correlative. It is true that the histories of the infancy which we find at the beginning of the first and the third Gospels do not belong, so we are told by the best commentators, to the original synoptical tradition, but are additions of a later date, yet they owe their very presence in these narratives to the desire of the disciples, the primitive Church, to know as far as possible all about their Divine Lord from the very beginning of His earthly life. When we talk of the "Spirit of Truth,” the "Spirit of Christ," we must not forget that before the Spirit could come it was necessary that the manifestation of God in the flesh should take place; it was necessary that there should be a long time of preparation; it was necessary that there should be an Incarnation, a Mission, a Crucifixion, a Burial, a Resurrection, an Ascension, a Session, and an Intercession; it was necessary that the Atonement be made and accepted. Then "after God manifest in the flesh had by Himself purged our sins and sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high," then, and not until then, was the promise fulfilled, and the Spirit of the Living God came down to earth as it had never come before and entered into relations with men as a guide to lead us unto all Truth and to comfort us on the way, and to testify especially of the great work of Redemption. Those who would change the Creeds of the Church must bear in mind that the choice, as Dr. Liddon says, "does not lie between a Creed with one dogma more or a Creed with one dogma less, nor yet between a medieval or a modern rendering of the Gospel Story. It is really a It is really a choice between a phantom and a reality, between the implied falsehood and the Eternal Truth of Christianity, between the interest which may cling to a discredited evanescent memory of the past, and the worship of a living, ever-present and immaculate Redeemer." When we fail to believe in our hearts what we profess with our lips then a decent regard for consistency should compel us to frankly acknowledge our skepticism, and, withdrawing from the Church, join some secular society which has neither Creed nor Christ. There are, however, some who will still continue to affirm that the whole truth of the Gospel Story is embodied in the Creeds. Now these Creeds are not simply words upon which is based a system of ethical instruction, but they contain statements of historical facts. If the Creeds present to us simply a system of ethics, a course of lessons on moral conduct based upon the teaching of a good man, then we are no better off than the heathen. 66 We may say that such a man as Jesus of Nazareth actually lived and was crucified at Jerusalem under Pontius Pilate, but if we do not firmly believe, without mental reservation, that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and that He actually rose from the dead, then the Christian religion, so far as we are concerned, might as well be surrendered for something in which no element of the supernatural appears; for if Christ were only a teacher and ended his lectures when He died like Plato and Zeno did, what becomes of the truth concerning this "Spirit of Christ," which we are told is the true faith." If Jesus Christ was a good man, and only that, then as a result of His teaching there remains for us at His death only the spirit of a man, the best man perhaps that ever lived, but still only a man, and there is no way to explain the innumerable passages in the Scriptures which refer to the subject than by representing it as an "impersonal influence," just as we might say that the spirits of Shakespeare and of Milton live in their works. But this does not fit in with other parts of the story, nor does it satisfy all the conditions of the Truth we are seeking. Let us for a moment contrast the life of Jesus with that of His forerunner, John the Baptist, who, by the way, was no ordinary man, for Jesus Himself said of him, "Among men that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist." Both Jesus and John the Baptist began their work with the call to repentance, and the warning that "the Kingdom of heaven is at hand"; but Jesus claimed an entirely different relation to that Kingdom than did John. John was a "voice crying in the wilderness"; John was personally nothing. He kept himself in the background, hiding behind his message as every true minister of the Gospel should endeavor to do. But Jesus identifies Himself with the message. He preached Himself. He was the Great Object to which he invited attention. He did not say, "Thus saith the Lord," according to the old form used by the Jewish prophets; but He said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you." And when He called His disciples, He did not tell them to obey the laws of their fathers, but He said, "Follow Me." Now all this can be explained logically and reasonably upon but one hypothesis, namely, that Jesus Christ was not simply a teacher sent from God, not simply one of the messengers sent to prepare the way of God, but He was God Himself in the form of our humanity. therefore the Divine Word might