with the truth or falsehood of propositions, nor with the probability or improbability of events, but with the right or wrong of actions. These are three elements, or perhaps forms, of the judicial faculty in man. This faculty the Bible appeals to. We are commanded to " prove all things," to "hold fast that which is good," to "try the spirits, whether they be of God." "Why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?" The address of Elihu to these friends implies another thing concerning this faculty, Secondly Its social dependence. : In order to have this faculty the more efficiently exercised, Elihu calls upon these three friends to come into counsel with him. "Let us choose to us judgment, let us know among ourselves what is good." "In the multitude of counsellors there is safety." One man's intelligence and experience may supplement the deficiencies of others. Honest controversy often quickens the intellect, brightens the atmosphere, and stimulates the faculties of the soul. The absolutely lonely man would be incapable of the right exercise of his judicious faculty. The wisest men must meet, compare opinions, weigh suggestions, and thus, by the honest process of inquiry, travel to a wise conclusion in which they all agree. Thank God for this faculty. It distinguishes us from all other sentient existences on the face of this earth. By it we go through phenomena to reality. We come to judge, not "according to appearance," but judge "righteous judgment." We find out truth, we advance in intelligence, we are brought into the presence of the great First Cause as an ever-adorable personality. Notice, II. THE MORAL IMPERFECTIONS OF MAN'S CHARACTER. Elihu here charges Job with many salient defects of character. Some of those defects, I am disposed to believe, did not belong to Job, and are libels on his character. What are the defects here indicated and charged on Job? : First Flagrant impiety. He represents Job as (1) Charging God with injustice. "For Job hath said, I am righteous, and God hath taken away my judgment." Did Job say this? Not in the sense that Elihu understood him. He never regarded himself as an absolutely perfect man ; all that he maintained was, his innocency of the charges brought against him by his friends, and the sincerity of his heart. He represents Job as (2) Charging God with cruelty. "Should I lie against my right? my wound is incurable through transgression." Whatever Job had said in his anguish, did he ever mean that God was cruel and had taken away his "judgment?" Did he ever mean that his "wound was incurable without transgression," and that he was innocent? I trow not. He represents Job as (3) Using contemptuous language. "What man is like Job, who drinketh up scorning like water?" It is true that Job had, in the extremity of his anguish, uttered his sentiments in somewhat extravagant language, and that he appeared to indulge in reproaches as a man drinks water. Another defect charged on Job here is,Secondly: Ungodly companionship. "Which goeth in company with the workers of iniquity, and walketh with wicked men." Elihu did not in all probability mean, as we have seen, that he mingled with wicked men, but that he adopted their sentiments, pursued the same line of irreverent thought in relation to God. Now, it is true that the "workers of iniquity" have wrong thoughts of the Almighty—ungrateful, rebellious, blasphemous thoughts. And it is also true that those who adopt such thoughts may be justly regarded as going in company with them, and walking with "wicked men." The hermit, the misanthrope,-who shuns his race and lives alone and never mingles personally with his kind,nevertheless " goes in company with them" just so far as he moves and acts in the circle of their thoughts. Be careful of your thoughts. "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he." Thoughts formulate both the character and the creed. Another defect charged on Job is, Thirdly: Depreciation of religion. "For he saith, it profiteth a man nothing that he should delight himself with God." “That is, There is no advantage in piety and in endeavouring to serve God. It will make no difference in the Divine deal ings with him. He will be treated just as well if he lives a life of sin, as if he undertakes to live after the severest rules of piety." It is worthy of remark, incidentally, that Elihu seems to have the right idea of religion when he speaks of it as delighting in God, having friendship with God. This is in truth religion stripped of all theologies and ceremonies and conventional forms. It is friendship with God; this is its essence. Now, such are the charges that are here brought against Job. He charges him with flagrant impiety, ungodly companionship, and depreciation of religion. Was Job guilty of all this? I trow not. I think the young Arabian, either intentionally or otherwise, libels the old patriarch. Albeit his charges involve glaring moral imperfections of character, imperfections that we should be ever ready to repudiate and denounce. Notice, III. THE TRANSCENDENT GLORIES OF MAN'S GOD. Elihu here speaks of wrong in any form, as being impossible to God. 66 First: As being repugnant to His nature. "Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding: far be it from God, that He should do wickedness; and from the Almighty, that He should commit iniquity. For the work of a man shall He render unto him, and cause every man to find according to his ways." "Far be it from