So. II. THE GRAND PRINCIPLE EMBODIED IN THE APOSTLE. Into what depths of sacrifice, Divine life, do the words of the apostle penetrate, if but humbly and simply regarded-" For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ," &c. Giving way to that habit of mind, quite too common, of regarding much of most important Scripture statement as mere rhetoric flourish, or poetic licence, we shall not think so, we certainly shall not find it But the observant and thoughtful reader of the apostle's writings must know, that his was anything but the highflown style many would fix on him. He was eminently practical and solid-what he said, he meant. The life that was in Paul was the life of Christ. The Spirit that came from Paul was the Spirit of Christ. That Spirit now speaks through him. Christ was manifested to take away sin. He took it away by the sacrifice of Himself. Paul is grounded in Christ. He is persuaded that "neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate him from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." He is conscious that he is about giving utterance to the root principle of Divine redemption; and would have us know that he is in no wise overstating his case-"I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost." Speaking from his stand-point, which is the Christian stand-point, he speaks the TRUTH IN CHRIST; his speech evidences the naturalism, and at the same time, the supernaturalism of the Christian faith, Christ manifesting Himself in one of our race. He is with man in His regenerative influence-and, regenerative it is. Paul is not his own. He is willing to give up life-not a blasted, poisoned life-but a joyous, holy life; to give up Himself. He is Christ's; and Christ's course and life, he is anxious, should explain and absorb his. And he reaches this point by no process of reasoning. His consciousness, grounded in the Redeemer, declares its anxiety to manifest, in behalf of his own people-if by possibility he might serve them-as much as is possible of the deepest and Divinest spirit of Christ Himself. Not merely did he remember that Christ was made a curse for man. He did this; but he did more. He felt in his own spiritual nature the result of this, and this being the essential principle in redemption, was with him nothing. short of a Divine intention. Christ being made a curse did involve what of all things was most awful to Him-separation from His Father. This came of His love and His righteousness, and His perfect identification with the heart of His Father. Thus He became-God having raised Him from the deadthe Redeemer of man, and thereby He triumphed openly over sin. Paul was willing in his measure to permit the life of Christ to work through his mortal body, and to assert dominion over his mere earthly life. Could he in this sense stand in any relation to his people—his kinsmen according to the flesh-he was willing to be accursed from Christ, as Christ was accursed from His Father. Notice then First: The correction of a popular error. Paul, in expressing his wish to be accursed from Christ, no more implied his willingness to be for ever separated from Him-in other words, to perish everlastingly-than is that idea implied in Christ's separation from His Father, when He was made a curse for man. Secondly: The essential purpose and work of Christianity. "Myself." This it is which stands in the way of God and all goodness. The evil, self, under the dominion of the evil one, is our curse, and the world's curse. It is so, however, necessarily. The vanquishment here is complete. "For I could wish that myself," &c. We have the victory, thanks be to God, through our Lord Jesus Christ. Thirdly: The reality of human redemption. Look at Paul. Regard his life and history. He was human and sinful; one of that race of which he wrote, "There is no difference." But he submitted himself to the righteousness of God in Christ. This is the privilege and first duty of man everywhere. Cork. VOL. XIV. R. G. A A Biblical Criticism. THE CODEX SINAITICUS:-Various Readings. We now proceed to catalogue variations in the Gospel of Mark, following the same method as before, with one exception. Some of the instances of variation in our last number, were, perhaps, chiefly valuable as illustrations of the unimportant nature of many of the deviations of the Codex from the received text. Sufficient having done for that purpose, we shall, as we advance, confine ourselves more rigidly to such as have considerable interest. ADDITIONS. Mark i. 34. At the end of this verse, a reviser of about the seventh century inserts τον Χριστον εἶναι. Mark iii. 14.