Nile. But a distinguished antiquary, Mr. S. Birch, assures me that this notion is altogether erroneous, and that he has under his charge in the British Museum, first, a small rectangular baked brick, which came from a Theban tomb, which bears the name of Thothmes, a superintendent of the granaries of the god Amen Ra, the style of art, inscription, and name, showing that it is as old as the 18th dynasty (about 1450 B.C.); secondly, a brick bearing an inscription, partly obliterated, but ending with the words ' of the temple of Amen Ra.' This brick, decidedly long anterior to the Roman dominion, is referred conjecturally, by Mr. Birch, to the 19th dynasty, or 1300 B.C. Sir Gardner Wilkinson has also in his possession pieces of mortar, which he took from each of the three great pyramids, in which bits of broken pottery and of burnt clay or brick are imbedded."

These data as to the Nile are altogether too vague to prove anything. A brick, 20 or 30 years off, proves not the date, but that the data afford no ground. For though bricks date back 1,400 years before Christ, yet if I find that date, and bricks not used in monuments of very much greater antiquity, it shows that what was not above 2,000 years before Christ may be at that depth, i.e., that the proofs are nil. Babel was made of bricks. So bricks are found in Lower Chaldea, at any rate as old as Abraham, supposed Chedorlaomer—say 2,000 years before Christ.

Page 40. "It is clear that the Ohio mound-builders had commercial intercourse with the natives of distant regions, for among the buried articles some are made of native copper from Lake Superior, and there are also found mica from the Alleghanies, sea-shells from the Gulf of Mexico, and obsidian from the Mexican mountains." "The extraordinary number of mounds implies a long period, during which a settled agricultural population had made considerable progress in civilization, so as to acquire large temples for their religious rites, and extensive fortifications to protect them from their enemies."

Page 41. " When I visited Marietta in 1842, Dr. Hildreth took me to one of the mounds, and showed me where he had seen a tree growing on it, the trunk of which when cut down displayed eight hundred rings of annual growth."

As to these mounds in Ohio and works in Lake Superior, first it is certain it was not the Stone period, but the metallic tool times, for they are found and copper mines. But further, these copper mine works are found under the same timber forests which are found in Ohio. The timber would only prove moreover, on his own showing, " one generation died out and diversity of species " then having grown up. Nor could it be said that the eight hundred rings were not of the first growth. It is true the first growth after cutting down is mainly of one kind, not however by any means absolutely so. But if the land had been kept cleared, it would not be necessarily so at all, but the contrary. So that all this argument proves will in Sir C. Lyell, and nothing more.

The Santos in Brazil, page 42, I may pass by, saving as remarking how little founded seemingly clear conclusions are.

Page 43. "In one part of the modern delta near New Orleans, a large excavation has been made for gas-works, where a succession of beds, almost wholly made up of vegetable matter, has been passed through, such as we now see forming in the cypress swamps of the neighborhood.... In this excavation, at the depth of sixteen feet from the surface, beneath four buried forests superimposed one upon another, the workmen are stated by Dr. Dowler to have found some charcoal and a human skeleton, the cranium of which is said to belong to the aboriginal type of the Red Indian race. Dr. Dowler ascribes to this skeleton an antiquity of 50,000 years." As to the delta of the Mississippi, we have only Dr. Dowler. If it was the Red Indian he is comparatively modern in America—that is clear, as the Ohio mounds, etc., show. And the islands of mud and forest carried down by the Mississippi made their proofs of no weight whatever, no more than the "canoes of the Clyde."

Page 44. "Professor Agassiz has described a low portion of the peninsula of Florida as consisting of numerous reefs of coral gained gradually from the sea,... and calculates that it has taken 135,000 years to form the southern half of this peninsula." Assuming the rate of advance in Florida is no ground to go on. We know not what upheavals may have been, or what has happened in the interval whatever it is. It is a mere guess, and the circumstances even do not appear.

In Scotland, it rather appears from Mr. Geikie's remarks on the Roman wall, that the marks of man must have been within sixteen or seventeen centuries, for then it was those parts were under water, which is confirmed by the facts relative to the Firth of Forth. He says, page 52, " Antiquaries have sometimes wondered that the Romans did not carry their wall further west than Chapel Hill; but Mr. Geikie now suggests, in explanation, that all the low land at present intervening between that point and the mouth of the Clyde, was, sixteen or seventeen centuries ago, washed by the tides at high water. The wall of Antonine, therefore, yields no evidence in favor of the land having remained stationary since the time of the Romans, but on the contrary, appears to indicate that since its erection the land has actually risen." "Alaterva, the chief Roman harbor, was on the southern coast of the Forth, where numerous coins, urns, sculptured stones, and the remnant of a harbor have been detected." "At Aithrie, near Stirling, were found two pieces of stags' horn, artificially cut, through one of which a hole, about an inch in diameter, had been perforated." But note, this goes further, for it tends to show an old stone period toward the same time. No doubt the older boats may have been buried before, but they are connected with the same tide-way, the same state of country and river. It is not a Stone-state at the same time in another place, which may be in Switzerland, and is at this moment. But the same general period and state of things includes both. The canoes were raised by a rise taking place since the time of the Romans. He says, page 48, " Mr. John Buchanan, a zealous antiquary, writing in 1855, informs us, that in the course of the eighty years preceding that date, no less than seventeen canoes had been dug out of the estuarine silt of the Clyde at Glasgow, and that he had personally inspected a large number of them before they were exhumed. Five of them lay buried in silt under the streets of Glasgow, one in a vertical position with the prow uppermost as if it had sunk in a storm. Twelve other canoes were found about a hundred yards back from the river, at the average depth of about nineteen feet from the surface of the soil, or seven feet above high-water mark; but a few of them were only four or five feet deep, and consequently more than twenty feet above sea-level. In one of the canoes, a beautifully polished celt or ax of green stone was found."

The only thing proved by these data is that they were sunk before the upheaval, perhaps at different times, but we have only a proof, as far as it goes, that in the time of Antonine it had not taken place. The boats might be of a date subsequent to the Romans, only it is to be supposed the different degrees of rudeness marked different dates. But it is just as probable that it took place by the introduction of Roman skill as not. Stags' horns were used for the whale harpoons. And the utmost effort of prolongation only brings the most ancient to 3,400, that is—be it so—the time of the Exodus! But we get another important point here. If this be so, the Stone implement things are not older, perhaps not half as old. Some were 20 feet above the now sea-level, and five feet in sand. Their covering of five feet cannot have taken centuries—they would have rolled. The sand they are in was at the surface—about the year 500 after Christ ("fifteen centuries before our era," he says) they were five feet under it. But we have no proof that they had been even 500 years there. But this is "the Stone-period "!

As regards stone hatchets, etc., consult Rawlinson's Ancient Monarchies, vol. z, p. 119, etc.—the plainest proof of the near following of stone and bronze. It is exactly the same as in Europe, perhaps in the then extreme North more rude. And the Swiss remains at Pfahlbauten plainly prove the whole system, and even animals, in great part, to have come from the East.

His data as to Norway are without any solid foundation. In the north it takes " a century for five feet," he says. So he strikes a mean of two and a half feet and concludes 24,000 years. But who says that it was always equal, or always the same from north to south? He says, page 58, " The upward movement now in progress in parts of Norway and Sweden, extends throughout an area of 1,000 miles north and south, and for an unknown distance east and west, the amount of elevation always increasing as we proceed towards the North Cape, where it is said to equal five feet in a century. A mean rate of continuous vertical elevation of two and a half feet in a century would, I conceive, be a high average; yet even if this be assumed, it would require 24,000 years for parts of the sea coast of Norway to attain the height of 600 feet." All this is vague and uncertain to the last degree.

The caves in France confessedly prove nothing. With Desnoyer's facts this goes really further. Sir C. Lyell says, page 62, " That such intermixtures have really taken place in some caverns, and that geologists have occasionally been deceived, and have assigned to one and the same period fossils which had really been introduced at successive times, will readily be conceded." Yes, indeed! But Dr. Schmerling's caves, near Liege, are alleged, but this is only more valid because it is alleged that the drainage system must have changed since the bones came there. They have been washed in, so that in themselves they give no evidence. He says, p. 73, " The great alterations which. have taken place in the shape of the valley of the Meuse and some of its tributaries are often demonstrated by the abrupt manner in which the mouths of fossiliferous caverns open in the face of perpendicular precipices 200 feet or more in height above the present streams." "It is more than probable that the rate of change was once far more active than it is now in the basin of the Meuse. Some of the nearest volcanoes, namely, those of the lower Eifel about sixty miles to the eastward, seem to have been in eruption in post-pliocene times, and may perhaps have been connected and co-eval with repeated risings or sinkings of the land in the Liege district." Now this change of valley system is attributed to earthquakes and volcanoes—when these were, we cannot tell—supposing the Deluge had nothing to do with it.

As regards the skulls, it is simply evident that they prove nothing. The skulls are some as good, some less so, than ordinary European skulls. Page 65. "One skull, that of a young person, was embedded by the side of a mammoth's tooth. Another skull, that of an adult individual, was buried five feet deep with the tooth of a rhinoceros, several bones of a horse, and some of the reindeer," etc. The Australian gives the same differences living at the same time. All this is operose nihil agendo. It proves that Professor Huxley, in spite of facts, thinks that the monkey-like men are to be looked for farther before Elephas primigenius than that is from us. But he is a regular low Linnxist. He says, page 89, " Finally, the comparatively large cranial capacity of the Neanderthal skull, overlaid though it may be by pithecoid bony walls, and the completely human proportions of the accompanying limb-bones, together with the very fair development of the Engis skull, clearly indicate that the first traces of the primordial stock whence man has proceeded need no longer be sought, by those who entertain any form of the doctrine of progressive development, in the newest tertiaries; but that they may be looked for in an epoch more distant from the age of the Elephas primigenius than that is from us."` But it proves that skulls that are found prove nothing—that like the Nile valley creatures, so man was the same.

He says, "The enormous extent of the time over which our knowledge of man now extends." But the proofs as yet go the other way. The only point made, not yet proved, is (Tournal and Christol, south of France) that the mammoth, etc., are found with human remains in undisturbed alluvium; page 59, " Whether the animals enumerated by M. Tournal might not all of them be referred to quadrupeds which are known to have been living in Europe in the historical period seems doubtful."

As regards the bog and peat, it is all idle to judge of the period it takes in the way it has been done. It is the fashion to make the time long. If there were no water it would not grow. If there were, and trees fell as was the case here, it would, I am satisfied, make a very deep mass in fifty years. Next, in the Somme valley, the present was pretty much scooped out. But we get similar deposits fifty feet higher with the same remains. So that geology is at fault here, and its conclusions are necessarily called in question. Page 94. “M. Boucher de Perthes styled these older stone tools antediluvian, because they came from the lowest beds of a series of ancient alluvial strata bordering the valley of the Somme, which geologists had termed diluvium." They were found with bones " twenty or thirty-five feet in depth, in repairing the fortifications of Abbeville." “Thirty miles from Abbeville he found precisely the same in rudeness of make, and the same in geological position, about ninety feet above the river," page 96.

In the Brixham cave the bones, etc., were all “floated in," and, it is stated, when the stream was very much higher. But the flood may very likely have scooped it out here. The only alleged fact is the finding of the " limb of a cave-bear " at Brixham, and a rhineroceros leg-bone near Abbeville, but the mammoth in Silurian is a proof that such may have been long preserved—for ages—and if so, the stream or flood, which filled the cave, may have brought it in in that state. The time of the extinction of the animals too remains unascertained. It is certain their remains, at least of Elephas primigenius, with flesh, skin and hair, so as to be eaten, have been preserved to our days.

At Amiens the flints and bones were about 150 feet above the river at Abbeville—the same strata as there, and the same remains. Now this throws all in doubt as to the whole theory of the formation and remains. How come they (the same) at such different altitudes? Could the alleged system of formation be true? The sea had never gained there. Geologists, we are told, have discussed which is most ancient at Abbeville. But if more ancient, how do the strata and contents prove a date when they are the same? This is tripped lightly over with "the history of the valley marking," etc.

The gravel where the molar of Elephas antiquus, if it be so, was found, was only supposed to be a continuation of the same deposit, and referred to human period because of so low a level. At St. Acheul, in this Iso feet high formation, it is not said what elephant's tooth was found, i.e., primigenius or antiquus—the whole molar was primigenius. He says, " In the gravel, at Montiers, Mr. Prestwich and I found some flint knives. Some of these knives were taken from so low a level as to satisfy us that this great bed of gravel at Montiers, as well as that of the contiguous quarries of St. Roch, which seems to be a continuation of the same deposit, may be referred to the human period." "Among the elephant remains from St. Acheul, in M. Garnier's collection, Dr. Falconer recognized a molar of Elephas antiquus, the same species which has been already mentioned as having been found in the lower level gravels of St. Roch. Assuming the lower level gravel to be the newer, it follows that the Elephas antiquus and the hippopotamus of St. Roch continued to flourish long after the introduction of the mammoth, a well characterized tooth of which, as I before stated, was found at St. Acheul at the time of my visit in 1860" (page 143).

He says, " It is certain that ground-ice plays an active part every winter in giving motion to stones and gravel in beds of rivers in European Russia and Siberia. It appears that when in those countries the streams are reduced nearly to the freezing point, congelation begins frequently at the bottom; the reason being, according to Arago, that the current is slowest there. Fragments of such ice rising occasionally to the surface, bring up with them gravel, and even large stones."

At St. Acheul we have proofs of ice, so that the Siberian case applies directly. There is no proof, in the fact of their entering, that the legs, before referred to, might not have been washed in now. Their separation from the body proves partial previous dislocation—it is probable that when it was cold on the Somme the gulf stream came by to melt, and it was cold at Brixham too—if separated as now.

Further the flint instruments are the same as far as appears -no progress, as elsewhere, according to Sir C. Lyell, for many, many thousands of years—longer before the peat than after. Elephas antiquus is found on high as well as on low lands, but flints not above 100, i.e., 150 feet above sea level. But why not higher, if rain had been there, and they dropped in? " Ice-chisels, flint hatchets, and spear-heads may have slipped accidentally through holes in the ice, and inevitably swept away with gravel on the breaking up of ice in the spring "!

Chapter 9. The only remark I have to make as to the Seine and Oise, which is all vague enough is, that Elephas primigenius and Elephas antiquus and Bos moschatus are all found there—that the latter still exists, and Elephas primigenius has been found with flesh, hair, etc., on, preserved in ice. So that the subsistence of man with them in itself proves nothing. The utmost is the negative evidence of Elephas ant. not having been generally found in late strata. But it is found with Elephas prim. and Bos mosch. Indeed, when human bones have not been found with El. ant. but only with El. prim., which proves nothing, the only ground of proof is the sameness of the deposit. But Sir C. Lyell admits so little examination has taken place, that they cannot "speculate with confidence" on the " sameness of date," page 152. Now this is everything. That the human bones and flint hatchets are there, is very possible—they may probably be so—but then it is not even said that El. ant. was in either locality, nor have we any proof that gravel of the same kind is of the same date. Nay, according to Lyell himself, "sandpits in two adjoining fields, as at Brentford and Ilford, may be separated by thousands of years, yet the same deposit" (page 159) "each containing distinct species of elephant and rhineroceros." But note, these same distinct species are found in one deposit, as "near Chauny and Noyon, besides reindeer, horse, and the musk buffaloe." I only ask, what possible proof have we here of date, from deposit or animal remains?

But there are greater difficulties in the way of geological chronology. At Biddenham, two miles from Bedford, we have "higher level gravel, at Bedford lower level gravel." Both very long after the glacial period, both "boulder clay or drift, and Oolite have been cut through." But in the lower and newer we have Elephas ant., and in the higher and older (perhaps it is argued elsewhere, thousands of years, to make man date far back) Elephas prim. and different shells from the lower. Thus the ground taken, for relative dates, from position and remains is totally subverted, or the presence of these extinct mammalia, etc., proves nothing at all. All Sir C. Lyell says on this is, "But we have scarcely as yet sufficient data to enable us to determine the relative age of these strata."

Chapter to, page 173. He says, "The discovery of the most importance, is the occurrence in a newly discovered cave in Glamorganshire, called Long Hole, of the remains of two species of rhinoceros, in an undisturbed deposit, in the lower part of which were some well-shaped flint knives, evidently of human workmanship. It is clear from their position that man was coeval with these two species." When he speaks of "undisturbed deposit" in the Long Hole cave, it is merely undisturbed in the cave. Nor does he say why "it is clear " that man was coeval. All has been washed in as far as is known at any rate in other caves, and it is not stated to be known in this. In this cave relative position proves nothing. This is "certainly" it is said, "coeval with man." Now, in the same account, the "marine shells strewed above," prove "submergence and subsequent upheaval," so that their undisturbed character is more than doubtful. It may have been quietly, as observed elsewhere, but the state of things is all left vague.

Again page 175. "No proofs seem yet to have been found of the existence of man at the period when the hippopotamus and Elephas ant. flourished at San Ciro. There is another cave called the Grotto di Maccagnone, which much resembles it in geological position, on the opposite or west side of the Bay of Palermo, near Carini. In the bottom of this cave a bone deposit like that of San Ciro occurs, and above it other materials reaching to the roof. In this upper and newer breccia Dr. Falconer discovered flint knives, bone splinters, bits of charcoal, burnt clay and other objects indicating human intervention, mingled with entire land shells, teeth of horses, coprolites of hyzna, and other bones, the whole agglutinated to one another and to the roof," etc. Now in the Grotto di Maccagnone there is a bone deposit the same as San Ciro, where Elephas ant. occurs, and in a "newer breccia," as we are told, flint knives, charcoal, burnt clay, etc., are found. Heretofore Elephas ant. was found "coeval with man," i.e., with flint knives, etc.—here they are posterior! And note, it is all washed in "tranquilly" it is said, which is strange, but be it so; but the dates of time are uncertain where the knives are in a subsequent formation.

Page 177. As to Sardinia all is too vague to ascertain what the facts are—I do not even understand it. He says, "In the vegetable soil covering the upraised marine stratum, with the older works of art fragments of Roman pottery occur." Are the older works of art in the vegetable soil then? If so, all is confusion and uncertain. Assuming 21 and 1/2 feet in a century is all supposition, without any ground whatever. It varies ad infinitum.

Page 183. The cavern of Aurignac proves absolutely nothing. He says, " It was almost filled with bones, among which were two entire skulls, which he recognized at once as human. The Mayor ascertained by counting the homologous bones that they must have formed parts of no less than seventeen skeletons of both sexes, and all ages; some so young that the ossification of some of the bones was incomplete. Scattered through the same ashes and earth were the bones of the following species of animals: cave-bear, brown bear, badger, polecat, cave-lion, wild cat, cave-hyaena, wolf; fox, mammoth (two molars), rhinoceros, horse, ass, pig, stag, Irish deer, roebuck, reindeer, aurochs " (European bison). The animals that are there exist, some of them, now, as remarked already, formed with flesh, skin and hair on in ice. You have not even Elephas ant. No one can say the animals may not have been extinct in even historic times. But, though it looks like a burying place, all seems to me a little uncertain. There are seventeen persons, some infants, and about seventy animals, supposed eaten, some as big as elephants and aurochs, and a great depth of charcoal and cinders, and then the bones in some two feet of earth, not the debris of the rock. The style of sculpture is not met, as is evident. It is alleged that there is no proof that the persons buried at Abbeville, etc., had none. But if so, in the style of sculpture there is no proof of date.

M. Lartet speaks of the period of aurochs and finer instruments. He says "in the period of aurochs, a quadruped which survived the reindeer in the south of France, there are bone instruments of a still more advanced state of the arts," but from twelve to fifteen aurochs were found in Aurignac. But another difficulty comes in which shows how utterly uncertain their dates and theories are. The aurochs in Switzerland, where there are no reindeer, abound in lake dwellings, so that here reindeer is before aurochs. But "reindeer are found in the Mount Saleve" (Savoy, near Geneva), which is more ancient than lake-dwellings. In Aurignac we have plenty of both. But reindeer are "found exclusively at Savigne," with an "advanced state of art," and "still more advanced with aurochs at Massat"! " According to this view," says Lyell, page 191, " the mammalian fauna has undergone at least two fluctuations since the remains of some extinct quadrupeds were eaten and others buried at Aurignac." What does he mean? Did races re-appear after extinction? Who ever heard of that? Is it not a total uncertainty of data?

Chapter 11. We now come to "the fossil man of Denise, comprising the remains of more than one skeleton, found in a volcanic breccia near the town of Leviticus Puy-en-Velay, in Central France." Now the fossil man of Denise is "not beyond Elephas prim." so we have advanced nothing here. Besides the questionableness of the remains, for there was confessedly no rock of the kind in the place, it was alleged to be found by the person who pretended to have found it—"A peasant related to us how he had dug out the specimen with his own hands and in his own vineyard, not far from the summit of the volcano. I employed a laborer to make under his directions some fresh excavations, but all without success."

It is admitted that the Natchez bone, on the bank of the Mississippi proves no more than Abbeville (page 203), and no one can say out of what strata it really came.

Chapter 12. "If the reader remembers what was and as to the absence or extreme scarcity of human bones and works of art in all strata, whether marine or freshwater, even in those formed in the immediate proximity of land inhabited by millions of human beings, he will be prepared for the general dearth of human memorials in glacial formations. It is natural therefore to encounter a gap in the regular sequence of geological monuments bearing on the past history of Man, wherever we have proofs of glacial action having prevailed with intensity." Now there is no reason why there should be any stoppage of the human remains by the glacial period, more than of animal remains. The abundance of reptile remains in the reptile age shows preservation of fragile fossils, or with Elephas meridionalis.

But the whole theory of glacial deposits, which I do not controvert, seems extremely obscure. "Moraines, or mounds of unstratified earth and stones," I can easily understand. Boulder stones, local patches of considerable size where the ice moves. But I read, as in connection with Biddenham gravel-pit, "the boulder clay extends for miles in all directions, and it seems to be 30 or 40 feet thick." How did ice bring this? I do not see at all why the Flood may not have formed often the new drainage system, by which for example the difference of age of the valley of Elephas merid. and Elephas prim. or ant. is proved by Lyell, and thus show the new drainage system where the traits are proved to be subsequent. In Cromer cliffs (page 213) the boulder clay is stated to be from "twenty to eighty feet in thickness." How did ice bring this?

Page 231. "In those regions where glaciers reach the sea, and where large masses of ice break off and float away, moraines may be transported to indefinite distances, and may be deposited on the bottom of the sea wherever the ice happens to melt. If the liquefaction take place when the berg has run aground and is stationary, and if there be no current, the heap of angular and rounded stones, mixed with sand and mud, may fall to the bottom in an unstratified form called ' till' in Scotland, and which has been shown to abound in the Norfolk cliffs." Note "The glacial furrows do not follow the present smaller furrows in Norway," etc. When and where were these formed? Along the Baltic there are "hundreds of miles of boulder." In Scotland the ice furrows follow the present drainage, "always," it is said, "principal but not minor." Why—unless a great flood?

Page 250. "A single elephant's tusk was found in the unstratified drift of the Valley of the Forth in so fresh a state than an ivory turner purchased it and turned part of it into chessmen. The remainder still preserved in the Edinburgh museum shrunk considerably. This boulder clay, under the name of ' the old alluvial cover' is sometimes one hundred and sixty feet thick, and passes for no less than twenty-eight miles almost continuously through the Union Canal." Now what ice brought all this? Elephants' tusks found in it so fresh as to be turned for ivory chessmen—shrunk when in the Museum! "Deers' horns in six feet of clay under boulder"! All this is very unsatisfactory. Partial depositions and pushings by a glacier I understand, but twenty-eight miles is strange, reaching 160 feet deep by a glacier, and where did the elephant's tusk come from? Say it tumbled in—when?

Page 264. " Mr. Jamieson after making several measurements with a spirit level, has been led to suspect a rise in the lowest shelf of the Parallel road in Glen Spean of one foot in a mile from west to east." If the parallel road rises, either it was not a lake or the county has risen.

Note, near Ballymena in 1863, four feet down in a bog, a roll of butter in a fibrous envelope, become somewhat like cheese in consistency, was found, and a flint arrow-head near it!

Note too "Marine shells were found in Wales, 1,392 feet above the sea, but drift of the same character 2,300 feet." If this was submergence, why no shells for the last 1,000 feet? "All the system of fauna and flora " is merely tacitly taking up Darwin's system. As to epochs or their length, all is absolutely conjectural. His 214 feet in a century is gathered from present changes and, even so, questionable, but that analogy demonstratively wrong, because, where we have proofs of action from the same causes, they are incomparably greater in result, as the Alps, Pyrenees, Andes, Himalayas, etc. No such mountains are ever formed now, admitting sinking and rising. My impression is that there are rocks polished and striated on the Jura above Neuchatel. He says, page 272, "Above 2,500 feet the rocks are rough, and not smoothed as if by ice." Again "The Chilian Andes are overspread with recent marine shells, showing an upheaval of the land during a very modern period."

As to man we are not without data. We trace back his history and civilization to historical and traditional times, and now we are called on, by Sir C. Lyell, to believe that for, say ' thousands of centuries before,' he remained practically an unimproving animal, and this on data of the loosest kind.

Page 312. In his answer to Professor Ramsay, citing the Lake of Geneva, he says, "Had it been the work of ice, it would have been prolonged from the termination of the upper valley of the Rhone towards the Jura." This I question, for the mountains would have turned it—Mount Pelifrier and the Jorat—and to the right far higher and more massive ones.

The Gruyere mountains are left out in Sir C. Lyell's map, page 299. So on the left of the Rhone the mountains come into the Lake. They are so steep too that, unless in the valley where Valais and Savoy divide, I should doubt there being boulders at all till near Evian. This rather tends to make more points questionable. Sir C. Lyell surely did not know the ground.

Page 315. "At Dürnten, on the Lake of Zurich, many organic remains came to light. Among these are the teeth of Elephas ant., the wild bull and red deer." I cannot conceive what the proof of antiquity from Elephas ant. is, where existing animals, or animals existing within historic times are also found. It may have been the first to perish, but we have no proof when.

Page 320. " According to M. Morlot, there was a period when the ice was in its greatest excess, when the glacier of the Rhone not only reached the Jura, but climbed to the height of 2,015 feet above the lake of Neuchatel, and 3,450 above the sea, at which time the Alpine ice actually entered the French territory at some points, penetrating by certain gorges, as through the defile at Fort de l'Ecluse, among others. The geological formations are evidently due to the action of rivers, swollen by the melting ice, by which the materials of parts of the old moraines were rearranged and stratified, and left usually at considerable heights above the level of the present valley plains." Lyell's theory from M. Morlot here, leaves no room for the lake of Geneva having been formed. If the ground at Fort de l'Ecluse had risen, as he speaks of, then the lake might have been formed, or if the Alps subsided and it did not. But this does not answer his theory, because the subsidence was not a glacial but a melting period. Yet the hard rock of the Jura at Fort de l'Ecluse might have done this, as compared with the lake of Geneva!

To have men at the delta of la Tiniere, and a glacier at Morges is a mahrchen (tale, legend). M. Morlot "supposes 10,000 years for the Tiniere delta," page 321. (There must be some blunder in chapter 2, where we have " age.") Is that duration of deposition? If so, it supposes men to be absolutely stationary for 7,000 years, or from 5,000 to 7,000 years. If it be duration, it is 9,800 or 12,000. He says " At the height of 150 feet above the lake, following up the course of the same torrent, we came to a more ancient delta, about ten times as large, which is therefore supposed to be the monument of about ten times as many centuries, or 100,000 years... and might perhaps correspond with the era when man and the Elephas prim. flourished together; but no human remains or works of art have as yet been found in deposits of this age "! Wherever can it be? I thought I knew the country. It is "ten times as thick"—"the Roman the same," so that we have 98,200 years for two dates of men's progress, and if proportionately, and that is the assumption, 3 to 5, or 4 to 7, say 38,000 roughly, during which man " flourished with flint instruments of the rudest kind "! Only they have not been found! There is nothing like going far enough. If it be taken as one whole, not divided as the lower la Tiniere, we have man 100,000 years in the same state, unimproved! How all history denies this, I need not say. Where such might be alleged of some thousand years, others have pushed them out.

I do not understand these "delta up to the Grande Eau." The Rhone valley has mountains descending, precipitously, right down into the morass of the plain of the river. Slight torrents tumble down the rocks. At Yvorne it first recedes -perhaps the rise there is what he refers to. But no stream here has to do with " a delta near Villeneuve." I have no idea what he refers to.

Chapter 16. I doubt about the whole glacial theory, but the statements connected with "Loess" are absurd. He says "certain loamy deposits, commonly called 'Loess.'" "At the time of the greatest extension of the Swiss glaciers, the Lake of Constance, and all other great lakes, were filled with ice, so that gravel and mud could pass freely from the upper Alpine valley of the Rhine, to the lower region between Basle and the sea, and could always have passed without obstruction, even after the ice had melted." If the Lake of Constance was filled with ice, it is perfectly ridiculous to speak of gravel and mud traveling on the top of it, or on the bottom of it. It rolls off the hill-sides, and goes down with the glacier. That anyone can see. But as to its going on below Basle, it is absurd. The water may carry mud, as to mud, "800 feet deep and upwards." The river would have been over Basle and all Alsace, and I know not where else! But "moraines" there could not have been. And note, not only "800 feet thick," but "1,600 high above the sea, covering the Kaisersthal "!

The subsidence of the Alps it was brought the mud below Basle, 1,600 feet above the level of the sea, i.e., the river Rhine must then have been more than 1,600 feet higher than now. This descends to about 600 feet around Brussels. He says, "The loess envelopes Hainault, Brabant, and Limburg like a mantle, everywhere uniform and homogeneous in character, filling up the lower depressions of the Ardennes, and passing thence into the north of France, though not crossing into England. It is found on high plateaus, 600 feet above some of the rivers, such as the Marne; but as we go southwards and eastwards to the basin of the Seine, it diminishes in quantity, and finally thins out in those directions." "If we ascend the basin of the Neckar, we find that it is filled with loess of great thickness, far above its junction with the Rhine." What kind of waterfall then had it into the sea? It is 600 feet high near the Mame, crosses from Belgium to near Dunkirk, and does not come to England! It is not the first glacial period- then it was "continuous land far out north and west," they say (chap. 14). If it had been the time of submergence, the sea would have flowed up the valleys. It is not the second continental state, for then the land was higher and stretched out farther than ever, and it is said the Thames ran into the Rhine, " Ireland, England, and the Continent being united, the Thames was a tributary of the Rhine," page 274.

In the last state, marine shells are found at, say 30 feet above the sea. But when was the loess deposited 1,600 feet high, and "far higher in Hungary "? The whole thing is incredible. Belgium, and on to Dunkirk was a "kind of delta," yet hundreds of feet high! And the Rhine has scooped out at least Boo feet while sinking continually at the mountain end. Where is the loess on lower ground there than the Kaisersthal over Switzerland and the borders of the Rhine? It is, as the French say, "a myth." Some other flood may have done it, gradually sinking in the present drainage system. But this system supposes the Rhine valley to have existed, and to have filled up 300 feet at Brussels and 1,600 feet at Kaisersthal. Yet, he says, "the upper valley of the Neckar has Neckar-mud," when Rhine mud was 1,600 feet high, and Danube mud vastly higher—as if the Rhine mud would not have been there! He says "in the higher parts of the basin of the Danube, loess of the same character as that of the Rhine, attains a far greater elevation above the sea than any deposits of Rhenish loess."

They talk of levels, "grand oscillations in the level of the land—changes analogous to those on which we have been led to speculate when endeavoring to solve the various problems presented by the glacial phenomena, to account for the nature and geological distribution of the loess." But the supposition is a regular descent from the Alps to Brussels and Dunkirk. There was no Rhine mud at Tubingen in the basin of the Neckar, but there was Rhine mud at Kaisersthal—with the same drainage system; note, at Heidelberg it is Boo feet above the Neckar! "Southward and eastward of the Seine it thins out," query as to this. The Ganges is no case in point. Page 337. "The sediment thrown down by the Ganges had accumulated at a sufficient rate to prevent the sea from invading that region." It had subsided at the sea-end so that the mud conveyed has filled it up! Of this I see no proof, because if the sea had been that depth there it might gradually fill up, and the water be unfit for marine molluscs.

The loess I dismiss as a system of absurd theory, and far more like the Deluge than anything else. Hence also the "Maestrecht jaw, found 19 feet from the surface, and the Hocht remains of leaves, nuts, fresh-water shells and a human skull," as to which facts fail, as here, but which are avowedly of a much later date.

After all, they conjecture 4,000 to 7,000 years for even the Stone-period. He says, page 373, "An antiquity of 7,000 years at least must be assigned to the oldest of these remains. Between the newer or recent division of the Stone period and the older division, which has been called the Post-pliocene, there was evidently a vast interval of time—a gap in the history of the past, into which many monuments of intermediate date will one day have to be intercalated. Of this kind are the cave in the South of France, in which M. Lartet has lately found bones of the reindeer, associated with works of art more advanced in style than those of St. Acheul or of Aurignac." This is all unintelligible. He intercalates between the recent and the older stone implements more advanced than those of Aurignac.

But to return, page 367, he says, "The numerous plants which are common to the temperate zones N. and S. of the equator have been referred by Mr. Darwin and Dr. Hooker to migrations, which took place along mountain chains running from N. to S., during some of the colder phases of the glacial epoch. Such an hypothesis enables us to dispense with the doctrine that the same species ever originated independently in two distinct and distant areas, if we admit the doctrine of the co-existence of meridional belts of warmer and colder climate, instead of the simultaneous prevalence of extreme cold both in the eastern and western hemisphere." The migration of plants and fauna is only Darwin-theory. Why may they not have been original in Great Britain? The fancy of a cold range across the equator, to have like plants in both tropics according to Dr. Hooker, is a mere dream.

As I have already suggested, they are obliged to suppose that the state of the arts remained stationary for almost indefinite periods, so that even the system of river drainage was wholly altered. But he is totally wrong, and Sir Geo. Cornewall Lewis too, as to his Assyrian and Egyptian dates. He says, "Taking into consideration all the evidence respecting the buildings and great works of Egypt extant in the time of Herodotus, we may come to the conclusion that there is no sufficient ground for placing them at a date anterior to the building of the temple of Solomon, or 1,012 B.C." Berosus goes much farther back, 2,234 B.C. This statement as to Egypt is ridiculous. It is useless to notice his ignorance of history in receiving Hanno by an Egyptian king, or refer to conjectural dates connected with it. Suffice it to say he contradicts himself as to dates and delta-remains both in chapter 3. There it is estimated, though these computations are really all nonsense, at 12,000 and 30,000 years, and the flint at 4,000 to 7,000 years, and on upwards. Yet the bones found with them are not found in the delta, and hence the deltas are much more modern, i.e., 12,000 to 30,000 more modern than 4,000 to 7,000 years and upwards. And this is science! He says, "Were we to assume the increase of Nile mud to six inches in a century, the burnt brick met with at a depth of sixty feet would be 12,000 years old. Another fragment was found seventy-two feet deep. Were we to take two and a half inches, it must have been buried more than 30,000 years ago." "Assuming the Roman period to represent an antiquity of from sixteen to eighteen centuries, M. Marlot assigns the oldest layer, that of the Stone-period, an age of from 5,000 to 7,000 years."

Chapter 20. " In pictures on the walls of ancient temples in Egypt, a thousand years or more before the Christian era, the negro and Caucasian physiognomies were portrayed as faithfully, and in as strong contrast as if the likeness of their races had been taken yesterday. I have remarked upon the slight modification the negro has undergone, after having been transported from the tropics, and settled for more than two centuries in the temperate climate of Virginia." I do not see, if the negro do not change at all in a temperate climate, and that their physiognomy is exactly the same in Egyptian monuments as now alleged by these race settlers, what "lapse of time" can do. There must have been some other cause than change of climate and lapse of time. Yet he says, " So long as physiologists continued to believe that man had not existed on the earth above six thousand years, they might, with good reason, withhold their assent from the doctrine of a unity of origin of so many distinct races; but the difficulty becomes less and less, exactly in proportion as we enlarge our ideas of the lapse of time during which different communities may have spread slowly, and become isolated, each exposed for ages to a peculiar set of conditions, whether of temperature, or food, or danger, or ways of living." How long then did it take to make a rock pigeon a fantail or a pouter? It is always to be remembered that we have history, and tradition of men which gives the race an ordered history to a beginning, and these speculations are in the teeth of it; while their long dates there are facts to disprove—such as trees in alleged strata of thousands of years, which prove they were laid there at once. The whole thing is a decided failure.

Page 386. "But when they had gradually penetrated to remote regions by land or water—drifted sometimes by storms and currents in canoes to an unknown shore—barriers of mountains, deserts, or seas, which oppose no obstacle to mutual intercourse between civilized nations, would ensure the complete isolation for tens or thousands of centuries of tribes in a primitive state of barbarism." First, it is quite simple that what carried them there first, the obstacle having been no sufficient hindrance, would carry them there again. Next, it is contrary to fact, as it is perfectly well known that the pressure of nations was constant, onward, one after another. It is the history of man. Next it supposes that no part would grow civilized, and have means deliberately organized to overcome the obstacles. All the history we have, i.e., all the facts, as does common sense, refute this as having neither facts nor common sense for its foundation.

Page 388. " In the very outset of our inquiry, we are met with the difficulty of defining what we mean by the terms ' species ' and ' race.' Lamarck proposed it should run thus: 'a species consists of individuals all resembling each other, and reproducing their like by generation, so long as the surrounding conditions do not undergo changes sufficient to cause their habits, characters, and forms to vary.'" The definition of "species" presents no difficulty to my mind. It is that which by regular propagation reproduces itself. How far varieties in a species may be the will of God, and so ordered in nature that they may multiply intermediate forms, is a mere matter of fact, or how far circumstances of climate, or other such, may modify or destroy a species. But where there is continuous reproduction I find a species or kind.

"All resembling each other" is really added to make confusion, because it is a question how far the resemblance is to go. Thus, should cows have horns or not? There may be constant unchangeable features, others seemingly as important, which are not. This is a matter to learn, but where the "seed is in itself, after its kind," I get a species OR race, i.e., the like produced by generation. All the rest, such as "varying their forms," as Lamarck does, throws it on what was changeable and uncertain, and is no criterion at all, so as to lose the form of the true part. It may be convenient for men's book-classification—a mere arrangement for memory, and each student vary it—but it has nothing to do with the reality of the matter, and hence, as we see, every man has his own arrangements. The progress is, though not uniform, for the finest reptiles were first formed, and, I think, as perfect fishes, so as to upset Lamarck's notion, yet as a general idea between distinct races true; but "evolving" essentially false. He says, "There has been a progressive advance from brute intelligence to the reasoning powers of man. The improvement in the grade of being, had been slow and continuous, and the human race itself was at length evolved out of the most highly organized and endowed out of the inferior mammalia! "What he imagined is not much matter—here is a sample of it, " By repeated acts of volition, animals might acquire new organs and attributes. In plants, which cannot exert a will of their own, certain subtle fluids or organizing forces might operate so as to work out analogous effects"! He adds, "An indefinite lapse of ages."

Lamarck's believing in long periods makes amends, with Sir C. Lyell, for all his flaws—the flaws being that proof is wholly wanting. But long time enough may do nobody knows what—make, they tell us, a penguin's wing into a man's arm, that bird being a biped already! Why not? "Thirty or forty centuries are insignificant in the history of a species." How does he prove that? Because in more than that period, "thousands of centuries" if we are to believe Sir C. Lyell, "in the case of the reindeer, Elephas primigenius, and many living species," etc. But they have this significance according to Sir C. Lyell, that neither nature in all that period, nor art since it tried, has been able to produce two races, etc., or one new organ. Pretty strong significance of this at least—that the whole theory neglects facts and is founded on notions!

When he says "Time not being allowed," he is simply denying his own statements, because if time was allowed there would be then the pliancy he denies and not fixity. Nor is this all, as he denies catastrophies as producing "great revolutions of the earth's crust, and its inhabitants." Time, if any time conceivable (for he calls the period, "almost indefinite") would do, has been allowed. Yet species are dying out rather than changing. He says, page 394, "The manner in which some species are now becoming scarce and dying out, one after another, appeared to me to favor the doctrine of fixity of specific character, showing the want of pliancy and capability of varying, which ensured their annihilation whenever changes adverse to their well-being occurred; time not being allowed for such a transformation as might be conceived capable of adapting them to the new circumstances, and of converting them into what naturalists would call new species."

Page 396. " The historical development of the forms and functions of organic life during successive epochs, seems to mark a gradual evolution of creative power, manifested by a gradual ascent towards a higher type of being." "We can scarcely doubt that we should have already traced back the evidence much farther had not our inquiries been arrested by the vast gap between the tertiary and secondary formation." What is this "vast gap between secondary and tertiary" species? How comes the gap, if all is "gradual."

"The mammalia next in antiquity were, for the most part, diminutive, the two largest not much exceeding our common hedgehog and polecat in size, with one exception, the Stereognathus, which may have been a hoofed quadruped and placental, though, as we have only the lower jaw and teeth, and the molars are unlike any living type, such an opinion is hazarded with caution." After all, the discovered quadrupeds (unless perhaps Stereognathus, judged of from half a lower jaw with teeth unlike any) are low in proportion to their age. They are marsupials; so indeed I see he admits.

Page 405. "It may be thought almost paradoxical that writers who are most in favor of transmutation (Mr. C. Darwin, and Dr. J. Hooker, for example) are nevertheless among those who are most cautious in their mode of espousing the doctrine of progression."

The reason why Dr. Hooker and Mr. Darwin like transmutation and not progress is because there is nothing of God or of divine order in the former, and they fear the latter because there is order—tends to show an Orderer; transmutation merely arbitrary secondary causes. The progressionist does not, as Sir C. Lyell sees, look for leaps, nor reject them, but he sees in nature order and so finds God, even when he does not think much about Him. He believes in the order, because in the main he finds it. He sees nothing in transmutation but what is low, base and casual. There is another thing, a truthfully constituted mind rejects in it—the absence of proof, or rather the love of theory and man's mind against proofs which nature affords, as Sir C. Lyell admits. He says, "Transmutation, if adopted, will require us to hold that man himself has been derived by an unbroken line of descent from some one of the inferior animals."

Transmutation is a low, physical theory, forcing some feeble tendencies of nature in the face of the effect produced against it by what is universal else. Men see lusus naturce—big leaves in rich ground, poor plants in poor ground, and special causes of all kinds producing natural consequences, modifying ordinary states. This may produce varieties. But they know very well, elms produce elms, and pigs produce pigs, so of all the evidence they have, as Sir C. Lyell admits, and his thousand-century theories only confirm it. Hence a sound mind, a healthful mind supposes such an order, grows into it as a part of his nature formed by what he lives in the midst of, and by which rightly he must be formed. He finds men theorizing on species making, and theorizing on thousands of centuries to give time for his changes, which even so are belied by the facts possessed, even if there were thousands of centuries. Hence progressionists are indisposed to give up what has been formed in them by uniform evidence. The transmutationist wants to theorize, and the progress system makes folly of his theory, and he does not like it, that is all—of course he does not. No progress leads the progressionist to change one animal into another -that is transmutation. He holds to the truth of species because he sees and knows it is so. He believes it because it is written.

Page 410. "Lamarck, when speculating on the origin of the long neck of the giraffe, imagined that quadruped to have stretched himself up in order to reach the boughs of lofty trees, until by continued efforts, and longing to reach higher, he obtained an elongated neck. Mr. Darwin and Mr. Wallace simply suppose that, in a season of scarcity, a long-necked variety, having the advantage in this respect over most of the herd, as being able to browse on foliage out of their reach, survived them, and transmitted its peculiarity of cervical conformation to its successors." How perfectly ridiculous all this is about giraffes! Who ever heard there were once short-necked giraffes? Or how came it that we have not long-necked gnus or antelopes from the same cause? All this is trash.

Page 411. "Every naturalist admits that there is a general tendency in animals and plants to vary; but it is usually taken for granted, though we have no means of proving the assumption to be true, that there are certain limits beyond which each species cannot pass under any circumstances, or in any number of generations. Mr. Darwin and Mr. Wallace say that the opposite hypothesis, which assumes that every species is capable of varying indefinitely from its original type, is not a whit more arbitrary, and has this manifest claim to be preferred, that it will account for a multitude of phenomena which the ordinary theory is incapable of explaining." When it is said " it is no more arbitrary " to suppose it may vary and make a new species, than to suppose it may not, the answer is in the paragraph which follows, "Should we find that a variable species can no longer be made to vary," it is ordinary human deduction to say it cannot. It has been tried under all known circumstances and it does not. To assume, "it might under more favorable circumstances, or if more time were allowed" is more arbitrary. All existing proof is that it does not—to assume it might is then more arbitrary than to believe it will not. But hybridization is a strong proof against it, because out of the deduced species there is no propagation. God has made a manifested barrier, allowing sufficient to show it cannot go beyond its kind so as to form a species. When it is said "community of descent is the hidden bond"—naturalists looking for an unknown plan of creation—I do not know what wise men are seeking after, but every simple one believes in genealogical descent making species, and it is plainly stated in Gen. 1.

We must not confound the ascertaining of species by marks and the facts of species by genealogy. The forms determining species are mere guesses of science, whereas true species genealogically has its own constancy—it does not hybridize. Varieties may have been created, arise in many ways; forming species is another thing. Difference of forms is classification, not species. He says, page 439, "Among the fossils brought in 1858 by Mr. Hayden from the Niobrara valley in Nebraska, Dr. Leidy describes a rhinoceros so like the Asiatic species, that he at first referred it to the same, and, what is most singular, he remarks generally of the pliocene fauna of that part of North America, that it is far more related in character to the post-pliocene and recent fauna of Europe than to that now inhabiting the American continent." The fact of the pliocene fauna of Nebraska being more like the living European than American throws the whole matter into question—does not finally prove against any system but makes all doubtful.

Page 440. "We have already seen that a large proportion of the living quadrupeds of Amoorland (34 out of 48) are specifically identified with those at present inhabiting the continent of Europe and the British Isles. We usually know nothing of the geographical varieties of the post-pliocene and pliocene species, least of all, those successive changes of form which they must have undergone in the pre-glacial epoch between the upper miocene and post-pliocene eras."

Page 443. "If mammalia vary, upon the whole, at a more rapid rate than animals lower in the scale of being, it must not be supposed that they can alter their habits and structures readily, or that they are convertible in short periods into new species. Mr. Darwin observes that bats might have made their way to distant islands by flight, for they are often met with on the wing far out at sea. I have found it difficult to reconcile the antiquity of certain islands, such as those of the Madeiran Archipelago, and those of still larger size in the Canaries, with the total absence of small indigenous quadrupeds." As to change of forms, and animals getting to islands I have no difficulty one way or another. The truth of species remains. No one doubts the existence of varieties, or that they may become more or less permanent.

