Holy Scriptures. There is no reference in it to writing; although undoubtedly the particular oracies intended were, as a matter of fact, committed to writing, and constituted the Holy Scriptures. It was, too, as written oracles that they were committed to the custody of the Jews. Still, it is the oracles themselves that are referred to in the Apostle's expression-the oracles as oracles, not as writings. It would be unadvisable, therefore, to translate the expression with Drysén, the divine Scriptures (de Guddomliga skrifterna. På detta stalle menas i min tanke sjelfva skrifterna, som innehöllo dessa orakel). But Calvin went farther wrong in considering the reference of the word. He says, "by oracles is meant the covenant which was divinely revealed to Abraham and his posterity, and afterwards recorded and explained in the Law and the Prophets" (oracula vocat foedus quod Abrahæ primo, ejusque posteris divinitus revelatum, postea Lege et Prophetiis consignatum ac explicatum fuit). This is not only too arbitrary, it is also too narrow an interpretation. The word might indeed denote the various revelations of the covenant. But assuredly it cannot mean the covenant itself. And yet Beza not only adopts Calvin's notion; he gives it an additional squeeze, and turns it still more awry. He represents the word as meaning the legal covenant (legale fœdus), as distinguished from the Gospel ;-at which subject, he says, the Apostle has not yet arrived (de evangelio nondum disserens). These are freaks of exegesis.

Theodoret was more successful. He identifies the term with the word law (vóuos); apparently understanding by law the whole supernatural Revelation of God, as distinguished from the Revelation which is made in nature. If this was really his meaning, he hit upon the Apostle's idea. Chrysostom, before him, gives the same explanationlaw. So Ecumenius (ἐνεχειρίσθησαν τὸν νόμον· οὗτος γὰρ τὰ λόγια TOû coû). So Theophylact and Ambrosiaster. θεοῦ).

The interpretation of Luther is less ambiguous, though his translation is circumlocutionary. He renders the phrase, “what God has spoken" (was Gott geredet hat). Emser and Dietenberger give the same translation. So Coverdale, "what God spake." Piscator renders it "God's word" (Gottes Wort). So Tyndale, the worde of God;Heumann also and Matthias. The plural form of the same version is given in Cranmer's Bible, and in the Rhemes the wordes of God; in the Dutch versions, too, old and new (de woorden Gods); and also in Calvin's French version of 1556 (les parolles de Dieu); and in the Peshito (l). Johan Hollybushe, in the English version of 1538, printed by Nicolson-the duplicate of Miles Coverdale's Paris edition of the same year, printed by Regnault-renders the expression, rather grotesquely, the speeches of God. Count Zinzendorf, on the other hand, translates the phrase freely, and in the singular number," the divine revelation" (die göttliche Offenbarung)—a translation adopted by Michaelis. The English Geneva gives the word oracles, putting in the margin, or words. Martin retains oracles, and explains the term as meaning the writings of the Old Testament (c'est à dire les Ecritures de l'Ancien Testament). Este agrees with Martin, and, in very explicit terms, explains the word as comprehending all the contents of Scripture (In sacris literis vox extenditur ad omne

Dei verbum hominibus traditum, cujusmodi est universa Scriptura sacra, sive prophetica, sive historica, seu quaecunque alia). Este is undoubtedly right; and with him agree Sadolet (oracula Dei sunt quaecunque ad docendum, regendum, et, maximarum rerum promissionibus, confirmandum populum Israeliticum, a Deo prolata sunt); Vitringa too (door dese woorden Gods in dese plaatse, de gansche openbaringe van sijne wille moet verstaan worden), and Calov, Seb. Schmidt, Day, Turretin, Wolf, Böhme, Rosenmüller, De Wette, Hodge, Glöckler Umbreit, Olshausen, Oltramare, Philippi, T. Schott, &c. The expression, as used by the Apostle, is general and indefinite; and there is no good reason for restricting its import to any particular or specific ingredients of the revelation contained in "the volume of the book." It would be wrong, very wrong, we presume, to suppose, with Semler, that the reference is exclusively to the Decalogue. It would also, we apprehend, be wrong to suppose, with Mehring, that the word simply means "prophecies" (Weissagungen). Oracles in general were, no doubt, from the nature of the circumstances that almost always led to consultation, predictive. But prediction, nevertheless, is not their differentiating essence. Neither would we regard the term, with perhaps Photius, and, at all events, with Vatable, Bugenhagen, De Paris, Koppe, Kistemaker, Reiche, Lossius, Köllner, Fritzsche, Maier, Baumgarten-Crusius, Krehl, Jatho, &c., as simply denoting promises. And yet, that the Apostle had a very special reference to the divine promises seems to be indisputable (see ver. 3), and has been perceived by the great majority of expositors, such as-in addition to those just mentioned-Zuingli, Melancthon, Bullinger, Aretius, Melville, Hunnius, Rollock, Grotius, Day, Böhme, Drysén, Flatt, Klee, Glöckler, Rückert, Meyer, Oltramare, Haldane, &c. The "oracles of God," indeed, as contained in "the volume of the book," are pre-eminently characterized by promises. Their essence consists of promises. It is the alpha and omega of the oracles of the Old Testament to which, of course, the Apostle exclusively referred-to promise "the Christ," and light and life and bliss in him. It is the alpha and omega of the oracles of the New Testament-which are but the complement and completion of the Old-to promise pardon justification, glorification, in one word, eternal life or salvation, along with peace, joy, hope, consolation, sustentation, and holiness to all who are willing to avail themselves of "the Christ" who had been "promised to the fathers." The "oracles of God," viewed broadly and as a whole, are God's communications of mercy to men considered as sinners. And from the necessity of the case, such communications must very largely partake of a promissory element. They must be of the nature of promises which either already are, or which yet shall be, "yea and amen in Jesus Christ." All the other details of the oracles must necessarily be subsidiary and subministrant. (Hic observabis totam legem, et literam veteris Testamenti, editam esse potissimum propter revelandas promissiones de Christo-Melancthon, Annot.).

