Himself in the works of creation, in history, and especially in the lives of chosen individuals. And it is this self-revelation of God, of His character and will, that forms the essential content of the Bible. It is for the purpose of this self-revelation of God that the Bible was written; and if its use now be confined to this purpose, the critic will have no objection to it at all. He demurs to the notion that we are to be governed by the Bible in our thinking on other subjects than religion. But to the idea that we are to be governed by it in our thinking of God, and in our feeling in relation to Him, no critic has ever offered any objection. Indeed this is the idea for which the critics themselves contend. That the Bible is most strictly a record of divine revelation in its progressive unfolding among a chosen people and of a corresponding religious life, is the conclusion that has been established by the best modern criticism.

The value of the Bible, accordingly, is chiefly religious in its nature. Whatever other value it may have, that is only secondary and incidental; this is primary and fundamental. And this value consists in the ideal of religion, or of religious life, which the Bible contains. This ideal is its inspiration, or its power of quickening, stimulating and cultivating the religious life in men now. The theopneustia, or breath of God, which is in the Bible, is the power of the religious ideal, which cannot be destroyed by any criticism of the letter, nor enjoyed by any cultivation of it. The religious value of the Bible may, therefore, be compared to the esthetic value of a piece of art. A production of art embraces an ideal. This ideal animated the soul of the artist, and is now in his work; and the susceptible student is affected and moved by that ideal. The reader of Shakespeare, for example, in so far as his soul is capable of poetic feeling, is enabled to reproduce the feelings which filled the soul of the poet in the moment of composition. In the composition of a drama Shakespeare may use much of the knowledge of history and science that prevailed in his day; but it would be a mistake to study such drama merely for the sake of that knowledge, or even for the sake of getting a theory of art. So with the study of

the Bible. The historical, scientific and philosophical material which the Bible contains serves only as setting for the real religious content, or for the religious ideal, which it embodies. And he who approaches the Bible for the sake of that ideal is thereby enabled to think the same thoughts and feel the same emotions which were in the minds of prophets and apostles at the time when they wrote. It is religion only, not even a theory of religion, that the Bible is intended to foster. And he who comes to it for this purpose will never come in vain. The spirit which is in it, the testimony of Jesus, the ideal of a Christian religious life, will elevate his feelings, quicken his understanding and strengthen his will. And this result will be quite independent of any theory of Biblical historicity. The late Professor Cornill of Königsberg was one of the higher critics. He did not believe in the historicity of the book of Jonah. He regarded it as a religious romance; yet he bears this testimony to its religious power and value: "I have read the book of Jonah at least a hundred times, and I will publicly avow, for I am not ashamed of my weakness, that I cannot even now take up this marvelous book, nay, nor even speak of it, without tears rising to my eyes, and my heart beating quicker." And George Adam Smith, in a work noticed elsewhere in this issue of the REVIEW, says: "The most advanced modern criticism provides grounds for the proof of a divine revelation in the Old Testament at least more firm than those on which the older apologetic used to rely;" while Professor Budde, a pupil of Kuenen, says of himself that his "belief in a genuine revelation of God in the Old Testament remains rock-fast."

But it has been said that the higher criticism has destroyed the idea of the supernatural. We cannot now treat this point at length, but must be content to say that the "supernatural which criticism has destroyed, was not the true, but only a pseudo-supernaturalism. What is the supernatural? That which is spiritual, or that which is outside of the chain of necessary physical causation. God, the soul, and religion are supernatural. Has criticism destroyed the idea of any of these

supernatural realities? But it may be said that it has destroyed the idea of miracles. Without here entering into the question of the correctness of this charge, or into the question of the possibility of miracles, we would ask, what would be lost of the religious value of the Bible, if the charge were true? It is commonly acknowledged that there are no miracles occurring now; and those which are said to have taken place in the past, whether in ecclesiastical or Biblical history, cannot now be verified in our experience; and how, then, could they verify anything else to us? Do they prove the existence of God? Why, the proof is more difficult of acceptance than the thing to be proved. How then could we be the worse off if a negative conclusion should prevail in regard to the Biblical miracles, so long as we may have experience of the presence and power of God in Christ, and of the value of the Bible for our spiritual life? But here we must leave this subject, to which we may come again in the future.

