be received by others, equally sincere with themselves, but with widely adverse views--as being authoritative truth. Their respective stand points would be so different, that truth to the one might well be falsehood to the other and yet it would be entirely right that each should be guided by his own perceptions, aided of course, as far as may be, by those of others.

There may have been spiritual allusions in this language, which is ascribed to Jesus, and which if understood by us, could be accepted as truthful, and fitting for ourselves; but literally, and as they appear to have been received by those to whom they were addressed, we cannot but reject them, or our own publicly declared faith.

The two are inconsistent with each other, and in deciding between them, we should bear in mind, that the signs promised in confirmation of believers, have failed to foliow them, and in this regard, we are in no respect behind those who are giving a willing assent to all that is being claimed of their credulity.

Jesus, who appears often to have yielded to spiritual influences, certainly at times knew better, and saw beyond those who were looking to him as being their Saviour. On one such occasion, he told them it was expedient for them that he should go away-leaving them to another comforter the Spirit of Truth, which should lead them into all truth. It cannot but be equally expedient for us now that He should be away, and they are as gravely mistaken, who are now building their hopes upon Him,

up and down with them in the land of Judea. And they were mistaken or he would not have pained and offended them by thus addressing them. My hopes then are not based upon belief or upon baptism, nor yet upon a profession of Jesus, but upon a virtuous life. And I am willing, unhesitatingly to accept of all the consequences, of such a faith, as also of the public declaration of it. I am not ashamed of such a recognition of the goodness and justice and mercy of the Infinite Jehovah, while I should be of one which would admit of his basing our salvation from the penalty of sins actually committed and persisted in, upon belief only; or upon his ascribing to one imputative sin, and to another imputative righteousness. I therefore unhesitatingly disclaim all hope or desire to realize salvation, or acceptance with Him, through the merits of what is called, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. In my sober moments, and with a full consciousness of my many short comings-and the sense of these is sometimes almost overwhelming to me—I would not accept of these on the terms upon which through Him, they are claimed to be offered unto us. No man with my consent, shall ever be compelled to pay my debts and much less the penalty of my sins. I would sooner make a sa-. crifice of the latter and seek acceptance only through ceasing to do evil, and in the performance of what I can know to be my duty. then from all that I have learned of it, does not consist in belief or baptism, but in seeking, and faithfully fulfilling the duties which through devotion and dedication of heart, would be manifested unto each of us.

True religion

AT

T the risk of making myself hateful to the readers of THE FRIEND, I propose to write, as briefly as I can, in answer to an article of Mr. Foster's, that appeared in the March number of this periodical. Should I do less it might be supposed by those who do not know me, that I have nothing more to say. Such persons might interpret silence as an acknowledgment of defeat. Such misconstruction I could easily bear, but the truth to which I hold constrains me to defend it if I can. 66 I like victory," said Madame Swetchine, "but I do not care for triumph." It is a grand distinction. If I forget it in this article I shall deserve that you, dear readers of THE FRIEND, shall never listen to me more.

I am charged by my good friend with misapprehension of his arguments, with errors in historical reference, and with perverting the plainest teachings of the New Testament. I can but think it unfair that having made these sweeping charges he did not choose to marshal my offences under these three heads. As the matter now stands, I am left in total ignorance of any special sins, (with one exception), but none the less weighed down with a suspicion of my general wickedness. Neither the " misapprehensions" nor the "errors in historical reference" are labelled as such. If I was guilty of the first I am most sorry. That I was guilty of the second I deny. Some of my opinions on historical subjects may differ from the opinions of my friend.

I am very

happy that they do. But it is with "errors in historical reference" that I am charged. I ask to be enlightened as to what these errors are. yet I have not been.

As

The "one exception" to which I have above referred, is that which is concerned with what my friend is

pleased to call "one of the finest passages in Paul's Epistle to the Romans "For by so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head." I did not, as Mr. Foster charitably supposes, "make this criticism hastily." The meaning which I put upon these words is the only meaning which to my mind they are capable of bearing. I have always refrained from reading them in my pulpit, because I have always felt them to be wicked and unworthy of the splendid soul that uttered them. I am very certain that the haste in this instance, was not mine but the Apostle's, and that he "has already repented truly," of language so remote from his essential character. I did not willingly make use of this argument. But it was as strong a one as I could find to prove how wrong it is to judge a writer by sentences detached from his discourses, as my friend had done with Plato, instead of by their general spirit.

In my former article I urged the difficulty of discovering what were the authentic portions of the Bible, as a reason for supposing that God could not have made our knowledge of good and evil to depend wholly on this discovery. I did not exaggerate this difficulty, I was very careful not to do

So.

In reply I am asked if "Tischendorf in his recent pamphlet does not prove" thus and so. Perhaps he does to his own satisfaction. He does rot to the satisfaction of Strauss and Schenkel, and a host of others just as able as himself. Tischendorf is too great a verbal critic to excel in the direction where his energies have lately been directed. But if the Fourth Gospel is authentic, one thing is very certain, viz: That the other three are It is impossible that if Jesus was the person represented in the first three Gospels, he could have been the person represented in the fourth.

not.

That I disclaim any confidence in the correctness of the Gospel narrative," is an assertion for which no warrant will be found in anything that I have ever thought, or said, or writ

ten.

Nothing that my friend has written convinces me that I was wrong in saying, that between the right of judging what the Bible teaches, and the noright of the Romanist, "there is no moral choice." If I must be confined to judging what the Bible teaches, and prohibited from judging whether it teaches truth or not, what is there "moral" in the case. Under such circumstances I should prefer to get my explanation from the schools and councils rather than from my own resources. According to this dictum,there should have been one more beatitude, "Blessed are they who are well versed in Greek and Hebrew, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." The expression "Reason or Rome" is certainly getting to be rather trite, but though I have heard it many hundred times, I never until now have heard it used as Mr. Foster fancies that I used it. But he only fancies. My meaning was that logically there is no half-way stopping-place between these two extremes. Not as Mr. Foster supposes, that practically if a man cannot follow reason altogether, he had better go to Rome. O, no! If a man cannot be as reasonable as he should be, let him be as reasonable as he can. I thank Heaven every day that men are not logical.

"The cry, 'Reason or Rome,' sounded by the Anti-supernaturalist and echoed by the worshiper of the Virgin, is of pleasing alliteration, but not more reasonable than would be a decree of despotism as the cure of democracy, or a proclamation of universal slavery as the sole alternative of universal suffrage." (p. 87).

Exactly so. We do hold that there is no 66 middle-ground" between universal slavery and universal suffrage; i.e., if one man be deprived of his rights, there is no reason why all should not be. But this is not saying

that if men cannot be perfectly free, let them be completely enslaved. It is in this connection that Mr. Foster says:

"Reason is wholly unconscious of the limits set by revelation, while without revelation reason fails to form any worthy conception of the true God, or to find the standard of the perfect man." (p. 87).

But the very question in dispute is whether reason does not include revelation. Dr. Noyes, who is no radical, thinks that it does; Dr. Hedge of whom conservatives are very proud, is of the same opinion; and what says James Martineau ?

"Behind all the communicated beliefs of

Jesus lie his felt beliefs, with the question"What made them his?" Whence his holy trust in them? for in his soul also they had a justifying origin. He thought them, he loved them, he worshiped in them, he struggled under them, before he published them by what mark did he know them to be divine? Does any one really suppose that he would refuse to believe them, unless his senses could have a physical demonstration, unless the Infinite Spirit would talk audibly with him in the vernacular tongue, and give him His word for them, and work off some proof miracles to satisfy

his doubts? And if it were found out that

there was no breach of the Eternal Silence, no phantasms floating between the uplifted eye of the Nazarene and the quiet stars, would you say that it was all over with our faith, and its divine original clean gone? Surely not. It will not be questioned that the Inspiration of Jesus was within the soul. By the powers that dwelt there, he knew the thoughts to be divine and holy, as they dropped on his meditations; and the authorizing point of all his treasures of heavenly truth and grace dwelt in his Reason, Conscience and Faith. Here, then, is the fountain of all; the primitive seat of inspiration; the true religion of Christ, -that which he felt and followed, not that which he spake and led. And those are the most genuine disciples, who stand with him at the same spring; who are ready for the same trust; and can disengage themselves from tradition, pretence and fear, at the bidding of the same source of inspiration."

"Truth may not advance" says Mr.Foster, "but Truth-seekers must." Of course he means moral truth. There are those who imagine that the astronomy of Newton, the geology of Owen, the chemistry of Faraday

are in the Bible, in so far as these men are correct in their opinions. But I am very certain that Mr. Foster does not believe this. It is moral truth that has been standing still. Men can grow morally better. But to grow morally wiser, except by study of the Bible, is impossible. Now I cannot believe this. I believe that Jesus taught the central truths of absolute religon; the Fatherhood of God, the Brotherhood of man. He taught these, and a great deal more beside, but he did not teach everything that must be known before a man can do his duty faithfully on every side of life. How much of a man's life centres in his home, and will Mr. Foster say that the ethics of home were fully set forth by Jesus; that we know nothing higher than he tells us? But on this head he tells us nothing. Does Mr. Foster think that there is no higher conception of marriage than that which holds it to be a necessary evil? For such was the conception of Jesus.* The ethics of business are of scarcely less importance, but it is hard to resist the feeling that Jesus felt that business differed from marriage only in that it was not necessary. He still felt it to be an evil. Again the ethics of the State in which we have so vast an interest, were scarcely recognized by him. The mistaken belief, which I am very certain that he cherished, in the speedy coming of the end of the world, is amply sufficient to explain these narrow views, but on that account they are no less narrow. If Mr. Foster feels at liberty to disregard the record when it brings him such unwelcome news, I will leave it to the readers of THE FRIEND, if he, rather than myself, is not the "one who disclaims any confidence in the correctness of the Gospel narrative."

