lation of the four Gospels from the Peschito," by J. W. Etheridge.) Let those who understand the Peschito make the best of this argument founded on the feminine form. Possibly it may serve to show that this view of the matter is traceable from a very early date ; but as the Greek original makes no such sign, and must ever remain our rock of refuge in all controversial cases, we need never live in much fear of error when we abstain from breaking up its uniformity. Lastly, it is worthy of remark that the word required to express the mere inarticulate noise of the wind would (so we might expect at least) have been “Echos," whence our English word echo; whereas “phonè,” the word actually used, would in any other position be understood as an intelligent voice. The two words occur side by side in Heb. vii. 19: “ The sound of a trumpet and the voice of words." These facts being premised, will any of our readers “ show cause” why the Greek original should not be taken simply as we find it, and read as follows : “ The Spirit breatheth where he willeth, and thou hearest his voice, but thou dost not perceive whence he cometh and whither he goeth ?”

Acts xxvi. 28: “ Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” The “ Almost Christian " has long been a familiar pulpit phrase : yet king Agrippa is no fair type either of the waverers, or of the inquirers, hardly even of the compromisers. Dean Alford asserts that the reading of our authorised version is at variance with the most ancient manuscripts; and that even of that reading, the rendering is incorrect. His own version is as follows:-"Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Lightly art thou persuading thyself that thou canst make me a Christian. And Paul said, I would to God, that, whether lightly or with pains, not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, might become such as I am, except these bonds."- Alford.

1 Cor. vii. 14 : “ The unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the husband (or in the brother, according to the most ancient manuscripts). Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy.” A great deal of dust has been thrown in our eyes by expositors failing to see that this reference to the children is not addressed to the mixed couples at all, but to universal Christendom; and is what therefore may be termed the argumentum ad hominem Christianum. “The law of Ezra x. 3,” St. Paul is reminding the Corinthian church, " no longer holds good. All things are holy to you, if accepted with honesty and thankfulness; and I can appeal to the Christian instincts of every heart among you when I assert that intercourse with your children, whether they be older or younger, whether they be believers or not, whether they be baptized or not, is a perfectly holy thing. Then, if this be true, by parity of reasoning a heathen wife may be equally holy or clean to her Christian partner. Both parties, (that is, the children of believers and the wife or husband of a believer) stand on the same footing, both hold the same relation to the church.'' Such was the simple and common-sense method by which the Apostle swept away the proposal entertained by some of the early zealous converts of withdrawing from their heathen wives or husbands ; nor can we doubt that its force was instantly appreciated. But sundry modern disputants, having opposite ends in view, yet both alike missing the apostle's drift, have represented him as reasoning in a circle, something after the following fashion,-“Your marriage” (addressing the mixed couples) “is legal, else your children were illegitimate. But you esteem your children legitimate, and they are so ;-therefore your marriage is legal and binding.” Now, it is no matter of surprise that by the adoption of this mode of arguing backwards and forwards, from the wife to the child, and from the child back again to the wife, no inquirer ever found himself much further forward ; nor in fact was it possible for either party to extract much logic out of the passage while thus encumbered ; that is to say, while it was understood to refer only to the children of the mixed marriages. Doddridge, Scott, Barnes, Bloomfield, and a score of others, all fight the battle on this ground, some of them imagining that they have gained an important point when they urge that the Christianity of only one of the parents sufficed to sanctify not only the partner, but the children, as no doubt it did, only this was not the point to be proved. Here, as Mr. Govett has luminously pointed out, lurked the unnoticed fallacy. Had the apostle been speaking of the children of the mixed couples only, he would have said “their children," whereas he says “ your children,” and by this expression he manifestly embraces all the children of all the churches. “Is it lawful," some have asked, “ for a believer to live with a heathen wife ?”—“Yes," replies Paul, “as lawful as believing parents to live with their unconverted children.” What, it may be asked in conclusion, is the lesson which that reply suggests to modern Christians ? Let it be adjusted syllogistically thus,-First, those who by an apostle were set upon the same footing, would receive the same treatment at his hands. Secondly, the heathen wife and believers' children are by an apostle set on the same footing. Therefore, thirdly, they received the same treatment. But was the heathen wife admitted to church privileges ? - Confessedly not; so then, neither were the children of believers (considered simply as such) admitted to church privileges.-Govett.

