tian and non-Christian, whereas all truth-if it be truth at all-is Christian truth.

To proceed a step further. The application of the theory held by the New Testament writers to the conduct of life would result in making men more honest and natural, much more courageous, and vastly more trustful in the divine purposes. Only those are free whom the truth makes free. And only those who are free are able to live lives honestly and bravely. The unwillingness to work and coöperate with the great forces in the midst of which we move is a sort of survival from the savage state, that state in which men were in constant terror. They were the victims of this terror because of their ignorance of the truth. The more truth there was in their lives the less of terror there was. When we realize that goodness can not be defeated, that God is the ruler of His universe, and that a knowledge of His laws is the best equipment we can have, we shall not be greatly disturbed by anything that may happen. The more light there is the more safely we shall walk. The greater our faith the greater will be our freedom, and the greater our freedom the greater will be our faith. So

it may be that there is a philosophy of life as well as one of belief in the theory which has prompted these remarks. Surely this should be so, as belief and conduct are intimately related. In life and belief both we can prove our faith in God by our courage and freedom in dealing with the great subject of truth.

Finally, there is in it all a lesson for the writers of so-called profane history, for all writers who deal with great causes. In much of the work of these men we see the very defects which are so significantly absent from the New Testament record. The historian

with a pet theory or a pet hero always seems to feel that he must suppress or distort everything that appears to reflect on the one or to conflict with the other. He does not realize that when he does this, he weakens the theory and discredits the hero. Yet such is always the case. So, too, the man that essays to defend a great cause becomes so exclusively an advocate as to create the impression that the cause could not make headway, could not even survive except as it is protected by him even from friendly investigation and criticism. So we have our literature of adulation and glorification, and

the result invariably is that the reader whose opinion is worth anything is almost certain to conclude that the man or the cause thus championed is less worthy than is actually the case. In making the discount for the personal equation we make too large a discount, and so are guilty of injustice. But for that injustice the falsifying advocate-though the falsification may be unconscious-is wholly responsible. Here, again, if the writer really believed in his hero he would allow the world to see him as he actually was. If he were sure of the righteousness of his cause he would tell the exact truth about it. But in both cases he shrinks from the truth because he is far from being sure of his subject. There is in his mind a doubt and an uncertainty which he does not admit even to himself, of which, indeed, he may be quite unconscious. But it is there, and it vitiates all his work. Many a great character of history has suffered profoundly from the use of this historical method. For the facts always come out sooner or later. And even while they are hidden there is still always the suspicion that things may not be as represented. The confident man is, therefore, the candid man. The

writer whom we trust is he whose whole work is permeated with sincerity-is true in its substance. As things are what they are, and will be what they will be, a great writer once asked why men should be willing to be deceived. When it is a question about being deceived concerning the greatest and most precious things of life there ought to be no doubt about the answer. The world has not been deceived by the writers of the New Testament. They strove to give us that "utter truth" which "the careless angels know." There was in their minds no other thought-there could be none in the minds of men who so loved their Master, and who so trusted in Him and His great cause. To have treated either on any other basis than that of truth would have been to discredit and insult them.

THE TEST OF TRUTH

EOPLE are often asked whether they be

PEOP

lieve a certain thing or not, the assumption being that they can not or ought not to believe it because it is distasteful to the questioner. Of course, the proper answer to such a question is that the thing to be considered is not whether the statement meets one's approval, but whether it is true. If it is true, it must be believed, no matter how much distress may be caused by the acceptance of the doctrine or teaching. Now there is a principle lying back of all this which may well be pressed. It is that every proposition must stand on its own merits, that it is entitled to a trial at the hands of men who are willing to put from them all preconceived opinions, and to accept whatever is proved to them, no matter at what pain to themselves. A half-century ago Doctor Temple, once head master of Rugby, and later Archbishop of Canterbury, said, in Essays and Reviews: