age to age are perfectly conclusive and cannot be improved. And this acquaintance with the great teachers we gain from Christian history.

(d) And further, history shows us the futility of the efforts to build up a system of religion by the natural reason alone. Contemporanous history is full of these attempts, as we all know.

(3) A third source of apology is the philosophy of common sense. The fundamental distinction between mind and matter is proved by the most elaborate discussions of development hypotheses no better, and, indeed, no otherwise, than by the drastic illustration of the "impossibility of running a railroad train from the northeast to the south-west corner on the mind "-a proof in which Professor Bowen used to delight. It is the appeal to the consciousness of every man which declares unmistakably, and as plainly to the unlettered as to the philosopher, that mind is totally different from matter. The art of the preacher consists in translating all he learns from the profoundest books into the language of the people, or into the terminology of that philosophy of common sense, which is the only one he can use, and which is extensive and cogent enough for all his needs. Yet at this point comes the necessity of caution. The preacher must avoid giving the impression that he rests his entire case upon the arguments drawn from philosophy. This is not true, and it is never wise to be false. But it is also not wise, because it empties the argument itself of force. In other words, human reason has made so many failures in the progress of time that she, with the greatest reason, profoundly distrusts herself. Plato, Aristotle, Abelard, Aquinas, Lombard, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibnitz, Wolf, Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Lotze, Hume, Reid, Hamilton, Mill-what are these but names of men who have successively received the adulations of their followers, and then been compelled to give way to other teachers who have often taught the precise opposite of all they had endeavoured to establish?

(4) That Christian experience is still another source of apologetic argument. The greatest truths of Christianity pertain to the new life which the Christian feels within him. Of this he is able to bear witness, and this ought to be as credible to the unconverted as the testimony which is borne to the nature and inhabitants of a land from which some Stanley has just returned. The danger to which the argument from Christian experience is exposed is subjectivity. "It may seem so to you," the objector says, "but it does not seem so to me." Against making such an impression the preacher cannot be too much upon his guard. He must always say, rather, I see certain things, which you yourself confess I might, so far as the nature of things is concerned, see. Now, admit that I do see them, and you can test for yourself the reasonability of my conclusions from them. Such an argument runs no risk of the sort feared, and may be as objective as any other.

But I must hasten on to the final topic, upon which I wish to make certain cautionary suggestions.

3. As to the subjects to be treated. (1) The most fundamental of these is the existence of a personal God. In meeting this form of scepticism, the Christian preacher should take care to give Christianity full credit for what it has done in respect to proving the existence of an infinite, personal Spirit. This may seem a strange caution; but it is necessary, though Christian preachers may not think themselves in danger of belittling the cause which is nearest to their hearts. A survival of the rationalism by which we have long sought to meet unbelievers may still lead the apologist to take the untenable position that the existence of God may be absolutely proved by reason alone. As a matter of fact, though a higher power is clearly seen, and though duty is recognized by man without the Gospel, the full

doctrine of God was never known to any philosopher or divine outside of the circle of Christianity and Judaism. Let the preacher, then, start boldly from this Christian position. You unbelievers have long tried to gain a knowledge of the ultimate forces of the universe, and you have failed. Take now this Christian idea of God, as the infinite Father, and try it by all the accumulated results of right thinking, and see if it is not reasonable. When the various proofs of God from causation, from the aspirations of man, and from every other source, have been fully explained and massed in a column of convincing ratiocination, under the guidance of the Christian idea, all appears reasonable and satisfying.

(2) A second topic demanding great attention in our day is the integrity of the Bible. Several schools of thinkers are discussing it, and some have succeeded to their own satisfaction in dismembering it, and reducing it from a library to a mere collection of unintelligible fragments. But the Bible is the Christian religion, as was remarked long ago, and it must not be given up to such disfigurement. How shall the sound results of genuine historical criticism be employed, and how shall the Bible be defended against real dangers? Now, evidently, the details of the matter cannot be discussed before mixed congregations. The priest-codex, the first editor, the Jehovist, the second editor, &c., are terms which we cannot introduce into the pulpit, and comparisons of the two documents with which Genesis begins cannot be made in public, nor the minute distinctions upon which many an argument turns be explained to the mass of our congregations. Yet it is equally evident that the great prejudice which such critics as Wellhausen have against the supernatural, or, to speak more literally, the dependence of their argument upon a denial of the supernatural, can be made plain, and will, when fully appreciated, rob their long investi. gations of any interest in the mind of the well-established Christian, and discredit their conclusions in advance. A general line of defence may be derived from the testimony of Christian experience. Religion is an objective fact, which the unbeliever must acknowledge. Here, for example, are Churches in existence which are exceedingly tangible facts. In these institutions the truths of the Bible are used every day with the result of turning men from wickedness to purity and holiness. Can the unbeliever deny the inference that the Bible does exercise supernatural power, and is therefore of God?

