tions may be pre~cnted. 1. It me.y be noticed that the Scriptures, as we hnvo them, e.re translati011s, i.e. they are the thoughts of the inspired writers expressed in words chosen by other men, e.nd there is no roe.son why men nowadays, who can grasp tho thought of the original writer, should not give it expre8sion iu other, better-chosen, and better- adapted terms. 2. It me.y be shown that the apostles and New Testament speakers and ~riters did not put themselves under any such severe limitations. 'l'hey quoted freely, Jealous of the sense, but not unduly concerned about repeating the precise phraseology. Of thiB we have inste.nces in Stephen's speech, to which we direct attention; premising that our space does not admit of our pointing out every instance of devie.tion or addition, and that we can only attempt to open an interesting line of study. It is to be noticed that Stephen quotes from the Septuagint translation rather than from the original Scriptures, but even from the Septuagint he makes what :seem to be important altera- tions; and he blends traditional references with Scripture quotations, ns if some recognized authority atte.ched to them. It is very probable that "ancient genuine elements were preserved traditionally among the Jews, which received their higher confirmation by admission into the New 'l'estament. If we consider the general prevalence of oral tradition among all ancient nations, and particularly the stationary posture of things which was common among the Jews, such a descent of genuine traditionary elements through a succession of centuries will lose the astonishing character which it seems to have." Illustrations may be given of the following points:- L TRANSLATION AFFECTS THE LITEB.ALITY, BUT NEED NOT AFFEOT THE TRUTH. Show that: I. Truth must get a form of words if it is to be communicated to and received by men, whose intercourse is so largely dependent on language. 2. A particular truth is not, of necessity, confined to one particular form of words. Each man may give it his own form of expression, and, conceivably, each man's form may adequately represent the truth, and convey it to another mind. 3. The utmost importance would attach to the ipsissima tJerba of Scripture, if they could be recovered. 4. That they cannot be recovered, and can only be known in translation, may be designed to convince us of the comparative unimportance of the mere form. 5. The Bible is translated into many languages, and in its varied dress it is found efficiently to retain its spirit and its power. IL MEMORY AFFECTS THE LITEBALITY, BUT NEED NOT AFFECT TIIE TRUTH. Stephen spoke from memory; St. Paul, in bis writings, quotes from memory. Ministers and teachers must often quote from memory. 'l'he power of memory is of two kinds- (1) the power to retain exact words; (2) the power to retain the thought, the truth, or the principle, which found e:.:pression in the words. It may be easily said that the verbal memory is alone the correct one, but, more carefully considered, we would recognize the superior correctness of the memory that held the truth rather than the words. Ill WITH DUE CARE TO PRESERVE THE LITERALITY, WE SHOULD B:AVE MORE OARE ABOUT GATh'ING SPIRITUAL BOLD OF THE TRUTII. Of this Stephen gives effective example. And it may be shown that a precise and adequate expression of any truth depends, not on the exact remembrance of a form of words or an accepted creed, but on spiritual insight, on the clearness of our visions of the truth: he who sees the truth will never find it difficult to make his brother see it too.-R. T.
Ver. 37.-.A Prophet like Moses. The reference is to Deut. xviii. 18, and, as intro- ouction, the difficulties which Moses found in executing bis mission may be vividly described. In Stephen's day it was the fashion to exalt Moses and the Mosaic system, but this was done in foruetfulness of the facts connected with Moses' career. Again and again his leadership wa; refused. The stiff-neckedness and unspirituality of the people tried him very sorely; once, to so great an extent, that he spake unadvisedly with his lips, and threw down the tables of the Law. '!'his Mos~s, in whom now they trusted, they wern not really willing to heed, any more than their fathers had been; for Moses had himself prophesied of the Messiah, and any one who chose could make the com- parison between Moses and Jesus of Nazareth, and see that the one answered to the other just as the great lawgiver bad indicated. Some of the points.of similal"itv between lloaea and :Measiah may be considered and illustrated. OIL vtt. 1-60.] THE AOTB OF THE APOSTLES. 24'7