in the fact that "God sent forth his Son in the fullness of the time" than that there was a certain fortuitous happening which made the advent of Jesus conspicuously important in ecclesiastical history. The Old Testament ordinances and prophecies were the result of existent conditions, and had no special or exclusive significance in regard to the gospel plan of salvation. The doctrine of the Epistle to the Hebrews rests on a false basis. By those who entertain such views the Book of Daniel, which promulgates so much of evangelistic application, must be stripped of its reputation for prophetic teaching.

A large portion of this article has been devoted to a consideration of the criticisms of those who have attacked the integrity and authenticity of the book. Those who are deeply imbued with the spirit of the Gospel have never been disposed to question its canonicity or Messianic import. The experience of Lenormant, one of the most distinguished scholars, that the more he reads this book the more he is assured of its genuineness, may be corroborated by any reverent student of the Bible earnestly striving to be made wise unto salvation. The author must have been possessed of a mind and character not inferior to that of the great statesman who rose to the chief place in a realm of boasted magnificence, and excelled in an age of literary and scientific achievement. The tone of the writing is not that of a cringing, unprincipled forger, or narrowminded bigot. A fraud could not have maintained itself against so many odds for so long a time. A mere racial document could not have gained so strong a hold on the faith of a Church. which ever protested against the Jewish spirit. An historical tract, designed merely to meet a political exigency, could not have imposed itself on a people who made the canon of Scripture the very rule of their whole being. It was held in such high respect, according to a tradition recorded by Josephus,† that Alexander the Great, on approaching Jerusalem and being shown its prophetic teaching concerning his career, made several advantageous concessions to the peculiar people.

The book evinces the true spirit of our holy religion. Daniel and his companions would not defile themselves with the

* Gal. iv, 4.

He also testifies that Daniel is one of the greatest of prophets. Antiq. Jud., chapter xi, § 7.

42-FIFTH SERIES, VOL. VI.

king's dainties, on the same principle as that which actuated Paul to write to the Corinthians.* The evident purpose of the miracles corresponds with that appearing when Christianity came face to face with the later Babylon.† The conviction of Nebuchadnezzar and of Darius resembles the conversion of Constantine, A. D. 323. There is a counterpart to the story of the three Hebrew children in the tradition of the miraculous preservation of John when cast into the caldron of boiling oil. The import of the stone cut out without hands is fully explained in the New Testament exegesis, that the rejected stone has become the head of the corner. Perhaps the wise men of the East obtained their first glimpses of the Star to arise out of Jacob from their intercourse with this prince of magicians called Belteshazzar. The vision of the Ancient of days and the Son of man coming with the clouds of heaven is a picture that is more perfectly developed in the gospel Revelation of the last things.

We can well afford to patiently and critically examine the ground of our faith in the authenticity of this remarkable production; for if its teachings as generally understood are true there is rational basis for the Gospel, for belief in a personal God who communicates his will to men, for a blessed spiritual life that does not cease in the flight of years, for a steadfast defense and pursuit of the right in the prospect that the kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms of our Lord Jesus Christ. The head of gold, the breast and arms of silver, the belly and thighs of brass, the legs of iron, and the feet of iron and clay (potter's ware) cannot stand against the Stone cut out without hands becoming a great mountain, and filling the whole earth. All this shall not be accomplished without choler and bitter struggle, the disturbance of land and sea, the conflict of the mighty beasts, and the fierce onslaught of the lit tle horn that "shall speak great words against the Most High...... and think to change times and laws," but Christ "must reign until he hath put all enemies under his feet," "and they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and they that turn many to righteousness, as the stars for ever and ever.” * 1 Cor. viii., passion, especially verse 13. Rev. xvii, 5, and possibly 1 Pet. v, 13.

John Poucher

ART. II.—PERSISTENCE OF "OLD SCHOOL DOGMA.” THE feeling is quite intense in some quarters that the times are ripe for a restatement of the creeds of Christendom.

There is as yet no general agreement as to just how sweeping the changes should be. The opinion of some is, that while such doctrines as are held in common by all evangelical denominations should not be disturbed, yet that those concerning which there is conflict of opinion among the different evangelical bodies should be modified without hesitation, in order that among the followers of Christ greater harmony and unity may be secured. A restatement and re-adjustment of creeds to such extent, and for such a purpose, thoughtful persons are beginning to feel would be an advance in the right direction. Why Calvinism should longer contend against Arminianism, or why Christians should divide on apostolic succession and modes of baptism, are questions now more frequently asked than ever before.