The great argument for the unity of the Bible, and also for its truth and Divine authority, is the unity of its doctrines, and their immediate evidence to the believer. Now, such an evidence exists, whether susceptible of clear explanation or not. The mass of Christians do not receive the Bible upon the ground that its integrity and authenticity had been proved to them, nor upon the authority of the Church, or of Christian parents. They see the truth of the Bible to be the truth. They have entered into the kingdom of God by faith, and they see spiritual truths. To a man who gives himself in complete surrender to God these things which appear hard and difficult to you, unbelieving friend, are easy and plain. "Come and see!"

RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY (Andover Review).-Recent discussions have given a renewed interest to the subject of authority in religion. We take advantage of the occasion to indicate the nature and sources of religious authority, as we understand them. The need of some authoritative source of truth and law for the religious life has been so generally felt in all centuries and in all lands that either sacred books or a sacred order of men have been looked to as furnishing the needed rule of life. Are we in modern times emancipated from this need? Are the enlightened conscience and reason sufficient guides, so that no objective, established standard is needed?

Can each man guide himself aright, without the aid of any external authority? It may well be doubted if such a condition has been attained. A certitude is needed other than the speculations and convictions of individuals.

What is the nature of religious authority? It is the authority of truth; nothing more than that, and also nothing less than that. It is an authority which is without external coercion. The authority of the state is supported by the arm of power, and many laws which are moral are thus enforced, such as the laws which pertain to life, property, reputation, and the like. In former times religious beliefs had the sanction of the state, and heresy or forbidden forms of worship were punished. But coercion, in respect to religion where it has existed or still exists, is an anomaly. For religion pertains to those higher aims of life which transcend civil relations in which alone the state properly has control. It is the authority, then, of truth, of objective truth, which is the same for all, and of which all may have certain knowledge; of truthı, the sanctions of which reside in the constitution of man and of society, and in such anticipations or apprehensions as may be awakened concerning the future. That book is an authority on astronomy which accurately describes and explains the actual movements of the heavenly bodies. That man is an authority on geology who is believed to have correct and extensive knowledge of the rocky frame of the earth. Jesus spoke as one having authority, because He spoke as one who knows. That source which can give us correct knowledge of the truth is authoritative, and religious authority in the only proper sense resides in the truth which can thus be known.

The interest of our inquiry is, therefore, the interest of certitude concerning the truth which pertains to belief, character, and destiny. Can we gain such certitude ? Is there such truth which has been preserved in knowledge? The inquiry may be still further limited by the assumption that in Christianity, if anywhere, such truth is to be looked for. Whatever truth there may be in other religions is embodied or implied in Christianity. And it will not be disputed that whatever religious truth may be found in the constitution of man and in the structure of society is taken for granted in Christianity. If our religion has not, certainly no other religion has the character of finality and universality. Jesus Christ declared the truth, and was the truth. Are the sources of our knowledge of Christianity trustworthy sources? The truth is the truth, whether we know it or not. But it can have authority over us only if we know it. Enough may be known of Jesus to convince us that He taught the final and sufficient truth, but we may think that in many respects our knowledge of Him is inadequate, or even that we are mistaken as to His person and words, and so we may feel that, after all, there is no authoritative source of knowledge concerning Him, which is the same as having no definite, objective, infallible religious authority.

There are only three possible sources of knowledge concerning primitive Christianity, namely, the Bible, the Church, and tradition. Reason, as a source of such knowledge, is excluded. It apprehends truth. It tests new truth by existing knowledge or need. But it creates no truth. It is not the objective reality, except as it is one fact among others, a fact of the human constitution. Reason is not a source of religion, as it is not a source of astronomy. As a source of knowledge concerning Christianity, tradition need not be considered, because, practically, there is, now, no tradition. For a time it was the only dependence. The Gospels embodied the traditions, and, as they came into circulation, were relied on as sufficient sources of knowledge, and no independent traditions were preserved as authoritative. The Church has authority only as derived. It preserves the Scriptures, translates, teaches, interprets, but is in no sense an original source of truth. It does not profess to have

received any other revelation than that recorded in the Bible, unless in some matters of ritual, or the like, but which are not considered as essentials of Christianity. The Bible, then, is the source of knowledge concerning Christianity. It is the earliest body of writings, and has long been accepted by the church. But is the Bible an authoritative source of knowledge? Do we find in it the objective reality of the truth? Does it give the only perfect rule of faith and practice? Can we accept it as our religious authority? Protestantism says, Yes. Nothing is to stand between the Bible and the man.

The assumption of Protestants is that the Bible has authority because it contains the Word of God, and that this can be understood by plain people as truly as by scholars. But now, increasing knowledge of the conditions under which the books of the Bible were composed seems to many to weaken if not to destroy its authority. We shall, therefore, compare a theory of the Bible which is of long standing with the theory which is replacing it, in order to show that the principle of authority is unchanged, and that the Bible, with all the knowledge we have of it, is the authentic source of knowledge concerning Christianity, and therefore still the sufficient source of religious authority.

