M

MERCY.

ERCY is a word of manifold meaning, implying and comprehending in its meaning humanity in a dependent, distressed, and miserable state-poor, wretched, lost! At the same time it tends to elevate and beautify both the man exercising it and the one toward whom it is exercised.

Mercy is an attribute of the Divine Being. A man, made in the image of God, though fallen and depraved, can, when brought back and united by grace to his maker, imitate his Divine Father by the exercise of his mercy toward sorrowing beings.

It calls forth the benevolence, long suffering and forgiving goodness of our God, who deals with us, not according to our transgressions, but is full" of mercy and of great compassion." In the Old Testament it is written, "The Lord is long suffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty." (Num. xvi. 18.)

Now comes the solving of the question. The poor, the needy, the helpless, the miserable, must humbly implore Divine mercy, meekly submitting to the will of Him "who is rich in mercy." In this way, and this way only, can the guilty in the sight of Him who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity be cleansed.

The Psalms abound greatly in this topic. It pervades the entire book, exemplifying the sinfulness, helplessness, and dependence of the creature, together with the benignity, benevolence, and mercy of the Creator. In that book alone, the term mercy occurs ninety-five times. In the one hundred and thirty-sixth Psalm it is connected with the power, wisdom, greatness, and goodness of God twenty-six times in so many consecutive verses.

Oh let us, who are Christians and not heathen, who are not under the law which said, "An eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth," but are under "the perfect law of liberty the perfect law of love-exercise mercy continually in all our intercommunications with our fellow-beings, both saints and sinners. Thus shall we honour Him, who, while on earth, went about doing good to both the bodies and souls Perpetually needing and enjoying mercy ourselves, we should freely manifest a spirit of mercy toward all others. Thus may we be cheered by the expression: "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy."

of men.

The boundless mercy and matchless love of "the Prince of Peace-Heaven's messenger of truth-brought Him to the manger, brought Him to the cross, brought Him to the tomb!"

In view of such a display of mercy and love,

while our Saviour, the Prince of Peace, occupies the throne of the universe, and we have the truth to guide us, let us trust, with unwavering confidence, Him who is abundantly able to

save.

"Here I'll sit for ever viewing

Mercy streaming in His blood; Precious drops! my soul bedewing, Plead they now my peace with God." BY MRS. ALEX. CAMPBELL.

THE ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AND MISTAKES THEREIN.--No. II.

So

IT is one thing to affirm that many mistakes have been made in copying a written document, and quite another to affirm that the sense of the document has been altered. You may copy any chapter in the New Testament, making as many mistakes in spelling as the words you copy, and more grammatical errors than the sentences in the chapter, without altering or even obscuring the sense. In like manner there might be multiplied thousands of mistakes found in a thousand manuscript copies of the New Testament, not one of which would alter the sense of a single passage. This, indeed, is the case. many of the errors, mentioned in my last article, are of this kind, that those of them which materially affect the sense of passages are almost infinitesimal in comparison. This will be apparent to the reader after considering the following classification of the various readings:1. A very large number of them consist in different methods of spelling the same word. For example, David is spelt in various manuscripts in four different ways-Dabid, Dabad, Dauid, and Daueid. These constitute four of the various readings. Variations of this kind are so common and insignificant as scarcely to be noticed. Who, for instance, pays any attention to the fact that in our own English Testament we have the name Noah in the writings of Peter and Paul, and Noe in Matthew and Luke? This variation is made by the translators, the form Noe being uniform in the Greek. We cannot say how many of the one hundred thousand various readings belong to this class; but it is obvious that, whether many or few, they affect not the significance or even the clearness of the passages in which they occur.

2. Another very large number of changes consists in the insertion of a noun or pronoun where it was left to be understood. There are no less than five errors of this kind in the received text of Matthew viii. For example, we have in v. 2, "And Jesus put forth his hand," where "Jesus" was not expressed in the

original, but the pronoun "he" was to be understood. But it is perfectly clear that such changes as these, instead of altering the sense, only express the same sense with greater fulness. We might have ten thousand or one hundred thousand such alterations as these without losing a single thought from the original, or adding one to it.

