Some questions seem more silly than they really are. This question has been asked over and over again, and still it is a pertinent one deserving treatment. We need to know things not only in a general way, but our knowledge should be definite. Here is the difference between hazy thinking and exact thought. The one leads to narrowness and confusion, the other to intelligence and liberality. But clear thinking is impossible when we are in the habit of taking things for granted just because “it was said by them of old," and do not make a personal investigation. New questions need be stated and new answers given. Old questions need be reasked so that new phases will receive proper

attention.

So, too, we should never allow ourselves to be led to accept every new interpretation and theory that is set forth, because the new is as liable to be out of shape with the "four corners of the world" as older ones. Many have disappeared because they were not fit to live. Science and philosophy have restated their questions and reformulated their answers. The new superseded the old only to be superseded by something more new. Then there is an occasional swing back to that which had already been rejected. In theology the same questions have been put times without number, and as often a different reply has been given. To-day theological thought is settled on very few questions. Different minds think along different lines and view things differently; the result is that there has been comparatively little uniformity of thought. The same is true in regard to philosophy. There are no two philosophers to-day who can be termed independent thinkers

who agree throughout on half a dozen fundamental propositions. In science men of eminence draw different conclusions from the same data. Thus arise different scientific theories. Men who hold fundamentally the same position are soon found to diverge as they develop their theses. Thus we find a great diversity of thought in all departments of learning.

ences.

This is no doubt greatly owing to. the fact that man has not attained to that which is perfect, nor has pursued his investiga tions along any line of study to such an extent that he can state all the data that enter into the solution of the problem, and draw all the correct inferences therefrom and nothing but correct inferBut suppose such a thing were possible, what then? Would not the very object for which the mind exists be thwarted? Would not the mind become as a stagnant pool, giving forth that only which is pestiferous instead of that which is health and thought-provoking? As far as we are acquainted with the human mind it can only exist in soundness and expand when it is active. Lethargy results in dwarfed minds. But to be active it must constantly inquire after the unknown, and must constantly readjust its relations with the world as the result of better knowledge. This can only increase when the mind theorizes and philosophizes, whether in the realm of science, arts, philosophy or theology. Thus the keleidoscope of life is constantly changing. While old relations may be as valid as ever they will bear both a new message and a new meaning, and hence will demand new interpretations. Old relations may pass away and be succeeded by new

ones.

At this point the question suggests itself, to what extent may we go? That is only another form of the question, how wide is an inch? As most other questions have a greater or less bearing on theological thought, this department has been busy discussing heresies and other questions of a controversial character. Here battles have been hot and contests severe. The outcome in many respects is by no means beyond dispute. In the meantime it is necessary that investigations continue, though it is not necessary that the battle wax hotter. In fact it might still cool off a little. It

is not good to risk the temper too much. But thought must go on. There must be further investigations. The whole realm of truth has not yet been brought into full view. Hence it is necessary to " "go forward" so that more truth may be brought within the grasp of man. Superstition has not altogether vanished from the mind of man. Is it not possible that much of the speculation called "scientific" or "philosophical" is more the result of superstition than we are willing to admit? And on the other hand is not much of the same sort of speculation to be attributed to fantasy and imagination rather than to a deduction from facts? Further, are not many of the so-called "data" and "facts" creations of the mind rather than discoveries in the outer world? In theology the great contests have been waged in regard to speculative points, where there was often an appeal to "facts" of human creation. On the one hand there has constantly been a tendency to take matters for granted as they have been delivered by "those of old," and in connection with this, baseless deductions without number were made. On the other hand we find a manifold creation of new facts and data, and just as erroneous conclusions. We also find that there was a tendency ever present in accordance with which the foundations of belief were carefully inspected and where defects were discovered new material was inserted after the old had been rejected. Because of erroneous conclusions man was often forced to undertake a reinvestigation in order to make a stronger defense. Thus man has been going on for generations, ever contradicting others and seldom, if ever, thoroughly consistent, with himself. Is not all this confusion and turmoil? So it may appear to some. But was not this the only way out of the darkness of the past into the present light? What other course should our fathers have pursued? Advance thought prevented the stagnation of the conservatives. These in their turn checked the flightiness of the progressives. The advancing conservatives marched steadily forward. What other course are we to follow now? Is not this the way out of the present into the brighter light of the future, where we may see God's face more distinctly, hear his message more plainly, and understand His purpose more

thoroughly, while we admit all along that we are not allwise. But how far dare the other man go? How far dare that man yonder go? How far dare that man yonder stay back? How wide is an inch?

II. NECESSITY OF UNIFORM STANDARDS IN THE BUSINESS

WORLD?

In the business world man has established uniform standards of value and measurements. While crude at first, they served a useful purpose. Commerce was carried on with foreign countries and bargains were made at home. The business of the day was transacted to the satisfaction of the parties concerned. The inch in the business life was variable. In fact this was the case to such an extent that as trade increased and civilization strided forward the necessity of new standards was clearly seen, and new standards were adopted. As governments became more thoroughly organized these standards were made more uniform. If to-day each person were to try to do business according to a standard of their own make, how much confusion would there not be brought about where there is uniformity now? Wheat can be measured. But it can be measured with a small or a large measure. It can also be weighed, and the standard may be expressed by one name or by another, or it may contain much or little. Cloth is easily measured. The standard may be long or short. Call it what you will. But business could not prosper if arbitrary standards were used, besides causing a great deal of inconvenience. The same practical standard might be called by different names, or the same name might express different quantities. Or, both these conditions might exist. This would only lead to confusion. For this reason each civilized country has established standards of its own which are the only ones legally recognized. These are used in the business world.

The government says that a certain distance in space is a yard. This is divided into three feet, which is again divided into twelve inches. The inch has definite value, so has the pound. There are standards which are used in constructing all instruments of

measurement and weight. If we enter a store in California the dollar is a dollar, the yard is a yard. uniformity is secured. Trade is not hampered. uncertainties.

Maine or in

In this way Nor is it full of

In international commerce any one of the national standards can be expressed in terms of the other. United States money can be expressed in terms of English, German, French, or any other governmental value. Weights are reduced from one to the other. This brings about a good degree of world-wide uniformity for commercial purposes. Everyone sees the necessity for such uniform standards of value. In this way the question concerning the width of an inch is obviated. There is no room for philosophizing and theorizing. Speculation is out of place. The inch is a human standard for human purposes in business relations. It is not established by speculation. Argument and philosophy have their influence as they well should, for no question is settled where their voices are not heard and where they have no vote. In spite of all this the standards are of a very arbitrary character. They might be heavier or lighter, longer or shorter. But once established, people learn to adjust themselves to these standards and use them. The same reasons that call for the existence of these standards also demand stability, and are the ground of opposition to changes proposed unless a larger good is established by the change.

III. NO PARALLEL IN THE THEOLOGICAL WORLD.

On the basis of such premises as the foregoing it has already been argued that we need strict uniform standards of doctrine. If the argument is valid, why should we need standards rather than a standard? Why not carry the demand to the unit? Some do, but to their own, of course. If it is argued that any number of persons have the right to unite in adopting any standard of belief that appeals to their judgment as expressing their com mon thought and thus to form a common bond of union, though the right cannot be denied, yet on the basis of the analogy nothing is gained, for no standard of belief thus established