increased by the feeling which every truly scientific mind perceives as pressing upon it-namely, that if there were no God we should be compelled, in the interest of science, to invent one. I think the outlook on this side is very hopeful.

Now when we turn to the newer Bible, contained in what is commonly known as the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, we are in the department of criticism. The outlook here shows a resolute determination upon the part of many astute and strong thinkers to submit the book to precisely the same kind of examination as that to which are submitted all the books now coming fresh from the press, books that acknowledge authorship in all departments of literature. It is as if one examined the Ark of the Covenant, not looking on it with eyes of reverence, but handling it, taking it apart, putting the knife into it, ascertaining what is the fibre and grain of the wood, measuring it with tape and yard-stick, and weighing it on scales and submitting it to examination to ascertain whether the sides, the bottom, and the top are composed each of one piece or more. To those who worship God in the "Ark," this would seem to be an intolerable operation. If a man had devised it for the residence of his dignity he might resent such a procedure; but perhaps God does not. The patient God, who makes an Ark not for the Ark's sake, but to be a residence of His mercy; not for that mercy's sake, but for the sake of men, may be quite willing that that repository shall have the most thorough secular examination if it result in making men more and more believe and trust the Divine mercy therein enshrined.

It seems to me that there need by no distress in any mind in regard to this procedure. When Jehovah moved before Israel in that which was a pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night, a devout Israelite need not have been disturbed if some scientist felt disposed to enter upon an exami nation of that pillar to ascertain whether its substance was fume or vapor, so long as it retained visible shape sufficient to be a guide, so long as it illuminated the camp by night, so long as its motions could guide to the times and place for the pitching and the breaking of the camp, so long it would discharge the functions necessary for God's guidance of His people; and that is all God intended it for. It is casy to perceive that the cloud in the desert was not necessary to the existence of Jehovah's power and glory, but that it was necessary for the people who beheld it. It is very manifest that the Ark of the Covenant was not necessary to the existence of God's mercy, but that it was helpful to the people who saw it as a reminder of the mercy of their God.

So we need not worry because men are treating the Bible as they would any other piece of literature. Either God is in the Bible or He is not. No man is any more interested than any other man in proving or disproving the Divine residence. If God be there, all criticism will fail to eject Him; and if He be not there, no one has any more interest in making Him present in the book "Genesis" or the book "Isaiah," than in Mot

ley's "History of the United Netherlands" or in Goethe's Faust." Guesses, hypotheses, or theories of Pentateuch or Hexateuch, Elohism or Jehovism, one Isaiah or ten, ante-exilic or post-exilic date, cannot effect the influence over the human heart of any book whose content is felt to be of Divine authorship. In physical science the hypothesis cannot change the facts. Whether the corpuscular or vibratory theory of light be maintained, light is all the same. Theories of inspiration may vary; but if there be a God-power in a book, or in a cloud, or in an ark, men will feel it. Theories of inspiration have varied from that of the Divine dictation of every single word in the written law and Gospel to that of merely generally good influence over intellects not preserved from all errancy. This may simply be a question of mode of Divine authorship among men who agree as to the fact of Divine authorship.

One of the latest indications of movement on this subject has been made by the reception of the new book, "Lux Mundi." A very short time ago there was a convention of members of the Established Church of England, in which was brought forward a resolution to condemn the teaching of this book on the subject of inspiration. That resolution was overwhelmingly defeated. This does not show any endorsement of the doctrines of that book, but it does show that the general mind of the Church of England is in such a state as can allow its members to set forth any possible doctrines on inspiration, while yet holding the Bible as, in some really strong sense, the Word of God. The scholars in the Wesleyan body in England have perhaps brought theology to a more reasonable form, to a more judicious. union of what are called Arminianism and Calvinism, and to greater consistency with the Bible, than any other body of Christian thinkers. One significant occurrence among them is now reported. Recently in the city of London there was a large meeting of Wesleyan ministers, at which Professor Davison read a paper endorsing "Lux Mundi," with its views of the Pentateuch, the two Isaiahs, the uncertain date of authorship of Daniel, and a denial of verbal inspiration. He congratulated the Wesleyan ministers that their creed contained no article defining inspiration, and that they put their religion on faith in Christ, and not on faith in a book. A motion was made to publish the professor's address. An amendment to print it only for the ministers was overwhelmingly defeated.

These two recent events indicate the general outlook of theology as to the book-vehicle of God's facts from which we are to make theology.

The phrase," Make theology," is used intentionally. Theology is a human fact made from Divine facts. As the old facts of nature make new physical science, as the old facts of mind are used to make new mental philosophy, so improved views of the old facts of the Bible will be used to make new theologies, and we have a right to hope better theologies. A man, or a body of men, in the nineteenth century, must be better prepared to formulate a theology than a man or a body of men of the same ability and piety in the sixteenth century, because the former have all that the

latter had, with the advantages of the learning gained in three centuries, in which there has been more quickened thought and more really vital and active piety than in any ten preceding centuries. No man in any century can make any new God-fact; but, as the centuries go forward, out of the same old fact or Word of God, as Robinson said in the cabin of the Mayflower, more and more light will come forth, and that increasing light will come because men's vision will be enlarged to receive more light.

