1115 science w ith o u t know ing o th e rs also. T he c o n ten tio n o f'A le x a n d e r von H um b o ld t’s Cosmos is rig h t, th a t, p ro p erly sp eak ing , th e re is only one science, th e science of th e un iv erse, a n d each p a r tic u la r science can only be fu lly know n w h en its re la tio n s to a ll th e re s t a re known. No m an w re sts th e tr u th in a m ore m ischievous w ay th a n y o u r little sp ecialist w hose vision is fixed upon a n a rrow circle, a n d who does n o t con-_ sta n tly b e a r in m ind th e tr u th so pow e rfu lly su gg ested in P s. cxix. 96: “I h a v e seen a n e n d o f a ll p e rfe c tio n : b u t T hy comm andm en t is'ex ceed in g b ro a d .” R e p u te d E x p e rts a re am o n g st th e A rch -m islead ers o f M ankind. T h is m ay seem to be a sta rtlin g assertio n , b u t it does n o t ta k e m u ch reflection to dem on s tra te its tr u th . W e have only to in stan ce such cases as th e P to lem aic as tronom y , th e P to lem aic chronology based on th e erro n eo u s astronom y , th e excessive use of b leed ing in th e p ractice of m edicine, an d now th e re su sc ita tio n of th e old P a g a n d o ctrin e of E v o lu tion in th e D arw in ian th e o ry of E vo lu tion w hich is a p p a re n tly now on its d e a th bed. T he H oly G host, sp eak in g by F a u l, d eclares th a t “ th e w isdom of th is w orld is foolishness w ith God” (1 Cor. 3 :1 9 ) ; th a t is to say, it is foolishness in re a lity , fo r th e only re a l w isdom is th a t w hich is w isdom w ith God. The sto ry of th e m u ch -v au n ted p ro g ress of h um an know ledge- is in th é m ain th e sto ry of th e successive discovery of th e e rro rs of th e p a st to give place to new system s in w hich th e re a re e rro rs w hich in th e ir tu r n a re d estin ed to sh a re th e doom of th o se w hich p receded them . One w ould fain hope th a t in th e m ain som e p ro g re ss can be reco rd ed ; b u t our only c e rta in tie s a re in th e w isdom of God. Theology is th e qu een of th e sci ences. She ho ld s th e k ey of all tru th , a n d th e science w hich an tag o n izes th e rev e la tio n of God is “science falsely so called .”— W esleyan B ible Union.
THE K I N G ’ S B U S I N E S S w hich is no m ore lik e C h rist’s religion, th a n a p a in te d fire is lik e a re a l one, o r th a n a m a rb le sta tu e is lik e u n to a living m an, b u t th e y w ill NEVER cause m en to fa ll in love w ith th e tru e re ligion, n ev er m ak e th em m ore p ra y e r ful, o r m o re zealous in p rom o tin g th a t k ingdom w hich is n o t of th is w orld. m 'ês> REGARD ING REL IG IOUS EX PER TS H ROTESTANTISM h as rig h tly d ecla red th a t one of th e d ead lie st of th e e rro rs of th e R om ish ap o stasy is th e d o ctrin e of th e a u th o rity of th é p rie st. T his d o ctrin e of th e su b s titu tio n of m an- c ra ft fo r th e a u th o rity of God is re a p p e a rin g in P ro te s ta n t chu rch es u n d e r o th e r guises. One of th e w ays in w hich P ro te s ta n t ch u rch es a re fa llin g in to th e S atan ic sn a re of th e apo th eo sis of m an is th e accep tan ce of th e dom inance of •those who a re sty led “ B iblical sc h o la rs.” W e h av e re c e n tly seen a le tte r from a m in iste r of relig io n , who is p reach in g th e d e stru c tiv e th e o rie s of th e guess- criticism , in w hich he say s: “ I have uo t th e sch o larsh ip to pronoun ce upon th ese su b je c ts m yself, b u t th e y a re th e th in g s w hich I h av e b een ta u g h t by th o se w hom I re g a rd as com p eten t sc h o la rs.” ' W e w ish to se t up th is Warn ing th a t th e so-called ex p e rt is v ery comm only th e m an whose decision shou ld be suspected, fo r th e follow ing, re a so n s:— H e is commonly, ind eed , a l m o st u n iv ersally , a specialist. Now a sp ecialist is in ex trem e p e ril of becom ing v ery n arrow . H e know s one little circle of th in g s, a n d h is v ery co n cen tra tio n s tu n ts an d dw arfs h is m ind. P e te r d eclares th a t th e m an w ho only sees w h a t is n e a r is b lin d ( 2 P e t. 1 :9 ) . T h ere is a g re a t tr u th in th e M od ern ist con te n tio n fo r b re a d th of view . T he Mod e rn ist m isapplies th e tru th . B u t th e re a l fa c t is th a t no m an can know one
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker