do the words following "every tongue confess." It is better, therefore, so to restrict it, and this is in effect not to detract from the universality of the adoration, but only to define the nature of the adoration that is described. Our Lord himself, before his ascension, said to his disciples: " All power (authority) is given to me in heaven and on earth," and the seer of the latter days heard the loud voice saying in heaven, "Now is come the power (authority) of his (God's) Christ." This name of Jesus, then, thus magnified beyond all human thought, is "a name which, being pronounced, as it were, makes the very universe quiver with spontaneous and irresistible enthusiasm.” *

We have thus substantially already fixed the meaning of the passage to bow the knee is to do obeisance, to render homage. But here a point presents itself; is not the bowing of the knee only homage rendered to God the Father "in the name of Jesus," and therefore the homage of prayer simply, and that given to God in Jesus's name? Some most orthodox commentators, as, for example, Dr. Crawford (The Atonement, p. 108), take this view, making this an undoubted reference to Christ's intercession for us, as one of the chief purposes for which he has been thus exalted-"in the name of Jesus," as being that of our only Intercessor, in whose name all prayer and supplication must be offered up. But, though the doctrine thus enunciated is most surely believed among us, it is totally alien to the scope of the present passage, for, first of all, the angels in heaven, the unfallen and pure intelligences of the universe, do not need to, and indeed cannot, pray in the name of such a Mediator and Intercessor; it is theirs simply to adore him as "Lord of all." Then, secondly, "in the name of" is a Hebraism (1 Chron. xiv, 10, and Psa. lxiii, 4, and elsewhere), and as such brings the God-man Jesus as closely as language can do into oneness with Jehovah. For instance, when the Psalmist says, "I will lift up my hands in thy name," he declares that he will adore God; and so, similarly, to bow the knee in Jesus's name is to adore Jesus. It is, therefore, not prayer through Jesus, but direct worship of Jesus, that is here set forth. Even rationalistic exegesis does not hesitate to accept this view (for example, Schenkel). The Revised rendering, therefore, is no proof, as Dean Burgon passionately complains, that the result *Beecher, sermon on "The Name of Jesus."

of New Testament revision is unfavorable to orthodoxy.* It is not so at least here, if the words be but rightly understood, and his opponent, Dr. Vance Smith, has no warrant to speak thus: "The only instance in the New Testament in which the religious worship or adoration of Christ was apparently implied has been altered by the Revision: At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow' is now to be read in the name.' Moreover, no alteration of text or of translation will be found anywhere to make up for this loss; as, indeed, it is well understood that the New Testament contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the religious worship of Jesus Christ." This statement is glaringly incorrect. While then the revised rendering is to be accepted, the injurious inference wrongly drawn from it is unhesitatingly to be rejected. The whole passage, this and what follows, is undoubtedly modeled on Isa. xlv, 23: “I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear" (the words are directly cited in Rom. xiv, 11, 12). All this homage to God, then, is realized in the worship of Jesus. The next clause, " And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord," is more explicit than the preceding one. It refers to the open acknowledgment in humble, grateful praise—the public avowal of what before is confessed in the awful silence of the heart; and the confession is, that he is Lord-in the full, absolute sense, "Lord of all." And the final aim of all this worship of Jesus the God-man is "the glory of God the Father." We have our Lord's own comment upon this declaration: "I honor My Father. . . . I seek not mine own glory" (John viii, 49, 50); “He that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father which hath sent him." So he spake on earth, and what he said holds good of him in heaven. But none the less, while the worship of Christ Jesus, direct and absolute, is warranted and enjoined, still, in the ineffable mystery of the Trinity, this worship of the Son glorifies God the Father. All this is infinitely beyond our ken. Yet must it be ours to "Cling to faith beyond the forms of faith."

We have but to remember this, "that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." It is not by

*The Revision Revised, p. 513. Texts and Margins, p. 47, cited by Burgon.

446

[May,

reasoning; it is by being spiritually minded, that the eye of the heart can see Christ Jesus, and the tongue confess him thus, "My Lord, and my God." He has given us this promise, "Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess before my Father in heaven."

But we dare never forget that to confess him is to live to him. It is to have the same mind in us that was in him. Turning, therefore, once more back to the motive of this whole passage, the inculcation of the duty of self-sacrificing humility, we can say, in view of the reward in store,

"The saiut that wears heaven's brightest crown

In deepest adoration bends,

The weight of glory bows her down

The most, when most her soul ascends.
Nearest the throne of God we see

What honor hath humility."

We can say more than this. We can learn the lesson of humility and its honor not merely in the saints around the throne, but most of all in Him who "in the white radiance of eternity" sits on the throne himself-even Jesus, who humbled himself, and is now highly exalted, "King of kings and Lord of lords."

