Q. 5 – "Do you think that the star which directed the Magi was a true star, such as we are to see this year?"

Ans. – I don not see how such a star could stand over the particular house in which the young child was. This would surely point to some special phenomenon, and not to any of the ordinary heavenly bodies.

Q. 6.-The translation of Mark 9:44, etc., is perfectly accurate. The expression " their worm dieth not," speaking, no doubt, of the gnawing tooth of conscience, shows clearly that it is eternal torment, though from within, but to which the fire (of God's righteous wrath) answers from without,-eternal, therefore, as the other.

Q. 7.-" How do you explain Matt. 21:38 ("They said, 'This is the heir,' " etc.) in connection with Acts 3:17,- ' I wot that through ignorance ye did it.' "

Ans.-I apprehend that their willful ignorance partook of both characters-ignorance acknowledge:so that while grace could count it one, their responsibility was that of the other. Perfect, demonstrative proof had been given them, but the eyes are in the heart, (as Eph. 1:18 reads really,) and the world had seduced and hardened their hearts, and their minds were blinded. At bottom, it was the claim of God upon them which was the motive of their resistance, as the Lord tells them. But with this disposition of heart, they could easily gather many an argument against submission, and be really blind. If we shut our eyes, we do not, in fact, see; but then why did we shut our eyes?

Q. 8.-"Please explain Jno. 19:II, last clause,- 'Therefore he that delivered Me unto thee hath the greater sin.'"

Ans.-Is it not that Judas, knowing as he did Christ's power to be beyond all that could be brought against Him, had availed himself of what He had declared as to the will of God concerning His death, to give Him up to it? Terrible was indeed the condition of heart which could pervert that blessed will for its own purpose. Compare the connection, Matt. 26:12, 14.

Q. 9.-"How do you reconcile Gen. 11:12 with Luke 3:35,36 ? In the first, Arphaxad is said to be the father of Salah, and in Luke, Cainan."

Ans.-Cainan is found in the present copies of the Septuagint in the genealogy of Shem in Gen. 10:24, 11:12, and i Chron. 1:18 ; but not in i Chron. 1:24, and is nowhere named in the Hebrew copies, nor in any of the versions made from the Hebrew. Its insertion in the Septuagint is thought to be modern, and to harmonize with Luke. Beza's MS. (of the sixth century) does not contain it either, nor (it is thought) did the copy of Luke used by Irenaeus. It is probable, therefore, that it is a very early interpolation.

Q. 10.-"What does Lev. 27:28, 29 teach? a man devoted was not to be redeemed, but put to death ?
Ans.-Yes ; but this necessarily applied only to cases where the law pronounced the penalty, as in the judgment of idolatry. Otherwise, the life even of slaves was carefully guarded.

Q. 2:-"Would not Jephthah's offering up his daughter be an abomination, as in Deut. 12:30, 31 ?"

Ans.-Certainly, if a real burnt-sacrifice is intended. But there is, after all, a question as to this on this very account. Keil's objections are worthy of consideration, and they are briefly these :-

(I) From the form of his vow, Jephthah must have contemplated the possibility (to say the least,) of a human offering. Yet not only did the law prohibit a sacrifice of this kind, but to have been offered, it must have been by a priest, upon the altar, or before the ark, and it is incredible that this should have been. Nor is a confessedly illegal offering to be thought of as designed to procure Jehovah's favor.

(2) Jephthah in his conduct toward the Ammonites shows no rashness nor want of knowledge such as this would have shown and this latter in all round about him.

(3) It is her virginity alone that she laments with her companions upon the mountains, and after the vow was fulfilled it is said, " she knew no man." Would not this point to a dedication to the Lord of another nature?

(4) The word " burnt-offering " is not the literal meaning of the Hebrew :it is literally "what ascends"-all of it; a whole-offering, and is at least susceptible of a spiritual meaning.

Such reasons as these cannot but make doubtful the performance of so atrocious a deed as the literal sacrifice of his daughter, by one of those judges of Israel raised up of Jehovah to deliver them, and on whom His Spirit came. Q. 12.-"How do you account for the apparent discrepancy between i Kings 16:6, 8 and 2 Chron. 16:i, as to the time of Baasha's reign ?"