—After δωδεκα,ούς και αποστολους ωνόμασεν. Mark iii. 16.-At the beginning, kai etointev tovs dodeka. Mark viii. 29.—After ὁ Χριστος, read ὁ υἱος τοῦ Θεοῦ. OMISSIONS. Mark i. 14.-τῆς βασιλείας. •—εis μɛTavolav. So also Lachmann, Tischendorf, Mark ii. 17. and Tregelles. Mark iii. 15.—θεραπεύειν τας νόσους, και. Mark iv. 11.—γνῶναι. Tregelles. So Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Mark iv. 24.-τοῖς ακουουσιν. So Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles. Mark vi. 11.-From auny Xɛyw to the end of the verse, is wanting. Mark vi. 48.—From ὁ δε απελθων to την κεφαλεν αυτού. But this omission may have been a mere error of the scribe, occasioned by the αυτοῦ (See our paper for αυτού. March, on errors of this description. Also, remarks on óμoloteλevtov in “Davidson's Biblical Criticism,” p. 470.) Mark vii. 2.-μeμlarтo. So Lachmann, Tischendorf, and 2.—εμεμψαντο. Tregelles. Mark vii. 8.—From ẞanrioμovs to the end of the verse. Mark vii. 16.—This verse is wholly wanting. SUBSTITUTIONS. Mark i. 2.—Instead of τοῖς προφηταις, we read τῷ ησαία τῷ προφητῇ. Mark i. 24.-οιδαμεν for οἶδα. Mark iii. 19.—Ισκαριωθ for Ισκαριώτην. Tischendorf, and Tregelles. Mark iii. 29.—ἁμαρτηματος for κρίσεως. Tischendorf, and Tregelles. So Lachmann, So Lachmann, Mark iii. 31.—This verse begins thus: και έρχεται ἡ μητηρ αυτού και οἱ αδελφοι αυτου. It also has καλοῦντες for pwvouvres, which is less polite. In the latter variation, coincide the editions of Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles. Mark v. 1.—Instead of Fadapηvwv, the original scribe wrote Tepanvov, which is the reading of Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles. But a corrector writes Tepyεonvwv. Mark v. 41.-KOνμ for κουμι. Mark vi. 3.-Iwong for Iwan. Compare the reading of the Codex in Matt. xxvii. 56. This reading will be noticed in connexion with the discussion of the brethren of the Lord. Mark vi. 20.-nopeι for εTOLL. A very interesting variation, and probably the genuine original text. It makes better sense than the received text, yet it is not of a nature likely to have been on that account foisted in. Mark vi. 22.—αυτοῦ for αυτῆς τῆς. Mark vi. 24.—Βαπτίζοντος for Βαπτιστοῦ. Mark vii. 4.-pavTowVTE, that is, pavriσwvrat, instead of βαπτισώνται. Mark vii. 21, 22. The order of μοιχεῖαι, πορνεῖαι, φονοι, κλοπαι, is as follows : πορνεῖαι, κλοπαι, φονοι, μοιχεῖαι. Mark vii. 26.—Συροφοινικισσα for Συροφοίνισσα. VOL. XIV. AA2 Mark vii. 31.—ῆλθεν δια Σιδῶνος εις, instead of και Σιδῶνος, A new fact in our Lord's history. ῆλθε προς. Mark viii. 25. διέβλεψεν, instead of εποίησεν αναβλέψαι. αυτόν Mark viii. 31.-iπо for año, a variation which has some grammatical importance. The Chair of Theology. [This position we have rather been elected to by others, than arrogantly assumed of ourselves. Studious young men, in and out of orders, are adopting the custom of asking us for information and advice respecting a course of theological study, the choice of books, and the like. The thought has occurred, that it would be for their advantage, and our convenience, to throw such remarks as we are able to offer into a systematic form, once for all, that our correspondents may be referred to a standing document.] We now enter on some practical and detailed advices respecting the subject and order of studies and the choice of books. As our aim is to serve the student as much as possible, we commence with subjects which are in various ways preparative to theology, although not included therein. Since the science of mind is closely related to theology, he who intends studying the latter, is earnestly recommended to qualify himself by the acquisition of the former. On the whole, he can hardly do better than to take Dr. Thomas Reid as his chief guide, and he should use Sir William Hamilton's edition of his works, for the sake of the notes, which are very valuable. Since, however, much of Reid's space is taken up by discussion of the opinions of his predecessors, acquaintance with their writings is necessary as a preparation for the complete understanding of their opponent. The history of the science of the mind in England practically begins with "Locke's Essay on the Human Understanding." Let the student follow the order of development by taking Bishop Berkeley next, and reading his "Principles of Human Knowledge," his "Three Dialogues," and his "Essay towards a |