a mode of obtaining sound convictions respecting realities in the realm of the spirit, which investigation in the world below the spirit does not provide? Is it true, or is it not true, that the world of personal life is the world in view of which existence must receive its best interpretation? Is it or is it not the fact that only when man is considered can the riddle of existence even begin to be solved? Is the animal world or the human world our Rosetta stone for translation of the language of the universe?

This, I need not say, is no mere question of two men and their points of view: it is the question of our age. Physical science is offering its terms and standards for the expression and measurement of all that is. I recently read a commendation of the doctrine of conditional human immortality, on the ground that it was in perfect harmony with biological truth. It was assumed, apparently, that biological truth is truth enough to meet the case, and that we may justly infer our destiny from the destiny of other creatures that have breathed the atmosphere of our planet. So we often find ourselves invited to judge human questions in the light, or the darkness, of non-human considerations; and when we demur, and venture to propose the human as the test for judging the human, the spiritual for testing the spiritual, we are told that nothing is certainly known about the spiritual apart from the physical, and the tests that we know to be valid are those of the laboratory and others like them. Yet even now religion, willing to save its life, claims a hearing, and sound philosophy joins with it. Judge a tree by its fruit, and by its ripe fruit. Understand an evolving system in view of its highest part. Read the meaning of the world with, not without, the human. When the cosmic system has attained to the production of personal beings, then personal facts and relations are the elements supreme, and the elements indispensable for understanding of the system. The best spiritual experi

ence of man is better evidence as to the significance of man and the reality of God than all that can be learned outside the human realm. So declares religion, claiming its right to live. Our two men in the lesson of their contrast are a parable for the world. The question between them is a vital question. If, as Huxley seemed to think, studies from the realm of nature below man are to decide all questions of the soul, religion is impossible, save through ignorance or self-delusion; but if the nature of the soul itself is first to be consulted as to the questions of the soul, then the scientifically wise are living without their birthright of religion and of God, and are blind to the truth that they have a birthright. This is the dilemma of our day, before which no thoughtful man can long stand uncommitted.

It is well that we discern the real dividing question of our time, and it was my purpose in the choice of a subject to-day to call attention to it. These two great biographies were my opportunity. We are always talking as if the great question of our time were some question of theology, but it is not, it is the question of religion. It is the question whether there is a legitimate and available place for religion in human life or not. This question is raised, as we have seen to-day, by the searching and honest study of the non-human world upon scientific methods. For religion the question of the day is really a question of life and death. Some one may think this the needless cry of an alarmist; and indeed I do not imagine that religion is about to die. Nevertheless it is not well to deceive ourselves as to the case with which we have to deal. Huxley was right in affirming that his method, consistently used as the one by which all facts of existence should be interpreted, rendered confident belief in God impossible. It did this for him, and it will do the same for any of us. Moreover, the question of life and death that is thus raised by the favorite intellectual operations of the age is reinforced

by all that is materialistic and unspiritual in the temper and practices of the time. How much there is of this I must not stay to tell, but there is enough to keep religion far more on the defensive than it ought to be. The vital issue of our day is whether religion has a legitimate and effective hold on existence. Have we a right to religion?

and if we have a right to it, can we keep it alive? Compared with this great issue the current questions in theology are but minor matters, and the points on which Christian denominations are divided are almost infinitesimal.

Whether we teach theology, or study it, or make use of it in preaching, or have simply the common Christian interest in it, there are certain things that we can do and stand for, and that we ought to do and stand for. In this last moment let me put some of them in few words, in the form of exhortation.

1. Insist upon the right of the soul to know its God. Hold fast to the birthright. Claim the heavenly liberty, the freedom of sons with the Father. Rise to fellowship with him so real that no doubt can rob you of your spiritual inheritance. Encourage all men to think of knowledge and faith toward God as indeed a birthright, which no sound knowledge in other fields will ever justly require them to surrender.

2. Hold fast that the universe can be understood only in the light of the highest that it contains, and that hence the life of the personal spirit is the true interpreter. Claim and hold that the eternal realities of existence are such as will give true support to the normal and characteristic life of man, the highest being in the world. Find thus a good foundation for that freedom with the Father which it is your life to possess.

3. Construct your theology, if you have a theology to construct, on the basis of personality and personal relations. Simplify it to meet the demands of this idea.

Make it straightforward, clear, uncompromising, in its omissions as well as its assertions, holding firmly and holding only what pertains to personal relations between God and men. If this makes a short theology, it will make one that stands close to true religion.

4. Steadily put the warfare of religion at the front, before all warfares of theology. Try to make the Christian people feel that the warfare of religion for its life is really on, and seek the unity of all forces that belong on the religious side. Deprecate divisions, avoid strifes among friends, and pray and labor for efficient unity among those who stand for the essential faith.

ARTICLE II.

WITCHCRAFT AND THE OLD TESTAMENT.

BY THE REV. CHARLES EDWARD SMITH, D.D.

THE responsibility of the Old Testament for the frightful crimes which have been perpetrated under the stimulus of the witchcraft delusion is a subject of grave interest to every serious mind. Every one who believes either that the Bible is the Word of God, or that the Bible contains that Word, must consider and decide this question, that he may keep his Bible, or at any rate find it.

There is no doubt about the fact, that those who have been under this delusion have appealed to the Old Testament in support of their ideas. In the famous trial of the Suffolk witches, in England, in 1665, when Sir Matthew Hale was the judge, and Sir Thomas Browne was the medical expert witness, the Chief Baron said that there were such creatures as witches, for the Scriptures affirmed it. He had reference, of course, to the command in Ex. xxii. 18, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," or he might have had in mind the account of the woman whom we call the "Witch of Endor" in 1 Sam. xxviii. No doubt such passages were commonly considered in past centuries to teach the reality and criminality of a diabolic art known by various names, as sorcery, magic, necromancy, or witchcraft.

But the question arises, Was this a correct interpretation of the class of passages referred to, or a mistaken interpretation, made possible, or rather necessitated, by ignorance and superstition? It is but a little while since the Old Testament was confidently quoted as justifying slavery,