Earlier text: Uncertainty of Geological ScienceSalvation Come Out of Zion
"Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! When God bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad." Ps. 53:6. Sowing Seed.
By Jennie Deans
WHEN spring-time opens, farmers think of the sowing soon to be. Seeds selected with care in the autumn, are now assorted, and the fullest kernels of corn, plumpest spikes of wheat, chosen. Nothing but the best for sowing. Following the farmer's thought comes the one that all are sowing seeds in life by constant and daily acts. This is a fact from which none can escape. Now what of the seed? Is it the best, garnered with care and treasured with watchfulness? We sometimes think of the poorly-paid minister toiling through summer's heat and winter's cold sowing seeds of a virtuous, moral, and Christian life. With what carefulness and prayerfulness are such selected, and are they not eminently worthy? How often the power behind a noble life, fruitful in deeds of benevolence and love, has been the little seed sown by the faithful man of God long years before. It may have been in weakness, amid doubts and fears, half thinking the ground stony; but ah! the seed was good, and behold the harvest! Educators and teachers are none the less sowing seed, scattering it broadcast with a bountiful hand. The teacher who daily brings before her pupils the best of each lesson, who seeks to impart moral lessons as well, that shall be remembered when the young and eager learner has passed beyond her reach, is sowing good seed. If on in the years one, only one shall say, "When beset by fierce temptation, when the better nature had almost yielded, words of yours, teaching and instruction of yours, the little seed sown in the far-away school-room, saved me from sinning, and held me to duty and right," what teacher will not feel amply repaid for every effort, every sacrifice, every seemingly unappreciated endeavor, and will not the crown of her rejoicing be great? It is true no person can revolutionize a nature. The results of careful, faithful teaching are sometimes long hidden. But this does not excuse from the attempt in the right direction. The good seed may be sown, though the harvest come in later time. But pastors and teachers are not the only seed-sowers. Everybody everywhere is sowing seed with a plentiful hand, yet the question is not how much or how little, but what of the kind, and—the reaping? Will it be thirty, sixty, or an hundred-fold, or such that the sower will not desire said, "Behold the fruits of my toil?" If any are sowing seeds of strife, discord, dissension, planting tares among the wheat, thorns among the roses, their reward is certain, it cannot be escaped; and if seeds of love, kindness, good-will, honesty, charity and righteousness, their reward is none the less sure. "Whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap." Though the heavens fall, these words shall not fail. In the hurry and rush of this pushing nineteenth century; amid the Yankee cleverness for gain and the American ability to win a name high on the roll of fame, let him remember along with the Rothchilds and Vanderbilts, only the treasures in the better kingdom are those that will afford lasting satisfaction. Thus as the farmer selects with care his seed for spring-time sowing, so let us look well to it that we choose the best for daily planting. Knowing men do not gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles, never can we expect a noble life unless actuated by firm principle and high resolve. May we choose so wisely and sow so well that of us it may be said:— The seed that in these short and fleeting hours,
Thy hands untiring and unsparing sow,
Shall deck thy grave with amaranthine flowers,
And yield ye fruits divine in Heaven's unfading bowers.
—Jennie Deans, in Christian at Work. "PRAISE the Lord; for the Lord is good." Two Great Compromises.
By Editor
IN Rev. 13 it is seen that the image of the beast—the likeness of the papacy—is made under the direct influence of the miracles which the two-horned beast had power to do. These miracles are the wonders of spiritualism. Years ago it was objected that our views of this prophecy could not be right for this reason, that the papacy was a church and State power, and its persecutions were in the name of religion; an image must likewise be a church and State power, and in enforcing the mark of the beast it must act professedly in the interest of religion. But spiritualism was irreligious; opposed to Christ and the Bible, and therefore it was impossible that spiritualism should do this work. When this objection was raised, it looked plausible, because spiritualism was indeed irreligious. But we nevertheless believed that it would fulfill the prophecy, and we now begin to see a justification of our belief. Spiritualism now professes to be a religion; not only so, but it professes to be the only religion which can demonstrate the great truth (?) of the immortality of the soul; the only religion which can prove its truthfulness by power from the unseen world. And in this light it is now received by multitudes in the churches, both of the laity and the clergy. Thousands stand ready to embrace it when it shall give satisfactory evidence that it has the power that it claims to have; but thousands have accepted it, declaring that they have seen the power manifested to their entire satisfaction. Compromises are made in times of trouble. They are the resorts of emergencies. That trouble impends over this nation no thoughtful and observant person can deny. The spirit of anarchy, of nihilism or communism, is abroad. Combinations in the form of "unions" or secret associations are multiplying; and they largely control the nation. By their combined action they can paralyze the hand of industry, and stay the commerce of the world. Some of these communistic bands openly avow their purpose to destroy property, and to put down all authority. They are armed, and are suffered to drill their forces unmolested in our cities. Another association, of vast and increasing proportions, has arisen in the land. It has for its object the entire remodeling of our Government by a religious amendment to the Constitution,—"such an amendment to the Constitution of the United States as will suitably acknowledge Almighty God as the author of the nation's existence and the ultimate source of its authority, Jesus Christ as its Ruler, and thus indicate that this is a Christian nation, and place all Christian laws, institutions, and usages, on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land." These words we quote from the address of the president of the association to the National Convention held in Pittsburg, Pa., in 1874. The speakers and writers of this association are already appealing to the religious bigotry of the people, teaching that the cyclones and other commotions of the elements are owing to the fact that our Constitution is irreligious, having no proper recognition of the authority of Christ! As though a constitutional amendment, a public vote, were acceptable to God as a substitute for personal piety. As troubles increase, and perplexity prevails, spiritualism will be accepted as the religion for the time, combining with those who wish to enforce religion by law. Thus the "image of the beast" will be created by a compromise. Now we must turn our attention to another field, and consider THE EUROPEAN COMPROMISE.
By Editor
The present generation has seen many great changes in Europe, but none greater than the divorce of the nations from the Church of Rome. France, formerly considered the special favorite and defender of the church, has withdrawn her support altogether. Germany has treated the pope with cool civility. Austria and Spain, two of the most "priest-ridden" of all the nations, have neglected the church, while Italy, the home and province of the pope, has despoiled him of the last vestige of civil authority. Forsaken of all his powerful supporters,—of those who once bent their knees to him in homage,—he shuts himself in his palace, playing the role of "a prisoner" to work upon the sympathies of the faithful. And in his "encyclicals," which might with equal propriety be termed his "lamentations," nothing is more deeply deplored than the fact that religion is taught, and to some extent accepted, contrary to the teaching of "the church," even in Rome itself. But there is no great cause of congratulation in the fact that this system of error has been cast off by the nations. True, the pope has not the power which he formerly possessed to authorize inquisitions; in this there is a change for the better. But not a single nation—not even a province or community—has rejected the authority of the papacy in the interest of religious principle. Germany is perhaps as free as any of the former papal States, but her people have cast off the papacy and accepted no religion, or rather irreligion, in its stead. The recklessness of communism has taken deep hold of the people at large. Regard for religion seems almost entirely lacking with the great majority. France is nearly in the same condition. In both these nations there is considerable freedom of religious thought and action; but a vast amount of irreligion both in thought and action. In Spain and Austria there is very little more of religious toleration than there was when the pope held them under absolute control. It is very difficult, and very unsafe, to