EDITORIAL NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS.

OPINION.

WITH the increased liberality of these times in theological investigation, there is still such a thing as heresy. One needs only to go beyond the definitely visible boundaries of truth to fall into the precipice of error, and to be henceforth a railer against that which he has not destroyed. In other words, there are such opposites as truth and error, right and wrong, knowledge and ignorance, holiness and sin, and the thinker must be on the one side or the other. Logically, naturally, he is either a believer in the truth, a sympathizer with its aims and ends, an instinctive admirer of its fundamental character and of its necessity to stability, progress, and order, or he is an incarnate opposer of all that it represents and seeks to accomplish. The heretic is an errorist by choice of error. Refusing the truth he deliberately accepts its opposite and confronts it with the power of his freedom and volition. This is the etymology of the wordone who by an act of self-deliberation chooses the wrong side; not the wrong as established by custom, law, or creed, but the inherent wrong of things, the opposite of truth. This implies that truth is accessible, knowledge is obtainable. So it is, or our Bible must go. The heretic may be an agnostic, infidel, atheist, or rationalist, because he chooses to reject accessible truth along the plane of his thinking and seeking. There are heretics, therefore, in these days. In other days heresy was pre-determined by non-conformity to a published creed which resulted in circumscription of inquiry and oppression of the inquirer. Both Protestants and Roman Catholics, especially the latter, have defined heresy in advance by terms narrow and proscriptive, and applied penalties severe and inhuman for the slightest departure from such definitions. Happily, our age does not tolerate either the old definitions or the cruel penalties, but is magnanimous in its extension of freedom to thoughtful minds, and rewards rather than enslaves the seekers after knowledge. But truth has some rights that even the liberal-minded must respect, and determines the seeker's standing by his fellowship with it. It does make some difference whether one accepts the Bible as the revealed will of God, or only a human production containing human opinions of providence and immortality. It does make some difference whether biblical history is reliable or pregnant with error; whether prophecy has its fulfillment in the Messiah or in Roman emperors; whether the four gospels are true records or only the data of some observers of the life of Jesus; whether the resurrection is to come or is past already; whether heaven and hell are eternal issues or the products of morbid imaginations. There is such a thing as supernatural truth, such a book as the Bible, such a scheme as

redemption, and such an end as judgment. Touching fundamental questions, we may be in harmony with them, and so maintain a proper attitude as Christian believers, or we may be heretical, opposing, qualifying, explaining, and disposing of them, and so standing in the way of progress. Heresy now is more detrimental than in former times because it is free, and, therefore, is less entitled to sympathy.

The idea of a National Church is foreign to the instincts, sentiments, and laws of the American people. The separation of Church and State, each with independent functions, the one promoting moral as the other subserves civil order, was regarded at an early day in our history as the logical necessity of a free and prosperous government. In the year 1791 the policy of the people as to the independence of the Church from State control found expression in an amendment to the Constitution, from which there has been no variation to the present time. This conclusion or policy was not founded in theological reasons nor supported by scriptural arguments; it was the outgrowth of the essence of government, or the expression of the national sense, which conceded to the individual conscience a freedom of belief and action so far as it did not invade the rights and prerogatives of the civil government. Our fathers established a government, not a church; and their duty was done when, recognizing religion as essential to national security, they announced to the world the birth of a republic whose chief end was the civil liberty of its subjects. The old-world nations are slow to understand the theory of a denationalized Church, though the fact of its existence and its prosperity in this country is patent to their eyes. European statesmen as well as theolo gians are continually discussing the relations of the State to the Church, as though one involves the other, or their interaction is an inevitability. Schleiermacher, rejecting the policy of a united Church and State, rejected also the idea of a plurality of churches, on the ground that the Church consists of a Christian community without visible bonds of relationship and without an organic form. This is metaphysics, but it is not practical European statesmanship. Rothe held that the Church is subordinate to the State, and would have nothing to do as a separate institution but for the fact that mundane elements still exist in the political body, the purification of which is temporarily committed to the religious organism. In the progress of purification the Church will insensibly dissolve into the State, losing its name, characteristics, and functions. This is theology, but it is not the view of the Lutheran or Reformed Churches of Germany. Pressensé, republican in his simplicities and a profound student of the Scriptures, is in perfect agreement with the American idea of a free Church, and is urging it upon the attention of the French people. In England the problem of the disestablishment of the Church of England is receiving consideration as the result of the liberal political spirit that is making its way among the upper classes. The disestablishment of the Irish Church has not resulted in injury either to the Church or Ireland,

