followers from their allegiance. He endeavors to use the trials and sufferings permitted by God to this end. God permits them as a means of strengthening our faith. Satan uses them to bring about our fall. So he sifts the disciples with trial and disappointment; he tempts them with money, and in every way sows tares among the wheat." The Christian, conscious of his weakness, is authorized to ask that if possible he may be spared the trials, though in God's hand they might strengthen his faith, because he fears that Satan might use them to occasion his fall. If, however, he must face the temptation he asks deliverance from the tempter. Bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. The Synoptists' doctrine of Satan makes this a very comprehensive petition.

Finally, we ask what is the traditional interpretation of the passage before the stream of exegetical tradition became turbid with theological controversy. Here we need only recapitulate the conclusions which Bishop Lightfoot has so ably set forth and established.

The earliest versions, the Syriac (both Curetonian and Peshito), and the Sahidic distinctly use the masculine rendering. The old Latin and the Memphitic are necessarily ambiguous, but were both interpreted as masculine in the earliest times of which we have evidence in point. And the eastern liturgies, though their date is uncertain, favor the same view.

The masculine interpretation is also clearly held by every Father before Augustine who has expressed an opinion on the subject. Origen, Dionysius and Didymus of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, and Isidore of Pelusium in the eastern church, are joined by Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Hilary in the west. When Augustine forsakes the Greek and uses only the ambiguous Latin, then first does the rendering deliver us from evil find favor in the church. Thus on every ground of evidence, internal and external, there is reason for the rendering "from the evil one."

In closing this review of Professor Bowen's criticisms, most of which really recoil on the critic, it is worth while to ask that in future such critical questions as these may be considered in a calm and judicial spirit. I am no blind partisan of the 39 Luke xxii. 31; Acts v. 3; Matt. xiii. 25.

Revision, and I could easily make out a much stronger case against it than Professor Bowen has done, but if we were to gather up the whole number of what we should call its errors, the Revision would not only remain vastly better than the A. V., but there would be valid reasons for every one of the very changes of which we disapproved. He who criticizes the Revision does so at his peril, and it behooves him to be very keen-eyed, critical and cautious, if he would not be worsted. But we protest, in the name of Biblical science, against the charlatanry exhibited by nearly every critic of the Revision in bringing sentimental grounds into critical questions, in wantonly accusing some of our best, most liberal and most devout scholars, of sacrilege, dogmatic prepossession, and the like. If the text-critic strikes out "with tears" from Mark ix. 24, it is because the MS. evidence is overwhelmingly against it, and it is utterly irrelevant to say, as Professor Bowen has done, "Surely, it is not the heart of a metaphysician but of a textual critic, which is as hard as a nether millstone." Similarly, to dwell on the change in Luke ii. 14, as consisting only of the addition of one letter, and therefore to deprecate it, when it revolutionizes the meaning, is puerile, but the Quarterly Reviewer has misled Professor Bowen into it. How would the Quarterly Reviewer himself like an argument which dwelt on the fact that only the omission of a small fraction of a Greek letter intervenes between "God" and "who" in I. Tim. iii. 16. Such things are unworthy.

But these are small compared with the gross libel of recklessly attributing "dogmatic prepossessions" to the Revisers. If it could be proved that they had obtruded their dogmatic prepossessions into the sacred text, they and their book together would deserve to be utterly cast out by the church. But they have not done so, and those who utter such accusations entirely fail to prove them. Thus, such aspersions merely soil those who utter them. And yet, many critics of the Revision have damaged their own case in such ways. I have tried to meet Professor Bowen's assertions with the calm and critical consideration which should be accorded to all questions of Biblical science. May I venture to express the hope that we shall in future have more scientific, and therefore more helpful criticism of the Revision.

ARTICLE IX.-A LESSON IN FIGURES, OR A CHAPTER FROM NUMBERS.

IT is really astonishing what an array of facts, figures can present to us. They serve us as a system of short-hand in conveying ideas. The impression that certain combinations make upon us is oftentimes overwhelming. Regard this for a moment under three phases:

1st. We have the common saying that "figures never lie," which does not mean that no one ever lies by means of figures; but that, aside from the true or false which accompanies them, the idea conveyed by the figures themselves, or their relation one with another is correct, and carries its own evidence of a correct statement on its face. Thus we are told that a bright suburb of Boston contains a population of 5,000 souls, and has in it 400 liquor shops, and thus that the per centage of shops is as high as eight per cent., or slightly less than Now the statement may be false, as coming from an intemperate temperance ranter, but the relation of the figures, as every one can see, is correct.

