ding influence of the Spirit of God.* If, as Mr. Garbett has ably arguedt, the very words of Scripture be not inspired, what nearer do we get to the Divine truth Scripture contains by our minute critical investigations into the force of each tense and the significance of each particle? But, to adopt the words of Bishop Ellicott, "If we believe the Scriptures to be inspired of God, then it surely follows that we must never rest satisfied till we have elicited the fullest and most complete significance of every item of the heavenly Revelation thus mercifully vouchsafed to us. It becomes positive unfaithfulness not to dwell upon every clause, every word, every particle, if we have any real and heart-whole belief that what we are permitted to read are, indeed, as they were rightly termed by an Apostolic Father, 'The true sayings of the Holy Ghost‡.'

This paper began by announcing as its object, "to incite to Bible study." But while we engage all our mental powers in the study of God's Word, let us approach it with this feeling ever uppermost,that we are unthankful wandering children, reading the letter of a forgiving and forbearing Father. Let us admire it, treasure it, prove it, illustrate it, pore over it: but let us also accept, obey, and rejoice in its messages of grace. Let our studies of the life of Christ result in His receiving not only the homage of our intellect, the appreciation of our taste, the attachment of our moral sympathies, but the unreserved consecration of our heart and life, that He who once lived for us may live in us, and then, because He lives, "We shall live also," and that for evermore.

E. S.

The union in the four Gospels of human variety and Divine perfection has perhaps never been more clearly explained than in the illustration of four clerks,--first suggested, I believe, by Archbishop Usher. I direct four clerks severally to write an account of a certain circumstance. The composition of each will differ, in many respects, from those of the other three, and will be tinged with the peculiar mental characteristics of the writer. If I had directed that each account should be written for some particular person, or with some particular object, this would further affect the character of each composition. When all are finished, I go carefully over them, word by word,-not to render them uniform, that would defeat my own object-but to ensure their entire freedom from error. Do I not thus make myself fully responsible for every word of all four, although the stamp of individuality remains upon each ? Now where is the essential difference between this subsequent revisal and the accompanying inspiration we claim for the Gospels? The one, indeed, we can comprehend, the other we can but dimly apprehend, because it is the secret operation of the Divine Spirit; but the illustration assuredly affords a just, though indeed an inadequate, conception of the matter. As Dr. Chalmers says, in one of his lectures on Butler's Analogy, Cannot God effect the supernatural without violence or derangement to the harmonies of the natural ?

Aids to Faith, Essay on Scripture and Its Interpretation, p. 435.

THE MEANS OF GRACE,

As my former paper upon "the Baptismal Covenant and Vow" proved acceptable to the readers of the "Quarterly," I am induced to offer some general thoughts upon the remaining portion of the Catechism in order to make the two papers in some measure complete in themselves. The explanation given in our Catechism with respect to the Baptismal Covenant and Vow ends with a brief and beautiful summary of the laws of the two tables. The remaining part of the Catechism speaks of Prayer and the Sacraments. There are, as it seems, three "Means of Grace;" Prayer, the Sacraments, and the reading or preaching of God's Word. The last of these is omitted in the Catechism, although the doctrines taught therein must necessarily lead us to the source whence they come; we shall therefore not speak of it particularly here, nevertheless we should be wrong if we omitted to place it on an equal footing of importance with the Sacraments and Prayer.

The link which joins the vow of obedience with the subject of prayer is found in the question immediately preceding the Lord's prayer. This link is a very important one. We must learn our own weakness before we can be taught to pray Prayer holds a very prominent place in the religion of every true Christian, in fact it is one of the surest tests of the reality of that religion. "By faith" Moses is said to have "endured, as seeing Him who is invisible" (Heb. xi. 27). He who has faith, then, lives as in God's sight, and so lives a life of prayer, for no one can feel God's continual presence without having a prayerful spirit. And it is equally true that he who does not live a life of prayer is not a faithful disciple of Christ.

