in these States, was not bound to that Church in what may be called a covenant-way alone, but by one of the most solemn-nay, awfuladjurations which a human being can take upon himself. He wrote it, too, as well as uttered it; and then called upon God to help him in the act, through the Redeemer of his soul!

And yet, with the attainder of perjury cleaving fast to him, the descendants of the impugners of our Episcopal forefathers can receive him with open arms; and that, too, when he filches from our Church what was given him to be exercised for her advantage solely, and uses it to her (so far as he himself is concerned) utmost detriment. Our forefathers did not carry away from Congregationalism what Congregationalism made much account of; rather, they went away to seek what Congregationalism cannot give, and held up even to scorn. Dr. Cummins carries off what Episcopacy gave him to be used under her auspices alone, and with pledges of fidelity, which, for sacredness and honor, could not be exceeded.

And yet our forefathers were desperate sinners, while Dr. Cummins-if Congregationalism can do such a thing-will be canonized for a saint!

The cases present a parallel worthy long and intense remembrance. They illustrate graphically one of the curious points of proximity between Congregational and Jesuitical morals. The violation of a covenant made to Congregationalism, with a preference to Episcopacy, is a terrible crime. The violation of an oath given to Episcopacy, and fraternization with anti-Episcopalians, is an eminent virtue. So it is with the Jesuits. A man who breaks faith with their system, and prefers Protestantism, is an offender to the uttermost. One who breaks faith with Protestantism, and joins them, is a candidate for Paradise.

Technical virtue, and not genuine virtue, is the rule with such extremists. As Dr. Johnson discovered, in due time, it was necessary to adopt not, of course, to fully believe, but to adopt-Calvinism, "upon the pain of damnation" (p. 122). So, now, it is indispensable to adopt the immaculacy of the Virgin Mary and the infallibility of the Pope, upon the same identical penalty. And, to go very far back, it was precisely so with theoretical moralists among the Pharisees. The parable of the two sons, as we read and understand it, furnishes the example wanted. In Matt. xxi. 31, the better reading, and the true one, is borepos, or oxatos, and not лршτог. The Pharisees pronounced, as they might be expected to do, in behalf of the son who was technically right. Hence the logical sequence of our Saviour's exclamation, that the publicans and

harlots could get into heaven before people who held such monstrous positions. This logical sequence (one of the best of all guides in interpretation) is lost, upon the supposition that the Pharisees approved of the first son and not the second.

No; technical virtue, and not actual virtue or practical virtue, was the standard of Pharisaic moralists. And it was too much the standard of Puritan moralists also, in times gone by. It was once a puzzle to us that good Dr. Johnson thought a new system of moral philosophy was necessary, during the last century, and labored to supply the want by text-books of his own. We can fancy him, in his quiet study at Stratford, pondering over such curious parallels as we have instanced, and resolving that, so far as he was concerned, morals should be put by Churchmen upon an honester and more substantial foundation.

"B"

THE FIRST RESURRECTION.

(Concluded.)

UT the rest of the dead lived not again, until the thousand years were finished."

"The rest." This expression places them in the class of disembodied souls (v. 4). Like the souls of the beheaded, "the rest of the dead" are not in this world, but are in the world of spirits. "The rest of the dead lived not again." They lived not again. This verb is in contrast with "they lived," in v. 4, and therefore with it has a spiritual sense. The rest of the dead are destitute of spiritual life. Spiritual life, the rest of the dead have not. Spiritually, they live not again. In this world, they may have had spiritual life, in various degrees, but they died without spiritual life, and they can never recover it. Spiritually, they live not again. Thus is the Restoration theory refuted and exploded.

This is the terrific truth the Holy Spirit in St. John here reveals to us. The wicked dead are not annihilated, but they never recover their lost spiritual life.

THE TRUE READING.

