men may become intellectually, it is by no means probable that liberalism will profit by it at the expense of evangelical Christianity. As a prominent infidel admits, "It is true that people have become indifferent about theological subtleties; but they still remain under the sway of religion, and the Churches are becoming more truly religious as they are becoming less sectarian." A great deal is being said about the religion of the future. It is not saying too much to predict that the religion of the future will be the form of religion which, in its teaching and practice, brings the divine Father nearest to the human soul and which, in human society, makes men realize that the tabernacle of God is, indeed, among men.

Having noticed some of the more conspicuous weaknesses of liberalism, we are not to forget that there is another side to the discussion. The whole movement is reactionary against opposite errors in orthodoxy. In all these liberal writings we find protests against the traditional and long-established interpretations of God and his dealings with mankind. There is a legitimate demand that new wine be put into new bottles, that the Church conscientiously face new conditions with improved adaptations. It is not to be wondered at if Protestants do too much protesting. One extreme of the pendulum movement is evidence of an opposite extreme. If liberalism has been too negative it is because orthodoxy has been too positive or, rather, falsely positive.

This tendency is seen in its treatment of truth derived from other than scriptural sources-as, for instance, the discoveries of science. Intolerance is always a cowardice, resulting from weakness of faith. The Church, in assuming to be the sole channel of truth, has sometimes usurped the office of the Holy Ghost and has made wretched work of leading men into all truth. Afraid to trust the Spirit of truth, she undertook the impossible task of defining truth herself. It was a pathetic sight when Galileo, over seventy years old, with one hand on the gospels and the other on his heart, at the command of the Holy Inquisition solemnly repudiated the truth which God had given him concerning the material universe, on the ground that it was plainly repugnant to the teachings of Holy Writ. In those days and since, some men were more careful to be orthodox than to be right. It is equally pathetic to hear some Prot

estant preachers of our day rant, with unbecoming confidence, against the findings of modern science—which ought to be judged as facts, independently of any possible bearing on anyone's creed-and with a vehemence that betokens a cowardly fear lest, if Darwinism should be proved, the whole fabric of the Christian system must fall. If our Christianity is to stand or fall with some old theory of natural science or of biblical interpretation, such as medieval geology or the chronology of Usher, we have, indeed, built our house on the sands. It is essentially cowardly in a Christian preacher to-day to indulge in pointless sarcasm against the much-abused higher criticism, as if the results of this earnest study were not as likely, and more so, to establish, as to undermine, the true power and authority of the sacred word. Orthodoxy has manifested the same spirit as Romanism in its faithless fear of private judgment. No sooner does Protestantism win its great fight against papal authority than it is stricken with panic lest God should not properly conserve the results of the Reformation; and it seizes hold of the dethroned principle of infallible authority and proceeds to enthrone it in the canon of Holy Scripture and to foster an enervating idolatry of the letter of the word, saying to the people, "These be your gods, O Israel!" In our age the Bible is being relieved of many intolerable burdens which it has been inade to bear; and the more it is studied and rightly interpreted the more conspicuous does its divine purpose and inspiration shine forth, its purpose being, not to teach occult science, but to guide men out of sin into holiness.

Orthodoxy has been too positive, also, in its insistence on creed statements. By reducing theology to an exact science it has invited attack. Nicæan formulas and hairsplitting definitions of the Eternal One seem in our day almost irreverent. The whole Christian world is learning that absolutely identical belief is not essential to identity of Christian faith and life. The tendency of the age is toward a more simple, reverent, and tolerant attitude in reference to the hidden things of God, together with a more stalwart and earnest attention to practical ethics. It has been truly said:

No creed ever made satisfied even the majority. How, indeed, can any statement proceeding from the human brain be an adequate and permanent expression of eternal truth? Even the apostle says, "We know in

part, and we prophesy in part," and "Whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away." If Paul declared that he had not the power of making a perfect and permanent statement of truth, how can we believe that anyone else can ever do it?

Is there, then, no assurance of faith for the Christian teacher or believer? Is there no satisfying via media between a narrow, self-contented orthodoxy, on the one hand, and the thin, vapid liberalism, on the other, that starves out the religious life and chills into paralysis the warm enthusiasms of devotion? Is there no attitude toward truth more satisfying than either of these? The answer to these heart-searching questions must be found in an earnest study of the essential nature of Christianity, which is a life, not a carefully elaborated set of opinions. A great orthodox writer has truly said:

Men must be made to feel that the Christian religion is not a mass of separate questions, having little connection with one another, on all of which a man must have made up his mind before he can be counted a believer. The spiritual unity of the faith must be brought out and its simplicity asserted in the prominence given to the personal life and work of Jesus Christ and loyalty to him, as a test of all discipleship.