promulgate any sentiments contrary to the teachings of the priests. Italy did not break away from papal sway on a question of religion, for her people, as a rule, are intensely Catholic—bigoted and intolerant. A "united Italy" was the object of the movement which wrested civil power from the hands of the pope. It was found to be impossible that two rulers should occupy the same territory, and while the spiritual power was granted to the pope, the civil power was claimed by the emperor. But in none of these States was any effort made to substitute a purer religion in the place of that of Rome. Almost all that has been done in that direction—and it is but little—has been done by missionaries from other lands. This is true with very few individual exceptions. In this connection we are reminded of the remark of Macaulay in his Review of Ranke's "History of the Popes." He says: "We think it a most remarkable fact, that no Christian nation, which did not adopt the principles of Reformation before the end of the sixteenth century, should ever have adopted them. Catholic communities have, since that time, become infidel and become Catholic again; but none has become Protestant." In regard to the political perplexities of the Old World not a word need be said. Every Government is exhausting its resources to arm for the conflict which they all know to be impending. And, while they view with jealous and apprehensive feelings every motion of their neighbors, they have a foe at home more to be feared than all their foes abroad—a foe against which they cannot arm. Science has largely been substituted for the Bible, and general education has been considered a sufficient compensation for the loss of religion. Even in the schools of morals and theology, science (often falsely so called,) has been accepted as the last resort in all important questions. Science has been regarded as the regenerator of society; the hope of the world. But science mocks their hopes, and furnishes from her laboratory the means of destroying commerce and overthrowing States. Science works in darkness, and in a single midnight hour lays in ruin the work of centuries. Science places a package in the hold of an ocean steamer, and the noble vessel, which "walks the water as a thing of life," with its freight of precious lives, is heard of no more. Well may men's hearts fail them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth, Luke 21:25-27. The "sure word of prophecy" informs us that "there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time." And that time of trouble is fast approaching. For that time the nations are arming, but arming only to be overthrown. We have noticed that a better religious sentiment is not rising in Europe. There is no just ground for hope in that direction. To the contrary the train is being laid for a return to the darkest phase of religious bigotry and intolerance. Already the pope and his chief ministers are appealing to the people, assuring them that the troubles that now exist, and the greater troubles which are near to come, are all due to the error of the nations in turning away from the church. They teach that God is angry with the nations because they have cast off their allegiance to the vicegerent of Christ, and that the only hope of relief from this state of strife and conflict of Governments is to acknowledge one central power, one controlling authority upon earth, which can hold the disturbing elements in check by the strength of religious unity and spiritual affinity. And the question is one of interest, whether there is a prospect that these appeals of the papacy will have weight, and be favorably considered by the people and the Governments. This we will next consider. Revised Old Testament.
By Editor
THE Revised Version of the New Testament has proved, as we expected, practically a failure. Very little reference is made to it since it was first issued. The revision of the Old Testament promises to be still more of a failure, as but little interest is taken in it. The orders for it are limited. It is said, however, that it is not another "Version," but a "Revision" of the old or "Authorized Version." If this is the case then we think the revisers have shown their wisdom. As such it may be accepted as a valuable help in many passages, while a radical or general change in translation or style of language could not possibly meet with favor. We have for years used a copy of "Bernard's Bible," a correction of the common version, with all changes indicated in the margin, so that the reader can always tell exactly what change was made. It is a valuable book. We shall look for the coming revision with interest; but, as we said of the New Testament when the revision was issued, we do not expect to see the "King James" translation superseded by another. It has faults of translation, but these are so well understood that they do not greatly mislead; while it has real excellences and beauties which we do not expect to see equaled by another version. The Entrance of Thy Words
"THY testimonies are wonderful; therefore doth my soul keep them. The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple." Ps. 119 : 129, 130. "Our Sunday; Whence and What."