Sir C. Lyell is superficial as a reasoner. Thus as to languages, Hindoos, etc., he says, quoting Professor Max Muller, page 455, " Latin itself, as well as Greek, Sanscrit, Zend (or Bactrian), Lithuanian, old Sclavonic, Gothic, and Armenian are eight varieties of one common and more ancient type, and no one of them could have been the original from which the others were borrowed. They have all such an amount of mutual resemblance, as to point to a more ancient language, the Aryan, which was to them what Latin was to the six Romance languages. The people who spoke this unknown parent speech, of which so many other ancient tongues were offshoots, must have migrated at a remote era to widely separated regions of the old world, such as Northern Asia, Europe and India south of the Himalaya. The soundness of this Aryan hypothesis has been called in question on the ground that the Hindoos, Persians, Turks, Scandinavians, and other people referred to as having derived not only words but grammatical forms from an Aryan source, belong each of them to a distinct race, and all these races have, it is said, preserved their peculiar character unaltered from the earliest dawn of history and tradition." It is clear from all authorities they went to India and drove back the original inhabitants as far as the Deccan. In the south they are Turanian, in the north Aryan, save at the two extremities of the Himalayas. Persians are admittedly Zend through Pehlvi. Races are not the absolute question, as the modern Phoenicians preserved the Shemitic language of the former inhabitants but were Hamites. He says, " There can be no question that if we could trace back any set of cognate languages now existing to some common point of departure, they would converge and meet sooner in some era of the past than would the existing races of mankind; in other words, races change much more slowly than languages."

Page 469. "In our attempts to account for the origin of species, we find ourselves still sooner brought face to face with the working of a law of development of so high an order as to stand nearly in the same relation as the Deity Himself to man's finite understanding, a law capable of adding new and powerful causes, such as the moral and intellectual faculties of the human race, to a system of nature which had gone on for millions of years without the intervention of any analogous cause. If we confound 'Variation' or 'Natural Selection' with such creational laws, we deify secondary causes or immeasurably exaggerate their influence."

It is well Sir Charles Lyell recognizes a law wholly above variation. But I judge he is astray as to language, America and savage Africa apart, of which we really know nothing. The great body of the human race is clearly subdivided into Semitic, Turanian and Aryan. His conclusion from language to organs is a non sequitur. He says, " If mankind began their career in a rude state of society, their whole vocabulary would be limited to a few words, and if they then separated into several isolated communities, each of these would soon acquire an entirely distinct language, some roots being lost and others corrupted and transformed beyond the possibility of subsequent identification, so that it might be hopeless to expect to trace back the living and dead languages to one starting point. In like manner it may be said of species, that if those first formed were of very simple structure, and they began to vary and to lose some organs by disuse and acquire new ones by development, they might soon differ as much as so many distinctly created primordial types." But when he supposes the possibility of "older strata than Cambrian containing organic remains," it is unphilosophical, because we descend, he admits, according to, in the main, a progressive system from man to the lowest mollusc or foraminifera—things long discussed whether plants or animals, i.e., to the lowest degree, i.e., it is to be supposed the bottom of animated life where it joins plants; page 442, " The foraminifera which exemplify the lowest stage of animal existence, being akin to sponges."

But he is very wide astray in saying "a law of development adds moral faculties." "Intellectual"—be it so; but "moral," I deny, because then God comes in, and an wholly other ground of judging. The moment I get God, and moral questions involve man's relationship with Him, I am on other ground. Science is out of court—it may prove a chimpanzee's hair to be like a man's, which is not the case—I say "very well." Tell me that a soul was "development by selection," I say, "you are out of court, that is not a question of science. You are denying what I know to be divine."

Page 472. He says, speaking of progression, "It cannot be denied that a theory which establishes a connection between the absence of all relics of vertebrata in the oldest fossiliferous rocks, and the presence of Man's remains in the newest, which affords a more than plausible explanation of the successive appearance in strata of intermediate age of the fish, reptile, bird and mamimfer, has no ordinary claims to our favor as comprehending the largest number of positive and negative facts gathered from all parts of the globe, and extending over countless ages, that science has perhaps ever attempted to embrace in one grand generalization." Generalization and progression are well in a general way as an order in creation with variation added, but when "progress" means "derivation," and that beasts are derived from birds—risum teneatis.

Page 474. "Linnmus compared man and the apes, in the same manner as he compared these last with the carnivores, ruminants, rodents, or any other division of warm-blooded quadrupeds. After several modifications of his original scheme, he ended by placing man as one of the many genera in his order Primates, which embraced not only the apes and lemurs, but the bats also, as he found these last to be nearly allied to some of the lowest forms of the monkeys." Quoting from Professor Huxley, he says, " The gorilla's hand is clumsier, heavier, and has a thumb somewhat shorter in proportion than that of man; but no one has ever doubted its being a true hand. But the most cursory anatomical investigation at once proves, that the resemblance of the so-called ' hind-hand' to a true hand is only skin deep, and that, in all essential respects, the hind-limb of the gorilla is as truly terminated by a foot as that of man. The tarsal bones, in all important circumstances of number, disposition, and form, resemble those of man."

“The foot of Man is distinguished from his hand by -

“1. The arrangement of the tarsal bones.

“2. By having a short flexor and a short extensor muscle of the digits.

“3. By possessing the muscle termed peronceus longus."

"The hind-limb of the gorilla, therefore, ends in a true foot with a very movable great toe. It is a prehensile foot, if you will, but is in no sense a hand."

The whole of this reasoning on man and apes proves to me only the inclination of Sir C. Lyell and the Simianism of Professor Huxley, and the thoroughly low estimate of the whole lot. Anatomy may show flexors and extensors, etc., and make a hand, but anatomy is not everything, and a "prehensible foot" is not the least a human foot; the anatomy may prove growing analogies, but the end of formation is different. Of course an anatomist thinks anatomy conclusive.

The figures he gives prove the human brain different from the chimpanzee's in form. There may be a hippocampus minor and a posterior cornu of which nobody knows the use, but the form as well as the size is quite different. And the figures of both views of the ape cannot be exact—the division of the posterior lobe in one would show the cerebellum which is not seen in the figure of the upper surface. But the forms of man and ape are quite different. He says, "The dissection of an ape, in 1861, fully bore out the existence both in the human and simian brain of the three characters exclusively appertaining to man, namely, the occipital or the posterior lobe, the hippocampus minor, and the posterior cornu."

But further, the discussion on the intelligence, etc., proves that infidelity descends to the brute and nothing else, and that Lyell approves this. Quoting from Professor Agassiz, he says, "The gradations of the moral faculties among the higher animals and man are, moreover, so imperceptible, that to deny to the first a certain sense of responsibility and consciousness, would certainly be an exaggeration of the difference between animals and man. There exists as much individuality within their respective capabilities among animals as among man. This argues strongly in favor of the existence in every animal of an immaterial principle, similar to that which, by its excellence and superior endowments, places man so much above animals." Who in the world ever doubted that man was an animal, that he had animal passions? "Yet the principle exists unquestionably, whether it be called soul, reason, or instinct." What Professor Agassiz says is ridiculous. He confesses that he "cannot say in what the mental faculties of a child differ from those of a young chimpanzee." He asks, "What is the difference between the two?" The answer is that the young child is capable of being a man, and the young chimpanzee remains a chimpanzee with a bigger body and more strength. He says, "The range of the passions of the animals is as extensive as that of the human mind"—be it so -that is man's animal part—a remark as old as Aristotle, and found in Scripture. The brute has a nephesh khay-yah (soul of life) Gen. 1:30, margin. When Professor Agassiz says, "The gradations of moral faculties are imperceptible," he only shows the state of his own. Man may be reduced to a low moral state, but an ape can never be elevated a step beyond his state of an ape. They speak of "responsibilities"—to whom? They can only in animals speak of those of fear, etc., as regards man, which may be, found in man—but conscience towards God they cannot speak of. They reduce man to the animal soul—the psychical soul. The animal never goes beyond passions in his motives—man does. Even intellectually, as has been a hundred times observed, the animal's intelligence is, where not instinct, merely reasoning on means for the present meeting of its wants—a dog seeks the door—an elephant remembers, and connects money and sugar. But man has a creative intelligence within his sphere, so as to produce variety—acts on itself. Of this nothing is seen in the brute. Hence, even in common things, man makes progress on himself—the brute never. Assuming the ideas of these very stupid men, the progress is unconscious, and only material in the animal itself. A giraffe gets a long neck from stretching it in a famine! Did you ever see a man do that? No one denies a man is an animal with animal passions. All these men do is to reduce him to this, which is irrational. There is no sign that an animal refers to God, for we see his conduct governed by other motives; Professors Agassiz and Huxley perhaps do not either—that only proves they have degraded themselves—that, man is capable of doing; an animal not, save materially.

I am aware that Lyell quoting Quatrefages says, "Few, if any of the authors cited, underrate the enormous gap which separates man from the brutes." My answer is that on this very point Professor Agassiz has degraded himself by doing so, as is seen in the quotation already given from his "Contributions to the Natural History of the United States of North America." He seeks to prove animals have a soul from it. Now Scripture itself states they have—but not that God breathed into their nostrils the breath of life, so that he became "a living soul."

Sir C. Lyell saves his distance further, and tells us Professor Agassiz has not intention to impugn these truths. He says " Professor Agassiz speaks of the existence in every animal of 'an immaterial principle similar to that which, by its excellence and superior endowment, places man so much above animals'; and he remarks, 'that most of the arguments of philosophy in favor of the immortality of man, apply equally to the permanency of this principle in other living beings.' The author has no intention by this remark to impugn the truth of the great doctrine referred to." This sparing what not only leaves out God but lowers man—for these wretched infidels are not aware that whatever leaves God out degrades man beyond measure of comparison, for his connection with God has a character which no personal powers can give more or less—this half-approving quotation of what really does so is dishonoring to Lyell himself. What immediately follows leads back to give the probability of a connection by transmutation between Simi and man—but is he transmuted into connection with God? It is another order of ideas. He says "It is no doubt true that in both" (man and the lower animals) "the identity of the individual outlasts many changes of form and structure which take place during the passage from the infant to the adult state, and from that to old age, and the loss again and again of every particle of matter which had entered into the composition of the body during its growth, and the substitution of new elements in their place, while the individual remains always the same, carries the analogy a step farther."

Page 499. "Lund, a Danish naturalist, found in Brazil, not only extinct sloths and armadilloes, but extinct genera of fossil monkeys, but all of the American type, and, therefore, widely departing in their dentition and some other characters from the Primates of the old world. No sooner do we carry back our researches into miocene times, than we begin to discover fossil apes and monkeys north of the Alps and Pyrenees." Supposing fossil apes were found in the tropics, they must be lower than what we have, and would prove nothing. They could not be a progress towards man, for we have the next steps alive, unless it be alleged that man has supplanted the advanced apes and left others like them, but then the theory of the near analogy of the present ones fails. The whole is supposition. It is not progression.

There could not be a greater proof of ignoring what the soul is than the last pages of Sir C. Lyell's book. Quoting from Hallam's Literature of Europe he says, "Every link in the long chain of creation does not pass by easy transition into the next. There are necessary chasms, and, as it were, leaps from one creation to another, which, though not exceptions to the law of continuity, are accommodations of it to a new series of being. If man was made in the image of God, he was also made in the image of an ape. The framework of the body of him who has weighed the stars and made the lightning his slave, approaches to that of a speechless brute, who wanders in the forests of Sumatra. Thus standing on the frontier land between animal and angelic natures, what wonder that he should partake of both."

Sir C. Lyell himself then continues, "When we contemplate the many hundred millions of human beings who now people the earth, we behold thousands who are doomed to helpless imbecility, and we may trace an insensible gradation between them and the half-witted, and from these again to individuals of perfect understanding, so that tens of thousands must have existed in the course of ages, who in their moral and intellectual condition, have exhibited a passage from the irrational to the rational, or from the irresponsible to the responsible. One fourth of the human race die in early infancy, nearly one tenth before they are a month old, so that we may safely affirm that millions perish on the earth in every century, in the first few hours of their existence. To assign to such individuals their appropriate psychological place in the Creation, is one of the unprofitable themes on which theologians and metaphysicians have expended much ingenious speculation. The inventors of useful arts, the poets and philosophers of the early stages of the earth's growth, the promulgators of new systems of religion, ethics, and philosophy, or of new codes of law, have often been looked upon as messengers from heaven, and after their death have had divine honors paid to them, while fabulous tales have been told of the prodigies which accompanied their birth. Nor can we wonder that such notions have prevailed when we consider what important revolutions in the moral and intellectual world such leading spirits have brought about. If, in conformity with the theory of progression, we believe mankind to have risen slowly from a rude and humble starting point, such leaps may have successively introduced not only higher and higher forms and grades of intellect, but at a much remoter period may have cleared at one bound the space which separated the highest stage of the unprogressive intelligence of the inferior animals from the first and lowest form of improvable reason manifested by man."

And again "It may be said that, so far from having a materialistic tendency, the supposed introduction into the earth at successive geological periods of life—sensation—instinct—the intelligence of the higher mammalia bordering on reason—and lastly the improvable reason of man himself, presents us with a picture of the ever-increasing dominion of mind over matter."

Sir Charles Lyell would fain appear more condescendingly religious, more unprejudiced by infidel science, and admit Archbishop Sumner's reasonings that " the power of progressive and improvable reason is man's peculiar and exclusive endowment," and be above religious men in the largeness in which he can allow philosophy, which, by the bye, is receding from the Socratic change to Cosmogony, but there never was a more, for himself, complete ignoring of the soul—the difference of an immortal soul in connection with God—than in this man.

Progression in God's plan of Creation there seems to be. The large variation of species is a question of fact and degree. Attempted definite classification by phenomena, whose definiteness is allowed to be equally necessary and false, has puzzled scientific men when species is in se plain enough. But he has not an idea beyond "transcendent genius" when his own thoughts come out—"dominion of mind over matter”—a leap in some extraordinary inventor, poet, or prophet"—"progress from unprogressive intelligence to improvable intelligence," but the possession of a soul which is, or is not to dwell with God, never crosses his mind—a difference greater, and of another order, than all the progress and all the leaps in the world. As an animal made for this world, to walk about, or to lay hold on trees, to build by instinct as a beaver or with art as a man, you may find points of progress ad infinitum, great as the difference of man is, and that difference connected with his having a soul, because improvable intelligence connects itself with moral will and lusts, obedience or self and self-satisfying desires. But the possession of a responsible soul having to say to heaven is a wholly different thing in its nature. As I have said, no one doubts the animal nature of man; his more or less likeness to an ape is all well for anatomists, but does not touch the real question or that of which there is no question—and that, Sir C. Lyell ignores. The soul which is the matter in question, if he is to talk of God and religion, he does not suppose the existence of in his own remarks. Now this is not philosophical, to avoid the only point really in question. If he says "this is a religious question, and science cannot treat it," then let science admit its incapacity to treat it. But be honest and own its incapability to treat more than what is material or at least animal, and leave such subjects; for to treat them and leave out the principal point is only its own shame.

I add a word as regards the delta of Egypt. I have not the details, but I do not see the force of the argument at all. He says: "The point of time to be ascertained, in every case where we find a monument buried to a certain depth, as at Memphis and Heliopolis, is the era when the city fell into such decay that the ancient embankments were neglected, and the river allowed to inundate the site of the temple, obelisk, or statue." Now, supposing the statue of Rameses not to have sunk at all, it is clear if it was solid ground, then there was a wide extent of delta for the mud to spread over, and it is as well known as necessary that the river, so spreading, leaves an incomparably smaller extent of mud than on the narrower ground. Nor is this all when the borings were made, it must have filled, originally, much faster, for the sea was shallower, and when the sea came up there the pottery was launched down the slope, pushed into the sea, and sank to the bottom. So that the depth proves nothing.

He says: "Were we to assume the deposit to be six inches in a century, the burnt brick met with at a depth of sixty feet would be 12,000 years old!" "If the boring was made where an arm of the river had been silted up at a time when the apex of the delta was somewhat farther south, or more distant from the sea than now, the brick in question might be comparatively very modern. The experiments instituted at the pedestal of the fallen statue of King Rameses at Memphis, in the hope of obtaining an accurate chronometric scale for testing the age of a given thickness of Nile sediment, are held by some experienced Egyptologists not to be satisfactory, on the ground of the uncertainty of the rate of deposit accumulated at that locality. The point sought to be determined was the extra amount of Nile mud which had accumulated there since the time when that statue is supposed to have been erected." Moreover it is believed that the ground is sinking there, and this has to be taken into account. If this be so, till its quantity be estimated, no conclusion can be come to at all. On the whole, the entire theory seems an utter and complete failure. It shows the aim of the writers, their wish, and thus discredits their judgment. All the effects from skulls have issued in entire disproof of the theory—that is clear.

Note that Mr. Duckworth, of the Liverpool Geological Society, March 24th, 1861, having examined the drift lands at Amiens and Abbeville, says there is no evidence whatever of any slow or gradual formation; and the impression left upon his mind was that they have been produced by some sharp and sudden catastrophe.

Note also, Mr. Prestwich, of the Royal Society, March 27th, says the tendency of modern rivers is to produce gorges not wide valleys, and existing ones could not, he says, make such as the higher-level gravels exhibit.

The heads in Cornwall are, as far as proved, British in character, without proof of contemporaneity in animal remains.

Note further, M. Elie de Beaumont, in the discussions in the Academy of Sciences, admitting the truth of M. Quatrefage's statement that the man's jaw was found really in the quarries of Moulin Quignon in its own bed, declared that the bed was not older than the turf deposits. It was what he called pence meuble (shifting incline) and that he adhered to the opinion of Cuvier, that man and the Elephas primigenius were not contemporaries.

Lamentations. Chapter 2

6. The Lord cannot give up His elect, but He can reject and refuse all the ordinances by which He is, in a given dispensation, in relationship with the people—is ordinances. "He hath violently taken away his tabernacle, he hath destroyed his places of the assembly." "The Lord hath cast off his altar, he hath abhorred his sanctuary." They are called Israel's too, in speaking of other things, but here applied to the Lord. This is a serious point of view as to that which might seem stable because the Lord had appointed it for Himself.

Ezekiel

Note, in prophecy, there are the elect people who are to inherit, who tremble at God's word. The Lord appears to their joy.

There is a temple built by the nation which the Lord disowns. The Lord speaks from the Temple.

This affects the nations—it is recompense to His enemies.

The glory appears then on this gathering of the nations.

The Gentiles bring in, thereon, the scattered Israelites.

We have a very clear example in Isa. 8 of the order of prophetic teaching in its connection with present things, and yet passing, as it must as presenting the mind of God, on into the future fulfillment of His mind, and how far it takes up present things—I mean things connected with Christ's first coming. Israel is judged, in chapter 5, on the ground of what it was first planted by God; in chapter 6 on the ground of the Lord's glory to be revealed. It was not fit for it. But there was another intervention of God after all was lost as to responsibility of Israel. When the ark was lost and Ichabod was written on Israel, God raises up a prophet. Sovereign grace forms a link of grace. And, following on this, in David the ark is brought back, and the house of David becomes a new stay for the people—grace in power, "We are come to Mount Zion." This fails, and in chapter 7 the notion of the Remnant, intimated in a remarkable way in the end of the chapter, is brought forward, and, when the heir of the house of David shows his unbelief and wearies God, the prophetic witness steps in and gives sign or testimony of grace. Emmanuel, God with us, is introduced. Then, in chapter 8, the prophet turns to circumstances, and the state of the people. They were seeking, in human strength and confederacies, to arrest men's hostile power and intrigues. The Lord tells the prophet, and in him the returning Remnant, not to walk in this way. He was to sanctify the Lord of Hosts Himself. Still the Assyrian, the outward hostile power, would come up to the neck. He did in Sennacherib's days then, and will hereafter. But Emmanuel having been brought in, all came to naught, for it was into "Emmanuel's Land" he had come, and they would be broken to pieces, for Emmanuel, God was with them.

But this introduction of Emmanuel, in connection with the Assyrian, necessarily leads him to Christ, God manifest in the flesh, who was their Emmanuel And we get the instruction of the Remnant, "Say not a confederacy, but sanctify the Lord of Hosts himself, and he shall be for a sanctuary." Then the full bearing of the great question with Israel, Jehovah not only dealing with but come to Israel, is dealt with. "He shall be a stone of stumbling." Then the law and testimony is sealed up in the Remnant, and the Spirit of Christ waits for "the Lord who hides his face from the house of Israel," and thus He and "the children which God bath given "Him are for signs and for wonders."

Now here we are broken off at once as to any pursuing the tree and chain of promise in Israel (though God will fulfill it) because if He is hiding His, face from the house of Israel, and hence cannot, even in the Remnant, set it up again, they look to fires of their own kindling, to wizards that peep and mutter. They are without Jehovah. Every people would look to their God—not Israel. Thus they get into the depths of sorrow and irritation instead of repentance. But though thus in far deeper anguish than in the first visitation of Israel, all is trouble and darkness. Yet in this last dominion of Gentile power, light had sprung up in Galilee. There was Emmanuel, who had never been before—the great light had been there, and now the prophet, in the utter extremity of the people (depicted in verses 21, 22), bursts forth into the full consequence of this Emmanuel. He becomes the triumphant Deliverer for final blessing and peace. The zeal of the Lord of Hosts would do it. Thus, on the failure of the last resource of Israel, according to the flesh, in the house of David, God brings in Emmanuel.

He then gives the present needed warnings and encouragements needed by the people. They are to trust Jehovah and to give Him His just place in their hearts, but then the manifestation of Him brings in Christ, and all these purposes and patiences entirely theirs. This is pursued on through the first coming, and the rejection of Israel, on to the second in deliverance and glory, when Israel was at the lowest point. But then, in fact, when the Remnant became disciples, upright as Jews, and His children by grace, and the Spirit, and the law and testimony was sealed up in them, what was to be done? They could not be Israel—Jehovah's face was hid from Israel. The New Testament tells us only exactly, though full occasion and room is left for it here, "The Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved"—this very Remnant Then note the difference. Israel (as on the great day of atonement) cannot know, till the Great High Priest comes out, whether His sacrifice has been accepted. It may, prophetically, hope so, but waits to see Him whom they have pierced. But we do not. He is not come out, but, on the contrary, set down, for it was the Lord "on the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens." But the Holy Ghost is come out, being given to those who believe, and we also do know the acceptance and perfection forever of those that are His—yea, the veil is rent, and heaven is open to us—yea, we are one with Him. But this is New Testament knowledge by the Holy Ghost. The prophecy shows exactly where it comes in, but passes from the state of the people, when even the house of David had failed, and all were looking to man, Emmanuel being introduced in promise, to the whole history of Israel from that moment to His appearing in glory and triumph for Israel.

The final earthly purpose is held in view in connection with Christ, but the present needed encouragement given with promise—the final blessing being a guarantee for present keeping, for faith. Heavenly things are simply passed over (only God hides His face from Israel), to those that are not earthly connected with them. Other prophecies may give only details, but they all fall into their own place in this plan of God—"Are not of any private interpretation."

Note, in passing, that Isa. 18 gives the key to the third Book of the Psalms.

Note too, in Jeremiah, how, even in denouncing Israel, and telling all the evil coming on them, the Lord takes notice of and knows all the sorrows of His people. This is fullness of grace.

In Ezekiel, God is on the Throne of supreme majesty—retired into His own place, and visiting according to this His place among men. He comes out of the North (intimating the judgment, I doubt not, of Nebuchadnezzar) but it is still the same thought—judgment in majesty. Hence a terrible word, moral reproof according to the mind and judgment of His Spirit is closed. Ezekiel is dumb, save as God opens his mouth and makes him speak His words. The living creatures sustained here or formed the Throne. Where the Spirit was to go they went.

God is with the captivity, not with the house, and therefore has retired to His sovereign place of the Throne. They are treated as rebellious there, and He visits Jerusalem now in judgment. He acts on it from outside. Hence, too, Ezekiel is son of man and dumb, because it is not the Spirit of God speaking from His place within, but to, in His Majesty without. In Jeremiah, He still begins within—He says he must set his face as a flint; and whoever goes out to the Chaldeans shall save his life—owns the judgment. God takes His place in purpose in all Israel. As sparing within, judgment must be owned—spiritual sense knows it is over. Hence, after being brought among them dumb, Ezekiel is taken into his house and besieges Jerusalem. Then he is brought to be shown, and declare the state of the judged and God's once place (His own house) upon earth. Here (discriminating the saints) judgment is executed—for what was Nebuchadnezzar? Here the living creatures are full of eyes, as well as the wheels.

Next, we may remark that (for God appears more in primeval majesty in Ezekiel than elsewhere, because He is not speaking within but from without) we have the king of Tire as "the anointed cherub that covereth," and to be destroyed as the covering cherub. Hence it is a creature, however exalted—I suppose Satan fallen (with many others) but a creature here, which had its place connected with the Throne of God—God having set it so and officially anointed. "Covering," alluding to the word has-so-chech constantly used of the cherubim over the ark (consequently denoting what was creature, however used) that it was connected with precious stones, and walked up and down among stones of fire, that which reflects and displays, in its various prismatic beauty through a medium, the pure light of God. Hence the names of the people were on them, and the heavenly Jerusalem has them for foundations. They are divine qualities, not essential Light—that God is. Here he was familiar and at home. Christ secures His people in them, connects them with them as engraved there, and they are basis of the heavenly glory. They were displayed on the fallen cherub, and he was amongst them.

Further he was in the garden of delight of God in Eden, amongst those who had their place in His garden of delights. But he took pleasure in his own beauty and fell—perfect from the day he was created till iniquity was found in him. It was the fallibility of a creature. The beauty and enjoyment, be they what they might, were lost by the internal failure—"He abode not in the truth, for there was no truth in him." How does the blessed Lord Christ shine out in contrast here! How sure a place was "on the breast-plate"! How incapable the creature of standing in any place!

Note, the iniquity was found in him—it was "looking at his own beauty." Lord, keep us from this! For how vile to attribute this beauty to ourselves! And yet we should all have this devilish propensity, save as kept. Look at the brightness which is in the stone! We are engraved on it, and call it our own because we are engraved on it and it bears us. Dependence was lost, and what natural quality was became a power of evil.

Here then we have the same general idea of Cherub—one connected with the attributes and qualities of God as a vessel of service, as a creature near to Himself and connected with the Throne. Note in the beginning of Ezekiel they are obedient and dependent—where the Spirit was to go, they went. And they had a place, when God went in the way of visitation.

We have, finally, the living creatures in the Apocalypse. They are; again, connected with the Throne and judgment—not properly counsel. They worship, i.e., they ascribe honor—the elders worship. They are in the circle of the Throne, but it is a sessional Throne in heaven, not an active one. They invite to the opening of the seals, but the Lamb opens them. They own Him in ascribing glory. They are heads of creation in genus. They celebrate the holiness and unchangeableness of Jehovah Elohim Shaddai, night and day. And thereon the twenty-four elders fall down before Him on the Throne unchangeable, and own Him as Creator and for whom all is created. Next, they (one of them) give the vials of wrath (note that was the wrath of God filled up) but do not pour them out in that judgment. They invite, as we have seen, to see the seals open. All this is, as we have seen, before, save that they do not move nor go forth in activity, the Throne being in heaven, for all was associated with the Creation-blessings. For the Jews as a system were so, and failed in that place. Their Sabbath was Creation-sabbath. This makes chapter 5 more important, and to be much studied. One thing we know—that Jesus' name is above every name by divine right, and title of perfect work, too. They say "Amen" to the worship of every creature offered to the Lamb, and to Him that sitteth upon the Throne. The twenty-four elders thereon worship Him who changes not.

Note, also, the song, in respect of which the vials are given, in chapter 15, and also verse 7. On the whole, the character of these living creatures seems in principle the same, save, as I have said, the active energy is not there. It is in the Lamb. The horns and eyes, seven spirits sent forth are there, and He comes forth at the close.

All things are cleansed by blood, and all things secured by blood—all things in heaven and earth (which He the Son had made for Himself) are reconciled, "having made peace by the blood of his cross" referring, I apprehend, to the day of atonement. I am not aware that anywhere else it is said egorasas hemas (hast redeemed us, Rev. 5:9). Hence the importance of this. But I do not think the living creatures come in the company of the enthroned redeemed Church. They are rather the furniture of the Throne itself, on which He that "liveth forever and ever" sat.

The Apostle sees a throne and thrones, but the living creatures were not there, but, after describing the sea of glass, we get the elders too—they were in the circle and round the Throne. It is with them the ceaseless celebration of God the Creator, Jehovah Elohim Shaddai. There is action with the elders, that is awakened feeling, thrones cast down, a worthiness understood, and spiritually reasoned on—the good pleasure of God understood and delighted in.

As regards chapter 5 nothing very certain can be drawn from so uncertain a text. One thing is clear—they fall down before the Lamb and worship. It is not "they sung," which would make it an act thereupon, but "they sing." The introduction of the Lamb awakens this song. It is certain that all beings are sustained by Christ, and received, and reconciled as to condition by His blood, but I know not that any are redeemed but elect men. If any of these, which I doubt, are in the place of the Cherubim, I should judge it not the Church but those who specially trusted in the throne of Jehovah Elohim Shaddai, who are as much of course redeemed as the rest. The twenty-four elders would be the Church having the mind of Christ. In spite of the absence of grammar in the Apocalypse, the hemas (us) and autous (them) here present serious difficulties. It is to be noted that the living creatures and elders have harps and bowls of incense which are the prayers of others—of saints. I should be disposed much to read with A and Aethiop.: without the "us" (hemas) at all after "redeemed," and make all go on to "them" (autous), or, if there were authority for it, with 44, hemon as in verse 10. Note there is no intercession—they have bowls full of prayers, " which were the prayers." It is not incense added to them. These saints, if this were so, though yet under trial, would be the " them " (autous). The Angels are not in chapter 4, note.

The harps only seemed to identify with the song, but if hemas (us) be interpolated or put for hemon (our) it would be all very simple. On the whole, worship or celebration of glory, however, is added as to the Cherubim. They are less mysterious rather in position, but they are in act identified with power, and judgment, and providence, not with Church-intelligence. But then it is not principalities and powers associated (in service) with the Throne in mysterious Majesty. There they are. But the Lamb has perfect power in Himself—the seven horns, and wisdom, and energy of the Spirit—seven eyes. He is in the midst of the Throne, and is now worshipped by them, possessing all power in His Person. They invite these lower down, and see. As to eyes, they are not, in themselves, divine. We read of the "eyes of the Lord." "Seven eyes" is perfect spiritual intelligent energy, but we read of another having the eyes of a man. They are intelligence, Spiritual intelligence, and divine intelligence in their place, perception, and gathering in knowledge, according to their respective capacity. See note on this among the notes on the Psalms.

I doubt much even of the present reformed text, in chapter 5: 9, but am unwilling to tamper with it. There are several questions. First, to whom does "they sing" refer? Is it general, as often in Revelation—on chante. Does it refer to "Saints"? This I hardly think. Do the harps connect themselves with it? Next egorasas to theo hemas (thou hast redeemed us to God)—is this right? Or is hemas (us) to be shut out, so that "Thou hast redeemed" would rest on " them," with " hast made"? Or is it "to our God" as afterward, with 44? The only analogous passage I know is 2 Sam. 8, and parallel passage, i.e., "redeemed to God" is not elsewhere "purify to himself a people of possession" or "purchase" we have. In no other case have we living creatures expressing reasons for worship, but as elders we have. It might perhaps come in. They ever do, even in chapter 4. Further the "them" (autous) afterward makes the saints the natural subject of praise—those whose prayers they have in their bowls, i.e., those still suffering down here, in whose hope they would string their harps. This would much fall in with the whole scope of the Book, as chapter 11. "The accuser of our brethren is cast down which accused them," etc. The omission of "us" has weighty authority, but I am unwilling to tamper with Scripture on uncertain readings. The other "them" seems on the fullest authority, all but unanimous. It is possible that these above, Old and New Testament saints may celebrate their common redemption to God, and specially for the others who seemed in a bad position for it, as left on earth, declare that they would be kings and priests, and reign, whatever their position now. If so, then "them" would lean on "with those coming out of the great tribulation" and after.

The cases cited by Bengel, on Rev. 5:10, to show that autous is used for hemas, prove nothing. He refers to Matt. 23:37, and Jude 24. The passage in Matthew is " 0 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that... stonest them that are sent unto thee." So Isa. 47:8, the sitting, the confident who says in her heart; in verse 11 (not to) auton refers to the pit (bathunos) into which she will fall. In Jude 24 autous is very doubtful, Bengel and Tischendorf alone edit it—Tischendorf on the authority of Vat. Cott. B.S. 3, 5, and some thirty othersBengel saying, Edd: prime et M.SS. The Vulgate and Beza have humas, hence the more recent ones. Were it there, it would refer to hous and hous in verse 23. There is no hemas before it. Rev. 18:24, is perfectly simple. It is the historical statement of the inspired author, not the language of the Angel saying "Thee."

Ezekiel, as we have seen elsewhere, leaves out all the operation and history of the beasts, and takes up the nations short of their rising, and being such (the taking of the Throne from Jerusalem) and those after the beasts are done with, and the question is between Israel and the nations. The divisions of Ezekiel seem thus: chapters 1-7 the question was raised on the glory of the Lord in Israel, shown to the prophet; the commission. It was to the nation, the children of Israel. First sent to the captivity of Chebar, for it was general—then to the city Jerusalem, or rather concerning them. "Hear or forbear"—but it involved this siege, representatively the whole nation, then the "mountains of Israel," and an end on the four corners of the Land. Chapters 8-19, the judgments and reasoning with them.

Ezekiel. Chapter 1

In Ezekiel the prophet's place is quite outside Jerusalem, by the river Chebar. He is carried there to see the judgment executed, but the glory of the Lord goes there (it led Nebuchadnezzar in judgment) to judge, and it shows, come what will, His throne on the Cherubim is always there, far beyond its special application, even in the midst of the people. And this is a very important consideration. He has found Himself in the midst of the people in condescending grace and wisdom, but that was but a special manifestation in great favor and for the manifestation of His glory. His people had been unfaithful to it, but that took the seat of the Throne—the Throne, and not Jehovah off His Throne. He led up Nebuchadnezzar there. Hence, the Throne is here so high it is dreadful, not in the near condescendence of grace. It comes, views, judges, and departs. It is terrible when it is thus, with what had been the place of the Throne. At the end of Ezekiel, it becomes again so. And compare the entry, departure, and ascension of Jesus in lowliness, as prophesied, but still the King. To us the Throne is a Throne of grace, but all power is Jesus' in heaven and earth, "Go ye therefore," etc. The glory of God had not, however, left the House definitely as yet, when Ezekiel was carried there; see chapter 8: 6. It is touching to see, even here (see chapter 11) in the midst of judgment, the intercession and sure promise of grace.

26. How exceedingly sweet it is, and what a reassuring center it gives, and most wonderful, that in all the intentionally mysterious and terrible glory of God, a Man is on the firmament above! God has for man, and for all, wide and terrible glories—brightness of surpassing light—but when He reveals Himself, He is a Man however glorious. The heathen seized something of the attribute-glory of God, and their representations of God were Cherubic—the best of them. God, revealed, sits above or between all these, and there as a Man. Were there any idea of God as Man, it was corrupt and sinful man—his known passions and fears.

Ezekiel. Chapter 3

Note much how Ezekiel sees the glory, is sent to Tel Abib, then says nothing, is sent into his house and bands upon him not to go out amongst them only when God opens His mouth with "He that heareth let him hear, and he that forbeareth let him forbear." He has no reasoning with them in the spirit of bringing them back. But note to whatever height the prophet is raised, he never departs from the plain ground of right and wrong obvious to the conscience; see verses 17, 18. High pretensions to prophetic testimony if they depart from the elements of moral truth, instead of bringing high sanctions to them, needed perhaps by the obduracy of man, and for the support of faith in such circumstances, are more than to be suspected.

The character of this prophecy is much to be observed—it is judgment, different from Jer. 15. In Jeremiah, God, evil as their ways were, still reasons with their heart—He speaks. It is not said to him, "Thou shalt be dumb." His heart speaks, though He sore afflicted and as afflicted; but the strong hand of God, in His majesty, is on Ezekiel. God wanders about, as it were alone, in Ezekiel, and what can He say in the midst of such a people? If in Spirit He go to Jerusalem, He went alone with the prophet, and, showing him these things in vision, take notice of all the sin which He can no longer hide from Himself, and from the testimony of judgment. It is in the Temple—should He dwell with it, and make a throne along with evil? His sanctuary was defiled; chapter 5:11, 13.

26. How largely the vision that Saul had of the glory of the Lord in the face of Jesus Christ opened his mouth, and flowed forth in beseeching grace!

Ezekiel. Chapter 10

The Cherub of Ezekiel is not properly the government of God at Jerusalem—there we see the Cherubic faces fixed on the ark of the covenant, and made of one piece with the mercy-seat—the tranquil, hidden, righteous Throne of God. Here it is the supreme and sovereign Throne of God in all the world. A Spirit which goes, and actually is manifested by a whirlwind coming out of the North, and visits Jerusalem, where the Lord (not the Cherub) stands on the threshold. He has left the throne. It is nothing less than the government of heaven and earth, or from heaven, the earth if you will. The government was above the heads of the Cherubs, and the throne above the firmament. This was superior, so to speak, to the habitual Throne at Jerusalem, though the same Jehovah. But then the Lord quits Jerusalem, and takes His place in this public and indefeasible sovereignty, of which, while in the rebellion of will, the enterprises of Nebuchadnezzar, etc., even were but the expression. Antichrist, it is true, is another thing—there it is a defiance from the earth, Satan being cast down who gives his throne to the beast.

Ezekiel. Chapter 12

6. Twilight—so in verses 7 and 12; used only in Gen. 15:17. It means, I doubt not, obscurity, thick darkness.

Ezekiel. Chapter 16

22. Whatever progress we make, it is always well to remember this—"The days of thy youth when thou was naked and bare, and vast polluted in thy blood."

55. It does not say they will or will not be, nor mean to say anything of it, but that the judgment of Israel would be as the worst of the heathen, as they had deserved it should be, and, if restored, it would be on ground on which Sodom might be, and so it will be. In verse 61, this restoration by grace is spoken of, but, while the grace to Israel is just as sovereign and free, yet God remembers promise to Israel; verse 60. On this ground the Gentile is not. Hence, though equally restored from judgment, they are not on the same footing as Israel then. I hardly think it is merely law here, though that be fully true. It was independent of Israel. The others would be restored, though given to them as daughters.

Ezekiel. Chapter 18

All that is attempted to be drawn from this chapter in an Arminian sense is without foundation. It is the replacing of the Jewish principle of government, that the "children should die for their fathers' sins," by the declaration that "each should die for his own." We may know, and do know, from other instructions of the Holy Scriptures, the terrible effect of a man's dying in his sins; but it is not directly the subject here, for then a son's soul would have been lost, by the law, for his father's sins, which is monstrous. It is the government of Jehovah which is the subject of the chapter.

Ezekiel. Chapter 20

Note, the elders of Judah are distinguished from the elders of Israel; see chapter 8: 1. But then Israel is looked at as the nation as a whole; compare chapter 37: 16, and the general use of the word "Israel," as chapters 19:1; 17: 2, and many others.

36. This passage used to be a difficulty in connection with the clear evil that was amongst the Jews in the Land in the latter day, but it seems to make both the distinction and circumstances of Israel, and also the bearing of Ezekiel plainer than before—so, ever. In chapter 8 we have the elders of Judah, but not after. Israel is the subject which afterward is before the prophet; compare also chapters 9, 10 and 11. Particularly too, see chapter 2:15, 16 and 17, as to our Lord's ministry, and consider the distinction between the power and tribes as other than the Jews, or how far then as a scattered nation; See Zechariah, and Ezek. 37 Here the " house of Israel " seems to include them nationally, but the house of Israel in Jerusalem, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem are constantly spoken of distinctly while Zedekiah was there. Except the refusal to be inquired of, and consequent judgment in this chapter, none of the statements in Ezekiel are addressed to those concerning whom they are spoken. It still recognizes Israel in Jerusalem, and speaks about it till taken, though giving warning concerning the captives; compare chapters 3, 15, 16, 23: 26, 27, 24 and 25: 7. The testimony would be a witness to them in the dispersion, but, when spoken to Israel, was about those in Jerusalem and in the Land.

Ezekiel. Chapter 22

16. Query if the expression in the word ni-khal (shalt be profaned; A.V., "shalt take thine inheritance") has not a double sense.

Ezekiel. Chapter 24

1. These dates and those in chapters 20:1 and 8:1 seem computed from Jehoiakim's captivity; see chapter 1:2. Compare also 2 Kings 25:1.

Ezekiel. Chapter 28

To understand what is said of the king of Tire, we must compare chapter 31: 8, 9.

Ezekiel. Chapter 31

11. Read from this verse to chapter 32: 21, and compare Psa. 89:7. In Isa. 9, the use of El Gibbor (the Mighty God) does not apply, in its direct force, to the essential deity of Christ, although being in righteousness it must be divine. He must be God, but it is His position not His nature which is asserted. For this we may compare, where the words show the force of the comparison, the passages above cited, and see also El (God) in any dictionary or concordance.

" The Father of Eternity," I confess, presents to me no scriptural or intelligible idea. In a word, these are His offices. His glory we know, who are Christians, who have received the knowledge of who (so far) He is; how too, He is entitled to it, being in very deed "the Son of the living God," "with God," and "God himself." It seems to me a great mistake to refer Isa. 11:5, to anything of the essential divinity of His Person, I mean Avi-ad (everlasting Father). It is clear to me that it refers to the characteristics in which He shall be exhibited in the millennial day. Being born to the Jews, they begin to celebrate what He is; compare Isa. 22:21. I do not mean but this is a higher and fuller recital that is more simply the Judaic rule. The quotation of Isa. 55:3, in Acts 13:33, 34, opens out the manner of connection of the two. His essential deity, qualifying Him to hold it is another question. By His resurrection life (in which He was declared to be "the Son of God with power") He was enabled to sustain abidingly the guidance and rule (in blessing, as the Fountain of honor and blessing) the government, and the rule of His house. It was in His resurrection life ("living forever," as Melchizedek) He became Avi-ad. He was the Jehovah of the Jews, and being now manifested amongst them, holding the throne of David, He became and was the Avi-ad—the abiding Source of secured blessing, because of being who He was; compare the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the common use of the word "Father" in the Jewish Scriptures. Neither ad olam (forever) nor aion express eternity abstractedly; compare the New Testament, and also eis to dienekes ("forever"—"in perpetuity"). "Head of the millennium" is its concrete form.

Ezekiel. Chapter 33

This is the testimony of righteousness against carnal assurance—a prophet amongst them in the Land. The city was smitten then, and so the kingdom of the beast in the Land; but the subject was the city smitten.

24. Note the same principle in this and other passages—the evidence of unbelief or faith, according as proposed by the flesh, or by the Lord, and, on the other hand, that the opposite principles are evidence of unbelief, when the moral circumstances are changed. Thus, here "Abraham was one, and we are many, the land is given us for an inheritance," in the condition of sin and rebellion, was unbelief and wickedness. In Isa. 51:2, it is presented as the warrant and assurance of faith, and they are called to lean upon this warrant—that Abraham was but one, and yet blessed and multiplied. Oh! for faith!

On the other hand, when Israel came out of Egypt, it was just their sin and unbelief to say, "Is the Lord among us or not?" Ex. 17:7. In Mic. 3:11, it is their sin and presumption, to say, "Is not the Lord among us? No evil shall come upon us."

Ezekiel. Chapter 34

This sets aside their shepherds (see Zechariah 10:3—Judah first) and gives David in promise—the Lord being their God.

Ezekiel. Chapter 35

Seir is here judged. The reproach of famine taken away.

Ezekiel. Chapter 36

The reference to this chapter in John 3, by the Lord, is a distinct proof that the promises here are not fulfilled. This chapter renews them and plants them in their land—all Israel.

Ezekiel. Chapter 37

All Israel is restored out of the graves. They are to be put with "the stick of Judah." Israel is to be taken from among the heathen.

26. I cannot doubt that the writer had this verse in his mind, when he wrote Heb. 13:20.

Ezekiel. Chapters 38 and 39

Israel is brought out of the nations, and dwells safely, all of them. Gog comes up against the Land, and falls. Israel shall know from that day. Then the captivity is really brought again; see Psa. 126. The heathen know too that He is the Lord. The Spirit here has been poured out upon the house of Israel.

Ezekiel. Chapter 40

Though the description is the description of the Temple, yet in the beginning of verse 2, he sees "the frame of a city on the south," from the high mountain so that, whatever the arrangement of the measured land, there was a connection between the city and the sanctuary. "He brought me there." As to the mountain, also, the city was alav (above it).

Ezekiel. Chapter 43

17. Whatever the reason, there seem to be steps to the altar, u-ma-a-lotha-hu (and its steps) here, and none allowed in Ex. 20:26, bh'ma-a-loth (by steps). The reason is given there.

Ezekiel. Chapter 45

15, 17. Note there is no mention of making atonement, in Leviticus, with the peace-offering or the meat-offering—with the burnt-offering (Lev. 1) there is. Indeed, nowhere is there, even with the peace-offering unless in these verses before us, where burnt-offering, and, in verse 17, sin offering are also mentioned. In Heb. 13:15, we have evidently priestly service in direct worship. In the Apocalypse, the heavenly priests have surely, in chapter 5, an intercessional or mediatorial character in their service. In chapter 20 they are priests to God and to Christ. In 1 Peter 2:5, they offer up spiritual sacrifices, where, I apprehend, it is direct worship. Wherever, in Israel, an individual priest was a mediator, he represented, I apprehend, Christ—and then the body of priests are saints. If there is associate priesthood, as associate royalty, it is as connected with Christ, in either participatory in His place. But proper worship is the place of the nation of priests, though there may be a greater nearness implied than others. Further, it is with God as God. All can have "an advocate with the Father"—a priest is with God. In Rev. 1:6 only we have "priests to his God and Father," but I apprehend, in another sense. It is God's relationship to Christ as Man, and God, who is His Father, is viewed towards us as God. We worship also the Father.

For many points, this difference of the meat- and peace-offering is important. Here alone Kaphar (make atonement) is used with the peace-offerings and meat-offerings, but then burnt-offering, and, in verse 17, sin-offerings are found also, so that it does not affect the general truth.

