HOMILETICS.-In these four verses we discover the portrait of a true preacher. We do not say that Elihu was true; but certainly his language here suggests the true. The words represent four things concerning a true preacher :

I. THE SIDE HE HAS TO TAKE. "I have yet to speak on God's behalf." Sin is a controversy with God. The millions of ungodly men are engaged in this debate. The true preacher has to take the side of God in the discussion.

First: He has to defend the procedure of God. He has to justify the ways of Heaven. Secondly: He has to vindicate the character of God. His character is defamed, misrepresented, condemned. The true preacher has to clear his Maker of all ungodly accusations. Thirdly: He has to enforce the claims of God. His claims to their supreme love and constant obedience. Fourthly: He has to offer the redemption of God. To show forth the wonderful mercy of God in Christ Jesus. The words represent a true preacher in :

:

II. THE KNOWLEDGE HE HAS TO COMMUNICATE. "I will fetch my knowledge from afar." All, perhaps, that Elihu meant by this expression was, that he did not intend dealing commonplaces, to go over the same ground which others had trodden, but to go into fresh regions for his thoughts. Literally, the true preacher has to fetch his "knowledge from afar." First: "From afar" in relation to the intuitions of

in

men.

The facts of the Gospel lie far away from the inbred sentiments of the human soul. Secondly: "From afar" in relation to the philosophical deductions of men. Human reason could never discover the essential truths of the Gospel. "Eye

hath not seen," etc. Thirdly: "From afar" in relation to

the natural spirit of men.

to the dispositions of the

The spirit of the Gospel is foreign ungodly world. We have to fetch our "knowledge from afar." We have to go back over the centuries, back to Christ and His apostles, etc.

The words represent a true preacher in :—

III. THE PURPOSE HE HAS TO MAINTAIN. "I will ascribe righteousness unto my Maker." Elihu's purpose seemed to be, to demonstrate to Job that God was righteous in all His ways and worthy of his confidence. The conviction of God's righteousness must be amongst the deepest and most invincible forces in the soul of the true preacher. A sceptical philosophy in criticizing the Divine procedure may sometimes throw such a thick mist over the righteousness of God as to hide it for a time from his reason; but his heart must hold on to it with tenacity. God's ways are equal. This must be his watchword, his landmark in his mental explorations, his polestar in his excursions. With this conviction he will show,— First That no suffering falls on any creature more than he deserves. Secondly: That no work is demanded of any creature more than he can render.

The words represent a true preacher in :

“Truly my

IV. The FAITHFULNESS HE HAS TO EXHIBIT. words shall not be false: he that is perfect in knowledge is with thee." If in the latter clause Elihu refers to himself-as is the general opinion-it expresses his purpose to be true and real. Faithfulness is essential to the character of a true preacher. He should labour hard to get honest convictions of truth, and those convictions he should thunder out, regardless alike of the smiles and frowns of men. No class of men do I know more despicable, dangerous, and denounceable than hollow, insincere, temporizing preachers of God's Word.

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; Sears; Farrar; etc., etc.

No. LXXV.

A Bad Spirit and a Sound Argument.

"THERE WAS A DIVISION THEREFORE AGAIN AMONG THE JEWS FOR THESE SAYINGS. AND MANY OF THEM SAID, HE HATH A DEVIL, AND IS MAD; WHY HEAR YE HIM? OTHERS SAID, THESE ARE NOT THE WORDS OF HIM THAT HATH A DEVIL. CAN A DEVIL OPEN THE EYES OF THE BLIND?"-John x. 19-21.

EXPOSITION: Ver. 19.-"There was
a division therefore again among
the Jews." Christ having finished
the discourse in which He was
interrupted by the Pharisees (in
ver. 40 chap ix.), that discourse
including reproofs, monitions,
and sublime truths in relation
to His death, the crowd seemed
to continue about Him all the
while, and often interrupted
Him, as in chap. ix. vv. 17, 43.
Their opinions concerning Him-
self and what He said, were by
no means in accord. And here
at the close there is a division
-literally, a schism.