In the notice of Dr. Nisbet's work in the Herald of Truth, we find this sentence: "Our belief is that the Sabbath or seventh-day worship is as old as creation." And we think this is the only reasonable belief that can be drawn from the Scriptures. And the professed reasons for believing the contrary are inconclusive and often puerile. Mr. Nisbet says:— "Had such command been given Adam, a clear record of it for the primitive world we should expect in Genesis, when we call to mind the heinous sin of its neglect, as indicated by the Mosaic penalty—death." And such a record we have in Genesis, but they who would get rid of the Edenic Sabbath dispute the record. We show the unreasonableness of his position in two ways:— 1. The record of the command is given in the word "sanctify," in Gen. 2:3, of which Dr. Clarke says: "Here the word kadosh is taken in its proper, literal sense, signifying the separating of a thing, person, or place, from all profane, or common uses, and devoting it to a sacred purpose." And Webster says: "To make sacred or holy; to set apart to a religious use." Also: "To impart sacredness, inviolability; . . . to secure from violation; to give sanction to." Now if Gen. 2:3 were rendered: "And God blessed the seventh day, and set it apart to a sacred use, and gave sanction to it, securing it from violation, because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made," it would be no more specific and emphatic than it now is, for all this is contained in the word sanctified. When the Saviour says it was made for man, he certainly refers to its being blessed and set apart to sacred use, or secured from violation, from its being profaned by the man for whom it was made. No one can dispute this fact, that the reason given in God's commandment, Ex. 20, for the Sabbath, is as old as creation. As an institution it commemorates the work of creation. 2. Were the terms of Gen. 2:3 less specific, and were the terms of Ex. 20:8-11 less definite, even then the arguing of Dr. Nisbet would be inconclusive. In all his theorizing he assumes that if the Sabbath were to be observed before the days of Moses there should have been a plain record of the giving of the precept for the benefit of the primitive world. In this he entirely overlooks the plainest facts necessary to be considered if we would get an understanding of the truth. Note the following points:— (a) The book of Genesis, which contains the record of the facts of creation, is not a book of law, but a brief history, covering more than 2,000 years from creation. And
(b) It was not written at or near the time when the events transpired, but hundreds of years afterward. And, therefore,
(c) It was not written for the benefit or use of those who lived during the first 2,000 years, as they were a long time dead when it was written. As might be expected in a book of this character, we often find evidence of the existence and knowledge of a law, when there is no mention of a law in the record. Thus "Enoch walked with God, and he was not; for God took him." This is a very short biography of a very eminent man who lived several hundred years. It does not furnish the least clue to the rules of life observed by Enoch. But it will not do to infer that, because not a single law is recorded, therefore not a single commandment was observed by Enoch. We must apply the principles involved in the case from our knowledge of the relations and responsibilities of a moral agent. Again, the imagination of the hearts of men was only evil, in the days of Noah; and Noah alone was righteous before God. But righteousness consists in right doing. 1 Jno. 3:7. Therefore, the difference between Noah and others was just this: He was obedient to the requirements of God while they were disobedient and lawless. We are absolutely shut up to this conclusion, though the record makes no mention of any law obeyed by the one, or disobeyed by the others. And again, the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners exceedingly. Now there is no record that any law was given to them; but we know that "sin is the transgression of the law" (1 Jno. 3:4); and that "where no law is there is no transgression" (Rom. 4:13); and "no imputation of sin" (Rom. 5:13). Therefore they had the law given to them, and they were its transgressors. Though the record contains no law, it contains positive proof that it was there. Had the record been written for them to point out to them their duty, it must then have contained the law instead of barely referring to it. In all such cases we find in Genesis, not what was necessary in a legal view to guide the lives of those living in that day, for it was not written for such a purpose, nor for them at all; but (we find) all that is necessary in a historical view, to give us full assurance that moral relations were the same then that they are now, and that legal obligations were known by all, and were regarded by some and disregarded by others. As a forcible illustration of the weakness of the method of reasoning adopted by Dr. Nisbet let us take Genesis and the third commandment: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." According to Mr. Nisbet there was no obligation of this nature laid upon the nations and people living before the Lord brought his people out of Egypt and gave the commandment from Mount Sinai; for there is no mention in Genesis of either the commandment or its violation. To adopt his language: "Had such command been given Adam, a clear record of it for the primitive world we should expect in Genesis, when we call to mind the heinous sin of its neglect, as indicated by the Mosaic penalty—death." See Lev. 24:16. But in Lev. 18 the sins of the inhabitants of Canaan are enumerated, and the Lord said: "After the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, ye shall not do." "Neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God." "For all