table mysteries are encountered. We hesitate to pronounce the word mystery, or pronouncing it still set about to solve it, and try to persuade ourselves that in a measure we have accomplished it. Adherents of the two great schools of religious thought can to-day read through the eighth chapter of Romans and discover that they agree on many points. As we follow Paul step by step, and reach the inevitable doctrine of predestination and foreordination, we may be bewildered; we may say, Let us go over that again, only again to be forced to assent to what seems to be a grave contradiction of the working phase of our belief, that that corresponds in every man's creed most nearly to a working hypothesis, and we at once assert: "I know I am a free agent, I know that I am responsible"; for consciousness of free agency, and consequent responsibility is more certain than any fact in physical science. But still we cannot but feel that along the line of the argument, as we read, there was presented a conception of God as the sovereign ruler of the universe that we cannot willingly let go; a conception of God that has had a potency in the history of the race that we are yet not prepared to estimate. Can we hold both or is a contradiction presented us here by St. Paul? It seems so, and that we must make a choice. But it is only a mystery. It is not asking us to believe that a body is both black and white at the same time. A mystery is relative to our powers of comprehension and our knowledge. There are complete analogues in mathematical science. What it demonstrates we are apt to concede is demonstrated, and yet it often presents us with conclusions as irreconcilable and as incomprehensible as these. Who may not remember a species of discomfort occasioned by the necessity of admitting that two lines not parallel may never meet, in spite of continual approach, as used in illustration before. Some of the most precise theorems involve apparent contradiction greater than these, and the results of mathematical principles often appear as contradictory to our common notions as the predestination and free agency of Paul. Not all theological mysteries may be of the same high character and importance as this one. There may even be manufactured mysteries which will not repay consideration. But in regard to these secondary or subordinate

articles of Christian belief, we are no less scientific than the mathematicians when we profess to accept them, and at the same time admit that they are beyond our complete comprehension. May it not be that as investigators along the two lines of thought, the theologians and the men of science, come to know each other better, and to realize their natural differences in mental habits and attitudes occasioned by difference in subject-matter considered and in the bearings of the conclusions reached, not only acrimony of discussion, too frequently present, will disappear, but a broader charity will prevail, and with it more fruitful co-operation?

If, then, the proposition that religion, in the nature of the case, has nothing to fear from science be accepted, should it be hampered or restrained by such a fear, or should instruction in science be modified by it? There are evidences of a growth of freedom from fear in other respects. We, perhaps, scarcely realize what a great step forward was taken in the admission, not merely of the possibility, but of the desirability of a newer and better version of the Scriptures. Whatever might have been conceded to advances in philological science, since the days of King James's version, there was on the part of everyone a sentimental attachment to the book as it had been read to us at our mother's knee, as we had heard it from the pulpit. It did seem that a fuller marginal note here and a footnote there might have been made to answer all the requirements and the old text be left intact. But there is beginning to be a very general feeling that whilst nothing material has been lost something has been gained, and that not simply, either, by reason of the fuller philological knowledge of the modern translators in all cases, but in some by reason of their greater courage in statement. Thus we had been permitted to read: "God made man a little lower than the angels "; but with a courage that the old translators lacked, the modern translators have put it, as it was our right always to read it: "a little lower than God,"—a little less than divine.

Whilst on this line of thought, of increased courage as a result of firmer faith, a question that may seem bolder suggests itself: Why should they have been restricted to the revision of the

text? We speak of the Bible as the Word of God; we profess on every occasion our belief in its inspiration, and yet we must use that word with some mental reservation. That there are phrases, passages, books perhaps, that have no claim, or a very doubtful claim, upon our reverence as part of the inspired word of God, the most reverent and Christian biblical critics admit. Why should not the revision have included the canon as well as the text? Is it because the Christian world is not yet ripe for such a suggestion? May we believe that in a future, nearer, perhaps, than we imagine or hope, the word "Bible" will cover only that about which we have no reasonable doubt, with nothing wanting necessary to man's eternal salvation or highest spiritual development? Should the time come for such a revision, no fear need be entertained that any change or any omission would be made in obedience to the demand of fluctuating scientific opinion, or in conformity to the best established scientific theory; but confidence could be felt that whatever might be done would be done only in accordance with the acknowledged demands of most advanced historical and philological criticism, controlled by reverent, conservative Christian faith.