3. A third class consists in writing the wrong number or case of nouns and pronouns, and the wrong tense of verbs. Sometimes a mistake of this class makes a difference in the sense, but often it does not. For example, if I write, "Him and me seen an elephant," I commit three mistakes of this class in a single sentence of six words; yet the sense is precisely the same as if I had written, "He and I saw an elephant." Such errors abound in the Greek Scriptures. A few examples must suffice for illustration. In Matt. viii. 15 it is said of Peter's mother-in-law that when she was healed "she arose and ministered to them;" here "them" should be him; but it is perfectly manifest that in ministering to him she ministered to them who ate with him of the dinner which she provided, and the sense is not altered by the change. Again, in the same chapter, v. 8, the centurion says, "But speak the word only," when it should be "speak with a word only," the difference depending on the case of the Greek term for word. Again, in Matt. vi. 12, part of the Lord's prayer, we read, "as we forgive our debtors," where we should read, we have forgiven our debtors." Here is a change of the tense, and yet, as in the preceding instances, the sense is not changed; for if we pray to be forgiven as we forgive, this implies that we have already forgiven when we offer the prayer.

as

4. Another very large class of these errors consists in the omission or insertion of articles and conjunctions. Sometimes an error of this kind seriously affects the sense; but in the Greek language the presence or absence of these particles usually affects the sense much less than in English. We have an example of each of these errors in a single verse (Matt. xi. 10), "For this is he of whom it is written, Behold I send my messenger before thy face who shall prepare thy way before thee." Here the conjunction "for" (gar) is inserted where it should not be, and the conjunction "and" (kai) has been displaced by "who." The sentence should read, "This is he of whom it is written and he shall prepare," etc.—the same meaning in slightly different words.

5. The substitution of one word for another of like signification characterizes still another

Observer, May 15, '76.

class of errors. Matthew viii. furnishes two examples under this head. In v. 2 the English text says, "There came a leper and worshipped him;" whereas it should say, "A leper drew near and worshipped him." But if the leper came, he drew near; and the difference is one of expression, not of meaning. Again, in v. 31, our text makes the demons say to Jesus, "Suffer us to go away into the herd of swine;' whereas it should read, "Send us into the herd of swine;" but inasmuch as the demons desired to go into the swine, to send them was the same as to let them go. Nothing is lost by the

change.

The above is by no means an exhaustive classification of the various readings which do not affect the sense, but much the greater part of them is included in these classes, and these will serve to bring the entire subject within the easy comprehension of the reader. Neither have the examples given under each class been selected because they were especially striking: they were selected at random, by turning over a few pages of the Gospel of Matthew.

But besides the immense multitude of various readings belonging to these classes there are a few which do affect the sense of the passages in which they occur, and we now propose to mention and classify some of these.

1. Some of them consist of genuine passages of Scripture copied by mistake into the wrong place. For example, in Luke's account of Paul's conversion (Acts ix. 5), the clause "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks" is an interpolation; but it is genuine Scripture, having been copied by mistake from Acts xxvii.

14.

2. Others consist of interpolated ideas which, though true and Scriptural, are nowhere expressed in the same words. A striking example of this is the well-known passage in Acts viii. 37, "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Every idea in this passage is Scriptural. It is clear from other passages that this confession was made by candidates for baptism, and there can be no reasonable doubt that it was required by Philip and made by the eunuch; and yet this verse has been interpolated: it was not in Luke's original manuscript.

3. Finally, there are a few well-known passages in which mistakes occur that affect the sense and that introduce unscriptural ideas. For example, the received text makes Stephen say (Acts vii. 16) that a certain piece of ground was bought by Abraham from the sons of Emmor, the father of Sychem; whereas we

Observer, May 15, 76,

learn from the record of the event in Genesis that the purchase was made by Jacob.