these abominations have the men of the land done which were before you, and the land is defiled." Lev. 18:3, 21, 27. This is positive proof that Dr. Nisbet's treatment of Genesis is erroneous. By a careful examination and comparison of the Scriptures we shall find that all the precepts of the decalogue were recognized before the time of Moses. But the proof in regard to the Sabbath is more clearly made than in regard to any other of the ten precepts, as shown in the word sanctified, or hallowed, in Gen. 2:3 and Ex. 20:11. It is the Sabbath (rest) of the Lord because on it the Lord rested from his work of creation. The Lord calls it, "My holy day," for no other reason than that he sanctified it because it was his rest from the work of creation. Of course all this refers to the seventh day, and cannot possibly be applied to the first day. And here is where the great difficulty lies. If these proofs could only be turned over to the benefit of the Sunday, they would be clung to most tenaciously by the advocates of the Sunday-sabbath. And because they cannot the theological world is fast turning away from the decalogue—the "ten words" of Jehovah himself—and adopting the antinomian heresy. Dr. Nisbet follows in the wake. Thus he says: "It may be well to inquire what kind of a document the decalogue is. It was Jewish and temporary,—the document itself once and again declares this." Though the current is fast setting in the direction of antinomianism, we feel assured that the Baptist denomination has not yet so far "fallen from grace" as to satisfy the desire of Dr. Buckbee, and suffer its Publication Society to put its imprint upon such a theory. The organ of the denomination on this coast, the Herald of Truth, has done itself credit, and the Baptist cause a favor, by showing its disapproval of such a doctrine. And inasmuch as it frankly declares Mr. Nisbet's professed argument to be a begging of the question, we dismiss that part of the "little book" to examine it in another phase. What about the second statement of Dr. Frost, that Dr. Nisbet has effectually taken the ground from under those who claim that the day has been changed from the seventh to the first? What ground has he left for the advocates of the Sunday to stand upon? Just none at all. The proof of the seventh day is found in the word of Jehovah himself, spoken by himself, and written by himself in the tables of stone. "All his commandments are sure. They stand fast forever and ever." The apostle Paul inquires, and answers, "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law." But the Sunday has no such foundation to rest upon. Of it Jehovah never spoke a word in blessing or sanctification. He never called it his holy day. Dr. Nisbet may safely demolish its foundations, well knowing that in so doing he will not do violence to a single text of Scripture or to a Scripture fact! And here again the editor of the Herald of Truth shows his discretion in saying: "As for the New Testament Sabbath, we confess there is too little of it in the precept thereof to justify dogmatism by anybody." Too little indeed, if anything at all is required to that intent. But we could better judge of the correctness of his remark concerning "the precept thereof," that is, the precept for "the New Testament Sabbath," if he would kindly give us the precept, or tell us where it may be found! We shall have to leave it with the well-known supposition that it may be found in the same chapter where the precept is found for infant baptism, and where is found the declaration that the soul is immortal. But we must now turn to Mr. Nisbet's view of the Sunday, and see how that is established. He says: "Conceding the fourth commandment to be now in force, those who urge it for the observance of Sunday, stultify themselves,—they do away with the very essence of the command—observance of the day on which God rested, the seventh. It is the boldest and paltriest hocus pocus that claims: 'One day in seven, is the same as the seventh day,' every child knows it is not. If religious observance of the first day of the week is obligatory, such obligation must arise elsewhere than from the fourth commandment which requires observance—and for a specified reason—of the seventh,—it is not taught us by any voice of nature,—it must for Protestants, rest for its authority simply upon the teachings of the New Testament." These words are true, beyond denial. And now, unless he can produce that authority in the teachings of the New Testament, the friends of "Our Sunday" will not accord to him any very hearty thanks for his service. On this point he speaks thus:— "Let a heathen mind—tabula rasa—search the New Testament for the ordinances of Christ's church, he would find nothing requiring him to observe in any special manner whatever the first day of the week as a new, positive, Christ instituted, universally and perpetually binding ordinance." Truth, every word. And as far as showing any Scriptural obligation for Sunday is concerned, we might here close our examination of Mr. Nisbet's work, for this is "the conclusion of the whole matter" with him, on the subject. But we will take it up once more to show the reader how he disposes of the texts which are claimed to afford proof of a divine warrant for the observance of Sunday. Abolishing Finery at Confirmation
It is said that the bishop of Rochester has determined to abolish finery at confirmation, and that satin shoes are particularly to be done away with. All "dress parade" in church service might well be abolished. Sanctification.