Ans.-The text of Chronicles is here apparently incorrect, the letters "1" (30) and "i" (10), which are somewhat similar in the ancient Hebrew characters, having been interchanged by some copyist. It should be "the sixteenth year." In the same way the "forty-two" in chap. 22:2 is a mistake for "twenty-two" (Keil).

Q. 13.-"Does Isa. 22:22-24 refer to Christ? If so, what does ver. 25 mean,-the nail removed and cut down?" Ans.-Eliakim and Shebna are surely (typically) Christ and Antichrist. But the last verse applies to Shebna's removal to give place to Eliakim. The nail that is fastened (at the time the prophet speaks) gives way to the nail that God will fasten.

Q. 14.-"In Num. 20:9, Moses took the rod from before the Lord,-Aaron's almond-bearing rod, I take it,- and in the eleventh verse, with his rod smote the rock. Was this Aaron's rod, or Moses'? C. H. M. makes it Moses' rod. Is this correct? and can it be made plain from Scripture?"

Ans.-The most literal interpretation would seem to be the best. The only question that can be raised is, Could the rod of the priesthood be called "his (Moses') rod"? Loosely it might, no doubt, as the rod he was then using, be called his, but strictly it was not so; and the spiritual meaning seems best to agree with the strict sense.

Q- 15–"In i Sam. 17:12-14, we find David was the eighth son, but in i Chron. 2:15, he is the seventh :why is this?"

Ans.-Keil supposes that one of Jesse's sons may have died without posterity, and so be omitted from the list in the latter place. I have nothing better to offer.

Q- 16.-"Why is no blood carried into the holiest in Lev. 8:9, while it is in chap. 16:?"

Ans.-No blood was ever carried in, except on the day of atonement, in which alone the entering of Christ into heaven once was represented, as far as could be under the law, by this entrance of the high-priest into the holiest "once a year." The sacrifices of this day were exalted over all the rest, and took place for " all their transgressions in all their sins," as if no other sacrifice had any efficacy. It is this day which the epistle to the Hebrews, therefore, dwells upon throughout; and it shows the one effectual offering which displaces all others. Yet, as being only the type, it was itself repeated year by year :its own witness that it spoke merely as a shadow of the coming substance.

Q. 17.-"What is meant in Lev. 8:10, II by the anointing with oil of the altar and laver, as well as the tabernacle, before the sacrifices were offered? If the anointing of the tabernacle without blood indicates the Spirit's witness to Christ's personal glory throughout the created universe, does the anointing of the altar, etc., as well link it with redemption, and also indicate that by the eternal Spirit He offered Himself?"

Ans.-The altar and laver are of course the way (by blood and water) into the presence of God ; the tabernacle, His dwelling-place with men. All is consecrated and prepared by the Spirit of God according to perfect holiness, His necessary character. Then the same Spirit marks out and sets apart the One who is to make all this a reality for us; necessarily, therefore, Himself anointed without blood. The order of the anointing seems to me rather to connect these things (tabernacle, altar, and laver,) with Christ as Man, coming forward in due time and place to give effect to what was ordained of God for blessing.

Q. 18.-"How would you explain the scriptures which speak of God repenting, as in Gen. 6:6, 7, and other places?"

Ans.-In Jer. 18:7-10, God openly proclaims the principle:" At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; if that nation against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them." Nineveh spared, as in the book of Jonah, is a case in point. God acts as a man would who did repent; while in fact "God is not a man, to lie, nor the son of man, to repent." (Num. 23:19.) Yet the whole truth is not in this change of action. God is not indifferent and without feeling, although we must take care not to impute imperfection to Him; but indifference would be the saddest of imperfection. The language used by Scripture is a necessary accommodation to our understanding, but, as a writer well says, " If it is an accommodation, let us be accommodated by it; since here all human minds are very much on a ,par. Our right feeling is much more concerned in this than our right understanding. We cannot rise to God, and we should reverently adore the effort, if we may so call it, which He makes to come down to us, to think our thinking, and thus to converse with us in our own language."