Under such a noble conception of Christianity there is no narrowness in belonging to a denomination or holding a creed, if we at the same time cling to the simple spiritual unity of the faith. John Wesley had the right idea of Christian unity and of essential orthodoxy when he said, "I desire a league, offensive and defensive, with every soldier of Jesus Christ." It has well been said, "The Church, if she holds her creed as a creed ought to be held, is neither dogmatic nor skeptical, but keeps both to the special and the universal and makes them minister to each other." A good definition of essential Christianity was given at the Parliament of Religions by a Christian Japanese : "The essential nature of Christianity is not dogma, but the ethico-religious life in each individual soul and in humanity at large. Live the life and do the work of Jesus Christ. The orthodoxy of dogma shall give place to the orthodoxy of life and work." As George Macdonald said, "I find that doing the will of God leaves me but little time for disputing about his plans." Even in this age, then, of vast and often excessive liberality of thought, it is possible to say, "I have kept the faith." An honest looking forward toward the things that are before,

not assuming that we have already attained or were already perfect; a cordial acceptance of Christ's teaching that the Holy Spirit is in the world to lead us into all truth; an open eye for the light that is yet to break upon the dark problems of human life, from God's word of Scripture and from his words that can be read in the social, political, and economic movements that are making history under our very eyes-such an attitude will save us from the stupefying self-contentment which is the result of a blind adherence to rigid formulas of belief, wrought for us in the heat of irritating controversy.

What, then, shall save us from drifting too far out and losing our religious life in the inanition and paralysis of a false liberalism? May we not find that safeguard in the realization of a present God-a recognition of the fact that the God and Christ of the New Testament are present to-day in mighty power in the Church? Or, in other words, may we not find a corrective to a false intellectualism in the cultivation of a personal religious experience. "Rooted and grounded in love," we shall be able to comprehend "what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge." The facts of personal religious experience and observation are now, as in apostolic days, to be our strength as Christian teachers. Christianity is eminently an historical religion, resting on facts, to-day, as always-not on philosophy. Men will believe in the Christ whom they see in the Churches and in Christians. It is comparatively futile to argue with an unbeliever in favor of miracles alleged to have been wrought nineteen centuries ago. But if we can show that these were but the things "that Jesus began both to do and teach;" if we can show proof to-day of a "power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth;" if, as one of the converts of the Pacific Garden Mission so eloquently declared, a second New Testament might be written from the deeds of Jesus Christ in Chicago-deeds of regeneration, healing, and raising from the dead-then we have an argument in favor of orthodoxy ("right teaching") which cannot be gainsaid.

Hughd. Atchison

ART. V.-NEWSPAPER RESPONSIBILITY IN RELATION TO INTEMPERANCE.

THERE are few social forces which claim to equal the potency of the periodical press. Specially is this true of its newspaper department. Its inconsiderable cost puts it within reach of the poor, its convenient form and serial visits render its perusal possible by the busiest, while the compass and ability of original and contributed articles fully sustain its high claim. The range of its discussions embraces almost every conceivable topic. It introduces us to all lands and makes us familiar with the passing events of all countries, so that, whether in matters relating to literature, science, philosophy, or the sayings and deeds which make up the history of everyday life, there is no reasonable apology for anyone's being in ignorance. Nor does it relegate to class and professional journals exclusive consideration of specialties; but in the table of its diversified contents space is devoted to their intelligent and popular consideration.

A daily newspaper is a comprehensive compendium of the freshest and best in every department of literature, and contributes largely to such a fund of valuable information as must have its influence on the popular mind. As a means of education it takes a foremost place and acknowledges no secular superior. It is to be feared that large numbers of the people allow their religious or secular paper to do their thinking for them, and so are likely to receive without question and impart without hesitation what was oracularly stated in their familiar journal. Away from the more highly favored centers of intelligence the home is but sparsely supplied with books, while public libraries are institutions promised only to the strongest faith. Persons in such circumstances have but few opportunities for study, which makes it all the more natural that they should turn with pleasure to the newspaper as the most promising source of intelligence within their reach. We are here stating a fact, and not offering a criticism. It is a matter for gratulation that, in the absence of the best environment, there goes so unobtrusively into the homes of every community a means of accomplishing so much in relieving the darkness of ignorance and neutralizing its terrible results. We are