nected? Or why such a writing occupies a place in the Scriptures if it be not to illustrate the providence of God?

In view of every consideration, we are best satisfied with this simple theory: That whatever the Bible was intended to teach was certified as true by the spirit of inspiration. We prefer this to the preceding theory, first, because it is difficult for us to distinguish between religious and non-religious teaching in the Bible; and, secondly, because whatever the sacred writers teach they seem to teach with the same accent of authority. But we accept it, not without being almost painfully aware of the fact that, even when it is clearly understood, its only perfect defense must rest on the triple foundation of strong faith in a personal God, of large confidence in the good sense and moral honesty of the sacred writers, and of modest, but far-seeing and discriminating interpretation of the whole Word. If there is any lurking doubt in the reader's soul concerning the existence of a wonder-working God, or any faint suspicion of what would now be called a lack of transparent openness and truthfulness in the writers of the Bible, or any unanswered query whether the apostles and prophets may not have had a different and lower standard of literary morality than now prevails (as M. Rénan suggests that Jesus himself had a lower standard of truth-speaking than prevails in modern French society), he will be certain to find this theory weak, if not contemptible.

But how are we to meet the charge of errors or of seeming errors in the Bible, if this theory be adopted? Perhaps we may never be able to meet this charge to the satisfaction of all men; but something, at least, may be done by considering :

1. That we affirm inspiration and divine authority of the original Scriptures, the sacred autographs, but not of the copies or versions; and some of the alleged errors are, without doubt, due to repeated transcription and translation. But how far a recovery of the inspired text, as it came from the pens of the sacred writers, would go in

removing difficulties, we can not say-not a few, however, of those occasioned by conflicting numbers or names in the Old Testament would disappear.

2. That we look upon the Bible as a progressive revelation, adapted part by part to the spiritual condition of the people first addressed. It is enough, therefore, if the views taught in the earlier parts, though incomplete, look towards the views contained in the later parts, and prepare a way for them. This remark is of almost supreme importance, and a full and clear apprehension of its meaning and bearing is indispensable to any just estimate of the Scriptures.

3. That we look upon the Scriptures as writings given to the people originally, for the purpose of awakening, arousing, moving, as well as of instructing them. No greater mistake can be made than to suppose that instruction was the supreme, or even the chief, end of revelation. It was only a means to an end, and that end was the new life in God. Hence, in the Scriptures their bold, fervid, figurative language; their metaphors, hyperboles, parables, allegories; their apostrophes, entreaties, warnings, exhortations. To bear this remark in mind will be a marvelous help to a thoughtful, but troubled, inquirer concerning the inspiration of the Scriptures. It will shed light at a hundred points, and increase a hundredfold his reverence for the wisdom of God in the volume of his Word.

4. That we find the Scriptures to be occasional and fragmentary productions, not treatises carefully planned with a view to full discussion and to anticipated criticism. Those persons are wholly astray who compare them with scientific or philosophical works of modern times. Even the four Gospels are mere snatches of biography-no one of them attempting to give the story of Christ's ministry in full. Hence the difficulty of pointing out the sequence and connection of events. Hence, too, the obscure places and the seeming contradictions. It was clearly the purpose of the evangelists to bear witness to "the truth, and to nothing but the truth," but they do not pretend to testify to "the

whole truth;" that would have been obviously absurd; they never claim even as much as this, that they are giving all that they know to be true, but only this, that whatever they do relate is true. (Vide the different records of Pilate's superscription over Jesus.)

5. That we meet in the Scriptures with references to natural objects as they appeared to men at that time, and to historical events or periods as they were then spoken of by the people. In such cases the language of the sacred writers, borrowed from the ordinary speech of the day, was correct if viewed in relation to the purpose for which it was used, though it may be incorrect if interpreted as meant to convey exact information as to facts in natural science or in history. In this way, if the common text be correct, may be explained the words of Paul, "He gave them judges by the space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel, the prophet"—which Mr. Row adduces in support of another theory. Says Dr. Hackett on this expression: "It is evident, therefore, that Paul has followed here a mode of reckoning which was current at that time, and which, being a well-known received chronology, whether correct or incorrect in itself considered, was entirely correct for his object, which was not to settle a question about dates, but to recall to the minds of those whom he addressed a particular portion of Jewish history." Yet it deserves to be mentioned that the reading now adopted by the highest critical authorities, and sustained by the great uncials A B CD, takes away from this passage its supposed inaccuracy, by connecting the words four hundred and fifty years with the preceding verse.

It will be perceived by those who have accompanied us thus far that our principal object has been to define the influence of inspiration upon the teaching of the sacred writers, rather than the way in which the Spirit of God wielded that influence. Yet it is not improper to state that, adopting the well-known distinction between revelation and inspiration, we regard the dynamic theory of the latter as

furnishing a better account of it than is furnished by any other. To this no exception is required, though it must be supposed that in cases of ecstasy the power of the Holy Spirit took such control of the mind as to turn it quite away from the actual world of sense and direct it wholly to spiritual things. But if the distinction between revelation and inspiration be rejected, it will be necessary to suppose different modes or degrees of inspiration, (a) for the apprehension and utterance of new truth; (b) for the recollection and expression of known truth; and (c) for the recognition and indorsement of truth declared by others.

In bringing this paper to a close the writer would express his unfaltering assurance that the Bible will pass through the fiery ordeal of criticism to which it is now subjected without losing "one jot or tittle" of its authority over the consciences and lives of men. It is indeed evident that many who profess to be wise look upon it with avowed contempt; sometimes, it may be, after, but often, we fear, before, giving to its pages any reasonable amount of study. Some of them condemn it in terms which betray either ignorance or malice. But it is one thing to denounce and another to destroy. And men who despise the Bible do little credit to their own judgment of what is best in thought and most beneficent as well as powerful in life. When the New Testament becomes obsolete, there will be no literature in the world to revere. When Christ ceases to be an object of love among men goodness will die and chaos return. But we have no apprehension of such an evil day. We believe that the Gospel will yet be welcomed. as good news by every people under heaven, and the kingdoms of this world be given to Christ. For it is written: "Ask of me and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." And the whole Church, animated by the Word and Spirit of Christ, is praying daily: "Thy kingdom come: thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven."

ARTICLE IV.

THE REFORMATION FROM A BAPTIST POINT OF

VIEW.

BY PROFESSOR A. H. NEWMAN, LL. D.

THE Reformation of the sixteenth century, like any other great historical movement, may be approached in three ways. We may go back into the remote past and trace minutely the course of events that has here and now found its culmination; we may show that the seed-sowing and the soil being as they were, the harvest is precisely what might have been expected. Or, we may take the movement as we find it, analyze it into its constituent elements, trace the motives and aims of leaders and led, trace the immediate and remote moral and spiritual effects, test every thing by the eternal principles of right and truth, as determined by conscience and the written Word. Or, again, we may view the movement as a link in the chain of the accomplishment of the divine purposes, knowing that the Almighty is able to make evil forces to co-operate with good thereunto. This last process we ought always to apply, so essential is it to the proper understanding of the ways of God to men. But we must beware of supposing that this process in any way precludes the first or the second process suggested. The knowledge that divine Providence has overruled a particular course of events for the accomplishment of beneficent ends by no means bars criticism of the actors; no more does it affect the fact that this series of events is itself the product of antecedent evil commingled with antecedent good.

And here we must remember that the cause of God on earth progresses not in straight lines like a railroad train across yonder prairie, but like yonder tossing ship on yon