When it is said that the Jews were intrusted with these oracles, the expression, as Erasmus noted, indicates that it was not for their benefit alone that the oracles were given to them. The revelation with which they were blessed was intended for wider dissemination. It was a boon for universal man. And they were therefore trustees,

for a season, for the behoof of the human race. Nevertheless, they were not simply depositaries in behalf of others—or capsarii nostri, as Augustin playfully calls them (Enarr. in Ps. xl. 14)—or “our librarians" (librarii nostri), as the same Father elsewhere designates them (Enarr. in Ps. lvi. 9). They were not even simply "God's librarykeepers," as Trapp expresses it. They themselves were heirs of the blessing which was confided to their charge. The revelation, with all its gracious and glorious promises, was a divine message to themselves; and in the possession of it they enjoyed for themselves an inestimable privilege. It was the Gospel in anticipation. It was the verbal word, mirroring the personal Word. It was the impersonal word of eternal life, mirroring Him who is, pre-eminently, at once the personal Word of God and the Eternal Life of man. It was the glad tidings of salvation through the atonement that was to be. It was all this, with an additament, the additament, namely, of an assurance to the Jews that, in consequence of the peculiarly intimate relation which the future Messiah was to sustain to their race, they would meanwhile be distinguishingly blessed in the enjoyment of anticipative spiritual advantages, and eventually exalted into the dignity of being the almoners of God-the dispensers of some of the richest elements of his bounty to the world at large. They would hence be emphatically, in virtue of such prerogatives, God's favoured people; his national "son" as well as his national "servant;" his "peculiar people." In addition to the fundamental promises relating to the provision of mercy made for men, as men, the oracles of the Old Testament are, as a matter of fact, bestrewed from beginning to ending with gems of exceeding great and precious promises relating to the provision of favour made for the Jews, as Jews. GOD" SHEWED HIS WORD (K'ri, 77, HIS WORDS, HIS ORACLES) UNTO JACOB; HIS STATUTES AND HIS JUDGMENTS UNTO ISRAEL. HE HATH NOT DEALT SO WITH ANY NATION; AND AS FOR HIS JUDGMENTS, THEY (THE NATIONS IN GENERAL) HAVE NOT KNOWN THEM."

MODERN SCIENCE: ITS LAWS AND LESSONS. BEFORE We go into particulars as to the mode of government in the outward world, and as to the fitness of things in general to produce certain ends, we shall take a rapid glance at the physical character of man, and his position as the being for whom all the arrangements by which he is surrounded were chiefly made. Viewed simply as a physical being, he resembles in many respects the higher class of the animal kingdom. Like other animal organizations, he cannot live without an atmosphere in which to breathe, nor, indeed, can he live so long on a partial supply of fresh air as some creatures by which he is surrounded. To him, a constant supply of air is necessary to life, and only a few moments' deprivation of it is required to finish his earthly career. It is, however, interesting to see how this-almost the only thing he always requires-is supplied. Light is a necessity of his being, but he can do well without it for a time; so of food, and so of water. For a limited period he may be deprived of these

G

things, and suffer no injury. But not so of air; this he must have always, by day and by night, in labour and in repose, waking and sleeping; and how wonderfully it is supplied! Food and water, warmth and sunlight, may be wanting for a time without harm, but air is always needed and always there; he lives, and moves, and has his being in it.

