ply astonished at the slight historical value which he attaches to the records of his sayings or doings, indeed, to any reproductions of his human life, especially of the definite claims or assertions which Christ makes for himself. He also overlooks the enormous probability that all Palestine was full of verbal reports of the sayings and doings of this wonderful personage which must have been everywhere current till the siege and overthrow of the Jewish capitol. Next he dares to assert from Paul's own testimony, that his own conversion occurred "in spite of ignorance (this is the necessary inference from his own language) of the facts of our Lord's life prior to his death as detailed in the synoptical gospels, etc."

66

Christ, according to his own language, was made known to him by revelation, but by such a revelation, judging by his own description of its effects in the epistle to the Galatians, as might be vouchsafed, without a voice from heaven, or a light above the brightness of the sun, to any like spirit brooding on the bare facts of the death and resurrection of the Divine Son of man."

We do not need to cite the fervent and eloquent language with which Professor Green repeats the same thoughts, to enforce the inquiry whether inferences like these can be justified by any rational psychological theory or any accredited history of human experience. That man has a spiritual and moral nature we do not for a moment question; that he has an intuitive consciousness of God and is more or less actually alive to his needs as related to God we will neither question nor deny-but that the imagination of man could evolve from its own spiritual consciousness such an object of wonder and worship, or invest with the dignity of manifested truth, such paradoxical claims for himself as are reported to have fallen from the lips of Jesus, is of itself so clearly impossible as at once to be regarded as simply incredible. The convictions of the human intellect upon this single point seem to us to be practically unanimous, and practically incapable of change. To the radical and incautious theory of Professor Green we can only find a parallel in the products of those seething brains which were so active in the days of the Great Rebellion, when the lips of many a gallant colonel and doughty sergeant claimed

to be inspired in the eminent sense of this much abused term. We doubt not that many as eloquent an utterance of theosophic speculation fell from the lips of some of Cromwell's officers when exalted to the prophetic mood, as ever dropped from the pen of Professor Green in his loftiest visions. It were perhaps more exact to find a striking likeness to them in. the discourses of some of the so-called Cambridge men of the same period who sought to Christianize the speculations and language of the Platonic school, and to harmonzie the philosophy of the times with a comprehensive Catholic theology. But whatever we may think of the permanent value of Professor Green's contribution to Christian thought and however severely we may judge his theological speculations, we cannot but recognize the value of his services to Christian truth in the inroads which he made upon the "unspiritual ecclesiasticism" which has long held sway in Oxford and through Oxford over much of the Protestant world.

We confess that theories like those of Professor Green, sound strangely enough as coming from Oxford, and yet there is perhaps no center of speculation where they might render a more efficient and useful service. So far as the discussion of them shall awaken the attention of its students to the uses and abuses of dogmatic theology and of scholastic creeds, to the relation of Biblical conceptions and philosophical truths to the dogmas of parties and of sects, such an agitation cannot but be most salutary. So far as such discussions hold the attention to the far reaching fundamental principle that the creeds of the church are of necessity the products of the schools, and therefore are to be distinguished from the faith of the church, which concerns itself mainly with relations of fact and of duty, so far they cannot but strengthen the faith and enlarge the charity of its gifted and cultured scholars. So far, also, as they direct the attention to the difference between a living faith in a person and a history, and the intellectual appreciation of logical distinctions, so far will they provide for the freedom of scientific discussion and the exactness of scientific thought on the one hand and the fervor of personal faith and of devoted service on the other. The memoir and works of Professor Green are fitted to inculcate both these lessons. They

certainly present an admirable and inspiring example of a man of heroic mould who strove with equal earnestness for the right to think and reason as truly as for the privilege and obligation to feel and to act, and exemplified most admirably the impulse to love and worship as well as to labor and sacrifice. While we cannot but regret that speculatively he failed to emerge into a clearer adjustment of his speculative and historical faith, we cannot but rejoice that he ever dwelt in the broad and bright light of fervent and cheerful Christian duty and Christian aspiration.

Professor Green died as he had lived in a heroic spirit. When his life was glowing with promise and hope, he was summoned to a speedy departure. He committed to the care of his friend and favorite pupil, Mr. Arnold Toynbee, two discourses of a practical character which he had delivered to his pupils, to be published at his discretion.* He then asked that the eighth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans should be read to him, which he seemed to follow with difficulty, and soon after passed from the shadows of time into the presence of what his philosophy and his faith had held to be the only realistics.

Of the advice given to Robert Elsmere by the supposed Dr. Grey, we have only to say that we prefer the dicta of Niebuhr and the elder Thomas Arnold, though uttered under different circumstances. It is recorded of the first: "The Word made flesh-the divine brought into visible contact with the human and finding an historical embodiment in an individual—was a doctrine that found a warm response in a mind so full of earnest aspirations towards heaven, and at the same time so thoroughly historical in its views of the world. His personal reverence for Christ was a sentiment that deepened with the progress of his life. He once exclaimed in the course of an argument with the (then) King of Prussia: "I would lay my head on the block for the Divinity of Christ.' Dr. Arnold writes: "Strauss writes about history and myths without appearing to have studied the question, but having heard that some pretended stories are mythical he borrows this notion as an engine to help

* Mr. Toynbee died soon after, leaving a name not written in water.

him out of Christianity. But the idea of men writing mythic histories between the time of Livy and Tacitus, and of St. Paul mistaking such for realities—!"

Verily philosophy and criticism have made some progress since the days of Niebuhr and the elder Arnold, but they have not yet made it natural or easy for men to stand on their heads, or to adjust the actual universe to the perspective which this position requires.

NOAH PORTER.

1889.] Relation of the National Benevolent Societies, etc. 17

ARTICLE II.-THE RELATION OF THE NATIONAL BENEVOLENT SOCIETIES TO THE CHURCHES.*

THE only true and proper relation of the great Congregational Benevolent Societies to our churches is, in my judgment, an organic relation,—a relation which puts these Societies, representatively, under the control of the churches. The work to be done by these organizations constitutes one department of the divinely legitimate function of the churches, as truly so, as the maintenance of public worship, the observance of the sacraments, or the sustainment of the Sunday School.

On my first settlement in the pastoral office, forty-seven years ago, I had for my nearest ministerial neighbor on the north, that grand old man, Doctor David Dudley Field,-four of whose sons are reckoned among the distinguished men of our country. He was a leader in his day. And, before Doctor Leonard Bacon rose into prominence, he was the highest authority in Connecticut upon questions of Congregational polity. His active life covered the period which gave birth to the earlier of these Benevolent Societies. It was by him that my own mind was first directed to the uncongregational principles on which these Societies are based. He, with some of his con

*This paper was prepared, by special request, as an Address to be delivered before the General Conference of the Congregational Churches of Connecticut at its recent annual meeting in Meriden, on the 14th of November last. In the order of exercises, it followed the report of a committee upon the same subject, whose sentiments it supported. As a matter of record, it may be stated, that the Report was heartily approved, and the Resolutions which accompanied it, favoring an organic connection between the Societies and the Churches, were unanimously adopted. In revising the Address for publication, the writer has added several considerations bearing upon the subject, which, in consequence of having been limited to twenty minutes in the delivery, he had been obliged to omit. A few other slight changes have been made.

The National Benevolent Societies, whose relation to the Churches is here discussed, do not include such societies, as the American Bible Society, which are constructed upon a Union basis, but only those which are supported almost exclusively by Congregationalists, and regarded as belonging to the Congregational denomination.