and each with all. This process is indispensable, not only to answer the innate craving for logical consistency in the human intellect, but also to the exposition, maintenance, and defence of Christian truth, whether in teaching it to friends or parrying the assaults of adversaries. It is needless to show how a series of truths, concatenated not merely in an orderly arrangement, but in their relations of mutual interdependence, consistency, and unity, can be better taught, and more readily defended, than if left a mass of apparent unresolved antagonisms or contradictions, or of disjointed isolated facts, without any perceived principle of unity. Not only so-not only does the Christian intellect strive so to discern and set forth the harmony of Christianity with itself and correlate truth, as to furnish no weapon which its adversaries may turn against it. The mind of the church further essays to wrest from its enemies the weapons of their own . forging. It seeks to show that the objections urged are invalid-and this even on rational or philosophic grounds. It does not, indeed, found faith on anything short of the testimony of God, nor on its success in refuting the objections of adversaries from the rational or philosophic side. But it strives to show that, simply as rational arguments, they are either false, irrelevant, or inconclusive. To this extent, and in ways which have been already illustrated, the theologian and the Christian apologist meet adversaries on their own ground. And still further, in regard to truths which are alike affirmed by revelation and by reason, it endeavours to convince those who will not hear the former, by rational proofs. Thus to those who deny the sin and ruin of the race asserted in the Scriptures, it will endeavour to prove them by incontestable facts. Hence in all ages, among all parties in the church, except mystics and heretics, there has been a constant effort to formulate and systematize the doctrines of the Bible in creeds and confessions. And this is not only a necessary measure of defence against heresy, but also against mysticism, which heretics are so fond of making their shield. Mysticism is a distempered form of religion. It may be the result of good or evil tendencies, according as it supervenes on what was previously below or above it. If it supervene upon dead formalism, supplanting it by a living, though somewhat distempered piety, it of course represents a salutary, because an upward tendency. If it come in the place of intelligent piety moulded by the doctrines of the Bible, with pretensions to supplant and improve upon that style of religion, it is, of course, morbid and pernicious. It is often made pretext for disparaging orthodoxy and intelligent evangelical piety. By mysticism is meant that idea of Christianity which founds it on feeling, or represents it as a . life and not a doctrine, nor formed and bounded by a doctrine. Now it is true that Christian piety is a life, a life which includes feeling, but this life is inspired and guided by the truth as it is in Jesus, the doctrine which is according to godliness; this feeling is such as arises from the knowledge and belief of the everlasting gospel. Otherwise, whatever else it may be, it is not Christian piety. Mere feeling uninformed by Christian truth is not Christian feeling, and in proportion as it lacks the guidance and inspiration of such truth, it degenerates into fanaticism, superstition, or mere fleshly excitement, which soon sinks into absolute stupefaction and irreligion. Mysticism divorces religion from the intellect. But no religion can be genuine or scriptural which thus separates itself from knowledge. Christianity interpenetrates and exalts every part of our nature, especially the intellect or regal faculty, that which was designed to regulate feeling, which, if not thus regulated, must needs degenerate into mere irrational sensibility, irreligious, fanatical, or superstitious. This is eternal life to know God and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent. Knowledge and piety can no more be separated than solidity and extension, life and breath. But no reason is competent for this task which is not a Christian or regenerate reason—a reason purged of the blindness and darkness of sin, which, yielding to the supreme authority of the word of God, surrenders all preconceived opinions and predilections in conflict with it. This is the primary doctrine assumed by reason in all its legitimate efforts to systematize Christian doctrine, construct a science of Christian theology, and reconcile it with all related truths. No philosophy can be an impartial judge between the great truths of Christianity and the "oppositions of science," which is uncertain or wavering, or indifferent in regard to those truths. We might as well prepare to judge impartially between the claims of the sun and of the earth to be the centre of the planetary system, by shutting out the light of the sun, as to qualify ourselves for an impartial judgment between the Scripture and oppositions to it, by closing our eyes to the light of the word. That mind, whether philosophic or theologic, alone is in a state of judicial candour regarding these questions, which has the candour to see and feel, at the very outset, that God is true though every man be a liar-that his word is the sure and supreme oracle. "This is the judge that ends the strife No mind can be in an impartial or judicial state in regard to truths of revelation and antagonistic errors, so long as it rejects or ignores Scripture, and God speaking therein as the supreme judge or arbiter of the controversy. This is the doctrine of Protestant orthodoxy as set forth by its divines and symbols. Says our own Confession of Faith: "The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself. And therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. "The Supreme Judge, by whom all controversies are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture." (Chap. I. 9-10.) This brings us to the Papal Doctrine on this subject, to which we have already referred, that the infallible and only authorized interpreter of Scripture is the church, speaking through the pope, or ecumenical councils, or the perpetual and universal faith of all her members; that our simple duty is to accept the interpretations of Scripture and decisions of Christian doctrine given forth through these organs; and that all private judgment as to its meaning is Rationalism. Such we have already seen to be the doctrine propounded by Archbishop Manning. We can go with him in the following statement, which we think contains all the truth reached in his argument: "Though there is no revealed pledge of infallibility to the saints as such, yet the consent of the saints is a high test of what is the mind and illumination of the Spirit of Truth." P. 97. Less than this we cannot concede to the doctrines accepted semper, ubique, ab omnibus, without coming near to a confession that revelation is a failure. While this is so, and genuine catholic doctrine carries a strong presumption of truth, which should have great weight in our interpretations of Scripture, still, the proper objective ground of faith is the testimony of God uttered in and through the Scriptures, and apprehended by the believer. Of course, this involves a judgment on his part as to what the Scripture thus utters and propounds to his faith. But, says the Romanist, this is incompetent and forbidden to him. He cannot and ought not to interpret Scripture for himself. He should take the interpretation and judgments of the infallible church-the decrees of popes and councils, without question or criticism. This is the only alternative to the supremacy of reason, i. e., to Rationalism in matters of religion. Says Manning: "There can be ultimately no intermediate between the Divine mind declaring itself through an organ of its own creation, or the human mind judging for itself upon the evidence and contents of revelation. There is or there is not a Divine perpetual Teacher in the midst of us. The human reason must be either the disciple or the critic of revelation." P. 85. "The reason or private judgment of individuals exercised critically upon history, philosophy, theology, Scripture, and revelation, inasmuch as it is the most human, is also the most fallible and uncertain of all principles of faith, and cannot in truth be rightly described to be such. Yet this is ultimately all that remains to those who reject the infallibility of the living church." To all this the obvious answer is: 1. It disguises and misstates the real issue. It confounds judging what the Scriptures mean in view of a fair estimate of the force of language, laws of construction, and the circum stances in which they were written, and receiving that meaning, so obtained, as the truth of God, with sitting in judgment on the contents of revelation thus duly ascertained, in order to receive or reject them as they do or do not conform to human reason. The former is legitimate and necessary, and consistent with the absolute subjection of reason to Scripture, with taking the yoke and learning of Christ. The latter exalts reason above the authority of the word of God, and is Rationalism. To say, as Archbishop Manning does, that "reason must be either the disciple or critic of revelation," is to "palter in a double sense" of the word critic. One may be a critic of revelation so far as is necessary to ascertain its meaning, in order that he may be its disciple. This, so far inconsistent with discipleship, it is necessary to it. being a critic in such a sense as to subordinate revelation in any manner to the behests of his own reason. from being This is not 2. The Romish doctrine is plainly at direct variance with the Scriptures, which require us to search the Scriptures because they testify of Christ, and commend the Bereans for so doing, and for testing the preachers they heard thereby. So Timothy is commended for having known from childhood the Holy Scriptures, which are declared "able to make wise to salvation," and all of them to be "given by inspiration of God, and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Tim. iii. 15-17. The summons is, "to the law and the testimony; if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them." 3. We do not escape the necessity of judging, even if we are to take the interpretation of Scripture blindly from an infallible pope or church. It is just as necessary for the disciple to interpret and judge of the meaning of the utterances of pontiffs and councils as of the Scriptures themselves. The necessity of judgment on the part of the Christian is not superseded by the voice of the living teacher or infallible interpreter. Such a teacher can only say, "I speak as unto wise men; judge ye what I say." "He that is spiritual judgeth all things." 4. How shall men know the infallible church and pontiff, |