$5. THE ULTIMATE GROUND OF FAITH.

THERE are several kinds of belief, which may be distinguished thus:1. There is a belief of the imagination. When a person believes his own thoughts without reference to their agreement with external objects, his belief is imaginative. The romance-writer produces thoughts that have no foundation in external facts. Every person has the faculty of doing the same thing to a greater or less extent. Ordinarily imaginative thoughts are treated as such, and not believed to be true. But sometimes men suffer the distinction between imaginative and true thoughts to be confounded in their minds, and come to believe whatever they think, without comparing their thoughts with objective realities. Devoted novel-readers not unfrequently fall into this confusion of mind; and it is the special distinction of insane persons. 2. There is a belief of testimony; i. e., of thoughts which are supposed to agree with objective realities, because they are confirmed by the report of others. 3. There is a belief of the reason; i. e., of thoughts that are confirmed by a process of reasoning. 4. There is a belief of the senses ; i. e., of thoughts that are confirmed by the impressions of the senses.

The three latter kinds of belief are chiefly concerned in the formation of the opinions of sane persons in ordinary life. The two latter are principally relied on by those who are considered wise in their generation. The belief of the senses distinguishes the practical wise man; and the belief of the reason the philosophical wise man. In proportion as a person leaves the guidance of his senses and reason, and relies on testimony and imagination, he approaches credulous folly and insanity.

Besides all these, there is a fifth kind, which may be called spiritual belief. One spirit can present itself to the perceptions of another and communicate thoughts and persuasions, without the intervention of any verbal testimony, any process of reasoning, or any impression of the senses. This is proved by the phenomena of Mesmerism, and is recognized as an established truth throughout the Bible. When a man believes thoughts thus caused or confirmed, his belief is spiritual.

This kind of belief is liable to be confounded by superficial observers with imaginative belief. It ascertains the truth of its thoughts by none of the processes ordinarily used. It appeals to no external testimony, no train of argument, no sensual evidence. To ordinary apprehension its resources, like those of imaginative belief, are wholly subjective. Doubtless too, in many cases, pretenders to spiritual belief have mistaken their imaginations for spiritual impressions, and so have been really imaginative believers, having nothing in common with spiritual believers but the negative characteristic of having left the region of sense, reason, and external testimony.

But in its essential nature, spiritual belief is no more allied to imaginative than either of the three kinds that are accepted by the world as rational. It most resembles belief of the senses and testimony. It is, in fact, belief of the internal senses and of testimony conveyed not by words, but by spiritual

impressions. It is not altogether subjective. Its source of evidence is from without the circle of its own thoughts-as truly so as verbal testimony. A man who believes spiritual impressions, is no more properly chargeable with believing his own imaginations than one who believes his neighbor's word.

He is liable, however, to be deceived. There are false spirits, as there are lying men; and he who believes the impressions of all sorts of spirits, will be as miserably misled as he who believes every report that he hears. And in the infancy of spiritualism there is perhaps more danger of running into this indiscriminate credulity, than there is in ordinary life; because the novice naturally imagines that every impression he receives cones from God, and his veneration binds him to believe without questioning.

But assuming that a spiritualist has learned to discriminate between true and false spirits as wisely as persons of common sense discriminate between true and false men, there is no more folly in his belief, founded on spiritual impressions, than there is in theirs founded on verbal testimony. And if he is in communication with God, the source of all truth, his belief is altogether more trustworthy than even the belief of the senses or of reason; for God is less likely to persuade him of falsehood than his own eyes or his own intellect.

This is the nature of true faith. It is not a belief of imaginations, though it may easily be mistaken for that. It is not a belief of human report. It is not a belief of any process of reasoning. It is not a belief of the external senses. It is not an indiscriminate belief of spiritual impressions. But it is a belief of the persuasions of God's spirit. The faith of the prophets in their own predictions must necessarily have been a confidence in divine impressions. So faith in prayer, (which is a kind of prophesying,) must be an anticipative persuasion wrought by the spirit of God. So also all hopes of salvation that are authentic and sure, are of the nature of prophecy, and must be caused and sustained by the spiritual power of him who seeth the end from the beginning.'

