him who uttered it from the condemnation and contempt of posterity.

I say again that I have neither complaint nor protest to make against these "reverent Christian scholars" who now stand to the front. I note their proceedure, by which is meant their manner of applying certain methods and principles to concrete cases, merely to say that intelligent students of God's Word, who are able to restrain a certain. righteous, fiery indignation and push through a volume like this, will find themselves repaid by laying it down with a deeper sense of the reality of Scripture persons and their experiences, and with a livlier sense also of the preciousness of Scripture, and-of the long-suffering of God.

Columbia, S. C.

W. M. MCPHEETERS.

V. HOW TO MAKE OUR BRIEF

COURSE IN

CHURCH HISTORY MOST PROFITABLE.

It is not demanded of me that I vindicate the wisdom of those who placed Church History in the Seminary curriculum. Their wisdom needs no vindication. Next to the Bible and the immediate aids to its interpretation, Church History at once suggests itself as a proper study for those who have consecrated their lives to the service of Christ in building up and extending the borders of the Church. It is an account of their predecessors in the same sphere of service, showing how they wrought, with what success, with what failure and failings. There can be no question as to the propriety of making Church History a part of the course of study for training ministers. The only question open to discussion is, how may we teach it so as to secure for the students the maximum profit? It is a broad, practically a boundless field. In time, covering nineteen centuries; in space, covering nearly the whole earth. It is interwoven with all other history. Very early in the Christian centuries, the Church entered into alliance with the State, and very soon, and for a long period, throughout the wide extent of Christendom, it dominated all other history. It entered into and largely moulded the political, social and family life of the people. It built up for itself a unique empire, and extended its sway over every department thought and enterprise. It carried on wars both foreign and domestic, founded schools, prosecuted missions and added tribe after tribe, and nation after nation, to its ever-widening domain. The history of the Church, then, in its broadest sense, means the history of all that occurred throughout a large part of the world during a long succession of centuries. Selection becomes imperative. Immeasurably more must be omitted than can be taught. Only the leading ob

jects of so vast a landscape can be introduced in the picture. Anything like minuteness of detail is out of the question. Further still, abridge the history as we may, if enough is retained to form a connected narrative, we shall have too much for complete mastery. Yet the question presses, What shall we emphasize? Where shall we lay the stress? On what phases shall we concentrate attention? Manifestly we could spend our time on the mint, anise and cummin to the neglect of the weightier matters of the law. Here is the point demanding a wise discrimination on the part of the teacher. He should be able to distinguish between the great and the small, between matters of mere curious interest and matters of permanent practical importance. Amidst the manifold issues which were raised and decided, the manifold movements which started into life and made their impress, he should be able to fix on those that touched the vital life of the Church, and left their indelible mark, the effects of which continued through all changes, and still abide. It would be sinning against the interests of the students for the teacher to linger a weary time over the frivolous jangling of the logic-chopping schoolmen, and then skim hurriedly over the strenuous conflicts between the champions of truth and error, in which were involved issues of everlasting value.

Can we lay down any specific ends, more important than all others, toward which Church History should conduct Can we specify any benefits, more valuable than all others which this study should be expected to confer? In attempting an answer to these questions, I shall perhaps best meet the demands of this occasion.

I. It is obvious to remark that we should enter the field of Church History through the portals of the Bible. We are not prepared to follow the fortunes of the Church until we have learned from God's Word what the Church is. We get our preparation for any intelligent view of the subject by sitting at the feet of the inspired writers, espe

cially Christ and His Apostles. It is in the light of their teachings alone that we can form any clear conceptions of the great spiritual principles on which the Church is based, and the far-reaching designs for which it was planned. The history of the Church is a history of conflict, of deadly strife between good and evil, truth and error. We cannot study this contest to any purpose, cannot look upon the struggling adversaries with sympathies properly guided, cannot measure victory and defeat without some standard of truth by which to frame our judgements. This standard must be something more trustworthy than our own moral instincts, more trustworthy than even our own cultivated and enlightened religious consciousness. The only reliable standard is God's infallible word. By that we must judge the combatants; by that we must measure the progress of truth, and detect the invasions of error. From that we must learn what the Church was when it left the moulding hand of inspired workmen. Otherwise, as we witness its progress through the centuries, we cannot tell whether it is preserving its divine beauty of form, or being marred by the rough assaults of enemies, or forsooth, by the wellmeaning, but misguided zeal of its friends. We must know the nature and limits of the mission on which it was launched. Otherwise we cannot tell whether it is gloriously fulfilling that mission, or whether its energies are being diverted into other channels. We must know the methods ordained by its divine founder for accomplishing its mission. Otherwise we can not tell whether its adherents are loyal to those methods, or whether they are discrediting the wisdom of the divine founder by discarding his methods, and resorting to others of their own devising. It is evident that our view-point is all important. Church History will mean one thing to him who looks upon its battle fields from the serene hights to which the Bible lifts him, and studies its multifarious conflicts in the light which the Bible throws upon them. It will mean a totally differ

ent thing, if it yield any meaning at all, to him who looks upon its battle fields from the low plain of uninspired reason, and with no light shining on its conflicts save the dim, confusing light of his own speculative opinions. It will mean one thing to the Protestant who tests the Church by the Bible; and another thing to the Romanist who exalts the Church above the Bible.

2. Studying Church History with the Bible for our guide, should not this history be to us a continuous revelation of God? Among the last words of Christ was the promise: "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." As we look upon the ever-shifting panorama of history, with its mingling of light and shade, we have the key to its interpretation in the Book which Christ placed in our hands, and by the use of this we can assure ourselves of his presence. It is interesting to note that God's chosen method of revealing himself has been through the history of his Church. Not only did he make it the depository of his inspired word, but through his dealings with his people, and his own interpretation of these dealings, he has revealed his character and designs. In connection with the history, and as the controlling element of the history he has unfolded his purpose. There was no necessity, so far as we can see, that God should have chosen this method of self revelation. He might have spoken in the audience of the people, not the ten words only, but the whole body of his precepts and promises, so that from an early period the world should have had all that he ever purposed to make known. But it seemed good in his sight to separate a chosen seed and make them the channel through which, during the long stretch of their history, he should acquaint mankind with himself and his redeeming grace. Each generation furnished the occasion for an additional chapter. Did this process of divine manifestation cease with the last inspired apostle? It is not reasonable to think so. True, these