had been married in this life would also live in the married. state after the resurrection. Such a view would, of course, give occasion to many curious questions, some of which they had decided. They had decided, "that if two brothers married one woman, she should be restored at the resurrection to the elder, or to him to whom she had been first married." The Sadducees, who, according to Josephus, were fond of disputing with the teachers of philosophy, had not improbably argued this very point with the Pharisees, and triumphed over them. They, therefore, select the case of the seven brothers, as one most difficult to be answered. As an argument against the resurrection, it is drawn, it will be observed, from the prevalent views of the Pharisees. Christ answers it by declaring those views to be erroneous, and thus, with wonderful wisdom, not only answers the argument of the Sadducees, but corrects the mistake of the Pharisees. But this argument of the Sadducees was not the real one on which they disbelieved a resurrection. Their real argument was, that there is nothing to be raised, and therefore there is no resurrection. If the whole being is extinguished at death, then there is no being to be raised. And it deserves Mr. Campbell's most serious consideration that our Savior admits the correctness of the inference, if the premise be true. We can now see why our Savior proceeded farther, and the force of what he said. "But as touching the resurrection of the dead," or, as Mark expresses it, "as touching the dead that they rise;" as touching the dead that they are in existence so as to be able to rise," have you not read in the Book of Moses, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Jacob, and the God of Isaac?' God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." This took away the very ground of their objection. It is true, it does not follow because the dead exist as spirits, they will be raised, but whoever should admit their existence would have no difficulty in believing in their resurrection. Mr. Campbell says, "No Scripture or philosophy has ever yet been able to prove the mind is anything more than an attribute of the living, organized dust." But it would seem as if Christ had here declared it to be something else-an immaterial, ever-living spirit. It would seem too as if Christ, by anticipation, had overthrown the very errors of our modern Sadducees.

We refer briefly to Mr. Campbell's explanation of another passage "Verily, I say unto thee, to-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise." He claims that there is a misplacing of a comma here. It should read, 'verily, I say unto thee to-day," that is, to the dying thief's prayer, Lord, remember me,' he answers, "I to-day say to thee." But this seems to Mr. Campbell himself rather

harsh-" for the thief could not think Christ was saying yesterday or to-morrow." But he removes that difficulty. Enepov is often translated now. 'Now' is frequently used without the least regard to definite time, "as if I should say to my opponent, now you are mistaken with regard to what the Savior said to the thief." The argument is a model of its kind. Enuεpov, which in Greek is always spoken of time, is sometimes translated by the English word now. The English word now "sometimes expresses or implies a connection between the subsequent and preceding proposition" as in the example given by Mr. Campbell. Therefore, the Greek word onuɛpov means the same, it being the same as now in one of the meanings of this latter word, and therefore, the same as now in all its significations.

We take up another instance. "And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." We shall here quote the words of the writer, as exhibiting the most wonderful example of the perversion of Scripture we have ever met with. "The record states-Then they (the Jews) ran upon him (reviled and ridiculed him!) and cast him out of the city, and stoned him. Now, it seems it was the same they that ran upon him (the italics are not ours) who were calling upon God, and saying Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. But it may be asked why the Jews should say, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit? Only by way of mocking the confidence Stephen had in the Savior, whom he had on that occasion been defending. In this way they ran upon him and tauntingly said, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." This specimen of interpretation may defy competition. We wish we could point out the beauties of it to the mere English reader. It will be sufficient to say that the Greek verb rendered ran upon has not the remotest resemblance to the English phrase ran upon, in the sense of reviling and ridiculing, and that the participles rendered 'calling upon, and saying' if they referred to the Jews, would be different words from what they The merest tyro could not make such a blunder in Greek, and yet the English reader will have the impression made upon him in reading this book, that Mr. Campbell is acquainted with the Greek language.

are.

We refer to Phil. 1: 21-23. "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labor; yet what I shall choose I wot not. For, I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better; nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you." The general import of this passage seems to be obvious enough. Paul had been speaking of his labors and difficulties, and had concluded with the magnanimous sentiment,

-but Christ shall be magnified in me, whether by life or by death. In either he rejoiced: For, if I live, I shall serve Christ; if I die, I shall gain by it. He then takes up the first part of this antithesis and expands the meaning of it. But if this my living in the flesh be useful for the work of the ministry—as he dwells upon this thought, he omits the other part of the antithesis, leaves the sentence unfinished, and breaks out in his perplexity, "yet what I shall choose, I wot not, for I am in a strait betwixt two." He then repeats the antithesis with which he started, but in the reverse order and expanding the latter clause of it-"to die is gain." For I have a desire to depart and be with Christ which is very much better, but to abide in the flesh is more needful on your account. This is a most beautiful sentence. It first states the antithesis briefly -then unfolds each member of it, and in the conclusion re-states the antithesis, thus giving perfect unity to the thought. Can we think Paul supposed that "to be with Christ" was to be annihilated? Let it be observed, the contrast is between "living in the flesh" the body--and being with Christ, as a spiritual existence. Mr. Campbell, however, says, "between life and death, Paul had no choice, but to depart and be with Christ would be far better than either to die or live." Just as if "to depart was not "to die," and as if "to depart and be with Christ were not as it were one and the same thing.

We shall conclude our examination here. These passages of Scripture, in their fair and obvious meaning, prove that man exists after death. The glosses which have been put upon them are some of them absurd and ridiculous, and not one of them has the least plausibility. But if it is proved that death is not an extinction of the being, then according to Mr. Campbell, the second death is not, for it is the first death repeated. But if the second death is not an extinction of being, then man has an immortal soul. But if man has an immortal soul, then according to Mr. Grorge Storrs, from whose book, entitled, "An Inquiry: are the wicked immortal?" Mr. Campbell has taken most of his work, then "it clearly follows from the Bible, that the finally impenitent will be punished with eternal conscious being in misery." And if this be proved, then the grand object of this scheme of annihilation will be defeated.

The plausibility of the reasoning by which this scheme is supported rests entirely on a principle of interpretation. It is literalism carried out to the utmost extreme, and it ends as it always does in nonsense and absurdity. We did not choose directly to combat this principle. But we have substantially refuted it by showing that it has led us in this case to results which are contra

dicted by Scripture. A principle of interpretation, which brings out the result that to die is to be annihilated, and which forbids any other meaning, can not stand against the fact asserted in Scripture that those who have died still exist.

For our own part, we believe that fair-mindedness in the interpretation of Scripture is one of the rarest graces of the Christian character. Indeed, we believe farther, and our conviction is strengthened by every controversy as to the teachings of Scripture we read, that God has put man on his probation upon this very point. Man can misinterpret and pervert. He can make out a very strong case in favor of his own opinions. He can set forth an argument which shall be difficult to answer, although you may have no confidence in it. It takes so long to bring out the true issue from the many false issues which are made, and often unintentionally, and then to separate the true from the false in the arguments, that the mind grows weary and becomes confused itself. It is so of everything written. Language in its own nature can be plausibly misinterpreted. There is no end to the argumentation about the meaning of words, and yet two fair-minded and clear-minded men, looking at the same issue from the same point of view, would quickly come to the same conclusion, or they would differ on some ultimate principle for which there is no help in argument. The English system of special pleading was intended to bring parties to the point in dispute, to restrain them from all irrelevant matter, and confine them to the real issue, but it took so long to bring them there, not much was gained. It gave birth to so many nice distinctions that the system was overloaded and fell by its own weight. So, too, we have rules of interpretation-very good ones-but still men do and will extract different meanings from the same words. Something more is needed than honesty. Some of the most honest men have been the worst interpreters. It is by these that the language of feeling is converted into logical propositions, popular phraseology into scientific statement-the metaphorical into the literal-the shadow into the substance. Something more is needed than acuteness of intellect, which too often takes away the life, and leaves only the skeleton of the sentence. In the best expositors we find a certain good sense-a certain intellectual honesty-a certain even fair-mindedness-which apprehends as it were instinctively the teachings of the word. And this quality of mind is more or less common to men in general. Hence, the great body of truly Christian people in every branch of the Church have a general uniformity of belief in all the essential truths of the Bible. For the Bible is a popular book. But this very character exposes it to the inroads of vanity and con

ceit in a manner most difficult to be resisted. We know of nothing requiring more patience than a controversy with unlearned presumption attempting a learned interpretation.

But there seems to be no remedy for this evil, which is not worse than the evil itself. Let it be understood, however, that man is responsible to God for the fairness with which he interprets His Word. It is not enough that he can make out a meaning that shall be plausible or that he can frame an argument that shall be difficult to answer. It is not enough that he can make an ingenious reply before a jury of his own followers, or a speech that shall seem overwhelming to a public assembly. It is not enough that he can form ingenious systems and theories and support them with an imposing array of learning. It is not enough that he can argue with the skill of a special pleader. The right of private judgment involves far greater responsibilities than this. It involves a responsibility to God for a fair use of all the means God has put in his power for the understanding of His Word. God has spoken to him in human language. To understand its meaning aright is in some sense a trial. It is a solemn test. The Bible is not an arena for ingenuity and sophistry; nor is it a trifling, indifferent matter with what temper of mind it is studied. The question, How readest thou? implies a moral responsibility which we fear is too often overlooked."

ART. VI.-STEPHENS' FARMER'S GUIDE.

The Farmer's Guide to Scientific and Practical Agriculture. By HENRY STEPHENS, F.R.S.E., assisted by JOHN P. NORTON, M.A., Professor of Scientific Agriculture in Yale College. In two volumes. New York : Leonard Scott & Co. New Haven: T. H. Pease.

THIS work, which has been in course of republication during the past two years, is now complete, and is offered to the American Farmer at an extremely low price. Issued in 22 numbers, it now makes two large and handsome bound volumes, closely printed, and profusely illustrated with admirable engravings and wood cuts. These engravings, and in fact the whole letter press, are fac-similes of the second English edition of Stephen's Book of the Farm, a duplicate set of stereotype plates having been sent out to this country. This second English edition is greatly altered and improved from the first; in fact so much of value