Church, in preference to truth and thought and morality. Will God blame me if 1, also standing at the parting of the ways, choose otherwise, and prefer Truth, Thought and Morality to the Church?

But why make the change at this particular time? Have doubts never presented themselves before? Have these facts, which now move me, been unknown to me till the present time? Such questions would not be asked by men who have either been accustomed to think, or who desire to think. They will know that doubts must be carefully considered before they can be asserted as convictions. Rash steps are always unfortunate, both for the man and the Church; and often, when a rash step has been taken, it is wiser to go back until full time has been given to mature and reflect. It demands much patience and sacrifice of life, but it is only justice to all concerned. And so the period of conviction should be reckoned as that one when the thinker is willing to stake his external career on those principles, when he announces publicly that such are his convictions. Then the change will be safe for all. Doubtless there are men in the Church who insist that it is dishonest merely to entertain a doubt; but this very opinion deprives their judgment of any value. It is proof positive that they neither have studied or thought, nor are willing to study and think. They are rather to be pitied.

The writer of these lines is anxious not to be misunderstood

by any fault of his. He does not deny that many of the most dogmatic of the clergy are educated, refined, cultured, nay, even "learned" men. But the very fact that they hold certain opinions about facts which would be corrected by mere careful acquaintance with historical data shows that their learning is either unorganized, or extends only to some one department of human life. A man may be learned in vestments and ecclesiastical millinery, in "canon law," in the mere writings of certain men, without either carefully organizing his learning, or without removing from his mind principles which are clearly inconsistent with themselves and other facts. This careful revision and organization of knowledge is what has here been called the function of the "thinker"-which is a better word than "philosopher," since many of those who lay claim to the title limit themselves to interpretative, rather than constructive, work. The thinker is he who threshes out every grain of his knowledge, and digests it thoroughly. The thinker is the least dogmatic of men; and therefore these "theologians" who are most positive, and who probably persecute me and my convictions most bitterly, and in their own eyes most triumphantly-for the wolf can always refute the sheep are those who can least lay claim to the title of "thinkers. As for me, I care not for my own opinions, but for truth; and he who will point out to me, by arguments, not by invectives or persecution, where I am mistaken, and will take the trouble

of convincing me of error, will have my most heartfelt gratitude. Such a man would be my most veritable benefactor.

The

This train of thought leads naturally to an objection which may possibly be suggested by readers of these reflections. Are not all these considerations merely vague generalities, which, if irrefutable, are irrefutable only on account of their "vagueness"? On the contrary, although the most ardent traditionalists are such only because they insist most strongly on details, this apparent definiteness is the result of the most deplorable mental incoherence. They never inquire whether these details be selfconsistent. More mental grasp, more power of generalizing, more ability to appreciate a mental difficulty, would incontinently stagger them by a revelation of their inconsistencies. careful thinker seeks the principle, the law, behind all details and applying everywhere the law of casualty, of continuity, finds that the truth consists of those eternal principles of morality which have in different ages been applied and interpreted in so many different ways. It is the very richness of details which has led to their exclusion here. Even only a partial consideration of these details would have demanded a volume for each of the many departments of intelligent theological education, evidences, criticism, history, ethics, and so forth. As a matter of fact, I have, from time to time, endeavored to state my views on these subjects elsewhere as systematically as circumstances permitted. But a public demonstration of them would not have accomplished my present purpose. My mission is not that of a destroyer. I have no desire to inflict on the world a recital of the superstitions and mistakes I cannot away with. Probably such a recital would contain little that was new; if any would feel the difficulties I have felt, let him study, extensively and impartially, and let him reflect; if he does so, he will soon be freed from error. My purpose here is merely to state those things which I am believe most certainly, and for the sake of which I am willing to risk my career-a great risk, since I must leave all those who so far have assisted my onward course. And in taking this serious step I desire merely to assert the principles which in my sight must underlie all spiritual truth and progress; relentless discovery of every phase of the truth, as the supreme motive of life. "If I am right, Thy grace impart, still in the right to stay; if I am wrong, oh teach my heart to find that better way.

But there remains one reason for my forsaking the Church which is more weighty than any or all of the foregoing. None will question that a spiritual man, let alone a preacher, a prophet, should be utterly consecrated to God. And yet how can a man be consecrated to God while he is bound by a promise, or affirmation, to any sect, organization, or doctrine? While he has any promise outstanding, how can he be wholly free, wholly responsive to the least motion of the Divine Spirit? The Church of the future will be one in which free men will freely

work for their Father above; not that they would deny any doctrine, or disapprove of any particular canonical requirements. It is the conception of freedom which characterizes the ideal Church. And the day will come when it will be so; may God speed that day. Then will it be possible for men to listen to and follow the voice within, and to be led by God himself, and his teachers shall no more be removed from his sight.

It is for reasons such as these that I must sever myself from the Church to which I have freely given, and gladly given the best years of my life. This decision is not hasty; for several years the cogency of them has more and more penetrated my mind until to-day, with such calmness of heart and judgment of mind as I can command, I must take the irrevocable step, lest my whole life be a truce, not a challenge. Separated from the few friends of my youth, from every means of support, from familiar scenes, I must go out in faith trusting in the Lord; if it be His will that I shall find souls to whom I may preach the truth as He has revealed it to me, well; if, on the contrary, it be His will that my usefulness and life be cut off, it is well, too; for He knows best. It is with great sadness that I go from those abodes of fragrant devotion; but I can be devout wherever I am, God giving me the strength to keep my heart fixed on Him. "Thy glory alone, O God, be the end of all that I say; Let it shine in every decd, let it kindle the prayers that I pray; Let it burn in my innermost soul, till the shadow of self pass away,

And the light of Thy glory, O God, be unveiled in the dawning of day.'

I believe in physical health, cleanliness, temperance; and utter purity in thought, word and deed.

And in truth, honesty, accuracy and scholarship which demands reason for all things, and without prejudice yields its own opinion if shown to be false; which tolerates in each man his own opinions; which leads to art, literature and science; which in earnestness, sincerity and candor perfects all human powers.

I believe in Love, the Father and Destiny of all things, Light of light, Fragrance of fragrance, Beauty of beauty; Who, working both here and beyond, is inexorably just, and therefore is the Comforter of the Afflicted and the Avenger of the Evil to the thousandth generation; Who leads by conscience within myself to the Beatific Vision, and all the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, which only the humble can inherit, and which shall have no end forever and ever, Amen.

FAITH AND REASON.

1. The Stand-point of Superstition and Science.-Shall Reason serve Faith, or shall Faith serve Reason?

In accordance with these alternatives, men have ranged themselves in two great parties: the one relying on external intellectual authority, the other on individual reason. There have always been men who are satisfied to have their thinking done for them, and there have ever been men who insisted on understanding why they should assent to any belief. The former stand-point may be called that of superstition, the latter that of science.

It would be a great mistake, however, to identify these two stand-points with those of religion and atheism. There are superstitious atheists and there are religious scientists. The stand-point of superstition applies equally to all who owe their intellectual position to anything except personal research and conviction. There are many Christians who belong to a particular Church only because they have never severely questioned its doctrine; and there are many nominal non-Christians who are such only because they were born or educated in a circle where there was much prejudice against Christianity. There is as much superstition in flippant unbelief, as in unquestioning assent. The stand-point of science applies, on the contrary, to all who owe their intellectual position to personal research and conviction alone, Research may, and often does, justify one's original position, because there is always an immense presumption in favour of the position already held. Yet, research, more or less thorough, may lead the inquiring mind far from its original position. The fact of changing or retaining one's former position, or the fact of occupying either position would not of itself decide whether superstition or science had guided the enquirer. It is however true that, in respect to religion, the union of Church and State, in pre-Christian as well as Christian times, has always made for the acceptance of the stand-point of superstition, consciously or unconsciously; for it has identified to a certain extent, in its moral sanctions, the conception of unbelief and criminality. Both offences were avenged by the same punishment, and consequently the same obloquy fell to their lot.

The conception of the separation of Church and State, born with the French Revolution, and adopted in the Constitution

of the United States, has gained many adherents to the standpoint of science and has destroyed its former moral obloquy. Whereas in former ages the heretic was always accused openly or implicitly of moral offences, the popular mind has come to recognize the perfect compatibility of agnosticism with pure morals. Every chemical experiment made by a schoolboy is a reassertion of this stand-point of the sovereignty of individual reason over its beliefs. There is no doubt that the welfare of humanity is imseparably bound up with the universal recognition of freedom of conscience, and the obsolescence of the stand-point of superstition until it be for ever buried in the silent archives of the past.

2. The Stand-point of Science Advanced to those Outside the Church. If it should be asked which of these intellectual stand-points had been occupied by the Christian Church, the answer would be that it has usually employed both, impossible as this would seem at first sight. It has been the custom of the Church to advance the scientific standpoint to those outside her, in order to make converts of them, but to insist rigidly on that of superstition to all who are within her pale.

66

Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Arnobius, Lactantius, and Augustine of Hippo, not to mention numberless other less representative apologists, urge strenuously that if the heathen will but let their reason sway their belief, they must necessarily abandon the old faiths, and embrace Christianity. Justin Martyr says: Reason directs that all who are truly pious and truly philosophers, should love alone that which is true, and refuse to follow the opinions of the ancients, should they prove to be worthless; for sound reason requires that we should not only reject those who act or teach anything contrary to that which is right; but that by every means, and before his own life, the lover of truth ought, even if threatened with death, to choose to speak and to do what is right (1).” Again, "Those who lived according to Reason (Logos) are Christians, even though accounted Atheists. Such among the Greeks were Sokrates and Herakleitos, and those who resembled them; of the Barbarians, Abraham, and Azarias, and Misael and Elias, and many others (2)." Arnobius says, "But ours (the pagan religion) is more ancient,' say you, therefore most credible and trustworthy;' as if indeed antiquity were not the most fertile source of errors (3)." Lactantius, with characteristical vehemence, demands, "Will you prefer to follow antiquity or reason (4) ?" The patristic evidence is so copious we can but mention it (5), closing with notice of the fact that Gratian's Decretum asserts that the Canonical authority of the Holy Scriptures stands or falls with its inerrancy, so that if the least mistake could be found in it, it would possess no canonical authority whatsoever.

Nevertheless, Christianity advanced this rationalistic standpoint only where it lacked the power to enforce its claims. The earliest apologists asked only for toleration; but as soon