From this general view of the errors in question the reader is able to see that, multitudinous as are the errors which have crept into the text of the Greek Testament, their importance is infinitesimal. The negative results of the entire work of Biblical Criticism are stated by Dr. Davidson, himself a careful student of the subject, in these words- "No new doctrine has been elicited by its aid, nor have any historical facts been summoned by it from their obscurity. All the doctrines and duties of Christianity remain unaffected." If this is true, and it is the united voice of those familiar with the subject, it follows that the New Testament of today is the same in regard to all matters of doctrine, of history, and of duty as it was when it came from the pens of the writers. The case is very much like that of the Stanley will. Mr. Stanley's grandfather left an immense estate, which was entailed to his descendants of the third generation, and was not to be divided until a majority of them should be of age. During the long interval all the interested parties obtained copies of the will, many of these being copies of copies. In the meantime the office of record in which the original will was filed and recorded was burned down, and both the original and official copy were lost. As the time for division of the estate drew near, the heirs, who now numbered nearly one hundred, began to examine their copies of the will, and to talk about their respective interests. Having occasion to compare his copy with that of a cousin, Mr. Stanley observed that they differed in quite a number of places. This excited curiosity, and started other inquiries, which developed the surprising fact that no two copies of the will were alike. The parties became much alarmed, but on more careful examination they found that the differences consisted altogether in the spelling of words, the grammatical construction of sentences, and some mistakes in figures, which were corrected by the written numbers, while in all the copies the rights of the heirs were represented alike. The result was that each felt more certain than before the mistakes were found that his copy correctly represented the meaning of his grandfather's will, and they divided the estate with perfect satisfaction to all. Such is the case with the mistakes in the New Testament. The knowledge of their existence at first produced. alarm, and then led to prodigious labour on the part of a succession of Biblical critics, running through a period of nearly two hundred years, only to develop the fact that the sense of the Scriptures is not practically affected by any or

149

AMICABLE DISCUSSION.-LETTER TEN.

MR. MCINTOSH complains of the tone and temper of our last but one, and hopes it may be possible in future to avoid ebullition of feeling inconsistent with the Spirit of God. This implication is unexpected, as we are conscious of maintaining calm and kindly feeling throughout, and on looking over the letter find no trace of anything incompatible therewith. That he has been hurt is clear, as also that he fails to discern what has hurt him, and, consequently, counts to tone and temper what is alone due to necessary argumentative grip. We trust, however, that in this discussion we shall write no letter on a level with his. Having by unwarrantable restrictive interpretation constructed a theory, he writes with all the authority of an apostle" Let theorists and speculators beware of adding to and taking from the very words of Jesus. He who propounds any other Gospel shall be anathema." Pretty strong, considering his charges against us of theorizing, Again, he says, "I appeal to the consciences and understandings of all who love the Lord if these words can possibly bear two interpretations." Yet he knows that hundreds of thousands of disciples do interpret them otherwise than he does. The inference, then, is that such disciples do not love the Lord, or are not conscientious. He also charges us with "an unjustifiable manœuvre to snatch an apparent triumph." These and other instances remind one of the tone of the Vatican, to say nothing of the temper out of which it springs. We intended to pass on without comment; but when, in the absence of anything of the sort on our side, he appeals against tone and temper, it seems needful to express to him the hope that in future any such ebullition may be avoided, as he is assured that the idea of attempting by manœuvre to snatch an apparent triumph" is to us abhorrent. We are also charged with misrepresenting and garbling propositions and

arguments. If such charges are made without specification, we shall not only object to the tone, but set them down to infirmity of temper. We know of nothing to justify the accusation. Had there been inadvertent omission in any particular, it would have been gladly corrected, had attention been called thereto.

On Justification Mr. M. wastes words by citing texts precisely similar to those already presented. We shall yield to a single text so soon as it can be shown to contain his doctrine.

We no more believe in justification by works of law than he does; and, therefore, his issue is a false one. Justification by works of law requires a sinless life, and knows nothing of pardon on any terms. Paul showed that neither Jew nor Gentile could be justified thus. But when Mr. M. insists that justification by faith necessarily excludes every act of obedience, he confounds two wholly different things, and makes the Apostle assert what he never thought of. Paul and James agree, not because one wrote of justification by God, and the other of justification before men: the justification is the same with both. When Abraham offered Isaac, his faith was made perfect, not before men, but was so counted and expressed by God. "Now

We

I know" was the word of the Lord, and not of men. Unhappily our friend has not comprehended the nature of the argument as to Abraham's acts of faith, and, therefore, he replies as though it has been said that Abraham was not justified till he had offered his son. must have been soft to put forth that absurdity. He should have seen that the subject before James, as also Paul in Heb. xi., is not pardon, nor the coming into a state of justification, but the nature of faith. Both exhibit faith as a principle of action, perfected by such acts as are associated with the testimony. We have already amplified on this point; yet Mr. M. does not make it convenient to attend thereto, but is content to affirm-what we do not deny-that God does not justify by any act of obedience, but by faith. Why will he not see that our contention is not on that head, but solely as to what that faith includes? He has admitted that Abraham was justified by faith when his faith was perfected by going out from his country. In that admission he concedes the entire principle-faith perfected by associated obedience and justification, not by the obedience, but by the faith thus perfected.

Mr. M.'s " "ingenious friend" has not overlooked the fact that persons supposed by James to have a dead faith had been baptized; nor does the fact affect the question. That James thereby shows that faith is never perfected by baptism is incorrect, and irrelevant as no one

Observer, May 15, 76,

supposes that faith is perfected by baptism, or by any other act, so as to stand for ever perfect.

On John i. 12 we have not "toned down." The assertion that the birth there named was perfected by baptism is merely suspended for the present, because, as the text was only introduced in reply to the first proposition, it is not needful to show what the perfecting act is. The text affirms some act or process subsequent to the believing, and so refutes the argument to which it is opposed. In the proper place we shall affirm baptism included. Mr. M. insists that "the privilege bestowed upon the believer is that of being made a child of God whenever he believes." Was ever assertion more suicidal? The believer receives the privilege to be made what he already is by doing what he has previously done! Why, if faith and sonship are perfected by the mere act of believing, then not believers, but UNbelievers receive the privilege to become sons of God by believing. The instances cited in which the word translated "become" have "nothing of the conditional" in them are not to the point, because the argument depends not upon the mere word, but upon the construction in which it is found. To believers He granted power to be made, or to become, sons of God. It is absurd to talk of granting power to be made what one already is. To the liberated slave you cannot grant power to be made free; to the married woman cannot be granted the privilege of becoming a wife.

66

Mr. M. intimates that but for restricted space he would not have left unanswered or unexposed one of our assumptions, mis-statements or fallacious arguments." We have come to perceive that our friend indulges in strong language when his argument is weakest or when he has none to offer. This instance serves one purpose —it is an admission that, however able he may be, he has not answered our arguments, and the reader will understand that they are not disposed of by calling them "fallacious."

We may now conclude as to the first proposition; having never had to do with an opponent who so completely refutes his assertions by his facts. The case stands thus:

1. Sinners are saved whenever they believe on Jesus. The Rulers believed on Jesus and were not saved. 2. Whosoever believes on Jesus is born again. The Rulers believed and were not born again.

3. Nothing but believing on Christ is essential to salvation. Sinners can believe on Christ, without repentance. [The Rulers did so believe.]