6

Now while we recognize and duly value all the lower evidences which may be set in array for the defence of Bible-religion against infidelity, it is still to be borne in mind that the belief which is caused by these evidences is but the precursor and auxiliary of spiritual faith. Here is the advantage which the true believer may claim over all other disciples of truth. From all the sophistries of the disputers of this world,' he can appeal to the testimony of his own internal perceptions. While he can say 'I have seen, and therefore believe,' the infidel can only reply, 'I have not seen and therefore believe not; and a mere negative of this kind in one man's mouth, has properly no force against the positive knowledge of another.-We will illustrate the foregoing positions by a sketch of the grounds, both proximate and ultimate, on which rests the belief of the existence of God.

The evidence that there is a God is of two sorts-direct and indirect. It is manifest that God himself has evidence of his own existence, independently of any testimony of his works-the evidence of consciousness. So they who stand in his presence or are joined to his spirit, whether angels or saints, know his existence by immediate perception. This we call direct evidence. On the other hand the whole creation is full of the tokens of his 'invisible

power and Godhead.' So that a thoughtful and honest observer, however remote from his immediate presence, could not fail to infer his existence. This we call indirect evidence.

The following is a sketch of the most comprehensive argument for the existence of God, from indirect evidence: 1. Mere matter has no power in itself. All motion must be the effect, and of course the evidence of life. But all visible matter is in motion. Therefore all visible matter demonstrates the existence of life. The unity of that life is proved by the unity of all the great movements of matter; and its omnipotence by their immensity.2. Order is not the effect of chance or of a blind will. All orderly motion is evidence of intelligence. But all visible matter is in orderly motion. Therefore all visible matter demonstrates the existence of intelligence. The immense extent and ingenuity of the order of the universe, proves that intelligence to be omniscience. 3. All orderly motion tending to produce happiness, is evidence of benevolence. But all visible matter is in orderly motion tending to produce happiness. All visible matter therefore demonstrates that the intelligent life which moves it, is benevolent. Thus the universe testifies of an invisible being, whose elements are infinite LIFE, LIGHT, and LOVE. Such a being we may safely worship as GOD.

Arguments of this kind show how much proof of the existence of God man might have found by the light of nature, had he been an honest and diligent observer. Of course, they show that all, even the heathen, are under the obligations and responsibilities of the divine government. But they by no means indicate the process by which men do actually come to the knowledge of the true God. Human perverseness has been found proof against the testimony of creation; and all valuable knowledge of God has come by means supplied by an economy of special revelation. That economy employs, as its chief and final power of proof, direct spiritual evidence; making all indirect testimony only introductory and subordinate.

The process by which believers generally arrive at a solid practical assurance of the existence of God, is this: First, they hear of him from their parents and teachers; (and it has been God's care from the beginning of the world to provide this first means of instruction;) thus their minds are preoccupied with a persuasion of his existence. Then they read the book which contains the records of his past manifestations to mankind, and gives them directions for approaching him. Finally, they follow those directions, and ascertain that there is a God by actual communion with him. In other words, they first believe the report of men and books, so far as to seek God; and when they have found him, they believe the evidence of their own spiritual

senses.

This method of coming to rest in the conclusion that there is a God, however it may be derided by skeptics, is by no means irrational. An illustration will set it in its true light. Suppose the case of a man born in a remote province of some great empire. He is a subject of a king whom he has never seen. In order that he may be a good subject, he must have a sure belief in the existence of his king. By what process may he most readily assure himself of the truth which he thus needs to know? He hears the

testimony of common report; he sees the administration of government around him; he has a copy of the statutes of the empire; he has conversed with some who profess to have seen the king. With these grounds of belief, he may surely, without exposing himself to any fair charge of credulity, inquire his way to the king's presence, and so convert the persuasion that comes by report into the certainty that comes by personal knowledge. Ever after ward, his answer to those who ask why he believes in the existence of the king, will be-Because I have seen him.' So, to the question, Why do you believe in the existence of a God?' the spiritual man answers-I did believe at first because I heard reports of him, and saw his works; but I now believe because my spirit perceives him.'

