Earlier text: OUR PRESENT DUTY AND THE COMING CRISISGUIDANCE OF NATURE.
By John Norton Loughborough
"For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." 1 Cor. 1:21. The central idea of our text is that worldly wisdom does not lead to God. And this is not a contradiction of those scriptures which tell us in plain terms that the book of nature properly studied will lead to a knowledge of God. As beautifully expressed by the psalmist, Ps. 19:1-4: "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world." And again by Isaiah, chap. 40:26: "Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number; he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth." As Paul puts the matter, Rom. 1:19, 20: "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." Their difficulty was not that the heavens and earth and all things created did not give proof of a creator, but, Paul says: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things." So the wisdom alluded to in our text is not a careful following of God's teaching in nature or revelation, but a following of the vain imaginings of man's own heart. While laboring to enforce upon the minds of the people the importance of giving heed to the precepts of the Bible, we are often met with the statement that "nature is a sufficient guide, and in fact the only revelation that God has made to his creatures." But we conclude that this is not so; for if God reveals himself only through nature, and if those who profess to be guided by reason and nature are following such revelation, then we must certainly conclude from their various and contradictory views that the revelation of nature is a contradictory revelation. We find one class worshiping the sun and moon and all the hosts of heaven. Another class have the river Ganges as their god; while others bow in reverence to a crocodile or other inferior reptiles. Even the more enlightened among the heathen nations, and those also who profess to be skilled in the principles of the philosophy of nature, come to discordant conclusions in their reasoning from nature, for the simple reason that nature furnishes them no standard by which to try their reasonings. Sometimes their philosophical deductions lead them to the conclusion that there is a future state; again they give it all up, and admit that they can tell nothing about it. So it was with ancient heathen, and so with modern free-thinkers. Seneca says the Stoics equaled themselves to the gods; for the gods, they affirmed, "are what they are by nature; the wise man is what he is by his own industry." Again they say: "The gods excel not a wise man in happiness, though they excel him in the duration of happiness." Socrates, the ancient heathen philosopher, who at one time told his friends that when they buried his body he should "go to be among the gods," seemed afterwards to lose this confidence, and his principles of reason led him to other conclusions. Just as he was about to die, he said: "I hope I am now going to good men, though this I would not take upon me peremptorily to assert; but, that I shall go to the gods, lords that are absolutely good, this, if I can affirm anything of this kind, I would certainly affirm. And for this reason I do not take it ill that I am to die, as otherwise I should do; but I am in good hope that there is something remaining for those who are dead, and that it will then be much better for good than for bad men." Again he said, that though he should be mistaken, he did at least gain this much, that the expectation of it made him less uneasy while he lived, and his error would die with him, and he concluded thus: "I am going out of the world, and you are to continue in it; but which of us has the better part is a secret to everyone but God." Here we see an illustration of the uncertainty of the religion of nature. As its principles were mainly drawn from the reasonings of the people, it left them in a blank uncertainty as to the future, and they have to admit that how it will be, "God only knows." This is frankly admitting that the revelation of futurity from nature and reason are but blank uncertainties. We cannot refrain from contrasting with the above Job's hope: "Oh that my words were now written! oh, that they were printed in a book! That they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock forever! For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth; and though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God; whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another." Job 19:23-27. What a contrast in these cases. Socrates's hope is like a drowning man catching at straws, but Job's is fixed in a