guilty on whom special judgments fell, He does not elaborately narrate the features of the incident, but merely says, "or those eighteen upon whom the tower in Siloam fell and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?" The truth of the narrative must have been known to the lawyer alone of our Lord's auditors. But to have known the occurrences in question he must in some way have been implicated in them. It is this that gave point to the fact that our Lord did tell the story before us. If so, we may proceed by the method of exclusion to reach a conclusion. The lawyer could not be one of the robbers; even though these robbers often were aided and abetted by the Pharisaic party as patriots, the Pharisees rarely actually took part in robbery themselves. He could not be either the priest or the Levite, for in that case his sacerdotal character would have been mentioned as more descriptive than the bare statement that he was a lawyer. Still less could he be the Samaritan. We are restricted then to one person-" the man that fell among thieves."

Let us now look back at the probable course events took as implied in the parable. After he had been thus saved and tended by the Samaritan, the lawyer regained his strength and returned to Jerusalem. For awhile there ruled in his mind a natural gratitude towards the man who had saved him; but gradually, as the incident by passage of time lost sharpness of outline, the question began to be debated in his mind whether really he could be a true Jew and return gratitude to a Samaritan-then came the easy Pharisaic interpretation of what was to be understood by "neighbour." Thus, when the opportunity actually occurred of showing in some measure his gratitude, he turned away from the alien-he might have been kind to him, but he was a Samaritan. He is brought into contact with Christ at this point in his history; his question lays him open to our Lord's treatment. As Nathan with David, our Lord hides His rebuke under the form of a tale, which narrates what had actually taken place and compels his judgment upon it. But at the same time we must also note the tenderness of Jesus-He did not dishonour the Scribe before the people. The Scribes sat in Moses' seat, and therefore it was well that the people should not despise them. It would be well if, when the sad necessity is laid upon us to rebuke others, we were as tender of their self-respect as our Lord is of that of this Pharisee.

THE DANGER OF APOSTASY.

BY REV. P. J. GLOAG, D.D.
HED. vi. 4-6.

Αδύνατον γὰρ τοὺς ἅπαξ φωτισθέντας γευσαμένους τε τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς ἐπουρανίου καὶ μετόχους γενηθέντας πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ καλὸν γευσαμένους θεοῦ ῥῆμα δυνάμεις τε μέλλοντος αἰῶνος, καὶ παραπεσόντας πάλιν ἀνακαινίζειν εἰς μετάνοιαν, ἀνασταυροῦντας ἑαυτοῖς τὸν υἱὸν του θεοῦ καὶ παραδειγματίζοντας.

Authorized Version.-For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the

good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame.

Revised Version.-For as touching those who were once enlightened, and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come, and then fell away, it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame.

THERE is hardly any difference in the readings of these verses in the various manuscripts; so that the words may be assumed to be those written by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. One important correction of the Authorised Version is made by the Revisers in the omission of the conditional conjunction if "if they shall fall away"-which has no existence in the original, and the insertion of which imparts an erroneous meaning to the passage. Some suppose it was designedly inserted by the translators of the Authorised Version for the purpose of lessening the difficulty of the passage and of favouring the Calvinistic doctrines of the indefectibility of grace and the perseverance of the saints, as if the case mentioned were a mere hypothesis; but it is now admitted that this charge of dishonesty on the part of the translators is an unwarrantable assumption. But the Revised Version itself is somewhat defective. There is no reason for removing the words "it is impossible" from the beginning of the sentence, or of translating the aorist sometimes in the perfect and sometimes in the past tense. Upon the whole we prefer the translation given by Dean Alford in his revised New Testament: For it is impossible in the case of those who have been once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, and have fallen away,—to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves afresh the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame."

