believe, that though they persisted in this lie for their whole lifetime, yet in every other respect they were teachers and examples of the most elevated morality; and either way, whether the apostles were deceivers or deceived, a man who adopts either supposition must believe, that whether fools or rogues, they managed their plot with such skill and with such unanimity, that they succeeded by mere enthusiasm in convincing men of that which of all things they least expected; yea, of that which was the most hateful blow to their pride, and the most complete exposure of their guilt; that they and their hearers put fancy for fact, and a chain of falsities for demonstrated truth. Yea, more, he must believe that with this puff of empty falsehood, they overturned idol temples, and on their ruins erected another building against which the scorn and hate of 1800 years have now been hurled in vain; that they could appeal to those who had been converted to a fiction, that that fiction had made them new creatures, so that"Old things had passed away, yea, all things had become new!" He must believe that those very apostles who but a little while before had run away from the cross in confusion and fear, all suddenly turned round, and became, without any adequate reason, the bold defenders of a cross which they had just deserted in shame, as now bound up with all their joy and all their hope! He must believe that this doctrine, though based on an alleged fact which never happened at all, has brought more power, more comfort, more life for humanity than any of the philosophies and sciences which are based on wellknown phenomena, have ever been able to secure: "that twelve poor fishermen were not only able without any sort of assistance, "--but even in spite of almost every possible kind of resistance-" to compass the very modest design of making the world stoop to the laws they unfolded, and the doctrines they proclaimed," and also that they laid the plot so deeply that the effects of it should be permanent and lasting; so that no succeeding age or generation should ever be able to fathom it, or to tell where the cheat lay or how it came to succeed!!

Surely a man, before he can accept such absurdities as these, must have, we do notsay, a faith that could remove moun

tains-but, a credulity that can swallow them!*

E. I close this section of the argument by quoting the following weighty words from the work of my friend, Professor CHRISTLIEB, of Bonn :

After an able discussion of the hypothesis that the resurrection was only visionary and subjective, he sums up thus:-Strauss's attempts to make us comprehend the belief in a resurrection without miracles, "as well as those of all other anti-miraculous critics, are entangled in an endless chain of enigmas and difficulties. Difficulties exegetical; there is the clear testimony of St. Paul, and the great distinction made by New Testament writers between the description of visions and the narratives of our Lord's appearance. Difficulties psychological: all likelihood is wanting for the supposition that so many and such differently constituted persons should, even by hundreds at a time, have been simultaneously predisposed to see visions; there is the sudden and thorough change in the disciples' frame of mind, especially, too, the sudden conversion of St. Paul; and finally, the speedy cessation of our Lord's appearances. Difficulties dogmatical: arising from the question, Whence should the idea of an isolated individual resurrection, hitherto foreign to their belief, arise in the minds of the disciples? Difficulties chronological: unanimous historical evidence points to "the third day," and this leaves no space for the gradual development of visions, or for the translocation of the first appearances to Galilee. Difficulties topographical: there, in a well-known spot, stands the empty tomb, with its loud question, Where is the body? which neither Jew nor Roman attempts to answer, though investigation would have been easy. Difficulties historical: there is the firm and immovable belief of the disciples in their Lord's resurrection, their preaching so full of victorious joy and martyr's courage, which not even their most bitter enemies dare on this point to gainsay; there is the Christian Church, founded and victoriously growing on the rock of her belief in the crucified and risen Saviour. And finally,

* See this kind of argument developed at far greater length in Rogers' Essay on "Reason and Faith."

difficulties moral: there is the entire moral regeneration of the world, which proceeded from the preaching of the apostles; there we see the kingdom of truth coming, and are told to believe, as has been well said, that at first it was false, afterwards it constantly became more true, and at length "developed" into the sublimest truth! The critic is not yet born who could overcome all these obstacles."*

ERROR CORRECTED.

Dr. CULROSs on 1 John i. 8.

(Concluded).