foundation so sure that it is knowledge. He says, "I know."21 Again, on the unsatisfying nature of a hope based on reason alone, we will instance the last moments of Voltaire. Says Voltaire: "Who can without horror consider the whole world as the empire of destruction? It abounds with wonders, it abounds also with victims. It is a vast field of carnage and contagion. Every species is without pity pursued and torn to pieces, through the air, and earth, and water. In man there is more wretchedness than in all other animals put together. He loves life, and yet he knows he must die. If he enjoys a transient good, he suffers various evils, and is at last devoured by worms. This knowledge is his fatal prerogative. . . . I tremble at the review of this dreadful picture, and find it contains a complaint against Providence itself. I wish I never had been born." I look on the above statement of Voltaire as a strong plea for men to understand God's will by a written revelation, although penned by him for altogether a different purpose. Were nature our only guide, and the deductions of reason our only hope, we might perhaps join in the doleful strain of Voltaire. But when we consider that this lamentable picture is for the most part of those who reject the Bible, and among those who are professedly guided by nature and reason, we conclude that nature's guidance comes quite too short of the mark. With the Christian, who puts his trust in God and his word, what a different feeling we find. He has the "love of Christ which passeth knowledge" as the Lord grants him his blessing in copious showers, until he is "filled with all the fullness of God." Eph. 3:19. With Voltaire we might contrast the experience of Paul: "We glory in tribulations also." "I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us." And again he says: "For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal." Rom. 5:3; 8:18; 2 Cor. 4:17, 18. Voltaire died in 1779. He was the French infidel who claimed that in one hundred years the Bible would be exterminated; but let us read a few words of the report of the British and Foreign Bible Society at the close of the year's labor in 1879. It reads:— "Last year 100,000 copies of the holy Gospels, besides 4,000 Bibles, were distributed in France, and at least 150 persons were converted to Protestantism by the influence of the colporters of the society, whilst curiously enough the centenary of Voltaire's death was the occasion of the sale of more Bibles in France than ever, and thus there was a falsification of the great atheist's prediction that in 100 years the Bible would become effete. . . . Since its formation the society had issued 86 millions of copies of God's word in 250 languages." Sutterly has failed the prediction of one whose wish that the Bible might be destroyed "was the father of the thought he expressed, that it 'would become effete.'" We may be allowed to avail ourself of a contrast with the above, used by Mr. Wm. Plummer, in his "Bible True," in the case of Paul: "I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith; henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day; and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing." 2 Tim. 4:6-8. The unbeliever in trouble is a reed shaken with the wind—he is tossed with the tempest and not comforted. But he whose trust is in the living oracles of Jehovah, even when sorrow betides him, stands "As some tall cliff, that lifts its awful form,
Swells from the vale and midway leaves the storm;
Though round its breast the rolling clouds are spread,
Eternal sunshine settles on its head." SALVATION FREE.
By A. J. Morton
"In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise." Eph. 1:13. GLORIOUS news of free salvation!
Oh! what blessed sound is this?
This which goeth to each nation
Bringing word of perfect bliss.
Sinner, list! 'tis Jesus calling.
Hear! oh hear his loving voice!
Yield while yet his Spirit pleading
Urges thee to make thy choice. Come to-day, in Jesus trusting.
He will ne'er thy suit deny.
He, who on that name is hanging,
Satan's darts may e'er defy.
Come, and in his love confiding,
Thou wilt find a fold secure;
Come, and in his word relying,
Thou wilt find the promise sure. Oh, then, come to view the glory
Of those perfect worlds above;
Hear the sweet angelic story
Of thy Saviour's wondrous love.
Jesus now himself is calling
From his place within the skies.
Let each one, his voice now hearing,
Quickly from this torpor rise. Glorious song of full salvation!
What a blessed note is this.—
News which reacheth every nation,
Calling all to scenes of bliss.
Saints, rejoice! thy Saviour calleth!
Raise the note of praise on high.
