without surprise that impurity of style and a certain " clumsiness of expression" clings to many of the New Testament writers. Most intelligent readers of their Bible have been struck with Paul's mode of arguing; but I scarcely can imagine any one left to himself explaining it as Mr. Lee does in the book I have mentioned, when he remarks on the necessity of confuting gainsayers having forced Paul to prosecute argument, "how abrupt the transitions, the connections how intricate, how much conveyed by assumption which Scripture can only make without any violation of canons of reasoning! For, with it, assertion is argument; inspiration has ever left to reason the filling up of its outlines, the connection of its more isolated truths." Mr. Lee surely cannot suppose that Paul's method of arguing, as a logical method, was changed by his conversion, or that any man by the change of his spiritual nature, has transformations so startling effected in his mental processes; nor can Mr. Lee think that what is a violation of the canons of reasoning in matters of sensible perception, is no such violation in discoursing on spiritual things, although his statement might be so understood and is so understood often enough, and acted upon in dealing with the question now under our notice. Neither can Mr. Lee suppose that the Roman Christians, or others to whom Paul wrote, had all the "isolated truths" of "inspiration" before them, as our modern systematic theologians have, which, by the aid of reason, they might connect. If reason had this power in the early days of Christianity, it must have been in higher esteem then than it is at present, and must have had a larger field of exercise in spiritual truth when the truths were so disjointed and the outlines so vague and ill defined.

Such views as these, however, proceed from a mistaken attitude towards Scripture. As we never think of looking there for perfection of Greek style, so we need not look for any other perfection incompatible with the authors and their antecedents. Throughout the Bible, in the Old Testament as well as the New, there is plain everywhere the most distinct individuality. All criticism of it that is worth anything proceeds on this conception of its origin. We determine the probability or not of authorship by marks of style in composition, as well as by the point of view from which the author regards spiritual truth, and the historical setting of the truths. The influence that pervades the Biblical authors is one that uses their natural powers and does not pervert them, so that we may have the elegance and beauty and sweep of the author of the letter

to the Hebrews, in the same collection with the less enticing words and harsher forms of Paul.

We have hitherto been speaking of the written words of men who are acknowledged generally to have received some special gift of the Spirit, by whatever name we are to call it, and we have been trying to show that this gift was not specially granted for the purpose of a written record; but every one knows that the productions of apostles comprise a very small portion of the Bible literature. The bulk of this literature, as a literature, is the work of men unknown. We have shown this to be the case with many of the written portions of the Old Testament prophets and poets, and it is undeniably so with the largest portion of the historical books of the Jews. The names of the writers of the New Testament histories, however, as is to be expected from the time in which they were written, have come down to us with more certainty than those of the Old. The more extended use of writing, and the desire to preserve the memories of those who had been instrumental in collecting the scattered traditions of the acts of Christ and His apostles, added to the fact, no doubt lamented by pious men, that the names of the authors of many of the older sacred books had been lost, would make the early Christians more tenacious of their traditions. But notwithstanding all this, there are doubts regarding some of the gospel authors. With the exception, probably, of the fourth* it is very certain that none of the gospels were the work of apostles, and beyond all doubt, with perhaps the same exception, that none of them, as we now have them, are original, any more than the early historical collections in the Old Testament have come to us in their earliest forms. They are the results of various literary effort on the part of men imbued with the Spirit which these histories embody. Perhaps no books, unless it be some of the poetical books of the Old Testament, and the Apocalypse of the New, reckoned by some in the same category, have presented difficulties so great to the minds of candid investigators of the Scripture records, as the historical books. On the one hand, it is maintained that it cannot, with any reason, be held that the Holy Spirit inspired the authors of these books, whether in the Old Testament or the New, in the

I say "with the exception, probably, of the fourth" gospel, because it is obviously beyond the plan of my work to enter into the details of biblical criticism. Nor can it serve any purpose to raise, in a parenthesis, a question so wide as the authorship of the fourth gospel.