24, 25. I find Pentecost is omitted here, as we have seen, the day of atonement, and the red heifer; as to sacrifices, these omissions are remarkable.

Appearing, Manifestation, and Presence

Epiphaneia. Appearing. This word is 'appearance,' not 'revelation' as coming forth from being concealed, though necessarily in nature opposed, but the fact of being seen or visible.

As a verb:

See Luke 1:78, 79. "The dayspring from on high hath visited us, to 'shine upon' them that sit in darkness."

In Acts 27:20, it has the same sense. The stars did not 'appear'—‘shine,’ Titus 2:11. "The grace of God... has 'appeared.'"

Titus 3:4. Kindness and philanthropy 'appeared.'

As a Noun:

2 Tim. 1:10. Grace given before the world, but made manifest (phanerotheisa) by the 'appearing' of Jesus. 2 Thess. 2:8, the 'appearing' of His presence. 1 Tim. 6:14, the 'appearing' of Jesus, which the only Potentate shall show.

2 Tim. 4:1. He shall judge the quick, and the dead, at His 'appearing' and His kingdom.

2 Tim. 4:8. A crown for those that love His 'appearing.'

Titus 2:13. Waiting for that blessed hope, and the 'appearing' of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

I conclude that it is the fact of His being seen, appearing as the sunshine. Christ has appeared in the world, and He will appear again, i.e., there will be a state of things in which He will not be hid, nor non-existent but to faith, but apparent. But epiphaneia (appearing) is not the act of coming forth as apokalupsis (revelation), but the state of shining forth so as to be visible. That will be true at the instant of His phanerosis (manifestation) and of His apokalupsis, but it will continue to be true after, withal.

Phaneroo. To manifest, or bring to light.

Col. 3:4. When Christ, our life, shall be 'manifested,' we also shall be 'manifested' with Him (now it is 'hidden with Him in God').

1 Peter 5:4. When the chief Shepherd shall be 'manifested,' ye shall receive a crown.

1 John 2:28. That when He shall be ‘manifested,' we may have confidence.

John 3:2. That which we shall be has not yet been ‘manifested,' but we know that when He shall be ‘manifested,' we shall be like Him.

‘Manifest' is in contrast with being previously hidden though in existence, though known to be so. It is applied to us only when our life is said to be bid with Christ in God.'

Apokalupsis. Revelation.

Luke 17:30. So shall it be when the Son of Man is ‘revealed.'

1 Cor. 1:7. Awaiting the ‘revelation' of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Thess. 1:7. When the Lord Jesus shall be ‘revealed' from heaven, in flaming fire taking vengeance.

1 Peter 1:7. Shall be found to honor and praise at the 'revelation' of Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 1:13. The grace brought to you at the 'revelation' of Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 4:13. That when His glory shall be ‘revealed,' ye may be glad.

Rom. 2:5. Some read "At the ‘revelation,' and righteous judgment of God."

'Revelation' is rather of one who has title to appear in glory, and does so, to the confusion of those who have not owned the glory. Hence it is applied to judgment or glory. It is applied, as occasion of the general deliverance, to the saints, in Rom. 8:19. It is a matter of display of something glorious. Phaneroo, brings to light, and is applied to sin. That which makes all things manifest ' is light, for all things that can be reproved are made ‘manifest' by the light; see 1 Corinthians 4: 5; Luke 8:17, and Mark 4:22.

Parousia. Presence.

This word signifies presence with' in contrast with ' absence,' and the fact of becoming present after having been absent; see 1 Cor. 16:17; 2 Cor. 7:6. For the latter, see Phil. 2:12, also 2 Cor. 10:10; the former, but more usually in the New Testament, it is the latter. The two cited are the only two cases, that I am aware of, of the former use. As to the coming of Jesus:

Matt. 24:3, 27, 37, 39. The sign of Thy 'presence'—o shall the ‘presence' of the Son of Man be (as lightning)—As the days of Noe, so shall be the 'presence' of the Son of Man—so shall also the 'presence' of the Son of Man be.

1 Cor. 15:23. They that are Christ's at His 'presence.'

1 Thess. 2:19. Are not ye before our Lord Jesus Christ, at His 'presence.'

1 Thess. 3:13. Establish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the 'presence' of our Lord Jesus Christ with all His saints.

1 Thess. 4:15. We which are alive and remain to the 'presence' of the Lord.

1 Thess. 5:23. Your body, soul and spirit may be preserved blameless in the 'presence' of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Thess. 2:1. Now we beseech you by the 'presence' of our Lord Jesus Christ.

James 5:7. Be patient till the 'presence' of the Lord.

2 Peter 1:16. Making known to you the power and 'presence' of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Peter 3:4. Where is the promise of His 'presence'?

2 Peter 3:12. Looking for and hasting unto the 'presence' of the day of God.

1 John 2:28. Not be ashamed before Him at His 'presence.'

'Presence' signifies, evidently, His presence in the scene in which our affections, fears, hopes, joys, and sorrows have their place, and may be affected by the fact of His presence or absence. When I say "Here he is," in English, it conveys a person's coming, though literally it affirms the fact of his being present; so parousia. Hence Christ's presence, in the creation, refers to the hopes and affections of the person who speaks of it—in general, His coming into the scene from whence He is now absent. If my soul is in heavenly thoughts, it meets Him there, if in earthly it meets Him there, and it is applied to both.

The Shaking of the Heavens

As regards the shaking of the heavens this age (aion houtos) properly began at Sinai. It was true, Noah began power in the earth, in restraining of evil on the -earth, from God, but that was the abstract principle by itself. Power might be transferred to Nebuchadnezzar, here below on earth, when raised up to the dominion of the children of men, wheresoever they dwell, on the departure of the glory from Jerusalem; so the 'times of the Gentiles,' and Abraham called out on the ascription of that power by man's heart (given to Noah) to devils as its source-so in Josh. 24 and Paul, "They offer to devils and not to God"—a condition speedily proved to be in force and vigor, in the plain of Dura in the province of Babylon, when given to Nebuchadnezzar. But when Moses was king in. Jeshurun, the upright, the Lord came from Mount Sinai, and from His right hand went a fiery law for them, when He spake from earth unto them, and they sat down at His feet, then, through the disposition of angels, receiving the law.

This being the then order of the heavens, and the ministrations of His power—His angels, which excel in strength—then, in its proper order, the aion houtos began (Jehovah so ruled) and manifested itself. The order of Israel would have been the display and beauty of this, and all the world (oikoumene) should have come up to own the beauty of holiness, and the Throne under the Law. Then the Law of God was the law of the earth, but proved in the people He loved (though all the saints were in His hand) and carried on below, in their responsibility, because it was to be a disposition and order of righteousness. All this failed in Babylon, and the angelic powers, the powers of the heavens, became, as we see in Daniel, the exercised administrators of men-providential power among the Gentiles. The oikoumene was persecuted—the seat and order of rule in the heavens unchanged—but "He chargeth his angels with folly, and the stars are not clean in his sight." He spent even the Son of His love in the trial of man under this administration. The righteous angels, His willing servants, but He keeping the Law, made of a woman, made under it, became the rightful Heir of all things, as, indeed, He was the Creator of all things, even the principalities and powers themselves, and having so, by inheritance, a more excellent name than they, and thus the title of all things, by every title, is His—by name, by redemption, by office, by purpose, by headship, by creation.

Now, on His rejection, the trial of man closed-though, in grace, there was still trial, testimony by His exaltation and Cross, and, besides that, the sure salvation of the Church. But the heavens were not changed, as to the rule of the world, but all became, on earth, in abeyance as to earthly things, save that, all power His in heaven and on earth, He sends forth, as the "Lamb in the midst of the throne," the seven Spirits of God to do His will, making all things work together for good to them that love God, 'the called according to his purpose,' and ministering the will of His grace. The direct legal administration of angelic blessing, or judgment, was lost with the Law and Throne upon earth—the Lamb's control, to whom all Angels, principalities and powers, are subject, not—and He, hid however in God, the Heavens remain unchanged, but, withal, the power of evil there. The Church, not manifesting the full heavenly power on earth (for man was sinful) by the Holy Ghost, the purpose of God in it has its place, i.e., its heavenly character, and then all, in a further sense, is in abeyance, save the sure accomplishment of the secret purpose of God, who gathers the joint heirs. But the age (aion) is still of the world, and so the Apostle of the Gentiles must call it, though the Apostle of the circumcision might, justly, first propose to the men of Israel, that gospel of the gift of the Redeemer from Zion (to return on their repentance) who should turn every one away from their iniquities. Still, though all things were secretly made to work together for good, and the angels were ministering spirits to the heirs, and, for this, controlling, as agents, whatever was to be controlled, the heavens were unchanged, and not only was man sinner upon earth, and the earth defiled, and the Law slackened and broken, but it was now clearly seen that spiritual wickedness was in heavenly places..

The aion which shook the earth, claimed righteousness on earth, and gave the Law which expected a righteousness from earth-was proved, as regards man on earth, condemnation and death, and therefore was given up, while the Gentile providential economy was therefore let go on to the accomplishment of God's other purposes, while the saints were gathering, by grace, for joint heirs. But though the Church was thereon (specially therefore from the death of Stephen) viewed as heavenly, and known, and knowing itself only there, it was hid there, and did not, in that sense, take its place in the heavens. The heavens were not shaken and changed, though evil was there. Now, before they are, the victory is given to the angelic powers under Michael, the Archangel (the great Prince that stands up for the Jews) and the devil and his angels are cast out by the Lord's power, and in the time of His will. Still the heavens are not properly changed, though cleared. This is still an angelic ministration, but unto angels hath He not put in subjection the world to come whereof we speak, but to man, the Son of Man. That action then is within the period of this age (aionos toutou), and Satan has subsequently peculiar possession, for a short time, of the earth. But then the shaking of the heavens comes, that the Son of Man may come in thunder of His power, His quiescent yet almighty strength, and the Lord's own power be manifested. He whom the King of kings, and Lord of lords shows, the blessed and only Potentate shows, comes forth as Lord of lords and King of kings Himself, and all things in heaven and on earth—the heavens being shaken, and changed as well as earth—are put under man's, even the Son of Man's feet. Then the aion ends, or is changed. This revolution in the heavens, and transfer from creature to Christ, the Son of Man, who is the Lord from heaven's power, is the great revolution that changes all things. Whatever may be secretly and providentially done before this, introduces the great and terrible day of the Lord. Everything is changed. "Yet once more I will shake not the earth only, but also heaven," and this word signifies removing. None, Jew or Gentile, of the princes of this world knew the Lord of glory—this Great One who is to come—or they would not have crucified Him. Therefore, He says to the disciples, "Ye will not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come," though then the end of the aion would come upon them—foolish Israel that rejected Him, indeed their Jehovah that was above all angels; see Isaiah so.

The Church, under the administration of the Holy Ghost, comes in quite specially, being hidden with Christ in God. When He appears, we shall. But Israel is a question between—Israel under this aion and the next. The ruin of this aion is utterly clear to us, in the rejection of the Lord who is to be the Head of the next, whom we own, in whom we, by grace, are proelpikores (having first trusted) in Christ—not to them, and therefore their trials in the latter day, first looking for the earth, under it when they have rejected the Lord, and therefore thrown, save the preserved Remnant, into the hands of the head of the aion in its worst and concentrated form. But, though grace and testimony may save and deliver them, 'gleaned grapes,' and power preserve them peradventure by flight, the whole changes, and the earth is blessed. The Sun rises with healing and blessing on His wings too, when that great revolution has taken place in the heavens. Then, though judgment and terror may be its first introduction to the wicked, still it is the judgment and manifestation of the Son of Man. It is, whatever the wickedness and pride of man, the age to come (aion mellon) that is come in, for the earth to come (oikoumene he mellousa).

Some references to this point will be found in notes on Revelation. It is an important one, and applies itself to much of the order of the divine dealing, and many passages, as for instance, Matt. 24.

Fragment: Justification of Life and Power of Life

Justification of life marks the connection, by resurrection, of the power of life with the setting aside all guilt through Him who is risen.

Fragment: Setting Aside Satan's Power in a Twofold Way

Note, when the Lord comes, He sets aside Satan's power in the twofold way—as having the power of death, whether by changing and not letting die, or by raising; He has overcome in resurrection, having undergone the power of death—as god and prince of this world, he will cease to be, and be cast out by Christ's reign. This He overcame in the temptation in the wilderness, binding the strong man and spoiling his goods. So He will, as to death, of all, even the wicked. Satan's power, in every sense, will be gone as to them. In the first death, it is not, though his worldly power was. When all power of evil is set aside, good will simply flow—flow, I doubt not, through Him to us as Man, but God will be "all in all."

Morality

Morality is in connection with the relationships which God has formed in connection with the first Adam. These relationships God has fully sanctioned, for He formed them, sanctioned, I mean, in Christianity. But Christianity itself is the introduction of a new life, a new power, and of man, thereby, into a new creation entirely outside of all these relationships. This power may cause me to live out of the old creation and its relationships—know no man after the flesh—but sanctions them all as of God; so Paul, for example. By bringing in divine power and light, it has given a moral force to these old obligations, and hence a blessing to the world. But then the maintenance of the old relationships, however happy, is no proof whatever of an introduction into the power of the new. Husband, wife, parent, child, brother, sister are all relationships of the first creation. The order of the world morally depends on them, but one may walk in them all, and not belong to the new creation.

There are other duties which, though of the old creation, only belong to it as fallen, and as far as we know, and I think connected with man's becoming like God, but in evil. Property, and the relationship of master and servant—it is evident that this relates to a fallen state in us historically, but it seems to me to hang on what is divine, though abused by man. In the first place, the earth was given to the children of men, i.e., subjected to them—their title depending on God. But when man had separated himself from God, his will became a separate and willful center—he referred all to self, even the whole earth to himself if he could. This was restricted by government, and thus property exists. Hence the condition of property is according to the law of each country's government, and, where the government is absolute, is absolutely to the government. Theoretically so even in feudal law. It depends on the existence of government, or is, otherwise, mere appropriating will or force. Hence morality as to mend and there differs, as to its terms, not its principle, in each country. The rights of property are limited according to the laws of each country, not so the relationships God created, though laws may interfere with them as to master and servant, i.e., the relationships setting aside engagement, contract between two, etc.

Daniel

The way in which God is spoken of in Daniel is remarkable, and I note it here. His early first relationship, before the evil is manifested, is "the God of heaven," both to his companions and to the king. This was as natural as it is instructive. God was "the God of the earth" at Jerusalem. "The God of heaven" had given Nebuchadnezzar a kingdom. Chapter 3 is the God of the faithful Remnant. In judgment He is the Most High; chapter 4. This is found again in chapter 7: 25. With Belshazzar He is merely God as God. In chapter 6 He is again with the Remnant; only for Darius, He is "the Living God."

In none of the visions of Daniel is God introduced in any way whatever, which is remarkable—Messiah is. "Ancient of days" stands apart, identifying the supreme Jehovah with Him that comes, verse 22; compare Apocalypse 1:11-16.

In the prayer of chapter 9, Daniel's faith rises to the true relationship of God with Israel, and we get the name "Jehovah"—so good is confession! And all the chapter proceeds on, and gives the fruits of this relationship at the close, though with the judgment connected with it. But all is connected with promise, blessing, and Jehovah's relationship with His people, though judgment and sorrow may be there.

It may be thought that chapter 7 introduces God in a vision of Daniel, but it is only so far as to show the secret source from which all judgment flows. The judgment itself is spoken of generally. "Most High" is only spoken of as characterizing the blasphemy. Though faith owns Him, in chapter 9, as Jehovah, yet there is no relationship with Israel, nor can be. The "God of heaven" characterizes Him, generically, all through the Book. There is, at most, the mysterious intimation of a time when the Ancient of days will sit in heaven, and then that He will come. But when He comes, we know it is as "Son of Man." In fact we know that it is Christ's coming which destroys the beast; Apocalypse 19. The setting of the thrones—assumption of power in judgment—is only an epoch in the vision of the beasts. The third vision is of the new kingdom—the Son of Man, verse 13.

In the first six chapters of Daniel, we have, first, the faithfulness which keeps apart from all association with the defilement of Babylon. Faithfulness leads to wisdom. Then we have prayer, and, when answered, thanksgiving. Then the historical scheme of Gentilism, and its character. At the end, the God of the Remnant of Israel is owned. Gentilism makes its religion, and persecutes those who do not submit, but God preserves the residue of His people through the fire, and the God of the residue is owned of the Gentile power. It becomes, for the whole Gentile period, a beast—unintelligent. The Most High, the God of the millennium, from Abraham and Melchisedek, is owned, but here the earthly power. Then the final apostate idolatry, and despite of Jehovah, 'the most High God' (for so Daniel speaks of Him, as revealed to Nebuchadnezzar—the Lord of heaven) His sovereignty was despised, and idol-gods praised. Finally, no God allowed, but man set up as God. These are the two closing characters. This results in the whole world being subjected to the God of the residue of Israel who had kept them (Daniel) through the tribulation. The previous cases (Nebuchadnezzar) the general history, though going to the close, these last two the final characteristic. For Daniel, He is now the God of Heaven,' though Ruler of all, as Most High.

In the first chapter we have what represents the faithful Remnant in the time of the beast's power—the mas-kilim (wise) of the last days. Then the general historical succession of the Gentile powers, and the substitution of Christ's kingdom by judgment, and the exaltation of the mas-kilim. The idolatrous departure from God, unintelligent condition of heart—at the end of the former the God of the Remnant owned, of the latter, the Most High.

Then in the fifth and sixth chapters, the two final characters, idolatrous blasphemy against Jehovah, and setting up as God at the end. The former judged of God, the second leading to the universal recognition of the God of the Remnant.

Daniel 1

I do not see any difficulty in the chronology of Daniel. Nebuchadnezzar takes the city, but leaves Jehoiakim there. Daniel goes to Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar dreams in the second year. Daniel was three years under inspiration, Nebuchadnezzar not counting till after his father's death. If he took Jerusalem on his way down to Egypt, as is said, Daniel was sent there, and the chronology fits in exactly. In his second year of reign, Daniel would have filled his three years.

Thus, Jehoiakim's eleven years were as follows: he reigns three years, served three years (2 Kings 24:1) rebels after the six years, and reigns for five years harassed by inroads. Jehoiachin reigns three months. Nebuchadnezzar was king in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, so that Jehoiachin, in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar is taken captive, Jehoiakim reigning seven of those years, and it being the first year of Jehoiachin; 2 Kings 24:12. Thus: Jehoiakim reigns eleven years. In his third year, Jerusalem is taken, Daniel led away, and Nebuchadnezzar goes on to Egypt. In the first year of Jehoiakim's servitude, Nebuchadnezzar was king at the end. In the second year Nebuchadnezzar dreams. Jehoiakim then rebels, and reigns five years harassed by inroads. Jehoiachin reigns three months, when Jerusalem is taken. In the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar, Jehoiachin is taken captive.

1. "Besieged it," closed up against it, besieged it in the sense of shutting up, as was then done.

2. Mik-tzath (some) used for 'all,' but here for a part; see Neh. 7:70, and 2 Chron. 36:7.

3. Par-t'mim (chiefs) Persian as in Zend and Sanskrit, Magnates, Primi.

4. Se-pher (book) letters, book-learning; see verse 17.

5. Mip-path-bag (of dainties—'of the king's meat'). Persian, pad bah; bah food, and pad lord. Sanskrit, pitri, father.

6. Note here the recognition of the distinction; see above, verse 3. Both are noticed in this Book afterward. If we do not take notice of this distinction, we shall never understand the prophecies, for the whole order of their accomplishment hangs on it—sometimes both, which is the final thing—sometimes one, which has its proper place—and sometimes the other. Elsewhere we shall see the entire importance of this.

10. K'ghil-chem (of your age).

Daniel 2

1. Nih'y'thah (left, quitted); compare chapter 8: 27. His sleep failed him.

4. The language of the Chaldeans was different from the language of the king. The Chaldean seems the sacred language.

5. "The word is gone forth from me."

38. I am disposed to think this passage excludes the sea, as carrying under it the subjection merely of the organized earth to Nebuchadnezzar, the golden head of the image of alienated empire of the world.

Daniel 3

8. This is a remarkable expression; compare James. But I note it here that only the Jews are noticed here, and not Daniel. At the same time, I cannot doubt that the great principle of the golden image is brought in. And note the place of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, and where they were (consequently) put, and of Daniel, and of verses 37, 38 of chapter 2, for this is the form and perversion of royal universal dominion. Therefore it is not "the God of the earth" there, nor in chapter 2: 19; but "the God of heaven," quod nota. I have no doubt Daniel stood as the representative of the Jews (Remnant) in such sort, however, that he should be the type of Jesus as so identified with the Remnant. Hence, prophetically, he does not appear in this, though its moral application is left in full force, and the ultimate result will doubtless be brought about in them. Therefore it is "the Most High God." It is also dameh I'var Elohim (like unto the Son of God—not Adam).

14. Hats-da, "Is this designedly" rather than "Is this true"?

Daniel 4

34. We have still, in these chapters, only "the king of heaven," "the God of heaven," and "the Most High God," so chapter 5: 23. The Jews being out of Jerusalem, He could not, in dispensation, call Himself "the God of the earth," or "whole earth." But then, being set up in earth, His supremacy over them, "the God of heaven" dealing with them as He would, was shown for the Gentile times, and the infatuation, of the bestial character of the seven times, shown to be from God. We shall see the use of it in the Revelation; see Ezekiel 11.

Daniel 5

11. There are times when people become unknown, except in the testimony of judgment.

Daniel 6

In this chapter, and chapter 5, we have a distinct break in the Book. Previously, it has been the dreams or open judgment of the Gentiles, though Daniel was the interpreter. Now we have revelations to him, in the character in which we have been noticing, and this so much so that some of the things happened previously, as chapter 7, and also the previous trial was of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, now of Daniel, of which, I think, we shall find the correspondent character of the two—Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel's associates, and Darius and persecution, i.e., Darius mystical and Daniel. One, I think, Gentile or Christian, the other Jewish quoad hoc, though there may be other characters.

Daniel 7

This chapter is evidently, though relative to things on earth, more connected with what the beast was towards God, and in pride, than of Jewish history as to it. He speaks great words against the Most High. He seeks to change times and laws, and they are delivered into his hand. At the same time by reason of that, it is not his general power, but his last evil condition in rebellion, and oppression of the saints who recognize God and His ways, but in reference to the kingdom, not to the Church, properly so called, which does not appear.

Hence generally, the saints of the el-ye-nin (heavenly places) shall take the kingdom (no doubt this is true of those who form the Church, but it is not its specialty). Hence we find, in general, the horn makes war with the saints, not merely the saints of the el-ye-nin, but with the saints as such on the earth, and prevails. That is true of those who flee, as of those who go on high. This wearing out the saints of the el-ye-nin may apply to those who come out of the great tribulation. There are then three points noticed as closing this—the Ancient of days comes—judgment is given to the saints of the el-ye-nin—and, thirdly, the saints possess the kingdom. The Most High, note, has the character of “possessor of heaven and earth.” (It is not a question of children with the Father.) Hence we have the historical circumstances of this horn, as relating to the earth, at the end. Ten horns arise out of the kingdom, another, different, arises after, among them, which plucks up three. In chapter 8, on the other hand, we have a Jewish, historical picture. In Revelation, we have nothing of the plucking up of three, because it is not properly there so historical or earthly.

I suspect that the passage of Jordan is a type of the ultimate deliverance of the last day, of the whole Remnant, specially exhibited in the Jews. I do suspect, not herein rejecting larger or more general analogies, that the deliverance from Egypt implies their exodus from their present state, when the sea shall be a wall upon their right hand, and a wall upon their left—the two great divisions of powers, Northern and Western, Assyrian and Antichristian, letting them out between them, no matter why God so willed it. But then they only get into a wilderness state with, indeed, many marks of being God's people, and so formally, but not really, heritors of the promises then. On passing Jordan, they were coming into collision here. I pass over the pre-Jordan conquests, because I am sure there is something in them which I do not fully understand. The waters were not so, but the lower stream, which went toward Sodom, failed, and those above were restrained. I believe this to mark the setting aside the Antichristian power, while the Northern is arrested. Also the priests bore the ark—not the custom, but here they did—in the midst of the stream, and this I believe to be the type of the place and office of the saints of the Most High fulfilling their service on behalf of Israel. And, as we have noted, the manna continued until the morrow after, and also then the congregation were circumcised—they that fell in the wilderness were not.

Note here, in Daniel, the 'saints of the Most High,' and 'the Most High,' are not the same. The saints of the Most High are manifestly ton epouranion (of the heavenlies) which clears that passage manifestly.

This and the chapter following give the Western and Eastern horns; chapters 9, 10 and 11 give the condition of Daniel's people under the power of the Western Empire, and under the power of the Eastern, including the willful king who is in Palestine. Chapter 12 is the closing result in deliverance.

In the first place, the distinction of Most High (il-la-ya) and heavenly places (el-ye-nin) is manifest—the first being "the Most High," and the other "the heavenlies" (epouranion). This chapter, I think, plainly opens out, or alludes to, the order of the whole mystery which Ephesians develops, but closing in its Jewish portion. Abraham, the representative of both seeds, having overcome all the enemies that prevailed against worldly Lot, is blessed of Melchizedek, the type of the Son of God in royalty of priesthood, i.e., as He shall be manifested and blessed of the Most High God, Possessor of heaven and earth. This is a mystical representation of the great, final blessing. Now, in Jesus, in whom we have received an inheritance, all things in heaven and on earth are to be gathered together in one, and we are made to sit in the heavenlies, or, as the Revelation expresses it, "them that dwell in heaven." Here again, accordingly, we have the "Most High"; compare verse 4, where earthly dominion is judged or spoken of, and therefore obscurely, because the mystery was not revealed—both the heavenly and the earthly people.

The visions are verses 2, 7, 13—three distinct ones of the four beasts, the last great apostate beast, and the bringing in of the Son of Man—a distinct vision from the judgment of the apostate beast, quod nota. Now the kingdom is given to the Son of Man—the Jewish, or earthly title of Christ, the Son. He has the kingdom. The next is, that the saints of the heavenlies shall take the kingdom. We say, 'They shall reign'; compare Eph. 1, last verse. Verse 21, I understand of these saints, the saints of the heavenlies properly. The next verse contains three periods—as it seems to me, distinct periods, though one in another sense—but all short of the Son of Man's taking the kingdom. What he does is in Revelation also, chap. 13: 6. As far as I see, it is the times and laws, not the saints which are given into his hand. The destruction of his dominion goes on to the end. Verse 27, seems to me the Jewish, earthly dominion. Verse 26 is connected with verse 9, verse 27 with verse 13. The kingdom, under the whole heaven, is given to the am kad-di-shey el-ye-nin (the people of the saints of the heavenly places), i.e., the Jews. They are called so, because they are now brought into union and identity with (as in Ephesians) the kad-di-shey el-ye-nin (saints of the heavenlies), This is so much the case, that it is often difficult to distinguish between the sanctuary and the (glorified) saints, for they become, as it were, the real sanctuary of Christ, where He dwells, His Body, His Temple of which He is the light, when i.e., the people's dominion under the Son of Man is as His—an everlasting dominion. What further sense this may have, I will not say, but I think it fully bears this, and declares the mystery which it was given to the Apostle to reveal, but in terms such as should hold it in unrevealed character till, by the Spirit, the mystery was revealed in and by the ascension of the Lord into heaven, the Son of Man, thus making both one.

Looking to the Son of Man's dominion over the Jews, this chapter also, I think, is made, in substance plain.

8. ‘I considered the horns.' The little horn (the word 'little'—z'e-rah—is different from, but analogous to the "little horn" of chapter 8: 9—mitz-tzi-rah) here springs up among, but is o-khori (another). And here observe there is no connection with the taking away, or otherwise acting against the Tamid (continual burnt-offering). In chapter 8: 9, the little horn springs up out of one of them, and is not o-khori, but was keren-akhath. (one horn) and by it the Tamid was raised up (huram). Ought it not, however, to be translated ‘from him'—scilicet, the prince of the host, ‘from him the Tamid was lifted away'? Mim-men-nu is 'from,' as causative or abstractive, but always, as far as I see, it means from.' Chapter 9: 27 is of quite a different character—yash'bith ze-vakh u-min' khah (he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease). In chapter 11:31 we have a different word again, v'he-si-ru (and shall take away) the Tamid, i.e., uz'ro-im mim-men-nu (and arms on his part '), where mim-men-nu (on his part) I believe again to have been unjustly translated. The arms, or seed which shall arise from him, or of which he shall be the occasion or cause, which shall take their rise from him, shall do so and so. It returns to the singular in verse 32, but I refrain from commentary as yet. I reserve the rest for the consideration of the structure of Daniel.

9. " Till the thrones were set," not "cast."

13. I think it pretty clear the Son of Man' presents the Lord as Heir of what belongs to man, according to the counsels of God. Thus here He comes to take the kingdom, and in Psa. 8 headship over all things is given Him. Meanwhile, coming, as He did, to give His life a ransom for many, He had not where to lay His head. He ever takes this name. The disciples own Him to be the Christ, the Son of God, or of the living God. But the proper place of the Son of Man is displayed glory. He has both the kingdom, and headship over all things. But when His glory is in view, the corn of wheat must fall into the ground and die. There was a moral necessity for this. But as to the coming of the Lord, its connection with the Son of Man is His appearing, because it is the kingdom and universal headship. It is the natural title of the Lord. His specially receiving us to be joint heirs, is sovereign grace, and to be specially revealed. It is only found in the Gospels, and in Christ's mouth—save the inquiry of the people thereon. It is not in the Acts, nor in the Epistles; it is found in Revelation again. But then such passages as that in Luke 12 are not the less heavenly for that; verses 39, 40 are a warning apart, viewing the disciples as down here. So verse 46 is the effect down here. Verses 37 and 44 are special for the watchers who have their treasure in heaven.

17. Is there not distinction between the beasts (min ar'a, out of the earth) and the saints of the high places (kad-di-shey el-ye-nin)?

18. I cannot understand why, in this verse, and in verses 22 and 25, "the saints of the Most High," is given as the translation of kad-di-shey el-ye-nin (saints of the high places, or heavenlies). It is manifestly the epouranion of the New Testament, which, indeed, is the revelation of this. ‘The Most High,' is the character given to God in Abraham, as contrasted with all false deities, which might bear rule on earth, as 'Possessor of heaven and earth.' All power is given to Jesus in heaven and earth, and these are the places where the saints sit down with Him; so in verse 22. In verse 25 we have two distinct words translated Most High.' He shall speak great words against the Most High (l'tzad il-la-ya) and then the same word as before, connected with the saints, and in the same sense of course. This I suspect to be the force of Rev. 13:6. They are always treated as dwelling there—indeed, this seems clear; for the rest, though my mind is clearing up much upon Daniel, I reserve it to fuller opportunity.

Heavenly hopes belong to all saints save those who are to be delivered, and stand before the God of the earth, and that from Abraham on, aye! from Enoch too; but here we have to do with the kingdom. The Church are heavenly saints, but it has a special place. The dying "in the Lord" closes only when He who sits on the clouds is just coming in to judgment; compare verse 22, and Apocalypse 14: 13, 14. But the "dead which die in the Lord" are always saints (el-ye-nin).

25. The first "Most High" is il-la-ya, the second is el-ye-nin. But note, applied to God, it brings the earth under His jurisdiction, and Him into connection with it. It is His Name of millennial title and government, but it brings the saints into heaven. The knowledge and owning of Jehovah is the secret place of the Most High, not of the Father and of the Son; compare Prov. 8, where it is Jehovah. But then it shows there will be those who, in God's mind, are associated with Him in His heavenly place of government, who come under the destroying power of the little horn. And this the Psalms and Apocalypse provide for, as Psa. 16; 17, and Apocalypse 6, 15 and 21, perhaps others. Indeed the "God of heaven" is Daniel's natural expression where He was not Jehovah (see the beginning) and, till He takes His place on earth, the saints, by grace, must have this character—they own God when He is not on earth.

Daniel 8

This is not the sad pride of the world, the apostate Gentility against God, and His, as on high. It is the representative or successor of the Grecian monarchy against those who stood as God's authorities and signs on the earth. The first general idea is, that this little horn shall attack and trample on the host of heaven, and the stars. It shall cast down (or out) the truth, shall practice and prosper. Secondly, he shall stand up against the prince of the host. Thirdly, the daily sacrifice is taken away from the prince of the host, the place of his sanctuary cast out or down, not, I think, physically (materially) and the daily sacrifice subjected, for a given period (viz., 2,300 days) to oppression. Only the two former are spoken of as accomplished at the end of the indignation. The king, understanding dark sentences, shall stand up, be powerful, destroy mighty ones and the people of the saints. He shall stand up against the Prince of princes. All that regards the daily is not the least applied to the little horn in the interpretation given, but as all relating to the action of the horn against the saints is, while chapter 7 being a collateral, accessory subject, so here omitted, because the historical type is not explicitly carried out here. The only allusion to it is verse 26, the last words of which might give occasion to further inquiry.

It is well to remark that in this chapter, it (the explanation) is declared to be at the end of the indignation, and at the time appointed—the end. In chapter 7, this is not the case—the history and explanation is left open and general, though I doubt not the full accomplishment is at the close. In general, the horn makes war against the saints till the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of 'the high places,' and the time came that 'the saints possessed the kingdom.' Then, there are three characters—great words against the Most High—wearing out the saints of the high places—and changing times and laws. He acts, or speaks, against the Most High, against the heavenly saints, and against the Jewish order. The period, up to which he acts against the heavenly saints, is not stated. He made war with the saints 'until.'

We have here, i.e., in the explanation, what happens in the end of the indignation. The willful king prospers till the indignation is, I apprehend, fulfilled (ad-kalah, until the completion). In verse 8, we have merely one of the nations which burden themselves with Jerusalem, even all the nations, and act in different ways against the sanctuary, not honoring God in it. Now the staff in the Assyrian's hand is God's indignation. He is sent against the hypocritical nation, and the people of His wrath. I should suspect then that, in their connection with Antichrist, they are filling up the position of indignation. And, till this was done, he prospered; chapter II: 36. Then the indignation came in the Assyrian fully, and ceased; but there is more to be learned of this. Ta-mam (to complete) is used in this sense, in verse 23, below.

9. This has distinct local, or national identity.

11. Query is Mim-men-nu, "from him," or "by him"? The last word in the verse, mi-k'dosho (from his sanctuary) would say "from." Surely it is "from him," as in the margin, and not "by him."

Huram (he took away) is distinct; yash-bith (he made to cease) chapter 9: 27.

Why is this Antichrist at all? I do not believe it is. What is there to show it is? Does it appear anywhere that the "place of the sanctuary" is cast down by Antichrist? He sits in it perhaps, defiling it—that is different from throwing it down. Further, this arises out of one of the four kingdoms of the Grecian monarchy, and, as to its explanation specifically, it is " at the time of the end." Next, it is in the last end of the indignation. The indignation ceases (za-am, ' indignation,' in both cases) in the destruction of the Assyrian. The destruction in verse 25, and in Isa. 30:30 is not dissimilar, but I cannot identify them, nor do I know as yet that they are identified. It appears to me that it is with the enemies; Psa. 74, 0-yev (enemy) and tsor-rey-ka (thy adversaries)—the difference of which, as contrasted with Antichrist, I had noticed, without reference to this at any rate. This is a Jewish, Grecian, enemy I think, and not Antichrist. I should suspect from Isa. 10:5, 25, compared with this, and Dan. 11:36, 44, that Antichrist will continue until the Assyrian comes up against, and he, and his allies, "the enemies," take Jerusalem—the punishment of their union with Antichrist. As soon as this is done, and there is none shut up or left, the Lord takes up the matter, but I have much to learn here yet; for this, we must consult from Isa. 28 to 35.

Observe that, in the explanation of what happens at the end of the indignation, there is nothing about the Sanctuary or daily sacrifice, quod nota. I do not believe this king is Antichrist.

11-14. " Yea, he magnified even to the prince of the host, and from him the daily [sacrifice] was taken away," literally "lifted" "was raised up" (he-rim) as a crown off the head, "and the place of his sanctuary was cast out," rather than "cast down," "and a set time of trouble was appointed to the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it" (the horn) "cast down" (the same as of the sanctuary) "the truth to the ground; and it practiced and prospered. Then I heard one saint speaking, and one saint said to the certain saint which spoke, "Until when" (how long) "the vision of the daily [sacrifice], and the wickedness which causeth desolation, to give the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said to me 'Until' (or 'during') evening, morning, 2,300, and then the sanctuary shall be vindicated." Note in the end of the chapter, in the explanation, there is nothing given at all as to the sanctuary cast down, nor the daily sacrifice; only he destroys mighty ones, and the people of the saints, and at last stands up against the Prince of princes. But note verse 26; and note, it is just what I had put in a parenthesis, which is left out. All the rest, before and after, is in the interpretation; then verses 13, 14, must be considered, which connect the two.

These verses calculate the seventy weeks, because its subject then began to exist, abstracting perhaps the seven. I think it very highly probable that the three days and a half, not here noticed, may be the three years and a half, the 1,260 days during which Antichrist shall be in oppressive possession of Jerusalem, Messiah appearing again at the close of that period. This calculation may be stated thus: 490 from 2,300 leaves 1,810. But this goes to the Lord's death. Therefore we must add 33 and 1/2 for our Lord's life, that makes it 1,843 and 1/2. Sanctuary cleansed. Then there is a further question as to the epoch, i.e., they say the epoch is generally counted four years too late.

I have come to the conclusion that Antichrist is not mentioned in the Book of Revelation, though the formal power that he heads is, but not as such, not him, though it is; and, as this is most important, so it clears up a great deal. So neither is the reign of Christ, which leads us further into the subject and structure of the Book. I do not mean that it is not adverted to, but the saints reign with Him, but they are not the subjects but companions of His reign. And, inasmuch as the saints, as such, are the subject of the Book, this is merely stated as the result, and their happiness in the New Jerusalem stated, and the fact of the subjection and blessing of the world, as connected with it, not the earthly estate as subject—that, you must look for in the prophets, which is the subject of them, the kingdom of the Son. We are to reign with Him, but the blessings are the state in which we are derivatively, not imperially, i.e., New Jerusalem. Nothing can be more important than this, as showing the position in which the saints are taken up in this Book—that it is the very opposite to the coming of Christ, as such, that closes the subject of the Book. It is the saints as spiritual inmates of the Father's kingdom, but in the Son's which is not assumed, but in which they are not when it comes, and therefore in patience among those who have the possession of it, and brought in the New Jerusalem blessing of the Father's kingdom, when the Son with them takes the place; hence see Revelation 11, et seq. There the general view ends, and His taking the kingdom is noticed—the earthly kingdom, etc., and the whole is recognized in the thanks of the twenty-four elders, reward to the saints, and destroying them that destroy the earth—yet the blessings of earthly Jerusalem do not follow. Hence we see the moral difficulties, and the new Jerusalem blessings are the subject of the Book, not the reign of Christ and the personal power of Antichrist. The moment the Son of Man takes the kingdom, the position of the Book ceases, for then the saints are to be His agents in it, and reign with Him. Hence the subsequent part of the Book is the development of the systems which lead up to this. As to the personal Antichrist, the saints are agents of destruction, not themselves destroyed. They have refused the mark of the image, and therefore are not under his reign, but reign with Christ, on his destruction delivering the Remnant (of the Jews) whom he held under thraldom. The comparison of chapter 11:18, 19, and 21 plainly opens out this part of the subject. The subsequent part, from chapter 11, opens out, in just order, the subject of that in which the saints are involved, the mystic arrangements and progress of evil to that which formed Babylon and the power it rode, and the deliverance of the saints in and out of it, with the agencies of the latter day which developed and set it aside, and then the marriage of the Lamb, and then the bringing of His wife into the house He had prepared for her, as married, in her dignity, as brought by Him into the glory. Blessings may flow from this, and all the nations bring their glory and honor here, but this is not the kingdom of the Son, save as the Throne is the kingdom, therefore it is mentioned as we shall reign with Him.'

I think we have the intention of the Books, as to their object, thus: Daniel gives the powers that deal with the Jews, especially the last; there is therefore, but inasmuch as the Jews properly were the subject definitely, he who holds the Jews in tribulation, i.e., Antichrist. Therefore in Daniel, we have Antichrist dealing with the Jews. The other prophets give the Assyrian with the Land, Immanuel's Land, though they speak of the Antichrist collaterally or partially.

The Book of Revelation gives the moral operations of Antichrist among and over the Gentiles, as far as he is the chief object, and his destruction. The spiritual, moral Antichrist, the spirit of evil, rules in the Gentile world, and acts against the spiritual, moral body, the Christian believers. The personal Antichrist is opposed to the personal Christ, but anticipatively, i.e., he sets up over Jerusalem, and would show himself as God. The Gentiles, I do not doubt, will be so afraid of the Gog, that they will throw themselves into the hands of the personal Antichrist, and thus be the opponents of the Lord at Jerusalem. The same of the Jews there, as to His power. The Assyrian is the grand opponent of the nation, and is involved in the catastrophe, being found coming up when the Lord has destroyed the Antichrist. He thinks he has found it as a nest, but he knows not the Lord, nor the thoughts of His heart, and is broken to pieces against the Rock of their salvation. Antichrist is against Christ, as the spirit of Antichrist is against those led of the Spirit of Christ, but the Assyrian is looking for power, universal power, earthly power, and this brings him into atheism. The Jews in Christ's hand, when He has taken to Him His power, are the instruments of his destruction in measure, for they destroy each other also, but it is as acting for and with the Jews, the Remnant. The saints who have suffered with Christ during the period of the deceitful power, then in Christ's hand are the avengers against Antichrist. The Christ mystical, Christ and all His Saints, in Daniel, are to look for Antichrist, and the Jews in Revelation for his covert working and forming of the body for judgment—in the prophets, generally, for the Assyrian against the temporal power of God set up in the Jews, of course under the Son on the throne of David; then there is an interesting question.

12. It appears that here the translation might well be, "And an appointed time of misery, or subjection, to the rule of strangers is set over the daily [sacrifice] because of transgression." The point here is the effect of the transgression; it has nothing to do with the "abomination of desolation," though that may be collaterally included in it, but the continuance of the effect of the transgression which made desolate.

‘And an host was given against the daily by reason of transgression' (v'tza-va tin-na-then al-hat-ta-mid b'pha-sha). Unnecessary difficulty seems to have been thrown on this passage, by want of attention to a very ordinary use of the word tza-va (host). It is in the first verse of chapter 10 emeth haddavar v'tza-va ga-dol (the thing was true, but the time appointed was long). It is translated the time appointed.' This however, I think, is an imperfect sense of the word. Job 7:1, seems to give an entrance into the force of the word, 'Is there not an appointed time to man? His days also as the days of an hireling?' So chapter 14:14, and Isaiah 40:2, whence I gather that its force is 'an appointed time' of subjection to evil. Further, I believe the force of tin-na-thenal (shall be given... against) is properly ‘to set over.' The translation then would simply be ' an appointed [time] of subject misery,' or 'subjection to the rule of strangers is appointed over the daily, because of transgression,' giving the general subject of the prophecy.

The next point I would notice is the calculation of 2,300 days for the cleansing the sanctuary, and here, as I have ever found, extrinsic inquiry obscures Scripture. The Scripture itself affords the basis of the chronology. Four hundred and ninety days, or seventy weeks, were from the going forth of the decree to restore and rebuild; this, taken from 2,300, leaves 1,810. If we take the seven weeks for the period during which the wall, etc., should be rebuilt, then, adding forty-nine years, the close of the period 1859. At any rate Daniel's date is the one to be relied on, for it is the Lord's, for the purpose of the period up to Messiah the Prince. We might have to add twenty-nine years for the period of our Lord's ministry. These questions of detail are not now, however, the point I would rest on at large. In connection with the former word tza-va (host) does ga-dol ever mean ‘long' as in Daniel 10:1?

I cannot help thinking that, while Romanism, and especially popery, have been the Antichristian power during the time of the Spirit's testimony while Christianity, i.e., the Church of God, subsists on the earth, that afterward other powers will come on the scene, i.e., the civil, imperial power in the empire (in the West, I suppose), and as power in Palestine in the East, which associates itself with the designs of the imperial power of the West, and recognizes it, but will act in an independent way in its own sphere—will have its own character, and deceive the Jews, and have the fullest private character of religious iniquity, and Jewish Anti-christianism or Anti-Messiah-ship setting up there, and, in fine, acting with the devil's power. This will characterize the Beast, but it is it that will so act. There is another question: What is Dan. 8 in this scene? This will of course end in the denial, not merely of the Father and the Son, but in the full Jewish form of infidelity denying that Jesus is the Christ.

24. "The mighty and the holy people" is surely not the sense. It is "And the people of the saints," not "the holy people," see chapter 7: 27. " He shall destroy mighty ones, and the people of the sanctuary." Am kad-di-shey (the people of the saints) is evidently a definite word, as in chapter 7: 27, though there el-ye-nin (the heavenly places) is added, because of its connection with that. This I believe to be Antichrist, strictly in connection with the Jews that act so, but in more general bearings, in the Roman empire. See note above; but, with the exception of its being Antichrist, this note is true.

26. It certainly appears to me that this is the identity of Grecian, national evil against the Jews, Assyrian or Grecian-Syrian enmity, and, I suspect, while the final enmity is what he explains at the end, the vision includes all. It may be a question, though characteristic, whether the detail of verses 10, 11, etc., applies to the time of the end. The explanation is clearly (v. 19) the end, but it was for many days, identifying, at any rate, the local power as restored to act at the end. Then chapter 7 would be the general statement of the judgment and results; chapter 8 the Grecian or little horn which casts down the sanctuary when the transgressors are come to the full; chapter 9 the appointment of the time to Messiah the Prince—the Anti-Messiah character, in Jerusalem, of the Antichrist. Chapter 11 I believe to be the secular actings of Antichrist, as head of the Roman power. If Antichrist goes down to Egypt, if the king of the South pushes at him, then hears of the attacks from the North and East, and returns, and perishes, with none to help him—he had previously filled up iniquity in Jerusalem—the order would be plain.