From all ill which here befalleth
Thy deliverance draweth nigh. IN describing the great majority of the professed Christians of the last days, the apostle said that they would be "lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof." 2 Tim. 3: 4, 5. And certainly no one can honestly deny that such is the condition of the "Christian world" to-day. This is forcibly set forth in the following extract from a recent sermon by Rev. Charles Miel, of San Francisco, which contains some wholesome truths; but the testimony of inspiration leaves us no ground for hope that the tide of iniquity will be turned till the Lord comes, clothed in the garments of vengeance, and miserably destroys all those who, instead of bringing forth the fruits of righteousness, have loved the wages of sin, and followed the ways of the world:— "Among Protestant communions there is no lack of harsh and acrid criticism of the Jesuits and of their policy. And yet on every hand are Protestant clergy advocating, in the church fair, etc., the motto which is the keystone of Jesuitry, that the end justifies the means; yes, and deprecating the means in one breath while advocating them in another. The end is held to be the glory and the praise of God. What are the means? They are schemes for extracting gold and silver from the tailings of a worked-out Christian liberality. In a greater or less degree every church fair, concert, opera, ball, lunch, or what not, is a begging scheme. These schemes place the Creator, and the Redeemer, and the Sacrificer, before the world like some curb-stone cripple with placarded breast and tintinnabulating cup,—a beggar, whining and jingling for an alms. "I believe if some of those who proudly claim to be the representatives of the crucified Son of God, and the stewards of his kingdom upon earth, would have the manhood and the honesty to preach (as did their Lord and Master) God's claims upon the soul and life, we should have less of church debts and more of Christian love and life; less of the church fair and more of the fair church; less of sour ferment and more of blessed peace; less of hypocrisy and more of truth; less of mammon and more of Christ, than we have to-day. "No doubt most, if not all, who take part in these church fairs, etc., mean well. No doubt most, if not all, love God's work and are zealous in it, but their love and their zeal, I submit, are not according to godly knowledge or righteous judgment. Quite innocently, it may be, none the less surely, they are sowing, if not in their own hearts, then in the hearts of others, the seed of selfishness, and as is the sowing, such shall the harvest be." LOVE AND KNOWLEDGE.
By S. S. Times
A HEART without a head is worth more than a head without a heart. The man who is full of knowledge, but who is lacking in love, is less likely to be of real service to his fellows than the man who is full of love, but who is lacking in knowledge. He who knows more than those who are about him, but who has no loving interest in their welfare, can look on in calm indifference while they suffer in their need. But he who loves his fellows as truly as he loves himself, will find ways of doing for them beyond his limits of acquired knowledge. Paul emphasizes this thought when he says: "Knowledge puffeth up, but love buildeth up." A full head can blow bubbles, and can find delight in the rainbow hues of those bubbles. A full heart will toil at building a home for the objects of its love, and its joys will be found in the results of its loving labors for their welfare. He who would prepare himself for usefulness in life, in any sphere, must not forget the cultivation of his heart in conjunction with the cultivation of his head; he must have a care to love as well as to know. . . . If you have both knowledge and love, you are well furnished so far. But of the two qualifications, love by itself is better than knowledge by itself; for "knowledge puffeth up, but love buildeth up."—S. S. Times. CHRIST said to his disciples, "A new commandment I give unto you that ye love one another as I have loved you." Again he says, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." These words were spoken to his disciples in connection with his instructions to them, preparatory to his leaving them, before that unparalleled event so soon to take place,—even his sacrificial death on the cross, as the expression of his love for them. In what sense are we to understand that this was a new commandment? Our Lord answers this question: "Even as I have loved you." Christ more than fulfilled the precept to love his neighbor as himself; he loved him more than himself, for he laid down his life for man. In this he calls upon the disciples to imitate him, to be ready to lay down their lives for each other. This was strictly a new commandment. No system of morality ever presented anything so pure and disinterested as this. This is the distinguishing grace by which we give evidence to the world that we are the disciples of Christ—the love we have for each other, which will show its fruitage in our acts toward each other.—Selected. Humanity’s Pillage of Earth and Sea
By Pliny
How long shall we weary Heaven with petitions for superfluous luxuries, as though we had not at hand wherewith to feed ourselves? How long shall we fill our plains with huge cities? How long shall the people slave for us unnecessarily? How long shall the countless numbers of ships from every sea bring us provisions for the consumption of a single month? An ox is satisfied with the pasture of an acre or two; one wood suffices for several elephants. Man alone supports himself by the pillage of the whole earth and sea.—Pliny. Truth in Its Proper Relation
It is possible to present truth in such a way as to make a false impression. In order to avoid this, a truth must be presented in its proper relation to other truths. Indeed, the perversion of truth often leads to the greatest error.—Selected. THE PRIMARY IDEA OF SUNDAY OBSERVANCE.
By W.
SAYS the Christian at Work:— "As to Sunday itself, there ought to be no question as to the underlying motive for its maintenance by the State; with the religious features of the day the State has nothing whatever to do; the primary idea is Rest, with a very big R—Rest for man and beast; that was the fundamental idea of its establishment by divine authority." The editor of the Christian at Work should occasionally look over the files of his paper to refresh his mind as to what he has said in time past. No longer ago than February 18, 1886, he said:— "We hear less than we used to about the apostolic origin of the present Sunday observance, and for the reason that . . . it is now seen, as it is admitted, that we must go to later than apostolic times for the establishment of Sunday observance." And on January 8, 1885, the Christian at Work said editorially:— "We rest the designation of Sunday on the church's having set it apart of its own authority. The seventh-day rest was commanded in the fourth commandment. . . . The selection of Sunday, thus changing the particular day designated in the fourth commandment, was brought about by the gradual concurrence of the early Christian church; and on this basis, and none other, does the Christian sabbath, the first day of the week, rightly rest." Yet in the face of these candid admissions of fact, the same paper now speaks of the establishment of Sunday "by divine authority." We would like to ask a few questions: 1. Is "the church" divine authority for anything? 2. If it is, which part of the church has that exaltation? for it is well known that "the church" has many conflicting divisions, or as it is sometimes expressed, "There are many branches of our Zion." 3. Does the Christian at Work claim that "divine authority" rests in "the church" as a whole, and that, like the infallible Popes of Rome, it can make contradictory opinions equally true? or when it speaks of "the church" does it mean to be understood as referring to the Roman Catholic Church? 4. And if it means this, why does it not adopt all other festivals imposed by the same "divine authority"? The fact is, and the Christian at Work knows it very well, that there is no divine authority for Sunday-keeping. The fourth commandment is the only Sabbath commandment there is in the Bible, and that enjoins the observance of the seventh day of the week, and of no other day. It is also a fact that the Bible is the only "divine authority" in the world, because it is the only revelation of the will of God. Therefore, it is also a fact that Sunday has no divine authority whatever, commanding it as a rest-day of any kind. Moreover, divine commands are never gradually given. The ten commandments were given at one time, by the voice of God. But evil has always come in by the "gradual concurrence" of those who thought their own way preferable to the will of God. The fact that the observance of Sunday instead of the Sabbath was "brought about by the gradual concurrence of the early Christian church," after the days of the apostles, unmistakably stamps that institution as a product of the great apostasy. But granting the claim that Sunday was established by authority of some kind, let us notice the statement of the Christian at Work, that physical rest is the primary idea of that establishment. If that be the case, then no State has a right to enforce its observance upon those who do not feel like resting. Night is the time for sleep, but no Government has the power to enact that a man shall be forced to sleep if he is not sleepy. If Sunday is only for physical rest, then the State has no more right to say that a man must rest upon it if he is not tired, than it has to say that a dose of morphine shall be given to every man who does not feel like going to bed at ten o'clock at night. But if the advocates of Sunday shall, in order to avoid this dilemma, claim that there is a religious idea also to the Sunday rest, then we still insist that the State has no right to enforce its observance, for civil Governments have nothing to do with matters of religion. Gallio of old had a just conception of the extent of his power as a civil ruler, when he said to the Jews who wanted him to condemn Paul:— "If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O ye Jews, reason would that I should hear with you; but if it be a question of words and names, and of your law, look ye to it; for I will be no judge of such matters." Acts 18: 14, 15. We leave Sunday worshipers to settle the matter among themselves as to the grounds upon which they observe Sunday, if it is possible to fix upon the "primary idea" of an institution that was established without precept. But for the Sabbath we can say that the primary idea in its establishment is worship, and not physical rest. The Sabbath was made for man, in order that he might know and remember God, and not for his personal ease. And here we will say that the man who labors so hard during the week that physical rest becomes of necessity the primary idea in his Sabbath observance, does not remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. If a man feels in need of physical rest and recreation, there is no objection to his taking it on Sunday; but there is a commandment from the Lord himself, for every man to rest on the Sabbath, and that without regard to the wants of his physical nature. THE BIBLE, COMMENTARIES, AND TRADITION.