have become flesh through the ordinary processes of human generation, but any true doctrine of the Incarnation must take into consideration the preexistence which Jesus on several occasions distinctly claimed for Himself. He said, "Before Abraham was I am." This claim did not mean that Christ came into existence before Abraham did, as the Arians contended was the meaning, but it can only mean that he never came into being at all, but existed before Abraham had a being; in other words, Jesus put forth the claim that he had existed eternally. It was certainly in that sense that the Jews understood Him as they then took up stones to cast at Him, just as they had done on a previous occasion when they claimed that He made Himself equal with God. 66 7 It is perfectly true that man cannot by 'searching find out God," and that is why God "sent forth His Son born of a woman" to search for and to find us and thus to bring God within the range of our comprehension and our life, and when the Lord Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life," he was presenting to our burdened consciences, to our finite understanding, and to our disordered lives the knowledge of God which otherwise it would have been impossible for us to grasp. What do you suppose Peter meant when he said, "Thou art the Christ, the son of the Living God"? Do you think Peter intended to say that Jesus was the reincarnation of John the Baptist, or Elias, or Jeremias, or one of the prophets? Surely not, no candid person would say so. The questions Jesus asked were, "Who do men say that I am? Who do ye (my disciples) say that I am?" There is a difference in the answers. The words "Son of the Living God" could not under any construction of language refer to the fact that Jesus was a son of God in the same sense in which any man might be so called, but the relation of Jesus, the Son, to God, the Father, was distinct and unique and could be shared with no other. "With God all things are possible," Holy Trinity, we must not stand dazed The reason why so many persons become perplexed in the study of this subject is that they perversely seek a separate knowledge of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost. In their search after God the Father they "gaze into the infinite unknown" instead of at the face of Jesus, and when they attempt to discover the Holy Spirit they look away from Jesus into the "unfathomable." Many good Christians would have practically three Gods instead of Now this is certainly not consonant with the teachings of Scripture. If we would know the Truth, if we would realize to ourselves the doctrine of the one. before the mathematical formula "Three in One and One in Three," but sit at the feet of Jesus Christ, look up into His face, study His life and be content with the simple statements of Scripture. (See Christianity According to Christ, Dr. John Munro Gibson.) If the finite mind of man could fully comprehend all the great mysteries of the universe, physical as well as spiritual, then men would in very truth be God, but no one better knows the limitations of the human intellect than the earnest seeker after Truth. The statement which Jesus made, "I am the Truth" is simple and practical, yet as a writer has said, "Therein lies all the mystery of the divine Sonship." "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father He hath declared it." But in order to see this objective revelation clearly we need a power of spiritual discernment. It is certainly true that Jesus said, "It is the spirit that quickeneth," but he also said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." He did not say, "I am the Way and the Truth, but the Holy Spirit alone is the Life-the Life-Giver." God all we know from Jesus Christ. who commanded the light to shine out of darkness hath shined in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. The Truth, the Way, the Life, represent the three-fold relation which Jesus Christ bears to God and to man. His Incarnation, which must of necessity include the Virgin Birth, opens to us the Truth; His Cross and Passion open to us the Way; and His glorious Resurrection and Ascension open unto us the Life. And unless the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Resurrection and the Ascension are actual facts then is our preaching vain and our faith is also vain. In the atmosphere of intellectual speculation it is not possible to solve the great mystery, but to the really sincere seeker after Truth there need be neither perplexity nor confusion. If you are in doubt about God the Father you will find in Jesus Christ the Truth; if you feel the need of salvation you will find in Jesus Christ the Way; if you are oppressed with the burden of this transitory existence with its misunderstandings and its vanities you will find in Jesus Christ the power of the Life Everlasting. Now whether we think of God the Father, Creator, or God the Holy Spirit, the Sanctifier, proceeding from the Father through the Son, in either case, we gain St. Stephen's Parish, Washington, D. C. WM. R. BUSHBY. IF THE SEASON'S SOCIAL DRAMA. BY