I return, after inquiry to the thoughts already expressed on this chapter. It is another hostile power, having its birthplace in the limits of the Grecian empire, which, after many exploits, attacks and oppresses the Jews—has prolonged intercourse with them—is not a mere pagan enemy, but furnished with wisdom of its own kind, not divine indeed perhaps, but Solomonic in its pretension. Policy and craft shall be there, as well as war; finally he shall stand up against the Prince of princes. This is the interpretation, and it is all that is positively prophesied at the end. I cannot doubt that God has so ordered these prophecies as to suit them to the partial accomplishments—say in the time of the Grecian power for instance, and Mahomet, and that we have to use spiritual discernment for the application, only the Lord has taken care that it is perfect, while useable for faith in each time of need. There is nothing here of the abomination of desolation—we are on other ground. It is friendly and deceitful relationships or attacks from without, but connected with this, a time of desolation as to the other state of things. It is not the transgression causing, but the desolation caused, quod nota, though the enemy's pride is noticed. I hold, ' And from him the daily was taken away' (‘through him,' not 'by,' if insisted on, but 'from him' I believe correct) 'and the place of his sanctuary was cast down, and a time of distress appointed to the daily, by reason of transgression,' to be the rendering, and, in parenthesis, describing the state of the Jewish sanctuary and worship at that time generally.

Hence the inquiry is as to the duration of the desolation—how long the vision of the daily, and the transgression which desolates, to give the sanctuary and host to be trampled on? The abomination is not noticed. It is the transgressors which bring on the desolation here. This enemy will attack and harass, and deceive the transgressing people. It is very probable that, up to the beginning of the last half week, the apostate power will associate with the Jews; Isa. 28 seems to demonstrate it. This will not save them from the desolator neither, as that passage shows. The earlier attacks are before the taking away the daily, and the placing of the abomination of desolation. That is clear because there are 1,290 days from these latter weeks, and 2,700 of the time of distress—the transgression which gives up the sanctuary and the host to be given up to idolatry, I suppose, according to Isa. 65 will have been introduced (as in Ahaz's time) along with the sacrifices; see Isa. 65:11 and chap. 66: 1-3. Hence distress from the Assyrian, or this horn of chapter 8. Then at the middle of the week, the state of things changes—the daily sacrifice is taken away, and the abomination of desolation set up.

Note in Isa. 57 we have idolatry and going to "the king," and in chapter 30 the Assyrian and the king plunged into Tophet.

Note also, here, that Isa. 24 is a signal instance how the narrower objects of prophecy spread out in the divine vision, into larger, for, in a considerable part of it eretz is evidently 'the Land' (and, I doubt not, Palestine is looked at as a center of gathering) but, to say nothing of intimations of a wider bearing, because it is the true center of God's earth (compare the connection of Isa. 2 and 3) verse 21, and the following, clearly show that 'earth' reaches out to 'the world' beyond Palestine. Indeed another thing shows it, because evidently Nebuchadnezzar's inroad gives occasion to much of it. Yet the fall and destruction of Babylon is included in it. It may be alleged indeed that the successes of the Assyrian empire, which began with Sargon, are referred to, for Babylon was conquered, and Esarhaddon reigned there without a viceroy, but this would not alter the great principle, only the argument drawn from supposing it was Nebuchadnezzar.

Note, as to oikoumene, besides other passages, it is used for eretz (earth) in Isa. 24:1, and for te-vel (habitable earth) in verse 4. It is also used for te-vel in the Septuagint in Psa. 18:4 (Heb. 19: 5); 92:1 (Heb. 93:1); 95:10-13 (Heb. 96:10-13)—and in Psa. 97:9 (Heb. 98: 9), where it is translated ' world,' and where, note, eretz answers to ge, and oikoumene to te-vel. So indeed in Psa. 18 (Septuagint) 19 (English). This, in certain reasonings, clearly decides the use of oikoumene in the New Testament.

Daniel 9

This chapter rests on the Mosaic deliverance, and the intercession of Solomon which does not go beyond it, and hence refers to the dealings with Israel, in captivity, for their sins, and looking towards Jerusalem. Thus Daniel, in his prayer (chapter 6:10) turns towards Jerusalem. And hence it is still the 'holy mountain' of his God, though Israel be captive, His sanctuary that is desolate, verses 16, 17, 19 and 20, and so called (verse 24) by the Angel Gabriel. They are called Daniel's people, and his holy city. Then seventy weeks are determined on them-sixty-nine as is known, to Christ who has nothing, for it is Jerusalem and earth which is in question, and then the people of the prince to come destroy the city and the sanctuary de novo. But this prince then comes in view, and, it would seem, in translating simply, his end that is with a flood. He establishes or enters into covenant for a week, makes the sacrifice and oblation cease, the idols or abominations of him who desolateth are set up, whether you translate ka-naph (wing) 'protection' or 'battlement,' and al (upon) 'because of' or 'upon,' and until all be fulfilled that is decreed, ruin and misery are poured forth upon the desolate.

These then are the relations of God with Israel and Jerusalem, when she is not owned, but still called, in the faith and desire of the saint and the answer of God, ' the holy city,' yet desolate, yet her children also many.

It seems to me clear enough that this chapter refers more particularly to chapter 7, or Western power, and chapters 10, 11 and 12 to chapter 8, or North Eastern. Both, note, are in the favorable time of the Persian empire, either Darius the Mede, or Cyrus.

It seems to me that chapter 11:32-35 can in no way, as some have supposed, apply to the times of Antichrist. Verse 31 Then presents a difficulty, for it would seem to be the success of the forces acting on the part of the king of the North; and so I suppose it must be, primarily. Verse 36 begins properly the willful king, as he is called. I think I have noticed that he is only introduced here by the bye. But then from that verse, we are clearly in the time of the end, and then we have the time, times and half a time, and the abomination of desolation, and the daily taken away, the date of 1,260 days, and so 1,335 days. He will have accomplished scattering the power of the holy people, and that will be the end. We have the same date for the delivery of the times and laws into the hand of the blasphemous horn of the beast of the seventh chapter. I suppose in chapter 9: 27, we have the same in the form of dividing of the week. In Isa. 28 we have the scornful men at Jerusalem, on the other hand, making a covenant with death and hell that the scourge may not reach them. Hence, though a sure and tried foundation, and true, blessed be the God of all grace, is laid in Zion, yet when the scourge passes through they will be trodden down by it (there will be a flood-the same word, Isa. 28:17, 18, as Dan. 9:27, as is indeed the 'treading down,' Isa. 28:18, compare verses 2 and 3, and Dan. 8:10) and this, Isa. 28:22, is because ka-lah v'ne-che-ratzah (the completion, and that which has been decreed) is to be executed on all the Land. Compare the language in the Lord's judgment at the end of the chapter 30. All these chapters of Isaiah give the fullest illustration of the two parties brought forward in Daniel. Tophet is for "the king," as well as for the Assyrian. I question whether chapter 33 may not introduce Gog, but this is a further question, and compare Mic. 5 Chapter 34 would also seem to say it was the Assyrian, comparing Psa. 83 and the history of Sennacherib, with chapter 33: 8.

Note, the horn of Dan. 8 is not strong by his own power, so that though geographically, perhaps, the Assyrian, the latter may remain behind in the judgment of God, and come up after all, finally, as Gog. Psa. 82 and 83 give the Lord rising up to judge those who were called elohim once, but Adam, and the last confederacy in which judgment sets up the name of Jehovah Elion; compare Isa. 8:9.

Further, we cannot but conclude, I think, from Isaiah to and 28 that the consumption decreed falls on Israel, whatever it may involve as to others. If this be so, it would go far to show that, Dan. 9:27, the consumption decreed was on the same, and sho-mem would be taken in its usual sense of 'desolate.' The consumption decreed—there will be a desolator till the decreed judgment be fully executed on the desolate, the oikos eremos (house desolate) of Matt. 23 If this be so, the question becomes important, if the m'sho-mem (‘desolation' or 'desolator,' chaps. 9:27 and 11:31) and sho-mem (desolate, chaps. 9:27 and 12:11) be not intentionally different in chapters II and 12. The abomination of the desolator of chapter 11 being, though generally typical, different from the abomination of the desolate or desolation of chapter 12—in the former, the violence of the desolator being noticed, whereas in the abomination of chapter 12 The desolate herself is engaged. All through Isaiah, idolatry is marked as stamping the iniquity of the Jews of the latter day. The Lord's testimony as to the unclean spirit, I doubt not, confirms it. Sho-mem, in Jeremiah, is several times used for Jerusalem desolate. M'sho-mem is used in Ezra, for his state, it is true, but I should judge from the passage, in a reflective sense, like etaraxen heauton (He troubled Himself) John 11:33, margin. In this case the abomination of desolation, of which the Lord speaks, would be that of chapter 12.

It appears to me that this expression, kalah v'ne-che-ratzah refers always to the final judgments. But it would appear here that it was what fell on the apostate body desolator, as well as the Jewish part, for certainly here the marginal reading, as far as I can see, must be right-Sho-mem (desolate)-the other places where this is used are Isa. 28:22, and 10: 23. The use of the word may be seen, 2 Sam. 13:20. As far as I judge, it applies to all, indiscriminately, as done, in the righteousness of His abstract character, as against all inconsistent with that, in the exercise of its power. The difficulty of Dan. 9:27, seems to me to flow from k'naph (wing). My ignorance of the force of this word bars me from any confidence in interpretation, or I should think the prophetic order ran thus: confirm a covenant with many, one week. In the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and offering (min-khah) to cease, and upon the k'naph (wing) of the abominations of him that desolateth, and even until the consumption, and short work (of the Lord) shall be poured on the desolator, see also Dan. 11:36, where we find the same principles developed in their actual effects, bringing the things together, as indeed in Isa. 19:25; but note this seems to cloud the evidence of the difference of the Assyrian and the antichristian king. This however would need inquiry. This last supposed difficulty is merely a mistake. All this happens in Jerusalem—the Assyrian never enters there.

It is well to keep in mind the way in which Daniel is given a sort of mediatorial character, like Moses, the Lord saying, 'Thy people,' as in verse 24, also chapters 10:14, 11:14, and 12: 1. It is in verses 15, 16 of this chapter, that, as Moses, Daniel calls them, to the Lord, 'Thy people.'This gives a distinct character to chapters 7 and 8, and to chapters 9-12, which also should be studied.

15, 16. Daniel's faith outreaches their sin, and rests on God's faithfulness, so did that of Moses—only here he goes back to Moses and Egypt; Moses also goes back to the fathers.

23. Note Daniel stands in a very peculiar place, something analogous to Moses. God says to him "thy people," just as He said to Moses as mediator. Only Daniel stands as representative, and securer of the hopes of the people, in the midst of Israel, and more especially as the witness of God's mind when the Jews were in captivity—Moses, as a deliverer in power. So remark that God gives what is needed to His people at all times. He may not, when sorrow, and captivity, and Babylonish trial, is their place according to His government, give the delivering power which would take them out of it, but He gives fully and perfectly what is wanted for them in it, and that is what they need. A Moses, as such, would have thrown all into confusion in Daniel. A Daniel, in the prosperity of Israel, would have had no place. So he does not even return when the Remnant of the Captivity went back.

Note, in this place, faithfulness in not defiling himself with the Gentiles, among whom he dwelt, was the foundation of all. Then God gives him wisdom, and he is made the depository of the mind of God for Israel, in that state of things. So he confesses and intercedes like Moses, and gets the answer of a better blessing—answering to the Jews' state in grace—than Moses ever got. Babylon to the first year of Cyrus, is his moral position as first placed as a witness there, for he continued longer. Chapter 6 is peculiar. Darius is favorable to the Remnant under God, and yet he sets up to have no petition addressed to any but himself, exclusively of every God. Daniel prospered after Babylon. Chapter 12 is like Rev. 14, God's dealings in the time of the great subject of the previous part of the prophecy.

I give here the end of this chapter, "Seventy weeks are appointed to (or for) thy people, and for thy holy city, to stop the transgression, to close sins, and pardon iniquity, and to bring in the righteousness of ages, and to close up vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. And know, and consider [that] from the going forth of the word to restore [return] and to [re-]build, or build again, Jerusalem, to Messiah Prince, seven weeks, and sixty and two weeks, shall return and be rebuilt the street and the fosse, and in trouble of times. And after sixty and two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, and shall have nothing: and the city and the sanctuary shall the people of a prince to come destroy: and its [or his] end with a flood (an inundation), and to the end (of the) war decreed desolations. And he shall confirm covenant with the many one week: and the dividing of the week he shall cause to cease sacrifice and offering, and because of (or upon) the wing (protection) of abominations (there shall be) a desolator, and until the completion, and that which is decreed shall be poured on the desolator."

24. First, note that the seventy weeks are determined upon "thy people"; compare verse 7 (there is never in Messiah's interference, anything short of "All Israel," though Judah and Jerusalem may be the scene of it) but this, we may learn, reaches therefore to the end, as Matt. 24, "The end is not by and bye." But the coming of the Messiah is the point of intervention. The coming of Messiah and the end therefore coalesce—the Gentile dispensation being passed over as not concerned in "thy people." This is habitually the case in Old Testament prophecy, being the mystery hidden. We are therefore to speak of all Jewish transactions as consequent on each other, omitting all from one coming to the other, save only the tribulation, of the facts of Jerusalem's destruction, which I believe are taken up in Scripture in the latter day, and then the prophecy proceeds. This opens this prophecy, I think, much.

"Seventy weeks are determined on thy people, and upon thy holy city." L'ha-them (in order to complete) is the keri form, from ta-mam (to complete)—so to 'complete' or 'finish.'

Then from the going forth of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, which I take of the ordinary decree, seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. It is mere nonsense to talk of seventy, sevens being neither Hebrew nor sense. We have then two persons, 'Messiah the Prince,' and (the people of) 'the prince that shall come' (to wit, Antichrist, the head of the Roman power); but it is not in the first instance ‘the prince,' but ‘the people of the prince'—they destroy the city and the sanctuary. This was true, but its reality was cut off in Christ. Well! after the sixty-two weeks, i.e., including the previous seven, sixty-nine, to wit, in the last week, Messiah shall be cut off. Afterward (time is no longer reckoned) the people of the prince to come, the people of Antichrist, shall destroy the city and sanctuary. Then, I believe, comes the mystery of the two princes—Jesus Messiah, the Prince (not owned indeed) did confirm the covenant; compare Rom. 15:8. But this was, in fact, or effect rather, only with the Remnant. He came in ills Father's name, and the and abhorred Him. If another should come, the prince that should come, in his own name (magnifying himself above all) him they would receive. Antichrist then became to the people of the Jews, unbelieving, who would have no king but Caesar, what Jesus was indeed to the remnant people of God. He confirms covenant with the many, one week. I believe it is said, 'covenant,' and not ha-b'rith (‘the' covenant), that it may apply to both. I suspect also the word 'many' is introduced, to leave it open, as compare Isa. 53:12. But here it more particularly applies to Antichrist, with the multitude of the Jews. But as Jesus, for His people, caused sacrifice and oblation to cease in the midst of the week, so I believe Antichrist, having beguiled the multitude for as long as Jesus was rejected, will, in willful injury, make all their forms cease—the sacrifice of the restored temple and city—and then he will persecute the Jews bitterly, and shed their blood like water.

Surely there will be also a rebuilding and restoring in the latter day. The expression v'en lo (and not to Him, i.e., He shall have nothing) is most plain for Messiah's laboring in vain. His end—the prince's as well as the people's—shall be with a flood. The accents in Hebrew then give the end of the war, otherwise one might have been tempted to have read ' until the end,' but this flood is indeed a scene of conflict—Jerusalem is encompassed with armies, and, till the end of this, there is a decree of desolations—upon making the offering and the sacrifice to cease. The sacrifice is a matter of continual circumstance, not including burnt offerings. The abominations of the desolator are (set) upon the edge or pinnacle, but note the accents, in Hebrew, read 'upon the wing,' or edge, 'of abominations is the desolator,' quod nota. Indeed it would be in the common translation "abominable things" (shikkuuim), so that the sense must be quite different, I suppose. The common English version is surely the right one, al (upon) being used as "for," "because of," but I should rather take k'naph (wing), etc., as the false protection of Antichrist, the protection of abominations, which indeed was a desolator. Because of that, there was a desolator, i.e., they were given up to him. I apprehend, however, that it is not the protection of Antichrist, but given up to Antichrist because of the other; compare Isa. 65 and 66.

It would appear that the unbelieving Jews would be given up to utter abominations, or it is the recapitulation of all their evil, for the Lord is retrospective in judgment nationally (compare Acts 7, Stephen) and this certainly is included, but our Lord's words seem to imply a return of that evil spirit, and seven worse ones, and ' the last state worse than the first.' And there will be a m'shomem (desolation or desolator) even until the consumption decreed (the technical term for God's bringing things to a conclusion) shall be poured upon the desolator. There will be no desolator, I suppose, after this. The rest of Solomon may not be come, but there will be an end of desolations. The Lord will be the protection (k'naph, wing) of His people in Jerusalem, and take them up for His glory, making Judah His ' goodly horse,' etc. On the whole the difficulty of this passage seems cleared up, though more may be to learn.

"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city." This is the subject—the thing to be accomplished, to complete or make an end of transgression—to seal up or finish sin—to make expiation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up, or finish the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. The ' making expiation,' if we trust the points it is in Pihel, and 'anointing the Most Holy,' seem to affix the application to the first coming of the Lord, which did accomplish, in His Person, prophecy, however wide a scene might then open before Him. Besides, if the suffering of the Jews, by which they received at the Lord's hand double of all their sins, be taken as the sense of kapher (to make reconciliation), though I think it forced, then the whole period of tzava (host), I apprehend should be included, and not the seventy weeks in any shape. On the whole then, though it looks out to the future as we shall see, and that especially, the primary object of this prophecy is the Lord's first coming, though that embraces, in its results, the second. But it is also hard to suppose that, if it meant to define the time of the second blessing, there should be no sort of reference to it, if it spoke of the seven weeks as the special period of the evil upon Jerusalem in the latter day, or in which the city should be built, nothing should be spoken of the great consummation, when this, in some shape, is the whole matter of the prophecy, expiation, sealing up prophecy, bringing in righteousness, and anointing the Most Holy—but not a word of anything relating to this, if taken as relation to the latter day.

Then comes the period. The last thing mentioned was 'anointing the Most Holy,' or as the original carries it, that we may be aware of the association to M'sho-ah (anoint) (the ‘o' being the infinitive) the Most Holy. 'Therefore from the going forth of the decree to Messiah the Prince.' This seems at once to identify and mark the association of the period—anointing, especially, was then. But there were, as it were, two subjects given—the city and the end of the period making an end of transgression, etc. The period is divided therefore with this reference, 'and know and understand, from the going forth of the word or decree to restore,' rebuild 'Jerusalem' (I think this is rather the sense, than the return from the captivity, but it includes the return of the people then) 'to Messiah the Prince, seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. The street shall be built again' (return and be rebuilt—it is the same word as 'restore' before) ‘and the trench in trouble,' or strait, ‘of times.' There, I apprehend, is the period of the seven weeks, and the city being built. ‘After sixty-two weeks, Messiah shall be cut off, and has,' or ‘shall have,’ 'nothing'—for He had nothing. ‘Thou, 0 Israel, my servant, in whom,' etc. ‘Then I said, I have labored in vain, and spent my strength for naught,' and this relates only to Israel as a nation, the city and people, etc. On the Cross, alone, in that day, from a Gentile, in derision, he received the name of the King of the Jews.' There was nothing for Him, ‘not to Him' (en lo).

Then come the consequences. 'The people of a prince to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.' (This is the general acting of the Roman power all through) and his ' or 'the end thereof in a flood,' i.e., the end of this state of things shall be in a complete breaking up of judgment or destruction, or overwhelming of peoples—a flood, a well-known, and very intelligible expression in Scripture—'and until the end, a war of decreed desolations,' or ‘till the end of the war' (at any rate, this end previously spoken of) ‘decreed desolations.' All this is ‘no time,' for after these things again is true what ought to have been true before, so to speak, as was, in Jesus but not in them, but is now in effect, namely finishing transgression, etc. Messiah the Prince appearing, there were to be sixty-two weeks to this. Now this is the end of the final period of all. The things therefore which coalesce, are Messiah and Messiah, and that is all. The intermediate time is merely generally ad-ketz (until the end).

Remember there are two subjects—the city, and the sanctuary—Daniel's city and sanctuary, and that which we may symbolize by anointing the Most Holy.' Now the Anointed, the Messiah, was cut off after the sixty-two weeks, then the city and sanctuary then given up to the people of the prince that should come, and the end of him, or of this desolation there were decreed desolations. Then is the fate of the city and sanctuary. He that endures to the end, the same shall be saved. This same final end, when Messiah shall be revealed, putting an end to the corruption, and destruction of them that destroy the earth.

Then comes Messiah's part. ‘He shall confirm covenant with many' or ‘fully,’ ‘one week, and in the dividing of the week he shall make the sacrifice and offering cease. And the abominations of the desolator shall be set up on the high place.'

And this will be so, i.e., the prevalence of this hostile power until the ka-lah v'ne-che-ratzah (completion, and that which has been decreed) be poured upon the desolator—the consummation determined. I am certainly of opinion that the person to confirm (hig-bir) is Messiah, Jesus in His first advent. Verse 26 finishes one subject; prima facie, confirm (hig-bir) would seem to refer to yash-khith (shall destroy) but I think the subject of the prophecy is Messiah, verse 27 being distinct and definite. I have no objection from system to refer it to Antichrist. I have no doubt he will be confederate with the ungodly Jews, as may be seen in notes elsewhere, and that he will set up abomination that maketh desolate. Whether he will do this, and make the sacrifices cease in the midst of a week, might be well settled by this passage, if it meant so, but I do not see this. It does not seem to me to be its subject.

I use k'naph (wing) generally, because I think purposely so used, but my mind at once turns to epi to pterugion you hierouon the pinnacle of the Temple, literally 'the little wing of the Temple'—which there seems a known definite expression, and so others, I believe, as Gesenius, compare Matt. 4:5. However, I am not quite satisfied as to the force of k'naph.

26. Clearly not "but not for Himself," but "And shall have nothing," i.e., not take the kingdom and promises.

I apprehend Messiah should have been received at once, on His presenting Himself. We must remember all the witness there was in the hill-country of Judea, the Simeons, and the Annas, and those 'who waited for redemption in Israel.' So, when He presented Himself as in Nazareth, Samaria, and so as to awaken the inquiry everywhere, when He had, as it is said, told them plainly, they ought to have received Him. If they did not, they would die in their sins. Hence, I apprehend, the moment He came out publicly, the sixty-two weeks were over. The rest of His life was patience, not going on to the time He ought to be received. Hence ' after the sixty and two weeks, Messiah shall be cut off.' There was no time noticed after, because the sixty-two weeks to Messiah the Prince were fulfilled. Hence the time does not count after, to the last week. After the sixty-two weeks, He was cut off, the time of His patience was only grace, and calling out the poor of the flock to know that it was the word of the Lord.

26, 27. 'And after sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, and shall have nothing, and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary, and his (its?) end with a flood, and until the end of the war, decreed ' (decree of) ' desolations, and he shall establish' (confirm or enter into) 'covenant with the many, one week, and in the dividing of the week, he shall cause to cease sacrifice and offering, and because of the protection of the idols' (on the pinnacle, the idols of the desolator) 'a desolator, and until the complete destruction and the decree' (all that is decreed that is—ruin or wrath) (it) 'shall be poured out on the desolate.'

27. We have here one who confirms covenant with the many one week, and in the midst of the week he causes sacrifice and offering to cease. Specifically, we have here the abomination, not, in general, abominations, idols. I know not if authorities deem it admissible, but 'because of the protection of abominations' seems more natural—k’naph (protection) is 'wing,' I apprehend, in the sense of summit, without a characterizing substantive of which it is the summit. 'There is one who desolates.' It is the history of Jerusalem here, not of the horns or hostile powers. We must keep this in mind. Still the agents are marked out, Messiah comes and has nothing (for it is a question of Jews). Then the prince that shall come is pointed out, and supplants, takes the place of Messiah, as to whom en lo (not to Him). And note, Daniel never goes beyond the verge of Gentile domination, under which he was. It is that, including its destruction, which he tells of. This prince then is allied with the mass of the Jews all the week, therefore before the 2,700 commences. There is idolatry, and, in the middle of the work, he stops all sacrifice.

Daniel 10

Paul's comparisons are practically like Daniel's in this chapter. In a measure Paul also like Daniel when the vision came—only Paul's was a heavenly vision; Daniel's on earth, and of a glorious man on earth, but I note it for this. When Paul is caught up to the third heaven, there is no such confusion and terror. He knows not, it is true, if he be in the body or out of the body; he hears things not allowed to man to utter; that we can understand, but there is no terror, no confusion. This characterizes heaven and a heavenly state. Glory surely is there—infinite glory—but we are at peace and free there, and that with God Himself. It is a blessed state. Being in Christ (for it was a man in Christ he knew there) what is in God is our rest, and he can rest and does morally in Christ—yea, is glorified in Him. As to the mere glory, we are part of it. But there is no thought of dismay or confusion there, and that is the important point.

Daniel 11

In this chapter we have not merely the history of the Grecian successors of the great horn, by the relationships of the ships of Chittim with them; compare Num. 24:24. It is neither merely the character of the fourth beast, nor the actings of the great horn of the third, but the intrusion of the fourth into the territories of the third, associated with the consequences of this for the Jews. From verse 29, it is not as the former nor latter affairs regulated between the two, but the ships of Chittim come against the king of the North. This is a general idea (though I do not doubt as to the special circumstance commonly alluded to) thereon he returns, and has intelligence with those that forsake the holy covenant. Thereon comes in the passage which we know to be at the end, and which is, in any case parenthetical; verses 31, 30, and 32 following one on the other, and ' arms ' being the nominative to all the acts done in verse 31. The difficulty lies in the words mim-men-nu ya-a-mo-du (shall stand on his part). These 'arms' or 'material power' (see verse 6) shall stand up from him. They shall pollute and they shall take away the daily, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate. It is not 'he,' but 'they.' Verses 32-35 continue the course of ' his ' conduct, and the condition of the Jews in general, thence on to the end, of which we have here to notice that there are ' the intelligent, who instruct the many, and, besides the apostates who had forsaken the holy covenant, such as do wickedly against the covenant, who were corrupted by flatteries—that the people fall by the sword, etc., days—that there fall of the intelligent, that these may be tried through them, to the time of the end. These two facts—the separate fact of verse 31, and the condition of the Jews morally, and as to trial through to the end, constitute the revelation as to them in these chapters.

This chapter seems to me as simple as possible, as soon as we apply verses 30-35 to Antiochus Epiphanes, the Romans, and then the general state to the last days—its natural interpretation. Then the king in the last days comes in, naturally, in his place. Chapter 8 is more difficult for me. Still my impression is that it is not Antichrist, though I have nothing against it. My difficulty is the effect of the language. As a mere simple theory, it would make it easy. The force of "standing up against the Prince of princes" is to be considered; but it seems to me more earthly than Rev. 19.

24. ‘He shall enter into the peaceable and fat places,' etc., as in the margin.

30, etc. ‘For the ships of Chittim shall come,' etc. ‘And arms shall rise up from him,' either as a successor, or a constituted lieutenant; see verses 7 and 20. It is not al can-no (in his place); ‘And they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall remove' (he-si-ru, they shall remove)—take away, that it ceases to exist, as in Ezek. 21:31, 26; this and Dan. 8:11, are used together. 'And they shall place the idol of the desolator,' or 'that desolateth.' And such as do wickedly [as to] the covenant, he shall seduce to apostasy by flatteries ' (or favors). ` And the people that know their God shall be strong and act. And the intelligent' (instructed) ` of the people shall cause the many to understand, and they shall fall by the sword,' etc., 'days." And some of the intelligent shall fall, to try by them,' etc., ‘to the time of the end.'

31. I apprehend this is literally, or rather historically, still Antiochus Epiphanes, or, however, the king of the North who is despised or vile. 'Arms' or ‘forces' from him, acting under or for him, take their stand and pollute the sanctuary, etc. Here we have something definite. These do not destroy it—that was the work of another; see Psa. 74 and 83. They do not confirm covenant—they desolate.

Note, the only epoch directly recognized of the Lord, as a division of time, is the “Abomination of desolation, or the last three and a half years." If there be a first three and a half, it does not enter into this part of the subject. It is placed, generally, among "the beginning of sorrows," not being of warning; as reply to the disciples' question, there may of course be special revelation in another point of view.

We must remark here that it is “the forces" (z'roim, literally ‘arms '). They, I suppose, who pollute the sanctuary of strength, and remove, or set aside, the daily. It appears to me that this passage opens out the Roman succession to Antiochus Epiphanes, the willful king among those who typically answered to him, and who was not the king of the North (which he was), nor the king of the South, but held the antitypical place to him. Hence the introduction of them in verse 35. He it was who brought the Romans into this position. They spring from him providentially, and he represented their final agency, and, to make this clear, it is said ‘They shall pollute,' etc. The final accomplishment, I doubt not, shall be in Antichrist. Chapter 8, I conceive to be the literal Northern Antitype to him. Note here, accordingly, though the Romans did so in their original capacity, it is not said, they cast down the place of the sanctuary, for it is not their part in their ultimate character, though the abomination of desolation may be set up, and every dishonor done to the Jews. This also, as compared with chapter 9, seems the secular power of the Roman, Antichristian set, whereas chapter 9 seems to be the Jewish aspect, as holding the place, to their opinions, of Messiah the Prince. Here, he is the king, doing according to his will, laying his hand, etc. There it is about the covenant and the like, though he may be identified in act, in either character.

33. Ya-vi-nu la-rab-bim (will teach the multitude). The only case, I am aware of, of the dative of persons without accusative of thing; compare Job 6:24.

Then comes verse 36—the specialty of revelation, as to the depository of power in that day, the king; see the difference of chapter 12: 6 and 8: 13. It is the concentering of apostate power in an individual, acting in its energy, not merely as in chapter 7 morally rising up, but his acting as an earthly power in this character, or who had this character.

36. 'The' king, not 'this' king. Also compare Isaiah 30:33, and 57: 9.

The king is mentioned there three times in prophecy—Isaiah 30:33; chap. 57: 9, and here. In Isaiah 30:33, it would seem a distinct person from the Assyrian who is there also. In chapter 57: 9, he is named also without explanation, but it is probably, as to the letter, Egypt, see Hos. 12:1, but that is not the object of the prophecy. ' The king' seems someone recognized in that position, either as the one to whom God had entrusted empire or power in His place, or one whom the Jews have connected with themselves on that principle, and this I suppose to be the case here, and hence called 'the king.' That he may be in possession of Babylon, and the territories of the king of the North, so as to come in in succession here in the subjects this chapter treats of, is highly probable. Also he will seize Egypt, but this is not his principal character, though it takes its place here. He is the king. He prospers—not exists merely—till the indignation be accomplished. But cessation of indignation is not yet restoration; compare Isaiah to: 5, 25 and chap. 28: 14, 15; compare also chap. 20:6, and Dan. 8:19. I cannot doubt that this is the last character of the king who exalts himself above all, but, though characterized thus, it is his actings as a conqueror, specially in the countries bordering on Judaea.

Here we have the full character of ' the king ' at the end, who, in effect, has fully accomplished verse 31, as we see from chapter 12: II. He sets aside all true and traditional religion or hope, even as a Jew, of Messiah. But he sets up a false god—he will make a new religion. He will establish his instruments (not named, but connected with eloah mauzzim—the god of forces, A.V.) over the land.

The question then arises, Is it the same as the little horn of chapter 7? He certainly has the same character of self-aggrandizement and blasphemy, and it would seem that he is the wicked one of 2 Thess. 2. In Dan. 7:26, the dominion is considered as his, though he be not the beast, because we are in connection with Jews. It was he persecuted the saints. One would be led to think that the second beast of Rev. 13 is the same personage. The first beast having the public corporate imperial power of the West set up by Satan as the vessel of power, and subsequently object of adoration. God being abandoned, it is no wonder, no more than the emperors did before, only apostasy will do it more decidedly.

It might seem difficult to suppose that he, who set up as God in the Temple, should come to worship another, but it would appear from Dan. 11 That these two features do exist. He exalts himself against the true God, and, though he may act as Darius, for awhile, some sort of religion is necessary for his followers. And he practices with this, though as between himself and God, it is blasphemy. Satan is habitually forced to keep up appearance of worshipping some other known object.

45. 'Between the sea and the mountain.'

Daniel 12

2. Note the interpretation of this verse is confirmed by Matt. 25:46, and vice versa.

3. Note that the many ' are spoken of at the end of this Book, in this verse, and in chapter II: 33, 39, and chapter 9: 27.

7. The fact that the witness of the two witnesses, of Rev. 11 is not coincident in time with the Beast, and that their sufferings have finished, they have overcome before the time, times, and half a time of this verse, has not been sufficiently applied to the long period. That system requires the coincidence of the testimony and the persecution, whereas here the whole force of their respective characters is that they are not. During their testimony the witnesses bring judgment and death on those who would touch them, though in sackcloth like Elias. Afterward the Beast reigns, and there are none such. It is not that there may not have been analogous facts—I do not doubt it—but the period of 1,260 days of the Beast is not the period of the testimony. In Rev. 12 joyful triumph, on the close of their trials, accompanies the introduction of the 1,260 days of the woman's flight into the wilderness. This renders the order of the facts clear enough.

Note, all the miraculous power of the two witnesses is judgment on the earth, not of the character of evangelic miracles, the powers of the world to come, where all is the power of Jesus, the blessing of the new Creation in power, but judgment on enemies on the earth, either as against those who held the people of God captive, or the professing people of God in apostasy, Egypt and Israel worshipping Baal, away from the Temple. It is not only in their testimony that they stand before the God of the earth, but in all that they do, the judgments that they execute. Moses and Elias acted thus in judgment and severity for the manifestation of the power of God, whereas the miracles of the Apostles in testimony, that which accompanied their ministry, were the exercise and manifestation of the power of Christ in blessing by the Holy Ghost, earnest of the inheritance of the new state of things, where Christ should reign in power of blessing as Head (Son of God) of the new Creation, in the blessing of the Second Adam. This throws much light also on the position of these two witnesses and is exceedingly interesting as throwing light on the two dispensations.

Note too, the tribulation comes after the placing the abomination of desolation. If it be referred to Titus, as some would, and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, then the placing it closed the tribulation. It is merely one among many reasons which show that this application of the passage is impossible.

Note further, the horn is raised up in the 'house of David' (Luke 1:69, 73), but all the expectation, and testimony of the Spirit of God, is connected with the promise to Abraham when Christ is born, not Moses. Note, too, the Angel only speaks of the fact. The least of the saints recognizes the fulfillment of the promise and covenant with Abraham.

11. 'And from the time that the daily [sacrifice] shall be taken away ' (removed) as in chapter 11 'and the abomination that desolateth' (or 'of the desolate') 'set up' (or 'given') 'a thousand two hundred and ninety days.' It may be well to remark here that ‘maketh desolate' has not the same form as in chapter 11:3. There, it is, I suppose, without controversy, the abomination of the desolate, or, at any rate, a full active sense, M'sho-mem (desolation). In chapter 12:11, the form which almost universally has a neuter or passive signification, 'to be desolate,' sho-mem (that makes desolate). At any rate the former is more properly ' desolator,' as I suppose chapter 9: 27, m'sho-mem (‘desolator' or 'desolations') the rather because ka-lah v'ne-che-ratzah (the completion, and that which is decreed) are technical words it would seem: see Isaiah To: 23, speaking of this very time. And note also here that the indignation of chapter 11:36 (where we have the same words, ka-lah and v'ne-che-ratzah, and chapter 8: 19, where the Grecian King at the end is spoken of, is to end in the destruction of the Assyrian (Isaiah 10:25) who is (v. 5) the 'indignation.'

Hosea

How profoundly touching are the movements, and appeals, of divine affections, God's affections, which are found in this Book! I know nothing exactly like it in Scripture, if it be not the Lord weeping over Jerusalem.

11. 'And shall go up out of the land'; query, if this be not going up to their solemn feasts all together, under one head, from all the territory of Canaan, not out of it; as we say 'from the country.'

Hosea 10

10. "It is in my desire, and I will chastise them, and peoples shall be gathered together against them when chastised for their two iniquities." So the Septuagint and Vulgate. Chaldee, "when bound to their two furrows as oxen." Gesenius, in onah (duty of marriage), peccata.

Hosea 11 and 12

I return again, for a moment, to Hosea. How God remembers, adverts to, all the points of contact, of every kind, between Himself and Israel—recalls the moments of grace on His part, faith even on Jacob's! This is true affection. Now Israel floated on, utterly insensible and forgetful, or using these memorials, as Beth-el, Gilead, etc., to connect idolatry with what memory clung to. But how wonderful this is! And how we forget the proofs of most loving grace we have had from God, and go on in idleness of mind! We ought to be, as a present thing, with Him. Then memory is, so to speak, not needed. But God has dealt, and His heart calls to mind when we grow cold and forget, because He loves. This is most noticeable in this and the preceding chapter.

Hosea 14

9. We have to remark that all the dealings of God with Israel were not a question of absolute final pardon or clearing, but governmental. As a figure, their redemption, as a nation, was at the Red Sea, and they were brought to God, then took up first Law, and then were put under the revelation there made to Moses, when God's goodness passed before him, and were so governed. Only, as a chosen people, in all their affliction He was afflicted, and His gifts and calling are without repentance. No doubt, to deliver them really, as they were sinful ever, and a ' sinful nation,' Christ must die for that nation, and this they will find out at the end, according to Isa. 53 But the ways of God, meanwhile, were governmental—pardons and chastisements on the way—I add, till grace is fully known and redemption. The mind may put these together, because sin has deserved judgment and final rejection, and God is not known. Only, in the Psalms there is a provision to sustain faith till redemption be fully known to them.

Joel

According to the principle, long ago noted, Joel gives no date, nor reign, and applies in general to the latter days.

Joel 1

We have these notes in the prophecy—first:

6. The Land—'My Land,' whatever its state or divisions. It is Jehovah's Land, and if the people fail in every way, it falls into His hands. It was but entrusted to Israel—the Gentiles have no right but by their (Israel's) sin, and none as against the Lord.

The general subject is, a Gentile ‘nation is come up upon My Land.'

13-15. Secondly, the Land is in connection with the Temple, and its service, and this coming up upon the Land is a destruction from the Almighty—the day of the Lord is at hand. All was wasted.

Next, thirdly, this awakens Zion and ‘the Holy Mountain.' Jehovah says, ‘Zion and My Holy Mountain.' He takes notice of it as His, and calls all the inhabitants of the Land to tremble, for the day of Jehovah cometh. Jehovah utters His voice before His army. He is strong that executeth His word, ‘for the day of Jehovah is great, and very terrible; who can abide it?’ ‘Therefore,' says Jehovah, 'turn to Me.' And the trumpet of alarm becomes (according to Numbers) a trumpet of summons, in Zion, to repentance and humiliation between the porch and the altar. And the Lord is roused to act in favor of His people, on this word (see Psa. 42; 43), Where is their God.' He is jealous for His Land, and pities His people. Blessing comes on the Land (Ezek. 36:30) and the Northern army,' so this nation, as finally explained (compare Daniel r) at the end, is cast out. The Land is blessed. The children of Zion rejoice. Jehovah is in the midst of Israel, and the people shall never be ashamed.

Afterward, ‘thereupon' (akhare-ken) the Spirit is poured out on all flesh. But before the day Jehovah will have shown signs, and the Remnant will be saved. But, note, these signs are, in general, in heaven, and in earth, and whosoever shall call on the name of Jehovah shall be delivered. But the deliverance is in Mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and in the Remnant whom the Lord shall call. Verses 28, 29 and 30-32, of chapter 2, whether before or after, go beyond Israel to 'all flesh.'

The litter is remarkable, yet makes (though the principle be universal—so cited by the Apostle) the center of the then actual deliverance, the proper object of the Prophet, Zion, Jerusalem and the Remnant. For, and in chapter 3, the Spirit of the Lord (Christ) goes on to explain it, and what shall arise when 'the Lord shall bring back the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem.' The Lord will judge all the heathen; compare verse 16. Its result for Israel finally—the Lord will dwell in Zion.

The immediate object then (taking occasion from present desolations by plagues of insects) is the Northern army, in connection with the day of the Lord's judgment on Israel, but this, associated with the restoration of Judah and Jerusalem, introduces the judgment of all the heathen, and ' the Lord dwells in Zion.' The destruction affects the Land, but the Lord acts from, and in connection with Zion, and Jerusalem, His Holy Mountain.

Note, not only by faith is faith in Messiah anticipated, but the Spirit is given as seal of faith now; compare Eph. 1 And this remark is of all importance as to the position of the Church and believers. But the whole of the chapter needs study.

The first chapter, then, concerns the Land (and takes in all the desolators) calls for a fast as to this, from "the elders, and all the inhabitants of the land." The second chapter speaks of that which the Lord had chosen for Himself in it, above all the dwellings of Jacob. " Blow ye the trumpet in Zion." In bringing in this, "the day of the Lord" accordingly appears more specifically in the cry resulting from the other, chapter: 15-20. Then the prophetic warning of "the day," to Zion, now involved with the inhabitants of the Land. It is on the people of the Jews from the Lord. This was the alarm—they were to plunder the city, passing through it all like a thief. Then the trumpet of summons, or the call to repentance. When this takes place, appealing to Him against the heathen, His instrument, His rod (of indignation) but now saying in their folly ‘where is their God,' then will Jehovah be jealous for His Land, and pity His people, and turn back the Northern army.

Note here, the city is entered and plundered. There is also, on the cry made of the Remnant, the Northern Army sent back. The cry is made on the warning of "the day," and yet the city is entered. Therefore, this passage, as I see as yet, does not determine whether the army turned back be previous to, or consequent upon the taking of the city. Probably, but this is little worth, the nation not heeding the call, the city is taken. But through the course of succeeding troubles, the Remnant, then a nation, do cry, and the subsequent effort comes to nothing, for the captivity of Zion is restored afterward, as in Psa. 126—the nation.

19-27. This, at any rate, is the answer to the cry, and connects Zion with the blessing. But its substance is the temporal blessing of the Land, etc., as delivered from the desolators; chap. 3: 1 [chap. 2: 28].

It seems to me that this rests upon the call and the cry, i.e., the trouble coming in, the summons is to "cry to the Lord." Desolation enough previously had called for it. It is made to the nation. It is answered however, when made; nor is it till the very end, nor the hope, and the Remnant in the midst of trouble and rejection, by grace make it en eschatais hemerais (in the last days); for this is Peter's, or rather the Holy Ghost's interpretation of akhare-ken (thereupon A.V., 'afterward'). It is 'thereupon' (upon the Jewish cry) upon what has gone before, in very deed it will not be but in the last days. The term "in those days" makes this full open. The akhare-ken (thereupon) marks the "whereupon," besides verses 3-5 (30-32 A.V.). There will be signs before " the great and terrible day come " (though the city may have been entered into and taken, as it appears to me, in the latter day—previous, not an absolutely final act) and whoever (a broad fact) calls, according to the previous summons, on the Lord, will be delivered (for there are a people who call, though in the midst of a people who do not) "for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance," and, here the point is let out in result, "the remnant whom the Lord shall call"—is then calling. For, indeed, this deliverance of Zion by a Remnant, and a Remnant really by the Lord for, and so in Zion, turns the "day of the Lord," lowering over the heads of the Jews, awakening by the summons the Remnant, and so averted from the nation, which the Remnant now were, though the residue were cut off, on the heads of the Gentiles, which chapter 4 (3) then describes. All this then is plain, i.e., thus far in order.

Joel 2

20, 21. We may remark the strong setting of the actings of God to the support of faith, in answer to the actings of men of self-will. 'His ill-savor shall come up, because he hath done great things' (literally, 'because he magnified to do') ki-hig dil la-asoth, and then in verse 21, 'Fear not, because Jehovah will do great things' (literally 'because Jehovah magnified to do') ki-hig-dil Jehovah la-asoth. 'Hath done,' 'will do'—both. So verse 9, and verse 11 of chapter 3, 'mighty men,' ‘mighty ones ' (ha-gib-borim). ' The heathen are taken in the net which they laid privily,' is the key to the Book of Joel—the first two chapters, as led of the Lord for His great day against Jerusalem—the third, as the re-action, on intercession by the Remnant, on themselves, so that all are brought in multitudes into the valley of decision.

30. This verse begins, I think, a distinct paragraph. The full blessing is unfolded first. It is a new sentence connected with the end of verse 31. Thus the pouring out of the Spirit on all flesh, in its literal and last accomplishment, would be after Jehovah had settled His people in their land. The signs will be before. Its accomplishment, consequent upon the reception of the Remnant, would be on their partaking of the salvation as a sign of favor and blessing.

Note, both in Joel and Zechariah, the restoration and comfort of the Land is made to depend on a primary restoration of Judah and Jerusalem. 'The Land' is mentioned in Joel. The summons of the trumpet for alarm and gathering is in Zion, and then 'Fear not, 0 Land,' and then, 'Be glad, then, ye children of Zion, for,' etc.; then the promise of the Spirit. 'For in Mount Zion and Jerusalem shall be deliverance.' 'For behold in those days,' consequently the Prophet says, 'when I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem,' a primary thing, 'then I will gather all nations and plead'; compare verses 8, 16, 17. Accordingly in Psa. 126 we have 'When the Lord turned again the captivity of Zion'; then 'Turn again our captivity, O Lord, as the rivers in the south.'So I find in Zechariah this anticipative and instrumental restoration of Judah and Jerusalem, as in chapter 8; compare verses 13, 15, also chapters to, 12, etc.

The same truth I find remarkably brought out in Simon Peter's sermon in the Acts, indeed in his two sermons. First in his address on this very prophecy of Joel, he showing indeed how the Spirit takes up in all accuracy, as must be, its former testimony. In the first instance he addresses himself to the Men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem,' and produces this prophecy of Joel as leading their minds to the point, in responsibility to which the Lord now led them. They are then addressed as Men of Israel ' in respect of the general responsibility of the nation, and its state, by virtue of the death of Jesus. For, though spoken to as men of Judah and Jerusalem, these were Judah and the children of Israel, his companions, so that they were dealt with occasionally, provisionally, as Israel. In Acts 3 they are dealt with entirely as ‘Men of Israel.' And it is not ‘The Lord added to the Church daily those that were to be saved' (tous sozomenous)—the Remnant; compare the Septuagint—but then ‘The priests, and captain of the Temple, and the Sadducees, come upon them,' i.e., the nation, in its representatives, rejected the resurrection, i.e., Jesus as the risen Lord. Hence all the sermon is entirely of this character. It is not a call to be baptized, but a promise, on the repentance of the nation, of the return of Jesus 'whom the heavens must receive till the times of the restitution of all things.' He speaks of the rejection of the Prophet of Moses' likeness, and addresses them as ‘Children of the Prophets and of the covenant,' and God, having raised up Jesus, the Prophet spoken of by Moses (verses 22 and 26 are connected) 'sent Him to bless you, in turning every one of you away from their iniquities.' ‘Turning away'—afterward it shall be in power, not witness—‘ungodliness from Jacob.' But it was natural, every one of you.' Then came the nation's rejection in the representatives, the priests, captain of temple, etc., Satan having raised up the Sadducees to power, suitably, to reject the resurrection, having ever his angels ready and suited, when God's time comes. This was the nation's rejection of Jesus risen, as before in the flesh—their word to the Apostles, then the Apostles' resolution in faith. Their witness against them (v. 24). In verse 29, the testimony, then again, of the Holy Ghost to them (with them)—its agency amongst them in power—the inability of the chiefs, the Sadducees, to do anything—the Pharisee standing up with counsel—the declaration of the witness of them, and the Holy Ghost. Then Stephen's, whose agency was by the Holy Ghost, not apostolic witness, that they had always resisted the Holy Ghost, as their fathers, and so did now. Then the Church took its other character—death—heavenly—and association with Jesus, as the Church fully called out of the world, the Jews being then left in their order.