In the mean time, let us be quite patient with one another. We shall obstruct the progress of truth if we do not draw the distinction there clearly is between the denial of a certain theory of inspiration and the denial of inspiration itself. If two Christian scholars announce their belief in the inspiration of the Pentateuch, one holding that Moses was the amanuensis of the Holy Spirit, another that each of the books was anonymous, we need not denounce the two scholars as heretics because we agree with a third, seeing that all of them agree with us that the real author is God. It is as if the question arose as to which of a number of secretaries employed by any man may have addressed us a particular letter; that is of little consequence, so that we acknowledge that our friend himself is the real author of the letter. Even if there be here and there an omitted word, a little break in a sentence, or a little obscurity in a phrase, the content assures us of the authorship. Because it concerns that which is known only to our correspondent and ourselves, we are sure that he must be the real, ultimate author of the letter. We need not be concerned about the fallibility of those whom we have reason to believe to be God's secretaries so long as we hold to the infallibility of God. Christ said, "The words that I have spoken to you, they are spirit and they are life ;" we gain nothing by changing that into "they are letters and syllables." A word may be spelled differently at different times, and yet always be intelligible and always mean the same thing. The author of the Bible is the author of nature, and yet in nature we perceive breaks, imperfections, and apparently irreconcilable discrepancies. The farther and farther we press our scientific studies the more these both appear and disappear, and yet they do not at all shake our faith in the creatorship of God. So may it be with the authorship of the Bible.

The outlook now seems to be that the Bible is to be set free from many a theory of inspiration which has hampered it, and to be put in such a position that it may exercise over men the power of a really God-inspired book. As we advance in culture, that power, which has been greatly hindered by certain post-Reformation dogmatic scholasticisms, will break forth, and the Bible-God's Word-will ride on in splendor and scatter the mists which human weakness has made around it, as the rising sun dissipates the vapor which its rays encounter on the eastern horizon. In this department the outlook of theology is most favorable.

There is little space to speak of the state of doctrinal theology. The

"denominations" are coming together more and more.

The discussion of

doctrines seems to be producing a fusing process. The word "denomination" points to a name. It means that in which one school of Christian theology differs from any other school of Christian theology, without any reference whatever to that in which all schools of Christian theology agree. I think I have heard this called " provincialism." Augustinianism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Wesleyanism are provincial names; so are the words Episcopalianism, Presbyterianism, Methodism, Baptistism, Romanism. Christians in all these sections would admit that there are Christians in all other sections. Each is a species of the genus Christian. Genus is extensive, species is intensive; and in this, as in all other departments of classification, the genus is more important. In a logical definition of a thing, the genus is first given as indispensable in the thing which is about. to be defined to complete the definition you add the differentia to the genus. The differentia simply distinguishes the thing defined from other things which belong to the very same genus. For a long time men's attention was riveted to the differences of the schools. Now Christians are coming to consider the things wherein they agree. The kingdom of God begins to appear, as in point of fact it really is, very much greater than any of its provinces, little or large. In the great Republic of United Theologies it would seem that zeal for State's Rights is being absorbed into enthusiasm for Nationalism.

Moreover, there seems to be a tendency to change the point of view of the Bible's teaching of the doctrines of redemption. Heretofore theologies seem to have started with the sovereignty of God. Everything was studied in reference to the throne of the King. Now studies are more given to the salvation of man as a standing-point. There is no tearing up of the track, for the Bible is still here. There is no change of the locomotive, for human reason is still here. But instead of starting from the station at the head of the valley and going down, theologians make their trains start out of the station at the foot of the valley. Evidently this does not change a single thing in the landscape, while it does give a new theology, but only in the sense of a new view of the same facts of God.

On the whole, the outlook of theology seems hopeful. The agitation. which is frightening many people is a movement toward settling things in a very much better relative position on the old foundations. The Bible, as the infallible God's revelation of the infallible rule of faith and practice, is dearer and more potential than ever before. The twentieth century is approaching with the sword of the spirit in each hand, with the smile of faith upon its lips, the glowing crown of hope upon its brow, and a suffusion of heaven's love for earth overspreading its countenance. Men are coming to see that all the theology possible to man cannot make any man better, just as life cannot be produced by the best science, but that life may produce the best science, and that there is a religion which is love

of God and love of man, the love which loves man for God's sake, and that in the sight of God and man one grain of such religion outweighs a hundred tons of theology.

IV. THE OUT-OF-SCHOOL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

BY BISHOP JOHN H. VINCENT, D.D., BUFFALO, N. Y.

THE twelve apostles were good preachers and good administrators, and they never went to a theological seminary—that is, to the regularly constituted, chartered, and endowed place for the sowing of theological seed and for the training up of theological plants. They were unlettered men for the most part; "practical" men, men of affairs. They had eyes with which they saw, and they had a good deal in those days to see. They had sense-common sense; and the times they lived in needed and the experiences that came to them developed sense. They had a religious education; most, if not all of them, by reverent parents, and in synagogues and in the temple. But they never went to Andover, Princeton, or Drew.

These early preachers had the “brogue." They betrayed their province and their bringing up. This put them at a disadvantage sometimes. A curl of scornful lips met and dismissed their provincial speech. They had no"higher training" in Athens, and the doctors of the Jewish schools sneered at them. In fashionable circles it was customary to smile at their want of scholarship and polish. What a feast they would have furnished Sydney Smith! Had they ever "studied" in Jerusalem or Tiberius, in Oxford or New Haven-these coarse Galileans?

Wise men measure men not by what they had in the way of opportunity, but by what they did with the opportunity they had. It would be an easy task to write down a list of eminent men and of eminent women, too, who have lacked school and college privileges, but who have touched the race and quickened it and uplifted it. We might begin with the blind bard of Greece, or we might begin with the large majority in that Collegio Apostolorum of the first century, and lengthen it out to these days. But it is not my purpose to make any such list. Not one large man among them, from Homer down, would thank any pen for tracing one line of argument, or what might be turned into argument, against systematic training under scholarly teachers during years of associated and intense study in special institutions. I simply call attention to the fact that there has been some good and great work done in the world by men who have been brought up outside of the schools; and that the human founders of the Christian religion were chiefly men of that class. One wonders sometimes if the scholarship of the great apostle to the Gentiles has not been overrated. The "out-of-school theological seminary" is not to be depreciated.