NOTE B.

The gift of tongues involves questions of difficult-solution. The inquiry arises at once, whether it conferred upon its recipients as a permanent possession, a supernatural knowledge of languages foreign to them, so that they could use them as occasion required, as they did their native tongues; or whether they spoke only under the immediate impulse of the Spirit. When Paul says: "I thank my God that I speak with tongues more than you all," the natural inference is that he was able to use these tongues at his discretion. But, on the other hand, the general impression made by his somewhat extended remarks on this gift is that those who possessed it spake only as they were moved by the Spirit, whether with or without the comprehension of what they uttered. But, whatever be our judgment on these points, the essential thing to be noticed is the end proposed by God in bestowing this gift. It was not designed so much for the instruction of believers as for a sign (eis onμeîov) to unbelievers. It is not to be assumed as the normal mode of inspiration in general.

NOTE C.

2

After giving, as we have seen, a rational and satisfactory explanation of the diversity which appears in the three narratives, so far as the words of the disciples are concerned, Augustine adds, apparently in concession to the narrow views of many of his contemporaries: "Quamquam et hoc fieri potuit, ut pluribus eum simul excitantibus, omnia haec, aliud ab alio, dicerentur," "Although it might also have happened that several aroused their Master at the same time, and that all these expressions were used by different disciples." The explanation is in itself unnatural, and does not account for the diversity in the form of our Lord's answer as given by the three evangelists. It will hardly be maintained, we think, that the Saviour administered three separate rebukes to those who awoke him. The attempt to carry this narrow principle of harmonizing through the four Gospels is an undertaking as hopeless as it is unnecessary. On this point we shall have more to say in our next Article.

11 Cor. xiv. 18.

21 Cor. xiv.

ARTICLE IV.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GROWTH OF CHRIST'S KINGDOM.

BY SAMUEL HARRIS, D.D., LL.D., DWIGHT PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE THEOLOGICAL DEPARTMENT OF YALE COLLEGE.

THE progress of Christ's kingdom is extensive, so far as it gains new converts and Christianizes new peoples; it is intensive, so far as it advances the sanctification of its converts, and develops a higher type of piety and a more Christian civilization. Some characteristics of this progress will now be considered.

I. It is Spiritual.

It is spiritual in the sense that it is the work of God's Spirit. God's redeeming love is not merely a bland accessibleness if any choose to seek him—a mild rainbow over his throne, encouraging any who venture to brave the darkness and clouds that are round about him. It is an energy of redeeming grace, the Spirit of holiness, working in human history, enlightening, striving, life-giving, reproving, comforting. The progress of the kingdom is the constant product and manifestation of the ever-present and prevailing energy of the Holy Spirit.

It is spiritual, also, in the sense that it is the progress of spiritual life in men- the life of faith and love that centres on Christ and his cross.

Hence, so far as man's agency is concerned, the progress of the kingdom is by action in faith; and the life of faith is a life of inspiration and enthusiasm, rather than of prudence and calculation. The believer has courage to attempt whatever God has had grace to promise. In the words of Bishop Hall: "Faith is never so glorious as when she hath most opposition, and will not see it. Reason looks ever to the

means; faith, to the end; and, instead of consulting how to effect, resolves what shall be effected." The very obstacles become a stimulus to effort: "I will tarry at Ephesus; for a great door and effectual is opened unto me, and there are many adversaries."

