preservation of the biblical text, it indicates that it did not desire that the truth of salvation should depend upon the letter of the Bible. Nevertheless, in the interest of theology it must be of great concern to us to press our way through this forest of variations, and to ascertain with the highest possible degree of certainty the original text. Nor is this impossible, but text-criticism conducted upon right principles leads to the goal.

In accordance with what has been said, what conception of holy Scripture may be advanced as the basis of a sound and well-grounded exegesis? (1.) The sacred Scriptures testify to the fact of a revelation. By revelations we understand not only certain truths which the receiver thereof, whether rightly or wrongly, holds as supernatural; we understand rather on the one hand, thoughts which are new ideal creations in the life of the individual, or the history of the nation; on the other hand, events which are full of significance, and exert an enlightening and inspiring influence-in one word, ideas which are facts, facts which are ideas. By these the Bible shows why it is the Holy Scripture, the Book of books. The distinction. between the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments and other books is not merely-and not mainly-that the spirit of the Scriptures is related to the spirit of other books as universal spirit to particular; still less as enlightened spirit to unenlightened. They are related as the new man who gives to God all honor, who seeks and finds his full satisfaction only in communion with God, is to the old. (2.) But we are to distinguish carefully between revelation and the recording of that revelation, or Holy Scripture. In the revelation the man is entirely receptive, i. e., hearing (1 Sam. iii, 10), or seeing (Isaiah vi, 1, sqq.); in the communication of it (orally or in writing) he is active. The more immediately the record fol lows the revelation (as Num. xxiii, 12-xxiv, 4; Amos iii, 7, 8; Acts iv, 20; 2 Cor. iv, 6), the more truly is the word of the record itself a revelation. But this is not always the case, as e. g., in writing history when the revelation is transmitted by tradition, and the sacred writer records the tradition; or in writing of a reflective character, when the revelation is colored by the views of the nation and time and the thought of the

individual. This coloring has a much wider influence in the case of that which is written than of that which is spoken.. The Holy Scripture contains all shades, from the most direct effusion to the most indirect tradition and human reflection. (3.) The sacred writer as the organ of revelation is, therefore, never merely and simply an organ, but since he is rooted in the views and interests of his nation and time, he is influenced both actively and passively by his general and individual interests. But just as little is he ever entirely destitute of the revealing Spirit. However much of human imperfection and impurity may cling to the writer, he still remains, passively or actively, consciously or unconsciously, under the influence of this Spirit. The divine and eternal on the one hand, and the human and temporal on the other, so unite in the Scripture, that the divine receives from the human its color and bodily form, the human from the divine its sanction. Thus the distinction between Scriptura Sacra and Verbum Dei is as correct as the separation of the two is inadmissible. (a.) The relation of the New Testament to the Old is in part a relation of unity, in part a relation of difference. The unity consists not only in the idea of one Almighty and holy God, but also in the idea, more or less perfect and spiritual, of a people of God, as the object of his revelations and guidance, and likewise in the idea of a mutual relation between promise and fulfillment. The difference consists partly in the inner and loving reception of God's law and the realization of divine love in human love, partly in the separation of the kingdom of God from the powers and circumstances of this world, and the exaltation of the suffering of death to the highest honor, but especially in the revelation of the relation of sonship, first in the person of Jesus, then also in believers. In some of the writings of the New Testament its unity with the Old Testament is more prominent, in others the difference between them. (b.) But the spirit of the New Testament gives free scope to individuality, in that not only Paul and James, but also John and Peter are distinguished both from each other and from the other two. Even in Paulinism itself there are unmistakable shadings. Between the earlier and the later letters also there is a marked difference, in that in the later letters there appears an advance