and this is an argument that cannot be silenced. The proposition to disestablish the Church in Wales, being voted on last May in the House of Commons, was rejected by a vote of 284 to 231, but the friends of the measure are confident of success on another discussion of the question. The freedom of the Church from national control is the condition of freedom from secularization, and, once secured in the Old World, the people will wonder why it was so long delayed. The Scriptures contain the argument, America furnishes the example, and history abounds in warnings sufficient to induce England, France, and Germany to emancipate the Church from bondage to the authority of the world.

The historic Church was under the leadership of great minds, and accomplished its great tasks in part because stalwart thinkers were at the front planning the conflicts and directing the energies of God's people to the best results. Rarely has Providence committed great ecclesiastical movements to inferior hands, or given over the Church to an incompetent or an insignificant ministry. As Paul, with his intellectual resources, stood for the Christian ministry of his times, so in every age the Church has produced giants who trembled not at error, and defied sin in every encounter. Chrysostom, Bede, Luther, Wiclif, Knox, Wesley, Asbury-these are types of men who should be found in the Church ready to cope with adversaries and to carry the truth into all the world. The demand of the present age is for a well-equipped ministry in scholarship, literary criticism, biblical knowledge, and a studious, coupled with a reverent, spirit and purpose. The forces in the field-agnosticism, pessimism, rationalism, and the various forms of unbelief-cannot be overcome by any other than weapons sharp along their entire length, and spiritualized by the power from above. An educated ministry must meet an educated foe. The conflicts of these days are the conflicts of scholarship. We may state

the fact otherwise, but it remains that the greater part of the work of to-day must be done by the Christian scholar. "Not by might," it is true, but "by my Spirit," as the quickening force of the intellectual life of the Church; not by miracle, not by prayer alone, nor wholly by revival, though all these are efficient agencies; but by rational defense of the truth against the sophistries of error and the strongholds of misbelief. Hence the educated minister is in demand; the Christian scholar has something to do. It is a proof of the progressive life of the Methodist Episcopal Church that, ever fostering Christian education, and never without scholarly leaders and teachers, it recognizes the demands of to-day and is alert to meet them. So general is the conviction that every minister should represent the scholarly side of his calling that the question is discussed as to the improvement of the educational facilities of the under-graduates in the ministry who have not availed themselves of a theological seminary, and the discussion has already excited the entire Church. It is possible that we are on the eve of another forward revolution in education, for Bishop Vincent's suggestive improvement of the

Conference course of study, with supplementary and post-graduate courses, may mark a turning-point in the history of the Church. With Itinerants' Clubs established in every Conference, every under-graduate will catch the spirit of the scholar; and if the door should be opened to those who are clothed with elders' orders, there are those who would as quickly enter and compete for the rewards that can only be earned by devotion to study. Let the Church support this movement, and the result will be permanent and far-reaching.