Joel 3

There is evidently a very wide and solemn judgment which does not come into the accounts of Matt. 24 and 25. We find it, to say nothing of details, in Isa. 66, and in this chapter—a warrior judgment, general, universal in its character, but dealing with adversaries, nations, not individuals. There are those spared in Isaiah. This mainly relates to the Beast, and Gog, but then to the nations in possession of Immanuel's Land to the Euphrates. The submission of nations or kings, through fear, is not the individual, sessional judgment of Matt. 25 (Psa. 18); compare Psa. 78:65, though there anticipative. Matt. 25 is a sessional judgment, where the conduct of individuals is inquired into. In the very nations who may have submitted, and been spared as such, I suppose individuals may be judged, just as nations are called Christian now, and so far submit to Christ, but individuals are judged. Open enemies may be destroyed by the Lord coming in power.

It seems to me that this chapter is, in the Hebrew, a true division. First, there is a general statement that the ravages of the nations, prefigured by the insect-caused famine, are set aside by mercies, and the deliverance of God, closing in chapter 2:27. It is temporal deliverance. He removes the Northern army, the Land is not to fear, blessing is there on repentance, no more reproach of famine, etc. But this is not all. On the repentance of His people, and accompanying this intervention of Jehovah in favor of His people, when He returns to dwell among them, 'afterward' (akhare-ken, 'thereafter') He will pour out His Spirit. Verses 30-32 are also apart, describing the signs that accompany it, ushering in the day of the Lord, a day of judgment and terror, but in which the Remnant, called of the Lord, will be delivered. For the Lord will 'roar out of Zion,' but be the Hope of His people. Verses 28, 29 of chapter 2 (in the Hebrew, chapter 3: 1, 2) are consequent on the Lord's intervention, introduced by their repentance, only the temporal deliverance is pursued to the end previously, to the end of verse 27.

I have noticed it already, in a measure, somewhere, but I turn again to this chapter, i.e., Joel 2 (in Hebrew, chapter 3, in part). The temporal answer, on the cry of repentance, closes with verse 27. Verses 30-32 (in Hebrew, chapter 3: 3-5) come before the great and terrible day, and there is deliverance for those who call, and whom Jehovah shall call. The promise of the Spirit comes in as a supplement to what precedes, but evidently consequent on Jehovah's visiting His people. It is akhare-ken (thereafter), ' now,' in the application made by Peter. It is after the intervention of God in favor of His people. We know it had been rejected, still the little Remnant had, in only so much greater faithfulness, owned Him, and so, though not in a temporal kingdom and rest, got the blessing—the spiritual part. And indeed, at the end, it will be only a Remnant, only the rest of the prophecy will then be fulfilled.

The Assyrian is to be distinguished from Babylon. The Assyrian attacks the Land, and comes to naught. In Babylon, the people were in captivity. The Assyrian is therefore, properly, against the Jews or Israelites, as connected with God, not Christ and the Remnant. The first two chapters of Joel describe this army of the latter day come up into, and against the Land, and its wrath. There is more, i.e., as to the saints which I notice not here. Joel is all of what befalls the Land, specially in the last day. There is the alarm and the gathering.

Ezek. 28 and 39 also fully describe this Northern army. He is noticed too in Mic. 5:5. Ezek. 31 also, I think, alludes to the same thing. In Isaiah to we have a very full account of the same power. In Isa. 28:2, we have the same person, and in verse H. All the following chapters of Isaiah, to the end of chapter 33, describe the same power, and its failure, etc., before Jerusalem, not chapter 34. The account of chapter 36, etc., is, of course, the type of it. I may remark, in passing here, that it would seem that in chapter 30: 33, the Antichristian king also is introduced; the destruction, or furnace, being of all, and therefore, when mentioned, he also is introduced. I would read gam hi lammelek hocan, also' (i.e., not 'merely' is it there for the Assyrian) ‘it for the king is,' or 'has been,' ‘made ready,' ‘prepared.' I do not think 'the king' is ever used for Assyria, but the Anti-christian power, and gam hi (also it), etc., seems to me to bear out the supposition.

I believe the tidings out of the North and East in Dan. 11:44, to refer to the same Assyrian power. The North and the East are the Chaldeans and Persians. In Ezekiel it is the Northern army; so Joel. These seem clearly (perhaps Turkey, rid then all the image save the Roman power) under the Russian power, therefore Northern, to be the great power against the Land, designated Assyrian.

We have one other prophecy (though there are other allusions) to notice definitely—Nahum, Nineveh and its burden. This is, though under a different aspect, yet in many respects the same power. It is not Egypt, and it is not Babylon, nor is it the saints nor the Jews. It is the corporate estate from which the Assyrian is manifested in the Land, as Antichrist is the firstborn of Babylon, and the chief of her strength. The two are shown in a passage, I have omitted to notice—Isa. 14 And I note here that Assyria is mentioned last, though quite previous in its typical facts, because such was the order of the prophetic mind. The result, as stated in the chapter is remarkable. We may note as to Nineveh, as also of Assyria (therefore it begins, ' Woe to the crown of pride, the drunkards of Ephraim ') that the ten tribes were that with which it had to do. The nations will be involved according to the proportion in which the testimony of God has been amongst them, and hence specially as brought into knowledge or responsibility of the covenant, and hence am-mim (the peoples) though not am-mi (My people) and further, as connected with the Jews or Israelites, hence the expression, which 'have not heard My fame, nor heard My glory.' Hence the typical importance of Jonah's mission to the Ninevites, yet they were not the Land (he ge) nor therefore the Apostasy, nor addressed from the Lord. However, the general testimony, putting the whole te-vel (habitable earth) under responsibility, is well known. Hence too it is, I suppose, stated that there shall be a bridle in the jaws of the am-mim, causing them to err. The goyim (nations) are all sifted. However they are involved in the general judgment as in Isa. 14 But I doubt whether tes oikoumenes holes (of the whole world) (Rev. 16:14), is more than those included in our present inquiry. Isa. 24 sets the general judgment plainly afloat in its current over the whole earth, as in verse 4, but there it is only languisheth.' See also Ezekiel, "Them that dwell," etc., "in the isles."

I have omitted here references to the Psalms. There the general reference is to the Gog and Magog invasion, which is properly the Jewish one. However, all the heathen are in the net.

Amos

This prophecy is Israel, and thence the nation, but commencing "The Lord roars from Zion, and utters his voice from Jerusalem"; and, at the dose, the tabernacle of David is rebuilt, "that they may possess"; but Israel is the nation, see chapter 7:12. Joel is the Land, Zion, Jerusalem, and the day of the Lord. When it comes to facts, it is Judah and Jerusalem. The Spirit spoken of has connection with what goes on there, because deliverance is there for the Remnant. When different tongues were poured out in the audience of Hellenists of all neighboring countries, Peter, the Apostle of Judaism, addresses 'men of Judea and inhabitants of Jerusalem.' I will add here Acts 2 is the exaltation of Christ, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, and, consequently, call to personal repentance, for the principle was general. And so ' the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved (tour sozomenous). Chapter 3 is to Israel—promises the return of Christ on their repentance -they are 'The children of the prophets.' The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob' is now the name he speaks in—He hath 'raised up His Son Jesus... whom ye denied.' To them first He was sent—rejected, but the opportunity of repentance now offered; but this in passing. Chapter 4 goes further and recognizes Christ exalted—addressing the Lord God of heaven, earth and sea, and all in them, and rulers, kings against Jehovah, and against His anointed—fully developed in the latter day.

Amos 4

4. "Bring your sacrifices every morning, and your tithes after three years." I am disposed to think that the direction as to tithes in Deuteronomy is wholly different from that in Lev. 27 and Num. 18 In that case they were given to the Levites wholly, and they gave a tenth to the priests. But in the direction in Deuteronomy, they take it up to where God's name is, to eat it there. The object is to centralize their faith in Jehovah, and that in connection with joy and grace. The same principle is strikingly shown in Deut. 16 as Tithe-feasts. And, though a king is referred to, the desired idea is the people walking rightly under Jehovah, with a judge if needed, and a priest. With a view to this, they carried a tithe of their own part of the fruit, and ate it, inviting others—the Levite among them. It was a way of disposing of a part of their produce, in rejoicing, and showing grace before Jehovah. They paid their rent thus to Jehovah for their land, but in joy and gladness, in grace from Him, and with the poor, yet feeding their families with it. They feasted in grace around Jehovah.

The tithing of the third year (a special institution of Deuteronomy also, confirming this view of the one already spoken of) was, on the other hand, to be eaten in their own gates, and the poor and the Levite, etc., to be invited. This is only found in Deut. 14 and 26, and in the chapter now before us. It was not the ecclesiastical obligation, but the walk of the people with Jehovah, in joy and grace. Jehovah then blessed them, giving them abundant increase. The same spirit is shown in the year of release; chapter 15—not to grudge. Compare even what was given to the priests distinctly, in Deut. 18:4; compare also chapter 26: to,

But there is still a difficulty connected with it which tends to throw a doubt on the preceding. The firstling of the herd (Ex. 13) was consecrated and sacrificed. It is not among what is given to the priests in Deut. 18 But, in Deut. 15, they are sanctified to Jehovah, and they were to eat them before Jehovah in the place Jehovah should choose, year by year. Yet they were (Ex. 13:15) sacrificed; so in Deut. 15:21. They must thus have been a peace-offering. The careful bringing up to the place the Lord should choose is very evident in Deuteronomy.

Micah

The special subject of this prophecy is the action of the Assyrian, and its consequence, concerning Samaria. But then, verse 9, it comes to Judah and reaches to Jerusalem, and this is taken up as the judgment of the whole nation. This confirms so clearly that the proper Jewish question is not with Antichrist but with the Assyrian. Antichrist is a specialty in this scene, and not mentioned in this prophecy—he does not concern the Land and Israel, but is of an infinitely deeper moral character, not so much prophetic and national. The Prophet returns to assembling Jacob, all of it, and makes, accordingly, Jerusalem the center of it, for the Lord lays to His hand there; see chapter 5:3, 4. Then it is the 'Remnant of Jacob,' etc. (v. 7). Then, chapters 6 and 7, comes the pleading, between the Lord and the nation itself, as to the whole ground of their relation, and what has passed.

Micah 5

3. Is not this verse the change of position of the believing Remnant, whom Christ calls His brethren? They had become the Church, and had ceased to be identified with the interests of Israel (though grieving over the nation which had rejected Messiah) but now the Remnant of His, Christ's, brethren return unto the children of Israel, identify themselves again with the nation, and the earthly part of Christ's power takes place.

5. In Micah, when it is a question of Babylon, there is no king of the Assyrian—‘This man shall be the peace'; compare Isa. 10 and 11.

Micah 6 and 7

These two last chapters are a moral address or confession—the whole moral history of Israel till they bow under the chastisement of God. The grace and presence of Christ brought out the full iniquity of chapter 7: 6. This forces the Remnant to look to the Lord as an only resource, and bow until He pleads—the only thing, if in anything fallen, we have to do.

Babylon bears a prominent place here; see verse 10, where we find this same cry of Psa. 42 and 43, compare also chapter 4: 9, 10.

Micah 7

1, 2. Compare these verses, on to verse 6, with the words of the Lord Jesus in the Gospels—Mark 11:13, and Matt. 21:19. "The time of figs was not yet."

6. Note that just as, the citation of this verse in the Gospels is the proof of the terrible way in which the presence of the Lord brings out evil, as a test of human nature; so the circumstance of 1 Kings 19:20 shows that His calling requires more absolute devotedness (not more absolute, but absolute) than the very especial and solemn time of Elijah's receiving the message in Horeb. This is a solemn word.

Nahum

This prophet does not speak of Israel but once. It is the action on the Assyrian, compare Mic. 5.

Nahum 1

11-14. This is the important part, as prophecy, and must be compared with Isaiah 10:25, and chap. 14:25.

Nahum 2

2. I should translate this, 'The Lord hath restored the glory' or 'supremacy,’ ‘exaltation’ ‘of Israel.' So Simon renders it, "Restituit gloriam Israel"; so Isa. 52:8. Thus the sense is very, easy. The judgment is, all through the chapter, on Nineveh, and how so? 'The Lord has restored the glory to Israel,'or 'of Israel.' It is not question of the Beasts at all—that is settled—but with the world externally, with the Assyrian for its head against Israel, and the Lord to decide between them; the result and end of it is here. This verse would then read, 'He hath restored the excellency of Jacob according to the excellency of Israel,' i.e., a prince prevailing with God according to what passed (as the type of this very scene) when he received that name. To the end of Isa. 12 we have this same judgment and conduct of the Assyrian, without reference to Antichrist or Babylon, which begins as a different subject after that. The deliverance and joy is viewed as complete. Another scene then begins, whose triumphant joy is in chapter 25: 6, 7.

Habakkuk 1

11. ‘Then his mind' (spirit) ‘sprung up' (broke forth or took head) ‘and overflowed, and he was guilty' (transgressed) [making] or ‘this his power is his god'; compare, as to the language, Isa. 8:8, as to the moral character, etc., Isaiah 10:13, et seq. Zu co-kho le-lo-he (this his power is his god)—'transgress, calling his power his god.' ‘This, his power is for a god to him.' It is the character of the proud man.

It is the time, I believe, when the Assyrian (Gog), having pursued an ordinary but grasping career of conquest, sets up in pride, rebellious pride against God, thinking to take the Jews, Remnant and Jerusalem, into his power, and to set himself over all the earth, without anyone, Antichrist being now put out, though his march up was during the prevalence of the ungodly Jews. This Book is the consideration of the Jewish saints during this march—the answer to the state of the prevalence of the ungodly Jews, with the terror then of the terrible day on his coming up, and the answer to that in chapter 2; see the notes on Joel.

12. It appears to me that this word tzur (A.V., ‘0 Mighty God'; Septuagint, eplase me, 'formed me') is connected, in sense, with its root, tzur to ‘form' or ‘make,' and hence the Ordainer of all things is the security of, the Ordainer of His people. Then these senses seem associated with it, forming refuge, and salvation, so Peter says, committing their souls to Him, as unto a faithful Creator.' Now it involves the security implied in this, ‘formed for Myself' and that, this care of purpose being assured, there is also the formed all things,' of course with reference to this purpose. So Paul in Rom. 8, ‘We know that all things work together,' etc. So Isaiah—the argument, from chapter 41 forwards, runs at length upon this head and subject. Then the kindred ya-tzar (to form) is used, as in Jeremiah 10:16; see Deut. 32:15, 18. The force of the words here then becomes very plain and direct, and the reason and application of them becomes obvious, and verse 13 has the reason for them, and also plea for deliverance from them. Compare, as to wickedness within, Jer. 12

Habakkuk 2

4. Be-e-mu-na-the (by his faith). The Lord knows the character of the invader, but verse 12 explains the principle in the view of them, of what follows, that the vision (to wit of Messiah's deliverance) must be waited for, and the principle, while the invader seemed to prevail, is very strongly depicted by this word. In quietness and assurance,' says another Prophet. Here, confidence and patience, upon the support, therefore steady—the Tzur (Ordainer) was behind all, and to them in it. Nevertheless, the moral direction follows, and is founded on the declarative revelation of after-peace and deliverance, the coming of the Lord, and the thing sure, only to wait for it, be-e-mu-na-the (by his faith). The Lord had fully judged the person in question, but the trying exercise must come from Him, and they live by faith. The verse gives a contrast of principle very distinctly set forth, and recorded. There is no uprightness but humility in a sinner, and hence boldness.

8. This word am-mim (peoples) is one here of marked import. Deut. 33:3 (but see verse 5) is the only text which produces a difficulty to my mind, as to its use, to wit, of the non-adversaries, as go-i (nations) are the nations not recognized, the nations, not Jews, yet recognized as peoples not cut off, but to be gathered. The spoiling the Chaldeans, i.e., Gog, seems strange, but it is not at all impossible, nor even improbable. The reference to verse 5 is obvious.

Power (autarkeia) and exorbitant dominion are the characteristics of this invader. He is also a propagandist in the intoxication of power in success, for men love successful power, as well as successful liberty, as in the hands of Satan. They cease to have existence as go-i (nations), viewed as a Remnant, i.e., a corporate assumption of individuality, in which, consequently, they are contrasted with the Jews who were not go-i (nations), save, before, they were under God, and after, they were given up (to judgment) by Him. Am-mim (peoples) are the mass of the people, populations. It is immaterial then who these are—they might be Jews or Gentiles. Hence, we have, 'because of bloods of Adam,' of man, and 'violence of land, of city, and dwellers therein.' At first, I had difficulty, because the Assyrian shall not touch Zion, but it is character and conduct, not place—there is no 'the' (ha). It will be found kha-mas (violence) has a genitive of the object of the violence, It is the violence done to land, city, and inhabitants. This is the character of the invader—the transgressor—the proud man.

15. The character in this verse, and in verse 5, is much to be noted. This invader has intoxicated the nations with successful power, so as to make them a disgrace and a shame in the sight of the sober, not intoxicated as they are. This is not thoroughly fulfilled yet, but it shall be. Power has been the characteristic assumption of this invader, the man of the earth. Hence, the portion of the Lord's power shall be shown against him, i.e., the power of Christ as the Man of God's right hand, ‘the right hand of the Lord hath the pre-eminence, the right hand of the Lord bringeth mighty things to pass.' 'The cup of the Lord's right hand shall be turned to him,' given him to drink, i.e., the portion of God's power in the hand of Christ for the Jews. The personal question is with Antichrist, the power question is with Gog, who heapeth to him all the Gentiles, and gathereth all peoples. Antichrist shall not do this—he shall be characterized by principles, though the ten kings shall give their power, till the will of God be fulfilled by him. The end is 'The Lord is in His holy temple; be silent all the earth before Him.' Blessed be His Name! See Psa. 80:17; 98:1, and other passages of the 'right hand,' as Psa. 110 and 118: 16, bearing in mind the force of ‘His mercy endureth forever,' as elsewhere noted.

17. Is it not rather 'the desolation of wild beasts shall cause terror to thee,' for the reason mentioned also in verse 8?

Habakkuk 3

This chapter is the recall of Habakkuk to the original display of mercies. ‘I will remember the days of the years of the right hand of the Most Highest?’ ‘He doth not forget to be gracious.' It would seem to me from this that Isa. 63 included Gog, all nations, as well as the personal enemy of Christ, and is the destruction in that character, and not in this, though the nations under him are included; compare Zech. 12, et seq. and also as to am-mim (peoples) and goiim (nations). This invader heaps and gathers both, i.e., Gog, but he is properly, I conceive, the head and spoiler of the goiim, though he shall seek to gather all the peoples to him too. The actings of the am-mim, as brought out, are under Antichrist, and they are actually in the siege, and take Jerusalem—the people of Europe, etc., who are not nations, but united under Antichrist. It is not their being of that place, or under Antichrist, constitutes them am-mim, but the fact is so, they will lose their characteristic nationality. Gog might heap some such to him, but these are not the embodying of the peoples (am-mim).

This Book then is the full description of the conduct and character of Gog, and the position of the Jews in respect of him, and his agency in respect of them, with the result in deliverance—the moral position of the nation, with its results, brought out by the Prophet's pleading in Spirit about, and concerning their estate. The answer is the revelation of Gog, his character, its agency on them, and their deliverance, from God's character—the position, and recognition of the faithful Remnant meanwhile—but it is Gog in his agency on the Jewish nation.

Zephaniah 3

12, 17. Note the way in which the due state of the people, and God's thoughts and state are brought out in these verses. The due thoughts and state of the saints, the Remnant, in the ruin of dispensation, and then the character God gives Himself in their joy—the unspeakable grace that is in it!

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.

Zechariah 2

4. The land of Judah, note; so Hab. 2:16, is the Land—there is nothing about Jerusalem in it; so of Gog, in Ezekiel.

8. I know not yet what 'after the glory' (akhar-kavod, see Psa. 73:24) is. But note there are three things by which they shall know Jesus sent, Christ sent, only manifested in Spirit, was the Sent One, as so often urged in John, for it was the Spirit of Christ which was in them did, as here, signify—manifested in person in Jesus, His making the nations `a spoil to their servants'—‘many nations joined to the Lord,' and the Lord dwelling in the midst of the daughter of Zion—and the final finishing of the house among the Jews here; chapters 2: 9, 10, 11; chap. 4: 9; chap. 6: 15.

But there is a further point we must notice. The first (chap. 2: 9) is contrasted as servants of the nations, 'Therefore ye shall know'—the second (v. 11, Hebrew 15), ‘Thou' (feminine) ‘shalt know'—the third (chap. 4: 9) (this one is more remarkable) ‘Thou' (masculine) ‘shalt know.' It seems to me to include the Person of Christ, in which, as a Man, He shall reap the fruit, among the Jews, in the finishing of His Jewish house (as Zerubbabel, not the Temple—it is a symbolical prophecy) of His being sent. Though if it were in Israel the Lord was glorified, He had before to say, Then have I labored in vain, and spent my strength for naught,' but now His hands finished it. He knew, as a Man, in fulfillment, that He was sent as the Christ of God to the Jews. ‘Thou, Jesus, the Seed of David, shalt know,' says the Spirit of Christ in the Prophet, ‘that the Lord of hosts hath sent me unto you.' The Jews also. There is difference. The general deliverance is evidence of the mission—'Ye shall know' (the fact) ‘that the Lord hath sent me.' Zion shall know, by the Lord's dwelling in the midst of her, that the Lord had sent Him unto her. But He shall know that the Lord sent Him to the Jews, rejecting Him as they did, on the finishing of His house. There, I think also, we have evidence, herein, that it was not as Jesus,' simply, He is spoken of as sent, but in His divine Person, as justified in Spirit, and so properly, and not as Man. It was recognizing Him as the sent Son of God, though He was also Jesus, that was the point of faith. This was what the Lord required. They would have taken Him by force and made Him a King, if that had been what He required. They knew, even the rulers, that He was a Teacher come from God, but He was, and as the God of truth required, as being Truth was bound to, as the Son for the Father's glory was faithful to require—yea! as the only truth of and for blessing, the Free-maker—having this as His full title, 'The Heir of the world,' to require to put forth this title 'The Son of God.' This was made practicable for Jesus by the miraculous conception. He was condemned, showing the Jews' rejection of Him and of the truth, for, as they said, making Himself so. He was so, and this was the point in question. He was rejected by the Gentiles (with the knowledge of this, for they were concerned in it) for being King of the Jews, throwing the utter rebuke upon them—the last grand act of treading them down as Gentile wicked ones, even we by nature—in natural wickedness, till the last great act of presumptuous wickedness be enacted, as described in this Prophet. The death of the Man was pardonable, though the uttermost sin—the rejection of the Son testified by the Spirit, made known in the resurrection, there is no way of pardon for. The Lord keep us loving Him always!

Zechariah 3

1-7. Note the word omed (standing) and om-dim (those standing); all through this it is a leading word.

8. Probably "as observed men," to be observed as types or signs, as 1 Corinthians 10:6.

Zechariah 4

This chapter appears to me to represent, as far as any partial thing fulfills it, the perfection of the Jewish system or ministration of God with him in that day, as in the hands of Christ Himself. There was one candlestick, the pure bearer of God's light in its perfect, God-formed order. There was the perfect supply of ministering grace from the double witness of divine grace and presence—spiritual grace, and existing power—priesthood, and royalty. In Revelation, the witness of these things is kept up, in disorder, which is the force of the distinction of that passage, 'also shall then the eyes of the Lord,' the energy of His judging power, 'pass through the whole earth,' not the Spirit, nor the providential power of empire; compare Rev. 5:6, and ante, 1:8, and post 6; compare also the office of Joshua, in which they, the Jews as a Remnant, are personally represented. The iniquity is removed, and the righteous brotherhood introduced. Here, in the royalty of Christ, the full building of the house is, and I think it involves and must include the gathering of all unto Him, for He could not dispensatively set the earth right in sovereign power, until the source of all order and power, the heavenlies, were set right. But, as regards the nation, etc., below, the priestly office must be exercised towards them before the scene of order is exercised thereon below in the hands of Zerubbabel.

Zechariah 5

6. We should notice this expression, 'This is their appearance in all the earth'; so in chapter 4:10, and in Revelation. The anointed ones stand before 'the Lord of the whole earth.' The four chariots of horses are the four spirits, etc., 'before the Lord of the whole earth,' so in verse 3, 'This is the curse that goeth forth over the face of the whole earth.' I apprehend that the evil in verse 3 marks unrighteousness towards man and God—individual wrong doing. I apprehend this is the abiding principle of divine, righteous judgment when He takes it, for even then the Lord, acting on that which belonged to the Jews, the sinner dying a hundred years old shall be accursed, but the exercise of it will remove them systematically. Chapter 4 is the recognition in the Jews of the principle to which the believing Remnant had borne witness, during the power of evil (as noticed in Revelation). Here is the principle of moral evil which was the real character of the world individually. The ephah and the woman I believe to be the burying the union of the Church in the world. The ephah was the largest measure, and I believe the all-rapacious character of evil is meant in it, and the Church is brought into it. The ephah is their resemblance, but this is wickedness, and it is bound down forever then however (0 Lord, what are our sins!), and built and set in the land of desolation and confusion, out of which the Jews are brought. However, I am sure there is much more in this that I do not understand yet.

I think, too, there must be observed an analogy between the actual efficient power in the previous chapter, the candlestick and the olive trees, and the formal professing Church, the woman in the world, and the two women. I have sometimes thought that, as the removing judgment, the former part of the chapter took the two Tables as against the Jews—the latter, the removal of the useless form (wickedness) of the professing Gentile Church now simply buried in the world. I suspect, however, that the putting the woman into the ephah is putting the Jewish Remnant completely into the world, and settling it in the power of Babylon in that day, as it showed the moral of the previous captivity. There the providence of God was not the least surrendered, and those who, out of the midst of the power of Babylon, came with gifts, and remembered despised Jerusalem (and an unbuilt house) it should be for a memorial to them and a crown. The Branch should be raised up. He should build the Temple, etc.

Zechariah 6

5. Note, also, there is, I believe, no such thing as the Jehovah of all the earth.' It is not a scriptural expression. There is the "God of all the earth," Isa. 54 Otherwise, it is " King of all the earth " (Psa. 47), and in this Book chapter 14: 9. Otherwise, it is "Lord" (Adon) "of all the earth," from Josh. 3:13, Mic. 4:13, and here. Hence we shall understand the force of the expression 0 Jehovah, our Adon (Lord), how excellent is Thy name in all the earth!' See the full statement in Mic. 4:5.

15. It would appear that b'he-khal (A.V., "in the temple") is simply at work at the building of '; see Neh. 4:4, 11 (or Io, 17, English). The ministration of the e chokim (A.V., "They that are far off ") in the service of the Temple, when the Man, whose name is ' the Branch,' should build it, would be further evidence of the truth of the Spirit of Christ; compare Isa. 4:2, Jer. 23:5, and chapter 33: 15. The reference to Christ, in His Melchizedek character, is remarkable here. In both passages it is referred to Joshua, and it is he who has exercised for the Remnant of Israel, i.e., Israel, the office of priest, who ' etc., as here. He is the tzemakh (Branch) Jehovah, and the tzemakh (Branch) David, and the tzemakh tzaddik (righteous Branch) who shall execute.' But here He is to sit on His throne—the iniquity removed in one day, and they, the restored Jewish Remnant, shall know the mission of truth.

At the end of this chapter closes that prophecy, the order of which, as relating to the latter days, is, I think, now pretty plain. Moreover the distinction of the two prophecies is most important. Hitherto, though leadingly occupied with Judah as the place where it centered in operation and result, the prophecy has been mystical and symbolical, taking it as Church order, building God's, or Christ's house, and hence involves the accomplishment of all the co-ordinate purposes of God, the principles on which He has been governing in the Church, on which it has failed, and the clearing (though not directly, as the sphere of present observation) the heavenlies, wherein the blessings, etc., were of all the earth, Christ's right ordering, in a new state of things, being the great subject, and this is the key to all that prophecy. Nor shall we ever see rightly the blessings to the Jews, till we see them as a part of the great scene of New Jerusalem blessings, as in Hosea, when, which explains what I mean, the Lord 'shall hear the heavens, and the heavens shall hear the earth, and the earth shall hear the corn and the wine and the oil, and the corn and the wine and the oil shall hear Jezreel. And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy,' etc.

The prophecies which follow are the literal development of the prophecies to the Jews, as a literal nation, fulfilling the promises of God to them as a nation distinctively known as such, and following on the long-known associations which belonged to them as a nation known in a given place upon earth of old.

Zechariah 7

6, 7. 'Hearing the word of prophecy,' not 'fasting in sorrow,' when we have got into its predicted evil, is the way of righteousness.

Zechariah 9

1. There shall be no defrauding of Israel then, when man's (Adam's) eyes are toward the Lord, "as of all the tribes of Israel." Israel shall have God's full rest, so I understand it. The word m'nukhatho (his rest) is plain, from Psa. 95:11 and Deut. 12:9.

Zechariah 11

This manifestly begins a new prophecy.

7, 8. This is the reply to Sharezer and Regem-melech, i.e., the people in them.

9. This, and the following verse, is the general prophecy of the result suggested by that. Here we have Christ personally brought before us, in connection with these results, and the state in which the restored-a new thought-position of blessing would be through the shepherds, and the wickedness of them that dwell therein. Much of this was exemplified at the first coming of our Lord, but there is much that has not its ultimate accomplishment till all the nations are gathered together in the Land of Israel, and the Jews are restored to their pride, and the Lord act upon them at His second coming.

If the Lord had assumed the shepherd-hood of the Jews in that day, His dominion and care should have been over all the earth. Now this would have embraced all the peoples, but, on His refusing the shepherd-hood, to whom the gathering of the nations was to be, He broke the covenant with the am-mim (peoples), and took the children which God had given Him for His portion, till He be the Jehovah of His people, and King (Solomon) over all the earth. It is a case similar to Num. 14:34, though of larger extent. The Jews stood here as the most favored representatives of the race, and the only difference was, they would not receive Him, as the others did not know Him. The result of this, however, is the position of the am-mim and goi-im (nations) towards Jerusalem, which was, as it were, unhindered, but whose actings would be different towards it, though in intention a mere prey to both. But this distinction was only brought into illustrated action in the last days.

This chapter cannot be understood without a careful examination of John 10.

10. Note this expression am-mim (peoples). It opens out a vast field in the chapter; compare the important analogous language in Deut. 33:3, and Gen. 49:10. I do not think am-mim is ever used for the children of Israel, but that it has always a definite and distinct meaning Here we may refer to Deut. 32:8, and this seems to me to be the point of the Gospel of John—His Sonship, and the world. Yet, as Son, He was Heir as Solomon, i.e., with the Jews.

11, 12. These give the question of official agency in which He might be rejected, as between Him and the people.

13. How various are the instruments by which the Lord does His acts! We see this illustrated here.

This and the following verse give the personal acts, and that which immediately concerned His Person, with the Lord and His purposes—the sure and certain order, both of His willing character, and sufferings, and exaltation, and manifestation as Jehovah. His suffering and judgment in a higher capacity than men, dispersed relationship to the Jewish nation though including it; you may compare Isa. 49

‘Young one' is rather 'cast out,' ‘driven out '; the word is na-ar (a wanderer).

Zechariah 12

10. How plain is the Spirit of Christ in the Prophet here!

Note when 'the Spirit of grace and supplication' is poured on Israel, it is after the deliverance, on the families which remain. The Lord will have destroyed the nations come against Jerusalem—the house of David will have been as God, but the day of the Lord on Jerusalem will have been the taking of the city, etc. It is those that remain in all the Land that will mourn apart, having looked on Him whom they had pierced. These are owned as God's people, but there remains the question: what the condition is of this Remnant before? Here the Psalms come in. There we have the desire of the humble, the poor who commits himself to Jehovah—those that seek Him—the righteous who are tried, etc.; see Psa. 9; 12, and compare Isa. 51 See also Zeph. 2:1, 2, 3; 3: 8, 18, etc.

Zechariah 13

5. I think I have noticed in my interleaved Bible, I cannot but think the English translation has missed the sense. It is Christ taking His lowly place, and amongst men, as Man, man's place, and then His rejection by the Jews, and then God's counsel in it as to the Man, His fellow. I hardly see how hik-na-ni (has acquired me) can be 'taught me to keep cattle.' And He said 'comes in abruptly. 'And He said I am no Prophet; Adam possessed me,' bought me, ' from my youth.' I was a servant to man from the beginning.

'And he said, What are these wounds in Thy hands?' 'Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.' Then the blessed counsel of God comes, in His view of Christ's service and His place as the Shepherd of Israel—the Good Shepherd that lays down His life for the sheep. The Shepherd thus out of the way, through wickedness on the part of the people, in needed grace on God's part, yet smiting the Shepherd for the sake of the flock, His hand falls necessarily on the faithful of the flock itself. They must feel the condition of Israel, the sin in which they are all involved, but to them, living through Him, it is passing through the fire for purifying. Isa. 1:25, and Amos 1:8, and Psa. 81:14, show, I think, that 'turning the hand upon' is in judgment. The Lord Jesus does not quote this last part, because its force is for the latter days. 'The little ones,' if they had a common lot with Him, had hardly, in any sense, a common lot with the Jewish people after His death, but, though eventually separated, they are acted on together at the close; see verses 8 and 9.

These last two chapters are very general.

7. "I will turn my hand upon the little ones"; compare Isa. 1:25—verses 8, 9, I apprehend, explain it. He visits to purify. But "little ones" are brought low, become vile. It is the Jews looked at as having to say to God in the Land, but brought low in it. Note it is the word amithi (My neighbor) found only in Leviticus and here. In Matthew the blessed Lord treats it as God's act "I will smite." This seems to me His perfectness.

It has struck me that the force of this, Christ's statement of Himself as humbled, in contrast to all the ecclesiastical and prophetic false assumption of the nation, ‘and He said' or 'shall say, not a Prophet am I—a man tilling the ground' (compare Gen. 3:23) 'am I, for man made me his property from my youth,' i.e., Christ was subjected to the condition and necessities of man from the outset, as the Servant of their good, having come into the sorrow and toil into which man was driven (out of Paradise). Then comes His Jewish rejection—He received His wounds in the house of His friends. Then comes God's part—it pleased the Lord to bruise Him. "Awake, O Sword," etc. Then the consequence, to the Jewish people, of all this, till their millennial reception in verse 9. Then the final result as to all the nations as well as Jerusalem, in the next chapter.

5. As to the word hik-na-ni (caused me to acquire) it is confirmed, and its force beautifully brought out by comparing Prov. 8:22. This is the humiliation of Christ, as connected with the Jews—that His title in His Person, and the glory of the Lord's ways.

8, 9. All the resulting history of the Jews is in these two verses.

Zechariah 14

1. The, day of the Lord, is always, or involves, earthly judgment.

17, 18. "The Lord of hosts." 'Neither shall there be upon them... there shall be the plague,' etc., or, neglecting the athnakh, 'shall there not be upon them the plague.'

19. After all, I see no proof that khat-tath (sin) means punishment. Proverbs 10:16 is the only passage that can be reasonably alleged, that I can find. It may perhaps, allude to it, as that which represents, and marks the sin, as 'he shall bear his iniquity,' the proof and force of which would be seeing him lie under the judgment it brought. This is the sense of the word (in two forms) in Lam. 3:39 and chapter 4: 6—bearing the sin on himself in punishment, something as the sense of sin-offering. And, I suppose, it must be so taken here, but so as to charge the measure, and the character of the sin, not merely the fact of punishment. It is governmentally putting the sin upon him, instead of taking it off; compare Lam. 4:22.

Malachi. Chapter 3

1. Ha-Adon (‘The Lord,' or 'Master') at the end naturally Jehovah.

4. How very striking the difference is between the end of Malachi and Rev. 22:17, 20, where, though a Book of judgments, the saint, or Church, returns to its relationships. It strikingly shows the difference of the two principles, of the Old and New Testaments, or Law and Grace. Besides the very nature of the development of the relationship itself is different. In Malachi, He returns and discerns between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth Him not. In Revelation, it is the Church, when the Person of Christ is revealed as the Morning Star, whose heart goes out with desire after the Bridegroom, animated by the Holy Spirit Himself.

Gethsemane and the Cross

The Lord was completely heard and delivered, as regards the trial of Gethsemane, before leaving the garden, and on the Cross before His giving up His soul. And these two trials seem to me to be quite distinct. The prince of this world came, and though he had nothing in Jesus, still He had to go through what death was as the power of Satan to alarm and destroy confidence in His Father. 'This is your hour, and the power of darkness,' said the Lord. Satan had sought to meet Him, and pervert Him as a living Messiah, the Son of God, but the Lord had put him aside, and conquered him with the Word, as the obedient Man; for this was needed for man too. Satan had then sought to divert Him from the path by attractive temptation. The strong man was bound, and, as a living Man, He spoiled his goods—cast out devils-healed all that were oppressed by the devil (as a living Man) 'for God was with Him.' But man was incapable of being blessed in this way, or delivered, for he was a sinner, and morally under Satan's power.

Then the Lord had to meet death, which stood in the way, as sole means of blessing. He must be a dying Savior, and not a living Blesser, for man could not meet the blessing else, and death came in necessarily, and so he that had the power of death came in in a new form. He is to exercise his full power in hindering the Lord from going through with this dreadful necessity, in which, as Satan, he would exercise the full power that he had against man, and this rested on Christ in Gethsemane. He was looking forward to death, wrath from God was not yet upon Him, though He was looking forward to it, but ' He was sorrowful even unto death '-` His soul poured out like water,' and the full power of death on it, to the extent of Satan's empire-every human help failing in every way, and treachery and malice hemming Him in, but, above all, Satan's power besetting Him. But He takes nothing from man, nor from Satan, nor complains like Job. He prays—gives Himself to prayer. The effort of Satan to hide God from His soul, to get in between, as he does sometimes with believers, was useless. The distress drives Him to God, being the true sign of the link of the soul with Him. 'Being in an agony, He prayed more earnestly.' And the effect, for the cup (through grace—mighty grace!) could not pass, that He receives it wholly and solely from His Father's hand.

The subject of His fear-this dreadful judgment, in which Satan had his power-becomes His glorious obedience, and He presents Himself in the calm of all His life, and with such an evidence of divine power accompanying it, that they go backward and fall to the ground. He delivers Himself up according to the Father's will. Satan is just for nothing in it. This was most glorious. Gethsemane, that place of sorrow, but well-spring of delight and deliverance for us dug in the depths of Christ's soul, was passed.

But another scene was to come-more dreadful, no doubt, but quite different-the wrath of God. It has another character. It is not conflict, and that with the power of evil. It is holiness, justice, dreadful, infinitely dreadful, but not in its nature the terrors and power of Satan. He, who alone could, felt what God was against sin; but nothing, No! nothing-between Him and God. Nothing screened His soul from the judgment of God, before whom He was made sin. It was the immediate wrath of God-dreadful thought!-against sin. It was not to find His Father's countenance, or maintain His look toward Him through all that Satan could command of darkness, but all naked before God Himself. Perfect-yea, perfection itself here to God, He ascribes unclouded praise here. Thou continuest holy, Thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel,' though He could say, "Why hast thou forsaken me?" Infinitely agreeable (in this, beyond all else) to God His Father, He accomplished the full and perfect expiation of our sins. And here, too, He was heard and delivered, and commends His Spirit to His Father without a cloud, as the One who has lifted up the light of His countenance upon Him. No one takes it from Him-He delivers up His soul—lays down His life, that He might take it again, according to the commandment of the Father.

And Christ can, even in detail, in Gethsemane, exhort His disciples, heal the servant, reason with those who come, and judge their position as of the hour of the power of darkness, put Judas' sin before his eyes, deal with all the fruits of the power of evil as that which He was, in no sort, under—on the Cross answered, His soul delivered by the Father's glory (the God of truth) to His Father, speak peace to the thief and assure him of Paradise, and place His mother, now all was finished, in the hands of John, to whose love He confided her. All was restored in the perfectness of every aspect in which He could look, and be seen with but resurrection, but the full intelligence of His position now, as leaving the world, having done with it, but the power of death and wrath all passed, and in view of this new and peculiar position which makes death ours, His Spirit commended to His Father, death has no more dominion though He dies. The thief does not wait for the kingdom-he goes then into Paradise, i.e., his Spirit with Christ, not in body neither, but his soul apart from his body. Perfect peace and deliverance in that in which He then had to be delivered, He passes through death, in the power of life, in divine favor. Death is conquered, and, in the full light of that triumph, in the light of His Father's countenance, and, in the power of life, victorious over death, using it for Himself for others, He gives up His Spirit to His Father. What could death do there? That was death. It was the exercise of Christ's power in its highest act of triumph, at least short of resurrection. And so for us. And He still does it as not for Himself, as He only has title, for He has life in Himself, we in Him-' Eternal life, but that life in His Son.' How glorious and perfect is this mystery! How perfect the work wrought! How glorious and perfect He who wrought it! What to have Him as the Object of our thoughts, and living soul's affection- to live by Him, fruit of that very work!

The power that delivers Israel will be glorious in its deliverance of man, and he will escape death, and the snare of the fowler, but our portion is-Oh! how different!-to die, so that this place and principle of sin should be no more, in the power of that life which can pass through death-die only to what gave death its power in it (in Christ, for others) in us. Oh! what a blessing for ourselves, for our flesh's nature is sin! How excellent a boon! What a blessed privilege is death! And mark, ours in Christ. It is negatively (in the power of this life) what God is positively, i.e., it is so through this glorious work of Christ-separation from sin. He gives His Spirit, too, up to God. 'In that He died, He died unto sin once: in that He liveth, He liveth unto God.' What a separation needed, because sin was there! But a separation from it, absolute in judgment, and when disowned and judged, such as innocence or ignorance of sin never could have been. But life of divine power must have been there for this. How plainly separation from evil is identified with absolute, perfect justification by Christ! And what force this gives to Rom. 6! Note this is, in privilege, our present state by faith.

We may note here that Christ commends His Spirit ‘to His Father.' All through, as Man, it is confidence in Him, not power acting without Him, though power were there, ' Life in Himself,' but life acting in the Man in confidence in His Father. This adds clearly to the blessing, while showing Christ in His perfect humiliation.

Note here that in the rejection of Christ (Luke 20) and David's Son becoming David's Lord, we get what brings out the position of the two Adams. He does not take the place of David's Son in Israel, according to promise. Nor is it simply His divine title as Jehovah, for it is Jehovah who speaks to Him as rejected as Son of David down here. There He sits ' till His enemies be made His footstool,' but He is Lord as set there by Jehovah. He will rule among His enemies, and He has drunk of the brook in the way,' i.e., been humbled to dependent faith on God His Father.

The first man would be as God,' exalting himself, and is abased, and, in the full development of man, as Antichrist, he opposes, and exalts himself above all that is called God, or worshipped, so that he sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.' And he pretends to mount yet higher, and to set his throne above the stars of God, and be like the Most High, ascending up to heaven. But he will be brought down to the pit. The second Adam ‘thought it not robbery to be equal with God,' but emptied Himself, and came down to the form of man—there, was obedient unto death,' as Adam was disobedient, 'even the death of the Cross.' And God has highly exalted Him—His act—the Man of creation, but the Man of God's counsels, the Heavenly Man, exalted by God, Heir of all that God in His counsels has given to Man, i.e., all things which this Man has—Creation's God—and inherits as Son. And now all flows, not merely from God as of course it does, but from this Heavenly Man. Life has this character and place, righteousness also. The kingdom hereafter—He is gone there to receive it—the inheritance of all things according to Psa. 8; i.e., the source and center of the whole condition of all God's ways in man, His place with Himself, on which all else depends, for He has put all things under His feet. The Church is united to Him there by the Holy Ghost, which He has sent down, and the Father in His name.

This is the key-stone of all God's ways, His purpose as to all things. And our moral relationship has its character from this-it has the character, standing, and perfection of what God has wrought. It is the Second Man set on God's right hand, the self-humbled One, as the first, or creation man, was the self-exalted, tried in responsibility till Christ's death, and even after, to see if he would own the Exalted One. Then, adversary, shown in principle in the Jews, thereon set aside (and specially in Paul, pattern of Israel's mercy, and witness of sovereign grace, and the Church) and, finally, as Gentiles and as man, in the Antichrist, when the man of the earth will give place to the Heavenly Man now exalted with God, known by faith but then displayed to man, and setting aside all that opposes. Such are the first and second man, or Adam, the self-exalting, and self-humbling One!

Now in Christ Himself we find the distinction between the glory conferred and His own blessedness. He has humbled Himself to the death even of the Cross, and He will be found exalted, having a Name above every name. He will be displayed with crowns of glory, but not, speaking simply, of His divine and unchangeable blessedness. He has a resulting joy of a higher character than displayed reward. When the elders are crowned and on their thrones, they are in a wonderful position for such, no doubt-to have thrones round the Throne, but when ' Holy, Holy, Holy ' is pronounced, they leave their thrones, and fall on their faces before Him, and cast their crowns before the Throne-in a higher position when they seize and estimate His glory, than when displayed in their own. So in the way, of course proper to Him, Christ has a part more excellent than the royal display of glory. On the Cross, He has morally fulfilled the whole divine glory, and that as Son of Man. He gave Himself up that everything in God might be perfectly glorified and displayed-not only was He God manifested in love to man, and Man obedient to God, but He gave Himself up—so that God's perfect love, righteousness against sin, majesty against the audacious transgressor, truth in the threat He had made to man, and yet salvation in all its fullness, according to the glory of a God of grace—Righteousness against sin to the uttermost, for the Son suffered and was not spared—Love to the sinner without bounds, for the Son was given—Grace reigning, yet reigning by righteousness, maintaining God's glory, to the utmost, in Holy Majesty, and yet descending to the extreme of ruin, 'made sin,' and under death, because we, worthless ones, were there. God was glorified in Him, and indeed the Son of Man glorified, for what obedience! What a wonder that in Man, God's attributes should be thus glorified, and made good! What devotedness to God! Self sacrifice that God might be glorified! So giving a motive even that the Father should love Him—descend to the uttermost of weakness, yet in that confiding Himself, in death, to His Father's faithful love and glory (to what God was) and raised by it!