THE HE Apostle John, we must bear in mind, was writing expressly against a class of antichrists who were then seducing believers, and especially against that class of seducers who were everywhere propagating in the churches these three forms of fatal error-that Christ had never come in the flesh-that they had fellowship with God while practising iniquity-and that all evil is exclusively in the body, the flesh; that the soul, the man proper, is immaculate, and that consequently we have no sin (to be cleansed from), "have not sinned," and do not need the cleansing blood of Christ. We have seen how, 1-4, the Apostle disposes of the first error. With what wisdom and power (verses 5, 6), he disposes of the second. "God is light" (absolute purity), "and in Him is no darkness at all," nothing impure. "If we say (as these seducers do), that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness (live, as do these antichrists, in iniquity), we lie and do not the truth." How true, conclusive, and impressive is such reasoning. With equal conclusiveness, he disposes of the third and last error of these corruptionists, their denial of the fact of sin, and their consequent need of the atoning and pardoning grace of Christ. "If we walk in the light, as He is in the light-the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say (as these seducers do) that we have no sin (and do not need the atoning and cleansing blood of Christ), we deceive ourselves, and the truth (moral integrity) is

*See "Modern Doubt and Christian Belief," by Theodore Christlieb, D.D.

not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." If we say (as these antichrists do) "that we have not sinned (have no sins to confess) we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us." This view makes the whole chapter and argument of the Apostle complete in itself, and self-consistent throughout. The exposition which applies (vers. 8-10) to real Christians, and not to these seducers who were the express objects of his reasonings, makes the Apostle class believers who may honestly err, if they do err, in respect to the extent of the efficacy of the blood of Christ, and the cleansing grace of God, with graceless antichrists, one of the greatest errors in exposition conceivable. It makes the Apostle also, in an attempt to expose the errors of these corruptionists, omit wholly their greatest error, the denial of the fact of sin. That the exposition we give is the true one, we argue from the following considerations.

1. The language employed describes exactly and specifically the real character of these "antichrists." We must bear in mind that the sin here described is not some form of indwelling sin, or sins of ignorance, of which the subject is unconscious, but acts of sin of which he is, and must be conscious. Otherwise the denial would not imply self-deception, and the absence of moral integrity. To deny a fact of which we are unconscious may involve a mistake, but not self-deception and destitution of truthfulness. But denying conscious facts is the form of sin here charged, the very form of which these seducers were, in fact, guilty. In denying the fact of sin, and their consequent need of the atoning blood of Christ, and of the sanctifying grace of God, in affirming too, that do what we will, the soul remains pure, these men denied the most palpable and absolute facts of universal consciousness, as well as the most explicit and positive testimony of the word of God. They thus evinced themselves as self-deceivers, and as utterly void of moral integrity. They also made God a liar, and evinced an utter want of respect for His word. Well might the apostle say: "If we say," as those errorists do, "We have no sin," and therefore do not need the blood of Christ, "we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." Again, Again, "if we say," as they

do, we have not sinned," and therefore do not need to be "cleansed from all unrighteousness, we make God a liar, and His word is not in us."

2. This exposition, and this only, gives special meaning to the passages which we have cited from the first chapter of the Gospel of John, and unity to all his teachings in his Epistles. How natural it was, in view of forms of seductive and subverting error prevalent in the churches at that time, that he should in the opening of his Gospel, affirm the true and proper Divinity of Christ, and the fact of His real Incarnation. In writing to the churches concerning their seducers, how natural it was that he should first of all present absolute proof of the great central fact of the gospel, the fact which these errorists denied, viz., the Incarnation of Christ, the fact that "He had come in the flesh." The next error of these

The next form of error to which the apostle directs attention is that which had all along been taught by Jews and Gentiles outside the Church, and was then being propagated by these antichrists within its borders, the error which did "justify the old life, and deny the need of the blood of Christ," by denying the fact of sin as attaching to mind, whatever the external life may be. Had the apostle failed to expose this error, his epistle would be fundamentally defective. The exposition of verses 8-10, which affirms this to be his object, gives unity and completeness to the whole epistle, and no other exposition does this. How absurd and self-contradictory, on the other hand, is the exposition of these verses which represents the apostle as stating definitely the conditions on which the blood of Christ, and the grace and power of God, will forgive our sins, and "cleanse us from all sin," and "all unrighteousness," and should then say, that if we should say that this blood and grace ever do

this, or has done it for us, we should verify ourselves thereby as self-deceivers who are void of truth, make God a liar, and have no respect for His word. What must we think, supposing this to be the true exposition of these verses, of the utterance of the apostle in chap. ii. 1: "These things write I unto you, that ye sin not," that is, do not sin at all? Teaching us that we inevitably will sin, and that it is a subverting error not to expect to sin, and this as a means of preventing our sinning at all. Let the reader, on the other hand, read the Epistle through and he will see with what distinctness the truth, as it is in Jesus, is everywhere set forth in opposition to the seducing errors under consideration.