By Editor
LAST week we gave a few principles of interpretation and promised to add a few more this week. As what we now wish to give is very intimately related with what has already been given, we will first recall those points. We noted first, that the Bible is absolute truth and that anything that disagrees with it in the slightest particular must be false. Second, that the Bible, though composed of many books, is one Book with one Author; that there is perfect harmony in all its parts. Third, that the Bible contains all truth, because that by it a man may be "thoroughly furnished unto all good works;" and that therefore it must be its own interpreter. Fourth, that one part of the Bible cannot be fully understood if taken out of its connection, or without reference to the Bible as a whole. There is no book in the Bible upon which light is not thrown by every other book in the Bible. On this point the following from Dr. P. S. Henson's introduction to the book, "Christ in the Gospels," is excellent:— "In what we call the Bible, God has given us many books penned by many writers, each presenting such views of truth as his mental and spiritual nature made him specially adapted to be the vehicle of. Not that any one of these Scripture writers was left to wander at his 'own sweet will,' so that we must largely discount his deliverances on account of his human imperfections and the possibility of his misapprehending what the Lord would have him teach. That were indeed to undermine utterly the authority of the Scriptures, and 'if the foundations be destroyed what shall the righteous do?' We do most thoroughly and invincibly believe that 'holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,' and that therefore what they spake may be absolutely relied upon. But while we believe that all that each one said was truth, God's truth, we do not believe it was all the truth. You must have all that all of them said, in order to be sure that you have all the truth. 'Which things we speak,' writes the apostle Paul, 'not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.' And only by such collation and comparison can God's truth be comprehended in all the breadth and beauty of its meaning. You cannot obtain any accurate representation23 of a building by taking only a single view. As the photographer is accustomed to take two pictures, from a little different point of view, and when both these are looked at at once, as in a stereopticon, you see not two pictures, but one, and that not a flat surface such as each of the pictures shows, but a solid that stands out in its massiveness before your eyes. And yet even then you do not see the hinder part, but only half the building. To see it all in its completed symmetry, we should be obliged to have four views, and to look at them all at once. But this is, of course, impossible, inasmuch as we have not four eyes, but only two. But the principle applies, though its application be impossible. Singularly enough there are just four Gospels. The metropolis of gospel truth, like the heavenly metropolis, lieth four square. Four pictures have we here of the matchless Man of Nazareth,—four pictures, and all so much alike that sometimes captious critics have said that there was only one original Gospel and the other three were copied from that. Four pictures, and yet all so different that other skeptical critics have alleged that there are glaring discrepancies in them that are hopelessly irreconcilable. The pictures, of course, must be alike, for all of them are pictures of Him. The pictures, of course, must be unlike, for each of the portrait painters had his own peculiar point of view. And yet it takes all four to give us the Christ of history in all the completeness of his humanity and divinity." This is just as true of the whole Bible as it is of the four Gospels. Lastly, we showed that a term used in one place in the Bible must have the same meaning in every other place where it occurs, especially if the same subject is under consideration. Under the third proposition, that the Bible must interpret itself, we wish to say a few words on the use of commentaries. Commentaries may be a great help to the Bible student, or they may be a great curse. No matter how good a commentary may be, if a person relies implicitly upon it, taking all its statements as final upon any subject, he might better never see it, for he simply puts it in place of the Bible. Commentaries may be used only as they throw additional light on a point already established, or when the commentator leads to the understanding of a point, by unfolding to us the Bible evidence upon it. Many persons will quote a decision from Barnes, or Scott, or Clark, or Olshausen, or some other person, and rest satisfied with that. Now allowing that their statement of the case is correct, of what use is it to us if they do not show us the steps by which they arrived at such a conclusion; or how can we know that their statement is correct if we do not have those steps? If the commentary does not lead us to the Bible then it is worse than useless. No matter how great a man may be, his opinion on a matter of Bible doctrine is of no account whatever unless it is backed by Bible evidence. And therefore in teaching others we should never quote commentaries for the purpose of biasing the mind or in any way influencing the judgment, before the Scripture has done its work. If a thing is true it may be proved by the Bible; if it cannot be proved by the Bible, it is of no consequence whatever, no