It is hardly necessary to devote much space to the other points at issue between Pres. Cone and myself, except to correct some erroneous statements on his part. On the clause, rà dia τov oáμatos, which he regards as having a temporal force, "in the he body," he has failed to produce any direct authority; while for its instrumental force," through the body," I have cited the words of several authorities, among them Meyer, his own. He mistakes when, on p. 96, he refers to Meyer as the "solitary authority" for the instrumental force; I had cited also Alford, Stuart, Wordsworth, Barnes. etc., for the same view, while he has produced none for the opposite view. Of course I refer to this particular phrase, for I have not said, as my critic represents, that did never has a temporal force, nor even intimated the like; but I might have said that it but very rarely has the sense of in, as "in the body," when it is temporal. Another mistake is that za idia, which I had cited as variant of tà dia, is said by my reviewer not to be a various reading, but "a gloss." Now in Griesbach's "Varia Lectiones," given by Mill in his Greek Testament, idia is put down as a variant; it is given as such, also, in Knapp's Greek Testament, and again in the " Varia Lectiones," published in Clark's Commentary, where it is said to have been the basis of the Vulgate's rendering. We can hardly set aside all these authorities for Pres. Cone's unsupported statement.

But the most surprising error of statement is when my critic attempts to force Winer's note, before cited by me, into his own service. Following the verb xouiseoba, "to receive," Pres. Cone thus states this author's views: "It means he will'suffer the reward' of the wrong in the form of penalty.' I could ask no better statement of the interpretation I have defended throughout." In the first place Winer says not a word as to the sense of the verb here, except to adopt its usual signification of "to receive." What he does say is applied to the verb's object, "the wrong," which he explains thus: "He will reap (i.e., receive) the wrong," or "the wrong in the form of penalty." Winer, to be sure, uses the words, "the reward of it," but in defining "the wrong," not the

verb. He makes here" the wrong" a direct object of the verb "to receive," for just here lies the irregularity of the construction of the text requiring explanation. If he had said, he will receive or "suffer the reward of the wrong," as Pres. Cone represents, there was no irregularity to be explained. In fact, if the verb "to receive" here took the extra sense of reward for or of, according to Pres. Cone, there was nothing irregular to be explained in any one of these three texts. Thus "to receive the reward for or of the wrong," is perfectly regalar; but "to receive the wrong," especially "the wrong done," is incongruous. It is this, the verb's object, that both Winer and Grimm seek to explain, while neither has a word to say of the verb "to receive," except to take it in this, its usual sense. Thus, in forcing Winer into his own service, my reviewer makes him attribute to the verb a meaning which, if it really possessed, there was no occasion for any explanation. What better proof that this extra sense of "reward for " attached to the verb "receive," is wholly erroneous, than the fact that to introduce it into our three texts would make them perfectly regular in their construction?

On the other minor points at issue between us, Pres. Cone merely repeats himself without producing any authorities. But throughout the major portion of his "Rejoinder," there are his customary attempts to put his opponent in a false position, with unusually frequent resorts to his rhetoric, this time more sophomoric than ever. All this, of course, demands no reply from me. Finally, as to this discussion, it is probable that I shall not find time hereafter that I cannot devote to better purposes. 0. D. Miller, D.D.

AN impression prevails among multitudes of Christian believers. that the New Testament Church was specially blessed in its exemption from all heresies and false doctrines, and its freedom from all

party controversies and personal strifes. It is easy to see how this idea would find place with those who have never given any thoughtful inquiry to the subject. So near to Christ, and his disciples and apostles still living, and teaching, and founding churches, how could error or heresy get any footing among the early believers? Surely the presence and constant supervision of these inspired men must have secured to the first Christians purity of doctrine and life; and while they remained, at least, the condition of the churches must have been Paradisaical. To have lived in those days was a privilege and a joy of which those living in these later centuries know nothing.

But these conclusions are far from the truth, as a very slight examination of the histories and letters of the New Testament will show. Even the disciples of Jesus, while he was yet with them personally, frequently misinterpreted his teachings, and entertained false notions of his true character and mission. And in the Acts and the Epistles we find abundant evidence that there was no more harmony of opinions, no more freedom from false teaching, no more purity of living then than in these days. The men and women of the primitive church, the people who listened to the preaching of the apostles, and were converted to a belief in God and Christ, were exactly such people as we find in and out of the churches of this time in which we are living. They had the same moral infirmities and weaknesses, the same bodily passions and appetites, the same prejudices and jealousies and ambitions; and they fell into temptation and sin as easily as we do. And, moreover, in spite of the influence and personal presence among them of the apostles, they took up with new doctrines and speculations, and followed after heresies, "new lights," "vain philosophies," and lying revelations as readily as the people of this age.