Therefore sinners can be saved without repentance. But the Saviour says, "unless ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish;" and Mr. M. says that is true: Yet, to get rid of baptism, he argues out

Observer, May 15, '76

repentance, and by proving too much, proves nothing, confutes himself, and makes further argument a work of supererogation.

now

Having patiently attended to every argument submitted upon his first proposition, it time to give him opportunity to deal with the one we have to affirm, viz:

"Baptism (instituted by the Saviour) is the immersion in water of a repentant believer; and its design, or purpose, includes the remission of sins, change of state, and consequent change of relationship to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

The first mention of this baptism is in the Commission-" Go ye, therefore, and disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you." (Mat. xxviii.) Disciples are made by preaching. Those, who with the heart, believe the Gospel preached are disciples, and on confession of faith and repentance should be baptized INTO the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. A woman does not upon realizing that condition of heart which justifies her becoming the partner of the man of her choice, become thereby his wife, but she enters into that relationship by a subsequent legal ceremonial, so that then, and not before, she is entitled to be called by his name, and share his titles and estates. So the believer is baptized "INTO THE NAME," denoting change of relationship to the Father, Son, and Spirit. But what change of relationship is there for one who is already a child of God and in a state of pardon? None whatever!

There is no need to support the decisive language of the Commission by other texts, but redundant proof may help our friend. Paul, finding fault with members of the church in Corinth, for calling themselves after party leaders, demanded "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you, or were ye baptized in (into) the name of Paul? He added-"I thank God I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; lest any should say that I had baptized in (into) my own name.' (1 Cor. i. 13-15.) Here he shows that those baptized INTO the name of Christ should be called after Christ, and not after men. Baptism, then, unlike any other command or ordinance, binding upon believers is transitional-with it comes the name of the Christ, the new relationship to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and surely Mr. M. will agree that justification and pardon, under this dispensation, appertain to and are obtained when that new relationship is entered into. Let him then dispose of the Commission and other proof will be submitted.

D. K.

1. The homily professes to meet the objections which some "true Christians" have "to joining THE CHURCH," and immediately they are told in this hom ly that no one can, by any possibility, join himself to the church; that it is the HOLY SPIRIT who does this, when He imparts to them new "life." What an absurdity, to ask people to do that which you tell them they can't do! "The Holy Spirit," you say, "dwelling in every believer, really unites us to the church as a corporate body," p. 154. The very persons you ask to "join the church," have been, you say, united to it already by the Holy Spirit. Is it not an absurd thing to ask them to do what you say is done already? And again, is it not an absurd thing to ask them to do what you tell them the Holy Spirit does, and only He can do?

2. You say that all true believers constitute the mystical body of Christ, and imply that this mystical body is identical with the church on earth. As "mystical" is a heathenish and not a scriptural expression, it would be well if it never were used. If our ideas are scriptural, we do not need to use terms applied to idolatrous rites to express them. Why rush into mysticism? Your notions on this subject seem to me to be as misty as they are mystical and mysterious. Do you mean that the Greek word for an "assembly," translated church, is ever applied in scripture to some body of persons supposed to exist on earth, which never came together into one place?" (1 Cor. xi. 20.) In other words, do you really think that there can be a meeting of those who never meet? This almost beats belief. Was it a "mystical body" or a visible body of which Paul said (1 Cor. xii. 27), "Now ye are the body of Christ?" Was "the body of Christ," which had one baptism, and had apostles, pastors, and teachers, to instruct it, a "mystical" or a "visible one?" (Ephes, iv. 4-12.) This "mystical" assembly of all who are born again, is a myth; and the persons who invented the idea are worthy to stand by the side of those who would turn the whole Gospel into a myth. true church," you say, "is the unity of the entire company of believers. No aggregate of assemblies short of the whole can claim to be exclusively 'the church," p. 154. As there can be no assembly without an assembling, the true church, according to this statement, is the assembling together into one place of the "entire company of believers' throughout the world. Pray, when did they last meet; and what is the date of next church-meeting? Besides, if nothing short of this big assembly be "the true church," we must not call any" local expression" of it a church, as the Apostles did; or we shall have as many mystical bodies of Christ as the Papists say they have real bodies of Christ, by means of transubstantiation.

"The