It passes with the force of unwritten law that the period for estimating the great man, or taking the measure of his life-work, is not that immediately succeeding his death, but rather that posterity, freed from the prejudices of his times, will be the better able to analyze his deeds and give them their due weight in history. This custom has been ignored in the case of Johann Joseph Ignaz Döllinger, the Bavarian scholar, teacher, and theologian. Already, both in Europe and America, his character has been the subject of most critical study, and the achievements of his life have been summed up with a careful exposition of their intrinsic worth and relation to the integrity of the Church and State. Though we believe it is premature to write his epitaph, or to assume that the influences of his long life may be accurately stated thus early after his deccase, there are some things which lie on the surface, and are visible to those who seek an understanding of the man. The "Old Catholic movement," " of which he was the chief originator, was not a great success; it was not another Protestant Reformation; it was not in any sense a reformation, for it reformed nothing. He must not, therefore, be studied as a reformer, or pronounced a failure because he was not another Luther, for he never assumed that rôle. Nor must he be judged as an anti-Catholic, for, though excommunicated for his protest against the dogma of papal infallibility, he remained, in faith and touching the fundamental teachings of the Church, a Catholic. He did not make war upon the Church or its general doctrines, nor did he cut loose from its superstitions; and so he must be viewed as a genuine Catholic. He, however, inveighed against papal usurpations, and was for twenty years any thing but a Roman Catholic. He abandoned Romanism, but clung to Catholicism. This, we believe, fully and exactly represents his atti tude, relation, and work. It helps us to see that, while opposed to Romish prerogative, he was warmly attached to Catholic usage, and hence he could not do the work of a reformer, or assume to be a Protestant, or even accept with conscientious satisfaction the title of a heretic. His position was an amiable one, but he tied his own hands and could do nothing. He was of liberal tendency, but he did not break with the iron-cast system of mediavalism. He meant to initiate some changes, but not by heroic action or the stern resort to revolution. He believed that the times were ripe for checking Romanism, and trusted to the leavening power of truth to bring about all he desired; but great movements

require great leaders. In moral character, in dignity of life, in intellectual resources, in liberality of sentiment, and in the calm equipoise of an undiminished faith in the Catholic idea Dr. Döllinger was a representative man; but as a leader of movements, an organizer of forces, or a herald of a new day he was far behind men of lesser mold, and really must be stricken from the list of moral heroes.

Professor Delitzsch, of Leipzig, is as philanthropic in his earnestness for the conversion of the Jews as he is original and critical in his study of the Old and New Testaments. His scholarship, both in Talmudic lore and biblical literature, is unquestioned, and he is employing it to convince the Jews that Christ was the promised Messiah. His arguments are cogent, and from the Christian stand-point valid and sufficient. He extols Christianity as the fulfillment of ancient Jewish hopes, and recommends it as the great religion for the world. He assumes that, historically, Judaism has been inoperative, having initiated but few reforms, and having virtually accomplished nothing for the Gentile races. Even the learned Professor, in his anxiety to overcome the long-intrenched prejudice of the Jew, may fail to recognize the appropriate work of Judaism as an historical religion, and its early reciprocal relation to Christianity. It is true, that, since the ascendency of the religion of Jesus Christ, Judaism has not been prominent, the light has grown dim on its altars, and the Gentile world has treated it as an incumbrance and a needless faith. Nevertheless, even the cast-out Hebrew has made his impression upon civilization, and influenced Christian thought, though he perverted or rejected it. The Professor makes use of the efficiency of Christianity as a progressive religion, and of the inertness of Judaism, though it has been in the world since Abraham, as powerful facts against the old régime and in favor of the new. History has reversed the relation of the religions, and made the decay of the ancient faith inevitable. He is equally felicitous and powerful in his dramatic representation of fulfilled prophecy in Christ, and proves him from the Old Testament to be the Messiah. He however disowns Gen. xlix, 10 (Shiloh) as a prophecy of the Messiah, and also rejects the seventy weeks of Daniel as a reference to Messianic events; but he finds the Old Testament is ever turning the thought of the Jewish people to the crucified Lord. Using thus learnedly the Old Testament in favor of Christianity, he suggests that Jews devoutly study the New Testament that they may see who Jesus was, what he did, and how majestic a character he developed in the presence of men. The test of the Professor is a difficult one. He has against him the Talmud, the hereditary prejudice of the ages, the clannish spirit of the race, and the infidelity of the obdurate people. On the other hand, he has with him the unchangeable facts of history, the uplifting power of Christianity, the triumphs of the Christian Church, and the favoring guidance of Providence. Alas! Since the above was written, the death of Professor Delitzsch has occurred! We trust other hands will continue what he so auspiciously commenced.