3. The language under consideration is utterly inapplicable to true believers who have, in all sincerity, fallen into a mistake -if it be a mistake-in regard to the extent in which the blood of Christ and the grace of God do "cleanse from all sin" and "all unrighteousness," when in simple trust and sincerity of faith God. is "enquired of by His people" to sanctify them, in accordance with His own word of promise. Suppose that individuals have, in all sincerity, said to themselves, "Faithful is He that calleth us, who also will do it," that is "sanctify us wholly,"

66

preserve us blameless "" save us to the uttermost," and "cleanse us from all sin," and "all unrighteousness," and having in unstaggering faith "enquired of God to do those things for them," should fall into the mistake, if mistake it is, of supposing that He has done it. Does inspiration rank such individuals with antichrists, with liars who do not the truth, with self-deceivers who are void of truth, who make God a liar, and have no respect for His word? Such individuals as Clement, Polycarp, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Ambose, and Theodoret

in ancient, and Fox, Wesley, Fletcher, Finney, and Upham, in more modern times, did make this identical mistake, if mistake it is. We put the question to Dr. Culross, and to all who agree with him in this exposition: Are you prepared to affirm that such men were self-deceived and void of truth, that they made God a liar, and had no respect for His word? You dare not apply such language to such men. Yet your exposition undeniably

binds you to do that very thing. Open violence is done to the Word of God by such an exposition. It cannot be the true

one.

4. One consideration more. We can conceive of no greater or more unscriptural absurdity than this-the dogma that the Spirit of God, through his apostle should first of all affirm that, upon certain prescribed conditions the blood of Christ and the grace of God "will cleanse us from all sin," and " from all unrighteousness," and should then set in the forefront of that revelation such a caveat as this: Beware, that you expect not too much from that blood and that grace. Beware, especially, of expecting that "the very God of peace will sanctify you wholly, and preserve your whole body, and soul, and spirit blameless unto (until). the coming of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ," or that " Christ will save you unto the uttermost." All are self-deceived, destitute of truth, make God a liar, and "have not His word in them," who entertain such a belief, or say that the blood of Christ and the grace and power of God will do, or has done, any such thing for them. The only caveat or "danger signal" that God has

ever

placed in front of the revealed provisions and promises of grace, is such as these: "Is the Spirit of the Lord straightened "? "Is anything too hard for God"? "They limited the Holy One." "Now unto Him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to (through) the power that worketh in us, unto Him be glory in the church, by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end, Amen."

1 John, i. 8, & 9, when rightly expounded, furnishes the strongest weapon found in the Word of God against those who, by denying the fact of sin, justify the "old life," as unbelievers everywhere do, and thus "deny the need of the blood of Christ." How sad to think that good and learned men in the church of God have changed that weapon given of God for the pulling down of the strongholds of unbelief, have changed that weapon into a Herculean club with which to knock out the brains of the holiest men and women that have ever lived since the Pentecost!

M.

IN

ENQUIRIES ANSWERED.

CROSS-BEARING.

N an exposition of Luke ix. 23, an exposition which we heard some time since, the minister asserted that "the cross is found in an endeavour to conquer our lower nature, and that the struggle is "The lower nature continuous." he defined to be "the assertion of self "seeking our own-" the selfishness of our own nature." Do you think that this is the proper position; and what do you take to be the daily cross of a sanctified soul? Your reply to this in Divine Life may help others besides yours in the Lord,

ENQUIRER.