AMONG OUR EXCHANGES.

The Biblical World, published by the University of Chicago, is one of the most valuable theological publications of the day. It is devoted especially to systematic Bible study according to the historical method. An editorial article in the March number of the current year discusses some implications of this method. One of these is that the Bible is "not a book, but the literature of a nation and of a religious community. *** In the Bible we have the literary remains of every stage of the rise and fall of the Hebrew people. The saga, the folk-tale, the chronicle of the preliterary period; the history and legislation, political and religious teaching of national maturity; the lamentation, the prayer and the song of praise and faith from years of national misery-all these have gone to make up the Old Testament. Similarly in the New Testament there are the writings of primitive, of Pauline, and of Catholic Christianity." But the literature is the record of a growing knowledge of God. "The

recognition of the fact that the literature composing the Bible is the product of different ages and historical situations carries with it the further recognition of the development of the idea of God, which this literature has preserved. *** But such a record of the growing knowledge of God is but another name for a growing revelation of God." But revelation implies human experience and is impossible apart from it. And as the subjects of this experience are imperfect men, it follows that it may be outgrown. "Nay, in so far as it is conditioned by moral imperfection, it must be outgrown. The very fact that it was sufficient for one age makes it insufficient for that age's successors. For revelation is dynamic, it not only fills but enlarges one's needs, and it can be final only in proportion to the moral development of the person through whom it is made." Among the contributed articles of this number one of the most interesting is on Exegesis as an Historical Study, by Prof. B. W. Bacon, New Haven, Conn. The Biblical World is valuable not only to ministers, but to Sunday-school teachers and intelligent Christians generally. Its spirit is that of the higher or historical criticism.

The Bible Student, Columbia, S. C., is published monthly in the interest of conservative Biblical scholarship. Its object is to counteract what are believed to be erroneous views concerning the origin, authority, and religious and ethical value of the Bible. It is said to be "conducted in the interest of no church or party, but of the Bible as the word of God; its matter furnished by representatives of the most accurate scholarship and best thought in all the Evangelical Churches;" and it is declared to be "a journal prepared to welcome all real light from whatever quarter, but feeling free to discriminate between real light and all mere ignes fatui." The Editor-in-chief is W. M. McPheeters, D.D., who is assisted by a large corps of editors and contributors in a number of churches. In an editorial article in the January number of the current year on Improved Exegesis, it is said that "Fanciful interpretations [of the Bible] are well-nigh things

0:

of the past. Exegesis under dogmatic prepossessions is now considered utterly unscientific. We no more read back later ideas into the words of the author whose book we are studying. The aim of the modern commentator is to put himself as precisely as possible in the historical situation of his author, to observe as accurately as may be the character of the language which he used, the meaning of the words in that period, the grammatical usages both of the age and of the individual writer in question, and thence to ascertain with precision the thought which the writer meant to express. This seems to us now the most natural thing in the world to do." That we believe is a fair representation of what modern exegesis is, and ought to be. We believe, however, that this exegetical principle is violated in an article on the One Hundred and Tenth Psalm contributed by Dr. G. C. M. Douglass, of Scotland, in which the authorship of this Psalm is supposed to be settled by the use made of it by our Lord in Matt. 22: 41-46. "Take David's authorship away," says the writer, "and His argument falls to pieces. We can not for a moment admit that our Lord was mistaken. Nor can we allow that He was using what is called an argumentum ad hominem, saying something to silence the scribes on their own principles, without meaning that their principles were true." Is that not after all dogmatic exegesis?

In the December number of the New World, one of our most valued exchanges, Prof. George B. Stevens, of Yale University, has the following to say on theological institutions: "The limitations and deficiencies of our theological institutions are due to many causes. Like our colleges, they are far too numerous. This fact is due to the same causes which are responsible for the excessive multiplication of colleges-among them sectarian zeal, local pride, and enthusiam for some particular form of belief current at the time. Well-meant intentions, coupled with a very limited outlook upon the interests of the kingdom of God as a whole, are largely responsible for the present excess of theological schools with its embarrassing consequences. The