Like other parts of the animal kingdom, man requires sleep and food. His sleep appears of the same nature; it refreshes and invigo rates, and fits him again for living and labouring. His food is digested by a similar process, and its nutrient parts are taken into, and distributed through the system by methods not materially different. His body is subject to the same waste and renewal, and the formation and growth of bones, muscles, fibres, skin and brain, are the results of similar chemical processes. His natural secretions, such as bile, tears, saliva, gastric juice, result from organs similarly constructed. His senses are used through organs not materially different, though some animals have some of their senses less perfectly, and some more perfectly developed than man. The sensations of mere bodily pain and pleasure arise mainly from the same sources, and they are shown very much in the same way. A man cries out when distressed, and shows his distress by his countenance; so does a dog. A kitten plays and frolics while youth lasts, and so does a child ; and a horse becomes quiet and sedate in old age, as does man.

In fact, were man without intellect, and left to his very limited "instincts," as we call them, he would be in a worse condition, in many respects than many of the inferior animals. How often at present do we see specimens of human nature, where the intellect is of the lowest order, and where its cultivation has been neglected, utterly incapable of providing for the necessary wants of the body. A community of such beings could not hold together, and how much worse would be their condition were they entirely denuded of intellect. And then what a helpless creature is man in his infancy! All other animals arrive at such a state of maturity in a few days, or weeks at most, that they can use the various organs of the body, and help themselves to whatever is necessary to their sustenance. Not so the child, who for months can make but little use either of legs, arms, hands, or feet. Though the vertebræ of the back and the spinal canal are perfect as far as they go, yet the mother has to wait patiently for the hardening of the bones and cartilage before her child can stand erect. And even then what slips, and falls, and bruises are experienced before practice and experience have taught the little one to adjust properly the centre of gravity. But still this prolonged helplessness is not without its good results. By the incessant care and constant watching of the mother, what an everlasting, what an unquenchable love is kindled in the depths of her great heart? And it burns there—no ingratitude nor waywardness can put it out-till that heart grows cold in death. And what tenderness, and trustfulness, and reverence, and love grow up in the child towards the mother, who has preserved it from a thousand deaths, and ministered without weariness to all its wants. It is a singular fact that the child for whom the mother has done most, for whom she has watched and suffered most, and often the one that has brought her most

grief or anxiety, is the one who for ever lies nearest her heart, and for whom, more than for any other, she would lay down her life. The same affections grow up, and are diffused through the entire family, and thus the very feebleness of infancy is made to contribute to the happiness and union, and, indeed, to contribute to the very existence of that place, so dear to all civilized peoples, called "home;" and which, to a very large extent, lends the pathos and tenderness to the words and music of the national song, "Home, Sweet Home."

It is true, however, that though man has less strength than the horse, the boa constrictor, or the shark, a less perfect organ of vision than the bird, a less acute sense of smell than the dog, and a less refined sense of touch than many of the insects, and requires an atmosphere, food, light, heat, and sleep in common with other animals, it is nevertheless equally true that he has, independently of his moral and intellectual powers, many physical qualities which place him far above the highest class of any other organized beings. Much as we see to admire in the ant, the bird, the bee, and the beaver as to the constructive faculty, in man we see infinitely more. None of these creatures can effect anything worth notice beyond that which instinct teaches; but man can turn his hand a thousand ways, and produce an infinite variety of structures, ranging from the most delicate and simple to the hugest and most complex machinery. This, it may be said, he owes to his intellect, and not to any peculiar physical qualifications. But the objection applies only to the concepfor the execution by means of bodily organs is none the less manifest. His intellect might be twice over what we find it, but without his peculiar physical conformation he would be comparatively helpless as a constructive being. Nor would he be able to manufacture, nor apply those six wonderful but quite simple machines known as the "mechanical powers," by which his power over nature is many times multiplied. Take from man simply his hand, and though he might conceive and plan, he could execute next to nothing. Or leave him his hand and take away his thumb, and what an helpless creature you make him; or even leave him his hands and his thumbs, and take away his fore-finger, and he at once becomes comparatively clumsy. The human hand, in its whole and in its detail, is the secret, not of the invention or conception, but of the nice mechanical execution of those wonderful and complicated works of art with which our world is everywhere thronged.

tion;

The elephant has strength enough to effect wonders, and he has probably more sagacity than any other of the inferior animals; but give him any amount of intelligence, make him the equal of man, if you will, and what could he do? How would he make a watch, or a shoe, or a telescope? His legs and feet, like four upright posts, would totally unfit him for anything like delicate manipulations. The same may be said of the horse. The bird is much in advance of man in the organ of vision, but, supposing it endowed with the intellect of an angel, it is provided with no instrument of labour by which it can effect anything like delicate workmanship, beyond the building of its own nest. But man by his hands can construct instruments by which he can not only rival the vision of the bird, but