If

church is made at the bar of human reason, is framed by human reason, and is established, if established at all, by human reason. If he appeal to tradition, that tradition itself must be sifted by human reason. he appeal to the Scriptures to support his claim, the legitimacy of his interpretation of the Scriptures as bearing on the divine authority of the mother church can only be confirmed by reason itself; and, in endeavoring to vindicate it, he makes use of reason, and addresses himself to reason. In other words, no matter on what grounds the Catholic rests his claims for the authority of the church, whether on the declaration of the Scriptures, or on tradition, or on both, these claims must be tested by criticism, and this criticism must make use of the rational processes of knowledge and belief. To claim to accept such authority on any other grounds is to proceed on the basis of a blind and ignorant faith, which is not only absurd, but seems inconsistent with our moral obligations to the truth.

But our Roman Catholic brother may urge, and urge with a great deal of plausibility and justification, that to insist upon the right of private judgment, as does the Protestant, is to land us in a complete individualism, and that means relativism; and relativism ultimately means skepticism. We may have as many different interpretations of the Scriptures as we have individuals, and this is as bad as the old Protagoreanism of Greek philosophy. Man (i. e., individual man) is the measure of all things-the measure of the true and the good. This simply means anarchy in knowledge and morals. It is essentially the same in regard to the Christian religion. There must be some universal norm in accordance with which the individual can test his interpretations of the Scriptures, otherwise we shall have anarchy. Every man will be a law unto himself in attempting to find out the real meaning of Holy Writ.

If the Protestant reply that the individual may be guided by the Holy Spirit in his interpretation of the Bible, this will hardly prove an adequate response. The Catholic will be ready with a rejoinder. He can ask, with a great deal of justice, Why is the individual more likely to be guided by the Holy Spirit than the holy mother church? And to the non-partisan, however firm a believer in the office of the Holy Spirit he may be, this doctrine of divine guidance of the individual in his interpretation of the Scriptures, is considerably weakened by his

consciousness of the numerous and often antithetical interpret of the Bible by different individuals, and by different sects. the whole, the Protestant does not make a very strong defense a the Catholic's charge of individualism and relativism by taking in the divine guidance of the Holy Spirit in his attempts to get real meaning of the Scriptures. If the Protestant is to mainta position, he must meet the objection of individualism fairly, by ing on the inherent rights of personality, the native freedom human spirit to form its own judgment of the teachings Scriptures, and then defend his interpretation on the basis soundest principles of rational interpretation or criticism. position as this will, at least, meet with the approval of the no tisan, and is freest from dogmatism-that bane of all religiou theological controversy. This attitude will be in harmony wi true spirit of the Reformation, if not altogether in conformity letter.

And now let us take another step forward. Thus far w found that the Catholic and Protestant are in essential agre in recognizing the Scriptures as an infallible authority in mat faith and practice-differing mainly in regard to the question c authoritative interpretation. And we are enjoined by both to the infallible authority of the Scriptures. By the Protestant di by the Catholic indirectly, through the infallible interpretation church. In other words, we are asked again to bow down to e authority. We are asked to yield belief and obedience to a body of religious truth on the authority of the Scriptures con of as the Word of God. Though this be not the position of all tantism, it is the attitude taken in many quarters of the Pro church. But the non-partisan is not easily moved by app authority even the authority that is often vested by so many Scriptures. In the first place, he manifests a grave suspicion in regard to the credentials of the so-called Scriptures. He ha following the investigations of the historical critics, the textual also of the higher critics, and has been greatly impressed by the r He notes that both external and internal criticism of the Scri has forced carefully informed and conscientious men to chang inherited conceptions of the Bible materially; and when he

the light of critical investigations, separated the true from the false, the genuine from the spurious, the seeming from the real, if there be any credible documents left, containing consistent and valuable teaching, the non-partisan is willing to respectfully and reverentially consider them and their authority; and to determine if possible, whether this authority be superior to that of human reason.

Now it is useless to find fault with this respectful and reverential non-partisanship. Historical, textual, and higher criticism justify themselves. There is no valid reason why the Bible should be above reverential criticism. It is evident to any person who has carefully considered the matter that, in the first place, a large body of error has grown up about the Scriptures owing to the fallibility of human knowledge and belief. And, in the second place, that there is a mixture of error and truth in the Bible, and that, therefore, it is obligatory upon all of us to encourage a criticism that will separate the true from the false, the genuine from the spurious. Criticism is not the perverse thing so many misguided persons think it to be. It is performing a genuine service to the Christian world, and ought to be encouraged rather than condemned. It is simply a sane, rational means of attaining what is true. And the truth never hurts any man except him who violates it. Criticism is one of the functions of the rational spirit, and to this extent, at least, the Scriptures must submit to the authority of human reason.

