the religious and learned public the commendation conveyed in the call for a fourth edition, within seven years, of a work of some 2,500 pages. The twelfth chapter is entitled "The Way of Rational Faith," and discusses very felicitously and eloquently the way to faith and the way of faith. He starts with the fact that man cannot ignore Christianity, deny, hate, oppose, attack it, as he may. Let him believe or disbelieve, he cannot escape that examination of the foundations of Christianity, which it is distinctive of Christianity to demand. Revelation claims to prove itself under the given circumstances credible, and so credible that natural reason demands faith with an assurance which excludes every contrary opinion. After a rapid and brilliant review of the evidence, the author goes on to say: "All these signs, all the facts and all the doctrines of Christianity, if only the spirit has estimated them free from all prejudice, touched by no excitement of passion, full of love to the truth, and with the resolve to follow it wherever it leads, and to devote itself to it without reserve and even with sacrifices, lead one with quiet, mighty power to faith-to the threshold of its sanctuary. They bring him certainty, undoubting certainty of the credibility of the Christian revelation." All this, however, is only "external and mediate-no internal and immediate evidence." Faith, which is "a free act, an act of the will, the highest moral act," "a virtue, the first and highest virtue, on which all others rest," is not yet secured. All this is natural; to know the supernatural there is need of a supernatural power-a second birth, the birth from God-a power of grace, and a supernatural motive (source) of certainty, God's authority." "Although the evidence of the credibility of revelation of itself moves in the sphere of nature, and our reason, after previous investigation of the criteria of revelation, is able in and of itself to recognize it, still it is grace that enlightens the spirit and moves the will, so as thus prepared to institute the supernatural act of faith, to which the natural powers of intelligence and will are not adequate, standing in no proportion to it." (u. s., I. 2, pp. 122-164.)

The author's discussion of the Church occurs in the 17th and 18th sections of the second volume, in its natural place among the Christian doctrines. It would be difficult to find either more thorough Catholicism in doctrine, or more vigorous, dexterous and plausible presentation of the doctrine. Whatever

Christ has offered us of truth and grace, he has offered in and through his holy Church. We know no Christianity outside of and apart from the Church. A Christianity without the Church is only the product of thought, a dead shadowy abstraction, that is not and never was. Christianity is the Church and the Church is Christianity. The same act by which Christ founded his religion, founded also his Church. Without the Church there are no Scriptures, for the Scriptures were composed within, in the presence of, and for the Church. Without the Church there is no understanding of the Scriptures; without the Church, no authority in the Bible; without the Church, no faith; without the Church no relation of Christianity to the individual. Such as these are the propositions that crowd the discussion.

And now an infallible Pope has been set at the door of the indispensable, visible Church, through which alone one can be made possessor of the Scriptures; and these may not speak to me directly and in their own behalf of Christ, but I must go back through the Church to the Pope to be informed what communication has been made to me by the Saviour of my soul.

As we gather up the results of our comparison of the apologetic methods of the two Churches, we conclude that, whatever place Catholicism may nominally assign, whatever volume or structure it may give, to its exhibition of the evidences of Christianity, its apology is logically first and mainly for the Church, and itself as Church. Before Christianity and in order to Christianity, I must have the Church. Before and in order to any religion but the most rudimentary, I must be within this visible organization. No acceptable manifestation of religious aspiration, impulse or endeavor can go up from me to God but through these conduits. No token of his compassion or his bounty may I expect to receive for the solace, joy, strength of my soul, but through these visible media. There is, doubtless, a side of human nature that craves and rejoices in the external, visible, audible; in material and mechanical helps. If this were all, or the highest and best in human nature-or if God's word made it somewhat more apparent that there is no more direct access for the longing soul to God, there would be more plausibility in this which should be the logical apologetic order and method of Catholicism. It seems to meet the wants of the soul to canvass so thoroughly and

candidly, at the outset, the evidences of the true religion. But is not my guide laughing in his sleeve as he leads on my unwary steps? The true religion is far removed from any direct and immediate inspection or access of mine. I must be fast within the true fold before I can be put in possession of it. I am innocently supposing that the results of this scrutiny of evidence will put it within my power at once to satisfy, reform, perfect my religious life, in direct dealing, with God. The essence of religion I have supposed to be intercommunication and communion between my soul and God. Let my officious helper show a better warrant.