II. The Progress of the Kingdom is by the Instrumentality of the Gospel.

It is the historical gospel of redemption through Christ and the Holy Spirit, as distinguished from abstract truth. "I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ and him crucified." Rationalism treats Christianity, which is a divine action redeeming men from sin, as if it were only a process of thought; as if its whole aim were the analysis and systemization of truth to the intellect. It regards historical Christianity as the lantern, not as the light, and breaks the lantern that the light may shine more clearly. The result is that the light is blown out. The gospel must indeed be apprehended by the intellect. It presupposes the truths of religion and morals which men may know without revelation. Man, as a rational being, must interpret the facts of the gospel, and define their significance to his intellect; must harmonize them with the truths of natural religion, with the principles of reason, and with all knowledge. This produces theology, which is the gospel interpreted, analyzed, and systemized by and for the intellect. But the gospel does not terminate in the intellect, nor exist only as a process of thought. It is addressed to the heart. It is thought transformed into life. And it is only in its historical origin and influence that it is rightly understood. Christianity is like the sun, whose warmth and light are dependent on being held in the earth's atmosphere and reflected from its surface. To rise above the earth's atmosphere in order to get nearer to the sun is to lose his warmth and light. So philosophy, rising above the historical and human to come nearer to God, finds, in the dizzy heights of speculation, darkness and cold.

While, then, it is necessary to man, as a rational being, to define and interpret the gospel to the intellect and translate it into systematic theology, there is inherent in so doing the danger of falling into a rationalistic habit, and regarding Christianity as a philosophy. Especially should there be caution against this danger in theological seminaries, in which the student is necessarily occupied in defining, interpreting, vindicating, and systemizing the gospel to the intellect. There is danger that he come to be interested in the mere intellectual investigation of truth, rather than in Christianity as the power of life to sinners; that a dilettanteism of interest in philosophy and literature displace the earnestness of Christian interest in men and Christian zeal to bring sinners to Christ; or, in a different direction, that the spirit of controversy and the eagerness of theological discussion displace Christian love to men and interest in the minister's appropriate work of saving men from sin. There is danger, also, that the student be entangled and held powerless in his own speculations; so many are the questions suggested in defining, interpreting, and systemizing the facts of Christianity, and so severe and protracted the intellectual effort in the process, that they become associated in the student's mind with the facts of the gospel; and the life-giving truths come to his mind not in the freshness, simplicity, and power of the gospel, but as the nucleus of questions and difficulties, of metaphysical distinctions and nice adjustments of thought; and he is entangled and held fast in the bristling chevauxde-frise which his thinking has constructed around every truth of the gospel. There is danger that he be rationalistic, regarding Christianity only as a process of thought, and finding its whole significance in the definition of truth to the intellect. So, also, the history of Christianity must be studied as a history of doctrine. But there is danger in so studying it that the student come to regard the determination of doctrine as the great work which Christianity has accomplished in the past, as the entire significance of its history. In one age it determined the doctrine of the Trinity; in

others, successively, the doctrines of sin, of atonement, of justification by faith, until, as an eminent living divine has said, there remains nothing to be determined by the church of the future but the Christian doctrine of the church itself. But the history of the church is not found merely in the history of doctrine, but also in ideals which in Christ have become powers in the world, in confessions and martyrdoms, in missions and charities, in self-denial and heroism, in Christian experience of penitence, faith, and love, in triumphs over death, in the progress of justice, and of Christian customs, laws, and institutions, in reformations and the growth of Christian civilization.

Accordingly, the gospel does not address itself merely to the intellect, and especially not to the observing, analyzing, and classifying faculties, which positive science exclusively addresses. It addresses itself to the faith, to the moral nature, to the spiritual necessities, aspirations, and intuitions. This Paul recognizes in his preaching: "Commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." Jesus recognizes it: "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine." And the intimations of the moral and spiritual nature are as trustworthy as those of our observing and comparing faculties; for they are of the very core of our being; and if they are false, the whole being is vitiated with falsehood. There is, then, a philosophical basis for the answer of an unlettered candidate for the ministry, who, when asked at his examination for ordination: "What proof have you that Christ is divine?" answered, with tears: "Why, bless you, he has saved my soul." And if the keen definition and proof of truth by and to the intellect is separated from the knowledge and evidence of spiritual experience, and we are obliged to choose which of the two is the safer preparation for preaching the gospel, I should not hesitate to choose the latter: "Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”

It follows that the effectual preaching of the gospel is more than the clear presentation of the truth from the intel