1 John ii. 19: “ They went out from us, but they were not of us"; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us." Most readers take the stress of this passage to rest on the words “ from us," as distinguished from “ of us ;" whereas, they are the same in the original. For this our authorised translators are chargeable ; who by confounding the prepositions, altering the tenses, and inserting without the slightest warrant the expression “no doubt," have given to the entire passage a complexion, causing it to be often hailed as an apostolic argument in favour of “ final perseverance;" whereas its primary design is a caveat against antichristian and ruinous error. John wrote,-" They went out of us, but they were not of us ; for if they were of us, they would have remained with us.” Should it be replied that the intrinsic meaning remains much the same, our rejoinder is simply this : “ Stick to your text, like honest men."—W. Robinson.

1 John v. 16 : “I do not say that he shall pray for it.” Here we are taught, at least by our authorised translators, that there is a mortal sin concerning which, when we have once recognised it in our brother, we are not to intercede for his forgiveness. Whether the apostle's words prescribe exactly this treatment, or are susceptible of some other interpretation, is well worthy our consideration. In verses 14, 15, and 16, occurs an instance of paranomasia, the same root doing duty for five

words, all referring to the act of petitioning and the things petitioned for ; and this is the constant sense of “aiteo” throughout the New Testament. But when we reach the expression, “I do not say he shall pray for it,” we encounter à different word, viz., “erotao," the primitive meaning of which is simply to interrogate with a view to explanation, and generally so employed in the New Testament. Its secondary meaning undoubtedly is to make petition, in which sense also John not unfrequently uses it. But in deciding which of these two senses should be here adopted, our first duty is to cut off the final words “for it,” which our translators have added without any warrant. What will now be the force of the verb, standing by itself? May not the passage be thus understood, -"I do not say that he (that is, the “any man" at the beginning of the verse) shall make inquisition ?” “Seek not to investigate thy brother's liability ;" or, as another apostle has put it, "Judge nothing before the time.”—Muscutt.



No. VI. MHE "great salvation," as far as it relates to individuals, is summed up I in the Christian disciple sharing with Christ in his inheritance. “If children, then heirs, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.” (Rom. viii. 17.) The disciples are “joint heirs with Christ," who is himself as yet only heir of the Messianic inheritance. In the letter to the Hebrews the apostle describes him, even though now exalted to the throne of Jehovah, as the “ heir of all things," and as “ from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.” Hence his peculiar glory is yet to be given him, as seen by Daniel, when “one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him." And just as Daniel was told by the interpreter that “the kingdom and dominion under the whole heaven should be given to the people of the saints, so Paul informs us that if we suffer with him " we shall be also glorified together.” But at present they are simply heirs, " heirs of the kingdom which God hath promised to them that love him," and “partakers of the glory that shall be revealed.” (See also Rev. ii. 26, 27 ; iii. 21.)

Nothing is more evident than that mortal, perishing creatures, must undergo some remarkable change in order to qualify them for the everlasting possession of an inheritance, as "joint heirs with the Christ, the Son of the living God.” “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither doth corruption inherit incorruption :" and no separate or disembodied existence-nothing short of an immortalised bodily nature can by any possibility be qualified to share with Christ his everlasting kingdom. Hence the importance of the resurrection of the dead and that change to be effected on the faithful living when the Lord shall descend from heaven. In fact he is represented as the model, in a physical sense, of that quality of bodily existence to be conferred on his disciples—"Our citizenship is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body.” “ Now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be ; but we know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him ; for we shall see him as he is." "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren.”

This joint-heirship with the Christ of his kingdom on the part of the disciple has its root in a relationship which is instituted in the act of becoming a disciple. He is then said to be “in Christ," and that from the earliest stage, for the apostle speaks of “ babes in Christ.” And not only during life, but even in death, for they are described "them also who sleep in Jesus." The idea of one person being in another is evidently a figure of speech, and is probably derived from the Hebrew mode of expressing the idea of in, which is by the letter Beth, cortesponding to the English B, and signifying a house. As a house is for the purpose of being in, so it was mutual to express the idea of in by the word or letter signifying a house. And as the occupant of a house derives all the advantages the house is fitted to yield, so the person who is in Christ derives all the advantages connected with such a position.