from πίστις to γνῶσις and also an advance from the simpler to the more fully developed form of church government. From this it appears that the spirit of the New Testament, in general the spirit of revelation, is not a spirit of stagnation but of development. (c.) It is further undeniable that the New Tes tament Scriptures arose not in obedience to a special divine commission, but were called forth by the circumstances and needs of the churches. If mention is to be made here of a divine command it consists in the heart-felt desire of the apos tle to promote the well-being of the churches. Cf. especially Rom. i, 9-12; 1 Cor. i, 10, sqq.; xv, 1-3; 2 Cor. ii, 12, 13; vii, 5, sqq.; Gal. i, 6, 7; iv, 12, sqq.; John xix, 35; xx, 31; 1 John i, 1–4; 2, i, 26; iv, 5, 13. (d.) No careful reader can fail to notice that the author of the Gospels and of the Acts of the apostles are in part at least, dependent upon tradition, and that the apostles themselves in their letters employ as evidence of the truth of their statements, such documents as from the standpoint of a strict exegesis would not stand the test, and make use also of such arguments as would appear now scarcely defensible; e. g., Gal. iii, 15 sqq.; iv, 21-31; 1 Cor. xi, 1-15; xv, 29 sqq.; Rom. iv, 20-25; vii, 1-6, etc. Not only is the apostle frequently influenced by his rabbinical edu cation, but often his enthusiasm overcomes him, particularly in the Epistle to the Galatians and the second to the Corinthians. These are human weaknesses which indeed mar the purity of the divine truths, but which at the same time present the apos tle to us only the more distinctly in historic life-likeness. (e) Although the New Testament writers, even the writer of the Apocalypse, never supposed that they were writing sacred Scriptures for distant centuries, yet their writings have become so in consequence of a necessary development of the church. Not that Christian churches could not have existed at all without an established canon; but certainly to secure unity and steadfastness to the church there was and still is a need of some fixed authority, connecting it with its divine origin. What ever flowed from the fullness of the knowledge of the revela tion of salvation in Christ, has for all time a reviving and sanctifying power. (f.) As in the first centuries of the Christian church, not all the New Testament writings were esteemed of

equal value, so it must be permitted us to attach different values to them. Nay more, we are justified in going beyond the decisions of the ancient church. Since we know that it was unable to proceed according to fixed principles and with profound insight, we who are in possession of these are permitted to put to proof as well their recognition of some books as their doubts concerning others. (g.) The necessity of text-criticism must appear to us still more urgent when we consider that since by reason of the corruptions and variations of the text, the basis upon which the exegetical exposition must proceed has been rendered unsafe, text-criticism must lay the foundation for interpretation. But here in a thousand cases, only a probability, not a certainty is reached. (h.) Through all the views and modes of thought peculiar to humanity in different nations and times, through the undeniably great difference in value and content among the different parts of the holy Scripture, through the unclassic language and through all the uncertainties and corruptions of the text, there yet shines forth clearly and unmistakably the unique and divine substance of the New Testament. The less we blind ourselves, therefore, to these defects, the more we give our full attention to them, as to the body in which this divine soul dwells, the less repugnance shall we feel towards the soul of this body, i. e., the divine element in Scripture, on account of its being delivered to us thus, as it were, in the form of a servant.

ARTICLE V.-UNRECOGNIZED FORCES IN POLITICAL

ECONOMY.

POLITICAL ECONOMY has much to gain in the way of popular favor. Practical men distrust it as theoretical and benevolent men call it unsympathetic. A majority of cultured persons know and care but little about the science which has to do with their daily bread. In so far as this results from ignorance and prejudice, time and increasing intelligence are the remedies; but the science itself may be responsible for a portion of it. There may be economic forces at work which have, as yet, received no adequate recognition; and, if these forces are not exceptional but regular, not mean put noble, if their effects are already great and promise to increase with time, the demand for their investigation is imperative. To show the existence of such forces and to point out some of them is the object of this paper.

Economic laws depend on the voluntary action of men, and the science therefore professes, in effect, to teach how men will act under given circumstances. The motives of human action. are the ultimate determining forces, and a misconception as to the nature of these motives is liable to vitiate any conclusion thus attained. The accuracy of the conclusions of Political Economy depends on the correctness of its assumptions with regard to the nature of man. If man is not the being he is assumed to be, there is no certainty that the conclusions will be even approximately correct.

It is more than can be here undertaken, to prove, by the analysis of leading works, that the motives attributed to men have been, in fact, erroneous. That must be done by the reader for himself, by the study of the works themselves. It is, however, believed and asserted that a candid reading of the leading works on this subject will produce the conviction that the writers have troubled themselves very little with anthropological investigation. Their attention has been employed, and well employed, elsewhere. They have assumed, as the