Wherein then does the strength and value of prayer consist? What is the efficacy of prayer? God's providence ordains all things, the future is all planned out by Him, and therefore cannot be changed; is not prayer then useless? Again, God in His love gives us all that is best for us, and if so is not prayer needless? These are arguments which we cannot answer. We are dealing with a mystery which is too deep for us; let us acknowledge that it is a mystery, else we shall be led to rest merely upon what is called the subjective efficacy of prayer, and make out that God ordained it to benefit our hearts alone, without seeing any higher power in it. We should thus lose much of its value. The only explanation of this mystery must be found in the intercession of Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit. The presence of the Spirit in our heart guides our request (although at the same time in some mysterious manner

leaving us perfectly free) so as to harmonize it with the intercession of Christ, and it must be remembered that our prayer is granted only when it does so harmonize with His intercession. If any man were to ask us why we prayed, we should reply that prayer was the instinctive echo of the feelings of every human heart, and that it was moreover distinctly enjoined by Scripture (Matt. vi. 9—13; John xvi. 23, 24; xvii.).

We may say, then that what is best for us is brought about by virtue of our prayer. The next question to be considered is, How can we teach our children to pray? This question it is easier to ask than to answer. There seems to be no direct way to this very important object. We can bring the subject of prayer constantly before their minds, we can encourage them in the duty, we can pray for them ourselves and ask Him to whom all hearts are known to pour His Holy Spirit into their souls, so that the seed which we have sown may bring forth good fruit; we must leave the work to be completed by His Almighty power.

Lastly, we have to learn how to pray. The Catechism teaches us this by giving us the Lord's Prayer as a model by which we are to test our other prayers. It is hardly necessary to explain it in detail here; but, as we pass by it, let us learn what are the chief lessons which it teaches us on the subject of prayer itself. It teaches us (1) to pray for others as well as for ourselves, "give us this day" (2) to pray for temporal blessings, "our daily bread" (comp. John xvii.): and (3) to realize the presence of Him to whom we address our petition, "Our Father, which art in heaven." Oh, that we could teach to the hearts of our children.the mighty power of prayer! It is one thing to read and to speak and to learn about it; it is, we all must feel, another thing to pray as Christians ought to pray. We come now to the Sacraments. This part of the Catechism was inserted in the year 1604, at a time of great controversy in the church, and it will be noticed that the expressions which it contains are very carefully worded. A sacrament according to the definition laid down by our church must (1) have an outward sign, (2) an inward grace, and (3) have been ordained by Christ himself. Baptism and the Lord's Supper can alone by this definition be called sacraments. We have shewn the mysterious nature of prayer, we now proceed to point out the mystery of the sacraments. We cannot conceive of the union of an outward sign with a spiritual grace. Many have tried to explain away this mystery in the Lord's Supper, and to bring it within the range of our finite understanding. As might be expected, they have fallen into errors, either by denying the spiritual grace altogether, or on the other hand by resting on the doctrine of transubstantiation. To one of these extremes any attempt at explaining the mystery must

ultimately lead. If we turn to our Bible (John vi.; 1 Cor. x. 16, 17; 23-29) we shall find that both these parts of the sacrament are distinctively brought forward, but that the union of the two is nowhere explained, and this because the subject is too high, too incompre hensible for us.

I shall not touch upon the rest of the Catechism, for it seems to explain itself, and must leave each teacher to bring the thoughts which I have offered to bear upon the peculiar wants of his or her own class. I do not agree with those who hesitate in their teaching to acknowledge mysteries in God's dealings with man, especially in our senior classes where the more evident truths of God's word have become familiar, and these higher thoughts must sooner or later rise up in the minds of those whom we teach, when, if not clearly pointed out and explained beforehand they lead too often to dissent or even to neglect of God's worship altogether.

THE JEWISH CAPTIVITY.

