All the commentators are puzzled at the mention of an angel here. Canon Cheyne does not doubt that 'angel' (ayyeλov) is the translation of an already corrupt text of an older Hebrew Apocalypse, in which Mal'āk was written instead of mika'ēl.

Who, then, is Michael? The surprise comes when we answer that, but we have not come to it yet. In the Book of Daniel there is a difficult passage which we must consider first. It is Dn 718. In the Authorized Version the passage reads, "I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.' The difficulty here is not so obvious to the ordinary English reader as in the passage from the first chapter of Genesis. But it arises at once when the English reader turns to the Revised Version. For now 'the Son of man' is turned into 'a son of man.' 'The Son of man' clearly means the Messiah; but what does 'a son of man' mean?

Professor Cheyne holds that it is the Messiah still. But the Messiah is the archangel Michael. For, in the first place, he holds with Professor Kautzsch that the correct translation is not 'one like unto a son of man,' but 'one who resembled a man,' and it could only be said of an angel that he resembled a man. In the second place, the angel can be none other than Michael, the great princeangel who defends the interests of the people of Israel.

And Michael is the Messiah. There are again two reasons. The first reason is that the most prevalent of the early Jewish interpretations of our phrase is the Messianic. And the second reason is that 'one has a right to expect the subduer of the four beasts in Daniel 7 to be the Messiah or World-Redeemer, because of the strong Babylonian colouring of this chapter as a whole.'

'The strong Babylonian colouring'? Yes, and

Are there few that be saved? If the question were asked to-day, and asked of any of Christ's ambassadors, what answer would be given? Christ said there were few. He did not say few in themselves, for we do not discover Him at variance with that other Scripture which says they are a multitude which no man can number. But he said they are few compared with those who are not saved. 'Enter ye in by the narrow gate,' He said; 'for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many be they that enter in to thereby. For narrow is the gate and straitened the way that leadeth to life, and few be they that find it.' But to-day? If the question were put as plainly to any of us to-day, what answer should we give?

Why should we hesitate to say few if Christ said few? Because we should not mean what Christ meant. We should mean that few would be saved at all. Christ did not mean that. He meant that few would be saved with eternal glory. But He left it open to understand that many would be saved with loss, saved so as by fire.

At least, that is how Christ's answer is understood in a book that has been published by Mr. John Murray. The author of the book is the Rev. James Langton Clarke, M.A., late Fellow of the University of Durham. Its title is The Eternal Saviour-Judge (8vo; 9s. net).

The subject of the book is 'The State of the Dead,' and Mr. Clarke has something new to say about it. There are three theories in the Church regarding the State of the Dead. They go by the names of Eternal Punishment, Conditional Immortality, and Universal Restoration. Mr. Clarke has a fourth theory to propose. He speaks of it under the clumsy title of Eternal Saviour-Judgeship.' And it must be confessed that he makes a poor

affair of presenting it. But Dr. Illingworth, who introduces the book, does not err when he says that on this subject any one will be heard at present, and Mr. Clarke has something to say.

Mr. Clarke speaks throughout of the Eternal Saviour-Judgeship' of Christ, and the discovery that he has made lies in that title. But for the theory itself he by and by offers the simpler name of Reconciliation.

Now, Reconciliation at once suggests Restoration, but they are not the same. Universal Restoration means-but let us use Mr. Clarke's own words: 'Given two men, both of whom have had full knowledge of Christ, and one of whom has lived the life of faith working by love, the other has drawn back unto perdition, Restoration means that the latter shall eventually in some future age be restored to all that he might have been had he lived like the former; Reconciliation means that the latter may, indeed, inherit a blessing, but not the blessing, which he forfeited by his backsliding or by neglecting so great salvation.'

Every servant receives his talent according to his several ability. If a servant neglects it, the doctrine of Universal Restoration says that though it may be taken from him for a time, he will yet receive it back again. Reconciliation says that though he himself will yet be reconciled to God, and though he may yet be employed on other service, his talent will never be restored to him; the position which he would have had if he had used his talent wisely will never again be his.

Mr. Clarke illustrates his meaning from the Old Testament. He takes the example of Jacob and Esau. Esau lost the Blessing and he never got it again, though he sought it carefully with tears. But he got a blessing. 'Behold of the fatness of the earth shall be thy dwelling, and of the dew of heaven from above.' He could not get the Blessing, because it had already been given to Jacob, and 'the gifts and calling of God are with

out repentance.' But he got a blessing, and he was afterwards well content.

He takes the example of Saul and David. When Saul showed himself unworthy, the kingdom was taken from him and given to another. After the anointing of David the kingdom could never be restored to Saul. But he might have had a lesser blessing. He might, like Esau, have acquiesced in the just judgment of God. He might have gone softly all his years, a peaceful subject now, though not a king.