Thus in the Cross, the Son of Man was glorified, as being One in whom God could be, and God glorified in Him. Then, in answer to this moral glorifying of God, He is glorified in God Himself-not merely display Him in His own glory as Son of Man, which in His times He shall show, but in Himself. And this was the just and necessary consequence. If God be glorified in Him, God must, as the only measure which answered to God's glory made good in Him, glorify Him in Himself; and this without question of the display of it—that would not be in Himself. He would do it immediately, not waiting for the time of displaying the Son of Man in glory. He is glorified in God Himself, as the consequence of God being glorified in Him—a glory and a place enjoyed in se, participating in the infinite delight and excellency of God, as thus exalted, which, however the result of it may be displayed, is above and beyond all display. Such is the glory and blessing of the Son of Man! Wondrous truth! Flowing no doubt, from what He was, as well as from what He had done as to its possibility, still, enjoyed as Man there. It is a wonderful but a glorious mystery, and we shall see Him as He is. Moreover, we dwell in Him, and He in us.

Christ was not only the manifestation of the perfect grace of God towards men (en anthropois eudokia) and that when man was in his sins, the holiness being so perfect, and untouchable by sin, that He could rise up over the sin to deal with the sinner in love, but He was the exhibition of the new Man as God delighted in Him-the divine Life with all its qualities unfolded in the scene of misery in which it was all put to the test, and only shone the brighter for it. 'That Eternal Life which was with the Father, and manifested unto us' (and 'which thing is true in Him and in us, because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth,' and hence we are called to be 'imitators of God as dear children,' for He is our life) and thus we can take delight in all the perfectness of it, objectively, in Him, yet as ours.

In Acts 7 we have three very important points: man resisting the Holy Ghost—man full of the Holy Ghost (being redeemed and washed in the Lamb's blood)—and religion, established on earth in connection with Creation, entirely set aside as belonging to the first Creation, into which sin and disobedience had entered. This gave the whole character of man established in relationship with God. The earlier history of resisting the Spirit is given distinctly in connection with Israel—Joseph, Moses. But here it was resisting God, when they had failed under Law, and the Spirit worked in testimony, and that in sovereign grace, proposing, on their repentance, Christ's return when already rejected. On the other hand, we have heaven opened, the Holy Ghost in the believer making him look steadily in (note, it is not heaven opened to man, looking down on the Man of delights, John r and Matt. 3:17, but man filled with the Holy Ghost, in virtue of redemption, looking into heaven on the Son of Man there) testifying to the Son of Man being at God's right hand. This was the great testimony. This brings the Cross, and complete conformity to Jesus. But the resisting the Spirit, the setting aside all carnal ordinances, all power on earth, and then, in contrast, the saint being filled with the Spirit and looking into heaven, and all association of God, religiously, with the earth being set aside is very remarkable.

Note further, in the latter part of Luke 22, when all is brought to a point, and Christ, victorious over Satan, as he tempted the first Adam by will, rejected as delivering man down here, the things concerning Him have an end. So that, brought to the point of death, unless He gave up His work, death, as having the character of judgment and wrath, was in Satan's hand as power, as in God's in righteousness against the sinner. We have this great crisis brought out in three ways—flesh incapable of it, when there was the best intention, for man was there, Satan in malice and power, and God in righteousness. Satan sifts and man fails, cannot go through. If he does not fly off in despair, and still hold on to God, whatever his failure, it is God's grace, and Christ's intercession. Man is worthlessness and failure, with the best of intentions, and Christ perfect grace in the worst of failures. Such is sifted Peter! Flesh breaks down—he is fit to strengthen then, because he knows the flesh good for nothing, and Christ a perfect stay when man, as such, is gone and ruined, and proved worthless.

Secondly, we have Christ going through this same crisis, and the whole fullness—blessed be God!—of Satan's power in this way seeking to drive His soul back from accomplishing this terrible work in obedience. He is perfect through it. Being in the conflict, He is only nearer to God. Here we have, not the flesh breaking down at the first shadow of it passing on the soul, but grace going through it in perfect obedience. All entered into with God—all done when man came—it was then but the occasion of obedience.

Thirdly, we have the efficacy of the work itself in the passage of the thief into Paradise—not the kingdom, we are all beyond that so that we leave failing flesh, when Satan is out with the power of death in his hand. Perfect submission and obedience, so that Satan is wholly overcome, and his power in this respect annulled for faith, and the work of going under judgment and wrath so perfectly performed for the sinner, that he goes into Paradise with Jesus immediately. They are the three phases of man in connection with death and the Cross. Another place of man is his active and willful connection with Satan—in the lowest points a Judas—but of this I have spoken elsewhere, and do not touch here. It is embraced in the words, 'Your hour and the power of darkness.'

I add, it is very difficult to get rid of the esteem of self in respect of others. But it must be rooted out. More than these the Lord recalls, but Peter now no longer pretends to. We must be brought down to a level with others, if we exalt self at their expense. But the effect is to make Christ everything, being ashamed of self. Peter says simply 'Thou knowest that I love Thee.' At present I think any one could (though I would not be behind) love Christ better than I do, but that I love Him, and as to object, Him alone—that He knows. Still how poor what is there! But I have nothing but Him, nor do I want—He knows, and my God knows—anything else. The Father's love is there. What a sense of blessedness!

Love and Light

The reason why we are not said to be 'Love,' which God is, but are said to be 'Light,' which He is, is evident. Love is sovereign goodness—a source towards others. God is it, no doubt, but as regards others it is sovereign, and has an object in its exercise, and, outside the Trinity, for the Father loveth the Son, it exists when active on objects which must be inadequate as motive, though thereby glorifying sovereign goodness, and showing it is divine. But purity is a nature perfectly pure, and manifesting this all around it, and we can be purity—it is a subjective state—it is the state and character of a nature. There is nothing of a source, a fons of blessing in it, which we cannot be, though we may walk in love because we are given to be streams where the source is. I do not know if I have sufficiently noticed this, though I have in a measure.

The only thing that is not satisfied in God towards us is Love. Righteousness is—His judgment of sin—all He requires from us, in the exigencies of His holy, righteous character, for Christ is before Him. And it is a wonderful word, if I look at God, there is only Love, 'God was in Christ reconciling'—if I look at myself, only righteousness, I am 'made the righteousness of God in Him.' In Christ, God is love to us, we are the righteousness of God in Him.

The Gospels

I see not how we can doubt that Holy Scripture containeth the certain revelation of all things necessary to our salvation, because it is by their revelation alone that their necessity is shown. None can be the author of truth but God. There can therefore be no truth but as coming from Him, and all that He says must be true as it is written, 'Every word of God is pure. He is a Shield unto them that put their trust in Him. Add thou not unto His words lest He reprove thee and thou be found a liar.' The whole authority therefore of any man consists simply in the proof that he speaks the words of God, and it is merely that by Him we believe in God, from whose life we were alienated by the ignorance that was in us through the blindness of our hearts. And therefore of the Son of God Himself, as appearing in the flesh as 'the Apostle of our profession,' it is said, 'He that hath received His testimony hath set to his seal that God is true, for He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God.' To Him indeed 'the Spirit was not given by measure’ ‘in whom dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily,' who is the Object of faith as well as the Messenger of it—the Fullness of truth in Himself, so as that the Spirit given to us does but take of His, whose is all that the Father hath, and show it to us according to the measure of the gift of God. Thanks be to God for His unspeakable gift!

When a man therefore comes to me proposing anything of faith, I seek the evidence that he speaks to me the words of God, according to revelation from Him, as Paul says: 'What shall I profit you except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine'—diverse methods of communicating the will of God concerning us.

There is one other case we may suppose, where a man, not of God, speaks a truth which comes with conviction to the mind of another, as being a truth of God. But this supposes that other to be enlightened by God already, either as to the truth—as Caiaphas's assertion of the necessity and fitness of our Lord's death, as stated and adopted by John—or where a person, enlightened by conviction as to his own state, receives by providential means, not ordinary but such as have, when inquired into, a warrant for his faith in the truth, a statement of the grace of God applicable to his case. This is by the overruling mercy of Providence. Accordingly the Scripture, being complete (of which I shall mention evidence just now, not for proof's sake, for he that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself,' but for instruction to myself, and those to whom it may come) miracles are not to be looked for—they are the authentication of a testimony given by or committed to a person who bears not, in appearance to others, or has not in fact (which must always be the case where it is a revelation in the way of truth to be revealed, and not of the Supreme Glory itself which needs, and can have, no testimony afforded it) the authority to speak in his own name. So He has desired us, in what He has revealed, to try any proposal, of which signs are given as the confirmation, by the truth of His glory, which, in His excellent mercy, He has made known to us. The Lord Himself hath given us a sign,—a virgin hath conceived, and borne a Son—God Himself hath been manifested in the flesh in the Person of Immanuel. He hath created a new thing in the earth. Nay! By the energy of His divine Spirit He doth still, by creation, adopt into the number of His sons those that are made new creatures in Christ Jesus, and who have therefore the witness in themselves—the Spirit also itself helping their infirmities, while it witnesseth with their spirit while, in the earthly house of this tabernacle, they groan being burthened, waiting for that building of God which is eternal in the heavens, not made with hands.

In writing this there was a tendency of my mind to feel as a giver and not as a receiver, which is practically atheism. Yet, if it may assist myself or others as being true, I leave it. All we have we have received to the glory of God the Father, by His Son Jesus Christ, through the intervention of the Holy Ghost. If I use it not accordingly to all this, I sin against the divine glory, and this even, in humblest acknowledgment of our responsibility of seeking by the means with every diligence and the freedom of the divine gift, in comparing the testimony of our Lord with other divine testimony, we must, while it remains true, ever bear in mind this difference, that while of old, so also after the outpouring of the Spirit, as it was, so it is, 'I have believed, and therefore I speak, we also believe and therefore speak.' Our Lord spake that He knew, and testified that He had seen, and as believers, in their testimony as in their person, manifest that which by the Spirit they have derived from His fullness—He, on the other hand, in whom dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead, bodily in testimony and person, appeared as the Only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, speaking the Father's words, doing the Father's works, and manifesting and revealing Him in His Person.

Note in the consideration or execution of the most terrible judgments, and to our mind on the largest scale, the Lord never fails to see the smallest proof and fruit of grace. In the midst of the change of the whole scene, and the establishment of the heavenly place and glory of the Son of Man, and the judgment of all that was Jewish, He takes notice, in grace, of the two mites of the poor widow's simple-hearted and devoted offering to her God. It is a blessed consideration!

Fragments: Being Born of God

There is a distinct development in 1 John 5:18-20. As a general truth such is the characteristic of being born of God—such do not sin, and the wicked one has no hold on them, such being their nature. But further, 'We know that we are of God’—derive our nature from, and so are associated with Him. We affirm something about ourselves. It is not abstract as to a nature, but absolute contrast of nature and position as to ourselves—we are of God, the world is lying in the power of evil. But there is objective knowledge too—we know that the Son of God is come—we know Him that is true, and are in Him, even in His Son, and He is the true God. The contrast in verse 19, following on verse 18, is very absolute. It is not merely one born of God will not sin—a general truth—but the fact that we are of God and know it. The whole world is in exactly the opposite state—opposite essentially in condition and state. Besides that, we know the great truth of divine history, and we are in God by Him. Redemption, though clearly stated, is not the great subject of John, but life by resurrection—only we find it in resurrection.

Fragments: Mysticism Set Aside

It is remarkable, though nature is spoken of, how mysticism is set aside in 1 John 4. Not only do verses 9, 10, do so positively, but verse 14, and again verse 16, 'the love that God hath to us'

How exceedingly blessed is the place of Mary, in this respect, that when God is giving testimony to His rejected Son, as Son of God, Son of David, and Son of Man, she gives her testimony too. Her love has its place in doing so, and this is in its place which is very sweet. It comes before Son of David, and Son of Man, though these be God's testimonies because there are earthly glories to come. But she had tasted the power of resurrection in Lazarus, and associates herself in spirit and heart with Christ as the dying One. Not that she knew it by revelation or as knowledge, but she saw in spirit where the enmity of the Jews was tending—as their hatred, so her devoted attachment grew. The hearer of His Word, waiting for His will to go to Him, as He His Father's to come, she holds a very peculiar place here-to her act the Lord can give a voice. She was not, as it would seem, at the sepulcher—she does not come in that line of work. Bethany is neither Galilee nor Jerusalem; it stands entirely alone. It owns death when resurrection and life are there, but as estimating Christ's love in it.

Fragments: Pre-Existence Notion

We have a singular specimen of Jewish, Eastern or Platonic soul's pre-existence notion, in the Book of the Wisdom of the Son of Sirach, chap. 41:9, 10, though the unspotted body is out of the way. It is very likely that the disciples, in John 9, were under the popular, unreasoning influence of this, when they asked, 'Who did sin, this man or his parents?' The Lord's words would merely be negative.

Fragments: Building Up and Progress

Note both 2 Peter and Jude insist on our building up and progress, in presence of the decay of the Church and coming judgment. So that it is, as judging the outward state, a more close entering into relationship with God, in communion with what He is, and His ways in Christ as Lord. We have the precious promises as precious faith, but look forward as called by glory, and so are growing up, but that in the knowledge of God who has called us. We have all things necessary to life and godliness, but it is by that according to which we are called, that there is intelligently a partaking of the divine nature, i.e., a forming of our souls morally into what it is—its likeness. Positive evil we have escaped from.

Fragments: Similarities Between the Zoroastrian and Roman Systems

It is perfectly extraordinary how completely similar the Zoroastrian liturgical forms, even to particular collects on particular saints' days, are to the Roman, or Anglican system. Could it have had its origin there by any possibility through Alexandria? See as to Pantanus, and India, and Buddhist influence. The priestly source and everything, getting the prayers said for them, and the priests paid for it, in order to forgiveness. The Mithra (bread-offering), and Hebma (soma, a plant) the Fathers noticed as an invention of the devil to travesty the Lord's supper. But this was a small part. But it shows it was known in the West.

Fragments: The Rapture

The only attempt to prove the non-rapture of the Church which might seem to have Scripture to warrant it is that founded on Rom. 11:25, that blindness happens to Israel till the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. But it proves nothing whatever, save that blindness is on Israel till the Church be complete. Then Israel's judicial blindness will cease. What the process is by which they are brought to be ready to own Christ, so that He comes (for He does not, till they are) is not spoken of. Other passages enlarge upon it—the sorrows, exercises, awakenings, pleadings which take place before the answer of grace, in the personal return of the Lord, comes. With these passages it proves the contrary of non-previous rapture, for, till the Church is complete, there is blindness, and these exercises of the heart according to Scripture are the proof that blindness is taken away, though the answer be not yet come. ‘All Israel,' I think, results naturally enough from the fact that he speaks of blindness unto Israel.' In grace he had spoken only of branches broken off from the stock of promise, but, in fact, the nation, as such, was in outer darkness, for a time blindness was on it, the veil on their hearts. When the fullness of the Gentiles should be in, then this, as to the national condition, should be changed.

Fragments: Justification and Holiness Mingled With Affection

Note the way in which justification and holiness are mingled with blessed affection when it is in the way of grace—when they are required, this cannot be. It is all very right. But grace will say, 'Who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and'—not purify from evil—but ‘purify to Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.' Compare Eph. 5:25, 26, 27; and Rev. 21:27.

Fragments: The Lord's Coming and the Seven Churches

We may remark that, in the three first Churches of the Apocalypse, there is no mention of the Lord's coming. It is a present dealing spoken of. From Thyatira out, Christ's coming is spoken of till Laodicea—Thyatira, the Jezebel system, being established so that the resource was in looking out of it. In Laodicea, the case is quite changed, Christ knocks at the door, in case any one hears His voice in the midst of that which He is going to spue out of His mouth. The application of the coming is different. To the faithful under the Thyatira state, patience till He came; in the Sardis, as a thief, treating the whole as the world; in Philadelphia, cheering and encouraging the faithful to patience—He would soon be there.

There are evidently three words to Peter in Matt. 16, not pursuing the chapter further now. The Father had revealed the Person of Christ—the Son of the living God. Christ also gives him a name and place, and, further, the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

Fragments: Heavenly Jerusalem

Note this beautiful circumstance in the heavenly Jerusalem. No one appears there. There is no crowd, no inhabitant. The city itself is the spouse, the Lamb's wife. But it has the glory of God, i.e., the glory of God and the Lamb is so entirely everything that the people are absorbed, as it were lost in the glory which is there, and the description becomes not of people but of the state in which they were. The divine glory was everything—the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb the temple—the Lord God Almighty the light, and the Lamb lightening it. The nations walk in its light—there we find people. In the city is, and there is nothing ever there but divine glory. In the Throne governing the world at the beginning, the elders and myriads of angels, etc., are seen surrounding the Throne—it is another scene.

Fragments: Looking Up and Down

Note very particularly—to the disciples, who were looking up after Jesus, the Angels' word is, 'Why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus shall so come,' etc. Stephen, being full of the Holy Ghost, gazed up steadfastly into heaven, and saw Jesus there, 'the Son of Man standing at God's right hand,' and prays his spirit may be received by Him. In Ephesians, we are sitting there together in Him, and (the Church being filled with, the habitation of God through, the Spirit) the principalities and powers now in turn look down and see the manifold wisdom of God in the Church. And now it becomes us for God's honor, that they should see comely things in us—'because of the Angels.' Nota bene all this.

Fragments: Kurios

Kurios (Lord) is clearly used, I apprehend, as a proper name, for Jehovah, without the article, in Matt. 27:10; Mark 13:20; Luke 1:15, 58, 76; chap. 2: 9; Acts 7:49; Rom. 4:8; chap. 9: 28; Heb. 7:21; chap. 12:6; and 1 Peter 1:25.

Fragments: The Gospel of the Kingdom

We may note that Jesus preached, distinctively, the gospel of the kingdom.

Fragments: Deep and Full Blessing

It is a wonderful witness of the deep and full blessing into which we are brought, that through the Holy Ghost (i.e., God dwelling in us and we in Him) we are brought to know Him and the blessedness into which no creature can enter. God dwells in the light which no one can approach unto—yet we know Him as dwelling there. We know what light is, and we understand that in that essential being and glory He must be unapproachable. Yet it is because we know what it is, He dwelling in us in love, that we know it must be unapproachable—yet know Him there.

So even Christ's present place—no one can ever be there but He. Yet it is our special blessing to know what that place is, and what He is as there, and how He is there, and went there; see John 17 and 13, as well as Heb. 1 and other passages alluding to Psalm 110.

Fragments: Justification and Practice

For justification, we reckon ourselves dead. For practice we have the sentence of death in ourselves. To have this realized we always bear about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, and God delivers us to death, to meet our feebleness, where the desire is sincere, and carry it out. Paul realized this—death worked in him; and power—life—was unhindered in its operation towards and to the benefit of, the Corinthians. So if he suffered, it was for their consolation—if he was comforted, because, by his drawing his comforts immediately from Christ, he could comfort others and bring to them what was in Christ. This way of God's dealings, elsewhere remarked on, is most precious. But then he was not unsustained by them, by the weakest of them, 'Ye also helping together by prayer for us, that for the gift bestowed upon us by the means of many persons, thanks may be given by many on our behalf.' All things for the Church. God allowing the weakness of the vessel to be felt, that divine faithfulness and love, divine consolations might be known. These are experienced in one who held himself dead, and in integrity of purpose, and by the dispensation of God helping him, was made to realize it. So, in the power of these consolations, he could console, and, in the power of the life of Christ, work in others, but then they were helping him by their prayers, and were called to realize, by the ministration of life, the death to all things which gave such unhindered power of and in Christ to the Apostle, and so he saw and owned his hope was the fact that, as they partook of the sufferings they would of the consolation. As for him, his hope was in One who raised the dead. What could Satan and the murderers of this world do?

Fragments: Colossians 3:12

Col. 3:12 is the formal character of Christ towards others, in the consciousness of relationship—for Christ is the Elect One, Holy and Beloved—what precedes the subjective and objective condition for oneself before God. In the Psalms there is a measure of similarity in this latter part, only no sonship nor clear knowledge of grace, but integrity pleaded, righteousness claimed, only mercy put first as it must be for the Remnant. Hence when we come to dealing with others, we have the sword and judgment instead of grace. The fruit partakes of, but brings out more dearly the character of the relationship. Trust is not the Church's place, but relationship and character. Hence Peter and Hebrews take this ground, not union with Christ, but a Mediator. Here faith in the character of trust and confidence is enlarged upon.

We are called upon to know the time of God's visitation morally—to judge the time—to know our adversary in the way with Him. Now the Lord gives a great means of this immediately after He says so; Luke 19:42-46. The Word of God tells what His house is in His mind. It is a house of prayer, where man is in intercourse with a God of love—where he finds a home with Him, and a refuge in his need and distress. It may have been imperfectly known, but the Lord who knew the Father's heart knew it to be such. To Him it was a house of prayer. So to the spiritual mind—to him who fears God and so has the secret of the Lord—God’s house has its character from Himself. Hence it knows by the Word which reveals it, what He would have—what His house ought to be, because he knows what He who dwells there is. The passages in the Word which speak of it have their force and suggest themselves to his mind, give him the clue to judge of the character of the time. It is remarkable how this characterizes the Lord. How He draws out from the Word characteristic passages which give the central points of divine truth as what the essence of the Law was, the Son of David being Lord at the moment of His departure, and even the resurrection in connection with faithfulness to promises, and the future millennial glory on earth, in His reply to the Sadducees! But the Word also describes the evil as man's heart produces it, and judges it according to the good the child of God knows, dear to him as knowing God Himself, his Father, as its Source. And thus the state of things is judged, 'It is written, My house is a house of prayer, ye have made it a den of thieves.' Men speak of respect, and a right-minded person is imbued with a spirit of respect, but I am too ignorant, too imperfect in judgment, too evil to know what to respect. The disposition may even deceive me, without the Word of God. Then guided by it, I respect, jealously respect what is of God, with affections which hold to Him, and a submission to what His Word says—what touches that, has the character of evil, is the opposite to respectable. The heart is engaged in its thoughts towards God—the judgment guided by the Word, both for good and in its judgment of evil. Thus the state of things is known, and God's heart and judgment about it.

Review of Aryan Mythology*

Though both are much more learned than I am, Mr. Cox is really carried away by the lady-pleasing flippancy of Mr. Max Muller. Though the research into Vedic myths, as the origin of all, be interesting, it is curious how a couple of sentences in Scripture solve the riddles of volumes. ‘The man is become as one of us, knowing good and evil.' There is a conscience which is not a revelation, but in its nature contrary to it, and inherent in man, though revelation acts on it, and then man 'did not like,' ouk edokimasan, 'to retain God in his knowledge' in Rom. 1, and Plato and Socrates in Rom. 2, and all is explained. There was a law, but no revelation proper, till after man's fall. Yet he says, page 10, ‘The reason of man is the Divine Reason dwelling in him; the voice of his conscience is the word of God. That these gifts involved a revelation of divine truth, it is impossible to deny.'

Page 72. 'It was impossible that any real fetish worship could arise while man had not arranged his first conceptions with regard to the nature of all material things, or even to his own. If from the consciousness of his own existence he attributed the same existence to all outward objects, he did so, as we have seen, without drawing any distinctions between consciousness and personality. If, however, this earliest state of things was not followed by one which invested outward things with a personal life, if in some way men could believe in a malignant yet unconscious and nonsentient power residing in stones and rocks, there would at once be developed a fetish worship, the most degrading and the most hopeless, which, if expanded at all, could only issue in a polytheism of devils, etc., etc.' None of these mythologists see that it is the want of a God that has made impressions of nature so powerful. Having originally consciousness of God, power and Godhead, and having lost the Being in whom it was, they took effects and signs, and ascribed power to them, and personified them. There may have been the progress referred to—I think it very likely—but it flows from two things, the consciousness of power above and outside them, and their having lost Him in whom it was, in beneficence. And it is evident that the tracing back from what is can only take the elements of what is. But none of their theories, as far as I know, account for the source element—the notion of power above and outside ourselves—its forms and workings in the mind, but not for the thing itself. Yet power is—the poetry and language connected with it is only the form it takes when God Himself is lost.

Another element omitted by them, and, in this book, confounded with the divine Spirit, is conscience—the making the difference in ourselves between good and evil—a thing quite apart from the progress formation of mythology.

Thus by the Scriptural statement all is easy to account for, only the starting point for their theories was really fallen man, not created man. It is not a revelation. He says, Mr. Gladstone discerns the germs of that nature-worship which was ingrafted on the true religion originally imparted to mankind.' This is all ignorance of truth, and nonsense. Nor does it suppose man created without knowledge of God, in brutish ignorance, but naturally associated with God, and leaving Him. Besides the power of seducing evil is ignored too.

Page 87. 'If Theseus and Sigurd, Phoibos and Achilleus, Odysseus, Oidipous, and Perseus are though different, yet the same, if their adventures or their times of inaction are simply the fruit of an inevitable process going on in all kindred languages, all charges of immorality founded on the character of these adventures fall completely to the ground.' They do not fall to the ground at all; for why did man's imagination turn the natural images into immorality, and be capable of attaching it to their gods? It was darkness, not light. Conscience worked against it.

Page 96. The picture drawn by Dr. Dollinger, of the great Olympian deities, may in all its particulars be strictly true. It is possible or probable that ideas utterly foreign to the Greek mind may have been imported from Phrygia, Phenicia, or Egypt, and that the worship so developed may have embodied philosophical conceptions of nature and of the powers at work in it. But the question which calls for an answer cannot be determined by the most masterly portraiture of the great gods of the Olympos, and Dr. Dollinger's hypothesis does not enable us to answer it. It starts on an assumption for which we have no evidence; and all the evidence furnished by the book of Genesis and still more all that is furnished by the study of language, militates against the idea that man started originally with a conception of God, as a pure, spiritual, supernatural, and infinite being, distinct from the world, and exalted above it.' I agree that man had only the knowledge of a Supreme Power, good, and to whom he owed obedience, and Dr. Dollinger goes, as all Christian doctors, too far. But Cox's idea that men thought clouds were living beings and the like is absurd. They went up a hill and were in the fog. Imagination made them such, and the sun and stars more easily, which seemed to have voluntary motion and were out of reach. That imagination, because they had lost God, peopled woods and springs with beings, is quite true; the rest was made by priests and poets.

Page 97, note 2. In truth, when we speak of the monotheistic faith of the Jewish people, we speak of their faith of their teachers. All the evidence at our command seems to show that at least down to the time of the Babylonish captivity the main body of the people was incurably polytheistic.' This shows when and why revelation came in in mercy. In Gentiles it was a mixture of images with verbic legends of ancestors—in revelation the correction of it by truth as to One God.

There was no revelation before the fall—free intercourse of God with man, and a law, but no revelation properly speaking, no need of one, nor knowledge of good and evil. By the fall man acquired the knowledge of good and evil, and a revelation of the seed of the woman was added in the judgment of the serpent. A simple law, forbidding an act as to what is present, is not a revelation. But God had spoken to man, and present intercourse was natural, and man was to enjoy everything save what tested obedience. God took care disobedience should bring in conscience, and grace gave a revelation. But Noah's position was different. There was the knowledge of good and evil, and horrible evil and monstrous evil already experienced, revelations and judgment executed on evil, and now even put into man's hands. There had been men of renown, and what seems to be in fables, I do not see any trace of idolatry before the flood. It is a pity men do not take the trouble of reading God's account of the matter, even as a history. It accounts for a thousand things they are puzzling their brains about, without pretending to do it as a history, yet meets facts, and the human mind, and the human conscience, so as even thus to give the clearest evidence of the truth. The key fits the wards, and opens all, small as it is.

It is very curious how the coming in of conscience has been neglected or rejected alike by Christians and philosophers. It is not the Spirit of God, nor a revelation—the contrary in its nature. It is the making difference between good and evil, right and wrong, that is without one. Law is only its rule for man. The Spirit acts on it. But that revelation is only given when fallen, opens out a wide field of thought for the natural state of one right with God, and also in grace. What the Law requires is the maintenance of the relationships in which we are according to God, according to the tenor of them. It is the full rule for conscience, but not for the Christian, because he is brought to God, and knows not what man ought to be merely but what God is. Mr. Gladstone is all wrong also, from not attending to Scripture. The fact of Satan's, or evil, power was known to Adam—he was fallen by it, and the natural goodness of God and revelation declared the woman's seed should bruise the serpent's head. And gradually some glimmerings of clearer revelation came in, but the counsels of God in Christ, and eternal life and incorruptibility was reserved for revelation, when righteousness, the foundation of glory, and accomplishing the counsels, was laid in the Cross and by the coming of the Second Man. The first was the responsible man, the Second connected with counsels and promises. The Cross made all righteous.

Mr. Gladstone's theory in his 'Homer and the Homeric age' is, that all that is evil in Greek mythology is the result not of a natural and inevitable process, when words used originally in one sense came unconsciously to be employed in another, but of a systematic corruption of very sacred and very mysterious doctrines.' Mr. Cox says, 'On the supposition that Greek mythology was a corrupted religious system, it must, to whatever extent, have supplied a rule of faith and practice, and the actions and characters of the gods must have furnished a justification for the excesses of human passion.' The power and wisdom of the Homeric gods is great and lofty, while their moral standard is indefinitely low.' Though I do not take up Mr. Gladstone's theory, Mr. Cox's argument has little force, because consistency in the mythology of a poet, or in any, is a blunder. Only the great elements can be taken, and there are other sources of mythology. ‘The idea of God'—mixed up with tradition as to man's history and confused with it—the apotheosis in the stars of men, or the stars themselves, and, as is so well known, the generative principle which exercised an immense influence over it, and the renewal of nature when creation was not believed in. But it is only the abstract general idea you get. What it is clothed in, and legends, come from many sources and an unbridled imagination, and Satan's influence over the mind of man by fear and passion. All gods ever run up into one supreme.

And, further, Satan being there, though the thought of God was there, yet man's feeling was distrust of God, and He stood as One jealous of man's getting too much blessing—fire was stolen from heaven, so to speak, in getting wisdom by eating the forbidden fruit. The protoplast got it. And all such things must be taken into account. It is the mixture of God, man, ancestors and stars, in one system of thought that accounts for it and its inconsistencies, and generation and imagination peopling natural forces with being, and all this poetically systematized, which is the shape we have it in, Hellenically, and, in a measure, in Hindooism; and, it must be added, priestcraft. The effect of sin too is left out, for no one can deny that the Grecian gods are largely the 'peopled idea' of passions, and that vain and low-minded people gave their own character to their ideal gods—'thought,' as the Psalm says, 'that I was altogether such an one as thyself.' It was not merely time but the character of the race that formed it. Still the universality of the same mythology essentially shows a common source. Nor do I doubt that, though variously developed, it had an invention of Satan working in man's nature, when he could not destroy the idea of God. Egyptian mythology is clearly the same. Local traditions are another thing. Probably Saboeism never originally fell in with this scheme. Epiphanius gives a tradition. It began in Livy's time.

There is another element omitted here when diffusion is taken in, viz., Noah's history and the legends connected with it. And, where dispersion is supposed, as it is by Mr. Cox, in page 99, it would hardly be left out, and, while the mythology of each nation would connect itself with local history, general mythology with original history, and we should get the difference between gods and demi-gods, though all might refer more or less simply and clearly to natural phenomena, we should get the great gods common, and the demi-gods more local, though all mixed up through the common imagery. In many respects Egypt seems to me, whatever the reason, to stand apart, though the gods, and local demi-gods are there, at any rate gods of special power. But actual nature had more place, and Amenti (Hades) a very much larger place—Osiris and Typhon, good and evil, and conscience. The dead (unless under curse) were called justified. And the slain Osiris, in some respects the chief of all, was judge of Amenti. And Thoth's office in Amenti I am not aware of having anything like. The whole had a more moral turn in this part, though the idolatry was essentially the same.

Page 100. No claim to the character of historical traditions can be made out for the same incidents when we find them repeated in the same order and with the same issue in different ages and different lands.' This proof of absence of historical fact at the beginning only applies to his own particular facts and nothing else.

Page 101. In his myths about Niobe, Orpheus and Europe, etc., another priest or poet must have deliberately made the myths out of the expressions. Herakles is the sun, loving and beloved wherever he goes! In Phaethon, we have the plague of drought! Perseus slaying Medusa is the sun killing the night! etc., etc.

Page 106. 'The touching truthfulness of the language which tells of the Dawn as the bright being whom age cannot touch... We feel that while the "Homeric" poet spoke of a god in human form born in Delos, he thought of the sun rising in a cloudless heaven, and told how the nymphs bathed the lord of the golden sword in pure water, and wrapped him in a spotless robe,' etc., etc. ‘All that is beautiful is invested with a purer radiance, while much, if not all, that is gross and coarse is refined, or else its grossness is traced to an origin which reflects no disgrace on those who framed or handed down the tale.'

Well! I should think turning the pure images of nature into corrupt gods like men, the greatest proof of depravity possible.

Page 109. ‘The great epic poems of the Aryan race exhibit an identical framework, with resemblances in detail which defy the influences of climate and scenery.' The traditions of many, if not most, of the Aryan nations are now known to us through the long toil and vast researches of comparative mythologists, aided by the mighty machinery of the printing press.' It is the want of God, the fullness of Scripture and divine knowledge that makes these things so important, and the printing press a kind of god. To me, all these discoveries make man exceedingly little.

Page 190. 'Far from furnishing any warrant for the conclusion that there was a real Agamemnon and a real Achilles, the great German epic' (the Nibelungen Lied) 'justifies a strong suspicion even of the names which are embodied in the oral traditions of a people.' If the Homeric poems tell us no more than that there was a king named Agamemnon, and a chief called Achilles, who may never have been at Troy (for Cromwell was not at Scarborough) and that there was also a struggle of some sort, although we know not what, at Ilion, we have before us a barren statement of which we can make nothing.' All the proofs against an historical groundwork are weak, and forget what poetry is—a composition, but a composition sufficiently taken from facts (when not mere odes) to interest those to whom they are addressed. Were they mere histories they would not be poetry. They may be romances where popular feeling has turned history into a romance, and, if odes to gods, meet popular ideas though assumed to exalt them. But where professedly historic, they need not be facts, but based on facts sufficient to meet popular feeling and tradition; and the analogy of Charlemagne and Roland, Mr. Cox speaks of, just proves this, for we have a case where just the same arbitrary treatment of facts is found, and, according to him, the sun brought in and its history. Yet it is proved to be by contemporary history—to have a basis of facts. One could not have a stronger analogy for the character of the Iliad. An anachronism, such as sending Charlemagne to the crusades, disproves nothing. If there had been no Scarborough, no Cromwell, and no war, the tradition could not have existed, and poetry is not mere tradition. It forms its color and schemes from the time it lives in.

Page 191. This page is utterly false. The conclusion is, or may be, we cannot on sufficient ground for certainty, receive any narratives, especially as they stand. His sun histories contradict each other, but he gets a clue and accepts all. And where tradition and poetry have made a story, you may have many to suit the poets' taste.

Page 193 is equally weak. He says: 'The method by which the upholders of the so-called Homeric history seek to sustain their conclusions may well appall the sober seekers after truth, who see the havoc thus made in those canons of evidence which should guide the statesman and the judge not less than the scholar.' He makes no allowance for the way poetry introduces what connects itself with known local traditions. Who would take the canons of a judge and law for judging of facts in Homer? There may be disproof. But no contradictions, after Charlemagne's being a crusader, will prop up his case.

Page 195 is all fudge. He says, 'If we are to admit that the historical character of the Iliad is not affected, even though Agamemnon and Achilles may never have met at all, and no Helen may have existed to give cause to the war, then it is clear that all freedom of judgment is gone. But no one can submit to be thus bound, who believes that his powers of thought are given him as a sacred trust, and that, unless he seeks to know facts as they are, he is chargeable with the guilt of willful blindness,' etc., etc.

Page 199 is a mistake. The statement of greater force in ancestors than in living countrymen,' is common poetry in earlier ages, unless all have copied Homer.

Page 200. ‘The critics have torn to shreds the historical character of the Iliad.' The historical character of a poem is all nonsense, save as a traditional basis.

Page 209. ‘A philosophical analysis has resolved the materials of these great epics into the earliest utterances of human thought, when man first became capable of putting into words the expressions made on his mind by the phenomena of the outward world.' I confess, to me it seems exceedingly stupid this meager repetition, met only by the multifarious grossness of the Purana and Vedic tales. But note how Mr. Cox himself sees nothing but this life—God does not come in. He has only its toil and its monotony. I have always felt that poetry was only an effort to have a larger sphere for the mind, because it had not the true larger world of faith. But how poor it is! Only it shows what is cannot satisfy man's mind. Besides, be it that Achilles is the sun, and that someone borrowed the legends current to make a poem—the whole details of the Iliad, a man must be very unpoetical to see only a Sun-god in. The pretensions of this page are only this, one source of certain elements of the Iliad has been found, and only the barest skeleton, yea backbone of it—therefore there can be none else! To me it is quite indifferent. But if there is an Iliad and an Achilléis, this is knocked on the head. Ajax is not the sun too.

The general uniformity of mythology has long been a settled point with me, and proof how little and poor man is, but this leaves many other questions wholly unsettled, and Mr. Cox is very superficial, and takes much for granted, even as to the origin of language, the connection of names, and idol worship with stars, and a host of other points. Supposing I ask why, if Dyaus be Zeus, he is born in Crete? Mr. Cox gives no answer—Why Nebrod (Orion, Nimrod) and his dog are in the sky? No answer—Why Jupiter is a planet? No answer, or, if there be, one language does not explain it, let it be Sanskrit twice over, nor blunders as to similar words. But then, when his idol Philology is made to explain the growth of morality, it is violating not only revelation but the existing relationships amongst men. I know daughter ' means a girl who milks, but that may show a daughter was a milkmaid, not that there was no sense of the relationship, and that men grew from milking to know natural relationships. Did a mother not feel what her child was till she could milk the cows? Her sucking child, the fruit of her womb, was what she knew. It is monstrous nonsense, and that is all—a poor hobby, and absence of all thought. He says: In the Aryan names for father, brother, sister, daughter, we have the proof that the words existed for an indefinite length of time before they assumed the meanings which we now assign to them, and we are forced to conclude that the recognition of family relations was not the first step in the history of mankind.' Besides, Ormuzd and Ahriman are not Hindoo mythology. The sense of good and evil lies deeper than observation of natural phenomena, though these may be mixed up with it. He says: The character of the struggle between Phcebus and Python, Achilles and Paris, Oedipus and the Sphinx, and Ormuzd and Ahriman indicated the fight between the co-ordinate powers of good and evil,' etc.

Page 216. A vast number of incidents belonging to the Trojan war, not mentioned or barely noticed in our Iliad and Odyssey, were treated of in epic poems current in the days of the great Attic tragedians. From this vastly inferior literature Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides drew so largely that at least sixty of their known plays are taken directly from it, while only two are taken from the Iliad and Odyssey.' If the tragedians, etc., refer to other poems called Homeric, as Iliads, and for stories connected with Ilion, we have the strongest proof of a consistent tradition that, with various accounts, some events interesting to Greece had happened there. But it is singular that the conviction that no man in any country had a thought beyond the struggle of light and darkness, summer and winter, does not give the idea how utterly low and poor the state was to which man had reduced himself. Besides it is the phenomena turned into fables, not the phenomena admired or observed which we have. The actual history of Ahriman pursuing Ormuzd's beneficent creation, and ruining it, as a fable, has nothing to do with his sun-struggle, though Ahura-Mazdao is to have the upper hand at the end. Nor is his system consistent, for the sun was to die, according to the ideas of men, but he goes to the cave of the Gorgons to fight with the powers of darkness, and so in all the stories.

Page 234. The myth of the Lykian Sarpedon has a close affinity with that of the Ethiopian Memnon; and in the Ethiopians who fight at Troy we have another people for whom it becomes impossible to find a local earthly habitation. The story explains itself. The tears which &is sheds on the death of her child are morning dew. The men who follow him are, according to the Herodotean story, exempt from the ills of humanity; and their tables are always loaded with banquets which no labor of theirs has provided. We shall find the Ethiopians dwelling not on the coasts of Asia and Africa, but in the bright Ether, the ethereal home of Zeus himself, far above the murky air of our lower world.' All this is simply ridiculous. I suppose there was something besides Ether in the land of Cush, be it east or west, and men in Tire and Sidon, let the Greeks call them by what name they will.

The origin of myths is interesting, as showing what man is without God, but to make a myth of everything, and all things nothing but a myth, because of the etymology of words, is to lose the cue to information instead of using it. If Ionians mean Men of the East,' the men are not a myth, and I may inquire, why are they called so? That Sanskrit images have been a source of poetry, and an origin of fables! Be it so—I have no objection to it. But to stop there when I have living men before me is stupid. To connect these names with facts, because they are Sanskrit, is the problem. If Argive means 'light,' and Ionians ‘dawn,' what does this lead me to is the question? That they are all of Aryan race. There is one probable fact. It may prove Iberians are not, and Lapps and Finns. But to make moonshine of it all, or sunshine, is absurd. The idolatrous part of it is very instructive. But the origin of the Aryan nations, pastoral and having boats (not sails, it seems) before dispersion, leads us up to only recent, and so-called patriarchal times, not to a barbarous state, by the proofs of language. Barbarous nations are known now, but tracing man up to barbarism is pure hypothesis, and aboriginal myths are not barbaric. Indra (the sun) driving flocks (clouds) to pasture, and the marriage of Varuna and Gaia are comparatively civilization; and what have they before it?

I am not master of the Homeric question assuredly, but the Attic tragic poets using other versions than ours proves nothing, save that there were other traditions of an obscure history. If I were making a tragedy of Adam and Eve, assuredly I should not take Milton's Paradise Lost to make it out of. He would take the facts which suited his poetical power, as Homer or others did, and embellish them according to his genius.

Page 254. Speaking of the Iliad, Mr. Cox says: ' The poet closed his narrative with the triumphant outburst of the sun from the clouds which had hidden his glory. He was inspired by the old phrases which spoke of a time of serene though short-lived splendor after the sun's great victory.' Does Mr. Cox think that the poet was thinking of the sun and clouds only in the Iliad, and if not what was he thinking of? The descriptions of countries and kings, exact or unexact, prove he had something else in view, though he may have adapted ill-known legends to it. It may be said, ' This is another poem.' But even this only shows that, as a whole, it is a mixture of local tradition and ancient legends, and the scene is the same, the local scene, gods and all—the mize en scene, and even persons brought into play by Achilles' sullenness, i.e., the plan of the poem, though legends and other things may have been used and that in what enters into its essence and construction.

Page 258, 9. The note to these pages proves, I think, clearly that there was no direct intentional reference to solar legends, even in the Achilléis. It says: Paris as the seducer of Helen is indubitably the dark robber who steals away the treasure of light from the sky; but it is difficult to deny that Paris, as fighting for his country, or in the beneficence of his early career, has all the features of Perseus, Oedipus and Telephos. All the Trojan champions are in league with the dark powers of night,' etc.

Page 262. ‘The attempt to judge the great legendary heroes of the Iliad by a reference to the ordinary standard of Greek, or, rather of Christian and modern morality, has imparted to the criticism an air almost of burlesque. There was doubtless quite enough evil in the character of the Northman and the Greek; but it never would have assumed that aspect which is common to the heroes of their epic poetry.' All this about morality is fudge. The poet colors his facts to suit his hearers or readers, who were very little scrupulous and loved revenge and success, like other passionate barbarians, and all heathens are morally barbarians, and that specially worthless people, the Greeks, above all. Who does not see that Grecian triumph and the degradation of enemies would please Grecian ears? The German character, though liable to such excess as human nature is, is different.

Page 271. The closing remark is perfectly absurd. He says: 'The poems may remain a mine of wealth for all who seek to find in them pictures and manners of the social life of a pre-historic age; but all the great chiefs are removed beyond a criticism, which starts with attributing to them the motives which influence mankind under any circumstances whatever.' As if the poet, whoever he was, did not frame the picture according to the taste of his hearers, whatever legends were employed! He gives them as Grecian chieftains, writing or improvising for Greeks. All this is simple blindness.

Page 312, etc. I see no reason to doubt that the phenomena of the sun, and heaven, and light were a chief source of tales and idolatrous fables, but to find nothing else in any is unspeakably stupid and narrow too, because why did men turn them into these fables? And there are other parts, and sources, and thoughts, partly in man's conscience, partly in deification of ancestors, star-worship, etc. Saboeanism is not the same thing as Ionism so-called. But 'all imagery meaning the rising and setting sun,' is overdoing it.

Page 321. 'The translators raise a vital issue when they say that to us moderns the real interest in these records of a past state of life lies principally in seeing events true in the main treated vividly and dramatically by people who completely understood the manners, life, and above all the turn of mind of the actors in them. If we have any honest anxiety to ascertain facts, and if we are prepared to give credit to a narrative only where the facts have been so ascertained, then everything is involved in the question whether the events here related are true in the main or not.' I am not much concerned in it, but all this is absurd, first, though of course exaggerated to produce wonder-poems or sagas must be suited, if current, to the taste of the times; and next, the removal of poetical facts leaves the question of historical facts simply an open question of probability and proof.

Page 327. 'The Vedic hymns bring before us a people to whom the death of the sun is a present reality, for whom no analogy has suggested the idea of a continuous alternation of day and night, and who know not, as the fiery chariot of the sun sinks down in the west whether they shall ever see again the bright face of him who was their friend.' It seems to me absurd to make the working of imagination to be the real thought, as that the sun died when it went down. When these things turned into idolatry and myths, then, of course, all was personified, and filled superstition because God was unknown, and imagination, never faith nor affections, connected with it. How well the Apostle, the Spirit of God says, 'By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, and that the things which are seen were not formed of those which do appear!' Still man's mind constantly ran up into the inalienable thought of God, the testimoni um anima, not indeed Christiance, but of a divine Being, supreme and only God.

Page 331. 'That sense of sin, which, as distinguished from the transgression of a positive law, can scarcely be said to have been present to the Greek mind, weighs heavy on the spirit of the Hindu, even while his conception of the Deity whom he addresses may be almost coarse in its familiarity.' Why so? He gives us no proof. How does he know?