There seems, indeed, to be a trend, not only toward freer thought, but toward more courageous thought and action, along different lines in the Christian world. That a proposition should be made in the Assembly of the Presbyterian Church to re-examine its standards may seem a small matter to some, and even a very proper matter to others. But when we remember in what a forge and what an intellectual heat they were wrought out, what an admittedly wonderful expression of religious belief they constitute, how it has entered into the very fibre of the intellectual being of the most intellectual body of Christians the world has produced, and what a profound influence it has had directly or indirectly in the world's history, it is no small matter that it should be deliberately proposed to re-examine it, and re-state it if necessary, in the fuller light and under the changed conditions of the present day. Perhaps something that was born of the peculiar circumstances of the time, and which seems like an anachronism to-day, may disappear; but no one will fear that

anything will be yielded to purely scientific demands, or that any of the former power or glory will be sacrificed.

The thought that has been uppermost in the preparation of this paper has been that there is and can be no real antagonism between science and religion, but that they may be and should be made mutually helpful, and that Christian thought should not permit itself to be hampered or controlled by an imaginary dread. The times demand not only free thought, but courageous, candid thought.

PROF. G. MACLOSKIE, of Princeton, stated that the variations of scientific theory do not imply that we have had no genuine knowledge of scientific truth. They indicate advance in our knowledge; but even an empirical theory, like that of gravitation, may involve real knowledge, although we do not understand its basis, and may hereafter come to change our mode of expressing it. As between science and the Christian religion, we now observe a wholesome tendency on both sides. Christian men are willing to let scientific investigators work out their problems in their own way; and men of science are coming to recognize the truth and value of religion. Even Mr. Huxley has pleaded for the use of the Bible in schools, and has publicly defended our faith in the answer to prayer, as not open to any scientific objection. It often occurs that scientific men are-like other unconverted men -troubled in their consciences, and ignorant of the rest that the Bible reveals; and they may speak foolishly. In such cases they may need our sympathy to attract them to the Saviour. Discussions on science and faith serve a good end when they attract people's thoughts to religion. Thus Strauss rendered a service by challenging the world to study the person of Jesus, a study which has borne good fruit. Just now people seem in want of something profitable to engage their thoughts. The proposal to revise our creeds might do good, if it would draw mens' minds to great themes. Revision would probably not lead to extensive changes, and it would confirm the old views by showing that there was not much room for change, whilst the agitation of questions of doctrine would be wholesome.

THE CHURCH, THE PULPIT AND SOME ASPECTS OF MODERN DOUBT.

[Delivered before the American Institute of Christian Philosophy, 3d of October, 1889.]

BY REV. WM. AINLEY, NOVA SCOTIA.

N°

O one present will accuse me of ignorance of the true sphere and first duty of the pulpit, because in calling your attention to a phase of Christian work which less directly attains that end, I do not speak so distinctly upon that point.

The thoughts expressed in this paper are but fragmentary, even with reference to the duty of the Church and pulpit towards those particular aspects of modern doubt to which they refer.

The subject is treated from the standpoint of a provincialist not only in the sense in which that phrase is usually understood, but more especially as it may be used to express the writer's relation to the centres of thought upon the great and grave religious questions of the day. They are, too, the product of a mind which has been led up out of the realm into which it opines many others will be seduced unless timely help is given, and which has considered this subject from the standpoint of observation and experience.

Hence, if there is less of scholarship and more of practical intent manifest in it, you will understand the reason.

Whatever may be claimed for the particular points brought out, the theme of the paper is only the more modern phase of an old subject. We have only to form a very slight acquaintance with New Testament history to know that the Christian Church and pulpit have had to contend with doubt in one form or another, without or within, from the earliest periods in their history.

To ignore the existence of doubt in and about our churches and congregations would be a moral impossibility, and a moral