2d. Figures have thus a logic about them that speedily affects the slowest reasoners. The "logic of figures" is often sharp and decisive. The keenest Philadelphia lawyer cannot make two and two other than four.

3d. Figures interest most men, especially the live and alert business men. Their daily business is performed by means of their potent aid. Many of them are trained specialists in figures; experts in computation and manifold combinations. Let a minister who has the indescribable art of intelligent adaptation, throw in an illustration or two couched in figures and the dull ears of busy merchants will pick up and wake up at least to see how correct the dominie is in his computations, which is their martial field of tactics; and a truth lodged then and there will fall in ready soil. A discreet minister needs to be no more of a mathematician than poor Brother Beecher, to throw in such a skillful bait to catch the wary fish. In fact all

preachers and Sunday school teachers could learn much from our dear friend Isaac Walton. Know ye not that ye are "fishers of men," not fishermen merely.

Take by way of illustration what has again come under our eye, in our regular Scripture reading, (which by the way we do by a system of numbers, and have so done with others for the nineteenth or twentieth time most satisfactorily). We refer to the amount of gold the Queen of Sheba gave to King Solomon (2 Chron. ix. 9; 1 Kings x. 10), beside all that vast store of rare and costly spices from the luxurious corner of the Orient. Imagine you were striving to awaken interest in the historical narrative, in a church audience or a Bible class, what know they about a Jewish talent of gold or care they whether Sheba was in New Zealand or Tasmania, but suppose you throw out quickly the American equivalent of a golden talent as $56,000 in present valuation as given by the most reliable authorities, and you may see even the Vanderbilts, the Astors, the Jay Goulds, and Cyrus Fields in the congregation arousing themselves to a quick process of computation, and asking whether her Royal Highness of Sheba could have really donated to the Jerusalem monarch such a magnificent, royal gift as $6,720,000.00. In fact some of the tea merchants and spice merchants would begin to feel the contagion of these figures, and would desire to know if there is not anywhere to be found some parchment record of the number of hundred weights of cloves and cinnamon, or the tons of cardamom seeds or other spices, that they too might make a computation of the amount of comfortable income that came to Solomon from this pleasant little visit of Her Highness. Of course there need be no waste of time on these non-essential matters, but that is sometimes the only way of starting a vividly interesting train of thought in some men's minds, and thus securing the interest indirectly. Furthermore, there is an immediate and direct result secured, that certain seemingly dry details of Old Testament history become enlivened with interesting associations, for even the average of readers or listeners by a species of translation, or the clothing of the facts in modern terms, and even common business parlance. The average Bible reader or hearer gains no idea of the amazing prosperity of the Pericles of Jerusalem,

in the palmiest days that succeeded the wars and conquests of his father David, and thus of the favor of God, when it rested thus conspicuously on all Israel; but with the reading of that vast amount of gold, that yearly poured into the coffers of this the Croesus in the royal line; six hundred and sixty-six talents of gold-(1 Kings x. 14; 2 Cron. ix. 13); throw in the figures which express the equivalent in modern money, and let it be seen that it was not less than thirty-seven millions of dollars, or exactly $37,296,000.00, and what has been done? Why that portion of Scripture is invested with an interest in their minds never felt before, and they are helped by all the details that can be further furnished them. In fact the interest would be all alive for such figures as will show them the size of the country or 11,500 square miles, and its comparison with home localities (e. g. equalled by the areas of Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut, or by Wales alone), and they are grateful for such sensible helps in making the old Scripture a vivid recital of now intensely interesting facts.

Thus in this day of systems and fine wrought-out classifications, how instructive and really astonishing it is to see what a comparatively few Christian souls, in whom is lodged the grace of God (with neither of the extremes of undue conservatisın or radicalism), can easily do in the line of benevolence, which is "honoring the Lord with one's substance," and thus substantially and actually glorifying Him. We need a more active and systematic way of working in church benevolence. It is quite pardonable for a house-maid to hurriedly seize anything that comes to hand, if it be but a crust of bread, and to give that to a stray tramp and slam the door as quickly as possible; but it is hardly to be commended as the approved way to give into the Lord's treasury. Yet, practically, is it not just what is done in the large majority of cases; whatever comes to hand, of the smaller denominations of money, is seized and thoughtlessly given. The loose change floating about in the pocket is cast in, and thus the debt of personal responsibility is seemingly discharged, and a certain show of respectability maintained, inasmuch as the contribution box has not been skipped. Even of such it should be said however, "They have their reward."

Do we not seriously need to cultivate careful business.