Page 332. 'The simple utterances of the Vedic poets show even more forcibly that the genuine belief in one almighty Being who is at once our Father, our Teacher, and our Judge, had its home first in the ancient Aryan land. It was a conviction to which they were guided by all that they saw or could apprehend of outward phenomena as well as by the irrepressible yearnings which stirred their hearts. For such yearnings and. for such a consciousness in the Hebrew tribes we look in vain, before the Babylonish captivity.' How perfectly what accounts for all the beginning with one true God, which must be if there be one, and turning to idolatry, not discerning, not liking to retain God in their knowledge, is left out here! It is rather a contempt of Scripture for a clergyman, but whence came the yearnings if men began as barbarians, intelligent brutes, and only acquired ideas of God, their original state being that they thought the Sun died out and out every evening? And how then did they make one god of it? Is it not evident that the thoughts of one supreme God still remained in the human mind, though overlaid by idolatry? And how the confession that the Greeks had no idea of sin shows, along with their worthless levity, the progress of demoralization with that of formal idolatry and anthropomorphism!

Page 337. The Vedic gods are pre-eminently transparent. Instead of one acknowledged king, each is lord in his own domain; each is addressed as the maker of all visible things, while their features and characteristics are in almost all cases interchangeable. Dyaus and Indra, Varuna and Agni are each in his turn spoken of as knowing no superior, am', the objects of their chief care are not the children of men, but the winds, the storms, the clouds, and the thunder, which are constantly rising in rebellion against them. No sooner is one conflict ended than another is begun, or rather the same conflict is repeated as the days and seasons come round.' The true religious instinct must point to the absolute Ilk of one righteous God, and cannot itself originate the idea of many independent centers of action.' That the acknowledgment of one true God turned into the recognition of power in the heavens, Sun and various elements in respect to their influence on the interests of men, is evident. But that Dyaus, Varuna and Indra at first individually supplanted one another, just as Ouranos (Earth), Kronos (Time) and Zeus did, cannot, I think, be questioned-supplanted by more human and grosser forms, as Vishnu and Siva, though these, as all Indian gods, are treated by their votaries as supreme. Brahma was but Brahma more intellectual conception.

Page 339. 'If we find that, when examined, the functions of the Hindu and Hellenic deities become, if the expression may be used, more and more atmospheric—if they become the powers which produce the sights of the changing sky if their great wars are waged in regions far above the abodes of men, the last blow is given to the theory which by the most arbitrary of assumptions finds the root of all mythology in the religious instincts of mankind.' No blow is given at all, still less to the original knowledge of one true God turned into idolatry but never lost, and phenomena made poetry of in connection with idolatry. The instinctive recognition of One Supreme runs through all idolatry. The religious instinct is what remained of this. There is a great want of scope of mind in this book.

But this, page 348, upsets the whole argument of the book. He says: In India the name Dyaus retained, as we have seen, its appellative force, and as a designation for the supreme God, was supplanted by the less significant Indra.' The Hindus kept the terms as an appellative, he tells us. Be it so-if so, the original and even long preserved idea was not that they were really living persons like themselves, nor could brightness be a person, though the Sun, as seeming to have voluntary motion and life might soon become so, and so he says here. ' If, then, in the names which were afterward used to denote the supreme God we have words which in all Aryan dialects convey the primary idea of brightness, a clear light is at once shed on the first stages in the mental and moral education of mankind. The profound splendor of the unclouded heaven must mark the abode of the Being who made and sustains all things; and thus names denoting at first only the sky became in the West as in the East names of God.' The bright sky was held to be the dwelling place of Zeus or Dyaus! That the idle, heartless, selfish Greeks soon turned it all into this channel is very likely. And the difference of Hesiod and the Homerics just shows the whole thing. Hesiod's poems are a kind of quiet treatise which arranges the idolatry, for he had naught else as a theory, but when, in sober thought, conscience could have a place, and so God as such have a place according to conscience, Homer, or whoever it is, had to plead men's passions. Hence the gods themselves are brought in to gratify these passions, while keeping up appearances in a supreme though heartless being.

But what a picture of the wretched folly and misery of man does page 363 give, He says, We have more than the germ of medieval Lykanthropy, and little more is needed to bring before us the Were-wolf or Vampire superstition in its full deformity. That superstition has been amongst the most fearful scourges of mankind; but here, as elsewhere, it is something to learn that a confusion between two words identical in sound, and springing from the same root, laid the foundations of this frightful delusion.' The greatest proof, perhaps, of this folly and misery is the writer's insensibility to it. Why its springing from words should comfort him, it is hard to tell. There it was, whatever it sprung from, and its doing so only proved the power of the devil's delusions over man and his imbecility.

Page 369. 'The links which connect the belief of the one race with that of the others may be traced readily enough. The Vedic gods, like the Hellenic, live forever.' This is a great blunder. The Vedic gods, at any rate, according to the systematized mythology, cease to exist when Brahm goes to sleep again, all is Maia (forgetfulness)—gods and all.

Page 373. The idea which the Aryans of India sought to express under the names Brahman and Atman, the Aryans of Europe strove to signify by the name Wuotan. That idea centered in the conception of Will as a power which brought all things into being and preserves them in it, of a will which followed man wherever he could go, and from which there was no escape, which was present alike in the heavens above and in the depths beneath, an energy incessantly operating and making itself felt in the multiplication as well as in the sustaining of life. Obviously there was no one thing in the physical world which more vividly answered to such a conception than the wind, as the breath of the great Ether, the moving power which purifies the air. Thus the Hindu Brahman denoted originally the active and propulsive force in creation, and this conception was still more strictly set forth under the name Atman, the breath or spirit which becomes the atmosphere of the Greeks and the athem of the Germans.' It is astonishing he does not see that this is pantheism. But I suspect his knowledge of Hindooism is very second-hand. He knew no Brahm as distinct from Brahma before.

Review of Aryan Mythology. Volume 2

The absurd futility of this book may be a corrective of the evil that is in it.

Page 118 and following. All this is not only morally disgusting, but ridiculously absurd. I have already noticed how this hobby of nature impressions, and human progress from it, is unnatural folly. As if a mother only knew what a mother was by long progress of human nature from physical phenomena! It is too absurd. A cow has more truth than that. And the application of phenomena to these things shows the things were known. In Hebrew none of this is true as to the language. It is only true where man has followed his own thoughts. And words cannot NOW express sacred relations unless sacred relations are there to be expressed. He says: ‘The history of words carries us back to an age in which not a single abstract term existed, in which human speech expressed mere bodily wants and mere sensual motions, while it conveyed no idea of morality or of religion. If every name which throughout the whole world is or has been employed as a name of the One Eternal God, the Maker and Sustainer of all things, was originally a name only for some sensible object or phenomenon, it follows that there was an age, the duration of which we cannot measure, but during which man had not yet risen to any consciousness of his relation to the great Cause of all that he saw or felt around him. If all the words which now denote the most sacred relations of kindred and affinity were at the first names conveying no such special meaning, if the words father, mother, sister, daughter, were words denoting merely the power or occupation of the persons spoken of, then there was a time during which the ideas now attached to the words had not yet been developed. But the sensuousness which in one of its results produced mythology could not fail to influence in whatever degree the religious growth of mankind. This sensuousness consisted in ascribing to all physical objects the same life of which men were conscious themselves.' It proves that man had got into materialism—a very important point. But his argument only shows that man was bad, which badness, though he cannot deny it, led to the Mylitta worship he seeks to excuse as simplicity, though admitting that No degradation could well be greater than that of the throngs who hurried to the temples of the Babylonian Mylitta.' But his theory would prove that God created man thus bad, and that man formed himself gradually into morality. When he goes on to bring in Moses putting the serpent on the pole in the Desert as Phallic worship, and Eve's temptation to figures of the same source of evil, it is too morally imbecile to deserve any attention, and so in the note to page 116. He says: The phallic tree. is introduced into the narrative of the book of Genesis, but it is here called a tree of good and evil, that knowledge which dawns in the mind with the first consciousness of difference between man and woman. In contrast with this tree of carnal indulgence leading to death is the tree of life, denoting the higher existence for which man was designed, and which would bring with it the happiness and the freedom of the children of God. In the brazen serpent of the Pentateuch the two emblems of the cross and serpent, the quiescent and energizing Phallos, are united.'

But the whole book is Sun-godship run mad. But the Lingam is Siva clearly, not Vishnu, so he is every way wrong. But how simply the Fall accounts for all these things! And then the serpent turning himself into life, love making knowledge, eternity is the complete triumph of the enemy over deluded man, and poor Mr. Cox's book is his bible.

But this admission, page 129, that 'time was when human speech had none but sensuous words, and mankind none but sensuous ideas,' while true only of idolatry, yet is the witness how utterly man was fallen. Because if moral ideas are true now, they were always true, yet confessedly man had not one of them. If piety to a father is a sacred duty now, it always was. But it was only the devil or lust, not so much, as I have said, as a cow's feeling for its calf, according to the Rev. G. W. Cox. To say, page 130, that, 'The images of outward and earthly objects have been mad the means of filling human hearts and minds with the keenest yearnings for divine truth, beauty and love,' and may have been the only way, is really imbecility, but quite worthy of modern rationalism. That the renovation of nature, connected with the Sun's return from the winter solstice was the origin of every sort of corruption, and had the largest part in idolatrous worship and its worst part, is sorrowfully true. But the whole book is excessively superficial, and the pretended inductions often puerile. Even Pantheism in Brahmanism is not seen, nor its connection with the innate sense of there being One True God 'who is over all and through' (not 'in') 'all.'

1 Peter, Ephesians, Colossians

I have noticed the distinction between the first Epistle of Peter, that to the Ephesians and that to the Colossians, that the first sets the Christian, on the ground of the redemption and resurrection of Christ, as a stranger and pilgrim in the desert towards the inheritance laid up in heaven, which is a hope. The Ephesians place him seated in heaven, in his Head, with whom he is risen; the hope is the whole accomplishment of the purpose of God, made known to the Church, sealed for it by the Holy Ghost. Colossians presents heaven as a hope, but they were slipping away from the Head, but then the Apostle insists that they were risen again with Him, and their life hid there. He brings them back on the ground of their resurrection with Him.

In Peter, it is always His appearing, His manifestation (as he had seen Him go) a salvation ready to be revealed. In Ephesians we have it not, because the saints are viewed in heaven, and united with Him, waiting the inheritance. In Colossians, being risen, His appearing is recalled, but we appear with Him with whom our life has been hidden. This is clear, but now I ask—Is not the position of the enemy of souls also presented accordingly? In Peter he goes about as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour—evidently in persecutions, 'the same afflictions.'

In Colossians the Lord has triumphed over principalities and powers on the Cross, making a show of them openly, and is now raised from the dead. It is the power in which He has taken us up in life hid with Him in God. Triumph is what we have, that life being needed for the position in which the saints are put.

In Ephesians, captivity is led captive. Satan has no power over the saints in heaven, united to Christ their Head, seated there. It is not merely that He has vanquished, triumphed, but the saints are united to Him in the actual condition and title in which He is as having gone up on high, leading captivity captive. In this character, having disposed of Satan, He fills all things. The title of Satan, in virtue of his power over the first Adam, is null and annulled—has only been the occasion of the accomplishment of that work of redemption which, having thereby annulled it, has filled all things in virtue of and according to the power of that redemption. This is a glorious place for the Christ—He fills all things, in virtue and by the power of redemption, with the glory of His Person too, according to the counsel of God the Father. He has united the Church to Him in this place as His Body, but, having received power as Man, power in the Holy Ghost, He distributes, He gives, and places in men that power which, while it builds up the Church He brings to glory, enables the Church to set aside the power of Satan, of the enemy—builds up the Church (positively) as entirely delivered from it, and the vessel of that which He had received as Man, and could place in men in order to the building them up as His Body according to this place into which they were introduced, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

As regards the outward conflict with Satan, remark that we contend with spiritual wickedness in heavenly places where all passes, in Ephesians, and we are called upon, ‘having done all, to stand.' We are in possession of our place, and our business is to hold good, and hence, being spiritual, the arms of God are what are called for. The proper service in power is 'building up' according to the stature of the Head, the fullness revealed in the Epistle. Hence it is not gaining ground on Satan as if he was in possession, for we are supposed there above, and the object is to grow up to the fullness. Doubtless we have to gain ground here, but it is positive ground in good that belongs to us without question. The object of the enemy is to turn us away from this by whatever sleight and ruse. Hence in conflict the matter is to stand against the wiles, and having done all to stand. Then we go on with our own proper Holy Ghost work in building up in and to the Head.

In John's Epistle, as in respect of the blessing too, the point insisted on is not the opposition of the enemy, but the nature. Such is the divine nature in the sons—such the devil's nature in the wicked. It is not conflict by faith, against an attack from without.

Note, even in Peter, Satan is supposed defeated by the Cross, as shown in resurrection, and hence, when resisted, flees.

Remarks on "the Origin of Religious Belief"*

The writer has scraped together a good deal of reading, but he has left out God and the truth altogether. He looks for no origin of man or his state, and takes him as a capable wild man of the woods, to be formed, yet his present state as the key to everything normal, and what he is subjectively the measure of what is true objectively. It is an excessively superficial book—an amiable, but unserious, shallow pluming itself on free thinking, but would bring in Christianity, as man would have it, by it. He thinks of everything and knows nothing, and likes giving his thoughts because he thinks well of them.

If ever leaving out God was proved to lead to superficiality find folly, it is this book. A few true ideas, but which come to nothing because all root is wanting. I dare say the man thinks he is right, but it is a few secondary causes strung, most frequently falsely, to general reading, and all that is important left out or forgotten. Not even conscience is admitted, nor man, morally, more than God. People forget, too, that, in forming a system of man, they are denying another; God has given one. But I think it a useful book in this, that it shows the perfect moral mud and folly into which the exclusion of God throws the mind. The passage, through the powers of Nature to Polytheism, is, I believe, just and well enough, but though as Hesiod and Homer may have elaborated, I do not doubt priests concocted it, not a moment. Who made these ' synonyms'? 'The sun a warrior clad in golden panoply, the moon a queen, the stars armies of heroes or spirits? Who were consulted about everything? In Egypt and India one cannot hesitate. If he left out God before, he leaves out the Devil before, and the progress from one God and mere powers of nature to Polytheism is clear in all religions indeed but in the Vedas, Myths and Puranas. But there was an unknown God in all, behind the actual worship. On the star-worship, he is very weak, and deifying heroes and ancestors. Doubtless there is truth in it, but the verbal source is poor. The whole has little depth. The end is very superficial. All the Indian gods are mortal, and the converse of his statement is sometimes true. He says: If it be true that man is made in the image of God, it is also true that the gods man worships are images of himself, but larger, mightier, wiser, better. God is the superlative of man the positive,' page 150.

Again, speaking of the history of the evolution of the religious idea through its different stages,' he says: here one practice is exaggerated, there another, and there again a third has been built up to harmonize the other two. Thus the world is strewn with egg, grub, chrysalis, and butterfly creeds.' This is just about what they are worth.

Again. 'The attribution to the Deity of wisdom and goodness is every whit as much anthropomorphosis as the attribution of limbs and passions.' But why so? He does not tell us.

Page 136. Before man can learn to do things right, he must do things wrong. Before he can discover the right path in science, religion, and political economy, he has to flounder through a bog of blunders. The girl strums discords before she strikes harmonies; the boy scratches pothooks before he draws straight lines. The early religious beliefs of the human family are its discords and pothooks, the stages of error of which it has traveled before correct ideas can be attained. At first, then, man is conscious of no existence save his own; he is like the brute, self-centered and self-sufficient; he is his own God. He is Auto-theist. His religious thought, vague and undetermined, is roused by the opposition of nature to his will.'

It is curious how false philosophy always is. How, taking man as he is, God is left out, and man is supposed to begin, i.e., to have been created with no connection with, or knowledge of, or relation to God at all. A most absurd and low idea, as if God would have left man, in making him, capable of progress towards, but wholly, absolutely, incognizant of anything but himself, to make out a God as he could! Men were in this state '—but how? I may go back to inquire what they would do when they had not God at all, but have no ground or right to assume it was an original state, and there is no experience of men, as such, coming to it. Some glimmerings only of a few, and these wretched, but no people. There are testimonies of dreadful descent. The Vedas have much more of one supreme God than the Mahabharata or the Puranas. Men have gone down, not up, when there was a revelation, and Buddhism is an extreme case, when the misery of men's state was thought only to be met by losing self as an existence with no God—only gods as bad as men.

Page 234. If you want to see the destruction of all principle, and all right feeling, everything good, read this page. He says: ‘Virtue is the judicious selection of that course of action most conducive to intense and permanent happiness, and the adoption of a line of conduct which is destructive to happiness is vice. As a compound being man can derive happiness from two sources, the animal senses and the mental faculties. If he rejects the nobler spheres of pleasure for those that are baser, he is vicious; if he abandons sensual gratification for intellectual pursuits, he is virtuous, because the sum-total of intellectual happiness is greater than the sum-total of sensual happiness. Virtue is selfishness acting with judgment: vice is selfishness acting ignorantly and blindly. A man gets drunk either because he does not know that intemperance is ruinous to his constitution, or because he has so little acquaintance with the laws of mental perspective as to suppose that a small present gratification is preferable to a great remote happiness, just as a child supposes the apple in its hand to be larger than the apple tree at a distance.'

Again, page 239. 'In the examination of the springs of religious thought, we have to return again and again to the wild bog of savageism in which they bubble up. The recognition of Power uncontrolled by man has been shown to constitute the first religious idea. At that point it could not rest. At certain periods the movement in ideas is slow, and speculation is apparently at a standstill; but such periods are like the stress-points of a water-wheel the movement is slowest because the greatest leverage is being employed, and that point passed, it revolves with accelerated velocity. Through the dim perceptions of a bewildered intellect the primeval man saw confusedly piled up above him an awful Power, terrible in its might, vague in outline, and mysterious in its nature. Wherever he turned his eye it loomed on him, and seemed to threaten him with destruction. At this first stage a great part of mankind still remains, its mind benumbed with fear.' This shows how all truth, if Scripture be truth, is denied, and in all its roots and reality.

In page 248, the converse, of what he says, is true. All idea of infinity is, he says, negation—'infinite.' Thus: A limit is that beyond which the object limited does not spread. But beyond all limits space is. The limit is a negation. Deny limitation to space, and you affirm its infinity. What is finite is therefore a negative idea; and a finite being is a negation of an infinite being!'

Page 249. There is a distinction between time and duration analogous to that between space and extension. Duration implies something to endure, as extension implies something to extend. But we cannot conceive time devoid of anything to endure in it. As substances are situated in and take up space, so do events occupy time; but we can intellectually annihilate space, whilst time remains indestructible.' This is open to question, indeed he is all wrong here about time with succession limit—'Am,' i.e., no time or duration, is alone eternal or timeless. Events are in time, but I cannot conceive any length of it without events or measures, i.e., it is finite, save as I negative an end. He says, 'We can conceive eternity stretching far beyond the earliest beginning and the remotest ending.' Conceiving eternity as infinite time is merely human, because we are finite, exist in time. Have time, being in eternity,' is nonsense, confounding two orders of idea. He says, In the popular sense, for unlimited time employ the word eternity.' Popularly, it may be said, but it is not correct.

Page 252, Mr. James Mill, Annal: I, 262, takes a rose: a determinate mixture of red color, of a certain fragrance, and of softness of touch and the like, he says, is popularly termed a rose. But what is the rose beside the color, the form, and so on?' he asks. 'Not knowing what it is, but supposing it to be something, we invent a name to stand for it. We call it a substratum. This substratum, when closely examined, is not distinguishable from cause. It is the cause of the qualities; that is, the cause of the causes of our sensations.' Whether there be substance or not matters nothing to our argument. As a fact, men, the world all over, do believe in substance.' Mr. Mill is a goose. I think substance is what constitutes a thing to my mind, a distinct cognizable existence, but properly not a person, hence material, not a spirit, though philosophy may so abstract and use it. He is excessively inaccurate. He says: Corporeal substance is the essence underlying matter.' Now substance is not essence, nor does substance do well for spiritual individualities,' persons, because one spiritual substance is a subjective thing, not a thinking, willing individual.

Page 255, he says: 'The theist conjectures a primary spiritual substance, whence all spiritual substances are derived.' Derived! Though there be truth in it, this is dangerous ground.

Page 293. 'Religion and philosophy are inseparable. In the former sentiment predominates, in the latter reason. Religion is the representation of an idea more or less philosophic: it is always the expression of a thought; often it is unconsciously philosophic. The task undertaken by philosophy is inquiry into the fundamental reason of things; and in proportion to the degree of development attained at any given period, does it express the idea of the divinity more or less perfectly.' And facts? The blessed facts? Surely there may be the corruption of a thing made good. The more I read philosophy, the more I despise it.

Time

I do not think we have any knowledge of time as time in itself. I measure from one event to another and so enclose periods, but cannot without facts with intervals. Distance is not exactly the same, because I discern it by a sense which sees an interval at one time. All I know of time is 'I am now.' When I compare this with events, I am conscious it is not 'now,' and there is time. As events only proceed from God, 'I am,' to Him, never changes. He is in Himself always. Events come from His will, and are relative not absolute. When I speak of an event before what happened to-day, I look at it as having happened in a ' now ' which is not present. This I extend by invented measures. 'Infinite' I admit of course we cannot know, though we know it is not ' finite infinite.' But without existence I do not understand time or eternity—but God is. When I begin to count time, I count necessarily from ' now,' for I am now. I then speak of times not finishing in thought. Ante and post make no difference whatever, save by events, and if I look post I must imagine events or I cannot take a step beyond now. The starting point in both is 'now,' and I go on, both ways, from that and cannot finish. Hence when Christ's eternal nature is spoken of it is said "In the beginning," all events and genomena by which time had an existence being supposed—"was the Word." That is existence per se—eternal, i.e., divine. When historical creation is spoken of it is supposed God created, i.e., all genomena egeneto (things made came into being) by One who "was," but it is not stated and this was fitting. Creation being, there must be a Creator. What we wanted to know was Creation. The highest, holiest way of speaking of God was thus saying nothing about Him but that He acted. As to Christ, it was of the utmost importance to know that He was before and eternal.

But all this talk about 'bounded' or 'unbounded space' is a mistake. I know what ' bounded space ' is very well indeed—a field is a bounded space because I know what a bound is, being bounded. That I can negative, but I never conceive any negative proposition. I cannot conceive ' not,' for there is nothing to conceive. I can deny a bound when a bound is supposed, but it is no idea of the opposite at all. I cannot conceive all space as a known whole. My only conception of it is that it is not within the limits of my finite conception.

But that is what ‘infinite' means. But it is no positive idea, for then it is finite—has bounds. If it be said that we cannot conceive God,' I answer certainly not by an idea.' If I did it must be adequate, and He would not be God. But I do know He is not within the range and capacity of my idea. And that is something very material in our knowledge. When it is said He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love,' that is another thing. It is not an idea, but a moral nature morally apprehended, and space, and time, and measures have no place in it at all. It is another order of things. Affections, even human, are not ideas. Past time without a commencement is not possible thought, because when I say past, 'I have already commenced with the now.' I do not see why infinite division cannot be thought of, because the parts are bounded. I remember a teacher of mathematics sought to show by a tangent, an indivisible angle, but he had only to make a circle with a longer radius and division was made. The only idea I have of time is bounded by events which are not now.' But as far as without, then I seek to know it. I have no idea of time but the principle of eternity, only contradicted by experience. 'I am'—that is not time as having duration, but in a point, but with a notion excluding bounded time, and so leading up to God who is necessarily I AM,' which is the nearest approach to conceiving eternity, which in itself I cannot at all. But I conceive God existing, and never doing anything but existing.

I repeat, my only idea of space, save bounded or enclosed space, is practically infinitude, not conceived as so much for then it is finite, but as simply endless, i.e., negatively. I do not say existing time'—nothing properly exists in time which exists consciously, i.e., consciousness is not cognizant of time. But I exist in space. Hence I do not begin it here as I do time by now.' And I cannot conceive when a body cannot be unless when one is, i.e., I only conceive space as space without measurement, but room where.

‘Nothing' cannot become, because there is nothing to become, but that does not say God could not speak and it be made, i.e., create.

Remarks on "The Doctrine of Inspiration"*

It is perfectly right practically to say, the Bible is infallible, but, strictly, revealed truth cannot be infallible; it is simply, perfectly true. A person is fallible or infallible—God alone is so—He, while He acts in, uses a man, is, and makes the man while so exclusively using him, de facto infallible. But the man is not so. The question is not if Mark or Luke are infallible, but whether what is written be "given by inspiration of God" (theopneustos)—a revelation given of God, so that I can rely on it as given of, coming from Him.

Certainly this man would not convince me of the contrary. He has crammed himself with infidel statements without even inquiring into them for himself. It is imbecile, this book.

Page 21. He says Matthew is at the pains to state that "all the generations" from David till the captivity were " fourteen generations." This Matthew does not do; he says, "All the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations," and that there were fourteen generations from David to the captivity. Here he finds a discrepancy, but it is of his own making. Again he says, The Magi asked, "Where is the king of the Jews that has been born?" (i.e. just recently born).' There is not the least trace of this—quite the contrary. And again, " That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene," is not given as a quotation, but as said by the prophets in general. It is not said "the prophecy." But he says, Christ dwelt at Nazareth that He might be called a Nazarene, and to fulfill the type of Nazariteship.' The italics are his, but he has not even searched and seen that the words are different, Nazoraios and Nazareenos.

Page 34. ‘Peter, Acts 1:18, says, that Judas purchased a field with the reward of iniquity.' But it is not Peter—verses 18, 19 are a parenthesis. The Jews bought it, it was his—the chief priests with his money; ektesato is not personally bought '—he gained a field and hanged himself.

Difficulties there are, but such a miserable cooking up of unexamined objections I never saw, as in this book.

Page 117. 'Every tyro in Greek knows that an adjective (theopneustos, signifying "divinely breathed") is the term which our translators have paraphrased as equivalent to "given by inspiration of God."' But theopneustos is just 'inspired,' and stronger if anything.

Page 123. 'According to the Old Testament idea, it was with the presence and co-operation of the Holy Ghost that the prophets spoke.' It is not so said, and this is the point; he is not honest here. Did the Spirit co-operate with Chaos? Again, it is quite false to say, ' The novelty was, not in the miracle of Pentecost, but in the extent to which the miracle-working agents were multiplied.'

Page 131. 'It is very remarkable that nowhere do we find the inspired penmen—Jewish or Christian—pronouncing their own writings inspired.' This is a mistake; see 2 Sam. 23:2, 1 Cor. 14:37, and ' Thus saith the Lord,' a thousand times 'The Lord spake unto Moses,' etc. This objection is imbecility.

Page 132. 'Amongst pious Jews and the early Christians, the idea of Inspiration was wholly unmixed with the notion of infallibility, and was, in addition to referring each good thing to God as its giver, simply equivalent to what we mean by any or all the several words good, strong, orderly, wise, clever, inventive, brave, instinctive, holy.' In whom? And from whom? What is the meaning of ' in addition to '? Were they not special endowments? It is all simply infidel exalting of man. When he says the writings of Milton and Bacon were ' written by divine inspiration,' one can only ask, is there any positively revealed truth from God or not? Again, ' In this manner David or Solomon, or Isaiah, or Paul would have spoken of everything as written by divine inspiration, which may with propriety be called a work of genius, or of cleverness, or of holiness. Milton and Shakespeare, and Bacon and Song of Solomon and the Apocalypse and the Sermon on the Mount, and the eighth chapter to the Romans are—in our estimation—all inspired.' This is equally low and abominable. Nobody denies all great faculties are from God, but what has this to do with a revelation from God? I have no objection to the word if explained. I believe every good thought in us is inspired of God, and the fruit of the Spirit. The question is not there, but whether God has given a revelation, and, further, whether in the Book called Scripture, His action by the Spirit was such that what was given was exactly such as He would have it given, and did give it, in that He guarded the instruments in such sort, in the communication or use of truth they propounded, and used it exactly according to His mind, so that I can receive it as what God has given to me, though (thank God) through men? Is Shakespeare’s buffoonery inspired? Or Milton's cannons in heaven? They degrade everything they touch, these men. Reasoning on the word 'inspiration' is merely shirking the question of fact.

As to co-operation—with what did God co-operate in Creation? Is truth less important—is His word as really and completely from Him as Creation when it came out of His hand? Sin has corrupted the Creation. Is truth equally lost or never given?

Page 138. 'The Bible is at once fallible, inspired, and containing the very word of God.' How can I tell, if it is fallible? It is no longer divine conviction, but all dependent on competency of human judgment; and whose? Again, ' The mere idea that the volume has some good in it, and is, therefore, in some degree inspired, ought surely to command our reverential study of its contents.' A priori, as of Shakespeare or Milton—for man's tasteless, it is ludicrous. 'Some may say if the Bible be, after all, a book with errors in it, I care naught for it. If it lay at my feet, in my path, I would not stoop to pick it up. Not stoop to pick up a fallible Bible! Are then the dialogs of Plato infallible?' etc., etc. I would not stoop to pick up Plato to guide my mind as a revelation from God. The man is imbecile. He says, ' Let the lowliest child or pauper say to me, " Honor thy father and thy mother," and let those words sound in harmony with my inmost being—as they and I are created to be in harmony together—and then those terms, before unintelligible and only gibberish, become to me the very word of God.' This is first nonsense, and he only means God speaks to us in language, and next it confounds revelation and conscience.

Page 160. ‘If any reader be inclined to ask, why then interfere with this Bible which, in the hands of the ' Evangelicals,' has been called infallible, and has effected so much good? Our answer is, because we love this blessed Book, and would fain not see it exposed to ridicule by being called infallible; and because we are persuaded that the Bible, in its true character of an inspired but fallible book, will do all its present good work, and a great deal besides, which now this false name " infallible" prevents it accomplishing.' But would it have had this power if it had not been recognized as infallible, as, in short, a revelation from God? Coming from God—call it a good book, will it have the power of bringing God to the heart, conscience, and will, with God's authority? That is the question. He says, ' In this spiritual mine, the veins of precious ore lie embedded in a preponderance of common earth, are for the most part hidden by a deep covering of worthless strata, and must be dug for with assiduity.' This is a grand mistake, for what is its authority then?

Again, Tell the serious student that the book he has been taught by history to revere is not only a good and holy book, containing the word of God to man, but is the infallible word of God, in which there is no error' (I tell him it is the truth itself, or nothing at all; education of a child is another thing) and he can appreciate the singular honor that the wise and the great have so often, and so conspicuously given to the Bible: but, alas! you have told him the Holy Book is infallible; and, before he passes from its first page, he is led to believe that the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them were made in six days, whereas the indelible testimonies of matter, sense, and reason combine to assure him that this earth, with all its populations ' (where, and what?) that have in its younger days dwelt on it and perished in its ruins, is countless millions of years old,' etc. But he is not so led as to Creation. I believe the earth may have existed millions of years, nor does the Bible contradict it, but admit of it, and proves thus its divinity, for Moses knew it not. He says, The fourth day's special product was the sun, and moon, and stars.' But that is not said, but avoided. It is said, “God made two great lights." ‘The sun as a body having weight ' is not a light. As to ‘multitudes of men in this state of mind being habituated until they become dead to all practical sense of religion and spirituality,' that is they judge by physical science of which they are ignorant.

Page 165. ‘The authority which we claim for the Bible is, not that the reader should expect to find infallibility or freedom from error in the whole book, or in any part of it, but that he should study it with the same kind of reverence, combined with discriminating judgment of the good and the evil, the wise and the unwise, with which he would listen to a father or a mother whom, though far from infallible, Providence or God had given him as his divinely appointed teacher.' Here we see the importance of distinguishing between infallibility and truth. I believe God only is infallible—but all He has said, or caused to be written, is absolute truth, and comes from the Infallible and because it does. Again, he says it is unnecessary for him to quote the words of Aristotle or Cicero, etc., but he had better do so, and honestly, than thus refer to them. As to ' The best of heathen systems which professes to be derived from Socrates,' how far did it spread? This is idiocy. Did he or Plato, or any of them, know God before ' the foolishness of preaching'? And as to ' Reverence towards the gods, and compliance with the popular custom of sacrificing to the various deities,' what does that mean? Who were they?

Page 168. ' It is difficult for anything to surpass the exquisite beauty and calm propriety with which, in the dialog called the Phaedo, Socrates is represented as dying a martyr to the truth he had taught.' Christ is not, but declares Himself forsaken of God. How comes this? And this to be forgotten of Mr. Macnaught! As to Socrates `taking leave of his wife, and descanting on the most solemn truths,' etc., he sends her off about her business as unphilosophical. ' The departed not coming before the judges in the deceptive integuments of flesh and body, but stripped of all appearances, that the ordeal might be gone through, not merely face to face, but soul to soul,' was popular conscience long before Socrates, and embodied in Egypt in their religion. Again, ' Good men were, after judgment, admitted to that holy and better world into which Socrates rejoiced to think that he was about to pass.' An apotheosis of men like their heroes or demigods, only without, not merely bodies but, the natural soul, or its parts, which was not derived second or third hand from God through the Dicastai (assessors).

He then goes on: 'It will be manifest how incorrect are the interpretations we often hear put upon those words of Paul, in which he says that Jesus " brought life and immortality to light." 'In the first place it is "incorruptibility," not 'immortality.”' Resurrection is God's work. The immortality of the soul was held simply because nothing could perish, nor matter either. It was as eternal as God, perhaps distinguished. It seems so, at least in some places, but man found his pride in his own necessary immortality. Speaking of Jesus, he says: 'His conception of the highest aim for man was to witness to the truth, to go about doing good, to be filled with love even of one's foes.' No! Eternal Life was to know the Father, the only true God—to men, no doubt, love.

Socrates, and Plato, held that men's souls had existed before, and were treated in the world according to some previous responsibility, only when he came to himself, he held his philosophy, intellect, gave him a title to be freed from it; all the mass might go to purgatory, or to hell and the furies—that was no affair of his. He says: ' Socrates would have annihilated poetry in order to develope man'—Yes! and love to others too; he would have justice and mathematics, and so a title to have only his divine soul left to be with the gods.

Page 172. 'Not only did good old Socrates allow that, for the multitude, there was piety in worshipping gods many and lords many: but the last act of his death-scene shows what a hold the educational prejudices of superstition still retained upon his mind. His last words to his friends were a charge that they should offer, on his behalf, the accustomed sacrifice of a cock to the god of medicine, Esculapius.' Note that this is represented as the right thing—the triumph of true philosophy—by a spectator. It is not a weakness even not overcome. He was to be rescued from the charge of Atheism. As to the Bible being ' distinct and firm in pronouncing on the worship of the one true God as indispensable to virtue and happiness,' it is a tolerable difference between that and philosophy, if God be anything, but that is the great point.

Again, ' As is the deity of a nation, so will be the character of a nation '—and of a man? And if so, what was Socrates?

Page 173. ' This dallying with Polytheism, then, which is so strongly denounced in the Bible, we assert to be a grievous fault in Socrates.' This is really too bad! God is below man in their system. Again, ' Socrates recommends such a community of wives and children as must degrade woman, put an end to the sweetest earthly happiness of domestic love,' etc. What was his religion then, or the connection between his conduct and god? But he says: And Socrates looked at Krito, and said, O Krito, let some one lead this woman away to her home. And certain of Krito's attendants led Xanthippe away in the midst of her cries and lamentations: but Socrates sat down on the couch, and began to rub his leg, which he had raised and crossed upon the other, whilst he descanted on the absurdity of that which men call pleasure.' And this, we are told, is dignity in the presence of death!

Page 174. The last fault of the Academic teaching, which it will be necessary for us to notice at present, is the partiality with which it regarded mankind, and the indifference it manifested as to the propagation of the truth. This partiality is apparent from the kind of life which Socrates represented as most approved by the gods.' But what then was his philosophy worth? Why praise it so at first? As to ' an unnatural disrespect of the female sex, combined with the most atrocious theory of cohabitation,' what kind of holiness is that? Or is mathematics holiness, or sacrificing a cock to Esculapius?

Page 181. 'If at any time God should appear to us as a jealous or a terrible God, or as a consuming fire—it is not because He has changed His nature, but because we are viewing Him through the various media of our different sins and our chilling sense of guilt.' But the Bible says He is a consuming fire, "Our God is a consuming fire."

Page 184. It would be vain to speak of John's dream (Apocalypse) in which he saw foreshadowed struggles between truth and error, sometimes seeming doubtful in their issue,' etc. What is he dreaming of, or is it all a dream? Again, The sacred volume is full of life and action, from Genesis to Revelation; and in all its action it has principles—eternal principles—of truth and goodness displayed so plainly as to be easy for every pious reader's observation.' But how came the Bible to be all this? All these different writers, yet one collection!

Page 187. We are not of the number of those who believe the prophetic portions of Holy Writ to be "anticipated history” as they have been styled.... If Edom is named in a prediction, we do not consider that Idumea is destined, by an inevitable fate, to a certain curse; but rather that Edom itself, and every nation which by a similar abuse of opportunities, and by a similar practice of vice, makes itself a spiritual Edom, will, if it continue obstinately in the state of sin in which and against which it has been warned, then be overthrown in some such way as that threatened in the prediction.' But who should have picked out this from all countries, and particular countries for this? If I look, as a man, at it, they were the Jews' enemies, and it was national hostility and prejudice, not a Christian spirit.

Page 191. Speaking of the blind man to whom the Lord gave sight, he says: Fervent desire, so earnestly entertained that we go to speak with God about it constantly and perseveringly, as did the widow in the parable of the unjust judge, will not change God; but will to a certainty change us and our moral position.' Will that give a man his sight then? And so of prayer, he says: 'We go to state solemnly our wishes at the throne of grace, and to seek there for wisdom in selecting and employing means for the accomplishment of such wishes as we retain when we return from taking counsel with the Lord.' Is that all a man asks for? What nonsense all this is!

Page 199. ' A man may believe Scripture to be fallible, and yet he may—as we ourselves do—believe Jesus to be the anointed Son of God who came into the world and lived and died and rose again in order that we might learn through Him to trust and love God our heavenly Father, and so loving and trusting Him might be accounted righteous.' That is no Scriptural statement; what does he believe of Christ? Again, 'So he may—as we ourselves do—believe the miracle of Mary's virgin conception, simply because it is no more difficult than any other miracle' that is believing it possible, not true. And again, ' We believe these grand and Christianly consistent points, whilst we gravely, though humbly, think it possible for a good Christian to doubt whether the evangelists were not misled by their own angry recollections,' etc. But he has a made Christ according to his estimate of good and evil, no historical One; and what does he think of His Person? As to his alleged contradictions between Acts 9:7 and chapter 22: 9, there is no kind of contradiction at all in the passages. The first is: "But the men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice " (or ' sound ') " but beholding no one." The second is: " But they that were with me beheld the light, and were filled with fear, but heard not the voice of him that was speaking to me."

Page 206. Speaking of the thirty-nine Articles, he says: ' Whatever can be proved by any means, drawn from any source, we are ready to believe; and, above all, whatever can be proved by the most satisfactory evidence of the Scripture, that we shall not be slow devoutly to believe. That is an honest man; I sign a thing because it may be proved, and I interpret that as meaning whatever of it can be. Again, ' I do believe all the Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, not merely when they tell me such obvious historical and philosophical truth as that Jesus is the only scheme by which men can and must be saved or brought to true happiness in this life and true fitness for enjoying a future world; but I also believe them, with the most humble and comfortable assurance, when, by the palpable evidence of errors, discrepancies and contradictions, they tell me that, although they contain the Word of God, they yet are themselves fallible, and, like the best of those who wrote them, they have this treasure in earthen vessels.'This is nice and honest too. But of all the low things I ever read, this book is the poorest, and, if it proves anything, proves the divinity of Scripture which can extort from such a mind the confessions it does.

Fragment: All Good According to God

What a blessed rest it must be, in the divine sense, to God, to see no sin anywhere around Him, and all good according to what He is!

Fragment: Atonement

How the atonement effaces previous failings, and gives place to love! When the Lord visits His disciples after His resurrection, their past is gone; He comes in the unclouded unhindered power of "Peace be with you."

The Titles in the Epistles

There are but Paul and Peter who name their apostleship at the beginning of their Epistles; and Paul, in supposing the Epistle to the Hebrews to be his, which I do not doubt, does not call himself so there. This title is not found in Philippians, and 2 Thessalonians, or Philemon. The character of these Epistles is much more personally fraternal. (He associates also others, but this is not by itself an absolute reason.) But these facts show the title is assumed with a definite purpose and meaning—Paul and Barnabas, and, in result, Paul having mission to the Gentiles, and Peter to the Jews, assume their title when in special exercise of their mission. The others write according to the wisdom and gift of God. This is the case with Paul in the Hebrews, for he had not the place of Apostle with them, and the kind of intercourse with the Thessalonians and Philemon, instead of claiming such a title, rendered it unsuited to the occasion. It was not authoritative revelations, or mandates, or the assumption of this place, as title and ground of intercourse, but brotherly occasions of tender care or thankful communication. Though the truth he might announce might be the same, and its authority equal, in the cases in which it is used its proper bearing is evident.

He had never seen the Romans, and he was to present himself as the called Apostle of all the Gentiles. Among the Corinthians, he had to exercise this authority to put things in order, and an authority contested. In the Galatians, it was the question in a great measure, though because of the truths which he taught. In Ephesians and Colossians, he is in a definite way the depositary of the great mystery of the Church, as Apostle of the Gentiles, and of Christ in them the hope of glory. The position of Timothy and Titus who were to regulate important things in virtue of his authority make the use of this title evident and clear. Hence the use of it in a revealed Epistle is not to be looked for without a reason, and, generally speaking, Peter and Paul alone are in this place in respect of their scriptural relationships with the Church. The authority does not come simply from Apostleship, but from the will of God acting by inspiration. The manner of address is connected with the bearing of the letter, though that be an instruction for all times, for it is in these circumstances that the ways of God in the Church are fully developed, and the proper Christian relationships, as well as divine truths, unfolded.

Notes on Matthew 1

1. The more one weighs this verse, the more one sees the Gospel characterized by it. It is the Heir of promise. Promise sustaining royalty, restoring favor and power, all failed in the flesh, as Christ proved.

16. The legal title to the house of David was clearly in Joseph; so Luke 1:27.

Compare here Romans 1:3. Yea, as to even this also, we may say Rom. 4:1, for all this ends in death. It is not the declaration of the life in which He lives, though His actual life is spoken of here, but in such terms—it is "of whom was born" (ex hes egennethe).

17. Note there is an entire break at the captivity; the computation begins afresh after it, and does not go through continuously as with David. It is from the carrying away captive into Babylon, not from Josias; compare verses 11, 12.

18, 19. All this provision is remarkable. It is interesting thus to be let in behind the scenes.

20. "Appeared to him by dream" (kat' onar). The end of this verse is a wonderful fact.

Notes on Matthew 2

1. It should read, "But Jesus having been born in the days of Herod the king "; this would indeed leave the time purposely vague.

13. It is the present tense, " appears "; see also verse 19 " appears," and chapter 3:1, "comes."

21. Eis gen Israel (into the land of Israel). All the Lord's history here is as of Israel, the manner of deliverance and all, but of Israel fallen, but in verse 22 it meets the detail of ruin as well as knows the hope; gen (land) has no article here, because Israel, the proper name, is the subject. 'Israel' would be a genitive, and the sense different, if it were ten gen Israel. Ten gen ten Israel would not be sense, for separated from gen, and in apposition, Israel is a man's name.

Notes on Matthew 3

3. "A Voice" rather than "The Voice." But it is immaterial, it is a sudden arrest—to the voice heard.

7. Pharisees and Sadducees are here thrown together as one unrighteous class. " Generations," or " progenies," but is it not individuals, each a gennema (offspring, product)? "Generation " does not convey it.

9. Sovereignty of grace and real righteousness go together—fleshly privilege and the want of it; but " already " (v. 10).

11. “To repentance”—“To the Name of Jesus." Was baptism on ascertained faith, or on profession? Manifest hypocrisy prevented it.

12. There is a difference between the ax and the fan. “Already" (ede) the ax was at the root of the useless trees, but the good ones, it might be supposed, would be left there. But when the Lord came, He would thoroughly purge His floor. The floor was dealt with, so to speak, the wheat gathered into a garner of His own, and the chaff burned with unquenchable fire. It cleared the floor, and disposed otherwise of its contents.

16, 17. The way in which the blessed Lord, having gone with His poor humbled ones in their first right step, then is owned with an opened heaven in the accepted place which He has obtained for us, I have noted elsewhere. I add here that, on His entering into it as Man in grace, the whole Trinity is revealed in it, the Son Himself in Manhood. It is a wonderful scene, and then in our conflict overcoming for us!

Notes on Matthew 4

I think it is a mistake to think that the synoptical Gospels only take a year, and John three. The transfiguration is the turning point—we are historically going on to the close which begins with the blind man at Jericho, i.e., Matt. 16 and 17, Mark 9, and Luke 9. Luke thence to chapter 17 having a mass of unchronological, morally connected instruction. But they all go up from the temptation, with Galilaean work, but undefined dates; the end of Matt. 9 giving a whole lengthened series in three verses, and then events leading to rejection—as mission of the disciples, parables, etc.—then apprising His disciples of what was now coming. There are several points which divide, as to subject, the synoptical Gospels, and all of them, though there be characteristic differences. The blind man at Jericho, I have already noticed. This is in all. The transfiguration is in all. But more particularly there is first the birth of Christ wanting in Mark. The ministrations in Galilee, including the Sermon on the Mount (wanting in Mark) a characteristic part of three Gospels, with, in each, as to details, certain acts characterizing His coming. This goes on to practical rejection by the heads, scribes and others being called Beelzebub. The parable of the sower then continuing mercy to the people, and the Transfiguration, which occasions His forbidding them to say He was the Christ. The parable and this make two distinct landmarks. After the Transfiguration it is more instruction to His disciples, only in Luke we have, with additional instruction as to the position of His disciples in the world, the parables which bring out the Gospel for all, and heaven, just as the genealogy was to Adam, after a beautiful, strictly Jewish part, showing the Remnant among them, and this part leads us on to the blind man at Jericho, where His Son of David Emmanuel character is brought out at the end, with the Jews, as at the beginning, and then resurrection. From Luke 9 to 18: 31, we have =chronological bringing out of principles. In John the Jews are treated as reprobates, from chapter I, and the manifestation of God in the Son amongst men in His various characters, and then in the Holy Ghost, form the subject of the Gospel; chapters 1-3 being preface, and chapter 4 transitive. Matt. 4:12 and Mark 1:14 coincide, and then Matt. 8:14 and Mark 1:29; Mark giving us first what happened in the synagogue. Matt. 8:1-4 comes after in Mark. I hold Mark, in general (and Luke) to have the historical order.