God." The idea is not to be thought of, it is to be deprecated. He cannot do wrong, He cannot be unjust, He cannot do wickedness, He cannot commit iniquity," He cannot "pervert judgment." On the contrary, He is bound to do right, bound to " cause every man to find according to his ways.' This moral weakness of God is His glory. It is the glory of a noble mother that she is too weak to murder her lovely babe, her whole nature recoils. God cannot lie, cannot break His word, He cannot be unjust, cannot be unkind. Elihu speaks of wrong, Secondly As being contrary to His supremacy. : "Who hath given Him a charge over the earth? or who hath disposed the whole world ?" As He is the original Proprietor and absolute Master of all, as His authority is undenied and universal, and as He is responsible to no being in the universe, what motive has He to do the wrong? Were He a mere sub-ruler, accountable to some one above Him, it is conceivable that something might come that would turn Him from the right. He is irresponsible, and therefore can act out His nature with absolute freedom. His nature is essentially holy, just, and good, therefore He cannot do wrong. "Far be it from God that He should do wickedness." Elihu speaks of wrong,— Thirdly: As inconsistent with His power over man. Why should He do wrong towards man, as man is absolutely in His hands? "If He set His heart upon man, if He gather unto Himself his spirit and his breath; all flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust." Observe incidentally, (1) That man dies because of God's purpose. "If He set His heart upon man." Which means, If He determines. Here is the cause of human dissolution. Man dies, not by accident, disease, or age, but by God's purpose. "Thou changest man's countenance and sendest him away." Observe, (2) That man in his death returns to the Almighty. "He gathers unto Himself his spirit and his breath." "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God Who gave it." Observe, (3) That man dies as the destiny of the race. "All flesh shall perish together." By one volition God could terminate the race, put an end to all flesh. All men being so absolutely in the hands of God, why should He deal unjustly towards them? THE DEATH OF CHRIST.-The death of Socrates, peacefully philosophizing with his friends, appears the most agreeable that could be wished for; that of Jesus, expiring in the midst of agonizing pains, abused, insulted, and accused by a whole nation, is the most horrible that could be feared. Socrates, in receiving the cup of poison, blessed the weeping executioner who administered it; but Jesus, in the midst of His tortures, prayed for His merciless tormentors. Yes! if the life and death of Socrates were those of a sage, the life and death of Jesus were those of a God.-Rousseau. SERMONIC GLANCES AT THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. As our purpose in the treatment of this Gospel is purely the development, in the briefest and most suggestive form, of Sermonic Outlines, we must refer our readers to the following works for all critical inquiries into the author and authorship of the book, and also for any minute criticisms on difficult clauses. The works we shall especially consult are:-"Introduction to New Testament," by Bleek; "Commentary on John," by Tholuck; "Commentary on John," by Hengstenberg; "Introduction to the Study of the Gospels," by Westcott; "The Gospel History," by Ebrard; "Our Lord's Divinity," by Liddon; "St. John's Gospel," by Oosterzee: "Doctrine of the Person of Christ," by Dorner; Lange; etc., etc. The Man Born Blind. No. LXX. Types of Character in Relation to Christ's Work.-4. Those who practically Ignore Christ's Work. "AND THEY ASKED THEM, SAYING, IS THIS YOUR SON, WHO YE SAY WAS BORN BLIND? HOW THEN DOTH HE NOW SEE? HIS PARENTS ANSWERED THEM AND SAID, WE KNOW THAT THIS IS OUR SON, AND THAT HE WAS BORN BLIND : BUT BY WHAT MEANS HE NOW SEETH, WE KNOW NOT; OR WHO HATH OPENED HIS EYES, WE KNOW NOT: HE IS OF AGE; ASK HIM: HE SHALL SPEAK FOR HIMSELF. THESE WORDS SPAKE HIS PARENTS, BECAUSE THEY FEARED THE JEWS FOR THE JEWS HAD AGREED ALREADY, THAT IF ANY MAN DID CONFESS THAT HE WAS CHRIST, HE SHOULD BE PUT OUT OF THE SYNAGOGUE. FORE SAID HIS PARENTS, HE IS OF AGE; ASK HIM."-John ix. 19-23. EXPOSITION: Ver. 19.-" And they asked them, saying, Is this your son?" The parents are now brought forward in this ecclesiastical court. They are compelled to give evidence on the question before the Sanhedrim. What the court wanted the parents to depose was, that it was a great mistake to suppose that he was born blind, that he was only a little dim, and that having washed in Siloam he has got cured. "Is this your son, who This ye say was born blind?" is the first question they put. This they could not deny. The fact was too patent, they had already admitted it. They had a strong temptation to do so. Ver. 20.-"His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind." Here they declare the two facts that he was their son THERE and that he was born blind. "Thus," says Chrysostom, "the truth becomes strengthened by the very snares which are laid against it. A lie is its own antagonist, and by its attempts to injure the truth sets it off to greater advantage. So was it here. For the point which might have been urged, viz., that the neighbours knew nothing for certain, but spake from a mere resemblance, is cut off by the introduction of the parents, who could of course testify of their |