THE SEAT OF AUTHORITY IN RELIGION. By the REV. MARCUS DoDs, D.D. (The Christian Union).-No apology is needed for inviting attention to the question, What is the seat of authority in religion? At the Reformation there was no question regarding the source of authority in religion. All alike believed then, as all alike believe now, that the voice of God is authoritative. The question between the parties was, How are we to know what is God's word, and where is that word to be found? Luther's claim was that the individual can deal directly with God apart from the mediation of the Church, and that God's word verified itself in the conscience of the individual, apart from the authority of the Church.

more.

"The Church," said Luther, "cannot give more force or authority to a book than it has in itself. A Council cannot make that to be Scripture which in its own nature is not Scripture." With that one word Luther established Protestantism, and set all generations free from the bondage of the Church. But Luther accomplished Protestantism is not merely the substitution of one external guide for another; it is rather the exchange of what is outward for what is inward; of what is indirect for what is direct. It is the exchange of God's voice recognized by the Church and interpreted by the Church for God's voice recognized by the individual and inter. preted by the individual. And he is only half a Protestant who merely transfers his allegiance from the Church' to the Bible, and leans upon this new crutch as the Romanist leans on Rome. The Spirit of Christ is in the Church as truly as in the Bible, but who is for me to sift the human from the Divine and give me perfect assurance that here God Himself speaks to me? None but myself only. It is only the response of conscience which can so guide and determine me.

But in Scripture there is a distinctive characteristic which no merely internal warrant can assure us of. Scripture is not only authoritative, it is normative. It is not only, though mainly, God's word to the individual, it is God's word to all men collectively. God speaks to us through other channels than Scripture. He speaks in nature, in the external world, and in the conscience of man. How many owe their awakening to a sense of God's presence, to the example of a Christian, or to the remonstrance of a friend or preacher! The Spirit of God is not imprisoned in the Bible or limited by it. Yet Scripture holds a place of its own among all words of God. What, then, is the difference ? It is this which gives it its normative character. It is in some parts of it the very organ of God's revelation of Himself in that historical, objective line which led up to Christ; and in all parts of it, it is, if not the immediate organ, then the direct result of that revelation. It is in the Bible we hear that word of God which it concerns all God's people in common as a society or church to know.

Thus accepting the Bible, do we accept it as a whole? Or can we judge each part of Scripture as we judge the whole? Here Protestants divide. Some who admit the validity of the internal response as a test whether this or that book is the word of God, deny its validity as a test whether this or that passage is the word of God. They maintain that once you have ascertained that the Bible, generally, and as a whole, is the word of God, you must accept every word and letter of it as divinely authoritative. Christians are for the most part agreed that the Bible as a whole contains a message from God: difference of opinion emerges as soon as the same character of supernatural authority is claimed for every part of it. This is resolutely denied by many; and if asked how they can distinguish between what is divinely authoritative and what is not, they would affirm that you must apply the same test to each part that you apply to the whole; that is to say, you must receive as Divine all that finds a response in your heart and mind, or, more accurately, all that

the Spirit of Christ within you recognizes as proceeding from Christ, and truly representing Him. The Reformers did not explicitly treat this point, but there are indications in their writings that show with sufficient plainness that they would have taken this ground.

It will be said, This is first to receive as from God a book, and then to determine how much of God's message I shall receive. It is not so. It is to determine how much of this book is God's message. And to any one who fancies this is to set our own judgment above the Word of God, Luther's scornful words are a sufficient reply: "A goodly argument, forsooth-I approve the Scriptures, ergo I am above the Scriptures. John Baptist acknowledgeth and proclaimeth Christ, therefore he is above Christ!"

But, as we found that Scripture as a whole could not be verified as the normative authority in distinction from all other words of God without the application of an external as well as of an internal test; so, in determining what authority attaches to each part of it, we must avail ourselves of the same external aid. These books are the media and the result of God's revelation in history. The New Testament writings, e.g., come to us as the utterances of those who were chosen and trained by Christ to represent Him to men. They come, therefore, with a primâ facie testimony in their favour. Moreover, the truth of their writings has been verified in thousands of every generation who have found in them the salvation and the God they craved. No reverence can be too great to feel towards writings that come thus guaranteed. We are thus saved from all extreme of subjectivity. We are also saved from extreme individualism by the knowledge that Scripture is for the Church, and not for me alone; and that which seems to me little better than a stone may be to some other person the bread of life.