But there are others who in their views are far more revolutionary. They would attack the so-called essentials as well as the non-essentials of the Christian faith. Some there are who think that the doctrines of an inspired Bible, of the resurrection of the dead, and of the vicarious atonement should be radically modified. The opinion of others is, that the doctrine. of endless punishment should no longer be urged as a motive to lead men to Christ, and perhaps, as an article of Christian belief, should be altogether abandoned.

Others are more than hinting that Christian dogma should grant, at the moment of death, an easy, and if need be a prolonged, probation to those who do not seem to have had a fair chance in this life, and possibly a future probation for all.

What makes these various demands especially attractive and plausible is the fact that they are urged by professed Christians and professors of theology, and under the plea of "higher criticism,” profounder scholarship, more thorough methods of investigation, and broader generalizations.

How extensive a revolution is upon us we do not know; what will or will not come of it, in some respects at least, we cannot tell. This we know: that many among our young peo

ple and some among the young men in the Methodist ministry have already lost their moorings. Some are venturing on a voyage without chart or compass and on a ship that as yet no one is able to pronounce seaworthy. Questions like the following, asked at first by the few, soon it is to be feared will be repeated by the many:

May it not be enough to say that evangelical Christianity will last for a time, and then, like all other things, pass away! May it not be as well to admit that Christ was a very good man, without claiming for him supreme divinity? Are we sure we are right while maintaining the old views of a resurrec tion, of inspiration, of a final judgment, of endless punishment, and of no probation after death? Will not our mortification be less, in case of final defeat, provided we accede at once to the demands of a "higher criticism," or occupy at least a middle position, and avoid thereby all controversy?

That the men who are starting and urging these modifications of what have been regarded as the fundamental doctrines of Christianity are honest, that they are intelligent, and that whatever else there may be of excellence in Christian character belongs to them as well as to others, we are not now disposed to question. That their course, however, is fraught with peril can be easily shown.

One of the principal grounds of our complaint, if allowed to express it, is this: that some of these "destructive critics" appear to be revolutionary merely for the sake of being revolutionary. They tear down for the sole purpose, seemingly, of hearing the crash. They not only surrender what a sound criticism in matters that are non-essential may properly enough demand, but they are willing to do far more than this—even to quit the citadel, and at a time when the enemy is expecting at most only some outpost. Indeed, it looks as though there would not be much left, except mere fragments, broken ramparts of a gospel, if the different claimants for change and modification are allowed to expurgate from Christianity what they think proper.

In view, however, of all the interests which seem to be at stake we cannot be blamed for reminding these "higher criticism" people at the outset that in the present conflict of opinions the old should have at least as fair a chance as the new, and that we should not seem to be too desirous of giving over to

the hangman the mother who kindly has nourished us, unless there is indisputable evidence that she is depraved, or unless by an authorized tribunal she is proved to be worthy of death.

Perhaps here, as well as elsewhere in this article, we may say that while we have doubt as to the magnitude of the impending controversy and anxiety as to much that may result, yet we have no misgivings as to the final outcome. The truth will remain, and the stars will shine on though the smoke of the bonfire for a time may obscure them. The iron fist concealed in the velvet glove of "higher criticism" may smite to its heart's content; the Alps can stand it, and after a little time one would not know that they had been struck.

Individual Christians meanwhile will be harmed. Before their return to orthodox standards laxity in morality will increase, and that just in proportion to the prevalence of liberalistic belief. These are the matters that lead us to deprecate the new movements. For it is not difficult to show that departures from primitive orthodoxy have a tendency to blunt the moral perceptions, leading one to do what one would not think of doing were the mind toned up by something besides " progressive" views. When one follows one's "inner light," there is no knowing where it will lead. If primitive orthodoxy is right, nothing but good can come by having faith in it, and nothing but ill from losing faith in it. This blinding of the moral perceptions, which usually is attended with laxity in moral behavior, it may be well to note, is not confined to the lowly, but is also found with the most highly educated people, especially if they have once held the evangelical faith and then have departed from it. "Modern culture" is no protection against moral and religious bewilderment.

Men may

talk to the contrary, but one's belief and one's behavior seriously affect each other. So general is this rule that the world expects that an improvement in belief (an improvement, we mean, in the direction of strict orthodox standards) will be followed by an improvement in moral life. And, too, when church members begin to call in question evangelical doctrines that they once held, thoughtful people are not much surprised if soon these same church members are guilty of misdemeanors deserving discipline. There are many apparent exceptions to this rule, and doubtless some real ones. There are orthodox