GALATIANS, IV, 21-31.

In the authorised version of the Scriptures the history of Abraham's two sons is called an allegory, but the true reading, according to Dean Alford, of verse 24 is, "which things have another meaning.". In whatever sense it may be received, it is quite evident that Paul does not mean to say that this history was a fictitious figure of the two dispensations, that of the law and the gospel, but that the facts he is referring to represent and prefigure other facts still future; in short, he desires to point out that the sons of Abraham were types or emblems of the law and Gospel dispensations. It is the more desirable to bear this. in mind, because one of the prevailing errors of the day is to allegorise and spiritualise the Scriptures, thinking that man's wisdom is better than God's. I am not aware of a single portion of God's Word that requires an allegorical interpretation or one passage which for its full comprehension necessitates a spiritual rendering.

Spiritualizing the work of God seems to me to be depriving it of its force and power, and converting it into a weak dilution of milk and water. Most portions of God's revealed will is intelligible to man's understanding if read in the natural and literal sense you would read any profane author. The Bible was not written for the learned only, but for all classes of men, and this fact alone shows that God intended it to be understood by all who read it in a straightforward, literal sense, and it is wonderful if the mind is unwarped and free from pre-conceived doctrines with what comparative intelligence one drinks in its stores of instruction. It is only those who enter into a study of the Bible with a theory of man's wisdom in order to reconcile some doctrine frequently fallacious to their own views that find Scripture hard of comprehension; they read through a distorted medium, and employ allegory and spiritualism to assist, or as they think to confirm their views. Types and symbols are employed in Scripture, but these are generally so clear as to require no devious method of interpretation. The Word of God is its own interpreter, and is always so if we receive God rather than man as our instructor. To the Jews were entrusted the oracles of God (Romans iii, 2), as

their religion was one of sight, types and symbols were the agents employed to maintain their belief and relationship with Jehovah. But those types and symbols were substantially real; copies of real things foreshadowed, but not yet manifested in the Heavens, such as Canaan typifying Millennial rest (Hebrews iv, 9), Melchisedec as King and Priest in the new earthly Jerusalem (Exekiel xl-xlviii; Hebrews, vii, 12-21). The ordinances and outward ceremonies of the Jewish religion, made after the delineation and shadow of the heavenly things, after the pattern showed to Moses in the mount (Hebrews, viii, 5). Then again the sins and transgressions of the Israelites, and the punishments inflicted on them are recorded for our examples and written for our admonition (Corinthians, x, 1-11). we find the risen Saviour enforcing upon his disciples, whose eyes were not then opened to see and understand these holy truths, that all things written in the law of Moses and the prophets and the Psalms concerning him must be fulfilled, and pointing out that in all the prophets, and in all the Scriptures the Son of Man was the object of Divine Revelation (Luke, xxiv, 25-44). These are the ways in which types and symbols are employed in Scripture, they foreshadow future events, and stand out in such descriptive clearness that their intent and object is at once patent. But there can be no such a metaphor as the symbol of a figure, a substance cannot represent a shadow; so to return to the text which has called forth these remarks, Paul did not mean to treat figuratively a history where no figure is implied or expressed: any attempt to employ tropes or allegories where no figure exists at all is guilty of a solemn responsibility. Such a system once admitted leads to idealism and mystecism, and tends to obscure and nullify the plain and direct testimony of the Scriptures. Scripture, as before said, is its own interpreter, and if Moses and the prophets are not heard, neither will man be persuaded if one rise from the dead (Luke, xvi, 31). To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to their word it is because there is no light in them (Isaiah, xvii, 30). The acts of God as far as He has thought fit to reveal them are manifest to man, and require no metaphor as the interpreter (Psalms, ciii, 7). And Paul declares himself that in all that he testified he spake of none other things than those which Moses and the prophets did say should come (Acts,

xxvi, 22). The Old Testament is a mine of wealth; its gold, silver, and precious stones were hid in that dispensation because of unbelief in their existence. The eye of faith, except in a few notable instances recorded for our hope and guidance, was so blinded that the wondrous riches promised to the seed of Abraham were misinterpreted and rejected. To the Gentile was the mine given. Jesus opened it, and displayed the glories it contained. And we who believe in His promises, can draw wisdom from it which is better than gold of Ophir, and its price beyond that of rubies (Job, xxviii, 12-19; Proverbs, xx, 15). O the depth and the riches and wisdom of God, how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out (Romans xi, 35).

MARK, IX, 10.

"Questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean."