There are, then, two views current among Protestants regarding the infallibility or Divine authority of the Bible. The one view sees in Scripture universal infallibility in each and all of its parts; the other finds in it, taken as a whole, the infallible message of God. The one, consequently, puts each part of Scripture on the same level of Divine authority, and forbids all questioning or criticizing; all must be accepted, either intelligently or blindly. The other proceeds upon the assumption that all is true, but will by no means be staggered in its faith to find that certain statements must at any rate be received with modifications. On the view that infallible truth and Divine authority attach to each and every expression of Scripture, there is no room for discussing the relevancy of this or that argument, the accuracy of this or that quotation, the propriety of such and such an expression. The conclusion of all such discussion is a foregone conclusion; and the discussion is a sham. On the view that infallible truth and Divine authority attach to Scripture as a whole, we are not concerned to justify any particular argument or statement. On this view the infallible truth of Scripture consists mainly in this, that it will infallibly bring the honest and resolved seeker after truth into the enjoyment of the truth.

If not reasonable, it is certainly natural, that men should demand certainty in their knowledge of religious truth. It is also natural that they should seek for that certainty in some guide external to themselves, in some visible index which can be read by all and which is independent of all subjective variations.

This desire for an external infallible guide arises from two characteristics of human nature. The first is the shrinking from responsibility which is so patent in the majority of men. The second characteristic of human nature which leads men to crave an absolute, objective guide is impatience of other men's thoughts and beliefs.

But whether we have a right to expect a guide in religion to which we have but to commit ourselves in order to be carried on infallibly to truth without questioning, searching, sifting, anxiety, or effort of our own may very well be doubted. Certainly this is not the method God has employed in imparting knowledge other than religious. It may indeed be urged that in religion the consequence of error is so grave that it cannot be supposed men should be left to any uncertainty here. But may it not rather be argued that it is of so much greater importance that our spiritual energies be elicited than that our physical energies be trained, that it might à priori seem very likely that God should not make it impossible for any man, irrespective of his own endeavour and disposition, to miss the truth about Himself But à priori arguments here avail us little. Our ideas of what it is likely God will do are apt to go wide of the mark. We might have supposed that God would so reveal Himself to all men that they should not be liable to error in Divine knowledge. But this, we know, is far from being the case. God has, indeed, not left Himself without a witness, but a witness so ambiguous, so difficult to interpret, so easily silenced, that universal knowledge of God has by no means resulted from its testimony.

We may much more safely argue from the facts to God's intention. And there are facts which seem to imply that God did not intend we should have a book which should call forth our faith because of its absolute flawlessness. Such a book we have not got. Again, if it had been God's purpose to bring us all to one mind regarding all the details of Christian truth, ought not an infallible interpreter to have been pro vided? Yet there are persons who say that they give up the Bible altogether if there be one proved error in it; that their salvation depends on the absolute accuracy of every word and sentence from the first verse of Genesis to the last of Revelation. Their salvation, happily, depends on no such thing, and it is the merest infatuation to say it does. Thank God, our faith depends on a living Person who cannot be separated from us, and who drew to Himself and redeemed many before ever there was a written New Testament to quarrel about. But literal infallibility is not that which we contend for, and these discrepancies might be multiplied a hundredfold and yet not be inconsistent with true infallibility. For, first, unimportant errors in detail are never allowed to discredit a historian. The rule, "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus," is valid in the case of a deliberate falsifier, but absurd if applied to one who errs through lack of knowledge. But what is unimportant error? Is not all error important where Divine and eternal interests are concerned? No: else God would have provided for the absence of all error. Error is unimportant when it does not affect the purpose of the whole. Errors in grammar are of no consequence when the sense is unaffected and the meaning remains intelligible. It is on this, then, we found, and here that we find the "impregnable rock" of Scripture. It does infallibly guide men to Christ. No Church can come in between my soul and the figure it presents. No criticism can come in between my soul and that figure. The figure I see in the Gospels I find also in my life. The same patience and wisdom and divinity that command my adoration in the Gospels shine on my life and give it all the worth and hope it has. Criticism may cut off a fringe or tassel from His garment, but the features and the expressions it cannot touch. They shine with selfevidencing power into every prepared heart.

Other questions remain, some of them of vast importance; but time fails. It is, e.g., feared that if we frankly accept the Reformation principle, it will leave every man to be the judge of what is Scripture and what is not; and that, even when a book is acknowledged to be apostolic, it remains with the individual to say how much

of it he is pleased to receive as God's word. Now, it is remarkable that practically this is already our manner of treating the Bible. Who is at the reader's elbow as he reads Exodus and Leviticus to tell him what is of permanent authority and what was for the Mosaic dispensation only? Who whispers to us, as we read Genesis and Kings, This is exemplary; this is not? What enables the humblest Christian to come safely through all the cursing Psalms and go straight to forgive his enemy? Paul solves the whole matter for us in his bold and exhaustive words: "The spiritual man--the man who has the spirit of Christ-judgeth all things." This, and this only, is the true touchstone by which all things are tried. Let a man accept Christ and live in His Spirit, and there is no fear that he will reject what Christ means he should receive.

CURRENT

CANADIAN

THOUGHT.