The theory which is slowly giving way, in the face of incontestable facts, a theory which became definite not long after the Reformation, and in consequence of the enthronement of the Bible in place of the Church, is the theory that the Bible is true in every part, that its every statement may be relied on as correct. But it is maintained that inerrancy is indispensable to the authority of the Bible. It might, perhaps, be admitted that a specific error here and there would not destroy the authority of the book, for those minor errors could be bracketed, and would not impair the integrity of the whole, though even then, in popular apprehension, its authority would be somewhat weakened. But any larger concessions would be fatal. This is a fair account of the theory which has commonly been held.

There are, therefore, two things to be considered. One is, the inerrancy. Can this be maintained? If it can, the Bible would be the kind of authority described. If it cannot, does the inference follow that the Bible would virtually lose its authority?-which is the other thing to be considered. The recorded history of the ancient peoples has shared the fortune of all historical records. Some of the historians did not have the historic sense, some of them exaggerated the past, as in the later narratives of the Chronicles, the name of Moses covers much he could not have written, the completed system of ritual was not given in the wilderness. With all minor deviations of modern Biblical critics, some such conclusions must be accepted.

Does it therefore follow that the Bible is not the highest and final authority, and is not an authority which can be understood and appealed to? By no means. On the contrary, the same principle of authority holds under a correct knowledge of the Bible, as under the inerrant theory, and, moreover, the principle is disencumbered of conceptions which limited and perverted it. That principle is the intrinsic truth and the saving power of essential Christianity, a principle which depends on no external support, on no particular theory of inspiration, or of absolute inerrancy. This principle, as has been intimated, was really accepted under the former theory. That theory did not hold to the equal authority of all parts of the Bible. There was discrimination. Grades of authority were recognized. That is, there was comparison, discrimination, a spiritual estimate. The most spiritual truths had the highest authority. Yet, all the while, there was the burdensome task of showing that all the parts are absolutely free from error, or even of finding a permanent value in the

transient elements of the writings, and so, much fanciful interpretation. The spiritual authority of the Bible was thus weakened, because the claim of inerrancy had a tendency to obscure the important thing, the relative degrees of value and authority.

The authority, then, under the old theory, was in the spiritual saving truth of the Bible. And there it must be found on any theory. There it is found more surely than ever under the new theory. Prophets and Apostles have discovered God's truth, and have declared it with such clearness that it shines in its own light. If it were not so, the Bible could never have had its unsurpassed power. The critical sense does not disturb, but aids the spiritual sense by guiding, and in some respects by correcting it. Criticism shows the historical grades of culture which conditioned the spiritual grades of knowledge. Criticism shows that ignorance and error, in some respects, were inevitable in certain ages, and that they are important signs of the reality and verisimilitude of that which is narrated, that we should suspect later tamperings if modern knowledge appeared in ancient writings, that such freedom from error would be unnatural rather than supernatural.

Now, then, what shall be said to the people? How can we refer them to a Bible, part of which is no better than other books, and all of which has been subjected to the vicissitudes of time? There is only one thing to do. Tell them the truth. The honest course is the only safe and wise course. They already know the facts in part. It is useless, and worse, to keep on saying that there is no error and no imperfection. In a word, invite discrimination in the use of the Bible, a discrimination of the spirit from the letter, of the permanent from the transient. The letter of inerrancy killeth. If the truth which has authority is not there, it is useless to look for it. If it is there, no fear but that it will be found and felt. The magnitude of truth as it stands reported in the New Testament is in no danger of being overlooked, or of being seriously misunderstood.

Then it will be asked (since not the whole, but only part of the Bible is true), whether each individual may not take what he likes, disregarding the rest, and so recognize no objective authority after all, but follow his own fancy alone? Will not every one accept only the truth which he approves? Will he not decide for himself? Ultimately, yes. Certainly no other can decide for him. But it may be assumed that the truth which is essential will be approved by honest minds. And the truth remains true, whether misguided man approves it or not. Let God be found true, but every man a liar. The individual must take the consequence of disregarding truth. No outward power coerces him, but he will be an unrenewed man, and will suffer the loss which comes from disregarding the law of God, which is the true law of his own being. Under the old theory of inerrancy there is no power which can oblige any one to believe the truth, and the final appeal for acceptance of it is to the reason and conscience of the individual. And when he has assented to the theory of infallibility, he has still to discriminate the spiritual from the literal. But certainly, while reason and conscience have no authority as sources of truth, they are the authority to which the final decision of all beliefs and practices must be taken by the individual man.

We again emphasize what we have been glad to affirm more than once before, that preachers do more than any other class of men in maintaining the authority of the Bible, by impressing that truth which has spiritual power. It is their function to study the Bible for that purpose. The desire for a book which is superhuman throughout, and therefore free from all human error and imperfection, is the desire for some external sign of authority which is no real part of essential saving truth.