EDITORIAL MISCELLANY.

CURRENT TOPICS.

THE HIGHER CRITICISM IN SUNDAY-SCHOOLS.

THE International Sunday-School Lessons constitute an agency in the religious teaching and culture of the times second in importance only to the doctrinal utterances of the evangelical pulpit. They year by year practically dictate the biblical reading and study of most of the children and youth of the land; and as well, that of large portion of those of riper years. By this means they are instrumentally shaping the theological conceptions of those who must very soon occupy the foremost places in the families and schools and churches of the land. The views and ideas now being formulated in such minds must go with them through life; or, if ever gotten rid of, it must be by painful and perilous processes. All the wise sayings that have become the commonplaces of thought in respect to the determinative and abiding influences of early education-how the bending of the twig permanently inclines the tree, and how hard it is to teach old dogs new tricks-here become maxims of practical wisdom, and we are brought to contemplate a vast molding process in active operation, by which immortal souls are receiving impressions that are to be as lasting as their being. The thought is fearful to contemplate, in view of its magnitude and the preciousness of the interests involved.

The power that has fallen into the hands of those whose duty it is to select these lessons is great beyond all comparison, for they dictate to millions of the most susceptible minds what portions of Scripture they shall attend to from year to year, and by consequence what shall be omitted or passed by. As to the personnel of those who do this work, so far as we know them, we highly respect them; but their authority appears to be almost entirely underived, and in their actions they represent none but themselves and their own convictions. Perhaps they have done as well and wisely in the discharge of their responsible and delicate duties as any others could have done, however they might have been chosen, and representing whatever authority; but it is rather remarkable that such transcendent interests should have fallen into the hands of a self-appointed and irresponsible body of men. No special complaint is here intended to be made in respect to the work they have done, nor blame to them for doing it; but it becomes a grave question for those to whom, under God, belongs the high duty to guard against the possibility of wrong teaching in the Church, whether they are at liberty to devolve so high a function upon other and irresponsible persons.

The Sunday-schools of the country are no doubt doing an invaluable work, and it may be added that the International Lessons have been, and

perhaps continue to be, valuable as helps in that work. It may also be granted that the extraordinary powers wielded by those who shape that system of instruction appear to have been honestly and judiciously exercised; and if they have been doing a much-needed work, which nobody else has attempted, they can scarcely be blamed for their actions in the premises-perhaps they are deserving of thanks rather than blame. But from the fact that they are responsible to no power beyond themselves for their actions, and that their prescription of the successive yearly Scripture reading is absolute and not to be appealed from, the case is one to suggest the possibility of perils. Especially is this a matter to be thought of by the Church, in any of its denominational distributions, which is by its great Head put in charge of these interests; and the question may be pertinently asked whether it is lawful to devolve such an interest upon any self-appointed and irresponsible set of men, however wise and excellent. Back of all this is the pregnant fact that the Sunday-schools of this country have, from the beginning, assumed and had conceded to them a kind of independent individuality and an autonomy of their own, by which they appear, not as of the integrity of the Church but a separate and co-ordinate auxiliary. Is that a happy condition of things?

These thoughts are only preliminary to what we had in mind when we wrote the heading of this paper. As is well-known, the International Lessons for the first quarter of the current year were made up of portions of the history of the patriarchs, drawn from the book of Genesis. The narratives there given, contemplated apart from their special religious and theological designs, and simply in respect to their literary style and substance, are beautifully idyllic, and they abound with scenes of romantic heroism. But they are above all else theistical and specifically religious, and accordingly they have been often and effectively used by wise and devout parents and other instructors of young persons, as in the case of Doddridge's mother explaining the figures on the Dutch tiles, as valuable religious lessons and as incentives to piety and right living. But every competent teacher knows that the study of Genesis is not what it used to be, and that it cannot now be explained and "improved "as it was by his mother and grandmother. "The more is the pity," perhaps some will

say, but the fact remains.

Readers of Sunday-school literature published during the last few months in books, and pamphlets, and leaflets, and in the periodicals, from the learned monthlies, and especially the weeklies, down to the "children's papers," have found them surcharged with expositions and discussions of the lives and the doings of the patriarchs and God's dealings with them. These commentaries cover a very wide area, and duly collated they do not show an entire harmony among their writers; and the whole, if thoroughly studied, might surfeit the susceptible and distract the thoughtful, and, possibly, lead the skeptically inclined to reject the whole as fatally self-destructive. Perhaps, however, something of this sort is unavoidable; it may be that the story of the origines of the human race must of necessity be revised and restated; but, if so, it may be asked