Ques. 1.-How should Eph. 3:15 be translated? Should it be "the whole family" or "every family"? If "every family" be correct, then should not Eph. 2:21 be rendered "every building" instead of "all the building"? But if it be correct to read "all the building" or "the whole building" must we not read "the whole family," as the word is the same in both passages?

Ans.-The revised version shows the need felt for uniformity of rendering as suggested in the question, and renders the phrases respectively " Each several building" and "every family." The translators evidently felt their rendering rather free, and so put in the margin the Greek, " every building." The alternative reading which inserts the definite article is by no means ill supported. We can add little to the excellent foot-note to Eph. 2:21 in the New Version of the New Testament by Mr. Darby. In this he shows that it cannot be settled by purely grammatical arguments. Both in the Septuagint and New Testament Greek he gives instances where no article is present and yet the rendering must be "the whole; "for example, " the whole house of Israel" (Acts 2:32) could not possibly be " every house of Israel," and yet the definite article is not present. In addition we might refer to Acts 1:21 where, without the article, the expression must be rendered "the whole time;" (Acts 23:1,) "all good conscience"-the whole conscience clear. The opposite of this last is seen in 2 Cor. 4:2, where "every conscience of men" would be the literal rendering; yet in neither of these cases is the article used. Again, in Gal. 5:14, with no article, the phrase is evidently "the whole law" and not 'every law." In Col. 1:23 the evident rendering is " the whole creation," yet the vast preponderance of authority is for the omission of the article. Spite of the revised rendering (also by J. N. D.) of "every scripture " 2 Tim. 3:16, we are strongly inclined to accept that of the common version "all scripture," referring to the entire page of inspiration-a similar use of the word "Scripture" is found in John 10:35; 2 Peter 1:20, and frequently.

We must therefore not depend upon an inflexible rule of grammar to decide the question, but rather, as is always safest in Scripture, upon the immediate and general context. Doing this it seems scarcely possible to render the first passage otherwise than "the whole building." The foundation is one; the result is one-a holy temple; and the building is "fitly framed together." To render it "every building" would be to throw it out of harmony with the passage, while giving no added meaning. To make it teach independency of local assemblies would do violence to the evident purport of the whole passage, to say nothing of the rest of Scripture. This building will not be complete until the Church is ready for its final display as the temple, in the glory of God. If one temple then, surely it is one building now.

As to the other passage, if, as seems most likely, the thought is of the universal headship of "the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (compare chapter 4:6), it could scarcely be rendered "the whole family," as angelic beings, to say nothing of Israel and the Gentiles, are included, as well as the Church.

We would judge therefore that the two passages should be rendered "the whole building" and "every family," respectively.

Ques. 2.-Does the Lord Jesus in John 16:23,-"in that day ye shall ask me nothing"-imply that all prayer should be addressed to God the Father, in His name? Paul seems to have prayed directly to the Lord Jesus that the thorn in the flesh might be removed.

Ans.-The word here rendered "ask," έρωτάω is not the usual one for prayer. In the very verse where it occurs we have twice the ordinary word for preferring a request, άιτέω. Its primary meaning is to " inquire," then as a secondary meaning to "request." The word in 2 Cor. 12:8 is much stronger.

However it is not a question of words, though there must be reason for using each in its special place. The whole theme of this part of John is that our Lord is to be no longer with His disciples, but is going to the Father. So long as He was here, they went directly to Him and knew not the blessedness of prayer in His name. Now He was to be absent, but He made known to them the Father's name, and their privilege to go directly to Him. It does not raise the question of prayer to the Lord-it is dealing with something quite different. They had always had Him to go to, but now He was to be absent, yet they could in His name freely go to the Father whose love they had till then little realized.

As to prayer to the Lord Jesus, we are thankful to note our correspondent recognizes it in the passage in 2 Cor. 12:None would question that prayer is usually addressed to the Father- to whom should "children " go with their needs but to the Father? -but this in no way raises the question of the equal honor and power and prerogative of Him who sits upon the Father's throne.

Ques. 3.-Is it proper to say that, because we are not under law but under grace, the principles of God's holy government have changed?

Ans.-We solemnly believe that grace does not change the divine principles of God's holy government. We might quote many familiar scriptures of the New Testament in proof of this, coupled too with the most precious statements as to the grace of God. See Gal. 6:7-9; 1 Peter 1:14-19; Phil. 2:12, 13. Our readers will easily add to these and find the fullest proof that grace and government are not contradictory, but in the fullest way harmonious. This is true whether we look at God's people individually or collectively, at Israel or the Church. God never lowers His standard to us, but raises us up to it. We cannot conceive how anyone could raise a question as to this. We are also fully aware as to its solemnity. " Our God is holy." May we indeed be on our faces before Him, for we are nothing but " dust and ashes " in His sight.