sense in which the proclaimers of the new Divine truths were inspired since there was no reasonable necessity for such extra human aid, seeing that they had everything that was needful for the composition of these books either from oral report, written accounts, or personal knowledge. On the other hand, it is as strongly asserted that inspiration is an actual energy of the Holy Spirit, by which all have been guided who have proclaimed God's will, whether by direct revelation or by written history. Thus revelation of spiritual law and Divine truths as well as facts of history were recorded under the same influence; thus Job's speeches and those of his friends, as well as the direct utterances of God, have the same supernatural source. Looking chiefly at the New Testament historians, we are aware in reading their books of conscious, personal, mental activity in the authors. We have the express statement of some of the writers, and the internal evidence of all, that they resolutely chose materials, much in the same way as any other narrator, in accordance with some special purpose which they had set themselves to accomplish. Luke, in the introduction to his gospel, expressly mentions. the design of his work, the individual for whom he writes, and the sources of his information. The same historian in the beginning of a second narrative alludes to his former treatise, as any author would refer to a first volume in a second, and continues this later history as a supplement to and continuation of the previous work. John also in the conclusion of his gospel (xx. 30, 31) mentions the end he had in view when he compiled his gospel, and no one can doubt that he was determined in his choice of those things which he recorded, out of the many "which are not written in this book," by the plan of his work. In no collection of narratives could we find on this point a declaration more straightforward than that of Luke's: "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order, it seemed good to me also to write unto thee in order." This is really the manner in which all literature grows, and we have no reason to conclude that sacred literature assumed its present shape in a way essentially different. Histories and sagas of northern and eastern people floated from lip to lip, were recorded in broken fragments by many, until ultimately some one thought it good "to set them forth in order" more fully. Any ordinary careful perusal of the gospels in relation to each other will result in showing a common basis of literary materials, here and there varying in fulness, and consequently leading to more extended statement on some points by the author of one gospel than by that

of, another, and sometimes to a different arrangement.* We ought to look for modifications in the narratives, which is only another way of saying that we should expect freedom in the authors in the selection of their materials, and in their manner of grouping them, as well as harmonies, as they are commonly called, in their stories. In no other way shall we get quit of that forced and non-natural mode of reconciling of apparent and actual discrepancies in the historical books, which had its origin in an artificial conception of the nature of these compositions. We do not possess those partially arranged materials of which Luke, for example, made use in his larger work for Theophilus; but if we did possess them, we should almost certainly see that many things related in them were curtailed by him, while others were omitted altogether, or received a new setting. In this way incidents treated of in a certain manner by one evangelist, would be differently related by another, and occurrences not mentioned by any previous Grund-record, as the Germans would say, might come to the knowledge of one evangelist and not to that of another, through the communication of an observer or otherwise. All the histories have marks that point to some such mode of construction. These marks in the writings are noticed with no intention of lessening their authority, or of throwing doubts on their genuineness. We think that in this way their authority is rendered greater and their genuineness indubitable; while we are able to see that, whatever influence was at work in the composition of these books, it was an influence not incompatible with the fullest conscious exercise of their mental powers of their various authors—an influence very different to that which, under the name of inspiration, is commonly associated with the literary results of the numerous contributors to the scriptures of the Old and New Testament, and which if it did not actually dictate the form and contents of each book, whether it be history or letter, through a human instrument, at least determined the form and limited the activity of the authors in some inexplicable manner.

* The prominence given in Luke to the extra-Jewish aspect of Christianity has been often noticed. The evidence of this is cumulative: see iii. 23 ff; iv. 25, 27; x. 1 ff; xvii. 11-19, etc.; but the note of all these is in the parable of the Good Samaritan recorded by Luke alone. It would not be saying too much to affirm that the gospels display in their emphasis of particular modes of thinking, as well as in the truths and incidents recorded, an individuality of mind as pronounced as that to be found in any of the epistles.

CHAPTER XI.

THE TRUE AND FALSE SANCTITY OF THE BIBLE RECORD.

“The letter is not the spirit, and the Bible is not religion; consequently objections to the letter, and to the Bible, are not the same as objections to the spirit and to religion."

THERE are few subjects of any importance that lie under so much misconception, as the question concerning the nature of the Scripture record, and the mode in which it is to be regarded by Christians. Exaggeration in one direction, on the part of some Christian communities, has been met by an equal exaggeration in an opposite direction, on the part of others taking the same name, not to mention the opinions of those who confessedly stand outside Christian associations altogether. This inquiry has lost for many minds of the present day a good deal of any attraction it may ever have possessed. The questions involved are perhaps acknowledged to be fundamental; but there is usually such an absence of fairness in conducting the investigation, and so much loud protestation when anything like candour is manifested, that any one desiring peace and eager to accomplish some practical good, will scarcely venture to thoroughly grapple with the subject, or, having done so, openly to declare his convictions. The position of the Bible in the Christian life, which is a branch of our present inquiry, is a question which haunts much of the literature of this century, and one that is absent from the minds of few really thoughtful religious men. Unexpressed sometimes, it is this question which has occasioned not a little of that doubt on spiritual matters characteristic of our times, and in a more pronounced form it is the same question that has produced much of the intolerance of all times. It would be difficult to decide whether more mischief has resulted from that reverence of the Bible, which indiscriminately adores the Spirit in every letter, or from that flippant criticism, which refuses to see it in any part whatever.

* Inquirers in England even more than in Germany, although the complaint comes from Germany, have to lament that they often find, even among liberal thinkers on this subject, a certain playing with the views of older times; they "make use of the Church expressions, but unite with them an altogether different meaning."