It is not the purpose of this writing to go over the whole ground covered by these statements that would require volumes-but only to bring to the reader's notice one or two illustrations bearing on the subject. The epistles of Paul to the Corinthian Church will furnish the material. Let us have first a few paragraphs from the first epistle;

"I hear that there be divisions among you, and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved, may be made manifest among you."

"It hath been declared unto me, my brethren, by them which are of the household of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I mean, that each one of you saith, I am of Paul: and I of Apollos: and I of Cephas (Peter); and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? When I came among you, brethren, I determined

not to know anything among you save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And my speech and my preaching were not with enticing words of men's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God."

"And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat; for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able; for ye are yet carnal. For, whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love and a spirit of meekness?"

These passages reveal an unhappy state of things in the church at Corinth, and discover what divisions and strifes had already grown up among the brethren. Paul first came to Corinth about A. D. 52, and continued there teaching and laboring a year and a half; and this epistle was written probably in A. D. 57, only about three years and six months from the time he left. And indeed there is little doubt that he had written an earlier letter to this church, now lost, and to which he refers in chapter v. 9, - a passage in which some of them had intentionally, or otherwise, misapplied.

Here, then, in the brief space of three years and a half, we have the condition of things, the wretched backslidings, controversies, jealousies and party divisions described in the paragraphs cited above. Few churches among us to-day could do much worse than this in the same time.

In the short interval named we have as one item of their spiritual history no less than four distinct parties or factions in the church-one standing by Paul, the founder of the church, their "father," as he calls himself; the second preferring Apollos as a teacher, not probably because he taught doctrines different from those of Paul, but because of his oratory, or "excellency of speech," and Alexandrine "culture"; the third holding to Peter, which doubtless was the Judaizing portion of the believers, who maintained that the Law, or certain parts of it, were still in force; and the fourth party which refused to follow any leader save Christ himself, and who probably, therefore, spoke lightly of apostolic authority, and asserted their direct loyalty to Christ in such manner and spirit as to widen the breach between themselves and the other partisans.1

1 And yet what did these know about Christ beyond what they learned from the preaching of Paul or Peter? Does not the fact that they called themselves exclusively by the name of Christ, and rejected all other personal leadership, imply that they must

That these factions conducted their disputes with some acrimony seems to be implied by the severity of Paul's rebuke, and the terms employed by him to describe their conduct: "Contentions," "envying and strife, and divisions among you"; "ye are carnal"; "I could not speak unto you as spiritual"' ye are "babes in Christ," "I have fed you with milk," because ye were "not able to bear meat." All this shows with great emphasis how little of the "unity of the spirit " there was among these Corinthians, and how soon they had fallen away from the teachings and example of Paul.

Then it is very evident, too, that some of the church had a personal enmity toward Paul, and were laboring to destroy his influence, and undermine his authority as an apostle. This is very apparent from many passages in both epistles, but specially in the second. And he does not hesitate to call them "false apostles, deceitful workers,” and exclaims, "Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I. Are they ministers of Christ? I am more; in labors more abundant," etc. xi. 12-xii.

Who they were that were thus bitterly hostile to Paul, is not in the record; but the words last quoted lead to the inference that they belonged to the Judaizing party, and perhaps were some of those whom he mentions in Galatians as "certain who came from James," and made such mischief at Antioch. In 2 Cor. x. Paul says, "I think to be bold against some which think of us as if we walked according to the flesh. For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible." In chapter xi. he says, again, "I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles; but though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge," etc. Again, he says, he was "not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully — for we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus our Lord"; "for we are not as many who corrupt the word of God"; "do we begin again to commend ourselves, or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?”—iii.

It is clear from these utterances of Paul that some were striving to injure him in the esteem of the Corinthian brethren, sneering at his speech and personal appearance, denying his right to be counted among the divinely appointed apostles, and working to destroy confidence in his teachings, and to alienate the affection of his converts. have had some knowledge of Christ independent of apostolic teaching? Is it not a fair inference that one of the Gospels was in existence at this date, and had found its way into the hands of some in the Corinthian Church?