1. Anechthe (was carried up)—led by the thought and energy of One as bearing Him on—borne there in energy; see Rom. 8:14, agontai (are led).

Note in the temptation of Jesus, besides the great and blessed moral instruction of His victory as Second Adam, where the first had failed, of His identification with us in temptation and sorrow, and the means and manner—to wit, the Word, and entire humiliation and obedience—of maintaining His place, not abandoning the place with God of acknowledged Son, but persevering, in the presence of Satan,

in that of self-emptying obedience and humiliation, though He were Son—besides all this, and, I doubt not, much more, there is, in what is special in its character in this Gospel, something to learn in His association with the Jews. The order is not the same as in Luke, because He pursues it in a moral progression—natural need—worldly covetousness—and spiritual, false appropriation of promise, or, really rather, distrust of God, and therefore departure from the path of lowly obedience. Here it is not the general moral instruction. He is on Jewish ground introducing the kingdom. He wants Him to show His power, to please Himself. The first answer of the Lord, entire dependence, and therefore confidence and obedience, places Him in Israel's entire dependence in the desert; see Deut. 8—entire dependence on God, as His people, in exercise (and even in the results of unfaithfulness, for such Deuteronomy considers them).

Secondly the promises made to Messiah, but which, while pretending to use, He would have really doubted had He followed the suggestion of Satan. He answers again from Deuteronomy, "Ye shall not put the Lord to the test, as if it was uncertain if He was amongst us." It was really perfect faith, though taking the lowly place of waiting entirely on the Lord—obedient in self-humiliation, just where Israel failed. Nature, and promise, and spiritual pride, alike failing, he offers Him what belongs indeed to the Son of Man, sparing all the suffering of acquiring it, but then as open apostasy, not as cheating Him out of His position by naturally allowable or promised blessings. “All shall be thine, if thou wilt worship me." The Lord takes the place unqualifiedly of man's, of a Jew's obedience, and faithfulness as a Man in owning nothing but the Lord His God. Satan thus baffled in gaining the Faithful One by his devices, He is now to go on in testimony to gather, but, as yet, this faithfulness is proved, but in reality all is gone for Satan by this, for Man thus faithful is indeed the Son of God. Satan's power is broken; he no longer holds captive, as from Eve; man is emancipated from his thrall. He turns to raise the professors of the kingdom against the Faithful. He makes John to be cast into prison. Jesus submits in quiet patience, and retires from the manifestation of the evil. Thus the blessed Spirit often conducts us. He becomes thus the Center of all the hopes, and light of Israel in its darkest, and most terrible times, according to Isa. 8 and 9, and commences His own separate testimony, and gathers around Himself a Remnant in blessing; compare the passage in Isaiah—He and the children which God has given Him.

The wisdom of the Spirit, in calm holiness, is thus often identified with submission.

Notes on Matthew 5

The tendency here was to bind up the law among His disciples whom He begins to call to Himself; and, the testimony to the kingdom being fully given, so as to spread His renown all around, He begins to bind up the testimony. But then I find in the sermon on the Mount, not only in the Beatitudes, blessing or perfection reflected and showing forth in the Person of Christ here below, but, in principles as to the whole sermon, Himself in the two great features noticed heretofore—the perfection of the Law written for He was born under it, and the perfection of His Father shown forth in Him—as He tells us that hatred was murder, and to be perfect as our Father was perfect. Thus the testimony given to His disciples, but before all, of the principles of the kingdom, left from the outset, on its true moral ground, its rejection or reception, and, at the same time, was full instruction to His disciples, as receiving the kingdom, and that in its patience. And note here how the character of the service of the testimony of the kingdom may run on, and inlock itself into a further testimony, and yet not be it, though there may be a mediate ground. The same remark applies to chapters to and 24. Here it is seen thus.

The sermon supposes the reception, the possibility of the reception of the kingdom. The Adversary was likewise still in the way, and addresses Himself to the disciples, and supposes the case of the reception by some, and of its rejection by the mass, and therefore the suffering of the faithful for righteousness sake, and for love of Him. He presents, consequently, without going out of the testimony of the kingdom, the case of persons whose reward would be great in the heavens, not only of the faithful who should inherit the earth. He unites them, consequently, together as in one single class. Now those who suffered thus in fact would begin by the testimony, but they were the commencement of the Church, yet still at the beginning in connection with Israel; compare Acts 3, the last verses. At length, the Jews having definitely rejected the testimony, and the testimony to the unity of the Body of Christ having been brought out through Paul, all those who, being the Church, had borne witness to the Jews and to the return of Christ upon their repentance, entered into the simple position of members of His Body, for the Church was such—there, there was neither Jew nor Gentile. This helps us to see how one can be made to leave one thing, and to bear a special testimony or the reverse. Finally John Baptist, the friend of the Bridegroom became His disciple (chapter it) by faith. Remark also how the Lord associated the disciples with the Prophets before them, and in chapter 23 He says: “I send you Prophets, and wise men, and scribes," and does not speak of the evangelist character of those He sent, but remains always within the sphere of Jewish thoughts.

However abidingly true the blessed moral principles of these chapters may be, there is no real understanding them without taking them as addressed to the Remnant in the time in which the Lord spoke to them, and as applied to their position at that time.

5-19. These verses are introductory principles.

16. To this verse, it is the character and witness of those who belong to the kingdom—then its principles.

17. As regards my note, in the New Translation, to this verse, Rom. 13:8 and Gal. 5:14 may be quoted, not as showing it wrong as to verse 17, but as to its never meaning mere obedience. But I do not think they contradict but rather confirm the thought, for this one commandment itself amounts to a keeping the whole law—filling up the measure of its requirements. It is not, " He who has done this, has obeyed this as law," but " He who has done this, has, in every respect, done all that the law proposes to obtain," just so that a man need be under it. The whole dikaioma of it is accomplished.

20-37. Evil done.

21, 22. Self subjugation as to impatient violence, passions, and tongue; then in enduring, going into grace, like their Father.

37-48. Evil suffered, and character of grace added, as like the Father.

It seems to me clearer and clearer that the teaching of this chapter, whatever the instruction be for us, and it is precious and great, is, in its direct application, simply the characteristics of what those, amongst whom He then came, must possess to have a part, and what part in the kingdom. It would serve for the Remnant in the last day, as verses 5, 11 and 12 for the slain Remnant. Its application in the Lord's time is evident, consequent on His rejection, that is. Verse 20, as long ago remarked, is clear as to the ground it goes upon. All the law and prophets led to was going to be effectuated (genetai, A.V. fulfilled) and carried out into more perfect and full force. Hence, those who set them aside (one of the commandments thus sanctioned by the Lord) was destroying so far what Christ came to make good. It puts no man under the law after Messiah, but it maintains its divine authority up to Him, and He came to fulfill it and the Prophets. A great deal of the law was de facto set aside, but set aside in fulfilling, as sacrifices, etc., circumcision. He was setting up—going to do it—the kingdom of heaven. It was not breakers of the law who would have a part in it.

After the first statement of character suited to the kingdom, I think we have clearly the two great principles noted elsewhere—the judgment of what is in man (claim on him for what he ought to be) and then the outgoing of a new nature answering to and manifesting the relationship revealed. Thus, verse 21, violence—verse 27, corruption—verse 33, subduedness of spirit within, the “yea, yea," etc., yielding to wrong without. Then, in verses 43-48, the manifestation of the Father's character in active love. Chapter 6 takes up consequent religious duties, almsgiving, praying, fasting, etc.—they must be with God—to the end of verse 18.

It is evident to me that chapters 5-7 give the character required for entrance into the kingdom, the character which was to mark the accepted Remnant—Jehovah being now on the way with the nation to the Judge; and that chapters 8 and 9 give the other side, grace and goodness come in—God manifest, His character and actings—the new thing which could not be really put into old bottles. Still goodness (in power) but rejected—the Son of Man (not Messiah) who had not where to lay His head. But chapter 8 gives present, temporal goodness, only in new power in exercise—chapter 9, what I may call religious, though the dealing of this goodness with Israel is brought out in signs. As goodness, it goes, in chapter 9, beyond Israel, as it deals in grace with what was excluded in Israel—the leper. It includes sickness, and Satan's power, the elements, all sickness, and that in taking the burden on Himself. But, in conscious rejection, verses 17-20 give Isa. 53:3, and the beginning of verse 4; verses 21, 22, the absoluteness of His position, and the state of things, calling for the same in following Him. Storms (with Him in the ship), and Satan's power cast out with a word, and the world, of which he is the prince, rejecting Him, that is the consequence.

How evidently, in the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord speaks of those in the midst of evil, and who in fact had a heavenly, divine mind in the midst of it! This is comfort. Yet, though it has its place in such a scene, it cannot have the pride of it. "Poor in spirit" is intrinsic, yet another scene belongs to them. Indeed all refers to another scene, till we come to verse 6. Then we have righteousness, purity, mercy, goodness. Note, the "poor in spirit" have the same place as the "persecuted for righteousness' sake." But it was in the midst of the then evil. But if those so-called were the salt of the earth, what is it all become? What a judgment on the now professing Church!

This chapter is subjective service, outward life; reference to others follows.

Notes on Matthew 6

The motives on which to act when doing good or engaged in acts of piety, down to verse 18.

18. Good done, referring to the Lord only therein.

19. The spring or motive of conduct as to what the heart is set on; confidence in a Father.

19-34. Through singleness of eye, and so just motives; confidence in God.

This chapter may, not only to verse 18, but all be considered as a question of our religious state, for it is seeking the kingdom of God and His righteousness in contrast with worldly objects and cares.

Notes on Matthew 7

Feelings in relationship with others. More particular instructions to them as His disciples, with the consequence of observing His directions.

7. Earnestness in seeking, and of purpose, down to verse 14.

15. Guarded from evil and self-deception by practical fruits; but the tree must be good.

This chapter gives the character of service and relationship to others, the strait gate and fruits showing the truth of heart—all refer to service.

Notes on Matthew 8

This chapter gives the whole intercourse of the Lord with Israel up to the end, and its result. Remark, consequently, that we have nothing of the delivered ones here.

First. Divine power in cleansing the leper. Jehovah's goodwill shown, and Judaism recognized—therefore within Israel.

Second. Grace admitting strangers to sit down with Abraham and the heirs of promise. Faith the ground greater than Israel's, "As thou hast believed be it done."

Third. He enters into and sympathizes with their position, the infirmities of His own people.

Fourth. Goes elsewhere, having, as Son of Man, nowhere to lay His head.

Fifth. In the troubles of His own disciples, the Remnant, seems asleep, leaving them thus in the storm, but, on their cry, calms it.

Sixth. The unclean spirits driven down furiously to destruction. The unclean, power in grace having delivered very maniacs, ignorantly sink in bondage.

Notes on Matthew 9

In this chapter there seems to me more rising of grace above the evil. It is not merely Jehovah's grace to heal, but after all the children of the kingdom cast out, but forgiveness, healing being the proof. He calls sinners—heals faith on the way—raises the dead when they are so—opens the eyes to see—and, in spite of the blasphemy of the Pharisees, has compassion on the multitude, those sheep without a shepherd. It does not end in rushing down to destruction. Hence it leads on to His disciples being spent for Israel, till the return of Christ, if Israel was in the Land. This is clearly sovereign grace. It was not merely present power in Israel; so that these chapters give a double character of His ways with them.

He forgives—calls public sinners to follow Him—has done with the old bottles—goes to raise the dead, for such is His journey—heals on the way there also, by faith, those who could not be healed as Israel viewed as of God—raises the dead, for she was not so in God's purpose—opens the blind eyes and unstops the deaf ears. But, in the midst of all this for the people, Israel reject Him. But He sees in the multitude the poor shepherdless sheep, and looks only at the greatness of the harvest, and will have other laborers called forth from the Lord of the harvest into His harvest. In chapter 10 He sends them forth.

In this chapter, we have to do with sins, sinners (in the same goodness in power) but it could not, i.e., His religious ways could not be put into old bottles. Verse 18 to the end is the true working and character of this in Israel. For, though divine goodness reached beyond, as in this chapter, it was still working in; so, in chapter to, the disciples are sent only to Israel.

Notes on Matthew 10

Here the means of grace are carried on for the Remnant that had ears to hear, and that to the end. Chapter 8 was His then present grace, and its results then, though still only in blessing to the Remnant in rejection, but this makes chapters 9 and 10 very interesting. Grace rises over the sin, and forgives, but, as present service, there must be new bottles, the sick Remnant healed on the way, and Israel raised from the dead, and (chapter 10) grace would use the means. In chapter 11, the thing is discussed as we know, and the ground of the change shown. In chapter Io, the whole rejection itself brought out in its full character—the Sabbath and Son of Man, the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost not forgiven, sign of Jonas, and testimony, the unclean spirit, His disciples—not His mother—His owned relationship.

20. Here we have the Spirit's work associated with the testimony, going on in grace that rises above present rejection as a nation; quod nota bene. The present rejection is found on the blasphemy in chapter 12: 31, et seq. In Luke this rejection is the ground, and the blasphemy will be found in the disciples' rejection, to encourage them (comp: on 9), and see Luke 11:15, etc., and chapter 12. Hence, in Luke it is generalized to the state and condition of the world, man, and the saints of the present time.

This chapter is extremely remarkable. I think there is a division at verse 15. Up to that is the then present mission. From verse 16 we have more general reflections on their mission looked at as a whole on to the end. Evidently it goes out beyond their then present service. A practical difference is noticed in Luke 22:35, and we have the same time after His rejection in Matt. 24:1-14. Compare, for the present service, Luke 10. The Spirit of their Father speaking in them is not more than would take place then. The Father's Name was revealed by Christ to them, and the Spirit would be here, not the seal but the Spirit of prophecy. But the whole passage looks further out beyond their relationship with Israel, but that relationship developed afterward where Christ was rejected. It is now in view of His rejection—they have called the Master of the house Beelzebub; but grace is working to gather the Remnant.

Notes on Matthew 11

This chapter really ends the direct instruction of the Gospel. The Law and Prophets were till John—He was Elias (the kingdom of heaven not come but preached) the lamenting and piping had taken place. Wisdom was justified of her children.

The Lord reproaches the cities where most of His mighty works were done, because they repented not, and told them their judgment, and, seeing the Father's way, and good pleasure, and His own glory, far away and beyond that present scene, as Son, substitutes His own revelation of the Father, as Son whom no man knew, for the past system, and the lowly obedience which characterized the rejected One as the path of peace. What follows is contrast and controversy with the system around, the mysteries of the kingdom, patient grace with the Remnant, the Church He was going to build, the kingdom and that in glory. But in chapters 14 and 15 deeper principles also come in.

27. I do not think when alla (but) is used substantially in the sense of ei me (but, except) that it is the same. Ei me supposes already that there is that one of the kind to which the negation generally applies—it is an exception; alla retains its adversative force as to the whole, but something modifies it, in result not the same as. In this verse there is One who knows—"No one else except." So in chapter 12: 4, “But for the priests only”—no one else except. Thus in chapter 17: 8, “They saw no one but" or "except." But in Mark 9, "And suddenly having looked around, they saw no longer any one but" (alla). Here the scene had disappeared, but they saw Jesus alone with themselves. In Matt. 20:23, it is “Is not mine to give," i.e., all that is desired, only modified by "but" (alla) "to those for whom," etc. He does not give it at all as His will, His patronage, but to those for whom, etc. So Mark 10:40. In the three, we have "none good but" (ei me) "One." Naturally, mere goodness before His mind, He excludes all but God.

Notes on Matthew 12

This chapter brings out the final controversy with, or judgment of Israel, uncommonly clearly. They are delivered to the Judge. The old things pass away in the Sabbath by grace, and true liberty. We have first Messiah, like the rejected David, then One greater than the Temple, Jehovah—then present—but grace and mercy come in, and the Son of Man, Lord of the Sabbath, and grace, the power of God in goodness, draws out the opposition of the Pharisees, and Jesus keeps His lowly meek place in Israel, and then the Gentiles trust in Him. Power over Satan is, however, shown, and the Pharisees commit blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. This closes the question as to that generation. They are bad trees, and cannot bring forth good fruit. Such is flesh! Words show the man. As a sign they would only have His death and resurrection, for that generation too late, but the Ninevites and the queen of the South would both be witness against them. The prophet, and the wisdom of God in the Ring, the Son of David, were both there in a greater than Jonas or Solomon, but no repentance ensued. Then comes the final judgment on the unrepentant nation, to be completely fulfilled in the time of the Antichrist, though largely then. And finally He substitutes His disciples for His natural ties with Israel.

Notes on Matthew 13

Note the parable of the Sower comes before the sentence declared to be resting on the people, and the Remnant are then distinguished, and the kingdom of heaven is not mentioned until the judgment on the people is declared, but it is called, in the explanation to the disciples, ‘The word of the kingdom.'

It is important to understand that the field is the world, not merely as an ecclesiastical point, but as going out into the whole world beyond Jewish precincts. When Christ sows it is not merely Jewish—there He sought fruit.

Not 'The end of the world,' but "The end of the age," or rather "completion of."

40. "The completion of this age."

44. It is the character of the kingdom, though, no doubt, it is Christ that did it. Judaism was not this.

This is a blessed chapter, not simply as unfolding dispensational dealing, but, as showing us in the words of Jesus flowing from His mind on His rejection, the whole scene of God's ways to the end. He, presented to Israel, is rejected. All God's ways at once come out of the treasuries of wisdom in Him. How perfect this is! He was not insensible (see chapter 11) but perfect. The effect of what acted on Him was to bring out, in touching the springs within, all the divine treasures whether of grace or wisdom. As long remarked, He sits on the sea, has left the house and Israel, and brings what is to produce fruit, does not seek it on any plant on earth. Israel is judged, the Remnant owned; they had, too, the things prophets and righteous men had desired to see. Then the first is individual, then the whole external history of the kingdom of heaven, what it had become like, and then the internal, known to divine intelligence—the action of Satan in the field—this does not appear in the net. The former was the positive activity of the enemy, where he had scope for his activity. Gathering fishes is another matter—fisherman's work—the bad a result, not meeting the purpose. We must not confound all these tares positively sown by the devil such as Popery, heresies of every kind, Gnosticism, etc. In the last parables, I cannot for a moment doubt we have the mind of Christ, only in the first two what He was really doing now He was rejected; in the third, the action of His servants in the Gospel. First, the world for what was hid in it—Judaism was not hid but contrasted—and then the Church in its proper beauty. In the fishes, the work of the fishers of men; only a net, not a hook. The tares, previously gathered into bundles, are cast into the fire. In the second case, we have nothing of the good beyond the vessels. In the wheat we have, because it is in the world—they are in glory. The fish had been taken for their own object by the fishermen, and this goes beyond the kingdom in its outward form, even when glorious. This is striking, as showing that the point here is hidden purpose, to be spiritually apprehended, as other Scriptures teach us.

We have here the whole course of events of the latter days. First, providential gathering of the wicked in the world, the saints gathered into His garner, i.e., Christ coming to receive the saints. Then the wicked cast into the fiery furnace, the coming to judge the quick, and then the righteous shining like Himself in His Father's kingdom—the heavenly part of the manifestation.

Notes on Matthew 14

From this chapter, we have the controversy with the adverse Pharisees, but here a kind of sketch of the whole. The wanton power of evil puts to death what is given up to its power. Christ is Jehovah (Psa. 132) in Israel, but dismisses the multitude—the Remnant being alone on the Sea while He is on high. We have an intimation, I think, of the Church's faith, in Peter's walking on the sea—but they are the Remnant, and at land as soon as He rejoins them, and go forth into the world which once rejected Him, which is blessed and willing.

Notes on Matthew 15

This is a remarkable chapter, as, besides continuing the controversy with the Pharisees, we have the relationship with Israel fully maintained, yet on higher ground, and eternal principles, both as to man and God, brought out to light. The state of man's heart is brought into contrast with ceremonial priestly righteousness. Israel judged on this ground according to her own prophets-plants not of the Father's planting, morally speaking, not true children of God, would be rooted up. But the true evil of the human heart, as such, is taught, and then Jesus, who really brought God in grace to man, goes beyond the limits of Israel, and to one accursed according 'to dispensational view, manifests God's heart, the necessary goodness of God who cannot deny Himself, maintains fully the title of Israel, but recognizes faith, blessing the worst of Gentiles, when this was laying hold by grace of what God was. He then, moreover, shows the maintenance of the same grace towards Israel, in spite of its evil, and, I think, on a higher ground, though a smaller sphere, as heretofore noticed—not the administrative blessing of a whole in man, but the sovereign goodness of God whatever man was (verse 7, not 12) but still Jehovah, according to Psa. 132, in Israel. In chapter 16 the judgment of Israel continues, but the Church is substituted for it, and He declares He is to suffer, and not to be announced as the Christ.

27. How evidently the poor woman gets at what God is, and that He cannot deny Himself, and that outside all promise and dispensation.

Notes on Matthew 16

The substitution of the Church, founded on the truth confessed by Peter, brings in the suffering and death of Christ. The first part, however true, they were no longer to announce. I repeat, what I have elsewhere remarked, how the state of the soul may not be up to the height of a revelation really received of God. I repeat it, because it is so important to remember. If He takes up His Cross, we must; and note it is a matter of saving the soul now, not of the kingdom to be set up, the internal realities of life, but the glory of the kingdom is added, and that is in chapter 17.

18. Not, 'And I say also unto thee,' but “And I also say unto thee."

Notes on Matthew 17

Here the kingdom is essentially in substituting Christ the Son in place of Moses and the Prophets, but it belonged to resurrection testimony.

11. "Elias truly comes first and shall restore."

14. Note how admirably, from this verse to the end, the whole position of Christ in the world is brought out. We are accustomed to look at the state of this world, sickness, death, Satan's power as a natural condition, but, once the Lord who had created it came into it, its true condition necessarily came out—the opposition of its ruin to the fruits and thoughts of the divine nature. But He was power in goodness there. Sickness is there—He heals it. It was contrary to His nature and heart, who had made the world without these things, and who was in it in grace. He was there as Man, feeling thus for these sorrows. He touched her—the fever was gone—she was well. Blessed manifestation! But there was readiness, universal readiness to help. Many came possessed with devils—with a word they were gone—“And He healed all that were sick." But He felt, and took, bore, all in sorrow on His own heart—divine love in fellowship with man's sorrow!

But, for the same reason, He had no place on earth; foxes had holes, and birds of the air their nests—he Son of Man none. How could He in a world departed from God? But He called to follow—Himself, others too. They had excuses. If it were the nearest claim, they belonged to another sphere totally. The rest were dead—leave the dead to them! What a word for this world! What it expressed in Christ's mouth! But He takes them across the waves, and seems asleep. The devil, by God's permission, can raise storms, but they are in the ship with Christ. Their fear was their shame. But a word of His, awake to their cry, settled all. Then we find the world rejects Him because He casts out Satan's power. The sign that that power was there was given. Christ's presence, though it freed when His power was exercised, brought that power of evil sensibly out, and man who cannot get rid of Satan, begs the Lord to go away, to depart out of their coasts. Such is the world's history! In Luke, we have the effect on the delivered one.

24. Et seq.: I have spoken elsewhere of the tribute money; I only remark how it is connected with the Sonship brought out in chapter 16, and here, only He brings Peter into it, as indeed He did reveal the Father's Name.

Notes on Matthew 18

This is a striking instruction as to the spirit which is to animate those who are to have part in the kingdom and life—lowliness—a thorough judgment of evil in itself—a horror of evil so as to avoid it at all cost—gracious appreciation of what is lowly and little, for that is what God loves—grace towards offenders—still, an unbroken will in evil rejected—and the assembly the place of within and without. But grace characterizes the kingdom. That is the mind of God.

1. This is a most clear and blessed witness that all infants are saved through Christ.

17. " Tell it to the assembly."

Notes on Matthew 19

This chapter seems to me to give more the grace of the Lord's ways, and what was coming in, the Spirit in which they had to walk, in which He did. Chapter 20, the sounding all the motives of the human heart, and breaking with all that tied to earth and was valued there, only fully sanctioning all that God had established in nature, all that was amiable in His creation. But now there was none good but God, and, while bringing in a power that lifted above and out of all that acted on or kept nature, yet, as I have said, sanctioned all God had originally established. It is remarkable in this respect. The ordinances, as marriage, etc., were good in themselves. If a man wanted to enter into life, he was to keep the commandments. But creation goodness morally was gone. None—no person was good but God. And, if we want to go wholly with Him, we must have done wholly with the world, and break with the system flesh has formed round itself.

In this chapter humility is taught as well as goodness. Verses 6-9 are a kind of warning parenthesis. How to deal with personal wrong in the new state of things is provided for. Judgment of self, and patient goodness with others is the rule, with provision in the Church for obstinate wrong. The whole, in general (save this special ordering within) is the kingdom of heaven, and goes on to consequent place in the regeneration.

In what is first addressed to the young man, we have the external positive responsibility of man, then the fact that none is good but God—the real truth, so to speak—and the judgment of the heart in motives, and hence self-sacrifice. These are the great moral questions, and the difference of law and Christian practice. With this, reward connects itself, and here He speaks of everlasting life.

Notes on Matthew 20

Everlasting life is guarded by sovereign grace, the Cross being the present portion, and all according to the predetermined ordering of the Father. All this is a most important unfolding of moral principles, and is the unfolding of the new thing coming in, as it brought man and God to light. What follows is the closing history.

Notes on Matthew 21

It is impossible not to see how completely, from the blind men of Jericho, it is the presentation of Messiah to Jerusalem—not a work among the poor of the flock, but a final presenting of Messiah, and Jewish. Here, even the Temple is “a house of prayer," not adding "for all nations." The riding in is evident—the cursing the fig tree—and then the details of the controversy. The judgment of the Lord, as the Stone which the builders rejected, closes this. We get details of controversy with different classes afterward, but this is the sentence of the nation as such.

13. Not 'The house of prayer,' but “A house of prayer."

Notes on Matthew 22

We here go beyond the judgment of what was, which reaches down indeed to the last day, but does not go beyond requirement from what was, or man, in it. (Only they will be found adversaries.) Here we go on to grace, and the intermediate state, with the present judgment of Jerusalem—Caesar left where he is, and religion disengaged from these questions. The great essential truths the Lord does not disengage, silencing by wisdom, but openly and boldly states the resurrection and its true force, involving abiding life in another state, but apart from earthly ties, and the essence of the law, and then the putting of Christ in the place of Lord on high, in contrast with His Son of David title, Jehovah setting Him at His right hand till His enemies were made His footstool. In a word, it is the new state connected with another world, as contrasted with the old. The point of connection is in the vineyard laborers and marriage feast—one, requirement, on to sending the Son, from the Jews—the other, grace inviting to have part in the Son's festive blessing. Future judgment on the Jews is not part of this last. It turns to Gospel times, and leaves Christ at God's right hand "till"... Then all adversaries are judged, just as whoever has not a wedding garment.

Notes on Matthew 23

In this chapter we have the Lord's own thoughts and feelings as to the position. It has thus a very solemn and touching character, resulting in the outgoing of His heart as have been. There are directions for His disciples during the continuation of Moses' seat, and the judgment of the Pharisees who were in it. The Spirit in which the disciples were to walk. All, though the spirit of it may continue, as within Israel. The Scribes and Pharisees tested by their being sent to them like the old Prophets, and the blood of all the slain in Jerusalem would come upon that generation. Her house was left desolate till grace put Psa. 118 into their heart, and into their mouth. But we are wholly among the Jews, and in Jerusalem here, and, as present judgment, by One who loved her—the Jehovah who would have gathered her children.

39. This though of direct and local, is really of universal application. The flesh receives one come in his own name, and will say, left to itself, 'Let the Lord be glorified.'

Notes on Matthew 24

I have nothing particular to add on this chapter, except the increased sense, as coming in after what we have seen, of how Jewish it is. "This generation" still remains the striking expression; but, I think, the following verse points out that it goes further than the mere fact that only some thirty-odd years would elapse before it happened, but not more, and that what seemed a kind of impossibility would take place in spite of all.

5. This begins explanation.

6, 7. The general character.

9, 12. The position of disciples in it.

8 and 12. The comment. There is another accompanying circumstance—verse 14—before the end can come. But there is another aspect in the course of it—verse 15—with this they have nothing to do but to fly. But, connected with the trouble, there will be false Christs and prophets—before, only prophets, but now Antichrist ruling their will.

17. i.e., with the Jews then.

Note how human nature first rests in what is established, just perhaps going to be judged, and then turns to false hopes excitedly trumped up when the power of evil is there. He who looks to Christ is delivered from the former, despised and rejected as He may be. And when the evil day comes, his refuge remains—he is unshaken like that he rests on—has not to seek vain excuses.

Notes on Matthew 25

31. I consider this verse as immediately following chapter 24:31. All that is between these two verses does not belong to the history of events; it is a practical and hortative application of the truths to the consciences of the disciples. Neither is it the Church properly so-called. They are those to whom the testimony has been entrusted, who await the Bridegroom, who consequently look towards heaven, having received this testimony, and who go out to meet the Bridegroom, and that before the cry which was heard at midnight. They are those who labored, or who ought to have labored during the absence of the Master.

All this is true of the Church, inasmuch as she is placed upon the earth, but it is not in regard to the Church that this is said, but in regard to the servant. As to the ten virgins—the similitude of the kingdom of the heavens—it is not simply servants, but what is found, in general, in the kingdom and characterizes it. It is the activity, not the service, which is rewarded—but who goes out, who leaves the state of things, who awaits the Bridegroom, and who goes out towards Him. I do not at all say there will not be anything like it when there will be no further question of the Church properly speaking; I believe there will be persons in that state, who will be in advance of the state of things in which they find themselves, but who are not the Church, and who perhaps are called "Saints of the heavenlies." But the kingdom of the heavens will have this character, of having "gone forth to meet the Bridegroom." The parable of chapter 24 supposes the two cases; and the return of the Master does not apply to the rapture of the Church, but to the judgment executed, whether upon the professing Church or upon those who have labored when the Church shall have been taken away; in both cases they would be, according to their circumstances, established on all that they have done. In general, they are instructions for the interval until the Son of Man comes in His glory. The distinction between the Church and another testimony is not touched. Two of the parables speak of the service during this time—the other, of the activity which precedes the establishment of the kingdom, going forth to meet the Bridegroom. The Master who takes account of the conduct of the servants, always refers (we have often had it) to the time of His manifestation as to result.

34. Not ‘children,' but “blessed” and "the King shall say." And it is not, abstractly, the kingdom of God (for which ye suffer). It does seem to me a clear, definite statement of those who are spared; compare 1 Thessalonians 2:12, and 1 Corinthians 15:50, quod nota.

46. Though vague, life eternal was a well-known thought with the Jew at this time; compare John 5:39; Matt. 19:16, and other passages.

Notes on Matthew 26 and 27

25. There is no note of time; it is "And Judas answering" (apokritheis) "said."

26. What a turn to patient suffering!

29. Not ‘anew,' but "new" (kainon), 'of another kind.'

56. The form is that of inspiration. The Spirit is writing about the disciples. Matthew might have said 'We.' In Acts, where Luke joins, it is “We"; there the disciples were the subject.

64. Not ‘Hereafter,' but “From henceforth."

Chapter 27

31. John 19:4-15, comes in in the middle of this verse. Evidently Pilate was profoundly uneasy, and at last tried to pass it off with gibes against the Jews, but washing his hands of the business—a poor washing! Here the Jews put themselves under the guilt of Christ's death, in John rejecting all their privileges under Caesar's power.

Notes on Matthew 28

3. It is evident that, in the account here, the main facts are brought together so as to give the relative position of the parties, as to the Jews and disciples, in their Jewish connection, and the Jews' connection with the Romans, not stopping at the linking events according to time.

18. He is risen, not ascended. This commission seems to have been entirely curtailed and broken in upon by the events. According to God's counsel Jerusalem would have been the center, and the nations brought in under the ecclesiastical center of that Holy City. The commandments of Christ upon earth regulated all until the end came of the age, but it was given so generally that the principle was clear to act on. But, as within that circle (till God removes it) the end of the age is come, and new energies, or newly ordered, have taken place by the Apostle of the Gentiles, who was no witness of the life of Jesus and His personal words and ways, but, born out of due time, received all part according to that energy by revelation, so he tell us in Galatians. It was another character of things.

19, 20. This text becomes extremely important for the ministry to be exercised in the last days. The age is not then ended. “In the Name" used, which was already revealed in the Lord's life-time, though not thus completed and put together, so to speak. It is not however a ministry which the Jews characterize as its object. But, though all power be given, it is ministry which flows from a risen, not yet from an ascended and glorified Savior.

In this chapter of Matthew, though often noted in detail, I sum up a little as a whole. First, it is not Touch me not...I go to My Father and your Father,' but resurrection. The women touch Him, and do Him homage. Then next, the connection with the disciples is Galilee, where the great light had been seen, and where He had been associated with the poor of the flock. Now, all power was given Him in heaven and on earth, but we have no ascension, no personal place, as Son, taken with the Father, but all power given Him, which we have to remember. Hence, it reaches out beyond Judaism, and He sends His disciples to disciple all the Gentiles, “baptizing them in the Name," etc. Here we have nothing of salvation nor belief, but, all power being given Him, He is Lord, and they are to be subject to the faith, and then to teach them to do what was commanded. In a certain providential way this has been done, though not universally, and not as really completing this commission. And there is the promise—is to be with them to the end of the age; that is not Church time, but till Messiah came closing the age in this world. Such was the thought they had of it, and in which the Lord speaks, the meaning of it in Scripture. Paul's message was quite different. He is sent to the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His Name. The nature of his commission is quite different, and the twelve gave up the Gentiles to him. They were not up to the height of this commission, whatever may have been historically done. Luke's commission is evidently different—has a moral character—that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His Name, beginning at Jerusalem. They are to wait for power, but there is no "to the end of the age," and He goes up to heaven, and blesses them thence.

The Matthew commission was never carried into execution in Scripture, but merely dropped. The Acts are entirely the Luke commission, “repentance and remission of sins... beginning at Jerusalem." Nor did they flee from Jerusalem, according to Matt. 10. Then Paul, as often seen, receives the Gentile commission in a new way, from the glory. The Judaism, which harassed him, became practically dominant, and carried out the Matthew commission, only according to his statement in Galatians, it returned to heathenism (in popery) when it returned to Judaism.

The kingdom comes in, in Matthew, by Son of David Emmanuel, but He must be owned Son of God to be received—that they will not. We might (if man were not what he is) suppose His going to heaven then, and the heavenly character of the kingdom set up. But, rejected, the kingdom of heaven takes the form of the parables. Then He takes to Him His great power, and reigns—puts in the sickle, for the harvest is ripe.

There was a special presentation to the Jews in Acts 3, in virtue of Christ's intercession on the Cross, but this was rejected. Galilee goes on, “To us a son is born." And so Matt. 10 and 28, and suitably chapter 24 contrasted with Luke 21. Only Matthew 10 is the Jewish part—chapter 28, the Gentile, consequent on it. With Paul's we know the ministry of the Church came. The “Son of Man" is a wider sphere, passing into Psa. 8 from Psa. 2, as Nathaniel, John 1. But He receives the kingdom, too, as Son of Man, Dan. 7, but over all nations. The “Son of God" is a personal name, not a royal name, I apprehend, as to the kingdom, the kingdom which belongs to the Son. It is the religious side ensures the earthly part, as in Psa. 2, the decree as to the exalting of Him who had the throne as given from heaven. This is true as to priesthood even in Heb. 5:5.

The Prayers in Ephesians 1 and 3

THE prayer in chapter i is, as the counsels and plans of God are unfolded towards us and about Christ as One He is glorifying, and so our inheritance with Him, for the working of God towards us in enlightening us as to our place in these counsels, and the power that brings us into it far above every name and near and like Himself. Wondrous thoughts of God! But Christ Himself (and that is our blessing) is looked at as a Man dead, and we dead in sin, and God raises Him, and us in Him, and sets us all in the highest place of blessing and glory- but it is man dealt with.

The prayer of chapter 3 is relationship-the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. And he sees already every family brought under this Name, and looks for another thing, the capacity to be at the center as our portion-that God might grant, according to the riches of His glory developed in all this, to be inwardly strengthened with might by His Spirit. We are not heirs here, but are divinely made competent inwardly to be at the center, and seize it all around. And thus it is Christ (He is the Center of all) to dwell in our hearts by faith-known there, not merely on our lips, but faith realizing Himself in the heart. Now this puts us in the divine center in its very nature. We are rooted and grounded in love, but that is what God is. So there is a moral capacity to apprehend all that in which He displays Himself; for, dwelling in Him, we can comprehend what He displays, and “he that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God, and God in him." Thus the soul can look out in every direction, and all directions, into the display of divine glory. Still this, in itself, would be dazzling, and for the heart cold in a certain sense-the heart though adoringly admiring, would want an intimate object; and here consequently the Spirit, by the Apostle, returns to Christ again, and to " know the love of Christ"—One we know in the depths of the intimacy of His love, yet it passes knowledge for it is divine, and thus we are filled to the measure of the fullness of God. So the “Glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb was the Light thereof." We are brought into the whole sphere thus of the divine glory by Christ, dwelling in our hearts by faith, being our Strength and Capacity through the Spirit; but this puts us at its center in love, and that love in the endeared intimacy of Christ, yet in the fullness of divine nature, for the love in which we are, and know, passes knowledge.

Hence "Glory to him" is looked for in the Church in all ages, according to His power that works in us. That is the practical result; what a place it puts us in as to this!

In the wonderful prayer of chapter 3, I think I see more order than heretofore. Under the name of "Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," every class of being, "every family in heaven and earth” comes. It is not our knowledge, as in chapter 1, of our place as to calling and inheritance, and the power that brings us into it as Christ from death to the throne of God—wondrous translation!—but the whole scene of the display of God's glory under that Name, and Christ the central point; it is under His Father that they hold their place. Then the prayer demands that, according to the riches of His glory, of all the display of Himself as such in this universal sphere, we may be strengthened with might by His Spirit in the inner man to be able to seize it all, but it is by His dwelling in our hearts by faith, who, while loving the saints perfectly, is the Center of all this glory. Having Christ, who fills all the glory, thus in our hearts, we are capable of reaching out to all this, and this according to that love of which He is the expression and power to us, and He thus dwelling in us we are rooted and grounded in it.

Thus filled with that which is really God as to nature, and the wisdom of God as to understanding, we comprehend with all saints-for, having Christ in our hearts, it is impossible to be separated from them-the whole sphere and display of God's glory, breadth, length, depth, height, and not only so, but, Christ dwelling in us, we know that love which passes knowledge, but, thus apprehending the whole sphere and display of His glory, and the love of Christ which passes knowledge, we are led up to that out of which this flows, and of which this is the display. We are filled into (eis)—to this completeness-all the fullness of God.

Thus we get the internal competency, verses 16, 17—the intermediate sphere and display, verse 18, and beginning of 19—leading us to the whole fullness of God in itself. The Apostle then desires that, according to His power that works in us, this same strength, the effect may be produced—Glory to Him in the Church throughout all ages.

The preceding remarks are connected with the unsearchable riches of Christ, but further, as to the bearing of parenthesis, i.e., chapter 3:2-21.

Note too in chapter 3, verse 18 resumes morally what precedes. It is not 'That ye being rooted and grounded may,' but “being rooted and grounded in love, that ye may." It is a nominative absolute, and, I think, gives the Apostle's consciousness of what the effect in a soul of what precedes in verses 16, 17, or what the practical reality of such a strengthening and dwelling is.

The connection between the prayer in this chapter and the mystery is striking. God has established Christ as Center and Head over all things, both in heaven and earth, but the Church is in immediate connection with Him. Being strengthened in might by His Spirit, Christ dwells in our hearts by faith. Thus the Center, as to Spiritual understanding, is in our hearts that we may comprehend. But the center of all, as to what characterizes the source of the whole plan, is Love—this has made it—that is, God Himself. And we, Christ dwelling in our hearts by faith, are rooted and grounded in love, and thus have the source, the motive center which makes capable of comprehending-Christ being the revealed Center as to the counsel, while bringing as He alone does, the love, for He is its manifestation and power. Then, if it is Christ's love, God's love, I must associate all saints, for that is the first circle which that love forms, and itself thinks of. Having got this, which is intimate and immediate, I go out into the whole extent of that in which the God of love glorifies Himself-breadth, length, depth, height. But while this gives me the sphere, my soul wants to find the center for itself, something more intimate, that is a stay for the soul in this vast scene—that is, it knows the love of Christ, One well known, tender, familiar, who serves, One who is ours in grace. Yet it is infinite, passes knowledge. Thus in counsels, nature, and the perfect revelation of love, we are filled up to the fullness of God. Christ dwelling in our hearts by faith, the actual Center of all, thus introduces us, in understanding and communion, into all.

Note, this is attributed to the One God and Father of all, in an abstract way, in chapter 4: 6, and to Christ in the power of redemption, verses 9, 10.

The exhortations of chapter 4 are more especially founded on the end of chapter 2-naturally so, as that is the responsible side of the Church, though not excluding the other character, as verse 4 shows, and also from verse 7 on. Chapter 3 comes in, not only as enlargement of the truth stated in its various bearings, but it brings the other, and more Colossian side of the mystery, in—Christ dwelling in the heart by faith—so that we are able to take it all in, look out at it as from a center. Hence it looks by this power to the glorifying of God in the Church by this; that naturally brings the Apostle back to the exhortation to make it good now. In chapter 2:21, 22, we have the Church in the place in which it is to glorify; in chapter 3:20, 21, we have the power in which they fill this place, and then comes exhortation.

Note, too, how in chapter 4:15, the power of that in which Christ is said to have come is looked to be realized by the saint. " Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ "; here, "speaking the truth in love" (aletheuontes en agape). And this confirms the connection of " in the truth," and " in truth," as in John. There is no truth in the inward parts but by the Truth and Word of God, which searches the thoughts and intents of the heart, in Christ's, the Truth's, being there. " Hence too the truth as it is in Jesus," putting off the old man, and putting on the new, renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created us.

Note, further, in chapter 4, we have the two parts of verse 12, in verses 13 to 16. The first in verses 13-15; the last in verse 16. Nor is the middle part wanting, for the supply of the joints is the work of the ministry, and this connection is put in its arrangement; verses 13-15 is the main point governed by eis, and the ministry is connected with the edifying of the Body by pros, and so in verse 16. And this shows us what the work of the ministry is. There are permanent gifts used in service in a definite way, but there is a ministry by the supply of every joint. The Body edifies itself by the effectual working in the measure of every part. This makes permanent ministers, and the supply by every joint for the edifying of Body very clear, as to the place it holds. " He ascended up and gave gifts." Here are individuals given a place-some of them antecedent to the formation of the Body- all of them derived directly from Christ, and dependent on Him. But besides, and through this, and with it, there is a Body which, in all its parts, by the operation of the Spirit in each part, edifies itself. A pastor may come in in his place in this ministry, still he has a direct responsible service to Christ.

The three measures and principles of good in chapter 4 are the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, the new man created after God, and not grieving the Spirit. Then, as a general and wondrous rule, blessed as it is wondrous, "Be ye imitators of God as dear children." In this last, we have the most perfect expression of a divine walk in the world—following God in the affections of dear children-walking in love. That is the perfect, divine principle, love also to others; but, next, giving Himself, that is absolute and perfect-the giving up, not much by self, but self itself. Then, though there were love, perfect love to others, yet God was Himself objectively before the eyes, an offering and a sacrifice to God, to be a sweet smelling savor to Him. So with the incense, though others might smell the sweet odor, yet all was burned to God. This was the perfectness of Christ.

They were not to grieve the Spirit; that referred to subjective state and walk. Then, when they have had their objective measure of love and light, they are to be filled with it. But then in this we get the sobriety, and the 'beside ourselves.' Verses 15-17, it is sober; verses 18, 19, besides oneself, so to say. Will is gone, and honoring God's goodness, he can give thanks always for all things.

Further, we are light—that is one divine name—partakers of the divine nature. But it is never said we are love, because that is supreme goodness in its essential nature; but we love because we are partakers of it. Light, though intrinsically pure, shines. Love, save as the Father loves the Son, does not necessarily go out of itself, and indeed there it really does not. It delights in itself, when it exercises itself out of itself. It is sovereign, and hence we cannot be said to be it. But light always manifests itself, then other things. Hence, though essential, it is not so properly so as love.

Note, too, here besides the order noticed elsewhere in chapter 5:25, et seq., there is another point. Christ's first act is wholly written Himself. He loved the Church, and gave Himself for it. This is summed up in 'Himself,' but it embraces the whole of Himself. Now this is as is right. The first must be of and within Himself as being divine. It was a divine work, and—so absolutely complete within Himself; and hence the love was perfect—He gave Himself; nothing was kept back. It was not a gift of something, but giving Himself. Yet it was love, and a work, we must remember, which had a specific object, which makes it so precious to us, and supposes that divine Person to be a Man indeed too—He loved the Church—for in giving Himself He was Man, though the gift, the thing given and He who gave was divine. But what I note now is, that before any application, any cleansing, or presenting another thing to Himself, He had accomplished by Himself a work—was complete in His own act and work—and that this suited the glory and perfectness of His divine Person.

Note too in this chapter, how, with the most perfect, devoted love, personally exercised and given as blessing, perfect, divine, moral excellency is looked for and wrought out too. He gave Himself. That is perfect love, for indeed the Church was in fact in the sink of this world. He would present it to Himself. There is the perfection of His love and her enjoyment. But between there is what is called for in order to the latter, and divine necessity morally—sanctifying and cleansing by the washing of water by the Word. The divine perfection applied morally, judging all of flesh, all evil, and revealing, requiringly but cleansingly, all good. And so we ought to take things, adore, trust to the love, but look for God's character as equally necessary and to be desired, what must be if it be a divine blessing. The purchase of love, giving Himself, comes first—what is His by perfect grace, He cleanses to have it according to His heart.

There is in chapters 4 and 5, another, and to me an interesting point. The relationships, up to speaking of wives, are with God. So Christ offers Himself for us to God. We have the objective perfectness of motive in God Himself, and so in the character of the work, as well as perfect self-sacrifice for others. But in chapter 5, in His loving the Church, it is a love of relationship. He still gave up self in love. He gave Himself for it, but it ends in the perfectness of His own acts, and He presents it to Himself. This is beautifully in its place, and perfect. How perfect Scripture too is! Christ ought to have the Church to Himself.

I am inclined, too, to think that "The fullness of him that filleth all in all," is not simply Godhead, but Christ in redemption. The passage in chapter 4: to, leads me to this. It is redemption—He who went into the lower parts of the earth, and now far above all heavens.

I do not know how far I have hitherto accurately remarked on the armor of chapter 6, that we have subjective, objective, active, and dependence.