The interpretation of the passage is extremely difficult: it certainly constitutes one of those things in Scripture which are hard to be understood. The five particulars stated in the case of those who have fallen away are ambiguous, and have given rise to a variety of meanings. The passage also has been the occasion of numerous controversies in the Christian Church. In the age of the Fathers it was the cause of the disputes between those heretical sects who held severe rules of discipline and the Catholic Church. And in modern times it has been one of those crucial passages which have been urged by the Calvinists and Arminians in the maintenance of their respective doctrines; the one asserting and the other denying the indefectibility of grace and the perseverance of the saints; the one affirming that the reference must be to those who were never regenerated, but had experienced only the so-called common influences of the Spirit, and the other that the writer here expressly teaches that the regenerate may fall from the faith. Accordingly we must proceed to the elucidation of the passage with the greatest caution, with an unbiassed and unprejudiced mind,

and must be careful not to interpret it in accordance with our preconceived opinions.

The first thing to be done is to consider the exegesis of the passage. 'Adúvatov yàp for it is impossible. Some, in order to lessen the difficulty and soften the severity of the expression, think that adúvarov is to be taken relatively as an expression merely of extreme difficulty. Thus in the Latin versions of the Codices D and E the words are difficile est. Just as in common parlance, when a man is extremely ill, we say that it is impossible that he can recover, meaning thereby, not an absolute impossibility, but a high degree of improbability. Others soften the declaration by referring the impossibility to man, to human effort, but not denying the possibility to God. What is impossible with man may be possible with God. And certainly with God all things not implying a contradiction or moral inconsistency are possible. The word adúvarov, as used in the New Testament, implies absolute impossibility, and cannot be weakened or explained away. Thus: "With men this is impossible; " "It is impossible for God to lie; "It is impossible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take away sin; "Without faith, it is impossible to please God." In all these passages the word implies not only extreme difficulty, but that the thing was wholly impracticable; it could not be done. Whether it was impossible with God to recover those who had apostatised; whether it implied a moral contradiction; whether, whilst human efforts are insufficient and the resources of the ministry of reconciliation are exhausted, there may not be some divine method of restoration-is not precisely affirmed, and we would not limit either the mercies or the power of God.

τοὺς ἅπαξ φωτισθέντας : who have been once enlightened. The adverb ἅπαξ is a favourite term with the author of this Epistle, occurring in it eight times. Here it does not mean formerly, at one time; but once for all, already; it belongs not only to probévras, but to all the particulars which follow. "Enlightened" or illuminated denotes called out of darkness into light. Here, of course, it denotes spiritual illumination: called out of the darkness of heathenism or of Judaism into the light of the Gospel. It is equivalent to "having received the knowledge of the truth" in this Epistle (Heb. x. 26). And in another place the author bids his readers to "call to remembrance the former days in which they were illuminated" (Heb. x. 32). So St. Paul speaks of those who were "delivered from the power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son" (Col. i. 13); and he prays for his converts that "the eyes of their understanding might be enlightened' (Eph. i. 18). Formerly they were in darkness, but now they are light in the Lord. As Erasmus expresses it, "who have for once left the darkness of their former life, being illuminated by the light of the Gospel."

γευσαμένους τε τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς ἐπουρανίου : and have tasted of the heavenly gift. The verb to taste here evidently means to experience, to be made personally a partaker of. Thus, "If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious" (1 Peter ii. 3). "O taste and see that the Lord is good"

(Ps. xxxiv. 8). Those spoken of have had a personal and conscious experience of the heavenly gift. Whilst there is little difficulty in the interpretation of the first particular "once enlightened," this second particular has given rise to many interpretations. We can only here give a bare list of them, without stating by whom they have been suggested, or the arguments by which they have been supported. Thus, some understand by "the heavenly gift" the Holy Ghost, as the gift of God; others, regeneration in general, the gift of spiritual life; others, the Lord's Supper, interpreting the former particular of baptism; others, the possession of eternal life, which is elsewhere called the gift of God; others, Christ, the unspeakable gift; others, the righteousness of Christ imparted to us; others, the forgiveness of sins, which is the free gift of God; and others, peace of mind, the legacy of Christ to His Church. Others, giving force to the particle Te as connecting the second clause with the first, "the enlightenment imparted through the preaching of the Gospel" who have been once enlightened, namely, by having tasted of the heavenly gift. It appears best to understand the clause generally as denoting the blessings of the Gospelall those precious gifts which Christ has bestowed upon men- the abundant grace of Christianity. They were not only enlightened as to the knowledge of these gifts, but they experienced them in their own souls; they were made partakers of them. His gift or gifts are called heavenly, inasmuch as Christ came from heaven to purchase and bestow them, and as in heaven only they receive their full realisation.

