never means almost, that it means either in a short time or in a brief address, i.e. with little effort-pains; that the latter interpretation is here required if we adopt in the 29th vs. the reading ev μeyáλ, which now seems to have the weight of manuscript authority; that in all probability, as we learn alike from the passage and from what has come down to us in history concerning the character of Agrippa, the words of the king were spoken contemptuously; he would have Paul know, and he would have those with him know, that he was not thus to be persuaded to join the disciples of the crucified Nazarene; that the answer of the apostle as presented in the corrected translation is not only in harmony with the context, but with the character of Paul as it is brought before us in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles.

I know that it is not easy to give up a translation which is associated in our minds with sermons that have impressed thereupon the most solemn lessons. Yet, as Ellicott says, "God's word, like the Ark of the Covenant, may not with impunity, be stayed up by the officiousness of mortal aid." Moreover, the corrected translation has lessons by which we gain as much as we lose in setting aside the translation with which we have been made familiar in the prayer-meeting and in the house of God. There are those in our time who reject Christianity, and who do so contemptuously. Was it a proud spirit which led the king thus scornfully to dismiss the mes sage of Paul? It is this spirit that still rules in many breasts, and refuses submission to the requirements of the gospel. The evidence of this is to be found on every hand. You may discover it in much of the literature of the day. It does not disguise its contempt for what it is pleased to call a wornout faith. You may discover it in the attitude of many who occupy prominent positions in public life. Mr. Ruskin not long ago made the remark "that so utter is the infidelity of Europe that no statesman of England or France would dare, in defending a measure before Parliament or the Corps Legislatif, to quote the word of God to support his position.' The remark was undoubtedly an extravagant one; but it is

true of many individuals in both of these bodies. Rejectors of Christianity they look upon even such a recognition of the religion of the cross as unbecoming in men of their station. This religion is not for them. Others may be persuaded to swell the number of those who acknowledge Jesus as their master; but, proud of spirit, like Agrippa of old, they exclaim, Think not to persuade us!

There are others, also, who are moved to this contemptuous rejection of Christianity by the thought that it is opposed to the course of life which they have chosen. Unquestionably it is. For what with them is the end of life but worldly advantage and worldly pleasure? These are the prizes for which they contend. Moreover, the exercises of religion have no attractions for them. In fact they would ill accord with the occupations in which they are engaged. An antagonism is thus discovered. The principles of Christianity are not the principles that govern them. Hostility is awakened. And what is the result but this, that, does the advocate of Christianity plead with them as did Paul with Agrippa, their answer is like that of the king,- the answer of a worlding to whom the religion of the cross is foolishness. And they turn away with contempt.

But what shall be our attitude towards them if not that of the apostle towards Agrippa. It will be certainly if we have the spirit of Christ. Our hearts desire and prayer to God will have this as their end, that those who treat the gospel message with contempt may nevertheless be saved. For salvation is their need. The sweet song of the angels hovering over the fields of Bethlehem is an evidence of it. So, also, is the agonizing cry which was heard in Gethsemane and on Calvary. God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him might not perish, but have everlasting life. Here is salvation provided. There is sunlight enough for every flower that opens its petals toward the sky; and there is grace enough for every child of earth, under whatever influences reared, who lifts supplicating hands toward heaven. Indeed there is no difference between

the Jew and the Greek; for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. But how shall we lead men thus to call upon this sacred name? It can only be done by earnest, affectionate entreaty. So our Redeemer himself walked among men, ever manifesting that spirit which we call the spirit of Christ—a gentle, self-denying, loving spirit. Men might reject his words, but we still hear his tender plea: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not." We have seen that it was so with the apostle. Agrippa might treat his message with contempt, but he will not cease his efforts to lead him to Christ. " Would to God," he exclaims, "that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were such as I am, except these bonds."

He who manifests such a spirit may be no more successful than was Paul in his appeal to Agrippa. The scornful monarch died as he had lived, rejecting the gospel. But such a Christian will be true to his trust. Not his own glory will he have sought, but the glory of God; and at the close of life he will be able to say with the apostle: "I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith"; and peacefully he may close his eyes to the scenes of earth, to open them upon the fairer scenes of heaven.

ARTICLE II.

THE UNITY OF OUR LORD'S DISCOURSES.

BY REV. FREDERIC GARDINER, D.D., PROFESSOR IN THE BERKELEY DIVINITY SCHOOL, MIDDLETOWN, CONN.

THE Synoptical Gospels contain the record of many events in the life of our Lord, of several series of parables and of miracles, and of various discourses; but in no two of them are these given in the same order. Either, therefore, they must have been repeated, or else the Evangelists—one or all of them-must have followed some other than the chronological order of arrangement. There is generally little or no difficulty in identifying the events, and from an examination of many instances the conclusion inevitably follows that, in arranging the detail of the narrative, at least two of these Evangelists have been guided by some other principle than that of chronological sequence. It does not matter to the present inquiry which of them have done so; but it cannot escape observation that the first of the Gospels is the least careful of them all in regard to the order of time.

As we pass from the ordinary events of our Lord's life to his miracles, we begin to meet with some differences of opinion. Much the larger part of those narrated in common are identified without hesitation in whatever order they may be placed in the several narratives. The only difficulty arises in regard to a comparatively small number, marked by certain differences in the narratives themselves. The older harmonists were inclined to magnify such circumstances as the mention in one Gospel of one, and in another of two subjects of the miracle, as in the case of the demoniacs of Gadara or of the blind near Jericho, and were thus disposed to understand them of different incidents. The later tendency is undoubtedly to make larger allowance for differences

in narration, and hence to recognize the identity of the miracle. The soundness in general of the later view is established by reasons too familiar to require repetition. Suffice it to say, that, as the result of much controversy, there has now come to be a general agreement that in judging of such matters we are to be guided by the same principles of evidence and the same arguments as in the case of uninspired writings. The effect of inspiration is to assure us of the entire truthfulness of each of the accounts, not to obliterate the individuality of the writers, nor to destroy the value of those traces by which we recognize the same events under the modifications of various human reports. By this means, and as the result of prolonged discussion, a good degree of unanimity has been gradually attained in regard to the facts of the gospel story.

But the same principles are much more hesitatingly applied to the records of our Lord's parables and discourses. It is alleged that these may have been repeated, and sometimes more than once repeated, as they were called forth by similar audiences with similar needs. There is certainly ground for this view in the fact that short proverbial sayings, or even somewhat more prolonged instructions, are sometimes substantially repeated in the same Gospel, and must therefore have been uttered more than once; but this does not forbid the application, in each particular case, of the same criteria to the discourses as those by which the identity or nonidentity of the facts is determined. For example: One of the Evangelists records several times miracles of healing the blind, and we are thus assured that there were several such miracles; another of the Evangelists does the same thing; and on comparing the two records together we decide, in each of the cases, that they do or do not refer to the same event by an examination of the time, the circumstances, the place, the connected events, and other marks which would determine the question in the case of any other writings. The propriety of applying the same process to discourses also cannot, as a general principle, be denied. It is proposed