Mr. Clarke's doctrine of Reconciliation is that the sinners in this life

Who God's eternal Son despise
And scorn His offered grace

will come to themselves in the next life and be reconciled to God, though it will never again be with them as though they had not died in sin. Or -as he puts it in reference to the question: 'Are there few that be saved?'-all will yet be saved, but not to the fulness of salvation; with the great multitude of men it will be salvation 'so as by fire.'

Can this theory be proved? Its proof is offered in a long and difficult discussion of the SaviourJudgeship of Christ. Mr. Clarke begins with the Old Testament types. The judges in Israel were saviours first and judges afterwards. They became judges because they had been saviours. And they did not cease to be saviours when they became judges. As long as they lived they judged Israel, and saved while they judged. In the second chapter of the Book of Judges we have, says Mr. Clarke, the general principle which underlay the appointment of the judges in Israel, not of one judge but of all. Read at the 16th verse: 'And the Lord raised them up judges, which saved them out of the hand of those that spoiled them. . . . And when (LXX "because") the Lord raised them up judges, then the Lord was with the judge, and saved them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge.'

What have we here? We have, says Mr. Clarke, the clear statement that the judges of Israel were first of all saviours. Othniel and Ehud are expressly so called: 'The Lord raised up a saviour to the children of Israel.' They were not first made judges and then sent to save the people out of the hand of their enemies. They first saved the people and then, because of that, were made judges. And when they were made judges they continued to save the people still.

Now, the people whom they saved were sinful. It was on account of their sin that they fell under the hand of their enemies and into all their misery. When the judge saved them from their enemies he had to save them from themselves. His judgeship was corrective. It was also intercessory, 'Samuel cried unto the Lord for Israel, and the Lord answered him.' And it was successful. The judge rescued the people from their enemies first, and then he saved them from their own sins. As long as he lived he was a successful saviour-judge.

Turn to Jesus. He is a Saviour first. 'I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.' And then, because He is the Saviour of the world, He becomes its Judge. 'He humbled himself unto death, even the death of the cross; therefore hath God highly exalted him.' 'He hath given him authority to execute judgment because he is the Son of man.' But when He becomes the world's Judge He does not cease to be its Saviour. For, like the judges of Israel, He still maketh intercession for us. And if He makes intercession He exercises all the other functions of the judge. So that Mr. Clarke is bold to adapt the words of the Epistle to the Hebrews and to say, 'Wherefore also he is able to save to the uttermost them that draw near unto God through him, seeing he ever liveth to judge them.'

'He ever liveth.' As long as the judge lived he saved Israel. When he was taken away by death Israel sinned again, and again fell under the power of the enemy. But this Judge continueth ever.

All who come unto God by Him are saved to the last. And that all will come is clear to Mr. Clarke on the analogy of the judge in Israel. For it was not the few or the many, but all the people, that he saved and judged.

But the people are not all saved with the same salvation. The judge is a saviour before he becomes a judge. They who are saved by Christ in their earthly life, that is to say, while they know Him as saviour and before they know Him as judge, are saved to the full glory of salvation. The judge is also a saviour after he becomes a judge. But his salvation now is corrective, punitive, painful. They who are not saved in this life, who know the Saviour only after He has become their judge, do not at death pass at once to glory. They have still to be saved, to be saved from their sins. Their Saviour is their Judge, and He saves by correcting them. There are few that enter by the narrow door in this life to glory and the crown. There are many-Mr. Clarke is convinced that they are all the rest-who enter by the broad way of rebellion and recovery to the lesser blessing of reconciliation to God and new service.

Is Mr. Clarke laying upon typology more than it is able to bear? He has other arguments. But he is bold enough to say that his theory is true though there were no Scripture for it. And he thinks that we may expect too much in the way of proof-text. For the state after death has to do with the future, while Scripture has chiefly to do with the present. As Dr. Illingworth reminds us, 'in the Bible there seems to be an intentional reserve about this question, which is in striking contrast to the outspoken description of such books as the Avesta and the Koran.' It is good if Scripture does not contradict the theory. For Mr. Clarke has little doubt that the heart of man and the honour of God demand it.

Is there anything new to be said about the Bible? anything, we mean, about the Bible as a

book-its place in the world, its influence on our life? The President of the University of Chicago has said it. Dr. Harper has been in the habit of addressing his students every year, and he has been in the habit of taking pains with his address. He has now gathered twelve of these addresses together, and published them at the University Press. The title of the book is Religion and the Higher Life ($1).