matter who may hold it. If a man relates to us an item of news, we almost invariably ask, "How do you know?" This does not necessarily indicate that we doubt his statement, but that we want to have the same ground for belief that he has. We should not be less anxious for trustworthy information on Bible subjects than we are on the news of the day. If a commentator makes a statement, he is in duty bound to tell us why he makes it, and we should demand this before we accept it. Otherwise we cannot be "thoroughly furnished unto all good works." If the statement involves some duty, and we perform that duty, not knowing the full reason therefor, we shall be following some man, and not the Bible. The Bible then is the test of whether or not a man is a good commentator. If he proves every statement by comparing scripture with scripture, so that we can see for ourselves the reasonableness of his propositions, then his work becomes a blessing. If he does not, then, even though his statements be true, his work is of no account. He is like a man who climbs to the top of a building, and pulls up after him the ladder by which he ascended, but still expects others to follow him. There is a growing and almost irresistible tendency to depreciate the value of plain Scripture statements. This is seen in the fact that when a direct Bible argument is given on some point that is new to the hearer, the first questions will almost invariably be, "Who believes this? What men have advocated this view?" Those who ask such questions are really exalting the human above the divine. They virtually say that the Bible needs human indorsement. We should have such confidence in the Bible that we will accept what it says no matter who, nor how many persons, may teach to the contrary. Another point that should be firmly fixed, is that tradition should be wholly disregarded in interpreting the Bible. No matter how old a tradition may be, it should not be allowed to bias the judgment in the least. We cannot know whether tradition is true or not until we compare it with the Bible; and since we have to first examine the Bible to ascertain the truth of tradition, it is evident that tradition can be of no help to us in interpreting the Bible. We must first understand the Bible, before we can know what credit to give to tradition. Many people suppose that those who lived nearest to the time when the Bible was written, must have known a great deal more about the Bible than we can. The popular idea of this is expressed by Rev. James Chrystal in his "History of the Modes of Christian Baptism," chap. 3, where, speaking of the testimony of holy Scripture, he says:— "This is the source of doctrine, but it should ever be interpreted by the historical witness of the earliest ages of the church. In other words, in case a doubt should arise regarding the proper interpretation of a passage relating to a certain doctrine or rite, we should not despise the voice of the early successors of the apostles. It is a principle of common sense as well as of sound criticism that the historical witness of the Christians who lived the nearest the apostolic age, is of the greatest importance in determining the meaning of obscure or disputed passages of the New Testament." But it should be remembered that the apostles had no "successors." There have been a great many men who have lived since they did, but they have not been apostles. If nearness to the apostolic age gives extra light on the Bible, then those who lived at the same time that the apostles did ought to be still better guides than those who lived after they did; but we find that some of the gravest errors were taught by men who were contemporaries of the apostles. For a single example, see 2 Tim. 2:17, 18. In closing this brief statement of principles, we would adopt the words of Dr. Killen, who speaks of the early church Fathers as follows:— "It would seem as if the great Head of the church permitted these early writers to commit the grossest mistakes, and to propound the most foolish theories, for the express purpose of teaching us that we are not implicitly to follow their guidance. It might have been thought that authors, who flourished on the borders of apostolic times, knew more of the mind of the Spirit than others who appeared in succeeding ages; but the truths of Scripture, like the phenomena of the visible creation, are equally intelligible to all generations. If we possess spiritual discernment, the trees and the flowers will display the wisdom and the goodness of God as distinctly to us as they did to our first parents; and, if we have the "unction from the Holy One," we may enter into the meaning of the Scriptures as fully as did Justin Martyr or Irenaeus. To assist us in the interpretation of the New Testament, we have at command a critical apparatus of which they were unable to avail themselves. Jehovah is jealous of the honor of his word, and he has inscribed in letters of light over the labors of the most ancient interpreters, 'Cease ye from man.' The 'opening of the Scriptures' so as to exhibit their beauty, their consistency, their purity, their wisdom, and their power, is the clearest proof that the commentator is possessed of 'the key of knowledge.' When tried by this test, Thomas Scott or Matthew Henry is better entitled to confidence than either Origen or Gregory Thaumaturgus. The Bible is its own safest expositor. 'The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.'—The Ancient Church, section 2, chapter 1, last paragraph."