very intuitions. In intuitive consciousness we find the basis of all our knowledge of truth.

With reference to Descartes' argument-" Cogito, ergo sum "-it may be noted that, though logically unassailable (since thinking implies a thinker), there is a psychological redundance, for the "cogito," equally with the "sum," depends for belief upon the intuitive testimony of consciousness.

The author tells us (p. 67) that his position is open to "certain obvious objections." Undoubtedly, that cannot be true which is in antagonism to any truth, for truth is one and does not contradict itself. The individual personal experience of the redemption revelation "must be, in the nature of the case, at once historical and supernatural It must have created on the plane of history those doctrinal propositions that create it in the individual" (p. 58).

The Son of God, in Whom we put our heart-trust, must be the historic Christ, the Christ of the Bible-not a false Christ, not a Christ Who is the product of a devout or of an undevout imagination. The faith must have warrant, not subjective only, but also objective, if we would adequately commend it to men and be secured against self-delusion. This is enjoined by the Bible. The Lord Jesus Christ appealed to His miracles as evidence, and Christians are exhorted to be able to give a reason to inquirers for the faith that is in them, for Christianity is not selfish. The personal experience, to the individual himself the strongest of all proofs, is not sufficient alone to convince other people. It needs objective confirmation. It may be said that there is such a thing as self-delusion. A man believing himself to be the Emperor of Abyssinia would not necessarily be proof that he was so. Christian Philosophy does not restrict itself to any single department-however important-of human nature. It addresses itself to the whole being of man, to his heart, his mind, his life.

The Rev. H. J. R. MARSTON said: He had listened to the paper with great pleasure and admiration. The lecturer was an esteemed friend and co-worker, and this added to his pleasure. He hailed with satisfaction the coming to the front of a young man, a member of the Church of England, an Evangelical, who had given to the subject really profound thought. His language was not throughout quite luminous, but this was a common failing of learned

philosophers. The lecturer had shown the demand existed, and this was the best answer to those who did not see the need for a Christian Philosophy. Nothing could stifle it, it must be recognised. We cannot rule it out because a Christian Philosophy was not contemplated by Christ. We may say that no one ever met the demand better than St. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans; he gives there a philosophical account of sin and redemption. I concur as to the importance of giving full value to collective as well as individual experience. In reply to Bishop Thornton's question, I may say these are found in the Creeds, the confessions of St. Augustine and in the Pilgrim's Progress, they are the common property of Christendom, in such hymns too as the "Rock of Ages." These express corporate intuitions of Christian men, and in constructing a Christian Philosophy we must take these into account as well as those of the individual.

The LECTURER.-I think a written reply will be more satisfactory than the mere reproduction of my verbal reply. For the sake of brevity I must confine my attention to opponents. I would just thank Dr. Irving and Mr. Marston for their very kind personal references, and identify myself with Mr. Marston's answer to Bishop Thornton's question.

It may be well to emphasise the fact that my paper is necessarily a mere fragment and suffers accordingly. All that it contains is based on conviction formed and defined in the course of years of reading and thought, and not the mere throwing out of a few suggestions. I ask that it be read in that spirit.

My dissent from Mr. Schwartz's remarks is so absolute and radical that it is almost a difficulty to know where to begin. The idea that he and those he quotes entertain of what philosophy is, is hopelessly narrow. Not only so, but all that he says about dogmatic theology on the one hand and philosophy on the other is answered in the main argument of my paper, which he ignores. Whatever questions may be raised as to the possibility or necessary conditions of a Christian Philosophy, it is obviously futile to bring charges against it which are excluded ex hypothesi. That he should bring forward Mr. Malloch's remark about "the metaphysician's claim to transcend facts," alone shows that the essence of my contention has been missed. But even as to philosophy in general, the attitude he represents is such that I

cannot realise it to myself at all. There are philosophical assumptions behind all our thoughts. Philosophy-however much particular philosophers have erred-is simply reflection on those assumptions. Mr. Schwartz claims to speak from the standpoint of common sense; but common sense, any more than science, cannot support its own foundations. Its practical verifications are only valid in and for its own sphere. Even our ideas in dreams verify themselves within the dreams. The human mind must in

the long run seek for its own ultimate data; and while I strongly maintain that these are concrete-none the less for being spiritual-the error of resting on abstractions does not lie with philosophy as such. This is the old intellectualism, that is becoming "discredited"; philosophy is becoming more and more concrete, human and vital; and scientists, I believe, are beginning to feel themselves forced back on it by pressure from within their own sphere. Philosophy does not "only move in the same endless circles." It never did, and certainly does not now. In an ascending spiral, perhaps, but that is very different. Even intellectualism has done a necessary work, if only spade-work; and at bottom philosophy is but the direct expression of the mind of the generation that produces it, and is organically one with the general mass of human mentality and emotion. Every true philosopher knows that. As a devoted student of philosophy, I am in a position directly to deny the truth of Mr. Schwartz's account of it. I know in myself its spiritual and emotional value, its integral place in the deepest life of man. To me the quotations he brings to bear are meaningless.