Mr. Foster is very fond of using the argumentum ad hominem. Taking it for granted that I agree with every word that Renan or Schenkel has to

*Matt. xix., 12.

me.

say, he never tires of quoting them at Because Renan, whose rhetoric runs away with his history as often as once a page, declares that Jesus" first proclaimed the kingliness of the soul" he thinks that I am bound to make the same admission. Not a bit of it. I believe that many before Jesus had declared "the kingliness of the soul." Socrates had done it. Plato had done it. Plutarch had done it in his famous essay on "The Delay of the Deity in punishing the wicked." The Zend Avesta is surcharged with this idea.* Mr. Foster quotes a column from the pages of Renan and Schenkel, to convince me that I am wrong in thinking that the superiority of Christianity as a religion is not such as to imply its supernatural character. But his quotations do not affect me in the least. Renan and Schenkel found no difficulty in making these admissions, and still thinking that Christianity was not supernatural in its origin. And if I saw fit to make them, I should not feel obliged to vary my position in the least. But I do not see fit to echo Renan's saying, that " 'the sermon on the Mount will never be surpassed," or that " Jesus will never be surpassed." This is a matter which neither M. Renan nor Mr. Foster know anything about. I do not say that I believe that Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount will be surpassed. Of that "knoweth no man; no, not the angels in Heaven, nor the Son, but the Father." But I believe that the teachings of Jesus will be supplemented. Their truth is one thing and their completeness another. Mr. Foster quotes what he calls a what he calls a "sweeping admission" of Schenkel's, concerning "the rationalistic representation of Christ," and seems to think that Schenkel uses "rationalistic" as the opposite of supernatural. In fact he does no such thing. He uses it in a technical and restricted sense, and is himself an out

* Vide Miss Cobbe's Studies Ethical and Social. Art. Sacred Books of the Zoroastrians.

and-out opponent of the supernatural idea. Let those who doubt it read his book and see.

But I would really like to know how Mr. Foster manufactures his connecting link between superior wisdom and goodness, and the supernatural. If there is such a link when is it first apparent? Will Mr. Foster tell us just how wise or good a man must be before he will be supernatural. And if it is only necessary that he should be wiser or better than any body else will he inform us if the best man in every age before the time of Jesus was also supernatural? For by the canons of this reasoning I cannot see why not. And if superiority in truth or goodness makes supernatural, why not superiority in the æsthetic world; why was not Raphael or Angelo supernatural, and consequently as authoritative in their line as Jesus is in his? But for myself, though I should feel as certain that none greater than Jesus will ever rise out of the future, as I am that none greater has risen out of the past, I should not feel obliged to think him supernatural any more than I do

now.

As proof that I was wrong in saying that it was not the open Bible, but an inspired man who made the Reformation, Mr. Foster says,

"the seeds of that great movement were sown far back in the middle ages. I never doubted it. I said that Luther made the Reformation. I did not say that Luther made himself. "It has been truly said," continues Mr. Foster, "that almost every doctrine of Luther had its advocates before his time." I thank him for that word. It was necessary to complete my parallel between Luther and Christ. It has been truly said, that every doctrine of Jesus had its advocates before his time. Mr. Foster says, that he questions "the clearness of judgment which insists that Judea has served no other purpose than to witness for the idea of one God." And well he may. I shall not feel that he is personal in

doing so. I only said that “ to stand for the idea of one God," was the distinctive characteristic of the Jew. The moral work of Judaism was, indeed, very great, but it was not unshared. "The imperial mind of Plato," we are told by Mr. Foster, "knew little of morality, could contemplate God only as Nature and Thought," and of his providence knew nothing. There is a passage

of John Ruskin's that replies to this so well, and I will please myself with quoting it :

"Plato is profoundly spiritual and capacious in all his views. He seems to me especially remarkable for the sense of the great Christian virtue of holiness or santification; and for the sense of the presence of the Deity in all things, great or small, which always runs in a solemn undercurrent beneath his exquisite playfulness and irony; while all the merely moral virtues may be found in his writings defined in the most noble manner, as a great painter defines his figures, without outlines.

It was not, says Mr. Foster, "because the Jews relied on the Old Testament as an authority, that they did not accept Jesus. It was much more, that Christ wounded the national pride, and disappointed the national hope." But this is not denying my assertion. It is only paraphrasing it. It was the Old Testament that fostered the national pride, and directed the national hope. It was from the Old Testament that they got their notion of "him that was to come," and because Jesus did not correspond to this notion, they have been ever since looking for another."

In reply to my assertion, that an external revelation is impossible, Mr. Foster says, "that a vast amount of knowledge is needed to render a man certain of the impossibility of anything." If he had written "some things," where he has written " "anything," I should have hastened to agree with him. But does it take a "vast amount of knowledge to be certain" that "things which are equal to the same thing, are equal to each other?" And of this sort was my