is appropriate and adequate for our faith in the Lord, since in it we discern in its fulness the supreme majesty before which we humble ourselves, and the indissoluble bond which unites Him with us.

As an easily remembered statement of the relationship which exists between the Old Testament and the New, the formula of the threefold office of Christ has its place in the popular language of preaching and of catechetical teaching. But it is too shadowy and unscientific to be retained in the domain of dogmatic theology— that is in a systematic exposition of the Christian faith. None of the arguments by which it has been defended can stand a serious and independent examination.

THE DOCTRINAL AUTHORITY OF JESUS CHRIST. By A. BERTHOUD. (Le Chrétien Evangélique). Second and coneluding part.-Within what limits do we owe to our Divine Master an unconditional acceptance of His teaching? What criterion shall we adopt ?

The moral perfection of Jesus Christ, who was "like us in all things, yet without sin," is the whole source of His spiritual authority and the basis of His doctrinal authority. This perfection presupposes, not infinite attributes, such as omniscience, but an equilibrium of all His powers-a harmony of all His faculties. No one of the elements of His rich individuality was in excess; no one of them asserted itself at the expense of the others. He realized the ideal. Now, the holiness of the Saviour implies His absolute competency in the things which He taught, but in them only. This restriction is as important as it is necessary. To attribute to Jesus a sort of universal infallibility is to forget that He was in all things like us, except in the matter of sin; it is not to add to His glory, but to supply imaginary traits to the graphic and lifelike image which the evangelists have drawn of His person. For Himself, He did not wish to enter the region of politics, though He was a king; He did not pose as a social reformer, though His work had infinite social significance; He refused to be a judge in a dispute concerning an inheritance, and exclaimed, "Who made Me a divider over you?" He never departed from the career which God had assigned Him, but scrupulously confined Himself to His redemptive mission, and to the domain alone of religion and morality.

He did not give Himself out as a savant or a scholar. Questions of pure science, of archæology, of literary criticism, and of history did not enter into the province of His authority. These belong to specialists, who alone are qualified to speak learnedly upon them. In these matters, Jesus spoke as those about Him did-I mean as considered from the scientific point of view. In a sense, as His parables show us, far from speaking "as those about Him did," He spoke of everything with a creative originality, because He was endowed with a good sense, a mental penetration, a power of observation-in a word, with incomparable qualities, in virtue of His moral perfection and the harmony of His nature. But a simple carpenter, without special culture, however brilliant in genius, is none the less a man of the people. Such was Jesus. Born in the ranks of the people, He was sufficiently humble to be willing to grow up and remain there to the end. He did not belong to the aristocracy of knowledge any more than to that of wealth; the only aristocracy to which He belonged, and in which He shone with unique splendour, is that of the spiritual order.

There is nothing surprising in His sharing in the ideas of His time upon all matters which did not directly concern His work, and were, therefore, not in His province. It is surely unreasonable to hold that the fact that He ascribes a certain psalm to David, or speaks of the writings of Moses (John v. 47), cuts short all critical search into the origin of the canon or the authenticity of the sacred books.

But if He had given a decision on these matters, and commanded us to receive it, it would be different. We should be obliged to submit; for in regard to any deliberate exercise of His authority His words are applicable, "He that is not with Me is against Me." We have spoken of the Psalms of David, and the writings of Moses; let me take another typical example, which will illustrate the position we take up. Our Lord more than once quoted the Book of Jonah, and it may be inferred from His words that He believed in the historical reality of the facts which are related in that book (Matt. xii. 39-41). Are those theologians, therefore, to be condemned who, after a careful and impartial study of the book, come to a different conclusion? Does the Jewish opinion accepted by Jesus forbid us to see in it rather a striking parable than a history? Whether it be fact or fiction, or a mixture of both, the narrative is none the less a sacred one, and the lesson which it yields is none the less impressive. In any case, the book remains one of the most "evangelical" in character of all those in the Old Testament-one, the inspiration of which is most clearly manifested. The Lord, indeed, did not undertake to expound it; He made a passing use of it to illustrate His teaching, but He did not teach that it was to be interpreted literally. And since He did not set the stamp of His approval on the ordinary interpretation of it, why should we assign to Him a responsibility which perhaps He would have disavowed? These examples suffice to show how it is possible, at least in principle, to circumscribe the sphere in which the word of the Master binds the faith of the Christian. We may sum up what we hold on this point in these words: The Saviour limited Himself strictly to the accomplishment of the task for which He came into the world: He wished to establish His sovereignty over the souls of men by reconciling them to God, and He excluded from His field of action all problems, however important in other respects, of a political, social, scientific, or [literary character, the solution of which did not bear directly on the establishment of His kingdom.