Ver. 20.-"And many of them said,
He hath a devil, and is mad;

why hear ye Him?" He hath
a devil, a demon.
This they
seem to have said, not to Him,
but about Him behind His back;
and they resolved to treat Him
henceforth as a madman, treat
His utterances as beneath their
notice.

Ver. 21.-" Others said, These are
not the words of Him that hath a
devil. Can a devil open the eyes
of the blind?" These belonged
to the party who regarded Him as
possessed with an evil spirit, a
madman, and they adduced an
argument, and the argument was
sound until a demon opened the
eyes of the blind.

HOMILETICS.-In these verses we have two things worth note a bad spirit and a sound argument.

I. A BAD SPIRIT. The bad spirit we have in verses 19, 20. First: Here is a schismatic spirit. It is a division. Sad, that Christ and His doctrines should divide men into sects. One might have thought that, as His life was so manifestly so pre-eminently pure, loving, and morally commanding, and His doctrine so congruous with human reason and conscious

spiritual wants, that all men would have centred in Him. Schism amongst men in relation to Christ, is bad. The sects are a calumny on the Gospel and a curse to the race.

Secondly: Here is a blasphemous spirit. "And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad." Here is the old accusation, "He casteth out devils by Beelzebub.” There are, to use the language we have elsewhere employed, two great evils which men commit on the question of moral causation:-(1) Some ascribe bad deeds to God. The warrior who has rifled cities and slain his thousands, appears after his bloody achievements at the altar, to return thanks to that God who has commanded us not to kill, and declared that all wars arise from "the lusts" of the wicked heart. The priest who presumes to stand between God and the people, by his sacerdotal services professing to propitiate Almighty Justice, ascribes his crafty deeds to God. The Islam and the Mormonite leaders, who impose upon the credulity of the ignorant, profess to have derived their authority and doctrines from Heaven. How much kingly despotism, military slaughter, priestly craft, religious imposture, and international plunder and oppression are enacted in the sacred name of God! (2) Some ascribe good deeds to Satan. These cavilling and malicious men did so. Irritated with jealousy at the impres sion which Christ's miracle made upon the people, so favourable to His own growing popularity, they said, with contemptuous indignation, "This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils." They could not deny the miracle, it was too patent to all; the only plan they had, therefore, to resist its influence amongst the people, was to ascribe it to Satanic agency. This they did. They traced a good act to a bad cause, a Divine act to the arch foe of God. This was heinous sin. Yet the principle of this has been too common in every age. What is the conduct of those who assign all the good effects which Christianity has produced upon the world, the moral miracles it has achieved amongst the various tribes and nations of the earth, to the ingenuity and craft of impostors, and who designate the Bible a "cun

ningly devised fable?" What, too, is the conduct of those who, alas! abound in all times and lands, who are ever disposed to ascribe good acts to bad motives, and brand as hypocrites. the most holy and useful men? Why, such conduct is exactly the same in principle as that which these blaspheming scribes and Pharisees now committed.

Thirdly: Here is an intolerant spirit. "Why hear ye Him?" The spirit which has characterized bigots and bloody persecutors through all Church history breathes in these words, and this spirit is, alas! not extinct. 'Why hear ye Him?" So one sect now says, in relation to one preacher of another sect.

In these verses we have,

II. A SOUND ARGUMENT. "Others said, These are not the words of Him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes

of the blind?" There is no reason to believe that the devil could give eyes to the blind; and if he could, there is every reason to believe that he would not. The principle on which these men reasoned, was that which Christ Himself enunciated, "Ye shall know them by their fruits." This is an infallible test. As in the material so in the moral, men reap what they sow. Every tree beareth its own kind; a corrupt heart will have a corrupt life. The argument of these men may be thrown into a syllogistic form. An essentially malevolent being does not perform genuinely merciful deeds: the devil is essentially malevolent, and therefore this merciful deed, namely the giving eyes to a blind man, cannot be his act. Evil deeds form essentially evil beings. Christianity will bear this test. Judge Christianity by its works. This is the test with which Christ sought to overcome the rising scepticism of John the Baptist. Christ says, "Go your way and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind," etc., etc.

E E