But if disciples are “in Christ," what is the mode of entrance ? or, in other words, how do they get into Christ? It is remarkable that this expression “into Christ” occars only in connection with being baptized. Thus:-" Know ye not that so many as were baptized into Christ were baptized into his death ?" (Rom. vi. 3.) And again :-“ As many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Gal. iii. 26.) Some hold that it is not water baptism that is referred to here, but it is 80 similar to the direction Christ gave to his apostles as recorded by Matthew, that I cannot doubt that it is. “Go ye, therefore, and teach (margin- make disciples of) all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Here the baptizing into the name of the Father, &c., is evidently the means by which disciples are made ; for this initiatory step is followed by an injunction of a more advanced character—“Teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you." This act of becoming disciples is evidently what Paul terms “putting on Christ," which he ascribes to baptism, preceded by faith when he says, “ Ye are all the children of God by faith in Jesus Christ : FOR as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." It is clear that, whatever is the nature of the baptism referred to, it is that by which the disciples at large are brought into relation with Christ, and not that by which the Apostles on the day of Pentecost, and the Gentile believers in the house of Cor. nelius, were enabled to “speak with tongues." This, in both instances, is termed “ being baptized with the Holy Spirit." But these are the only cases to which this language is applied; the only apparent exception (1 Cor. xii. 13) having a reference rather to the one Spirit, as the means by which Jews and Gentiles were introduced into the one Body of Christ upon a footing of equality. This was effected in the bouse of Cornelius when the Spirit, by the gift of tongues, authorised the baptism of Gen. tiles, which became a precedent for all time coming.

We have an illustration of being " baptized into Christ " in Paul's allusion to the Israelites being “ baptized unto Moses "_" All our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea ; and were all baptized unto (into, eis) Moses in the cloud and in the sea." (1 Cor. x. 1, 2.)

The commission of Jesus to his apostles as recorded by Mark puts baptism in even a stronger light than in Matthew's account," Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned.” The manner in which the apostles carried out this commission, as recorded in the Acts, shows that they regarded baptism as an essential part of Gospel obedience—the first step in what Paul terms “ the obedience of faith.” This appears where Paul again refers to “his Gospel" at the close of his letter to the Romans"Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my Gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the OBEDIENCE OF FAITH.” (Rom. xvi. 25, 26.) This obedience of faith is sometimes spoken of as“ patient continuance in well-doing," by which we are to seek for glory, honour, and immortality ; "adding to our faith virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, and charity; giving diligence to make our calling and election sure ; for if we do these things we shall never fall, for so an entrance shall be ministered unto us abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."

It is thus by the faith and obedience of the Gospel that God is pleased to “ choose the poor of this world, rich in faith, and heirs (not as yet possessors) of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him.” Such are spoken of as “ called by the Gospel to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ ;" and hence are enjoined to " walk worthy of God, who hath called them unto his kingdom and glory." Being thus only heirs expectant of the kingdom of God, their inheritanco is yet in the future. “When Christ, who is their life, shall appear, then shall they also appear with him in glory.” Even Enoch and Elijah, although now translated to heaven, are not yet possessors of the promised inheritance ; for as is said of them, as of the other ancient worthies who died, " These all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise."

For the more efficient promotion of individual meetness for the inheritance, the disciples (or scholars) of Christ are formed into a society called the Church, which may be fitly termed Christ's school. In virtue of his investiture with Lordship, he is sole Master of this school. The exercise of his Messianic functions being reserved till his return to the earth, he is at present the Head of his Body, the Church ; and not only so, but Head over all things to or for his Church. The school-books employed in this school are the “ Holy Scriptures, which are able to make us wise unto salvation, and are profitable for doctrine (or teaching), for reproof, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished to all good works." Let us ever remem

« ForrigeFortsett »