MESSIANIC PROPHECY. By J. M. HIRSCHFELDER (The Canadian Methodist Quarterly). ---In the last number of this periodical, Dr. Workman has a lengthy article purporting to be "A Sequel" to his lecture on Messianic Prophecy. There are certain remarks in the article which we cannot allow to pass unnoticed. The Professor says, "While, therefore, portions of the Hebrew Scriptures abound with Messianic prophecy, there is no passage in the Old Testament that refers directly and predictively to Jesus Christ, that is, there is no passage in which the future Messiah stood objectively before the writers' mind, or in which the prophet made particular reference to the historic Christ" (p. 448). "The future Messiah" must have "stood objectively before the writers' mind," or they could not possibly have foretold with such strict precision the events connected with His life and death. Christ, in answering the Jews that boasted of Abraham, said, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad" (John viii. 56). "The future Messiah" must, therefore, have stood objectively before Abraham's mind, or he would not have seen His day, and rejoiced at the redemption of the human family by His meritorious death.

The language which Professor Workman employed in reference to the application of the second Psalm is likewise so plain as to preclude the possibility of being misunderstood. He remarks, "The second Psalm, historically interpreted, has reference to the reigning king. Whether this king was David or Solomon is immaterial for our present purpose." No less clear and distinct is the language which Dr. Workman employs in his application of the twenty-second Psalm. He says, "The. twenty-second Psalm, interpreted on the same principle, evidently refers to David. Throughout this whole Psalm he describes his own personal feelings or experience."

In regard to the application of prophecy, Dr. Workman merely reiterates in his article what he has said on the subject in his "lecture." If anything, his language is more clear and decisive. He remarks, "The New Testament writers, I have shown, invariably employ the language of the Old Testament Scriptures in the way of adaptation or accommodation, in other words, as I have also stated, in an adapted or accommodated sense. In certain quotations, passages are applied to Christ as being adapted to Him, that is, as fitting Him officially; in other quotations, passages are applied to Christ as being accommodated to Him, that is, as being suited to Him spiritually. In

the one case, the application is primary; in the other case, it is secondary." Or in plain language, none of the prophecies have a direct and an exclusive reference to the personal Messiah of the New Testament. Surely, those who are familiar with the New Testament must be astounded at such an assertion. Will any one seriously tell us after reading Acts iii. 20-23, vii. 37, that St. Peter and St. Stephen did not apply the prophecy in Deut. xviii. 18: "I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee," directly and unmistakably to Christ, but merely “as being adapted to Him," or as fitting Him officially"? We can hardly bring ourselves to believe that such could really be the case. No less clear and decisive is the language of the Apostles in applying the second Psalm. In Acts iv. 24-28 we not only find them with one accord applying that Psalm to Christ, but even giving a brief explanation of the two first verses. What could be more decisive of a direct application than the declaration in ver. 27, " For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together"? In Acts xiii. 33 the Apostle Paul not only quotes verse 7, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee," but goes on to explain in the next verse how the words, "this day have I begotten Thee," are to be understood, namely, of the resurrection of Christ, born from the dead.

The fifty-third chapter of Isaiah has always been looked upon as an epitomized gospel, but Professor Workman presents it to us under quite a different character; according to his theory, the subject of the chapter is not a personal, suffering Messiah, but a suffering people depicted under a suffering Servant of Jehovah. There is an impassable gulf between the suffering of the people of Israel and the suffering of the Messiah, and no human ingenuity could make a path to connect them. The people of Israel suffered for their own sins and rebellion against God; the Messiah suffered for the sins of the human race. Hence, those who regard the people of Israel as the subject of the chapter, translate the latter part of verse 8, "for the trespass of my people the smiting was to them," whilst those who consider the Messiah as the subject, render," for the trespass of my people the smiting was to Him"; which we will hereafter show to be undoubtedly the correct rendering, notwithstanding the plural pronoun being employed. A primary application to the people of Israel, and merely a secondary reference to the Messiah is utterly untenable. Gesenius perceived this, and therefore makes not the least attempt at Messianic application.

There can be no question that this modern theory of interpreting Messianic prophecy, which denies a direct personal reference in them to the Messiah, and restricts their import to being merely adapted or fitted to Him, or as suitable to Him spiritually, strips those important portions of holy writ of their intrinsic significance, and exposes the New Testament writers to the charge of having misunderstood, as well as misapplied, them.

Professor Workman complains that his "discussion of prophetic Scripture has been described as rationalistic." As far as we are concerned, we can only plead guilty to the charge in having pointed out that his views regarding the second and twenty-second Psalms are precisely the same as those of Ewald, De Wette, and other pronounced rationalistic writers. If the Professor thinks he is in objectionable company, that is no fault of ours. Although Professor Workman did not refer to the Messianic prophecy contained in the fortieth Psalm, still, as there exists some diffi. culty in reconciling the language employed by the Apostle Paul in his quotation of the Psalm with the Hebrew text, a few brief remarks may not prove unacceptable to the reader. The direct Messianic application of a portion of this Psalm has unquestionably been widely entertained in former times, and still is at the present time