Closely connected with this is the question of dogma. I demur strongly to his description of it as a system of Christian Philosophy. This again is virtually answered in my paper. Moreover, religion is not mere emotion; and if it be said to rest on a few simple propositions, even these propositions, if they really deal with central needs, must have a central place in the intellect, and must thus require to be brought into relation with human thought and defined against the ideas that deny them. How could the body of systematized doctrine possibly be, as such, an accretion? How could the spiritual side of man's nature have allowed the accretion, and fed itself on it-as it has-if accretion it be? An alliance is essentially mutual. In one aspect, the Christian "dogmas" must

be a witness to the struggle of the spiritual nature to express itself to itself; and it is just in that aspect-as truly concrete and empirical as it is metaphysical-that I claim its right to primary consideration.

The

Archdeacon Potter quite misunderstands my position. "assumption" with which Christian Philosophy, as I understand it, must start, is simply an experiential datum, and all philosophy professedly starts from such. As to particular doctrines, the Christian Philosophy will only accept these at first for examination; though it knows that they have some truth because they are at least an attempt to express that central experience which is the Christian philosopher's point d'appui. To co-ordinate Christianity with ordinary sciences would be to beg the question of its funtlamental position in experience. Of course I quite agree that the very nature and meaning of intuition must be fixed; the case of the lady mentioned does not touch me. I cannot now go into this question, but am quite prepared to meet it, and indeed have dealt with it in print.

But I am particularly surprised at the Archdeacon's misunderstanding of my attitude on the subject of Indeterminism. If I had made Christian Philosophy "start by siding with Indeterminism," I should have been flying in the face of my most fundamental principles. Long reflection on the subject has indeed resulted, for me, in a most emphatic rejection of Determinism; but my opinion is that Christian Philosophy would lead us to a standpoint from which the wrong assumptions underlying Determinism would be revealed; a very different thing from the fallacious procedure of building on a preliminary rejection of it.

A cordial vote of thanks to the lecturer for his thoughtful paper was carried unanimously.

THE 512TH ORDINARY MEETING OF MEMBERS

WAS HELD IN

ST. MARTIN'S VESTRY HALL, TRAFALGAR SQUARE, ON THE 6TH FEBRUARY, 1911.

THE REV. CANON GIRDLESTONE IN THE CHAIR.

The Secretary read the Minutes of the preceding Meeting and announced the following elections by the Council :—

MEMBERS.-G. A. King, Esq., M.A.; Rev. D. M. Panton, Minister of the Gospel.

ASSOCIATES.-G. H. Wedekind, Esq.; Miss H. Pickersgill-Cunliffe ; F. D. Outram, Esq.; Wm. H. Poate, Esq.; Robert Heath, Esq.

The following paper was read :—

THE LAST CENTURY'S WITNESS TO THE BIBLE

By the Rev. JOHN SHARP, M.A.

Eight facts: I. The existence of Bible Societies: II. Their constituency: III. Bible translations: IV. World-wide demand for this Jewish miscellany: V. The witness hence arising as to its truthfulness regarding Christ: VI. Self-sacrifices for the Book: VII. The witness from archæological, etc., researches: VIII. Unique influence of the Bible on individuals and peoples.

THE

1

HE usual prospectus of the Victoria Institute states that the primary object of its existence is to investigate questions of Philosophy and Science, more especially those that bear upon truths revealed in "Holy Scripture." The foundation of Science is facts. It seems, therefore, a scientific enquiry, and one within the scope of such a Society, whether any external facts support the Bible's claim to be a communication of truths from God to man. For instance, do facts about the Bible differentiate it from all other books to such an extent that it must stand in a category by itself? Do they postulate for it something more than human authorship? It will be the aim of this paper to adduce some facts evolved in the last century which seem to have such an evidential value. Each of them will contribute something towards the cumulative force of the group.