"Until "-w. This is the reading Robert Stephens gives in his text of A. D. 1550, and this reading the Textus Receptus follows. Of the Text of Robert Stephens, Webster and Wilkinson thus speak in their Commentary on the New Testament: "It is, upon the whole, more satisfactory and safe than any other single Text that can be named" (Vol. II. Preface, p. viii.).

ǎype. On the other hand, ǎype, instead of ew, is the reading of the Alexandrian Codex of the fifth century, of an Uncial Manuscript of the eighth century, and of several Cursive Manuscripts of the twelfth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries.

In deference to these manuscripts, Scholz, Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Alford, and Wordsworth receive dype into their respective Texts of verse 5, chap. xx. We need not, however, feel obliged to follow their example. When readings conflict, there is still another arbiter.. We may then resort to

INTERNAL EVIDENCE.1

The internal evidence is strong, that ews was the earlier and better reading in v. 5. This is the form of the demonstration. Ewę is actually in the Textus Receptus. How came it there?

Regarding ewe as the original Text, we can account for the subsequent insertion of ǎype in v. 5. On the contrary, we cannot account for the insertion of ews, in case ǎxpe was the original reading. The copyist of v. 5 would be familiar with the word axpe. In the course of the Book of Revelation, he had already copied ǎype not less than ten times; the last time in v. 3, only a few lines above v. 5, and in connection with the very same words (a thousand years) he was about to copy in v. 5. With dype thus familiar to his eye, memory, and hand, he would almost necessarily insert dype in v. 5, even though the manuscript from which he was copying read wc. But, on the other hand, in case dype was in the manuscript he was copying, how almost impossible would it be for him to insert ews in v. 5, in place of ǎype in the manuscript he was transcribing!

With ews he was not at all familiar. He had seen it only twice since he began to copy the book, and then merely in a single passage (vi. 10, 11). Since he saw ew, he had copied not less than

'Ellicott on Galatians. Preface, p. xii.

thirteen chapters, in which operation he must have spent certainly as many days, and perhaps weeks. How highly improbable, then, that with ǎype before his eyes (and before them it was, in case it was the original reading) he should, in its stead, write in the transcript he was making the rare and almost unknown word ews!

Thus, from the nature of the case, it is a probable demonstration that we now stands in v. 5, not from the mistake of the copyist (which it would be, if ǎype is the true reading), but ew, is now in the Stephens Text, because it was in the very Text from which the Alexandrian Codex, containing dype, was taken; the maker of this Codex being probably the very man who, with his recollection surcharged with axor, omitted the ew directly before his eyes, and in its place wrote azpi, by interpolation.

With this insight into the way in which various readings sometimes originate, we may be prepared to appreciate some of the reasons which influenced the Rev. John Burgon, author of "The Plain Commentary," to express this strong judgment respecting the Texts of Tischendorf and Tregelles: "It is impossible to deny that the published Texts of Doctors Tischendorf and Tregelles as Texts are wholly inadmissible" (Last twelve verses of St. Mark's Gospel. Preface, p. viii.).

In deference to the opinions I have cited, and in view of the very strong probabilities that ews is the original reading in v. 5, I feel constrained in interpreting the passage, to regard the particle ew as the production of St. John himself.

Until with a Negative-ws with dux-" Not until.”

We here have a peculiar construction. The importance of the construction, as giving us the true sense of Rev. xx. 5, requires us to refer to a few instances of this construction, and also to some of the explanations of the usage, which have descended to us from interpreters of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. The construction appears to be derived from the Hebrew language, as this construction occurs in the Old Testament, as well as in the New.

"I will not leave thee, until (Septuagint ew) I have done that which I have spoken to thee" (Gen. xxviii. 15).

But did God actually leave the patriarch Jacob, when He had fulfilled His promise to him? We cannot say this. God was incessantly Jacob's protector and guide, even to the very end of his life.

In the subsequent history of Jacob's descendants, we have this record: "Samuel came no more to see Saul, until (Septuagint wc) the day of his death" (I. Sam. xv. 35). This is the only meaning this record can have. At no time whatever did Samuel see Saul