In a certain sense religion must have a body as well as a spirit, but a spirit first, a spirit more than a body. If I were only a creature, and not also a sinner, I should have less need of a mediation or mediator. As it is, I must have one all-mighty, all-worthy mediator, standing with one hand clasped in the hand of God, and the other stretched downward to lay hold on me, and to invite, to encourage, and, so far as may be, ensure my laying hold on him. But what want can my needy, longing soul discern of more than one? If I may have him, the fewer other objects, processes, persons interpose between my religious life and its supreme object the more reasonable and the more satisfactory. On his clear authority I will gratefully avail myself of whatever he may declare essential, and really promotive of that for which I was made a religious being. But I must be in communication with him before I can recognize and defer to this clear authority, and must be in the exercise of joyful faith in this deference. Apart from this undoubted direction from him I shrink from any mediation but his own. I want no intermediate mediators, that cannot be ever efficient and all sufficient. I want just that, and nothing but that, which will put me into and keep me in the most direct, constant, refreshing, invigorating, fruitful intercourse with God.

So Protestantism construes religion and Christianity, and so sets forth its apology. Thus it judges of Church and Word and Sacrament. In its sense Christianity exists in order to the Church; the true Church, the invisible Church, gathering up those in whom Christianity is working out and has wrought out its results. The Catholic philosophy makes the organism exist before its elements-the Church before any individual Christianity. Protestantism does not "keep the word of promise

to the ear and break it to the hope" by proclaiming salvation by Christ alone, while insisting that the soul in its extreme need can identify him, reach him, and become partaker of his salvation, only through a prior and indispensable faith in other mediation. If this precedent faith, though not called saving faith, must be exercised before I can exercise any that shall reach Christ, who is my Saviour? the Son of God, or the hierachy of Rome?

* ART. VI.—WHY ARE NOT MORE PERSONS CONVERTED UNDER OUR MINISTRY?

By Thos. H. SKINNER, D.D., Cincinnati, Ohio.

THE QUESTION which we have placed at the head of this article is one that is often asked by thoughtful, anxious ministers; and the fact which it indicates, serves often to depress the spirits and weaken the hands of those who are toiling in the Master's vineyard. In what we shall say, we aim to present an aspect of the subject very needful, we think, to be carefully examined by all who are called upon to preach the gospel. The suggestions we offer were prepared for an association of ministers, who during several meetings had the matter under earnest consideration.

In answer to the inquiry, Why are not more persons converted under our ministry? we first remark, that any answer which, in its elements, legitimately tends to abate the fidelity of the ministry is a wrong answer. Such a tendency would be a signal and sure test of its error and worthlessness.

The peculiar form in which the question is put suggests these two inquiries: (1) Is not success in converting souls made, by implication at least, a criterion of fidelity? and (2) Is not the relation of the stated pastor to the church somewhat overshadowed by the prominence given to his relation to the world? Now, fidelity, fidelity to God, to God's truth and to souls, is the one paramount, ever-present and ever-pressing duty of the minister. The discharge of duty, honestly, earnestly, scripturally, should be our one great concern, our supreme anxiety. And this duty consists chiefly in two things: 1st, Preaching the

Word; and, 2d, Prayer; according to that declaration of the apostles when they freed themselves from certain other church work, “We will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word; and illustrated by the prophet Ezekiel preaching to the dry bones of the valley, and then crying, " Come O breath from the four winds, and breathe upon these slain that they may live." God commands us to preach the gospel to every creature; to do this faithfully; so to do it as to quit ourselves of responsibility, "to deliver our souls." Our business is to declare "the testimony of God," to be his mouth to our hearers; to preach the word, to be instant in season and out of season; to reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long-suffering and doctrine; and then to leave the hearer and God together. But does God require us to expect, in answer to our preaching and our prayers, that every creature who hears us will be renewed by the Holy Ghost and come to Christ? Does he require us to expect that any particular person will be thus the subject of His effectual call, and does he blame us if that person is not converted? Was this the manner and spirit of Christ's preaching? Did he expect the conversion of those to whom he spake, and was his expectation disappointed because they were not converted? The same inquiry may be made respecting the preaching of Peter and of Paul. Did they evince the more anxiety as to the results or the manner of their preaching? The discharge of their duty as the messengers, the ambassadors of God, was not this the one, the supreme thing in their ministry.

Fidelity must be measured by some standard. Unquestionably, a want of success in leading souls to Christ may and should awaken the inquiry, Am I faithful? and should stimulate self examination; but success cannot be the standard of duty. Duty, as God's ambassadors, is to be tested by the faithfulness; i. e., the truthfulness of the delivery of our message, to which nothing of human opinion may be added; from which nothing may be subtracted. Duty, as the shepherds of souls, is to be tested by the care and watchfulness and prayerfulness used in its discharge. Duty, as Christians engaged in seeking the salvation of our fellow men, is to be tested by the zeal and love manifested in the sacred pursuit. Success, or the want of it, is not the guage or criterion by which to estimate our fidelity.

And is there not danger in making success in winning souls