This is divine. And may we not say that this seventh chapter of Numbers is one of those specimen-pages from the book of eternity, on which the finger of God has engraved the names of His servants, and the record of their work? We believe it is; and if the reader will turn to the twenty-third of second Samuel, and the sixteenth of Romans, he will find two similar pages. In the former, we have the names and the deeds of David’s worthies; in the latter, the names and the deeds of Paul’s friends at Rome. In both, we have an illustration of what, we feel persuaded, is true of all the saints of God and the servants of Christ from first to last. Each one has his own special place on the roll, and each one his place in the Master’s heart, and all will come out by and by. Amongst David’s mighty men we have “the first three,” “the three,” and “the thirty.” Not one of “the thirty” ever attained a place among “the three,” nor did one of “the three” ever reach to “the first three.” Nor this only. Every act is faithfully set down, and the substance and style most accurately put before us. We have the name of the man, _what_ he did, and _how_ he did it. All is recorded, with sedulous care and minuteness, by the unerring and impartial pen of the Holy Ghost. So also, when we turn to that remarkable sample-page furnished in Romans xvi, we have all about Phebe—what she was and what she did, and what a solid basis she had on which to rest her claim upon the sympathy and succor of the assembly at Rome. Then we have Priscilla and Aquila—the wife put first,—and how they had laid down their own necks for the life of the blessed apostle, and earned his thanks and that of all the churches of the Gentiles. Next we have “the _well_-beloved Epænetus;” and “Mary, who bestowed,” not merely labor, but “_much_ labor” on the apostle. It would not have expressed the mind of the Spirit, or the heart of Christ, merely to say that Epænetus was “beloved,” or that Mary had bestowed “labor.” No; the little adjuncts, “well” and “much,” were necessary in order to set forth the exact _status_ of each. But we must not enlarge, and we shall merely call the reader’s attention to verse 12. Why does not the inspired penman place “Tryphena, Tryphosa,” and “the beloved Persis” under one head? Why does he not assign them one and the same position? The reason is perfectly beautiful—because he could only say of the two former that they had “labored in the Lord,” whereas it was due to the latter to add that she had “labored _much_ in the Lord,” Can aught be more discriminating? It is “the three,” “the first three,” and “the thirty” over again. There is no promiscuous jumbling of names and services together—no haste—no inaccuracy. We are told what each one was, and what he did. Each one gets his own place, and receives his own meed of praise.