Now suppose, through careful criticism, we are enabled to determine what the genuine Scriptural message is, then it is proper to ask: What evidence have we that it is divine, that those who declared it were invested with divine authority to speak to men? To such a question as this, many will doubtless give an answer which is an inheritance from the Reformation, viz., The Scriptures speak for themselves. They carry with them evidence of their own authority. Their very teachings carry with them infallible assurance of their own divineness. But it may be asked: To whom do they thus speak, and how or by what method do they assure? Do they not speak to human reason and conscience? Do they not present rational and moral evidence? In other words, do they not appeal to the rational, moral, and religious consciousness to convince us, and is it not on the authority of our own rational, moral, and religious consciousness that we

ultimately accept their teaching, rather than on the authority of the Scriptures themselves? Suppose their teachings contradicted human reason, or ran contrary to human conscience, would we feel obliged to accept them? Would we not rather feel under obligations to reject them? In other words, ultimately we accept them on the authority of the human spirit rather than on any external authority.

But it may be affirmed, as both Calvin and the "Westminster Confession" affirm, that we ultimately accept the Scriptures on the authority of the testimony of the Holy Spirit witnessing to our hearts as to their contents. But even here it is conceded that our hearts judge of that to which the Spirit witnesses. The very fact that the Spirit presents evidence to us involves a recognition of the human spirit as a judge and final arbiter. Were it conceivable that the Holy Spirit testified to contradictions we should feel under obligation to reject its testimony. That is, while apparently we do accept the essential contents of the real Scriptures on the authority of the Scriptures themselves, or on authority of the Scriptures testified to by the Holy Spirit, in the final analysis this is not the ease; we accept them on the authority of the human spirit sitting in judgment on them and declaring them to be essential truth.

And now let us take a further step, and say that even were an angel from heaven, known really to be a messenger from the Deity, to declare thus and so to be ultimate religious truth; or, to speak reverently, were the very God himself to declare thus and so to be absolute truth; even then we should not accept it as such on mere divine authority, or because it is a divine declaration; but ultimately because it evidences itself as absolute truth to the rational, moral, and religious consciousness of man. Truth is not, finally considered, to be accepted on the ground that it is divinely declared, but on the ground that the spirit of man itself gives evidence to itself that what is thus divinely declared is true. No other position can be intelligently or conscientiously taken. This does not mean that the Scriptures do not contain infallible truth; nor that the Holy Spirit does not guide the devout man into the truth; nor that both do not speak with divine authority. It means simply this, that, ultimately considered, we do not accept the truth on the basis of external authority-that, finally, the ground on which man is bound to accept truth is, that it is declared

to be such by the human spirit. The church may speak to man; the Scriptures may speak to man; God himself may speak to man; and man may receive the message; but the ultimate ground on which he receives it is, that it evidences itself at the bar of his own soul as truth. He accepts it not on the authority of the church, nor of the Scriptures, nor of God, but on the authoritative declaration and command of his own free spirit. To receive it ultimately on any other ground is to demean his own personality; to prove a traitor to his own sovereignty; to strip himself of his own God-like prerogatives.

But, finally, it may be objected: Do you not overlook the fact that the large part of religious truth is not capable of proof-either by rational demonstration from so-called self-evident principles, or by logical inference from established fact? The great truths of religion lie beyond reason. They admit neither of proof nor of disproof. They are truths, therefore, of Faith, and is not Faith justified in resting upon some sort of external authority?

Now, undoubtedly, a part of this objection is well taken. The great, fundamental truths of religion do lie beyond the domain of reason. And yet this impotency of human reason does not constitute a legitimate ground for the rejection of such supposed truths, as long as they do not contradict reason. The two fundamental beliefs of the Christian religion are: belief in the existence of a personal God, and in the immortality of the soul. Neither of these beliefs can be converted into truths established by rational demonstration or by rational inference from acknowledged fact. All of the traditional arguments for the being of God-the ontological, cosmological, and teleological-fall short of proof thus understood. The same statement applies to all of the arguments for the soul's immortality. But this is no reason why man is not justified in believing that a personal God is, and that the soul endures forever. There is a sense in which not only external authority, but reason itself, is not the final court of authority with respect to religious truth. In a real and true sense there is a more ultimate court of appeal—a supreme court— and this supreme court is life. It is highly important for believers in the great fundamentals of religion to emphasize this fact. Religious truth has for its guarantee the warrant of the soul whose complex vital interests are much deeper, and far more comprehensive and