But, on the other hand, while saying that we have entire liberty beyond the limits which I have indicated, I assert at the same time that we are morally bound within those limits. Christ having taught only what was in intimate relation to His work, all that He did teach is authoritative for His disciples. They cannot refuse their acceptance of the positive statements He has made-of the doctrines, however mysterious they may be, to which He has pledged His word. If they were to do so they would cease to be disciples. We have here to do with revelations of the invisible world, with truths which He held to be Divine, and which He announced with the deliberate purpose of producing an impression on the souls of His hearers. It would be indiscreet for us to ask Him how He came to know them. Whether it were by prophetic intuition, or by reminiscence from a pre-existent state, or by profound meditation on the Old Testament, or by personal reflection, matters little. It is sufficient for us that He preached these truths. Like Mary, seated at the feet of Jesus and hearing His words, our normal attitude is that of intelligent receptivity. Because faith is a moral act, because it is an act of absolute confidence in the Saviour, whom it receives as the Word incarnate, every declaration impressed with His seal is true, just as all rays of the sun are light. To suspect His testimony on any particular point is to invalidate it on others; for a witness who mingles error with truth is untrustworthy. If it be asked, "But how about involuntary errors? our reply is, that involuntary error belongs to a state of ignorance, and a being morally perfect cannot make assertions concerning things of which he is ignorant. And so the first act of distrust in the Saviour leads worse in its train: His moral character itself comes under suspicion.

Our criterion has the advantage of being founded upon the nature of things. It is not a temporary device, but has its justification in the moral character of Jesus Christ-in His perfect holiness, and rests upon the first confession of Christian faith. But however excellent it may be in principle, and valuable in its application, we do not pretend that it removes all difficulties as if by magic. Between the scientific domain in which the Son of Mary does not pose as a Master, and the religious domain with which His Divine testimony is connected, there is an intervening space, difficult to define, a vague borderland in which the two spheres touch and may seem to conflict-I say seem, for science, like theology, is subject to error and change. Those who approve of our moral criterion will not always be agreed on these border questions. But this is of little consequence. These questions are

confined within the narrow space which separates the plain from the mountain, the visible from the invisible, and are not calculated to unsettle faith. If theologians were unanimous in accepting as Divine all the teaching of Christ, which is outside the province of scientists, they would not be far from realizing the prayer of the Apostle "till we all attain unto the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God" (Eph. iv. 13).

SUNDAY IN CHURCH.

THE MORNING LESSONS.

WHIT SUNDAY.

IN CHRIST JESUS.

Who are in Christ Jesus.-ROM. viii. 1. SIMPLER Words than these we could not wish to have; but they hold much meaning. They so frequently recur in the writings of the Apostle that they well deserve attention. See chap. xvi. 7; 2 Cor. v. 17, xii. 2; Gal. i. 22; Phil. iii. 9. To be "in Christ" evidently means more than bearing His name, or being one of His professed disciples, or the subject of Christian rites, or being familiar with His doctrine and with His will. A man may be all this, and yet not be "a man in Christ." We may lay claim to this description when

I. WE CORDIALLY ACCEPT HIM FOR ALL THAT HE CLAIMS TO BE TO US. 1. He offers and claims to be our Divine Saviour-that One who " 'gave Himself for us" and "died for our sins," "in whom we have redemption through His blood." To be "in Christ Jesus" is to be trusting, resting, abiding in Him as such, hiding in the Rock of our Salvation, "not having our own righteousness, but that which is through the faith of

Christ." Thus believing in Him we have the
forgiveness of sin and the beginning of eternal
life by faith which is in Jesus Christ." 2.
He claims to be our Divine Lord and Leader;
He says authoritatively and unconditionally,
Serve Me; follow Me. To be "in Christ" is
to have acknowledged His right over us, to
have surrendered ourselves to His service, to
have taken the final and fixed resolution to do
His will and to follow in His steps. 3. He
offers to be our Divine Friend, that One with
whom we can walk the path of life, and unto
whom we can resort in all time of trouble. To
be "in Christ" is to be living in His favour,
in the possession and enjoyment of His friend-
ship, to have (and to feel that we have)
constant access to Him, to know that we can
rely on His perfect and unfailing sympathy,
to find in Him "our refuge and our strength,"
'an hiding-place from the wind, a covert from
the tempest, the shadow of a great rock in a
weary land." But to be in Christ Jesus in-
cludes more than this. If we are in Him, it
follows, not only as the doctrinal but the prac-
tical consequence, that-

II. WE HAVE HIS SPIRIT ABIDING IN OUR HEARTS. If we are in Him and abide in Him,