In the one case we

in him that he is true to himself. have that faith which is a part of Natural Religion; in the other case we have the faith which is proper to a Christian. This faith is the assurance of things hoped for on the ground of a promise made by God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

But Christian doctrine is not concerned only with things future, and therefore not seen as yet. We are taught of things present, but unknowable save as learnt from this direct teaching. They are things not seen, things of which neither sense nor intellect has any direct apprehension, but which nevertheless are made known to us by faith. We must be careful of our meaning here. We do not mean that we become acquainted with these things by a sort of supernatural intuition or inspiration to which we give the name of Faith. The word faith, as used in this connection, does not depart from its ordinary meaning. We learn these things from the words of a Master, to whose teaching is given the full assent of the disciple. Faith is the firm conviction that the Master knows what he is teaching, and teaches truly. It is not therefore independent either of sense or of intellect. The material of faith must be received in the ordinary course of instruction-heard, that is to say, and understood. "Belief cometh of hearing," says St. Paul, "and hearing by the word of Christ." But sense and intellect can go no further in dealing with these things; they can only receive, they cannot verify what is received, This limitation will be better understood if we bring into comparison their activity in other matters. We receive historical information from the statements of those who profess to know the facts; their statements are tested by comparison with those of other authorities, by documentary and other evidence; a doubtful assent may

be given to the unsupported statement of a single author, but if he be one whose other statements have been tested and found generally trustworthy, we accept with the less misgiving what he alone asserts. All historical knowledge rests on faith in authorities, but a faith which in its turn depends on a verification done by the intellect in the process of receiving information. Again, when we receive information directly through the senses, we verify it by careful observation or experiment, that is to say, by comparing phenomena, and by applying the principle of causation. From viewing, for example, the apparent motions of the heavenly bodies we advance to the science of astronony. In learning about such matters we arrive at various degrees of certainty or probability, and according to the degree we call our mental state knowledge or opinion. These, then, depend upon evidence. But for the truths contained in Christian doctrine there is no evidence of this kind: there is only the word of the Master. The experience which may verify them itself depends upon, and therefore cannot precede, the hearty acceptance of the teaching. They are accepted in pure trust, by the simple assent of the disciple. Faith is the proving of things not seen.

Faith is a proof to him who believes. It is not evidence by which others can be convinced. The disciple is satisfied about the truth of what he is taught, because he has faith in the Master; he cannot convey his satisfaction to another; faith is incommunicable, and strictly individual. But we use the word in a derived sense, speaking of the Catholic Faith, the Faith of the Church or of Christendom. The word was used by St. Paul in this secondary sense. It means the whole body of truths which, as a matter of fact, are believed by Christian men. They are not held by a corporate act of

faith, but severally by the faith of individuals in agreement. The fact that all Christians do believe these things is no proof that what they believe is true. The faith of many is no more evidence than the faith of one. If a thing which is verifiable by ordinary human experience be generally taken for true, this general belief is evidence of considerable weight, though the history of popular delusions, even about matters easily verified, shows how cautiously it should be received; but the truth of a thing commonly unverifiable is no whit established by the common consent of all mankind.1

It

Such common consent has, however, a value. cannot prove the truth of what is believed; but it shows that there are reasons for the belief, and reasons which have been found cogent to enforce assent. In like manner, the general assent of Christian men to certain teaching cannot in any way prove that teaching true, but it shows that some reason has been found for believing it to be true. Such reason can only be found in the authority of the Master. The general assent, therefore, shows that Christians at least suppose the Lord Jesus Christ to have delivered this teaching. But here is an historical belief subject to verification. The general assent to certain doctrines, or the faith of Christendom, has a definite value as evidence to prove that the Lord Jesus Christ did in fact teach those things that are believed. It is part of the historical evidence for the facts of his life and teaching. To test and justify the

1 Thorndike, Epilogue, Part i. p. 149: "What contradictions soever are held among Christians, nevertheless they are sensible that no man's private spirit, that is, any evidence of Christian truth in the mind of one man, can oblige another man to follow it, because it imports no evidence to make that which he thinks he sees appear to others" (Works, vol. ii. part i. p. 378, ed. 1845).

record is the study of Christian evidences. The kind of evidence and the amount of evidence required for certainty varies almost with every mind: some are satisfied with the simplest tradition, others require a detailed investigation.

So far there is no room for the function of Christian faith; it is only when the fact is fully accepted that the Lord Jesus as Master taught such and such things, that faith, the assent of the disciple, can begin. Nor is the measure of a man's faith in any way affected by his readiness to become a disciple. An easy acceptance of the historical facts of our Lord's teaching does not predispose any one to a real belief in the teaching as true ; the most cautious and sceptical attitude of mind towards the historical record does not hinder the entire assent of the disciple, when once the record is made good. Hooker, in his sermon on the Certainty of Faith in the Elect, finely develops the scholastic distinction between the Certainty of Evidence and the Certainty of Adherence. The former has many degrees, is painfully built up, and may again be shaken by doubts; the latter is firmly rooted in a moral conviction, It is good for me to hold me fast by God. This latter certainty is the ground of the Faith of the Disciple.1

This faith or assent of the disciple is not a mere blind confidence. It goes with an intelligent appreciation of the authority of the master, Such authority is of two kinds. The one is personal: the master speaks with authority because he inspires confidence by his character and by the conscious possession of knowledge. The other is official, resting on a commission. In a purely human organization such a teaching commission may be given as guarantee of competency by any recognized

1 Hooker, Works, vol. iii. p. 470, ed. Keble.

source of authority; for the things of God, with which Christian doctrine is concerned, the one source of authority is the self-knowledge of God himself. Both kinds of authority are specially attributed to the Lord Jesus Christ as Master. "We know that thou art a teacher come from God," said Nicodemus, putting himself definitely in the position of a disciple. "The multitudes were astonished at his teaching; for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes." The scribes had authority by commission, as sitting in Moses' seat, but they lacked that note of personal authority which marked his teaching. It was indicated in the form of words, "I say unto you," by which he himself set his own teaching in contrast with theirs. The authority of the Master is thus twofoldobjective, in that he is recognized as coming from God; subjective, in that he impresses on men a sense of his incommunicable superiority.1

For the function of Master no more is needed. It is enough for a disciple to know that he is taught by one who comes from God, and who speaks with personal authority. The relation of discipleship is now established. What is afterwards learnt about the person of the Master strengthens, indeed, the certainty of the assent given by the disciple, but cannot be in any way the ground of that certainty. The assent must be secured, the relation of discipleship established, before this further knowledge can be acquired; for it is derived exclusively from the teaching of the Master himself. When we have learnt that he is not merely come from God, but is himself God, is not merely the Illuminator, but is himself the Light, God of God, Light of Light, our faith is confirmed; but unless we already had the faith of the disciple, 1 Matt. vii. 29; xxiii. 2; John iii. 2.