WILLIAM MAILLY. F EVIDENCE were needed that a change is taking place in the character of the drama being presented on the American stage, the record of the New York season just closed furnishes it. Never have so many plays dealing with subjects of social interest and significance been seen in this city during any one season, and since New York is the theatrical center of the United States, it is safe to say that this indicates a general condition. "The serious drama," said a man associated with national theatrical journalism for many years, "is forging to the front rapidly, and it is the most hopeful sign in the dramatic. world to-day." We can all echo that; but the change is coming none too soon, though it had to come sooner or later. The theater had to reflect the changing social conditions and respond to the quickening social conscience of the time. The economic revolution that has internationalized industry, popularized education, and brought humanity into closer relationship, is working a revolution in the thought and outlook of the great masses of the people. As science, literature, music and art are being impregnated with the spirit of change and advance, so the theater also, "that compound of all the arts," is at last thrilling with the impulse of the new era of social unity and consciousness. The time has already passed when literature, art and the drama can be reserved for the enjoyment of the elect. They are now coming within the experience of the mass. "Culture" no longer refers solely to the fads, caprices and pleasures of the few; that word now embraces the intellectual activity Photo. by Sarony, New York. MME. ALLA NAZIMOVA and aspirations of the many. And this activity and aspiration cannot be ignored or side-tracked. New forces are welling up and seeking for an outlet. The same spirit of unrest and investigation and criticism which permeates the whole of modern society, and which has expressed itself to some degree in the current literature of the time, must also find expression in the drama, if the drama is to fulfill its true function as the interpreter and illuminator of its age. Those who lament the passing of Romanticism and the oncoming of Realism as degrading to the stage are setting their faces against the forces of progress at work in every phase of human activity. The English-speaking stage has remained the most conservative, and, therefore, the most backward, of any in the world, until its adherence to conventional forms has become a humiliation to those who realize that the drama, to be vital and significant, must deal with the concrete things which concern humanity. The complex and cosmopolitan life of to-day presents ever new problems to the people, problems which they cannot escape from, try as they will. The notion that the chief function of the theater is to provide such an avenue of escape is being dissipated. The enjoyment of farce and musical comedy or resplendent scenic productions is but temporary, and is quickly followed by a rude return to the harsh realities of life -besides leaving the mind nothing but husks to feed upon. Problems are not settled or evaded in that way. Gradually it is becoming recognized that the theater has a higher mission than merely that of amusementpurveyor to the thoughtless or frivolous. Men and women who are tired and jaded with the merciless commercial struggle are turning to the theater for intellectual stimulus and spiritual satisfaction, and are looking for plays treating with the questions which beset them daily and for which their mind and souls are yearning for a solution. It is now apparent that the American stage is beginning to give promise of catching up with that of Europe, which, in this direction, years ago left the entire English-speaking stage far behind, as attested by the fact that neither England nor America. can show an Ibsen, a Sudermann, a Hauptmann or a Maeterlinck. England, especially, clinging steadfastly to its hoary stage traditions, has rejected much of the best in modern drama, to which the United States has begun to provide an audience and to give encouragement to the new school of authors and interpreters. A few years ago the actor who essayed Ibsen was a rarity in New York. Today the ambitious actor is known by his or her desire to interpret the Norwegian genius. Ibsen premieres and revivals are becoming the vogue. And coincident with this, other dramatists, as earnest if not as great, are receiving their share of attention. Recognizing the trend of things, producers are displaying a willingness to risk their money and actors their reputations to win the dollars and approbation of the public. The modern drama is gaining both in adherents and exponents because that is the drama which appeals to the modern intellect and offers the choicest rewards to its daring and faithful disciples. All this is making for another salutary reform in the methods of conducting the modern theater. There are signs that the "star" system has had its day and that the play must henceforth be regarded as the thing. As a result, it is doubtful if so many all-round sterling |