καὶ μετόχους γενηθέντας πνεύματος ἁγίου: and have been made partakers of the Holy Ghost. In the interpretation of these words there is also a difference of opinion. Some refer them to the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, as prophesying, the speaking with tongues, the working of miracles, the gifts of healing which were bestowed upon the early Christians but are now withdrawn from the Church. Thus Paul asked certain Ephesian converts whether they had received the Holy Ghost since they believed; and when they answered in the negative he laid his hands on them, and the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they spake with tongues and prophesied (Acts xix. 6). And so also Peter and John came down from Jerusalem to Samaria, and laid their hands on the Samaritan converts, and they received the Holy Ghost (Acts ix. 17). Others affirm that there is nothing in the text limiting this assertion; and that the reception of the Holy Ghost must include all His influences-both those which are miraculous and those which are ordinary. Those who have been made partakers of the Holy Ghost were those in whom the Holy Ghost dwelt, who had experienced His sanctifying influences. They were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, namely by God, for whatever may be the instrument of participation, whether the laying on of hands, or the sacrament of baptism, or the word of God, He only is the efficient Agent.

καὶ καλὸν γευσαμένους θεῶν ῥῆμα : and have tasted the good word of God. There is here a change on the construction of the verb yeveolaɩ. In the

former clause it governs the genitive-" and have tasted of the heavenly gift"; here it governs the accusative-" and have tasted the gcod word of God." The construction with the genitive belongs to classical Greek, that with the accusative to Hellenistic Greek. Some suppose that this makes no difference in the meaning of the verb, but that the author here varies the construction to prevent the ambiguity that might arise from two genitives following each other. Others give the distinction as follows: The verb "tasting" takes the genitive when the thing partaken of is only partially partaken; it takes the accusative when the object partaken is considered as a whole. The heavenly gift is apprehended little by little unto the end; whereas the word of God is apprehended as a whole. By the good word of God is evidently meant the Gospel, those glad tidings of great joy, announcing salvation and the restoration of the fallen and degraded to the favour and image of God. "Thanks," says the Apostle, "be unto God for His unspeakable gift," namely, for salvation through Jesus Christ. But whilst the Gospel generally is here meant, the consolations of the Gospel are specially intended—the revelation of forgiveness to the guilty, of rest to the weary, of comfort to the distressed. There are some parts of the Gospel which are of a severe character, as the denouncement of the wrath of God upon the ungodly; but by the epithet "good" (kaλòv), the promises rather than the threatenings of the Gospel are intended. Others consider that pμa is here to be taken as a personified attribute of God, equivalent to λóyos Toû Ocoû, but there appears no reason for this conjecture.

δυνάμεις τε μέλλοντος αἰῶνος : and the powers of the world to come. Some suppose that by "the world to come is meant the heavenly world. Those who taste the powers of the world to come are kept under the influences of eternity; they walk by faith and not by sight; they feel the awful importance of preparation for death and the realities of a future life; they look not at the things that are seen, but at the things which are not seen. They have tasted the powers of the world to come, have experienced the foretaste of glory. Others, again, as the Revisers, interpret the phrase of the Gospel dispensation, of the age of the Messiah-"the powers of the age to come." The age to come was the name given by the Jews of the Messianic age. Thus in Isaiah ix. 6, where Christ is called "the everlasting Father," the Septuagint renders the words, "the Father of the coming age." It is doubtful if the words imply this, as the author is writing not before but after the coming of the Messiah. By the powers of the world to come is meant the miraculous powers attending the publication of the Gospel: "God bearing witness with them both by signs and wonders, and by manifold powers and the gifts of the Holy Ghost" (Heb. ii. 4). But here also, as in the former case, there is no reason to limit those powers to miraculous gifts; they may include also those spiritual powers, those gifts of the Holy Ghost, conferred on those who embrace the Gospel, in strengthening and confirming them in the faith, in assisting them in prayer, and in enabling them to resist temptation. There are spiritual powers within and