By A. T. Jones
SPURIOUS sanctification has assumed a new phase. Finding in Acts 26:18 that Jesus has spoken of "them which are sanctified by faith that is in me," there are those who claim sanctification by faith alone. Only believe in Christ and you are sanctified. Others there are who claim sanctification by the Holy Spirit alone. Either of these is just as near right as the other, for both are wrong. And if sanctification should be claimed by both faith and the Spirit, still it would be a false claim; all three are alike spurious. It is true, as we have seen, that Jesus sent Paul to the Gentiles "to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me." It is also true that Paul wrote that "God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit." 2 Thess. 2:13. And it is equally true that Christ himself prayed to the Father for his disciples, "Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth." John 17:17. All three of these expressions are true. And when they are all taken together, and met according to the purpose of God, true, genuine sanctification will be the inevitable result. But when the attempt is made to take either of them alone, or any two of them together, the grace of sanctification is perverted, and a spurious sanctification, a terrible deception, is the sure result. These three passages of Scripture, taken in their proper order, state the true doctrine of sanctification. And it will be found that they are given above in their proper order. We now propose a short study of this subject in this order. 1. "Sanctified by faith." "Without faith it is impossible to please him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Heb. 11:6. James, in writing to us about asking of the Lord, says: "But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering; for he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord." James 1:6, 7. Faith is the foundation upon which Christian character is built. Faith is the beginning and to it all other graces come in addition. 2 Pet. 1:5-7. It is by faith alone that we must be justified. It is only by faith in Christ that we can obtain the forgiveness of sins. "Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." Acts 20:21. In the council at Jerusalem, as to the relation which the Gentiles bore to the gospel, Peter said that God "put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." Acts 15:9. Therefore it is plain that the first thing in sanctification is faith in Christ. When that is exercised, then the forgiveness of sins is received, then the Holy Spirit is given; and so comes 2. "Sanctification of the Spirit." Paul says, in speaking of Christ: "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. As circumcision, outwardly, of the flesh, in the letter, made with hands, was the seal of the righteousness of the faith which Abraham had; so circumcision, inwardly, of the heart, in the Spirit, made without hands, is the seal of the righteousness of the faith which we must have in Christ (Rom. 4:11; Eph. 1:13; Rom. 2:28, 29; Col. 1:11). Now we will designate some of the offices of the Holy Spirit. (a) A witness of the forgiveness of sins, and that thus we are the children of God. Heb. 10:15-17. "The Holy Ghost also is a witness to us; for after that he had said before, this is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;" then he said, "And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." Rom. 8:16. (b) An earnest of our inheritance. "Ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory." Eph. 1:13, 14. An earnest is "a part paid beforehand on a contract, as security for the whole." God enters into covenant with men, and to those who will accept his Son, he promises an inheritance. But the time is not yet come when the inheritance can be given; it is not yet redeemed. So until that time does come, until it is redeemed, he gives to his people the Holy Spirit as the earnest, the security of the inheritance. Another definition is, that "an earnest gives assurance that more is coming of the same kind." By receiving the Holy Spirit we become partakers of the divine nature, and by this "earnest" God gives assurance that more is coming of the same kind, even so much more, that, "when he shall appear, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is." (c) As a guide into the truth. "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John 14:26. The Holy Spirit then is to teach us the things that Christ has said. And as the spirit of Christ spoke the Old Testament as well as the New (1 Pet. 1:10-12), this is to say that the Holy Spirit is to teach us the word of God. This is confirmed by John 16:13. "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth." And as Jesus said, "Thy word is truth," it is plain that the Spirit is to guide us into the word of God. Again, "He shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you." Verse 15. The Holy Spirit therefore, as teacher of the word of God, as guide into the word of God, is to take these things of God and show them unto us, to show us their breadth of meaning, that we may know how to apply them to our lives and conform our ways to them. Compare Ps. 119:18; Eph. 1:17, 18, and Acts 26:18. Just here is where those fail who claim sanctification. Even granting, for the sake of the argument (and for that reason only), that they have received the Holy Spirit, instead of allowing him to fulfill his office of teacher of the word of God; instead of having him take the things of the word of God, and show unto them; instead of allowing him to guide them into the word of God: they seek to make him the guide independent of the word of God; and not only that, but in many instances directly contrary to the plainly written word which he himself has spoken. Such spirit is not the Spirit of God; such is not his office; he is not divided against himself. Again, this makes him the end, instead of the means, which is to pervert the way of the Lord. In no single instance, in this connection, is he made the end; but in every instance he is set forth as the means by which we may reach the end which God has in view for us. And again, to make him the guide independent of the word, is to make him speak of (from) himself. But Christ plainly declares, "He shall not speak of (from) himself." John 16:13. A. T. J.