42 



CONSTANCE L. MAYNARD ON 



Thirty years later I knew that man as the Principal of St. 

 Andrews University, John Shairp. I was too diffident in my youth 

 to converse with him, but it is evident to me now that he took 

 exactly the position I am trying to explain, that of giving atten- 

 tion to tile proposals of experts, and yet treating them all as 

 secondary — less than secondary, almost negligible — because they 

 touch the shell only. Our interest lies in the lining kernel inside 

 the shell, the immortal soul that dwells in the body, and of 

 that we need full and complete corroboration given to us each 

 individually. The issues that hang on it are immense, eternal, 

 and we need a very strong proof before we can accept it as our 

 guide through life. Have we this complete verification? I think 

 we may say with confidence. We have, and need not fear to 

 publish to all the world that we have found the truth. 



One of our central texts is this: " Jesus Christ, the same 

 yesterday (in histoiy), and to-day (in experience), and for ever 

 (beyond the solemn portal of the gravej." Here we Eave the 

 three divisions of time. The critic may point out that the 

 records of the past are umeliable, and the spiritist may show 

 us such a w^eak, unworthy future that we would rather not have 

 it at all. No one can touch the present; it is all our own. Let 

 us, I pray you, guard the present as our supreme treasure. 

 Immaturity is no barrier. We cannot banish from life more 

 wrong than is pointed out to us by the warning of the Holy 

 Spirit, but this, coupled with prayer, effects all that we need. 

 Under the present rule of Christ the shackles are struck from 

 our iiands, and the gates begin to open before us. What we 

 know of His work now is the true criterion of the recorded pages 

 of the Son of Man, and the vision of the King on the Throne. 

 If we hear His guiding voice to-day, and see the miracles He is 

 working in the world of the human character, we need fear 

 nothing whatever; here we have reasonable ground for belief 

 in the Gospel narrative in the past, and in the wonders of the 

 unknovv'n future. 



Let me give an illustration. Suppose you are a student reading 

 Eoscoe's Chemistry, and you find there a curious fact, namely, 

 that there are two white liquids which if poured together form 

 a scarlet solid. How do you treat such information? Do you 

 say, " It is contrary to all experience; mere fairy-tales; impos- 

 sible! " Then you will never learn any chemistry. The subject 

 is sealed to you for ever. Do 3/ou say, " Professor Eoscoe knows 

 far more than I do, and I believe every word from cover to cover. 

 Even if it told me things far more wonderful than that I would 

 believe them ' ' ? With such a temper of mind you would cer- 

 tainly learn some chemistry, but it would not be of an intelligent 

 sort, not enough to help other people. For the moment let the 

 book represent the Bible. The unbeliever rejects it entirely 