In one of the addresses President Harper speaks about the Bible. He is not himself concerned to know whether what he says is new or not. He does not think that 'since the days of Jesus and the apostles' men have delivered many messages altogether new. But he is sure that it is a message. 'I have come,' he says in the very first sentence, 'with the sincere feeling that I have for you a message.' It is a message; and it is new. For newness depends less upon matter than upon the arrangement of matter. And Dr. Harper has brought the Bible and religious experience together in such a way as to say something new.

Religious experience? Well, personal experience, or religious life. Dr. Harper does not mind which phrase is preferred. What he means is that the word experience has a specific use when it is applied to religious feeling. It is something through which a man goes; it is something, perhaps, which comes to him. It is a feeling, an emotion. It is more than that. It is a state of being; it is a life in which, as Emerson has expressed it, the 'individual soul mingles with the universal soul'; or, as President Harper prefers to put it, in which the individual soul comes into sympathetic touch with God.' What has the Bible to do with this religious experience ?-that is the subject of his address. But we have not got at the religious experience yet.

There are two sides to this religious experience. There is its outward side. That is to say, a man's experience of God has to find outward expression for itself. It expresses itself outwardly in three

ways in worship, in creed, in conduct. It expresses itself in Worship. This is what the Psalmist means when he says, 'Bless the Lord, O my soul, and all that is within me, bless his Holy Name.' Sometimes the worship is so simple and unconventional that it is scarcely noticed as worship; sometimes it is so elaborate and complex that it bewilders and confounds the beholder. But whether simple or complex, worship is the outward symbol of an inward thought. It may be a feeble expression of the thought; or it may run before the thought, stimulating it and carrying it to higher achievement. But whether before it or behind it, the outward expression of religious thought should never be out of touch with the inward feeling. It must continually be held in scrutiny, yet always reverently. For is not worship one of the ways in which men have handed on their religious experience from one generation to another? Has it not been the great means for the preservation of man's personal experience of God from the very beginning of human thought until now?

Our experience of God expresses itself also in Creed. There is the same variety in creed as in worship. Some are simple, some are complex. But a man's creed, not being itself his religious experience, but only one form of its outward expression, is never the measure of his experience. 'Some of the purest and noblest lives ever lived,' says Dr. Harper, 'were largely innocent of even the simplest knowledge of creeds or theology.' But the creed has vast influence on the life. Have you seen the degrading influence upon men's morals of that ancient belief in the Bull as the representative of deity? Have you compared with it belief in the God and Father of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?

There is a third way in which our religious experience expresses itself outwardly. It expresses itself in Conduct or Ethics. This is what St. James means, this is what he calls pure religion and undefiled, when he says, 'pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this: to visit the

fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.' This is the most distinctive outward expression of personal religious life. By their fruits ye shall know them.' But there is a morality of nations as well as of individuals. By their fruits ye shall know nations also.

That, then, is the outward side of a man's religious experience. That is the visible, recognizable, communicable expression of his inner thought of God. What is the other side? What is it to have one's soul in sympathetic touch with God? President Harper says that a man's inner spiritual life must include three elements-consciousness of sin, fellowship with God, and love for God.

It must include some Consciousness of Sin. And Dr. Harper says that the depth of the experience is in proportion to the keenness of this conscious

ness.

There is no way that he knows of by which a man's religious life can be estimated so accurately. He turns to the 38th Psalm, and quotes the 3rd verse to the 8th. He turns to the 32nd, and quotes the 3rd to the 5th. Who turns to these Psalms with him? Not the man most deeply sunk in sin, but the man of the closest walk with God. When our Lord puts the question to Simon the Pharisee, 'Tell me, therefore, which of them will love him most?' and Simon answers, 'I suppose that he to whom he forgave most,' we know that Simon is right, and yet not altogether right. For the man of many sins may think he has had little forgiven, and the man of few sins may think he has had much. It is the sense of sin that makes the difference. It is the sense of sin that measures the reality of the inner life.

Is this consciousness of sin the recognition of a high estate once held by man, but long since lost? Or is it the recognition of the survival in him of lower, even animal, conditions, out of which, in an upward ascent, he is gradually but surely being lifted? This is a question of the keenest interest to many of us. With this question the attention of some of us is for the first time really held. It

is a question which President Harper counts it scarcely worth his while to ask. It is the fact, not the explanation of the fact, that he is interested in. For it is the fact, not the explanation of the fact, that forms a part of the religious experience. 'Do I feel,' he says passionately,-' do I feel this awful, this terrible lack in my own soul? this falling short of the standard clearly fixed before my eyes? this tendency to be dragged downward in spite of constant struggle? this separation by an almost impassable gulf from all that is high and pure and holy?' That, he says, is the question. And he can conceive no true religious experience that has not some such feeling in it.