In reply, we would say, that a reference to the circumstances in which the words found in the passage above referred to were uttered, will absolutely evince that our Saviour, in that utterance, had no reference whatever to a mere endeavour to

66

conquer our lower nature," or, as is commonly supposed, to "do unpleasant or painful duties." He had just announced the great fact that, in obedience to His Father's will, He was about to "lay down His life for the sheep," and in doing so, He would be required to bear His own cross to the place of execution. He takes occasion from this announcement to reveal the immutable condition of discipleship with Him, namely, All who would become His disciples, save their own souls, and reign with Him in glory, must evince, in daily life, the same absolute respect for, and obedience to, the will of God, that He (Christ) was about to evince in "becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross," and must as He would do in this" offering of Himself," lay their whole being and all interests upon the altar of self-sacrifice and self-dedication for the Divine glory and the well-being of the Church and the World. The Holy Spirit, through the apostle John, has given us a true revelation of Christ's doctrine of the cross-bearing life. "Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another."' "He laid down His life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren." brethren." When, and only when, our wills are in supreme and absolute subjection to the will of God, and our entire being, and powers, and possessions are

presented as free-will offerings to God for His kingdom and glory, have we taken up our crosses; and while we continue in this state of willing obedience, self-dedication, and self-sacrifice, are we "bearing our crosses after Jesus." Peter and the other apostles evinced themselves as true crossbearers, when, after their imprisonment and beating before the Sanhedrim, and after being commanded "not to speak in the name of Jesus" "they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His (Christ's) name." Paul evinced himself a genuine cross-bearer when he said, "I am ready, not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus." You will evince yourself a real cross-bearer, reader, when "this mind shall be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men; being found in fashion. as a man, humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." We shall all evince ourselves as Christ's cross-bearers when we shall come out from among them (an ungodly world), and be separate and touch not anything unclean," but shall "go forth to Christ without the camp, bearing His reproach."

66

The most debasing and misleading idea that can be formed or presented of the "glorious gospel of the blessed God," is to represent cross-bearing as

a mere

66

66

In

"warfare with the lower nature, or "the discharge of unpleasant and painful duties." The only spot in the wide world where we can find rest to our souls" is under the cross. 'taking up the cross," we do not, as we are too often taught, grasp a thorn bush, and cover ourselves with thorn wounds. We, on the other hand, in every such act, "lay hold upon eternal life," "burden our souls with joy unspeakable," and put our immortal spirits under the pressure of an "exceeding and eternal weight of glory."

Take

When Christ said at one time, my yoke upon you," and at another, "Take up thy cross and follow Me," He intended and required one and the same thing in both cases, and under the yoke and cross which He puts upon us, we find, not weariness

A New Lay Champion of the Gospel, and a very remarkable Case of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, in France.

M. Réveilland is a young journalist of some eminence in France. He early renounced the Catholic Faith, in which he had been educated, and joined a Protestant church. Some one or two years since, he published a work which has attracted great interest in that country, a work entitled "The Religious Question, and Protestant Solution." In this work he argues with great force that there must be some religion; that Catholicism, which is Clericalism, "is the foe of the individual and the arch-enemy of society; that "under Protestantism nations become free, self-governed, and prosperous," and that, consequently, Protestantism is the religion for France. Another layman and writer of great influence, M. Bouchard, has recently left the Catholics and joined the Protestants. He and others are making arrangements to publish a daily paper in the interest of the Protestant faith. M. Réveilland has not only united himself with a Protestant church, but has recently been the subject of a wonderful spiritual change. Some time since, at the close of the services in the church of his attendance, in the North of France, he came forward and requested the privilege "to bear witness to the Holy Ghost." Leave being granted, he thus addressed the audience. We give his remarks as reported by his Pastor in the L'Ami Cretien des Familles, and translated for the Family Treasury by Professor W. G. Blaikie, D.D.

666

"My brethren, I desire to bear witness to the Holy Ghost, and proclaim with our excellent pastor that there is an invisible and supernatural world, which does not come under our senses, but is apprehended by faith and heavenly grace. Last night it pleased the Holy Spirit to reveal himself to me, and give me that baptism in which, according to the promise of the Scriptures, we become the children of the Father, and jointheirs with Jesus Christ. By this baptism I have been born again, and have put off the old man, with the lusts of the flesh and perdition. I feel the grace, the power, and the love of God. I have become a member of the invisible Church of Christ. I am converted. I am saved!