Although we have so many reliable authorities—both sacred and profane of the time of the Jewish captivity, yet it is a period of which very few Bible readers have any accurate or satisfactory knowledge. This is, probably owing (i.) to there being no regular consecutive history of it in the Bible, it being gathered from Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, &c.; (ii.) to the different dates assigned by different chronologists to the same events; (iii.) to the difficulty in identifying the monarchs of the Bible with the kings of profane history, as Darius the Mede, with Cyaxeres. The inspired authors often only give their title, as Pharoah; the first instance of which is in the time of the shepherd kings:--"The princes of Pharoah saw her, and commended her before Pharoah, and the woman was taken into Pharoah's house." (Gen. xii. 15.)* The Pharoah who made slaves of the Hebrews was, probably, Rameses Miamum, and the one who was drowned in the Red Sea, Amenophis. We have, however, the name of the king added in 2 Kings xxiii. 29, and in Jeremiah xliv. 30,-Pharoah-Necho and Pharoah-Hophra. Ahasuerus is only a title-Achash-Zwerosh, or the mighty rulerwhich accounts for it being applied to so many kings in the Bible (Ezra iv. 6, 7; Esther i. 1, 2; Dan. ix. 1); e. g." In the first year of Darius, the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes," &c.;-in profane history, Cyaxeres, the son of Astyages. In the New Testa

Will the reader be kind enough to refer to all the texts quoted in this paper?

ment, also, the Roman emperors are always called Cæsar (Matt. xxii. 17; John xix. 12; Acts xvii. 7; Phil. iv. 22); except in Luke ii. 1, "There went out a decree from Cæsar Augustus that all the world should be taxed" (or enrolled).

It is the object of the present article to give such a plain and simple account of events, without adding anything new or clever, as shall interest all Bible readers, and leave them with a clearer idea of the identity of the kings, and of the sequence of events.

I. BEFORE THE CAPTIVITY.

Although the Jews were specially chosen by God for His people, and were the only nation to whom He so plainly revealed Himself, yet the very king who built the Temple for His service and worship fell into idolatry; and on the death of Solomon more than half the nation, under the guidance of the usurper whom they had chosen, openly set up idols in the land, till they utterly forsook the worship of the true God, for which they were led into captivity by Shalmanesar (2 Kings xvii. 3-7), 721 B.C., after the kingdom of Israel had been founded only 254 years. "For they served idols, whereof the Lord had said unto them, 'Ye shall not do this thing,' therefore the Lord was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of His sight: there was none left but the tribe of Judah only" (2 Kings xvii. 12, 18.) Thus the prophecy of Amos was fulfilled, "For thus Amos saith, Jeroboam shall die by the sword, and Israel shall surely be led away captive out of their own land."" (Amos vii. 11).

The children of Judah, though never so bad as Israel, were yet constantly falling into the sin of idolatry: their unfaithfulness to God being likened to that sin which is held in the greatest abhorrence by all civilised nations. (Ezekiel vi. 9; (Ezekiel vi. 9; Jer. iii. 1-20; Hosea i. 2-4; Deut. xxxi. 16.) Jehoram was a sad instance of idolatry, for having married the daughter of Ahab, he followed in all his wicked ways. Amaziah, who served God at first, and was much blessed by him, was afterwards so foolish as to worship the gods of the very nation which he had conquered. Manasseh reared altars to Baal, made a grove, and worshipped all the host of heaven.

It is seen, therefore, that the kings of Judah were constantly falling into idolatry, notwithstanding the bright examples of Asa, Josiah, Jehosaphat, and Hezekiah; and the constant warnings and threatening predictions of the prophets Isaiah, Hosea, Micah, Zephaniah, and Habakkuk; as God truly said unto them, "I sent unto you all my servants the prophets, rising early and sending them, saying, 'Oh! do not this abominable thing that I hate'" (Jer. xliv. 4).

As a warning to them, the captivity was plainly predicted in Isaiah

X