By a similar process the believer's heart attains immovable confidence in the Bible as the word of God. At first he is persuaded to respect and read it by the testimony of men. Afterward perhaps his understanding is satisfied by historical evidences, by the miracles and fulfilments of prophecy which attest its divinity, and by his own perceptions of its intrinsic goodness and grandeur. But all these vouchers, external and internal, though sufficient to condemn infidelity, are but the harbingers of that 'full assurance of faith' which rests on the spiritual testimony of God. The man who assures himself of the existence of his king by seeking his presence, will also at the same time verify, by personal inquiry, the authenticity of the statute-book which bears the king's name. To the question, Why do you believe the Bible?' the best of all answers is- Because God endorses it in his communications with my heart, and in all his discipline of me, owns it, as the auxiliary of his Spirit.'

$6. THE GUIDE OF INTERPRETATION.

HAVING ascertained that the Bible is the word of God, and of course our text-book of doctrine, the question now arises, Who shall be our instructor in that text-book? The Catholic answers-The Church, by its traditions and the teaching of its priests.' The Protestant answers- We need no instructor; the Bible itself is the only sufficient rule of faith and practice.' But we may reply to the Protestant, except it be interpreted it is no rule at all; and interpretation implies something beside and above the Bible, viz., judgment or opinion. Still then we ask, Who shall direct our judgment? -who shall govern our opinion in determining the meaning of the Bible? In the nature of the case, we need an interpreter with the Bible, as truly as the infant scholar needs a schoolmaster with his spelling-book. And in fact, Protestants have yielded to the necessity of the case. Their laity receive their rule of faith and practice from the clergy; the clergy in turn receive it from the schools; and the schools receive it partly from tradition, and partly from human, and even infidel learning. But even if the Pro

testant theory could be carried out, and private judgment actually take the place of tradition and human learning, it would still be true that the Bible of itself is not the rule; for then private judgment would be the schoolmaster, and the Bible only its text-book; and in this, as in all other cases, the schoolmaster would be above the book.

Seeing then we must have a guide, whom shall we choose? We answer, THE HOLY GHOST. It should be presumed that God, if he has given the world a book, has also provided an interpreter. Accordingly we find the Bible itself plainly direets us to its author, the Spirit of truth, as the ultimate guide of faith. The great promise of the Old Testament is, that all shall be taught of God.' (See Isa. 54: 13, Jer. 31: 34.) And the New Testament records the fulfilment of this promise, in the outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the primitive Christian church. Christ did not rely even on his own verbal instructions to his disciples, (though we may presume they were as perfect as those of the scriptures,) but referred them to the Comforter, as their ultimate and effectual instructor. (See John 14: 26, 28.) Paul prayed that the Ephesians, whom he had taught abundantly by word of mouth, might have the spirit of wisdom and revelation.' Eph. 1: 17. John thus describes the church of the new covenant: Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things; I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth. The anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.' 1 John 2: 20-27. Thus we have the authority of the Bible itself for regarding the Holy Ghost as the superior oracle, not contradicting or superceding the Bible, but interpreting and applying it.

For the sake of developing our views on this point more fully, we will here present and discuss at some length the principles of the anti-spiritual school. One of the text-books at Andover is Ernesti on Interpretation, translated from the German and published with notes by Moses Stuart. The concluding part of the book is a chapter from Keil, a German critic, on the qualifications of an interpreter.' Prof. Stuart commends it as a well digested summary.' That our readers may have a fair view of the German and Andoverian equipments, we subjoin the substance of Keil's chapter:

1. He who desires to understand and interpret the books of the New Testament, must, first of all, acquire some historic knowledge of the author of each book; of the state of things existing when it was written; of the body or collection of the New Testament books; of the particular history of its ancient versions, editions, and parts in which it was written; and other things of this nature. To this must be added a knowledge of the principles of criticism, in respect to the text of the New Testament. 2. Of the second kind of knowledge, preparatory to the understanding and interpretation of the New Testament.

(1) The interpreter must understand the language in which the books are written. As the diction is not pure classic Greek, but the Hebrew idiom here and there intermixed with classic Greek, and as vestiges of the Chaldee, Syriac, Rabbinic and Latin languages occur; it follows, of course, that the interpreter should not only be acquainted with pure Greek, but with its various dialects, specially the Alexandrine. Above all, he ought to be well versed in the Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, Rabbinic, and Latin idioms. (2) The interpreter must possess a knowledge of the things respecting which the book treats. These are partly historical, and partly doctrinal. The explanation of them must be