On coming down from the mountain after the sublime scene of the Transfiguration, Jesus commanded His disciples not to mention what they had seen till the Son of Man were risen from the dead, and they questioned among themselves what the rising from the dead should mean. There were in Judea at that time two powerful parties-the Sadducees and the Pharisees, the former believing neither in the resurrection, nor in angels or spirits, the latter acknowledging the doctrine of all (Acts xxiii, 8). But the belief of the Pharisees was limited to a resurrection of the dead at the end of the world. Such also was the conception of the general mass of that party. We see an instance in the case of Martha, who, in reply to Jesus telling her that her brother Lazarus should rise again, said, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection of the last day (John xi, 23, 24). And the disciples on whom the Holy Ghost had not yet fallen, held equally unenlightened views, and could not comprehend what a resurrection from the dead could mean. But the blessed and sanctifying truth of two resurrections was fully revealed to the Apostles after Penticost. And Paul dwells largely on the subject. He says (1st Corinthians, xv, 20, 21), now is Christ risen from the dead, the first fruits

of them that sleep, for since by man is death, by man also is the resurrection of the dead. Here we have brought together the distinctive characteristics of the two resurrections, the "anástasis nekrón," and the "anástasis ek mekrón"-resurrection of the dead, and resurrection from the dead. And again (in Romans vi, 5) he argues that if we have become united to Christ in the likeness of his death, surely we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection. And our Lord himself says that they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage, for neither can they die any more, for they are equal to the angels, being the sons of the resurrection.

I know of no subject in the Scriptures so clearly set forth and developed as that of the two resurrections. One of the just at Christ's second advent, and the other of the unjust at the end of the millennium; when the great white throne shall be installed in space (Rev. xx, 11), and all those who were not partakers of the first resurrection are judged out of the Book of Life according to their works. "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection; on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years" (Rev. xx, 6). The same doctrine is evidenced in John, v, 29, where two resurrections are mentioned, that of life and that of judgment.

MATTHEW, X, 1, 5-7, 23.

"And Jesus called unto him his twelve disciples, and sent them forth, saying, Go not forth into the ways of the Gentiles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter ye not, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and as ye go, preach and say the kingdom of heaven is at hand; for verily I say unto you ye shall not have finished the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come."

It should be born in mind that the apostles, together with the whole Jewish nation, were and had been for some time looking out for a kingdom to be ruled over by Messiah in person, who should reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of whose kingdom there should be no end (Luke, i, 33; Acts, ii, 30; xv, 16; Isaiah, ix, 7; 2nd Samuel, vii, 16;

Psalms lxxii; cxxxii, 11), and numerous other passages. We may, therefore, presume that it was with no small joy the twelve departed on this sacred mission. Their eyes at that time, as well as those of the Jewish people, were blinded as to the true signification of our Lord's command. They did not see Christ must first suffer before entering into His glory (Luke xxiv, 26). And yet that Christ spake anticipatively was most evident, for were the kingdom to be revealed at that moment it would have been announced with songs of praise, and not with denunciations and descriptions of sufferings to the messengers of these good tidings, but Jesus distinctly tells his disciples of cruel trials and persecutions they are to endure for his sake. That the land of Sodom and Gomorrah would be more leniently dealt with in the day of judgment than the generation then existing in Judea, and subsequently, when nigh unto Jerusalem, and the people thinking that the kingdom of Heaven should immediately appear, corrects this erroneous impression by relating the parable of the Nobleman who went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to RETURN (Luke xix, 11-27). The Nobleman is Jesus, the far country Heaven. Jesus receives the kingdom of this earth from the hands of the Father (Daniel vii, 13, 14), as a proof of Christ's victory over sin, Satan, and the cross, and the return is at the second coming to judge the world in righteousness. This parable may almost be said to be an epitome of the whole counsel of God towards Israel, for the servant who had gained £10 and another £5, symbolise the rewards given to the spared remnant, whereas he who hid his talent in a napkin represent those who are condemned. And why? Because they would not that Jesus should reign over them (verse 27); words of solemn import to all such as deny the personal reign of Christ over this earth during the Millennial age. See in connection with this parable (Daniel_vii, 14; Zechariah xiv, 9; Joel ii, 1; Isaiah xxvi, 21; Micah iv, 1-8; Ezekiel xliii, 1—7.

It is important to bear in mind that what has been said above refers to the Jewish nation only, for the Church as a corporate body had no existence at that time. The Gentiles. were not admitted into the sanctuary of Israel, or allowed a fellowship with the privileges of the chosen race till the day of Pentecost (Acts ii). Observe the injunctions given to the apostles in Matthew, x, 5, Not to go unto the